HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-08MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2018
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
73510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
Chairman Jonathan convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Member Jan C. Harnik
Member Kathleen Kelly
Member Gina Nestande
Vice Chairman Susan Marie Weber
Chairman Sabby Jonathan
Also Present:
Lauri Aylaian, Executive Director
Robert W. Hargreaves, City Attorney
Rachelle D. Klassen, Secretary
Lori Carney, Director of Administrative Services
Russell Grance, Director of Building & Safety
Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development
Martin Alvarez, Director of Economic Development
Janet M. Moore, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Tim Jonasson, Interim Director of Public Works
John Cortez, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert Fire/Riverside Co. Fire Dept./Cal Fire
Lt. Matt Martello, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriff's Dept.
M. Gloria Sanchez, Records Technician
III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Request for Closed Session:
None
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
With Housing Authority Board concurrence, Chairman Jonathan adjourned the
meeting to Closed Session at 3:02 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:02 p.m.
IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION.
None
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Housing Authority Meeting of February 22, 2018.
Rec: Approve as presented.
B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY/HOUSING TREASURIES -
Warrants Dated 2/2/2018 and 2/23/2018 (Joint Consideration with the
Palm Desert City Council).
Rec: Approve as presented.
C. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES for the Meeting of January 10, 2018.
Rec: Receive and file.
D. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Reject All Bids Received for
Construction of Mailbox Canopies and Carports Project at One Quail Place
Apartments (Contract No. HA36610).
Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Reject all bids received for Construction of
Mailbox Canopies and Carports Project at One Quail Place
Apartments (Contract No. HA36610); 2) authorize staff to re -bid the
project.
Upon a motion by Harnk, second by Weber, and 5-0 vote of the Authority Board
(AYES: Harnik, Kelly, Nestande, Weber, and Jonathan; NOES: None), the Consent
Calendar was approved as presented.
VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
VII. RESOLUTIONS
None
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION, AMENDING THE
SMOKE -FREE POLICY FOR AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES
OWNED, OPERATED, AND RESTRICTED BY THE PALM DESERT
HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND TAKING CERTAIN RELATED ACTIONS.
Senior Management Analyst Jessica Gonzales stated that on August 28,
2014, the Authority Board adopted a Smoke -Free Policy. Thereafter, on
November 27, 2017, the Housing Commission was provided an update of the
policy's implementation and was asked to review the status of the allocation
of smoke -free units. Unanimously, the Housing Commission recommended
amending the policy to designate all Authority properties as Smoke -Free.
Residents have been noticed of the proposed change in the current policy
and the response has been minimal but positive. If the Authority Board
adopts the new policy, formal notice will be provided to the residents and
implementation will take place within 120 days. Given the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development recommendations and
growing evidence provided by the U.S. Surgeon General regarding the
harmful effects of second-hand smoke, staff recommended approval of the
Resolution.
Member Nestande asked if a smoker had to stop smoking and/or be evicted.
Ms. Gonzales answered no, stating the policy does not require the resident
to stop smoking, but they wouldn't be able to smoke in their unit or within any
part of the community.
Member Nestande said it sounded harsh, because there are other diseases
such as obese and overeating, and the City doesn't limit those people. Even
though she doesn't like smoking or enjoy being around it, she found the
policy harsh.
Member Kelly offered that what distinguishes this trait from others is that it
actually does damage to the premises, requiring an extensive investment
after someone vacates a unit, which affords the basis for the City to take a
different stance. Having served as a representative to the Housing
Commission for over a year, there was extraordinary passion behind the
unanimous vote of the Commissioners when this issue came up, including
those who are residents at the facilities. The reality is that no matter how
strict the rules might be about where you can or cannot smoke on the
premises, there are impacts to others who live there, and this also
distinguishes this case from other unhealthy habits that folks may have. In
respect of the passionate and unanimous view of the Commissioners, she
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
certainly supports the recommendation. As a representative to the Joslyn
Center Board, she intends to propose whether they might be able to do some
outreach to offer programs or assistance to those who want to cease
smoking. It wouldn't be mandated, but they could take the initiative to offer
that type of support.
Member Nestande asked if an area that is 50-feet away from others can be
designated for people that want to smoke.
Ms. Gonzales noted the current policy prohibits outdoor smoking, but there
have been designated smoking in the pool areas, but other than this one
exterior area, the current policy prohibits it in the community. She noted that
out of 1,114 units, 992 units are already designated as nonsmoking, either
voluntarily or through attrition through the current policy.
Member Nestande asked if that applied to cannabis use now that it's allowed
in the City.
Ms. Gonzales said it did.
Member Harnik pointed out that in 2016, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) further issued a rule requiring each public
housing agency to adopt the Smoke -Free Policy. As an ex -smoker, she
believed imposing one's smoke on others was unfair. She went on to say
that when people smoke in the affordable housing units that are essentially
owned by the taxpayers, the City has to take taxpayers money to clean them
up when vacated. Therefore, she supports the proposed Resolution.
Vice Chairman Weber called attention to Section 3.5 of the Resolution where
it states, "Failure to adhere to any of the conditions of this policy will
constitute both a material noncompliance with the rental/lease agreement
and a serious violation of the rental agreement," and in Section 3.6 it states,
"Residents will be responsible for all costs to remove smoke, odor, or residue
upon any violation of this policy." She said these sections are referring to the
rental agreement, but it doesn't mention the consequences.
Ms. Gonzales said they would follow the policy with respect to the rules in the
community, which would be to serve an eviction. She added it was a
process, because the residents are issued a notice and three days to
perform or quit, stating the resident would have the option of resolving the
issue. Further responding, she confirmed the resident may be responsible
for the cleanup.
Vice Chairman Weber asked if all the residents signing this agreement are
acknowledging their responsibility.
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
Ms. Gonzales explained that if the Resolution is adopted, residents will be
notified and given the requirements with regards to the rules of this new
policy. She said California law requires a 60- to 90-day notice period, and the
City is taking the 90-day period for residents to review and ask questions with
respect to the policy.
Vice Chairman Weber recalled that when medical marijuana became legal
and some residents complained about the smell, homeowners' associations
(HOAs) felt their hands were tied because residents were legally allowed to
use it in their home. Here, the regulations address cannabis products, but not
necessarily medical cannabis, asking if it applied as well.
Mr. Hargreaves said he didn't know the answer to that question, but he would
be happy to look it up.
Ms. Gonzales replied she has been in communication with Legal Counsel
Richards, Watson, and Gershon, and the communication was that it included
medical marijuana for the smoking. The City's Ordinance indicates that as
owner of the property, it may elect to prohibit any cannabis smoking on any
of the housing properties. Further responding, she said it was the
interpretation of Legal Counsel.
Member Kelly pointed out that there are other ways to consume medical
marijuana apart from smoking.
Chairman Jonathan stated concerns raised on both sides of the issue
resonated with him, but a different perspective is that by adopting this
Resolution, the City would unintentionally be discriminating against seniors
and low-income individuals who rightly or wrongly choose to engage in a
legal activity. He wasn't sure it was good policy to outlaw something that is
legal. On the other hand, everyone knew there are restrictions, like you can't
do it in restaurants or within 20-feet of office buildings, etc. He would
advocate that staff search for an accommodation for those residents who are
elderly and low-income where not being able to smoke would create a
hardship that they would not be able to avail themselves of the affordable
housing the City provides. the Authority provides. He didn't believe the City
should deny those individuals of that resource, but instead see if a room or
an outdoor area could be provided that would not be bothersome to other
residents, because that's important as well. At the same time, it enables the
City to provide affordable housing to those seniors and low-income
individuals that choose to engage in what is a legal activity.
Member Nestande concurred.
Member Kelly asked staff to clarify the current policy.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
Ms. Gonzales stated the current policy does not allow residents to smoke in
the exterior and common areas of the property, they are only allowed to
smoke within the pool areas. Responding to question, she confirmed new
tenants are not allowed to smoke.
Member Kelly said Chairman Jonathan was suggesting going the opposite
direction from what the Commission is recommending. She emphasized how
vigorous the Commission's discussion was and the strong feelings they
have, because it's their experience that allowing smoking in the pool area
does not work and it's not an acceptable accommodation. She said smoke
does not stop at the pool area and it impacts on the ability of others to use
the pool. As various public policy bodies have determined in so many
contexts, this is a situation where deferring to the choice of smokers causes
much and too many impacts upon the lives of nonsmokers. Frankly, to
contemplate going the opposite direction struck her as very problematic. She
added the City has lived with the circumstance for some time in which it
doesn't receive new residents and allows them to smoke, and the City still
has a lengthy waiting list. Therefore, with the adoption of this policy, the City
will still be meeting its objective of filling up its premises, but will do it in a
way that is far more accommodative of everyone's health and lifestyle.
Member Harnik stated this discussion has been about imposing on the
smoker, yet the nonsmoker is having second-hand smoke ingested into their
body. She said it wasn't fair for people to have to ingest poison because
someone else chooses to smoke. Another thing to consider is the cost of a
pack of cigarettes, and since it previously discussed offering smoking
cessation classes at the Joslyn Center, perhaps the City can roll out these
two things together, thereby offering solutions to a difficult situation. She
reiterated it wasn't right to ask taxpayers to pay for the cleanup because
someone choses to smoke, nor was it fair to impose having to breathe that
poison. Because the Resolution mentions cigarettes and cannabis products,
etc., does the City need to at least address the medical marijuana issue,
because there are other ways to ingest cannabis and should it be addressed.
Chairman Jonathan said that Members comments resonated with him and
the arguments are reasonable. However, in terms of the Commission, he
understood they are passionate, and the City's committees/commissions
serve a certain purpose and they look at the issue from a different
perspective. For example, the Architectural Review Commission is not
approving a project, they are looking at the architectural aspect, and the
same with Planning, etc. He believed the Housing Commission is looking at
the complex and taking certain considerations into their thinking processes,
but it was Council's job to take the 20,000 foot view and incorporate their
comments to form policy. He believed it was bad policy to make rules and
legislatively control people's lives that are engaging in a legal activity.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
Having said that, it's an issue because smoking is an interesting dilemma.
If you put two people in a room or area, one person has the legal right to
smoke, but the other person has the right to clean, which is why he is looking
for a solution that doesn't deprive either individual of their rights. He believed
the solution is there, and it didn't have to be in all the complexes. He
suggested providing an area by the parking lot or a room that can be properly
ventilated.
Member Nestande said she agreed and would vote in favor of such a motion.
Member Harnik pointed out that in December 2016, HUD further issued a
rule requiring each public housing agency administering public housing to
adopt a smoke -free policy with implementation to be completed no later than
August 3, 2018.
Vice Chairman Weber said the report defines what a "Smoke -free Building"
means, and it lists everything, including their private room. She was not
supportive of telling people that what they are doing in their private room is
wrong, but she would support asking them to pay for the clean up after they
vacate a unit, because they are the ones that created the smell that
saturates everything and it's a horrible expense. She shared she had a
person she was responsible for who wanted to smoke in his room and was
told he couldn't. He installed a gigantic filtration system to suck the smoke
out so that no body else around could smell the smoke from his room. It was
a responsibility he took on himself, and she believed the landlord is
responsible to make sure each individual room has a filtration system, so
now were back to having to pay for making sure this filtration works. It's not
a simple issue, but there are other ways to handle it. She suggested
grandfathering people who are already there, so that when they leave, there
are consequences. Then all future tenants sign a lease agreeing not to
smoke in the units, but hotels run into this all the time where people say they
won't smoke but they do. She agreed that there has to be another way, but
she wasn't in favor of having a common area where everybody can get
together and smoke, because it's been her experience that when this
happens the smoke goes all over the place. She was in favor of a
smoke -free policy, but she was not in favor of including their private room.
