UPDATED 10:10 PM, Tuesday: Just a quick rundown on tonight city council meeting. More will be posted tomorrow morning.
CLOSED SESSION
No word on the closed session to evaluate the performance of the city manager. I was the only one seated in the audience at 4:30 PM waiting for a possible challenge to the closed meeting but I was politely reminded it was a closed meeting.
$10,000 MURAL ART PROJECT REPLICATING THE KEY’S MURAL (THAT WALLGREENS ANNIHILATED (RAZED))
Tonight the council shined tonight when Agenda item 8. was on the floor. There was a long — and very confusing –discussion about the “Mural-in-a-day Art Project. ”
Councilman Harris asked the tough questions, as did Councilman Jay Corbin. Mostly, the council was concerned about funding a 10 thousand dollar replica of the Key’s mural when nobody knows what it will look like. Even Wayne Winieck, Chair of the Arts Council, and his sidekick (sorry no name available) themselves didn’t know what it would look like.
The artist was paid $1000 and needs another A$5000 to get started with the plans, drawings and prints. Jay Corbin was not a happy camper about funding this project when the council doesn’t know what it would look like. Cora Heiser didn’t seem to appreciate the ideal either, and queried about the mechanics and history of the Project.
Wayne Winieck was extremely disappointed — and chagrined – because in good faith he believed funding was a done deal.
Councilmember Cora Hesner questioned where the confusing stemmed from. To say the least, it seems like a comedy of errors bouncing back and forth. All of the councilmember voted to NOT fund the art project . All of them asked the right questions.
At the end of the meeting where the council addresses “Future Council Initated Items” (they want placed on the the next agenda), Councilmember Klink was a strong voice that they should put this back on the agenda for more discussion — and when some sort of prints are available.
Nonethless, for now, no funding. The vote was 5-0
Wayne Winieck was miffed, and he told me in the hallway he would not come back. He also said the Arts Council gave the city (via PAC) $20,000 of their money for five goats pertaining to the new JTNP sigh. He said the money for the goats was for the Mural and he was his understanding funding was a done deal.
Wayne is new chair for the Arts Council and he is a nice man.
There is much more to this saga I hope to post tomorrow.
RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF BIL 981 TO USE PROJECT PHOENIX BOND MONEY
The council polished the shoes of Rutan & Tucker’s law partner main man, A. Patrick Munoz.
Of course councilman Danny Mintz was chomping at the bit like a racehorse on steroids ready to make the motion to support the resolution. The councilmen, once again, gave Esquire Munoz everything he ask for.
Have you ever been around perky horses when they are let out of the barn… they jump, buck and fart for all the glory they can muster. That was Dan Mintz tonight in anticipation of making his motion.
Cora Heiser was the lone NO vote.
Munoz “recommended” the council pass this bizarre (waste of time) resolution. Excuse me… is a recommendation really legal advise. Munoz recommends like he’s the city manager rather than giving solid “legal advise.”
I spoke my piece that the Great Governer Jerry Brown will never pass this. He will certainly veto the bill. Munoz agreed — even though the council voted at their last meeting to award Rutan & Tucker another nearly quarter of million dollars to sue the state, now Munoz wants to legislature to give it to him on a silver platter. Why would Brown piss away $1.4 billion dollars after all this effort to shut down the racketeering of redevelopment.
Warne chimed in with his support – not a suprise
More on all of this tomorrow morning for those whom care.
Thanks for the update Branson, I look forward to the morning report
Thumbs up to Cora! Whether one agrees with her or not (which I do), she stood tall.
And,I, too, wonder why these hired help City Attorney’s are making recommendation rather than just sit there and speak when spoken to…just answer the legal questions, counsel. Somebody said to me that they noticed on the tv broadcast, that the City Attorney for DHS just sits there and I said that is what he is supposed to do…do not speak unless requested to do so by the Council…likewise for the City/Town Manager. They should put in their two cents when asked to do so by the Council…not take over the meeting.
Exactly Lindag. Why is Rutan & Tucker recommending this or that based on their bias opinion — rather then just sit there and give legal advise when asked or when necessary.
Update to story.
@ Steve Spear:
The $20,000 came from the Wallgreens Corporation to replace the Keys mural that they destroyed. Therefore, I can understand Winieck’s ire.
Steve, the Mural ’cause celebre’ may not be over. Just before the meeting ended, Joel Klink wanted it back on the Agenda for another time. I think it would pass with three votes for funding if the artist would submit a sketch.
Then, again, it may not be back because Wayne Winieck (the new director of the Arts Council) said in the hallway “I don’t think I would be back.” He threatened to remove the 23 murals in place at the Historic Plaza because they do not belong to the city, said Winieck.
