Citizens Allege Proposition 218 and Statutory Violations
Town And Special Interests Receive Lower Water Rates
Yucca Valley,Ca.-Citizen ratepayers of the Hi-Desert Water District are exploring all options in filing court action naming HDWD, President Sarann Graham, General Manager Ed Muzik, Chief Financial Officer Frank Luckino, Does 1-30.
The ratepayers will seek several hundred thousand dollars they allege HDWD illegally collected from them and local businesses by not charging the same rate for water from the largest water consumer accounts for the past 15 years.
The HDWD ratepayers may also seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
The ratepayers allege their charges would have reflected a lower water rate if they were not subsidizing the large water consumers listed as the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) accounts. The largest consumers receiving 40% reduced water rates are: Town of Yucca Valley; Tri-Valley Little League; Basin Wide Foundation and Joshua Springs Calvary Chapel.
It is expected during the discovery process, other businesses and nursing homes have been subsidized by receiving lower water rates.
The ratepayers allege lack of uniform rate structure constituting illegal taxation pursuant to Proposition 218 resulting in residential and commercial water users subsidizing the benefits received by CIMIS account water users.
The HDWD Board of Directors ignored the 2009 Brown and Caldwell water rate study recommending to eliminate the tiered approach for the CIMIS accounts and the advice of their counsel at their board meeting of April 1, 2009, to phase in the increase of water rates in annual 10% increments for these largest water consumers.
This subsidy violates Proposition 218, which was passed by the California voters in 1996. Proposition 218 prohibits imposition of property related fees that exceed the costs associated with providing the service for which they are imposed.
The Court of Appeal has held that fees or charges for groundwater pumping fees are subject to Proposition 218 (found at Articles XIII C and D of the California Constitution) and that an agency must comply with 218′s procedural and substantive requirements before imposing such fees or charges. This Citizens lawsuit will follow a number of other cases around the State successfully challenging water fees, taxes, assessments and charges on Proposition 218 grounds.
The lawsuit includes allegations of mismanaged funds and wasteful spending by HDWD, which directly affects all water users who ultimately pay their HDWD bill. The ratepayers allege HDWD incurs costs higher than similar water districts due to mismanagement and inexperienced staff. The ratepayers cite deferred maintenance of the HDWD water tank reservoirs in excess of $2 million dollars with several in critical structural condition as one example of negligent mismanagement.
This action will call for a forensic audit to include all grants, loans and expenditures to develop a wastewater treatment plant which has never materialized.The Class Action lawsuit will also take issue with tens of thousands of dollars in expenses such as excessive advocacy and lobbying, Board of Directors travel junkets and sponsorships of organizations completely unrelated to HDWD authorized functions, excessive and unnecessary Board committee and ad-hoc meetings.
The case is of significant importance to the future of Yucca Valley rate payers, residents and local business served by Hi Desert Water District because the Town of Yucca Valley is exploring a joint venture with the Basin Wide Foundation to build additional soccer fields adding projected costs of $350,000 or more for additional water needs and maintenance of grass areas.
If the Citizens are successful, HDWD may be compelled to return all money collected demonstrated violating Proposition 218.
Moreover, a declaratory judgment by the Court would clarify the issues raised by the ratepayers objections to HDWD special discount water rate charges authorized by a Public Advisory Committee as arbitrary without documentation or authority.
To join this action, please email your name, address, Hi-Desert Water District Account #, telephone contact information to:
Incoming search terms:
- hdwd Special Charges
Hurray, Margo! You’ll get my info by the end of today!
Better yet, KK, send a generous check to the ratepayers’ citizen group.
Give me an address. I’m willing to help as much as I can!