Member Kelly offered that she was urging deference to the Housing
Commissioners, because some of them live in the affordable housing
complexes and they are telling us that the status quo doesn't work. They are
saying that allowing smoking on a site, even in limited or designated areas,
doesn't work. Folks are not apt to keeping their windows closed, which
means that even if they are smoking on their premises, there are impacts to
others. As already mentioned by Vice Chairman Weber, there is no capacity
to limit smoke to some designated air space once it's happening outside. If
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
would be nice to accommodate everyone, but Council had to be realistic in
hearing the voices of the people who actually live there and are serving at
the Board's behalf. Additionally, the notion of asking people to pay for the
corrections once they vacate a unit, is impractical when dealing with
low-income folks.
Member Nestande said the Housing Authority could ask for a deposit up front
before they move in.
Member Kelly replied that if the funds could be obtained up front, they
probably wouldn't need this type of housing.
Member Nestande remarked that they would at least have a choice.
Chairman Jonathan agreed the present policy is not working, and of course
Commissioners who are nonsmokers are passionate about the adverse
consequence they are experiencing, which is why they want to out rule it. He
believed the Board needed to take the broader view from a policy standpoint.
He agreed there is a problem, but he didn't agree that the solution is what is
being presented in the proposed Resolution. He said there had to be a
better solution where you accommodate those that don't smoke, while at the
same time, you don't deprive seniors and low-income individuals of
affordable housing that chooses to engage in a legal activity. With regard to
HUD, he said he had a hard time with Sacramento telling everyone what to
do, much less Washington, D.C. He won't say he didn't care, but if the
language is broad enough that it needs to adopt a smoke -free policy, he
didn't see anything that says it can't include an area that allows smoking.
Member Harnik reiterated that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay to clean
publicly held low-cost housing or senior housing from smoke. Additionally,
Palm Desert has been ahead of the curb on protecting health and its
community members from smoke. A previous City Council put in standards
from smoking away from doors before the State, adding they were proactive,
and they did a great job of respecting peoples health and choice. Staff is
proposing to remain in that position, and she would hate to see the City take
a step back, because it sounded to her that's what's being suggested. As
already mentioned, the City has a waiting list for affordable housing,
therefore, she couldn't support Palm Desert taking a step backwards.
Member Kelly said Chairman Jonathan spoke about denying some category
of folks affordable housing, yet the City has a lengthy waiting list for all its
facilities, so you could say that every day it's denying housing because it
doesn't have space for those people. Certainly, adopting a policy that allows
people on that list to move into a housing whose habits would be most
supported to good living conditions for everyone on the premises does a
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
whole lot more for the seniors and low-income folks whom the City is trying
to serve than maintaining the status quo.
Chairman Jonathan replied that at the end of the day it would still be
discriminating a certain class of citizens. Further, Member Harnik mentioned
the City already respected health and choice, but this Resolution does the
exact opposite, because there are adults who make a choice to engage in
smoking, which is legal and it's their right. He believed moving forward
meant respecting the rights of everyone without telling people that it's wrong
to smoke even if it's a legal activity, stating that wasn't the role of the county,
state, or the federal government, and certainly not of this City. He said he
would like to find middle ground where it protects the rights of smokers and
nonsmokers; there is also the question of medical cannabis and whether it
would fall under this Resolution or if it can be exempted; and there has been
discussion about the cost and making people responsible for the damage.
He suggested postponing action, giving staff an opportunity to at least look
at those three areas and anything else that may come up, then reconsider
this issue in light of what it finds.
