Received After Agenda Printed
12/17/2024 - Regular Meeting
Item No. 9 - Correspondence
1 Ramirez, Kimberly
From: Kassen Klein < >
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:55 AM
To: McDonald, Cristal; Ramirez, Kimberly
Subject: FW: 12/17 CC Consent Calendar Item #9 DIF Annual Report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
Please include this correspondence in the CC’s packet.
Thank you,
From: Kassen Klein
Date: Monday, December 16, 2024 at 6:47 AM
To: Holliday, Ron <[email protected]>
Cc: Clifton, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 12/17 CC Consent Calendar Item #9 DIF Annual Report Good morning,
Thank you for replying.
Thank you for pointing out the report is tied to the 2016 Nexus Study, not the 2024 study. I understand the report is about DIF fund balances and assumed that DIF has been collected this year. Possibly including increased DIF. Which further goes to the main point many made at the April hearing and our subsequent private meetings: grandfathering.
During the discussion at both the April hearing and the May meeting, during the discussion for reconsideration, nothing was mentioned about the BIA. The discussion was about reconsideration of both resolutions. My public comments requesting reconsideration focused on (all) developers “having a seat at the table.” Again, mainly to discuss grandfathering projects. And the action or vote was for reconsideration was passed by a council majority. Which means the resolutions should return to the entire council for reconsideration (public comment, cc discussion) before any direction (from a single council person and/or Received After Agenda Printed
12/17/2024 - Regular Meeting
Item No. 9 - Correspondence
2 staff) be given and/or taken. I encourage both you and Justin review the video of both meetings to familiarize yourselves. I’ve provided the links below as well as the time stamps of when the discussions begin.
You won’t be surprised, but disagree, this item is not limited to a receive and file. Action absolutely can be taken of the council so chooses. Moreover, in the spirit of transparency and #connectedbycommunity, this item can and should be reported out publicly. Especially considering the city’s financial state and public interest in many of the projects listed in the report. Additionally, CIP project funding allocation is not limited exclusively to CC goal setting or priority workshops. Historically, it has occurred during annual CIP workshops. And again, this is another opportunity to discuss allocation and prioritization of CIP project funding. What you’ve indicated is “how it’s always been done.” But that’s not necessarily true nor doesn’t mean there are other ways to do things. Especially considering the condition of many of the projects that there is funding for.
April 16th hearing. Item begins at approx. 1:46:00+-
https://youtu.be/4sgFgF5dUAY
May 7th hearing. My public comments asking for reconsideration begin at approximately 1:01:00+-, and the CC discussion for reconsideration begins at approximately 3:07:17+- https://youtu.be/zmUgj_GPwO0
I hope you’ll take the time to review and schedule reconsideration of the item. Ultimately, we, the developers that met with you privately, would like the same consideration given to the BIA, to draft a more reasonable and equitable grandfathering timeline.
Respectfully,
From: Holliday, Ron <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, December 13, 2024 at 5:56 PM
To: Kassen Klein < >
Cc: Clifton, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 12/17 CC Consent Calendar Item #9 DIF Annual Report Hi Kassen,
Let me attempt to address your questions.
Regarding the reconsideration; as this report is based on the 2016 Nexus Study, it has nothing to do with the 2024 Nexus Study or the reconsideration of that study and its implementation.
Regarding the timing of the reconsideration; one of the reasons for my request to reconsider the 2024 Nexus Study was to allow the BIA time to review the study.
They had requested the extra time since they
hadn't received the study timely as it was sent to an email the city had for them that hadn't been updated. Therefore, the timing is dependent on the BIA and staff completing that process. Then it will be
3 put on the agenda for all of council to review and discuss that outcome publicly and decide if any changes to the fees or grandfathering plan are necessary at that time. It would be premature to put it on the agenda prior to that being completed with the item needing to be continued to a future agenda.
