From:  Benoit,  John  [mailto:jjbenoit@rcbos.org]     Sent:  Wednesday,  May  06,  2015  2:43  PM   To:  'greg@gregpettis.com';  'stephenpougnet@gmail.com';  'sahernan33@gmail.com';   'asanchez@cityofdhs.org';  'tpeabody@indianwells.com';  'doug@hansonco.com';   'linda.evans@tenethealth.com';  'JHarnik@dc.rr.com';  'Linda  Evans  (levans@la-­‐quinta.org)'   Cc:  '  (Gdanahobart@aol.com)'   Subject:  CVLink     Dear  Mayors;     Let  me  start  by  affirming  that  I  believe  CVLink  holds  great  promise  as  a  wonderful  new  tourist  attraction,   an  alternate  means  of  non-­‐polluting  transportation,  and  a  healthy  place  for  all  our  valley  residents  and   visitors  to  exercise  and  recreate.  I  also  believe  that  some  of  the  recent  dialogue  regarding  this  project   has  been  uninformed  and  inflammatory,  and  I  want  to  share  some  facts  so  you  have  an  accurate  and   complete  picture.       As  you  may  know,  Mayor  Hobart  has  been  criticizing  CVLink  since  shortly  after  the  publication  of  a   proposed  TOT-­‐based  O&M  funding  formula  in  the  April  3  CVAG  Transportation  agenda.    After  reading   the  agenda,  Mr.  Hobart  called  for  a  closed  session  of  the  Rancho  Mirage  City  Council,  which  then  voted   unanimously  to  oppose  the  CVLink  project.    Mayor  Hobart  immediately  took  notice  of  that  closed-­‐ session  vote  to  the  Desert  Sun  and  others  in  an  apparent  effort  to  build  support  for  the  city’s  position.     I  met  privately  April  22  with  Mr.  Hobart  to  seek  a  better  understanding  of  his  concerns.    He  reiterated   the  points  in  a  May  1  email  (copied  below)  and  added  a  concern  that  he  felt  the  CVLink  Operations  and   Maintenance    (O&M)  budget  had  been  grossly  understated.    He  referenced  the  $6  million+  annual  O&M   cost  for  the  American  River  Parkway  in  Sacramento,  which    he  described  as  a  "26-­‐mile  running,  bike   path."    Mr.  Hobart  said  he  was  not  sure  if  it  was  exactly  an  apples-­‐to-­‐apples  comparison,  but  he  was   nevertheless  very  concerned  about  the  CVLink  O&M  estimates.    A  short  while  later,  I  asked  Mr.  Kirk  to   investigate  this  comparison.     Subsequently,  at  the  CVAG  Executive  Committee,  the  Rancho  Mirage  City  Council,  the  Desert  Sun  and   elsewhere,  Mr.  Hobart  reiterated  the  TOT  objection  while  adding  the  threat  of  potential  catastrophic   and  massive  future  O&M  debt.    He  repeatedly  made  a  direct  comparison  between  CVLink  and   the  American  River  Parkway’s  “over  $6  million  O&M  budget”  for  an  "eight-­‐foot-­‐wide,  26-­‐mile  running,   bike  path."       In  the  May  1  email  to  Mr.  Kirk  Mayor  Hobart  stated  his  desire  to  halt  all  CVLink  work  until  Mr.  Kirk  met   his  demands.    I  understand  that  Mr.  Kirk  has  let  Mayor  Hobart  know  in  writing  that  he  must  take  his   direction  from    the  Executive  Committee  and  cannot  stop  or  slow  work  on  a  specific  project  at  the  whim   of  one  member.    I  also  understand  that  Mr.  Kirk  sent  you  a  brief  follow  up  e-­‐mail  indicating  that  he  did   not  share  Mayor  Hobart's  opinions.    Mr.  Kirk  agreed  that  all  of  Mr.  Hobart’s  concerns  should  be   addressed,  openly  and  publicly,  beginning  with  a  scheduled  review  of  the  O&M  costs.     By  the  way,  there  have  been  countless  public  and  open  meetings  concerning  CVLink,  and  I  look  forward   to  many  more.      There  have  been  no  closed  sessions  at  CVAG  regarding  CVLink.     At  Monday’s  CVAG  Transportation  Committee  meeting,  we  learned  a  great  deal  about   the  American  River  Parkway  during  a  healthy,  two-­‐hour  discussion  about  O&M  costs  for  CV  Link,   including  comparisons  to  other  similar  projects  and  to  one  very  dissimilar  project.         We  learned  the  American  River  Parkway  is  actually  a  complete  park  system  spread  over  4,900  acres  and   bears  very  little  resemblance  to  CVLink.    It  includes  a  river  with  multiple  public  access  points,  large   landscaped  recreational  facilities,  multiple  restrooms  facilities  and  other  public  areas  which  host  major   local  events.       CVLink's  first  phase  is  a  narrow  48-­‐mile  multi-­‐use  roadway  which  sits  on  fewer  than  100  total  acres,  with   little  to  no  landscaping.    Clearly  it  was  grossly  inaccurate  to  repeatedly  compare  CVLink’s  O&M  cost  to   such  a  massive  park  system.     The  Transportation  meeting  included  a  review  of  how  the  CVLink  O&M  proposed  budget  was   developed.    A  representative  from  the  national  firm  developing  the  plan  outlined  the  hundreds  of   pathways  with  which  they  have  had  years  of  experience  and  how  they  developed  their  O&M  estimate.       We  heard  from  a  La  Quinta  representative  about  the  approximately  $10,000  per  mile  they  spend   annually  (exclusive  of  landscape  maintenance)  to  maintain  their  2.5-­‐mile  Bear  Creek  biking  path,  which   is  a  concrete  path,  narrower  than  but  similar  to  CVLink.    The  representative  said  the  city  and  the  La   Quinta  Resort  cherish  this  amenity  which  is  one  of  the  most  popular,  well-­‐used  amenities  in  the   city.    They  advised  it  that  DOES  NOT  REQUIRE  special  security,  extra  public  employees,  etc.  to  “operate.”     The  Riverside  County  Parks  Director  gave  a  presentation  about  the  Santa  Ana  River  Trail,  which  is   essentially  a  bike  and  pedestrian  roadway  without  much  landscaping.    He  indicated  that  the  Santa  Ana   River  trail  is  being  maintained  for  far  less  than  the  proposed  CVLink  O&M  budget  provides,  and  the   minimal  expenses  are  covered  by  the  park  system’s  general  maintenance  budget.       After  hearing  all  of  the  above,  I  believe  CVLink's  14-­‐foot-­‐wide  cement  roadway,  and  adjoining  jogging   walking  path,  will  actually  cost  closer  to  the  $10,000  spent  per  mile  annually  on  La  Quinta’s  similar   project.    Consequently,  I  agree  with  each  of  the  presenters,  that  the  estimated  $36,0000  per  mile  cost   provided  for  in  the  proposed  CVLink  O&M  budget  is  more  than  adequate  and  perhaps  too  high.     There  was  further  discussion  regarding  the  use  of  volunteers  and  “adopt-­‐a-­‐highway”  type  initiatives  to   further  lower  the  estimated  O&M  costs.    I  believe  the  Coachella  Valley’s  potential  for  recruiting   volunteers  to  help  in  this  endeavor  is  enormous  and  could  easily  result  in  the  elimination  of  more  than   $500,000  of  the  $1.6  million  estimated  CVLink  O&M  budget.     Building  roadways  is  expensive,  maintaining  them  is  far  less  expensive.    But  doing  so  periodically  is   critical  so  you  don’t  have  to  fix  major  problems  later.    We  need  a  reasonable  budget  and  plan  to   maintain  CVLink.         We  should  keep  in  mind  that  with  CVLink  we  are  bringing  tens  of  millions  of  dollars,  and  many   construction  jobs,  into  our  economy  to  create  a  wonderful  new  amenity.    I  don’t  support  stopping  work   on  the  project.    I  support  continuing  with  an  open,  public  process  to  resolve  any  differences.    I  sincerely   hope  that  we  can  have  a  civil,  informed  and  rational  public  discussion  regarding  all  of  this  at  future   CVAG  meetings.     