From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
$rac Ancersorl
City C ert
Isaiah Hagerman, CPA
Public Comment(s) - City of Rancho Mirage Council meeting of February 5, 2026 (1:PM) Thursday, February 5, 2026 11:21:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK (inks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
External sender
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
February 5, 2026
City of Rancho Mirage
City Council / City Hall
69825 Hwy 111
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Attention: assigned Clerk of the Board (City Clerk)
Re: Written testimony in regards to Agenda Items listed below Dear current elected and appointed City Council members, Please review my written statements listed below prior to the consideration of each agenda Item.
1) Agenda Item: 5.A. (City of Rancho Mirage Council meeting minutes of January 15, 2026) Position: In Opposition
Clearly the written recorded meeting minutes are inaccurate and should be amended to reflect a true and accurate summary of activities/speech surrounding that listed public meeting.
The current written meeting minutes stated that M. Harrington provide public testimony in regards to the Consent Calendar agenda (Agenda Item: 5.) Details of Mr. Harrington verbal testimony were not mention within the official public record (written meeting minutes) in regards to the many different sub -agenda topics listed on that public meeting consent calendar agenda of which were addressed by that public speaker.
City officials refused to detail a brief summary of each Non -Agenda public comment (Agenda Item: 8) of the many speakers that provided verbal testimony during that meeting.
It's reasonable to consider that potential criminal behavior may be a potential factor among the reason(s) for city officials to censor Public testimony provided during public meetings held under it's authority. It's clear that political maneuvers of censorship techniques of city constructed public meeting written minutes (OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD) would be beneficial for city council members future re-election campaigns and other self-serving political maneuvers of the current City Council.
2) Agenda Item: 5.B. (Proposed action of cities sharing resources) Position: In Opposition
In theory the increased sharing of services and resources between the three cities of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Indian Wells sounds reasonable. But, the citys boundaries and ifs "guiding principles" (local control) would be at Increased risk of harm from this proposal.
It's unreasonable that the appointed members of the "Cove Communities Services Commission" be burdened with extraordinary extreme measures that the general public would most likely be unaware of due to that puposely constructed public meeting schedules of that commission that are cumbersome and designed to disenfranchised public residents and businesses within those communities from attending those unusual scheduled precived open public meetings.
3) Agenda Item: 5.C. (CalRecycle grant application)
Position: In Opposition
It's highly recommended to abandon the attempt to gain financial resources by using inferior projects supplied by that vendor.
It's well known that the recent roadway surfacing of Highway 111 within the Citys boundaries have already shown extreme wear with embedded pavement tracking and implanting of item's (bolts/screws and other hardware) within it's surface. The above listed roadway has an unpleasant vehicle ride experience at it's completion and is very unlikely to have a damping factor in regards to vehicle operations (noise). It's worth noting that the City of Rancho Mirage Council voted to have the city manager approved the compliance and completion aspects of that and other simlar projects without allowing residents the opportunity to protest (be informed) of the work performed by contractors (city projects) in an open agendized public meeting - So it's reasonable that corrupted aspects maybe a factor associated with those contracted vendors and city officials because of the citys willingness to censor (not openly disclose) information of contracted project completions from the public.
It's reasonable to consider that roadways constructed with "soft" rubberized asphalt would decrease vehicle mileage and increase vehicle operational costs while serving to produce additional air pollution. It's well documented of the many items (bolts/Nuts/hardware) that have been infused into the surface of city streets with installed rubberized asphalt.
It's reasonable that city council have oversight (signature authority) over all city business.
Five (5) year requested valid authorization is to excessive for this type of service agreement.
It maybe counter productive for city council (and administrative staff) to abandon seeking this already established framework, but poor quality materials will cause unnecessary similar damage than the unethical standards of city officials to seek funds from poorly manufactured materials from "ONLY California supplied used tires". Please be reminded of the citys recent "Illegal tire dumping" disposal costs that appears to be an excessive financial burden for city residents to absorb.