Jay Corbin, using a often cited biblical reference, said “Are we giving a fish or teaching them…?”
Winieck’s understand was, said he, was that when they gave the $20,000 for five goats it was with the understanding it would be come back to them for the Keys Mural.
Harris asked what happened to the bricks that were taken from the Keys mural. Said he, they wre to be sold, and said he would buy one for $100. Larry Briggs said he had 5 bricks at his office. Winieck said he has a 20 bricks in his garage. But added most the other are rubble.
The proceeds of the bricks go to Action Council
Cora asked, “Where did the assumption occur the cost of the Mural would be put into the budget?” Another Arts Council spokeswoman relayed to the council that they can’t pay for the Keys mural because they are nearly broke. This brings into play the $20,000 that was converted to the five (5) goats from the Mural project.
Why was the $20,000 diverted to PAC for 5 goats and not the Mural from the money Wallgreens who gave it to the Action Council? That money was mural money; who made the decision to usurp the 20K? Has PAC acted beyond the scope of their authority?
Jay Corbin was asked to modify his vote to not fund the Mural. Corbin — much to his credit — would have not have any of that.
The funding is shot down for now, but if this comes back to the council (should the Arts Council have a change of mind) it will most certainly pass.
I’m beating a dead horse here, but the fire department — the life line of the community — is the redheaded stepchild here. The council still maintains by way of their actions that public emergencies and fire safe is not a city problem. In other words, they are doing a grave disservice to the entire public and private sections.
For more on the council meeting, goto this CT Link:
http://www.vote29.com/newmyblog/archives/47010
So in reality the Arts and Croissant crowd pissed away the money on “Rama-Lamba-Ding-Dong” instead of it intended purpose…. That is Priceless!!
Jim Harris: “Did Action Council get the money ($20,000.00) from Wallgreens for replacement [for the Keys Mural]?
Arts Council: “Yes. We did get the money…”
Jay Corbin: “I think we need more information of what’s going to be done.”
Action Council: “We got a cut rate deal on the (proposed Mural). Usually the artist gets $20,000.”
Richard Warne: “[the Mural] is a good project. That’s our recomendation. The Mural can be removed so there is no problem like the last one.”
Action Council: “The original artist [of the destroyed Keys Mural] wanted $23,000 to do another. The city promised they would pay for the mural…”
What is questioned is that Wallgreens paid $20,000 to replace the Keys Mural. So why would the city council ‘promise’ to find a replacement mural?
Note Cora seconded Jay Corbin’s motion to deny funding. It may have been shot down, but Joel Klink said he wants it back, said he during the Future Council Initiated Items portion of the Agenda.
First correction Branson, Walgreen’s gave only $8,000 not $20,000 to replace the mural and that went straight to the coffers of Action 29…. GET IT RIGHT. Action 29 spent the majority of the money on a Historic Plaza Mosaic….
The $20,000 was budgeted in the 2011-2012 Budget for “mural project or Art piece” The Council chose an Art Piece… In the 2012-2013 budget it shows that that $20,000 was spent on the ‘Rama-Lamba-Ding-Dong’.
There was no record of a vote taken by city council to approve funding the mural.
It is Welfare to this towns 1%, that is all it is….. Why not take that $10,000 and feed the hungry or house the homeless?
The money has been spent…. The PAC spent the money on 4 yes count them FOUR Goats and a Huge block wall in the middle of Monument Drive.
I have very little compassion for the mural group. They have run roughshod over the rest of the community and have been given more and provided more favors by this city than most non-profits. There was a time when they paid their own way like the rest of the hard working non-profit organizations, they over the years burned so many bridges they are unable to raise a dust devil.
Mel Berlin pissed off a whole community, but the group has been lavished with free bees yearly in the promotion of losers like Chalk-fest. They need to learn to live off their own fund raising efforts.
If you destroy something that I own and reimburse me for the cost of that item, what I do with that money is none of your concern…unless there was a condition placed upon the money paid by Walgreens, the Town should be able to do what they want with the money, and is not obligated to replace the mural…in my humble opinion. Right now when all of our cities are scrambling for money, I am sure there are better uses for that money, which may not have been the case when the mural was first completed and paid for by the Town.
Update: AB 981 Resolution. Use of city bond money for redevelopment (Project Phoenix):
Much to the delight of RGS and Rutan & Tucker, the city fell in line with outside influences (like the League of California Cities) who are behind this Bill.