This  is  intended  as  one-­‐way  communication  to  each  of  you.    I  wanted  to  share  my  observations  but   understand  that  due  to  Brown  Act  requirements,  a  majority  of  us  should  not  engage  in  a  back-­‐and-­‐forth   discussion.    I  look  forward  to  working  with  you  publicly  to  achieve  our  common  objectives.         John  J  Benoit   Riverside  County  Supervisor,  4th  District     73710  Fred  Waring  Drive,  Palm  Desert,  CA    92260-­‐2574   760-­‐863-­‐8211    JJBenoit@rcbos.org      www.RivCo4.org       _____________________________________________________________________________________     From:  Gdanahobart@aol.com  [mailto:Gdanahobart@aol.com]     Sent:  Saturday,  June  20,  2015  1:56  PM   To:  shenry@cathedralcity.gov;  greg@gregpettis.com;  jaguilar@cathedralcity.gov;   skaplan@cathedralcity.gov;  mcarnevale@cathedralcity.gov;  shernandez@coachella.org;   emartinez@coachella.org;  mperez@coachella.org;  bsanchez@coachella.org;  mzepeda@coachella.org;   asanchez@cityofdhs.org;  rbetts@cityofdhs.org;  smatas@cityofdhs.org;  jmckee@cityofdhs.org;   jpye@cityofdhs.org;  tpeabody@indianwells.com;  dreed@indianwells.com;  rbalocco@indianwells.com;   dhanson@indianwells.com;  temertens@indianwells.com;  lramoswatson@indio.org;  gmiller@indio.org;   eholmesinindio@gmail.com;  mwilson@indio.org;  tstrange@indio.org;  levans@la-­‐quinta.org;   kristyforlaquinta@gmail.com;  losborne@la-­‐quinta.org;  jpena@la-­‐quinta.org;  rradi@la-­‐quinta.org;   smwebe@cityofpalmdesert.org;  rspiegel@cityofpalmdesert.org;  jstanley@cityofpalmdesert.org;   sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org;  vtanner@cityofpalmdesert.org;  Steve  Pougnet;  Ginny  Foat;  Chris   Mills;  Paul  Lewin;  Rick  Hutcheson;  JHarnik@dc.rr.com   Subject:  Fwd:  Moving  Forward  with  Mayor  Henry's  motion.     PLEASE  DO  NOT  RESPOND  TO  "ALL"  NOR  TO  ME  INDIVIDUALLY     Dear  All:     The  Rancho  Mirage  City  Manager  sent  the  following  email  (with  attachment)  to  Tom  Kirk,  Executive   Director  of  CVAG.  The  email  and  the  attachment  speak  for  themselves,  but  generally  speaking  I  think  we   all  want  to  get  relevant  information  concerning  future  costs  of  the  Operations  and  Maintenance  when   the  project  is  completed.       The  March  2015  CV  Link  Master  Plan  (at  p.15)  and  the  August  2014  Draft  Master  Plan  both  outline  how   the  projected  total  comes  to  $1,616,900  in  the  first  full  year  of  operation.    Rancho  Mirage  believes  there   is  a  good  chance  actual  numbers  may  exceed  the  $1.6  million  figure  that  the  CV  Link  experts  project,  but   it  will  take  further  analysis  before  that  can  be  determined.     I  am  sure  we  all  agree  that  before  we  can  authorize  CVAG  spending  $100  million  to  design  and  construct   this  project  we  have  to  be  absolutely  certain  that  the  future  O&M  expenses  are  something  we  can   collectively  handle.  Cathedral  City's  motion  moves  us  closer  to  that  objective.     Best  personal  regards.     Dana  Hobart   Mayor,  City  of  Rancho  Mirage       _____________________________________________________________________________________     From:  Gdanahobart@aol.com  [mailto:Gdanahobart@aol.com]     Sent:  Thursday,  June  25,  2015  9:04  PM   To:  shenry@cathedralcity.gov;  greg@gregpettis.com;  jaguilar@cathedralcity.gov;   skaplan@cathedralcity.gov;  mcarnevale@cathedralcity.gov;  shernandez@coachella.org;   emartinez@coachella.org;  vmperez@coachella.org;  bsanchez@coachella.org;  mzepeda@coachella.org;   asanchez@cityofdhs.org;  rbetts@cityofdhs.org;  smatas@cityofdhs.org;  joemckeedhs@yahoo.com;   jpye@cityofdhs.org;  tpeabody@indianwells.com;  dreed@indianwells.com;  rbalocco@indianwells.com;   dhanson@indianwells.com;  