Vice Chairman Weber agreed, adding that the Board was not minimizing the
value of the Commission, but it was given guidelines based on Council's
desire for certain activities. In this issue, if there are commissioners saying
that smokers are driving them crazy, they're referring to what is happening
today, which is smoking in public areas, and that's not what this is about, it's
about smoking in their private places. Additionally, with all due respect to the
City's legal counsel, she attended a meeting where two attorneys said they
had claims coming forth in an HOA, because it wanted to control smoking.
Therefore, she would be interested in knowing if there are lawsuits where
organizations are saying you cannot smoke medical marijuana and is taken
to court and they lost the case. She agreed to postponing action until more
facts are obtained, instead of basing a decision on emotions, because
emotions can run strong when you are talking about not being able to
breathe.
Chairman Jonathan moved to continue this item to a date uncertain, allowing staff
an opportunity to address the questions raised this evening. Motion was seconded by
Nestande.
Member Kelly added that Chairman Jonathan has characterized this as
discriminating against smokers based on the finding that smoking is wrong,
but that's not the underbidding. The underbidding is that right or wrong, it
has a huge impact on others who should not be involuntarily subjected to
that impact. She would analogize it to restrictions on noise where someone
could contend that it's a free country and they ought to be able to play
whatever music at whatever decibel one chooses within the confines of their
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
property. However, noise does leave the property, and what Council is
hearing from people who actually live at these facilities are that smoke
leaves the confines of the individual apartments. She said these are small
apartments where windows are open; they are not air tight. She understood
there was not a majority here for that sentiment at this juncture, therefore, a
postponement to allow further research appears to be where it will stand this
evening, but she didn't want to leave that characterization sitting.
Chairman Jonathan agreed, stating her analogy is so spot on where
excessive noise would adversely impact a neighbor's lifestyle, but the City
doesn't say you can't play music, instead it says here are the rules for doing
that in such a way that respects both sides by placing a time limit. He said
a solution may not be found and he may swing over and be in favor of the
Resolution, but he didn't want to give up on a compromise where it respects
the smoker and nonsmoker, and if there is a way to do it, it would be good
policy, but if there isn't one, he will have to reexamine the issue. He said this
was a fascinating and intellectual dilemma, but because everyone is listening
to each other, one way or another he was confident that a good resolution
would be reached.
Member Harnik appreciated the analogy of the noise issue, but where it falls
apart and gets a little weak, is where the person with the second-hand
smoke gets lung cancer. She doesn't take this issue lightly, because it's not
fair to impose someone else choice of smoking on someone who chooses
not to smoke, which she thought was pretty simple. However, she will
support a continuance, but only so that staff can research on how to include
the wording regarding medical marijuana into the Resolution.
Vice Chairman Weber inquired about the length of time on a lease. For
example, if residents are informed that their lease will be up for renewal at
a certain time, and due to the waiting list, unless the resident stops smoking
this new policy will be implemented. She said the City would be giving
tenants an opportunity to be grandfathered out in a respectful manner. Also,
the City can advise them as to where they can go to learn to stop smoking.
She was interested in knowing how many people have leases that would be
expiring within the year, so that they can be notified because changing the
rules' midstream after having lived in a complex for more than 15 years was
not very polite.
Ms. Moore said there were a couple of things to clarify: 1) when a unit is
vacated, the only ability the Authority has to recoup cost is through their
security deposit. However, a security deposit is only what their rent is, and
in many cases that rent is $150, $200, or $250, especially in the senior
community; 2) the cost to renovate a unit is much higher than the security
deposit; 3) the current policy already incorporates a grandfather policy, in
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
that a number of units are already designated as smoke -free. So any unit
that has been renovated or is in a complex that is under a certain number,
the Authority already limits smoking. Therefore, the current policy sounded
like what Chairman Jonathan is looking for, because the Authority has a
restriction on the number of units that can be designated as smoking, and
through attrition as people vacate a unit, staff has been re -renting them as
smoke -free. When the current policy was implemented staff was tasked with
bringing this item back for discussion at midpoint, because initially the
Commission was very concerned with any smoking at the complex. She said
the current policy allows for a percentage of units to be smoking in the
community, and staff can bring back more information about it for Council to
review.