Margo, when you were campaigning for a seat on the High Desert Water District’s board, you claimed you represented the elderly and low income. You lost the election, but apparently you have not lost the bitterness that accompanied your loss. Every morning Machris Park has elderly people enjoying the grass with their animals—all of them want more parks with more space so the limited park areas we have can serve ALL members of our community, including those cute little, snotty-nosed kids who enjoy sports and outdoor recreational activities—a lot of us have those creatures that you don’t represent. I digress, back to the elderly and the low income you have abandoned…Wait until they hear they have been cast aside for your personal agenda. We all know how much you preach “transparency”, so please inform them how much your public records request of the HDWD will cost the district, not to mention this wacky lawsuit you want to spearhead. ALL that money the district will have to put toward staff resources, copies, attorney fees, and the like…will end up costing the HDWD tens of thousands of dollars and that will translate to rate increases for the low income and the elderly you apparently have forgotten. While you are at it, why don’t you sketch me a picture of the “Yucca Valley” of the future as you would have it look? Let me guess…no non-profits like the Boys and Girls Club to help those snotty-nosed kids so our crime rates will increase with juvenile delinquents that will have no place to go. Fat, unhealthy kids with no parks to play in, no recreation because the town could not afford to water any fields. Animal lovers running amok in a dirt “field”. Dirt and air pollution because the town had to let their fields turn to dirt (wait, some are already like that since we are trying to save on water!). And finally, higher rates because our district will be forced to indulge your whims. Congratulations Margo, way to represent the rate-payers!
Hi Tim,
I was wondering if you could clarify a point.
This story claims the following:
“receiving 40% reduced water rates are: Town of Yucca Valley; Tri-Valley Little League; Basin Wide Foundation and Joshua Springs Calvary Chapel.”
Are the above staements accurate? If so do you know why the Town would get a discount? Why would the Tri-Valley Little league get a discount? Why would the Basin Wide Foundation get a discount? and Why would Joshua Springs Calvary Chapel get a discount?
Thanks and perhaps I will see you in Mesquite next month.
Hi Steve, One never knows whether what Margo spits out is accurate or not. But that is not the point,If we as rate payers in the community are paying a little higher rate for our water than the non-profits,to water the fields the whole community uses what the hell is wrong with that? The tiered rate for water gets real expensive for large amounts of water. Do you think the average person in this town worries about the discount the little league field is getting on the water they use,or do you think that they like the quality off life they get by watching their kids play ball on them. Steve, this town would be just great if we could go back to all dirt fields like it was when i grew up here. I think her hat is on to tight…. Yes i will be in Mesquite this year, see you there.
Tim… I try not to get involved in these YV arguments but I see a glaring paradox in what you said here above.I don’t think you answered Steve’s question.
This is just an observation, I know we on this end can get very emotional when we are goring someones sacred ox of one sort or the other. But when after all is said and done we are all looking for what is best for our town and what ultimately is fair for everyone. I can hardly see that with you all.
Whether you and I like it or not, we have a bight-line concept of government not supporting or making one church the church of state. (I was careful not to throw out the political red haring “Separation of church and state.” )
Unless every non-profit is given the very same discount for their water, HDWD is creating an unfair and quite possibly an unconstitutional legal condition. While the water district is not barred from giving discounts to non-profits it must be fair in its granting of those discounts.
To your rescue I don’t think you would have any reason to have those answers Steve asked, as you are a Planning Commissioner and not a Water Board Member. But don’t you think it would be interesting to actually get a straight answer from someone about this glaring special treatment?
Dan i think any non-profit or town facility should get water as cheap as possible. This is a quality of life issue. I would bet most people think it adds to the towns lure having nice fields.Margo has political issues with the board, to which she could not get elected, so she would rather the whole town suffer. I would ask how this benefits the town or the people she thinks she speaks for.
I’m off to work… will try to answer this when I get back.
The water rate injustice was a part of my campaign. As an elected Director, I would have continued to be on point with this issue.
As a private citizen, I am still on point regarding this issue. Same injustice, different tactic.
Everyone has to pay the same rate for the same water…..Proposition 218 (simplified)
This subsidy violates Proposition 218, which was passed by the California voters in 1996.
