CITY COUNCIL JUNE 14 AGENDA BURIES THE LEAD - STAFF RECOMMENDS ABANDONING TAKEOVER OF WATER DISTRICT

21 item agenda includes City Manager performance review, STVHR Permit fee increases, budget revisions, Luckie Park Pool AGAIN and....abandoned shopping carts.

6 14 22 City Council Agenda

153KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

At 5:33 PM on Thursday, June 9, the City Manager and City Clerk dropped a 21 item agenda and 535 page agenda packet on City Council and interested City residents….but buried deep inside are several items of note, including a recommendation that City Council accept the LAFCO draft report “without further action”, effectively killing off the City’s attempted takeover of the water district - see #18 below.

When asked why this agenda is so overloaded, the City Manager replied, “…the Council traditionally in summer goes to one meeting a month due to the vacation time of the year.”

Reducing City Council sessions happens EVERY SUMMER so doesn’t this agenda packet represent poor planning and as a result, poor governance? How can Council provide proper guidance and oversight when they are handed a 535 page agenda packet four days prior to their meeting? How can residents possibly comment and respond? The City says it prioritizes transparency but actions like this contribute to making our already part-time City government even more opaque. 

How can Council provide proper guidance and oversight when they are handed a 535 page agenda packet 4 days prior to their meeting? How can residents possibly comment and respond? The City says it prioritizes transparency but actions like this contribute to making our already part-time City government even more opaque. 

Because of the size of the agenda and the late release, this is a selective list. We encourage all residents to review Council agendas, which are linked by date on the Agendas and Meetings page on the City website (and also in our sidebar). The highlights are listed by agenda item number so be sure to reference these numbers when emailing City Council. Let’s get to it…

#1. CLOSED SESSION TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE OF CITY MANAGER
If you have comments regarding the performance of the City Manager, email City Council and cc the City Clerk so they have your feedback prior to their June 14 meeting.

Our City Manager, Frank Luckino, was hired in February 2015 on a yearly contract which included the position of Finance Director for a designated additional salary. At that time, City Council waived the requirement that the City Manager be a resident of 29 Palms in order to hire Luckino. Luckino lives in Yucca Valley and has strong ties to Yucca, having been a CFO of the Hi Desert Water District and a past member of the Yucca Valley Town Council.

The City Manager’s contract is a public record, but Desert Trumpet has not been able to obtain a copy of the current contract despite filing a public information request on April 28. The City is long past the 10-day compliance requirement.

If you have comments regarding the performance of the City Manager, email City Council and cc the City Clerk so they have your feedback prior to their June 14 meeting.

Up until this last contract renewal, the City Manager was continuing to act as Director of Finance. However Assistant Finance Director, Abigail Hernandez-Conde, was promoted to Director of Finance in February. Because the City Manager’s contract has not been supplied, we are unable to report on whether this change in position affected Luckino’s contract and salary.

Based on other documents received, we can report that in addition to contracted pay and benefits, the City Manager receives a car allowance, a phone allowance and travel and meals reimbursements. We did review travel and meals records, but they were missing basic details, such as the purpose of travel, where meals were taken, and who was present — all items that any non-government contractor would be required to supply to the IRS if they were going to claim meals and travel.

When reminded that our PIR request was still missing documents, the City Clerk replied that she was working on it. As with many small cities the Clerk works multiple jobs including being responsible for assembling the mammoth agenda packet for this week’s City Council meeting.

#2 and #3. PROCLAMATIONS CELEBRATING LGBTQ+ PRIDE AND JUNETEENTH
While we appreciate acknowledgement of these important calendar markers, proclamations are not actions. We wonder what concrete steps City Council is taking to promote equity and confront homophobia, racism, and aggression against women in our community.

#7. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
50+ pages of useful summaries of legislation in process at the State level for the Month of May — includes interesting homeless support legislation AB1883, a requirement for local governments to inventory public restrooms and report findings to the Department of Public Health which is tasked to create and promote a publicly searchable database.

#13. ROAD MAINTENANCE
Maintenance is scheduled to begin July 2022.

#14. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (STVHR PERMIT FEES)
Buried in this list is an increase in short term vacation home rental (STVHR) permit fees from $183 to $755 and STVHR renewal fees from $46 to $755. With added required inspections and other costs, new STVHR permits would cost $1,233.64 and annual renewals $797.48.

STVHR permit fees are based on the cost of managing STVHRs and cannot exceed that cost. The City has yet to provide an accounting of STVHR revenue and costs. While the Staff summary notes that “approximately” 40% of the Planning Department’s time and 24% of Code Enforcement’s time is spent on STVHRs, dollar figures are not attached to either percentage. We concur that fees have been too low for too long, but where is the accounting showing the basis for these fees?

While the Staff summary notes that “approximately” 40% of the Planning Department’s time and 24% of Code Enforcement’s time is spent on STVHRs, dollar figures are not attached to either percentage. We concur that fees have been too low for too long, but where is the accounting showing the basis for these fees?

The staff report goes on to state, “neighboring cities, including the Town of Yucca Valley are charging between $944 and $1,950 for both new applications and renewals, the fee does not include the business license fee, inspections, signs and other related fees.” Why does Twentynine Palms continue to shortchange itself by charging nearly $200 less for these permits than other desert cities?

#17. LUCKIE PARK POOL RENOVATION (AGAIN??)
Back on March 17, pre Desert Trumpet, 29 Palms Neighbors published the following on Facebook and Instagram:

Our City Council is holding a SPECIAL Monday meeting on March 21 to discuss how to balance the increased costs for the renovation of Luckie Park Pool -- one of the only resources for children in the City. Per the pdf attached to the agenda for Monday's meeting "staff" first estimated the cost at $500,000 (January 2021 ?). In September 2021 the Desert Trail reported the expected cost at 2.3 million. And per the pdf, as of December 2021, it was 3.8 million (3.3 million more than the initial "staff" estimate). Now that it's out for bid, the cost is 4.7 million. The pool is definitely a priority but we have to ask WTF????

And looking at this agenda item, we reiterate WTF???? Now the pool is at 6.2 million??

We have to wonder whether the on-going delays in the bidding and contracting process on Luckie Park Pool are due to Staff resources being diverted to other projects. Instead of pursuing an expanded sewer system (now cut in half) and a takeover of the water district (now abandoned), we have some advice:
START THE DAMN POOL. Our kids deserve better from our City government.

#18. LAFCO SPECIAL SERVICE REVIEW (WATER DISTRICT TAKEOVER)
Staff is recommending that the Council approve the LAFCO service review without further action, effectively ending the potential take over of the Twentynine Palms Water and Cemetery districts by the City as well as leaving Desert Heights in unincorporated San Bernardino County instead of incorporating the area into City boundaries. In short the review favored improved collaboration with the Water District over consolidating the District into the City.

If you want to weigh in on this crucial vote accepting the LAFCO report favoring collaboration over consolidation, email City Council, cc the City Clerk and ask that your letter be read into the record.

However, the actual resolution drafted by Staff continues to perpetuate the myth that the proposed consolidation was about identifying “potential savings of community resources with the elimination of redundant tasks and services.” The resolution goes on to state “Within the draft copy, although there was measurable fiscal benefits…”. Yet these “benefits” were not supported by the LAFCO report findings, “[If] the public employees who previously provided the service are moved to new roles within the local government, rather than terminated, then the consolidation would probably not make financial sense." ¹

The Twentynine Palms Water District and the City do not always agree. So wasn’t this consolidation really about power, control of our water and the elimination of necessary checks and balances in our City? We are glad to see the City Manager finally accept the need for the Water District to remain independent and hope that the City Council agrees.

By the way, speaking of “cost savings” and the aforementioned City Manager performance review, what did the City Manager’s fantasy takeover attempt cost us? $5,299 plus hours of staff time. A $4,000 deposit should be refunded to the City.

If you want to weigh in on this crucial vote accepting the LAFCO report favoring collaboration over consolidation, email City Council, cc the City Clerk and ask that your letter be read into the record.

#19. Proposed Budget Revisions for the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
We’re just going to quote the staff report on this one:

Overall, this is a balanced 2022-23 budget with revised revenues of $14.8M vs. $11.6M originally adopted budget, not including reserve transfers.

The largest revenue increases from the adopted budget are Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - $253K, Franchise Fees - $181K, Sales & Use Tax - $144K, and Building & Road permits - $125K. With the unpredictability of VHR trends, Staff took a more conservative approach for TOT revenue and revised it to be the same as TOT actuals for FY 2020-21.

Expenditures are presented at $11.8M for 2022-23 adopted vs. $15.4M revised budget. The largest increases are in the following departments: $296K in Administration mainly due to Staff reclassifications, contract and consulting for outreach and outsourced labor, and the addition of a part-time employee in Finance; $3.0M in Nondepartmental mainly due to the one-time interfund transfers referenced above; $170K in Community Development mainly due to Staff reclassifications, the position adjustment of the current Assistant Planner from part-time to full-time, and contract and consulting for outsourced labor; $45K in Code Enforcement mainly due to the $35K contract with Southwest Security for VHR enforcement; $102K in Building, Safety & Engineering mainly due to increase in issuance of building permits; and $140K in Economic Development mainly due to the addition of $100K for Housing assistance programs (program details will be created outside of the budget).

In addition to the aforementioned adjustments, the original budget had a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of 1.5% with the revised budget including a 6.9% COLA, or $91K adjustment, which the City Council approved on May 24, 2022. For changes/revisions to the adopted budget, please refer to the Adjustments column in the attached General Fund Budget.

Here’s the link to the 126 page pdf.

#21. ABANDONED SHOPPING CARTS
Yes, that’s right. At the end of this overloaded and complicated agenda is an item requesting regulatory guidance on abandoned shopping carts. Our streets are lined with trash and litter from Highway 62 but someone is worried about “unsightly” shopping carts, an item that apparently can’t wait 😂🤣😂🤣.

1. LAFCO report page 23