CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Study Session
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
3:00 PM
City Council Chambers
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AND VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND VIA ZOOM PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING LINK TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE:
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Oj-xQoNMQZeRdrbtFmc4ow
AFTER REGISTERING, YOU WILL RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION EMAIL CONTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT JOINING THE MEETING.
MAYOR
Ernesto Gutierrez
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor Pro Tem
Rita Lamb
Councilmember
Mark Carnevale
Councilmember
Nancy Ross
Councilmember
Raymond Gregory
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA FINALIZATION
At this time the City Council may announce any items being pulled from the agenda or continued to another date.
1. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation/Threat of Litigation, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2).
Number of Potential Cases: One
Cathedral City P a g e 2
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief re sponse from staff to questions raised during public comment or may reque st a matter be agendized for a future meeting. Public Comment will be limited to three (3) minutes.
3. STUDY SESSION
Normally no action is taken on Study Session items, however, the City Council reserves the right to give specific policy direction and ta ke specific action as necessary. Presentation will be limited to 10 minutes unless other provisions are made in advance.
A. Desert Recreation District (DRD) Polling Results
Recommendation: Review the Desert Recreation District (DRD) annexation polling results for discussion and direction only.
ADJOURN
NOTES TO THE PUBLIC:
The City of Cathedral City complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 770-0322 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
If you desire to address the City Council during the meeting, please complete a Request to Speak Form available at th e entrance and present it to the City Clerk. Speakers will be called upon at the appropriate time.
Any documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall located at 68 -700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero during normal business hours. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at www.cathedralcity.gov.
Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/19/2022
Staff Report
City Council
Meeting Date: May 25, 2022
From: Eric Vail, City Attorney
Title: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation/Threat of Litigation, Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(d)(2).
Number of Potential Cases: One
1.A
Packet Pg. 3
Cathedral City Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2022
Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 3.A
Meeting Date: May 25, 2022
From: Katherine Fuentes, Assistant City Manager
Title: Desert Recreation District (DRD) Polling Results
City Council
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the Desert Recreation District (DRD) annexation polling results for discussion and direction only.
BACKGROUND:
On February 23, 20 22, the City Council unanimously approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Desert Recreation District (DRD) to assist with the annexation of Cathedral City into the DRD service territory.
DISCUSSION:
From April 6 through April 20, 2022, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted a survey on behalf of the Desert Recreation District among a random sample of 449 Cathedral City voters lik ely to vote in the November 2022 election. 1 The survey examined three related topics, voters’: (1) opinions about the City of Cathedral City, (2) views about the Desert Recreation District, and (3) attitudes towards a potential park and recreation parcel tax measure. Key findings:
(1) Opinions of the City of Cathedral City
▪ Slightly more than six-in-ten have a favorable view of the direction of the City. ▪ A majority have favorable views of the City’s Park Maintenance Division and the City government overall.
▪ Slightly more than seven -in-ten perceive the City has a great or some need for additional funds, and specifically around park and recreation programs.
(2) Views about the Desert Recreation District (DRD)
▪ Almost six-in-ten do not know enough about the Desert R ecreation District to offer an opinion of it.
1 Voters were contacted via telephone calls, email invitations and text messages, and interviews were conduc ted online and by telephone (landline and cellular). Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error for the full sample is ±4.9%. The margins of error for subgroups will be higher.
3.A
Packet Pg. 4
Cathedral City Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2022
▪ Those who do know about the Desert Recreation District generally view it favorably.
▪ Based on what they already know about the Desert Recreation District and/or what they learn about the District in the survey, roughly 7 -in-10 favor the District taking over the ongoing maintenance and programs of local parks in Cathedral City.
(3) Attitudes towards a potential Park & Recreation Parcel Tax Measure ▪ Initially, close to six -in-ten support an annual levy of 15 -cents pe r building square foot on single -family residential units for parks/recreational services and facilities – short of the super-majority needed.
▪ With education, support reaches the two -thirds mark necessary to pass the measure; however, after critical statem ents, support drops below the margin of error of passage to just shy of 60 percent.
▪ Keeping afterschool and senior programs affordable, ensuring the funds are used within Cathedral City, addressing homelessness in parks, and maintaining and improving neigh borhood park safety are considered among the leading priorities for the measure.
▪ Establishing a cooling center during excessively hot days, maintaining the parks’ infrastructure, and ensuring the measure has strict accountability provisions are leading reasons to support the measure.
The full results of this poll are being presented to City Council for their review, discussion and direction. Council will consider options available to improve parks maintenance and recreation services in the City and offer t he best opportunity for a favorable outcome in an annexation election.
• Option #1 (Staff’s Recommendation)
o Proceed with the November 2022 Desert Recreation District (DRD) annexation and Community Facilities District (CFD) Measure. o The polling results are inconclusive compared to the 2018 poll, with the major hurdle continuing to be the community’s lack of familiarity with the DRD. The polling results determined a large percentage of the population was unfamiliar with the DRD or the services they provide, w hich heavily influenced voters to vote no. Although not ideal, staff and the consultants are prepared to work diligently to educate and outreach the community in an effort to improve the likelihood of the measure ’s success. If the measure were to fail, this would still place the City in a better position for a 2024 election.
• Option #2
o Explore annexation into the Desert Recreation District (DRD) for full cost recovery programing services only and contract with the DRD separately for park maintenance using General Fund dollars. This does not require voter approval as no tax is required.
o If the Council makes the determination that the polling results were inconclusive on the measure ’s likelihood of success in a November 2022 election, an alternative option co uld be exploring annexation into the DRD for programming services only. This would benefit the community by
3.A
Packet Pg. 5
Cathedral City Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/19/2022
increasing/improving recreational programming at City parks while simultaneously improving future polling results by acquainting the community with the DRD over time. This option would not assist the City in lowering its park maintenance costs and could ultimately result in increasing the overall general fund contribution to parks and recreation. If approved by Council, staff would work with the DRD t o explore this option and come back to City Council at a later Study Session to discuss program scope and cost.
• Option #3
o Postpone the measure until 2024 and work with the DRD on an MOU amendment and cost proposal. During the next two years work with DRD to improve community awareness of the DRD and the benefits of annexation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this update.
3.A
Packet Pg. 6