Thanks Tim,
I only ask because I see a potential problem that could become a possible issue in my end of the Basin, 29. Granting non-profits excemptions is a common practice. The Chamber of Commerce in 29 is a prime example.
But there appears to be a mixture in the make-up of these four organizations that have been granted an exemption.
The position of discounts for the town has its merits in order to keep the various parks in shape for the Public. But the Town is not a non-profit, at least 29 was not. We made a profit every year and put upwards of $1.0 million in the reserves each year.
The Little League getting a discount for the children to play on the fields is another good possibility but it has some problems in that as oppossed to the parks which are for all the residents of the Town the Little league field is not.
The Basin Wide Foundation is a rather specific non-profit that as far as I know has no major water usage or should not have since its mission as per its website,”is to partner with other organizations throughout the Morongo Basin in developing programs intended to enhance the quality of life for the residents of its many communities and for the Morongo Basin as a whole.” It is basically an information clearing house and should not have assets that require water use to a level that would need a subsidy.
Then there is the Joshua Springs Calvary Chapel. This organization is one of I think seven churches in the Town. Do the other six also get a discount?
My interest in this matter is purely selfish – I want to see if 29 has similar procedures in place.
I will be checking with our Water District in 29 to see if our city gets a discount for our Parks and if any non-profits or church organizations get a discount.
Again thanks for the observations.
Here are some facts to actually assist in this debate. The HDWD has a 4-tier rate structure (go to http://www.hdwd.com/CustomerCare/RatesandFees.aspx ).
Their rate structure includes a classification for “irrigation” rates:
“IRRIGATION WATER CONSUMPTION RATES.
CIMIS customers with established irrigation budgets set forth in the District’s Landscape Ordinance 72 will be charged consumption charges at the tier 3 for water that is used under budget, and billed at tier 4 for water usage over the established budget. Effective July 1, 2011 CIMIS customers will be charged consumption rates based on the regular tier structure.”
So while normal ratepayers are likely in Tier 1 (paying $3.40 per unit), the Town and other irrigation accounts are paying Tier 3 & Tier 4 ($6.41 and $8.56 per unit).
Water rate tiering is implemented by water agencies to promote conservation and to eliminate water waste. For a customer like the Town, we’re not wasting water — we’re irrigating the “community lawn” for 20,000 people, we spend thousands of dollars a year monitoring the irrigation, we have the best irrigation control devices, and we are anything but wasteful in our watering.
We believe that the Town should in fact be receiving Tier 1 rates for the community. We use 30 to 50 acre-ft per year for irrigation and have even offered to pre-purchase water from Mojave on behalf of HDWD is exchange for the Tier 1 rates.
For a community like Yucca Valley and a water basin like ours, the natural recharge is minimal and it’s state water recharging that maintains the water supply. All the state water costs the same amount (under $500 per acre-ft) and yet the Town, because we have the largest front & back lawn of any customer, gets to pay $2,500 per acre-ft. That difference amounts to approximately a $50,000 per year OVERCHARGE to the Town — a direct impact on services.
So while a review of the Tier structure is definitely in order, the Town believes equity would result in a reduced rate to the community irrigation.
Lastly, as everyone is aware, we are looking to partner with the development of the sewer system. A sewer system would yield well over 1000 ac-ft per year of reclaimed water … purple pipe to our parks would allow us to irrigate with non-potable water, generating money to the wastewater system and reducing the amount of basin recharge required as a result of community park irrigation. But paying $2,500 per acre-ft is unjustified by any stretch of the imagination.
Hope this helps refocus the discussion.
Thank you for answering what I think was an unasked question. I know that I really have no problem with the tiering of water rates as to municipal use. I don’t think that neither I nor Steve are really concerned with municipal use.
I believe that while the information provided has value as a interesting side note, it does not address the special discounts of certain non-profits issue that we are discussing with Tim.
