From:Brad Anderson
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Public Comment, Agenda Item: 6.C City of Rancho Mirage Council meeting of April 3, 2025 (1:PM) Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 10:31:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
March 31, 2025
City of Rancho Mirage
City Council / City Hall
69825 Hwy 111
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Attention: Clerk of the Board
Re: Written comment(s) in regards to Agenda Item: 6.C (Contracts) Dear current Elected and Appointed City Council members, Please review my written statements listed below prior to the consideration of each agenda Item and subsection as listed.
1) Agenda Item: 6.C (#1) Zeroc Electricals ($58,843.00) Position: In Opposition
It's reasonable to consider that all change orders should be avoided if at all possible. City contacted project CP23-388 (City Hall Electrical Power Panel upgrade) has been a costly endeavor for City of Rancho Mirage taxpayers to date. Its appears that properly researched projections of city project's (contracted work) haven't been demonstrated by city administrators.
It's reasonable to conclude that it's highly likely that the proposed $58,843.00 change order may have been pre-arranged or simply the cost of poor planning (management). 2) Agenda Item: 6.C (#4) Riverside County Sheriff's Department ($473,500.00) Position: In Opposition
It's worth mentioning that having Riverside County Sheriff's Department as a contractor for law enforcement operations within the City of Rancho Mirage boundaries has been more than sufficient. Current Riverside County Sheriff's Department officials that represent our City and County continues to deserve the utmost respect and gratitude for the services that they currently supply.
It's reasonable to consider that Rancho Mirage prior City Council decided to increase the costs to taxpayers with it's desire to increase public Safety expenses an additional ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, as certain members of that body (City Council) were planning on leaving their elected positions. No involvement of city residents was given for proper insight of that
unique and unusual political maneuver to secure law enforcement personnel for the yet undeveloped (Section 31) as stated by a departing elected City Council member that lives "very" near that planned development (Section 31).
It's reasonable to consider that the establishment of the Cove Communities Services Commission (CCSC) was to combine the three (3) Cities of Rancho Mirage/Palm Desert and Indian Wells public safety elements together to conserve resources and increase public safety overall within all member Citys.
It's highly recommended to abandon the motivation to support the total cost of supporting a dedicated contracted Riverside County Administrative employee (Lieutenant) at the current recommended $373,200.00 yearly expense from ONLY CIty of Rancho Mirage Resident's.
It's highly recommended that a staff report covering this Item be summarized during the April 3, 2025 city council meeting for public (city residents) viewing.
Other area's of Riverside County (Eastern Coachella Valley) would benefit greatly with dissolving the Southern Coachella Valley Community Service District (SCVCSD) and placing simlar financial resources within that region from Riverside County budgetary funds. 3) Agenda Item: 6.C (#5) Flock Safety (ALPR's) ($600,000.00) Position: In Strong Opposition
It's highly recommended to "Opt-Out" of the Flock Safety private sector business "automatic 24 month renewal" process that will continue this May 2025 if not cancelled. It's always in the best Interests of taxpayer's to allow for a fair and unbiased evaluation and bidding process for City contracted work/services. Request for proposals (RFP's) should be the first avenue that honest and ethical city officials should seek out - Please consider that the City of Rancho Mirage never conducted the required procedure of public disclosure to install and use surveillance devices (Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras) within the City of Rancho Mirage boundaries. Also, selected city established Brown Act safeguarded protected Commissions were avoided and dissolved (eliminated) shortly after (ALPR's & LPS's) were littered throughout the city by City Councils dictate.
Please also consider other California communities (Sacramento locations) have missused those surveillance devices (Flock system - ALPR's) to retain and distributed collected data with unauthorized organizations. It's also worth noting that legal challenges have been filed in regards to Flock system invasive and intrusive privacy aspect plus constitutional rights be potentially violated against private citizens.
Consider that potential unlawful actions of city officials may lead to legal actions against the City at taxpayer's expense.
Simply the cost of $3000.00 per (APLP) device per/year multiplied by 100 currently installed (that's known to the general public) ALPR's surveillance devices are to expensive and clearly a potentially unconstitutional invasion against private citizen that choose to travel the public right of ways.
Please don't take any further reprisal actions against my private property or person for
reporting this true and accurate summary of concerns and opinions in regards to the listed topics.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson | 37043 Ferber Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270 Cc: