Residents raise concerns about age‑restricted PUD compliance and a holiday water office closure at Victorville council meeting

Three residents spoke during public comment on Jan. 21, raising two distinct concerns: an allegation that a Planned Unit Development (PUD 489, Ordinance 1354, 1989) had not been operated as a 55‑and‑older community, and complaints about the Victorville Water Department’s office closure over the holiday period and related customer-service problems.

Catalina Alexandreski, who identified herself as a bioenvironmental engineer and a disabled U.S. Air Force veteran and said she lives at 2445 Highgate Avenue, told the council she believes PUD 489 (Ordinance 1354, 1989) was established as a 55‑plus community but was never properly enforced. Alexandreski said the developer failed to set up a homeowners association or governance that would verify age eligibility; she asserted the community contains residents younger than 55 and said she raised the issue after observing alleged “weaponization” of code enforcement against neighbors. Alexandreski asked the city to address the PUD’s enforcement and compliance with age-restricted provisions and with HUD’s rules on housing for older persons (Fair Housing Act/related HUD requirements), stating the development never functioned as a legally managed 55+ community.

Council staff asked Alexandreski to provide contact information so staff could follow up; the clerk asked whether she had left contact details with the city clerk.

Two other speakers, Linda Brown and Edith Stinnett, described problems with the Water Department over the Christmas period. Brown said the water office was closed for two weeks and that she had not received notice; when she returned after the holiday she counted approximately 59 people waiting to pay bills and said she was charged a late fee because she missed the payment deadline. Brown recommended an improved phone and online payment system and suggested clearer public notice when offices close.

Stinnett, who said she has lived in Victorville for 20 years, reported a similar experience: long lines at the utility office during the holiday period and what she said were high late fees for delinquent bills. She told the council she was surprised at both the closure and the lack of notice and said she would attend future meetings to pursue the issue further.

City staff follow-up: City staff (Finance Director Carmen Cooney) was identified in the meeting as available to speak with Brown after the meeting to explain online payment options and address account questions. The clerk asked Alexandreski to provide contact information for staff follow-up on the PUD complaint. The speakers’ statements were recorded during the public-comment portion of the Jan. 21 meeting; the council did not take action on those items during the session.

Why it matters: The PUD complaint raises legal and housing-access questions for an age‑restricted development; the water-office complaints raise customer-service and operational-notice issues for a municipal utility. Both items were presented as public comments and require staff follow-up to determine next steps or potential enforcement action.