The city manager gave a quick rundown and said there are 53 entities that issued bonds like 29. This bill is better than litigating and suing the state, said he. Munoz said the same thing, and recommended the city adapt the measure.
Cora said that when we approved the $200 K to litigation, we met in closed session and this (AB 981) “was not put out there. Maybe we should wait until this is approved” [by the legislature before spending $200,000].
It seemed Cora was saying lets revoke the $200K or now. The remaining councilmen gave her no support on this possibility.
RGS consultant Matt McCleary had very little but for added that the DoF did approve the $200K to litigate. His other comment were poorly articulated, and I doubt many in audience were able to follow his statements.
INTERESTINGLY, Dan Mintz wanted the resolution motion quickley approved. And it was. More interestingly, Jim Harris seconded Mintz’s motion to approve. The vote was 4-1 with Cora voting no.
My opinion is that Jim Harris did an outstanding job last night but for voting to waste more time and money on the AB 981. I think Jim has grown into a seasoned politician. He knows where to massage and when to massage. Last night it was wrong to fall in line with those other 53 city entities to further continue the madness because no way hell is this bill going to get past Brown’s veto powers. We’re talking $1.4 billion dollars Brown wants run the state for all the people, namely for schools, colleges, handicapped, seniors and necessary infrastructure.
During the discussion, much to Cora’s credit, she wanted Project Phoenix put back on a future agenda for public discussion. As I reflected from my notes I think Jay Corbin was the only one that supported a public discussion agenda item.
Since we have RSG/Frankie leading our Council around by the nose, you can bet that we will be pumping more money into the coffers of Rutan and Tucker and other consultants when our bobble head council votes to follow the rest of the sheeple into the RDA legal abyss…what do they care?…it is only taxpayers money. What’s a few hundred thousand more of our money down the toilet hole…which leads directly to the attorneys and consultants pockets.
Ok Branson, the League of California Cities is not behind the Bill. They have not endorsed AB-981, they are currently watching the Bill.
Here is the summary: Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies, as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations and to perform obligations required pursuant to any enforceable obligation. Existing law provides for the transfer of housing assets and functions previously performed by the dissolved redevelopment agency to one of several specified public entities. Existing law authorizes that entity to designate the use of, and commit, indebtedness obligation proceeds that were issued for affordable housing purposes prior to January 1, 2011, and were backed by the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. This bill would instead authorize that entity to designate the use of, and commit, indebtedness obligation proceeds that were issued prior to June 28, 2011.
This Bill was put forth by Assemblymember Richard Bloom who is a Democrat out of Santa Monica. Currently the Bill sits awaiting to be heard in Committees. One would be the Committee on Local Government, and the other would be the Committee on Housing and Community Development. The Bill may be heard in committee on or about March 26th.
You are writing your posts as if the Governor was waiting with pen in hand. This Bill is not even close yet. Do a little research before you start jumping to conclusions.
I even heard someone say that this Bill would never be signed by the Governor because that is what he said. Try again, the Governor has said no such thing about AB-981.
Well Carey if it is too early to step into the fray about AB-981 because it is even not out of committee then why did our city jump on the RESOLUTION to make it happen bandwagon?
I can not speak for the why this was initiated at this exact moment in time.
But, I can understand why the Council might want to after reading the staff report and resolution.
In my post above, I was speaking to those that were presenting false information without regard to the facts that are readily available.
Who sponsored the Bill?
What is the Bills intent?
Where is the Bill?
Who supports the Bill?
These are things that were falsely written, lift out, or not discussed.
“The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that; “When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.”
However, in local government, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
Buying a stronger whip.
Changing riders.
Appointing a committee to study the horse.
Arranging to visit other cities to see how other greedy bastards ride dead horses.
Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
Telling everyone that we’ve always ridden our horses this way
Benchmarking our horse against dead horses ridden by other cities
Hiring additional greedy bastards to resuscitate the dead horse
Hiring additional greedy bastards to ride the dead horse.
Hiring outside consultants to put together a training programme to support staff to work better with the dead horse
Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse’s performance.
Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse’s performance.
Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed , it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses And of course:
Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position
Do you have any other ways that we could make the dead horse more productive?”
LMAO! Great post Mark.
Now that was funny, great job!!
Carey, the League didn’t sponsor the Bill but be certain they are behind cities to endorse it by way of resolutions.
View the video when it’s available of the CC meeting. You will hear A. Patrick Munoz bring up the League in his recommendation for the council to support AB 981. The League wants all the cities to fall in line; that’s just what the CC did — fall in line.
Sorry, your admonished is misplaced (again).
Governor Brown is not going to sign a bill that pisses away $1.4 billion dollars of state funds so cities can resume their racketeering redevelopment efforts.