temertens@indianwells.com;  lramoswatson@indio.org;  gmiller@indio.org;   eholmesinindio@gmail.com;  mwilson@indio.org;  tstrange@indio.org;  levans@la-­‐quinta.org;   kristyforlaquinta@gmail.com;  losborne@la-­‐quinta.org;  jpena@la-­‐quinta.org;  rradi@la-­‐quinta.org;   smwebe@cityofpalmdesert.org;  rspiegel@cityofpalmdesert.org;  JHarnik@dc.rr.com;   sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org;  vtanner@cityofpalmdesert.org;  Steve  Pougnet;  Ginny  Foat;  Chris   Mills;  Paul  Lewin;  Rick  Hutcheson   Subject:  Executive  Committee  Vote  Re  Measure  A  Funds  for  CV  Link     PLEASE  DO  NOT  RESPOND  TO  THIS  EMAIL  TO  ALL  OR  TO  ME     Dear  Fellow  Council  Members:     On  the  June  29th  CVAG  Executive  Committee  Agenda,  Rancho  Mirage  has  placed  a  Motion  to  authorize   retaining  an  outside,  independent  law  firm  from  a  nearby  major  metropolitan  city  to  give  us  an  objective   opinion  regarding  the  legality  of  using  Measure  A  funds  for  CV  Link  construction  or  operations  and/or   maintenance  ─  which  is  currently  the  CVAG  plan.  (RM  previously  withdrew  this  motion  because  we  had   not  yet  read  the  BB&K  opinion,  and  believed  we  should  read  it  to  see  if  an  independent  legal  opinion   was  still  needed.)     The  CV  Link’s  Alta  Planning  &  Design  team  projected  that  CV  Link’s  operations  and  maintenance  costs   would  start  a  shade  above  $1.6  million  dollars  in  the  first  full  year  of  use.  (See  p.15  in  the  March  2015   Master  Plan.)  They  calculated  this  to  be  $33,600  per  mile.  In  the  same  Master  Plan  we  were  told   “OPERATIONS  AND  MAINTENANCE  WILL  NOT  REQUIRE  LOCAL  FUNDING,”  which  is  what  the  cities  had   been  told  for  three  years.  This  promise  has  been  abandoned  completely  with  nobody  taking   responsibility  for  this  catastrophic  planning  failure.     Who  will  pay  this  $1.6  million  in  O&M  expenses  every  year  for  the  coming  decades?    Nine  cities,  that’s   who.  Mr.  Kirk’s  substitute  plan  is  to  use  a  sizable  portion  of  each  city’s  TOT  revenues.  However,  Mr.  Kirk   and  his  team  soften  the  blow  by  telling  us  that  “Measure  A  sales  tax  revenues  could  fund  over  40%  of  the   overall  CV  Link  operations  and  maintenance  budget.”  (Master  Plan,  p.155).         If  Tom  Kirk  deals  with  this  current    Rancho  Mirage  motion  like  he  did  our  City’s  four  motions  on  the  June   1,  2015,  Executive  Committee  agenda,  you  will  again  read  his  reasons  why  we  should  not  be  guided  by   an  independent  attorney  before  you  read  the  Rancho  Mirage  presentation  of  why  we  should.   Everywhere  in  the  American  judicial  and  parliamentary  procedural  systems  the  party  with  the  burden  of   convincing  always  presents  first.  That  process  was  trashed  in  CVAG’s  Executive  Committee,  with  the   victim  being  honest  dialog.     You  have  already  received  the  Best  Best  &  Krieger  legal  brief.  Attached  is  the  legal  brief  prepared  by  the   Law  Offices  of  Steve  Quintanilla.  If  you  take  the  time  to  read  it  I  believe  it  will  unsettle  you  about  CVAG’s   planned  grab  for  Measure  A  funds  for  the  CV  Link.       In  my  view  the  Best  Best  and  Krieger  brief  does  its  best  to  identify  a  “strong  argument”  to  support  using   Measure  A  funds,  but  in  my  legal  opinion  (JD  USC  School  of  Law,  1963)  it  is  not  strong  enough  to  give  us   (the  cities)  confidence  that  a  court  would  eventually  agree  with  that  argument.  If  a  court  strikes  down   this  potential  misuse  of  Measure  A  Funds,  you  can  be  sure  that  the  loss  of  those  funds  will  be  covered   by  the  only  other  possible  source  –  your  city  and  mine.  (Any  taxpayer  would  likely  have  standing  to   challenge  such  use  of  Measure  A  funds,  and  if  they  prevail  would  likely  receive  an  Order  to  recover  their   attorney  fees.)     The  reliance  of  CVAG  on  BB&K,  the  general  counsel  for  RCTC,  is  somewhat  strange.  When  asked  about   using  Measure  A  funds  for  maintenance  of  the  CV  Link,  this  is  what  BB&K  attorney  Beverly  Bradshaw   said  in  an  email  dated  November  22,  2011:                                                      “As  for  whether  CVAG  can  use  Measure  A  revenues  to  maintain                                                    the  proposed  route  in  the  future,  it  does  not  appear  that  this  is                                                  permitted.  Measure  A  revenues  may  only  be  used  for  capital     improvements  of  regional  roads.  We  have  never  interpreted  the   Plan  as  allowing  Measure  A  regional  highway  or  regional  road   funds  to  be  used  for  the  operation  or  maintenance  of  regional  roads.”     The  attached  legal  brief  does  not  qualify  as  being  from  an  “outside  independent  law  firm”  any  more   than  Best  Best  and  Krieger  does.  They  are  general  counsel  for  Riverside  County  Transportation   Committee.  The  Quintanilla  law  firm  represents  the  City  of  Rancho  Mirage.  You  might  think  that  RM  can   afford  to  retain  an  independent  outside  law  firm.  However,  there  is  no  point  for  Rancho  Mirage  to  do  so   because  it  would  never  be  accepted  as  truly  independent.    I  urge  you  to  read  it  before  Monday’s   meeting.       The  opinions  stated  in  the  Quintanilla  brief  address  the  importance  of  not  counting  on  Measure  A  funds   to  relieve  what  will  otherwise  become  the  cities’  burden  to  carry  if  Measure  A  funds  are  unavailable.   Again,  why  is  Mr.  Kirk  so  adamantly  opposed  to  getting  an  independent  analysis?     Even  if  a  court  did  hold  that  some  Measure  A  funds  could  be  used  for  some  aspect  of  CV  Link,  is  this   what  we  consider  responsible  fiscal  policy?  Those  monies  were  intended  for  the  247  dilapidated  and   dangerous  road  projects  in  varying  states  of  considerable  disrepair  that  are  currently  on  the  TPPS  list.   That  is  what  has  historically  qualified  roadways  for  Measure  A  funding  in  the  Coachella  Valley.  Because   Mr.  Kirk  may  be  able  to  convince  6-­‐votes  out  of  the  Executive  Committee  to  designate  the  CV  Link  an   “arterial  roadway”  and  somehow  leap  to  the  front  of  the  TPPS  priority  money  line,  that  does  not    justify   such  conduct.     Using  Measure  A  funds  for  the  CV  Link  is  an  issue  that  sooner  or  later  every  city  council  should  consider   and  vote  on  ─  before  any  Executive  Committee  vote.  The  system  we  are  operating  under  allows  6  votes   out  of  the  54  valley  wide  council  members  to  control  the  outcome  of  this  gigantic  $100  million  project   and  millions  upon  millions  of  dollars  in  future  operations  and  maintenance  expenses.  Mr.  Kirk  wants  you   to  reject  hiring  an  independent  law  firm.    Read  the  Quintanilla  law  firm  opinion  attached  below.  It  will   provide  insight  concerning  what  Mr.  Kirk  fears.     Best  personal  regards.   Dana  Hobart   Mayor,  Rancho  Mirage     PS:  The  attorney-­‐client  privilege  attached  to  the  Quintanilla  legal  opinion  has  been  waived  by  our  city   manager,  Randy  Bynder.       _____________________________________________________________________________________     From:  Michael  Wilson  [mailto:mwilson@indio.org]     Sent:  Thursday,  June  25,  2015  11:29  PM   To:  Gdanahobart@aol.com   Cc:  shenry@cathedralcity.gov;  greg@gregpettis.com;  jaguilar@cathedralcity.gov;   skaplan@cathedralcity.gov;  mcarnevale@cathedralcity.gov;  shernandez@coachella.org;   emartinez@coachella.org;  vmperez@coachella.org;  bsanchez@coachella.org;  mzepeda@coachella.org;   asanchez@cityofdhs.org;  rbetts@cityofdhs.org;  smatas@cityofdhs.org;  joemckeedhs@yahoo.com;   jpye@cityofdhs.org;  tpeabody@indianwells.com;  dreed@indianwells.com;  rbalocco@indianwells.com;   dhanson@indianwells.com;  temertens@indianwells.com;  Lupe  Ramos  Watson;  Glenn_Miller;  Elaine   Holmes2;  Troy  Strange;  levans@la-­‐quinta.org;  kristyforlaquinta@gmail.com;  losborne@la-­‐quinta.org;   jpena@la-­‐quinta.org;  rradi@la-­‐quinta.org;  smwebe@cityofpalmdesert.org;   rspiegel@cityofpalmdesert.org;  JHarnik@dc.rr.com;  sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org;   vtanner@cityofpalmdesert.org;  Steve  Pougnet;  Ginny  Foat;  Chris  Mills;  Paul  Lewin;  Rick  Hutcheson   Subject:  Re:  Executive  Committee  Vote  Re  Measure  A  Funds  for  CV  Link      Is  it  just  me  or  are  others  on  this  mail  list  tiring  of  the  continuous  drama  and  personal  attacks  waged   under  the  guise  of  an  O  &  M  argument.  We  have  a  process  and  system  that  has  worked  under  CVAG  for   as  long  as  I  can  remember.  I  have  never  seen  such  a  constant  attack  and  barrage  of   accusations/allegations  by  one  City  in  my  18  years  in  the  organization  as  I  have  seen  over  CV  Link.  Each   City  is  represented  on  CVAG  by  one  representative  of  each  elected  City  Council.  It  is  that  representatives   responsibility  to  share  with  their  elected  colleagues  on  their  Council  the  pertinent  information.  It  is  also   that  representatives  responsibility  to  carry  their  Cities  position  back  to  CVAG  thru  the  various   committees  and  on  the  Executive  Committee.  It  is  a  tried  and  true  system  that  works  and  has  worked   well.  It  is  not  and  never  been  the  process  of  CVAG  to  gain  positions  and  votes  from  every  elected  official   in  the  Valley  for  a  project.  That's  why  we  have  a  representative  form  of  government.  The  CVAG  staff   have  worked  hard,  just  as  each  of  our  City  staffs  have,  and  are  professionals  in  every  way  and  should  be   treated  as  such.  It  is  time  to  stop  the  lawyering  and  so  that  we  can  move  forward  with  the  facts  using   the  process  we  have  always  used.  We  have  almost  a  100  mil.  dollar  project  practically  given  to  us  and   we  are  allowing  $1mil.  to  $1.6mil.  annually  from  all  agencies  valley  wide  combined  to  cause  such  major   disruption.  It's  like  cutting  off  your  nose  to  spite  your  face.  My  last  question  is,  "is  Rancho  Mirage  going   to  pay  for  this  legal  opinion  from  this  major  law  firm?"  RCTC  and  CVAG  have  built  billions  of  dollars  in   projects  Countywide  using  the  legal  findings  and  opinions  of  BB&K.  The  Director  of  RCTC  stood  in  front   of  us  backing  the  legal  opinion  strongly.  It's  time  to  move  on  to  further  the  project.  Should  we   understand  the  O  &  M?  Sure  we  should.  But  before  the  different  committee's  have  even  begun  that   work  RM  started  attacking  the  process  and  findings  that  were  barely  in  draft  mode.  Let's  bring  this   drama  back  under  control  so  that  we  can  methodically  work  through  the  established  CVAG  process  and   direct  this  project  through  to  completion.  If  a  City  doesn't  want  CV  Link  in  their  City,  than  so  be  it.     Michael  Wilson   Council  Member   City  of  Indio   82557  Lordsburg  Dr.   