While your information concerns the Town of Yucca Valley and is of great value, I don’t think you are in a position to speak for HDWD unless there has been a merger that I am not aware of.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for that information about the Town. I have placed a call to the proper authorities in 29 to see if the city of 29 gets a subsidy or a discount. Hopefully I will have an answer soon.
I am at a loss here with your explanation. If I read it right you are stating that even with the subsidy/discount the Town is paying more money for their water than a standard user? Why would the Town allow that form of over-pricing and not seek relief from the HDWD?
I think your answer has caused me more concern than I had before your reply and I will now be seeking information from the City of 29 Palms along with the 29 Palms Water District.
Entitlements, discounts and subsidies are the same rose only named differently.
I draw suspicion when a discount to the Town is not really a discount but an “OVERCHARGE” as you desribe it.
Again, thanks for the information.
I have been asking for relief for the Town irrigation costs for a number of months now to no avail. Will continue to do so.
Thanks for that update Mark.
It would appear then that the Town of Yucca valley uses less than 29+ units of water a month or less than 21,692 gallons a month.
What regulation or law does the HDWD have in place to “force” an end user such as the Town to pay for water at a higher rate than what they use? Of course if the Town is exceeding 29+ units a month then a subsidy is in place and the town is not being overcharged.
This is all very strange. Has the Town ever placed an item on the Town agenda to have the Council form a Ad Hoc committe to meet and confer with the HDWD in regards to these overcharges?
With your current state of affairs re the infrastructure of the Town $50,000.00 a year is significant.
I would think that once the Town residents become aware of this overcharge to their tax dollars that they would start grumbling a bit and either asking the Town and or HDWD to get it right.
Good luck to you.
Knott’s and Luckie Park are not irrigated with District water. City owned wells are used.
Also, I received the following response in an email from Mike Wright, Twentynine Palms Water District General Manger:
“There are no discounted water rates for anyone within the District. There is one existing agreement between the District and the City that was entered into in October 1991. In this agreement the City is entitled up to 7,000 hcf per year at no cost, in exchange the District does not have to obtain encroachment permits for road cuts on City streets.”
Thanks Chancey,
I got the same answers as you did in regards to 29 Palms water rates. I also learned that we in 29 pay $2.15 per unit as compared to the costs in Yucca.
However, in 29 all pay the same price for that water. Does not matter if you are a non-profit or church, you pay for what you use. Sounds pretty fair to me.
To Mark Nuaimi,
I do beleive that the Town Council needs to step up to the plate and stop what is going on in regards to the HDWD “overcharging” the city for water.
If you need assisrtance the Public Integrity Unit (PIU) of the San Bernardino District Attorny’s Office is probably more than willing to investigate this “overcharge” of tax payers dollars by the HDWD.
It appears that a church and two non-profits are reaping the rewards of the tax payer’s dollars without the tax payer even knowing they are paying a subsidy to those organizations at twice the level it would appear.
The citizens of Yucca pay their sales and property taxes so that a Town may function. They then pay their water bill which in turn provides a subsidy to a church, a Little league, and a basin wide non-profit organization and allegedly to the Town also.
But they then are informed by their Town Manager that the very water they pay for is “OVERCHARGED’ to their city General Fund.
Yikes! I hope that no members of the Town council, nor HDWD are even remotely associated with this cluster.
I know that when I was on the Council in 29 I had to recuse myself from any vote relating to monetary issues associated with the Sheriff’s Department.
I also hope that none of the members of the HDWD are even members of Calvary Springs Church.
Well, good luck to you guys. I rest now knowing that 29 does not have these kind of “issues”.
Proposition 218 prohibits imposition of property related fees that EXCEED the costs associated with providing the service for which they are imposed.
If retail consumer is being charged $2,500.00 for a product that costs $500.00, as per Mark Nuaimi’s claim, I would question the ability of the HDWD to deliver said product at a fair markup and ask for a forensic audit of their “costs to deliver” as per Proposition 218.
