Old Las Palmas property owners ask City Council to delay utility assessment hearing

Property owners in Palm Springs’ Old Las Palmas neighborhood asked the City Council on Wednesday to delay an Oct. 28 hearing and ballot count that would decide whether to form districts to bury utility lines.

The council took no action because the issue was not on the agenda. Councilmember Grace Garner asked staff for “a lot more clarity” on residents’ concerns, “especially when you’re hearing from property owners that have already undergrounded their properties and they’re being given these assessments.” She also asked staff to find out the council’s legal options.

In late August, the council preliminarily approved engineering reports for two assessment districts that would bury overhead power, telephone and cable lines in the neighborhood at a combined cost of nearly $10.1 million. Both districts began as owner petitions.

Ballots are weighted by the size of each parcel’s assessment, and a district can be formed if a majority of the weighted ballots returned are not opposed. The hearing and ballot count are set for 5:30 p.m. Oct. 28.

Several speakers who said they own property in District 1 objected, citing assessments ranging from roughly $112,000 to $140,000. Some said they received ballots only in recent weeks and have had too little time to weigh the costs. One said the city told him there is no appeal process.

Owners who said they already paid to put utilities underground questioned why they should share the cost. Others said they are being asked to vote before bond interest rates, early repayment terms, final designs and the cost of connecting individual homes are known.

Patricia Barton, who said she is a senior on a fixed income and has lived in her home for more than 50 years, faces an assessment of $120,437.

“At this stage of my life, I do not have the physical capacity or the financial flexibility to manage a large construction project, or a six-figure assessment,” Barton said.

Speakers also criticized the voting process. One urged the council to require responses from more than half of affected owners or count non-responses as opposed, and to hold a second vote once design is complete and costs are known. Another said holding the ballot count on the same day as the hearing, where concerns can be raised, is backward and unfair.

A land use consultant working with residents argued that state law and Proposition 218 do not allow the city to phase the project, because design details and environmental review would come after the vote.

Mayor Naomi Soto asked whether the hearing must be held Oct. 28. City staff said the council set that date by adopting a resolution of intention, but that the council could give owners more time if it chooses. Because the item was not on Wednesday’s agenda, the council could not change the date that night.

Staff said the hearing must still be listed on the Oct. 28 agenda, even if it is continued, because people may show up. Staff said it has recommended continuances before, with the mayor announcing at the start of the meeting that an item will be continued.

City Manager Scott Stiles said he will ask the city engineer’s office what information can be sent to council members in advance. A full presentation and staff report will be posted a week before the hearing, he said.

---