Chairman Jonathan said the current policy is not working, so the Board is
asking staff to go beyond the current policy, beyond this Resolution, and see
if there is a solution that respects the rights of all parties.
Ms. Moore asked if Council was wanting staff to look into only the senior
communities, because right now it's based on the size of the community.
Chairman Jonathan answered no, stating he was just highlighting that in the
affordable housing units there are many senior residents. Again, he said
Member Harnik's passionate concerns resonated with him, stating they may
just differ from a policy standpoint and suggested she may want to introduce
a resolution that bans smoking throughout the City, peoples homes, and
backyards, because there are cities that have done so. If the concern is truly
adverse health consequences to nonsmoker from second-hand smoke, it
may be something she may want to look into. To him it was a question of
who we are as a City and where do you set the line between what Council
mandates and control peoples behavior when engaging in legal activities.
It's a philosophical decision that everyone makes for themselves, and
Members may just have differences of opinion.
Member Kelly asked if current tenants signed a lease with a specified
duration.
Ms. Gonzales replied the initial term of a lease is for 12 months, and then it
goes month to month.
Member Kelly said she heard Vice Chairman Weber suggest that if a lease
is for a particular term, what approach would staff find more accommodative,
and would it be to at least allow the status quo for smokers to stay in effect
until the conclusion of their current lease.
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
Vice Chairman Weber agreed, stating that's why she asked how many were
Tess than 12 months that could be provided with this notice.
Ms. Gonzales said she didn't have the total number, but the initial lease for
new residents is for 12 months and thereafter they are on a month -to -month
basis.
Ms. Moore clarified that when someone begins their tenancy with the
Housing Authority, they sign a 12-month lease, and that lease is still in effect
on a month -to -month basis until they sign a new lease. She said no one is
in a lease for longer than 12 months, which is the longest term the Authority
offers.
Member Kelly suggested exploring a longer implementation period to be
accommodative of Vice Chairman Weber's thoughts.
Chairman Jonathan agreed, stating it's one of things Council is asking staff
to look at, including seeing if there's a way to accommodate smoking on a
limited basis in some of the complexes, whether it's inside the unit with the
proper containment in a designated area or room. Additionally, see if its
possible and feasible to recoup the cost from those that choose that lifestyle,
making them responsible for the cost to the Housing Authority. He added this
was a tough topic when considering the rights of some against the rights of
others, but the Board and staff will work its way through it.
Chairman Jonathan called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES:
Harnik, Kelly, Nestande, Weber, and Jonathan; NOES: None) .
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
X. OLD BUSINESS
None
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
XII . REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AUTHORITY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION
A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
None
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 8, 2018
B. AUTHORITY COUNSEL
None
C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY
None
XIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C
MS. HELEN ASTLEFORD, California Drive, Palm Desert, approached the Authority
Board to see if the City would consider doing what the City of Rancho Mirage has
done with incorporating solar with Southern California Edison. She attended a town
meeting this morning and she thought the program was for the entire Valley, but
learned it only applied to the City of Rancho Mirage. She said the program will save
everyone 5% on their electricity, and she was interested in knowing if Palm Desert
would be doing the same.
Chairman Jonathan offered that the City of Palm Desert is part of the Desert
Community Energy, which is a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Joint Powers
Authority. Therefore, Palm Desert is a member in a CCA, similar to the City of
Rancho Mirage. He encouraged her to contact Director of Public Works Ryan
Stendell for information on the Joint Powers Authority and bring her up-to-date.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With Authority Board concurrence, Chairman Jonathan adjourned the meeting at
5:35p.m. ✓:.__. :.
ATTEST:
S
RAC-IELL` D. KLASSEN1SECRETARY
PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY
SABBY JONATHAN, CHAIRMAN
13