Sorry I can’t respond to an unidentified third party’s alleged statement.
Be clear, I did NOT say Brown said he wouldn’t sign the Bill. Take it up with the unidentified third party.
Hi Branson,
As far as I can tell it is 1.4 TRILLION not Billion Just replace that “B’ with a “T” and a small “r” after the capital “T” for TRILLION!
Wow huh!
AB-981 may never leave committee, it may never get the votes, nor may the Governor sign it. You don’t know. No one knows.
May post was to show everyone the facts that were not being betrayed.
And I never said that it was you that said that the Governor would not sign it. That person and I talk about the issue at length.
As far as the League of California Cities goes, I will say this again. They are only watching the Bill. What the City Attorney said is not the current stance of the League.
View their web site. http://ct3k1.capitoltrack.com/public/search.aspx?id=ad485199-37cd-42cd-8217-d19b4d257119&session=13&s=AB%20981&t=bill
and you can read the full possessed Bill here. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_981&sess=1314&house=B
Okay Carey I appreciate your willingness to provide more and more information about matters.
What is you opinion on the sale of the Bonds?
Because in the final analysis that is the question – was it a good idea or poor idea?
And the Crickets go…… Chirp….. Chirp….. Chirp…
My personal opinion concerning the selling of bonds to fund a municipalities project(s) today is not a good financial decision.
If a municipality is in the market to offer a general obligation bond then it should have been put to a vote of the citizens.
Give that man a cigar….
Thanks for your thoughts. I think most in the city would agree with you on this point.
I guess this is the point Cora was making when she voiced her opinion last Tuesday Project Phoenix ought to be put back on the Agenda for public input.
Carey gets the whole box of cigars. Cora gets a super size box of Sees candy.
Friedan Slip
…the facts that were not being betrayed. Carey said….
I think you are Betraying the facts quite well, Carey….. LMMFAO
Carey, even legal council said he agreed with me that Jerry Brown would NOT sign the bill.
Do you believe this bill will not be vetoed? Do you want it to pass? Was it prudent for the CC to back the Bill when it’s not even out of committee?
C’mon no one is going to bite you on the kneecap if you voice your opinion once in a while.
Brown is responsible to the voters of the state, not 29 Palms or the other 53 law-breaking cities, when 1.4 trillion is at stake.
Why such contentiousness over the obvious?
Backing a Bill means very little in reality.
Look the City is in for a penny, it might as well be in for a pound.
It is a shame that they are using the “pound” that should be going to assist our schools, hospital, community college, etc. in order to pursue this ill conceived project.
I read the same report also and can not understand at all. These 53 cities went into debt in the hopes that the goal posts would be moved and they could keep “their” money which was never “theirs” in the first place.
They also KNOWINGLY, sold the bonds AFTER the deadline date that well known to them and did so without any executable contracts in place.
This is a terrible thing.
I wonder if all fifty three cities consultants and attorneys know each other on a first name basis
You can bet on that!
Didn’t someone get $10,000 bribe money from Wall Greens when they ripped down the old mural? What happened to that money?
Well bribe money is a tad strong. Walgreen’s provided $8,000 to Action Council 29 for the loss of the mural.
I think Dan researched it out and it was used later on to help buy the art piece that is at the center of Historic Plaza.
The “Mural-in-a-day Art Project“ is back on the Agenda for the March 26 council meeting. It may have been shot down at the last CC meeting, but Councilman Joel Klink wanted it back, and by god it’s back.
It was apparent the reason it was shot down last meeting is because there were no sketches or drawings of the proposed Keys Mural. Nonetheless, it was an interesting “dog and pony” show while it lasted.
It will get three votes and it shall be passed. I’ll bet anyone a car wash and wax job… Any takers out there who wants to wash and wax my pickup?
I, like the rest of you am a little confused. How are they going to have drawings when the artist wanted $5000.00 for plans? I am taking a big leap here and assuming that there is no construction needed so, the so called plans are in fact the drawings. $10,000.00 for a mural but $5,000.00 for the plans. I am sure they will figure it all out and when it is said and done cost the City $15,000.00 total.
The question is why? did they receive numerous complaints from tourists who drove thousands of miles to see the famed mural? Is the City loosing business because it is no longer present? or is it the fact that the artsy folks of 29 feel cheated because 20K of their money was used for the largest project the City fathers have done since the 29! sign. Which by the way was such a success they had to have a smaller one made so it could be brought out for special occasions at various locations in the City. There are several members of the present council who seem dead set on spending any money that is not earmarked for any direct cost. Frustrating as it is, no matter what anyone says, they will do what they want until the time comes when they are not re-elected.