The professional water rate study by Brown & Caldwell in 2009, and previously by Montgomery Watson Harza, paid by the ratepayers, has been used as a guideline instead of a decisive course of action depending on the whim of the elected Directors.
As per the Staff report of the HDWD meeting of May 25, 2011, page four of Preliminary Budget, Power point slide # 7 & 8, CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System), the Brown and Caldwell rate study (2009) recommended to eliminate the tiered approach for those FOUR accounts.
-”The Board of Directors choose to defer the tiered approach for CIMIS until 3 of 3, which is this budget year. Staff prefers to defer another year pending a new rate study”
Slide # 8
-”The tiered rate would increase the CIMIS monthly bill amount by 29%.”
-”The PAC (Public Advisory Committee) reviewed this policy and recommended the CIMIS to be extended for the following: Parks and Schools”
(Editor: There was no quorum at this PAC meeting, there was no vote, there was no full disclosure of the fiscal impact or referencing the advice of the water rate studies. There was NO mention of the legal opinion of Attnoney John Brown, BBK, Best Best & Krieger of April 1, 2009, advising to phase in the justified rate of 10% each year, every year, to bring this group of rate payers in compliance with Proposition 218.
Is “Staff” trying to pull the wool over the HDWD Board of Directors?
The PAC are appointees of the HDWD Board of Directors and have no jurisdiction over the determination of District policies. At that same meeting, the PAC were in consensus the reduced rate (CIMIS) should not be given to churches. Do you see that mentioned anywhere?)
Staff report item # 5-
-Revenue “Extend the CIMIS indefinitely.”
Again, citing the meeting of the Public Advisory Committee “which was approved for the following entities: a. Parks, b. Schools.”
As I see it, under the tiered rate system, the cost of the water is based on the consumption. If the Town of Yucca Valley is paying a higher fee, it is because they are consuming more water.
Everyone needs to pay the same rate for the same water.
The Morongo Unified School District pays a higher rate due to higher consumption by their students.
The nursing homes and restaurants pay a higher rate due to their higher water usage.
As I see it, having attended many water conferences, the proposal of banning drinking water to irrigate landscape is just around the corner, especially for us in the desert community that are dependent on an antiquated delivery system from Northern California.
The future “Water Wars” will not be for the weak of heart.
Darn it Timmy! You didn’t get raptured!
Sounds like you are Luckino’s mouthpiece once again since you know about the public information requests to HDWD by the attorneys representing the low income and seniors that are getting shafted.
The really great thing about Luckino stepping down from office (or ordered out) is that YOU can take a hike as Planning Commissioner since you are his appointment.
Look for the bumper stickers….”DUMP THE HUMP!”
Your comment is too silly for me to bother to respond to you with your false accusations and assumptions.
However, I do thank you for your effort since YOU NEVER ADDRESS THE ISSUES and “your vision” of Yucky Valley is very amusing because we are not too far from that now due to lack of Development Impact Fees not paid by greedy developers. OOOPS! Did I really say that?
These “impact fees” are supposed to be charged to pay for roads and parks but instead,that $$$$ went to your pocket! Now isn’t that special?
“DUMP THE HUMP!”
Margo serving on the planning commission is a learning, fun experience.If i was to be asked to step down that would give me more time to campaign for the town council seat in 2012. This town council leans way to far to the left. Maybe i could fix that. ” Humpy for council” bumper sticker. want some ?
Margo you were dumped by Lori Herbel of all people. As far as local nursing homes receiving a discount on their water rates, where do you get this stuff from. We paid more in water rates last year then you would be able to make in a life time. I hope we can quote you in your next failed campaign calling it “yucky valley”. If it is so bad here go back to big bear, oh that’s right you and your sidekick were run out of that town. Why do you go by Margo and not your real name Margaret. Why did you get kicked out of the big bear rotary club? What do you contribute to what you call yucky valley. Why don’t you and your pet pig and gypsy life style move on? I am sure there is another flea market begging for another vendor. Mean while I will still be here in the Town I love.
