Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  News  >  Current Article

Dear Department of Finance,When You Deny Payment (again) Pleeease Say it Like This…

By   /   January 14, 2013  /   1 Comment

    Print       Email

Yucca Valley, Ca.,- I hope someone is working on a screen play of the “Wishful Thinking” by the Town Manager, using the guise of “Staff” and making others sign their name on pertinent documents while personally working the deal. There is an interesting letter dated November 14, 2012 requesting certain language be added in the event the DOF continues to deny payment.

In the November 14, 2012 letter to the DOF, signed by Finance Director, Curtis Yakimow, there is a proposal to give up a couple of ROPS… IF…the DOF will allow payment of the others. This letter was to confirm the conversations of the previous day “Meet and Confer” about the continual denial of payment because they do NOT qualify as Recognized Payment Obligations, ROPS.

This letter asks the DOF to add the following language:

“Upon receiving a finding of completion from the DOF, HSC section 34191.4 (c) may cause these items to be enforceable in future ROPS.”

Here’s the Nuaimi Proposal to the Big Guys at the DOF, paraphrasing: – November 14, 2012  See pages 1-5 (of 207)

LETTER:  http://www.yucca-valley.org/pdf/mam/Successor_Agency/DOF/letters_of_funding.pdf

I’ll give you guys Item # 2 Southside Phase 1A   for $250,000 “The Agency believes this can be considered an eligible expenditure. However, for the sake of expediency  in resolving all the outstanding issues……and will remove from future ROPS if a comprehensive solution is arrived at.”  (Please note: the DOF has denied this ROP from the beginning.)

Items 6-7 General Plan Update $500,000.00 If you deny this one AGAIN, would you please add the wording: “Upon receiving a finding of completion from the DOF, HSC section 34191.4 (c) may cause these items to be enforceable in future ROPS.”  (There was an attempt to backdate a cooperation agreement to October 1, 1992. DOF has continued to deny this ROP)

Item #8-Regional Wastewater Funding-$4,150,000-Agency will not include in future ROPS and agrees with the DOF  “Upon receiving a finding of completion from the DOF, HSC section 34191.4 (c) may cause these items to be enforceable in future.” (The DOF has continually denied this $ 4.15 million dollar request for funding. There was no contract in place. Besides, the HDWD is the Sewer Authority and has the Sphere of Influence by LAFCO.)

So where is the line being drawn in the sand in this letter to confirm their meeting?

Items 10-13, National C.O.R.E Low Income Housing Project and Related legal expenses. $500,000 and $40,000.00

In summarizing the Meet and Confer discussion, the letter states “we are willing to move beyond each individual issue in order to obtain a  workable global resolution of all the outstanding issues.”

The “5 page Summary Letter” states Item 2 is resolved, Items 6 & 7 will be resolved with additional requested language, Item 8 is resolved at present.

The “5 page Summary Letter” letter states the remaining issues are 10-13 National C.O.R.E  Low Income Housing.

Please note:  On November 30, 2012, this payment for CORE  was denied by the DOF and ordered to remit $576,353.00 within five days of their letter. LETTER>http://www.vote29.com/newmyblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Yucca_Valley_LMIHF_DDRNov_20121.pdf

WISHFUL THINKING  Christopher Booker described wishful thinking in terms of:

“the fantasy cycle” … a pattern that recurs in personal lives, in politics, in history – and in storytelling. When we embark on a course of action which is unconsciously driven by wishful thinking, all may seem to go well for a time, in what may be called the “dream stage”. But because this make-believe can never be reconciled with reality, it leads to a “frustration stage” as things start to go wrong, prompting a more determined effort to keep the fantasy in being. As reality presses in, it leads to a “nightmare stage” as everything goes wrong, culminating in an “explosion into reality”, when the fantasy finally falls apart.
The first time I heard the phrase, “Wishful Thinking” was during a meeting with Third District Supervisor Neil Derry on November 8, 2011, to discuss my concerns regarding the Yucca Valley Animal Shelter project.
.
.
“Among other items we discussed, I gave Neil a copy of the Fieldman & Rolapp report on the Yucca Valley 1% increase sales tax initiative to “designate” a part of the tax revenues for the sewer project.  Derry stated that was not possible and Nuaimi is fully aware any voter approved tax goes into the General Fund without designation.  He had two words for proposing any new taxes to be approved by the Yucca Valley tax payers in this economy…Wishful Thinking.”
.
.
Margo Sturges Author LINK

    Print       Email

About the author

Margo Sturges

Yucca Valley Editor

Note: Margo Sturges has written many articles for Cactus Thorns and is the founder of Citizens4Change.info. Email contact: MargoSturgesYV(at)aol.com "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."- George Orwell

1 Comment

  1. Mark Nuaimi has high hopes the DOF will dole out the cash because of the following statement attached to their continual denials: “Upon receiving a finding of completion from the DOF, HSC section 34191.4 (c) may cause these items to be enforceable in future ROPS.”

    When in fact it is wording that HE requested on November 14, 2012. He could have requested, “Mary has a Little Lamb.” Bottom line: Department of Finance continues to deny these requests for payments.

    Here are his past comments hanging his hat on the response from the DOF. Pay close attention to the dates of his comments:

    Mark Nuaimi 12/20/2012
    “Assuming the excess bond proceeds requested for use were issued prior to January 1, 2011, upon receiving a Finding of Completion from Finance, HSC Section 34191.4 (b) may cause this item to be enforceable in future ROPS periods.”

    So what does this mean? It means that those items may receive unspent bonds assuming they are an allowable expenditure for bond proceeds (called out in the bond documents) and the bonds were issued prior to 2011.

    12/21/2012 Mark Nuaimi
    And not to sound repetitive, but:

    “Assuming the excess bond proceeds requested for use were issued prior to January 1, 2011, upon receiving a Finding of Completion from Finance, HSC Section 34191.4 (b) may cause this item to be enforceable in future ROPS periods.”

    **This will apply to three of our requests totalling $4.8 million. The other $500,000 issue remains in doubt and the Town believes we have solid evidence that agreements were in place prior to January 2011 that commit these funds as an enforceable obligation.

    Nothing in state law requires them to be construction contracts exclusively. While some might not like hearing the truth, Disposition & Development Agreements are an enforceable obligation as defined by the state of California Department of Finance.

    Mark Nuaimi 12/21/2012 1:39pm

    The Town has made progress with DoF acknowledging that some of the items on our ROPS may be added as future enforceable obligations to be paid out of bond proceeds. This is a result of the AB-1484 clean up legislation passed this year.

    (**Please go back and read the letter of November 14, 2012 and the denial letter of November 30, 2012)

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
UA-9539515-1 e0a5d0bb00574423a5afb96d6b854248