Thank you for asking that question Michaelv.
The Arts Council spokesperson said his organization didn’t have the money to pay the artist.
The city manager ought to have some answers. Can you call him and get back on this Michaelv?
What is known is that the Arts Council blew the Walgreens money. It seems the intentions of the keeper of the trust were good in spending the Walgreens money on public art in Historic Plaza, but unclean hands should still not be rewarded.
Councilman Klink wants it back for reconsideration. The issue is replacement money.
“Public funding” would be an option. Maybe Councilman Klink can consider throwing in a hundred to get it started. He must want the Mural since he put it back on the agenda.
@michaelv- The staff report is not on the home page for some reason; however,you can access it through the agenda, minutes, and staff report. There is a history of the Art in a Day Mural request. It contains a possible replacement picture.
I will check it out. still 10K is a lot of money these days
I have posted the almost entire City council agenda for the 26th for three very important reasons: 1. Under AWARDS PRESENTATIONS ETC is #2. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT STATUS OF PROJECT PHOENIX AND SERIES A AND B BONDS. further down #7 is discussion on art in a day, and lastly #9 a discussion and direction regarding Team Building. I have seen on this site that we all knew about the Art in a day discussion but was not sure if anyone was aware of the Presentation of the dreams of a few at the sacrifice of many Project Phoenix. just thought I would throw it out there. Team building is actually amusing, I thought that the free agency was over and trades had been completed?
TWENTYNINE PALMS CITY COUNCIL/CITY COUNCIL IN ITS CAPACITY AS
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER TWENTYNINE PALMS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
http://www.29palms.org
Tuesday,March 26,2013
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council/City Council in its Capacity as
Successor Agency to the Former Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency will
hold a Regular Meeting on March 26,2013
at City Hall, 6136 Adobe Road,
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 to consider the following:
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA 5:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call.
Adjourn to Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION
A “Closed” Session of the City Council or the City Council in its capacity as Successor Agency to
the former Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency may be held in accordance with state law
which may include, but is not limited to, the following types of items: personnel matters, labor
negotiations, security matters, providing instructions to real property negotiators and conference
with legal counsel regarding pending litigation. The Closed Session will be held in the City Hall
Conference Room located at 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, California. Any public
comment on Closed Session items will be taken before the Closed Session. Any required
announcements or discussion of Closed Session items or actions following the Closed Session
will be made in the City Council Chambers, 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, California.
1.Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957–
Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, City
Clerk.
TWENTYNINE PALMS CITY COUNCIL/CITY COUNCIL IN ITS CAPACITY AS
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER TWENTYNINE PALMS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
6:00 P.M.
Next City Ordinance Number: 255
Next City Resolution Number:13-07
Next Successor Agency Resolution Number:13-01
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge
of Allegiance.
Invocation
–
Pastor Charles Zwicker, 29 Palms Church of the Nazarene.
Roll Call.
Closed Session Announcements.
Changes to the Agenda.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
These proceedings will be televised on Cable T.V. Channel 10, as follows: Every Monday following the City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m. and may be viewed on demand on the City of Twentynine Palms
website at http://www.29palms.org.
AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS
1.Presentation by Aaron Kyle on Solar.
2.Overview of Current Status of Project Phoenix and Series A and B Bonds.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for the public to address the City Council on issues within the jurisdiction of the City
Council that are NOT on this agenda. All comments are to be directed to the City Council and shall not
consist of any personal attacks. Members of the public are expected to maintain a professional,
courteous decorum during their comments. There is a time limitation of three minutes per person. If you haven’t already done so, please fill out name and address slips and give them to the City Clerk. The City
Council is prohibited by State law from taking action or discussing items not included on the printed agenda. Public comments on specific agenda items will be deferred until consideration of the item on the
agenda.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are to be considered routine by the City Council/ City
Council
in its Capacity as Successor Agency to the Former Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency
and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. Any item may be removed from the Consent
Calendar and considered separately by the City Council. The public will be given an opportunity to comment on Consent Calendar items prior to the City Council action.
3.Waive the Reading of Ordinance and Approve the Reading by Title Only.
4.Approval of Warrant Register Totaling $509,763.23.
5.Approval of Minutes of the City Council Meeting Held on March 12, 2013.
6. Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
PUBLIC HEARINGS
-
None
DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
7.City Council Discussion and Direction Regarding the Mural-in-a-Day Community Art Project.
8.Discuss Current Status of Planning Commission Appointments and Provide Staff with Direction.
9.City Council Discussion and Direction Regarding Team Building.