Ho-Hum! Is that the best you can sling?
Thank you for your failed effort to address the issues, again.
There goes Margaret being holstroms mouth piece again. I don’t have issues with HDWD. I adressed my issues with you.
You must be overwhelmed with the community outrage getting behind you on this class action suit. Good thing you are not gainfully employed to handle the enormous amount of people that you are going to have to organize. Hopefully Mr. Klein and yourself can handle the two of you and this news breaking mounting breakthrough suit. The readers of this blog sure jumped on board with you guys.
Hey Isaac, you’re implying that I started this suit. I didn’t. I jumped on-board because I felt that the people of our town are being taken to the cleaners by the very people who are supposed to be watching out for us. The more you talk and the more I read, the more I believe we have problems in this town that need to be addressed through the legal system. You, as an elected official, don’t fill me with confidence. Rather than spouting your messages of hate, why don’t you take a look around and try to explain what the rest of us believe we see?
Isaac.Please put your drink down and read the story I posted about the seniors and low income getting the shaft.
I will continue to protect those who are without any voice in this Town from the callous bullies that take advantage of them.
As I am no longer connected with our local swapmeet, it frees up my time to be out in the community to be in touch with those who are struggling to survive on their fixed income.
I sincerely hope that you never have to experience that in your last days as an old man.
Thank you for your efforts to comment on the subject matter.
Again, please try to stay on point because there are 3,456 people reading your low class comments which reflect your immaturity, lack of social graces and level of education.
FYI
Unbelieavable comments from Mr. Hagerman, can you believe he was actually elected and represents the Town ?
Its not wonder that the state of affairs at the Town and Water District are the way they are, with representatives like this.
Bring back the older Town Council, who had some civility and actually knew how to govern.
Margo,
Is that all you can sling? I did read the article and you state the it is expected during your discovery process that local nursing homes receive discounts. Go back and read your article, or maybe you had someone write it for you. Why aren’t you involved with our local swap meet? I am really starting to see a glaring pattern here in your life. Do the group of people you say you protect necessarily want protection from you? I know if I was a senior on a fixed income you would be the last person I would pick as my spokesperson in the community. Have a good day Margo I am off to work.
Yucca Valley Town Councilman Isaac Hagerman-If Braswell Assisted Living and other facilities located in the HDWD are paying the same rate for their water usage as the regular ratepayers, then you have nothing to be concerned about.
There are several nursing homes, other than Braswell Sky Harbor or Braswell Santa Fe Assisted Living located in Yucca Valley.
Relax, fling open your books and show the world that you are paying your fare share like the rest of us!
Steve,
You made this statement:
“Granting non-profits excemptions (sic) is a common practice. The Chamber of Commerce in 29 is a prime example”
There you go, manufacturing facts to fit your vendetta again.
Name ONE exemption that the 29 Palms Chamber was ever granted.
Gary,
You are no longer with the Chamber and in my talks with the management of that organization after your departure as the Chamber’s President thay had 40 plus businesses re-join. Must be a coincidence I imagine.
I do not believe that the Chamber of Commerce should get a dime from the tax payer. You attempted to obtain a $130,000.00 a year contract from the city and its tax payers via Mike Tree and I stopped you, or excuse me, I stopped the Chamber, dead in your/its tracks.
The Chamber should not have a city bought building that is “rented” to the Chamber via an accounting scheme that even I as an amatuer can understand as a tax payer subsidy/hand-out/entitlement.
As for an issue that you often avoid I will offer it here and now.
When it came to theater 29 I was always in support of it. I stood on many a CDBG task force and always found that the air conditioning and anything else that the theater wanted or needed was accomodated. But as members of that Theater have told me you told them otherwise.
As a Republican you surely stand against entitlements – why then are you now barking about the entitlements that the Chamber feels are theirs.
After all it was Jim Harris that said the Chamber has “expectations” – I might add of “entitlements”.
How about we try this course of action. Let us have the 29 Palms Chamber of Commerce get their own building and survive without a tax payers dime.
How long do think that Chamber will survive?
You never answered my question and you are still manufacturing facts to rationalize your vendetta. Check the records, The first thing I did when I came into office at the Chamber was cancel the contract with the City. The Chamber cancelled the contract Steve, Over the City’s objections! You had nothing to do with it. The chamber rents 1/3 of the Visitor’s Center Building from the city for the 1/3 it uses. That is NOT an entitlement, that is rent.
When you get caught making up facts your only recourse is to rehash old imagined slights.
BTW I am NOT a Republican, you have invented yet another “fact”
Gary,
Your version of the facts is very similar to your “NEWS”.
I imagine you just forget about the prior existing contract while you were the President and then you tried to get the $130,000.00 plus contract but you were caught by me.
When I grilled the Chamber meeting after meeting for failure to comply with the existing contract, that 130,000.00 plus one, is when, despite of you, the Chamber thought better, and cancelled the contract. You had nothing to do with it because at that time your own Board was turning against you. How do I know this – well lets say I was a Councilmember and you were not and I also had the ear of Mike Tree and Patrick Munoz.
Gary, to be honest, I am not intimidated by you at all. Your ability to manufacture details is well known and I need not be the one to hammer that point home.
Let me enlighten the readers as to your “rent” position.
The tax payers are paying the chamber to man a Visitors Center that can not show via data that it is serving any useful purpose at all. The Chamber then takes those tax dollars that it receives for obtaining no results and pays “rent” and that rent is short of what the tax payers are paying so the Chamber makes a profit.
Pretty sweet deal – and like I said at the start of all this, “Granting non-profits excemptions (sic) is a common practice. The Chamber of Commerce in 29 is a prime example”
The Chamber in 29 is on welfare because of you. Perhaps the new leadership will right the ship that you drove into the shoals.
Any further thoughts on your part? Care to debate further factual issues about what actual results the Chamber provided the city under your leadership or should we just rest the case – your choice.
Not a Republican, okay then you must be a Tea Party guy – sorry about that. Like your “NEWS” I can fabricate stuff too!
Oh, what “vendetta” are you talking about? I have none with the Chamber, never did, I just don’t think they should be on public welfare. If you think I have a “vendetta’ against you then your ego is bigger than most imagined.
I just think you are a very bad person – no “vendetta” just an opinion.
Steve says, As a Republican you surely stand against entitlements….
Gary said…BTW I am NOT a Republican….
Hmmm….. This is getting good….. Ken pass the pop corn. Ben why not toss me a Diet Dr. Pepper from the cooler. Everyone got a comfy seat?
Ok guys…… continue….
The Chamber used to rent over in “Tin Town” several years ago. So the Chamber has rented “on the economy” in the past
I agree Larry and I know what you say is true. Then let them go back to the “economy” instead of our tax dollars.
This is exactly my point. I have been in this city for over 20 years and the Chamber used to survive on its own. But in the recent history of our city, perhaps the last 10 years, the Chamber has found a way to get tax dollars in order to survive.
Now, Larry you and I both know, that when I held the Chamber to answer on the details of the contract as per reporting requirements that they were unable to do so.
You were at the very Council meetings that I requested answers. The then President – Gary Daigneault, never came forward to answer the questions that the Chamber knew would be asked each and every month. I think her name was Jessica that took the heat – and she took it well as did Rob Fleck.
My sources for the information as to Gary Daigneault and his failure to lead a Chamber to success just might well be the names mentioned as well as others.
I am sorry to say that our Chamber is not up to par but as the Desert Trail reported recently the new President and others are out on the street asking what can we do for you today. That Larry is a far cry from what Gary Daigneault did, or should I say, did not do.
Steve, I haven’t seen the name “California Welcome Center” in this discussion but that’s where the BWF and YV CofC are located. So the BWF may be paying the water bill for the other two tenants. When I ran for City Council I was interviewed by the Hospitality/Inn Keeper’s representatives. When I told them that there was a $12,000 item in the City’s budget for the Welcome Center none of them could attribute any business coming from the Welcome Center. Several were not aware of the Center’s web site and those that knew of it said it was useless. I agree. It is worse than the old 29 Palms web site. It’s difficult to find anything once you get to the Home page which just happens to be Yucca Valley. The cities for the rest of the region, which is huge, are in alphabetical order. which means 29 comes just before Yermo and Zimbabwe. Also I’m told the state provides no funding to the Center, only maintains the web-site. The Center is just a front for the YV CofC. I mentioned during public comments to the City Council a month or so ago that it would be better to delete the contribution to the Welcome Center and either give it to the Chamber or to the public affairs section of the City. There was a comment from the podium that the City was under contract with the Welcome Center. What a waste!
Break the contract…. Take it from me…. It is not as if 29 Palms has ever been known for adhering to the terms and conditions of a legal contract.
Larry as usual your are on point.
It is very true that the California Welcome Center in Yucca Valley is nothing but a front for the Yucca Valley Chamber of Commerce and our city spends good tax payer dollars supporting Yucca Valley.
Again, all of this is due to Gary Daigneault and his influence over city officials – all but me when I was in office.
I can recall when I produced a shody zerox copy of what the 29 Chamber put in the Yucca Valley California Welcome center at a Council meeting for Mike Tree to evaluate – you could have heard a pin drop
The Chamber under Daigneault was a failure and I caught him/it in an attempt to grab as much tax payers dollars as they could and they got busted.
Our current Council seems to avoid the issues that you mention about 29 tax dollars supporting Yucca Valley.
Are our current Councilmembers fearful of Daigneault? I do not know. Only action and willingness to do what is right will tell.
Larry, again always a pleasure to discuss tough items with you.
What do you know Margaret doesn’t know what she is talking about again. There are only two nursing homes in Yucca Valley. Fling my books open wouldn’t you love that Margo. All you have to do is ask HDWD if the two nursing homes receive a discount, they would be obligated to tell you.
Googled Nursing Homes + Yucca Valley. This is what I found:
-Sky Harbor
-Desert Manor
-Igleside Lodge
-Santa Fe Assisted Living
-Crescent Gardens
-YV Retirement Home
Say, I did not see your “Hagerman Gardens” listed.
The HDWD cites privacy issues in response to my public information request regarding the water rates charged to care facilities which are huge water consumers. In fact, I do believe Sky Harbor is one of the top ten consumers of water according to the financial committee meeting reports.
I am still waiting for a copy of the contract between Jerling Water Company and the Moyles family. Do you have it in your files?
Thanks for your comment and your expertise on the number of nursing homes in Yucca Valley. Google must be wrong.
The two nursing homes are sky harbor and desert manor the rest are residential care facilities for the elderly (rcfe) two totally different types of facilities. One offers nursing care hence “nursing home” the others do not. Of course you wouldn’t see Hagerman gardens in a nursing home search, it’s not a nursing home.
Mr. Klein,
Who is the rest of us? What do you believe you see? Threats of legal action brought against me will not intimidate me. If I insinuated you brought the law suit forward that was not my intention. I am fully aware who is heading the class action. Hopefully you have fully done your homework before you align yourself with Mrs. Sturges. See you at the meeting.
The agreement in the City of 29 Palms regarding the “free” 7,000 acre feet of water in exchange for no charge for encroachment fees is ILLEGAL. This is against proposition 218, whereby all users must be assesed a fair charge.
The City needs to pay for water and the water district needs to pay for city services, including fees.
To “Anotherpowergrab”,
If you think that is the case then please contact the PIU at the San Bernardino County District Attorneys’s office.
Show where in the law it is illegal. As an OSP Utility Engineer/designer, I think it is a fair trade. I think you might be reaching on that one.