Regarding why it is on consent calendar: this is a receive and file report with no actions to be taken so there is nothing to deliberate. If a council member wanted to pull the item to ask questions about the report, they could but they couldn't talk about how to use the funds as that is not what this agenda item is for. The time and place for that discussion will be at the goal setting session that will happen in the first 2 months of 2025.
Regarding Fund 134 - DIF Storm Drain; This also will be discussed at the aforementioned goal setting session. In the detail section of the report for that fund it shows that 2.26% of Line F costs are currently coming from that fund. That percentage may or may not change depending on the outcome of the goal setting session.
Regarding Fund 133 - DIF Park Land; you are correct that the report shows that $305,287.96 has been spent on contract services during the 23/24 fiscal year. The report also shows below the summary all of the projects that received any funding. While it doesn't breakdown how much was contract services versus acquisition, improvements, or construction for each project, it does show that Los Alamos Hills Sports Park Phase I and Phase II received no funding during the fiscal year. The projects that received funding during the fiscal year were, Pioneer Park, Glen Arbor Park, Veteran's Memorial at Town Square Park, Sykes Ranch Park Windmill, Cal Oaks Sports Park Lighting, and Firefighters Park Tot Lot Replacement.
I hope this helps.
Ron Holliday
District 2 Council Member
City of Murrieta
(951) 852-0258
[email protected]
Facebook Instagram
1 Town Square | Murrieta, CA 92562
www.MurrietaCA.gov
From: Kassen Klein < >
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 7:15 AM
To: Stone, Lori <[email protected]>; Warren, Cindy <[email protected]>; Holliday, Ron <[email protected]>; DeForest, Lisa <[email protected]>; Levell, Jon <[email protected]> Cc: Clifton, Justin <[email protected]>; Kassen Klein < > Subject: 12/17 CC Consent Calendar Item #9 DIF Annual Report
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
4 In consideration of our new executive administration and new four-year terms for two of you, and to dissuade any perception of bullying, I’m providing this written correspondence opposed to presenting orally Tuesday night.
Upon review of next week’s agenda, I discovered the DIF Annual Report listed as Consent Calendar item #9.
This raised several questions and concerns.
As indicated in the staff report, an update (increase) to DIF was adopted at the April 16, 2024, meeting.
However, you’ll recall at the May 7, 2024, meeting I requested this reso be reconsidered (per CC Policy 7.4). At the conclusion of the meeting, after lengthy discussion between councilman Holliday and city attorney Israel about the request and the actual policy, Holliday moved reconsideration, Mayor Stone seconded the motion and the motion carried 3-2 (Ayes-Holliday, Stone & Levell; Naes- Warren & DeForest).
Since that time, I have followed up with councilman Holliday and staff on several occasions. Recently, councilman Holliday informed me that he has met with staff and that staff will or has met with Wildan and the BIA to discuss. Additionally, in response to my inquiries of staff of when will the reconsideration be agendized, their response has been “councilman Holliday reserved the right to bring it back.” This is very concerning!
It seems councilman Holliday has unilateral authority in this matter based on the aforementioned. Based on my reading of the policy and the historical use of the policy, that’s not how it works. Any decision on the item should be considered by the full city council and direction to staff be provided based on the council majority.
Moreover, why is this item on the Consent Calendar and not deliberated in open session? There appears to be millions of dollars in various fund balances for projects (traffic, storm drain, parks) the city is in dire need of.
As an example, Fund 134 DIF Storm Drain indicated balance of $5.4M. Yet, there are critical projects (Line F) waiting on funding.
Regarding Fund 133 DIF Park Land. I’ve asked several times for the total cost to date spent on contract consultants working on Los Alamos Hills Sports Park. The report indicates expenditures for contract services totaling $305, 287.96. Which project(s) is
this for? And unless I missed it, there is an outstanding request for an additional contract service.
Finally, I’m curious how this report can be adopted when reconsideration is outstanding? How accurate is it? And most importantly (at least to me) how transparent is this process?