Indio,  Ca.  92203   760-­‐404-­‐7715   Sent  from  my  iPad       _____________________________________________________________________________________     From:  "Benoit,  John"     Date:  June  28,  2015  at  7:08:38  PM  PDT   To:  "Benoit,  John"     Subject:  Intent  of  the  Brown  Act   Friends,   It’s  come  to  my  attention  that  many  of  you  have  received  one  or  more  detailed  emails  from  the  mayor   of  Rancho  Mirage  regarding  his  strongly  held  positions  on  CVLink.    In  general  his  messages  are  related  to   matters  scheduled  for  appropriate  public  discussion  at  CVAG.    I  have  not  directly  received  the  mayor’s   emails,  but  some  of  you  have  passed  several  of  them  along  to  me.    Thanks.     I  have  a  great  deal  of  respect  for  the  Mayor  of  Rancho  Mirage.    I  also  respect  both  the  letter  and  intent   of  the  law,  in  this  case  the,  Brown  Act.    The  clear  intent  of  the  Brown  Act  is  to  insure  that  the  public’s   business  is  conducted  in  full  view  of  the  public.    To  that  end  we  have  collectively  spent  many  hours,  in   many  public  meetings  discussing  all  aspects  of  the  CV  Link  project.    We  will  spend  even  more  time   continuing  to  publically  address  issues  that  are  critical  to  the  planning  process.    These  are  conversations   that  have  attracted  widespread  interest  across  the  Coachella  Valley,  as  witnessed  by  the  100-­‐plus   people  who  crowded  into  two  conference  rooms  for  the  June  1  Executive  Committee  meeting.           However,  there  is  a  CVLink  related  one-­‐way  conversation  going  on  between  the  valley’s  electeds,   completely  out  of  view  of  the  public.    This  occurs  when  one  public  official  repeatedly  sends  forth  his   opinions,  at  great  length  and  in  great  detail,  to  local  electeds  by  email.    Each  of  these  lengthy  statements   have  been  forwarded  to  dozens  of  local  elected  officials,  but  outside  of  the  public’s  view  or  the  public   record.    Each  of  these  emails  includes  the  admonishment  “Please  do  not  respond  by  ‘Reply  All’  or  to  me   directly.”    By  this  clever  and  self-­‐serving  apparent  deference  to  the  Brown  Act  the  author  claims  the   right  to  repeatedly  disseminate  his  opinion,  privately,  to  dozens  of  involved  electeds.    He  then  points  out   that  the  Brown  Act  prohibits  any  one  of  them  from  responding.    How  convenient.                   Projects  that  have  this  type  of  regional  impact  deserve  to  be  debated  in  an  open  and  transparent   fashion.    CVAG  staff  have  worked  diligently  to  address  the  questions  that  Rancho  Mirage  has  raised   about  Measure  A,  O&M  costs  and  the  CVLink  in  general.    We  should  all  demand  that  they  continue  to  do   so  -­‐  and  that  we  all  be  allowed  to  participate  in  any  related  conversation.    These  conversations  should   be  held  in  full  view  of  the  public.    Anything  less  is  a  disservice.     You’ll  note  that  I’m  not  providing  my  own  opinions  on  the  policy  issues  raised  by  Rancho  Mirage.    My   sole  purpose  here  is  to  ask  you  to  not  be  drawn  into  a  one-­‐sided,  out  of  public  view  discourse  on   important  topics  such  as  CVLink.    Let’s  all  demand  that  these  discussions  be  held  in  full  public  view,  as   the  Brown  Act  intended.       Please  feel  free  to  call  or  email  me  with  any  questions,  comments  or  concerns.       Sincerely,     JOHN J BENOIT   Riverside  County  Supervisor,  Fourth  District       Palm  Desert  Office   73710  Fred  Waring  Drive,  Suite  222,  Palm  Desert   760-­‐863-­‐8211,    www.RivCo4.org