4) Agenda Item: 5.E / 2, 3, & 4. (Contracts - )
Position: In Opposition (2, 3, & 4)
A) 2. (Michael Baker International - Amendment #CP 22-374 Frank Sinatra Dr. Low Water crossing (White Water wash)
The current designed and constructed pedestrian traffic corridor is satisfactory through the Frank Sinatra Dr. Low Water crossing (White Water River). It's shameful that city officials have decided to support a narrative that will ONLY cause unnecessary damage to nearby properties while removing resources (taxes) that support special Interests of city officials.
It's been repeatedly demonstrated that city officials (public works) have decided NOT to provide a safe and easily accessible trail (pathway) through the White Water wash (North side of Frank Frank Sinatra Dr.) Over the past few years. The once maintained pathway was well used and a safe attentive to traveling alongside vehicle traffic on Frank Sinatra Dr.
It's reasonable to consider that city officials have decided to puposely NOT maintain that pathway in an attempt to illustrate a narrative of a need for "enhancements" of the current sidewalks in that area.
As the city is aware of the TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) that was recently released to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for the Frank Sinatra Dr. hydraulic analysis (proj ID sw0108). It's reasonable to consider that the requested SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FOUR DOLLARS ($ 79,704.00) from this contractor is excessive.
It's nonsensical that any action to gain right-of-ways at this point of non-public involvement would be unconscionable and be seen as another attempt from city officials to hide financial details from city residents (closed session meeting).
B) 3. (Selected businesses - marking/Visit Greater Palm Springs) It's reasonable that Visit Greater Palm Springs tourism industry should provide the financial resources ($62,500.00) to promote and support selected Individuals (companies) with this yearly expense.
C) 4. (Willdan Financial Services - yearly levies administration services) It's reasonable to consider that city officials should expand it's out reach to receive an appropriate amount of reasonable bidders for advised request for proposals (RFP's) due to the citys inability to perform that aspect of city business.
Due to the small number of received (RFP'S) (ONLY two companies) the service contract shouldn't have four (4) automatic extensions that would combine for a total of five (5) year service contract.
NINETY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($91,000.00) appears to be excessive for services that relies on aspects of simply copy and paste repetitive actions related to the levying procces.
5) Agenda Item: 5.F. (Demands)
Please be advised that city operations should be easily monitored. It's respectively recommended that city supplied medical group insurance only be provided with NONE and or a reasonable percentage for reimbursement to members that choose not to be subjected to that city supplied insurance services
Having current and past city employees (and a deceased ex -council members sponse) continue to collect sizeable benefits from city residents is undesirable and probably NOT known to many city residents.
6) Agenda Item: 7.A. (MOU - City of Rancho Mirage & Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe))
Position: In FULL Support
It's highly recommended that the tribe consider the termination of other potential MOU's with city of Rancho Mirage and Riverside County governmental agencies going forward. Section 19 - and the proposed development will most likely be burdened by city officials in the near future with the current City Council's Involment.
7) Agenda Item: 7.B. (lobbyists plantform for city council special Interests) Position: In Opposition
It's clear that the current City Council has No enduring values to promote. Having the City Manager (or his Designee) as the sole (unaccountable) person that would oversee this policy will cloud transparency of the people's business.
City Council members should be drectly involved with legislative actions that "may" involve city residents. Other governmental agencies offer legislative information (CVAG/LAFCO and other undesirable Special Districts and of course the many different associations for example) plus the citys already contracted lobbyists.
Community priorities would be that city government be trustworthy and accountable to it's residents.
8) Agenda Item: 8. (Non -Agenda public comment)
Travel through the city has been repeatedly demonstrated to be overly manipulated with it's traffic signals. The orchestrated slowing and stopping of vehicular traffic within the citys boundaries continues to be recognized and recorded. It's recommended to abandon the motivation to potentially cause impatience drivers to consider unlawful actions that may cause dangers to other drivers and pedestrians.
Please consider allowing city of Rancho Mirage employees (administrators) to help keep sidewalks and streets clean of debris while they are walking around city hall property and surrounding locations. It's clear that the city has been neglected (uncollected TRASH) sense selected Individuals (Public Works service workers) were terminated to help fund the newly created assistance city manager position and other administrative spending.
Please don't take any futher reprisal actions against my private property or person for reporting this true and accurate summary of concerns and opinions.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson 37043 Ferber Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270 [email protected]
Cc: