HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2AFrom:Jeffrey Bernstein
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 1:45:42 PM
Jeffrey Bernstein
Councilmember
City of Palm Springs
cell: 442-305-9942
Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Ron deHarte <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>; Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>; David Ready <David.Ready@palmspringsca.gov>; Grace Garner
<Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>; Naomi Soto <Naomi.Soto@palmspringsca.gov>; Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hello Kristopher,
I attended Ron deHArte's town hall meeting and spoke about my endeavor to obtain info from the City re the equity and necessity of the Mello Roos tax. He told me to "keep after it" so
this is what I am doing. You stated in your email dated 2/10/2025 that "I have received one quote for performing the requested fiscal impact study, another quote is on the way, and will be
obtaining a third quote hopefully in the next couple of weeks. After the third quote is received, a determination will be made on the need to move forward with a study." Will you please share the
status of this process?
In the meantime, I placed a records request in April for "SPECIFIED INFORMATION concerning the use of the proceeds from 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)." I detail my
unpacking of the two documents I received in the following 5/3 Nextdoor post:
Mello Roos tax update I received a copy of an Excel spreadsheet labeled PRR Request for CFD 2005 recently after filing a public records request w/the City for specific
expenditures for this tax. It indicated the amount collected in 2023, 2024 and 2025 YTD. 2024 amt. was $1,248,678.48. (CFD 2007 $71,917.21) What does the CFD 2007 fund pay
for? Accompanying the spreadsheet was a note: The CFD 2005 fund pays for 1 full time Police Officer and 1 full time firefighter and all of their associated benefits. In addition, the
fund pays a consultant fee to prepare all the necessary documentation to provide the County Assessor in order for them to assess the property tax. The consultant also prepares
the annual reporting requirements of the CFD (Community Facilities District). The line item expense for 1 PD $394,506.07. 1 FD $311,291.59. Accompanying are line item
expenses for "associated benefits" PERS, insurance, workers comp., etc. The "net income" amt. at the bottom of the column is $657,860.53. I'm not sure what this amount refers
to. Addressing solely the CFD 2005, there are 2,851 active parcels being taxed (62% single family residential [$500 yearly] and 24% multi-family), some since its inception. And
new parcels have been annexed since, into both. I was under the impression that the parcels were confined to Dists. 1 and 2, but after plugging in some of the parcel #'s, they
appear to be all over town. Ex., Paloma, Sundial, Deauville, Icon, to name a few. The City currently wants to annex Sienna and Serena Park developments. My inclination is that
the City should fold the two positions into the tent and end the existing CFD tentacles. If I am overlooking a good reason to not do that, I would like to hear it.
The more I go into the weeds, the more questions crop up. What does CFD 2007 pay for? What does the "net income" amount of $657,860.53 represent? I don't see an amount for
the consultant's services.
I also received a copy of the Annual Financial Statement, but that doesn't contain specific information re how the funds are spent.
The more I perform research, the more I believe this tax may be discriminatory at this point in time, that it may make sense to end the format of the fund.
It will be a year come July since I started this email thread. Do you think it is possible for me to get the answers I have asked for since?
Thank you.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 1:45 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>, Ron deHarte <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>, Jeffrey Bernstein <jeffrey.bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>,
<grace.garner@palmspringscity.gov>, <naomi.soto@palmspringscity.gov>, <david.reedy@plamspringscity.gov>
Hello,
I am still awaiting some form of, in my opinion, long overdue fiscal analysis and/or accounting of how the yearly current Mello-Roos tax dollars have been spent. The yearly Analysis
Report for the existing CFD's only provides the dollar amount collected from parcel owners in Palm Springs, but does not provide specifics on how the money collected was spent
other than non-specifically in the way of checked boxes for fire and police services.
In a 12/ /2024 email to me, Mr. Mooney stated: "The City’s annual audit will be completed in a few weeks (has to be done by the end of the year) and I will send you the results from the CFD
when I have the final copy from our Auditors. As far as the fiscal impact study, I will look into that after the first of the year when our Audit is complete and more time is available."
05/14/2025
Public Comment
Item 2A
Does the City's annual audit "results from the CFD" contain specifics re what the tax dollars collected were spent on and if so, may I please obtain this information?
Senate Bill 165: Filed with the Secretary of State on September 19, 2000, it enacted the Local Agency
Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (the “Act”). The Act requires that any local special tax or local bond measure subject to voter approval contain a statement indicating the specific purposes of the
special tax, require that the proceeds of the special tax be applied to those purposes, require the creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited, and require an annual report
containing SPECIFIED INFORMATION concerning the use of the proceeds.
Thank you for your response to my long outstanding questions surrounding the transparency of how my tax dollars are being spent,
Dianne Nezgoda
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 2:45 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Councilmembers,
I am still waiting for a response from you. In the meantime, I note that the City Council Meeting agenda tonight contains recommendations to annex new territories into CFD's,
however there is no staff report accompanying these agenda items so I am curious if the Council is fully aware of what they entail and what the genesis is for these recommendations
in light of the fact that there has not been fiscal impact analysis performed on the existing ones. I think it would behoove the Council to be fully educated on the concept of Mello-
Roos levies, their financial objectives, their audit maintenance and the necessity and equity of the existing ones.
In a previous communication I stated that I saw a dollar amount of expenses in the last Analysis Report that was "filed," but no accounting for what that amount was expensed for.
Before Council members vote to approve these annexations, I would hope they ask for an accounting of the existing 20 and 18-year-old CFD's fiscal objectives before collecting
more money from residents under this taxation format.
If nothing else, a time frame of a little over a month to hold a public hearing re these financially impactful resolutions to property owners seems hardly adequate.
Dianne Nezgoda
F.
APPROVE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAPS TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 2007-1 (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 4, LATITUDE 61, TRACT #38776
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY INTO A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2007-1 (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES), ANNEXATION NO. 4,
LATITUDE 61, TRACT #38776.”
2. Set the public hearing for 5:30 p.m. on May 14, 2025, for public comment and the filing of written protest by any property owner regarding the
annexation of territory to CFD 2007-1, the levy of a special tax for public safety services, and a special landowner election.
G. APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAPS TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES), ANNEXATION NO. 27, SIENA, TRACT MAP NO. 38846
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY INTO A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1, (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES), ANNEXATION NO. 27,
SIENA, TRACT MAP NO. 38846.”
2. Set the public hearing for 5:30 p.m. on May 14, 2025, for public comment and for the filing of written protest by any property owner regarding
the annexation of territory to CFD 2005-1, the levy of a special tax for public safety services, and a special landowner election.
H. APPROVE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAPS TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 28, SERENA PARK, TRACT MAP NUMBERS 39025, 36691-1, 36691-
2, 36691-3, 36691-4, 36691-5, 36691-6, AND 36691
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY INTO A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1, (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES), ANNEXATION NO. 28,
TRACT MAP NUMBERS 39025, 36691-1, 36691-2, 36691-3, 36691-4, 36691-5, 36691-6, AND 36691.”
2. Set the public hearing for 5:30 p.m. on May 14, 2025, for public comment and for the filing of written protest by any property owner regarding
the annexation of territory to CFD 2005-1, the levy of a special tax for public safety services, and a special landowner election.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 7:46 AM Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Good Morning Dianne,
The consent agenda item for this Thursday’s Council meeting is just the annual report prepared by our consultants, this is not the fiscal impact study you are requesting.
I have received one quote for performing the requested fiscal impact study, another quote is on the way, and will be obtaining a third quote hopefully in the next couple of weeks. After the third
quote is received, a determination will be made on the need to move forward with a study.
Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.
Kris
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:54 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>; Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>; Ron deHarte <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
05/14/2025
Public Comment
Item 2A
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Or to rephrase, is the Council going to reexamine the necessity for the continuance of the Special Tax?
TERM OF SPECIAL TAX Every Five years after the establishment of the District, the City Council may reexamine, if deemed necessary by City Council, the necessity of the
continuance of the Special Tax through the preparation of a Fiscal Impact Analysis, otherwise the Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 4:34 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kristopher,
Do you have an update for me? I see the matter is on the 2/13 City Council agenda. May I please know the outcome of the FIS? Is "receive and file" the extent of your
recommendation to the Council regarding the ongoing supplemental taxation of parcels in the 2005 and 2007 CFD's for fire and police services? Shall the Council consider the
equity of this taxation in relation to pre-2005 development, existing CFD development and ongoing development? Wasn't there a CFD annexation in 2015 and if so, how does
that factor into the metric equation of tax dollars per parcel throughout the City for safety services?
Thank you,
Dianne Nezgoda
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:23 PM Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Hi Dianne,
The City’s annual audit will be completed in a few weeks (has to be done by the end of the year) and I will send you the results from the CFD when I have the final copy from our Auditors.
As far as the fiscal impact study, I will look into that after the first of the year when our Audit is complete and more time is available.
Thank you for your patience.
Kris
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 2:12 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>; Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
My neighbor told me there was going to be a Dist. mtg. 12/11 whichIthoughtwas odd since there was one not that long ago. I just checked theCity calendar and there isn't one
scheduled. In light of fthis, I am requesting your direct response re the accounting.
Thank you.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:06 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
And it's been nearly six months since Scott Stiles asked you to assist me with this.
I intend to attend the District 2 meeting on 12/11 and ask Mayor Bernstein for a progress report. There are those of us
who are in a CFD in his District who would like an accounting of the yearly Mello-Roos tax we are paying.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:13 AM <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
It’s been a month since you said you would keep me updated. Do you have an update for me? Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2024, at 8:03 PM, Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Thank you Dianne. We will keep you updated for sure.
Kris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2024, at 4:40 PM, Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
ADDENDA
I believe my property was annexed on 2015 which is why I could not find it identified in the 2005 and 2007 annexation maps.
Further to my point re my surprise at your suggestion of the tax potentially being raised, I was thinking along the lines of the tax being
sunseted prompted by this language:
H. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX Every Five years after the establishment of the District, the City Council may reexamine, if deemed necessary by City
Council, the necessity of the continuance of the Special Tax through the preparation of a Fiscal Impact Analysis, otherwise the Special Tax shall
be levied in perpetuity.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 4:18 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kris,
I am aware of this report. It states that a Fiscal Impact Analysis that was prepared earlier in the year by the City' s consultant, MuniFinancial,
however I do not see it attached to the Report. The Report notes that, "This analysis indicates that the tax rate needed to support public safety
services is: ( 1) $ 350 per unit for Developed Single- Family Residence; ( 2) $ 295 per unit for Developed Multi-Family Residence; ( 3) $ 250 per lot
05/14/2025
Public Comment
Item 2A
for Entitled Property; and ( 4) $ 100 per parcel for Undeveloped Property which is less than '/ of an acre and $ 500 per acre for all other
Undeveloped Property. The actual tax rate, method of apportionment and manner of collection of the special tax is set forth in the attached
Ordinance ( Exhibit " D") authorizing the levy of the special tax." It is my understanding that per the attached Table 1, Maximum Special Tax for
Developed Property, Community Facilities District No.2005-1 (Public Safety Services) that the Maximum Special Tax per unit cannot
exceed $500 annually. (See attached.)
I am aware of the additional developments annexed into the CFD since its inception in 2005. This occurred in 2007. I am curious how this
impacts the results of a new FIA possibly resulting in increased costs that would warrant a recommendation to the City to raise the assessment.
Haven't those developments been taxed since then? Ironically, I can't find my property identified in the eight developments annexed in2005 nor
the list of properties annexed in2007.
My intent for a new FIA was more along the lines of considering its relevance and equity. Have any new developments been annexed into the
CFD since 2007? Shouldn't they be? Is there any overlapping of the Mello-Roos tax and Measure J contributions to safety services? Our mayor
posted on Nextdoor his advocacy for Measure J, mentioning services it paid for giving examples like the Relocation of Fire Station 1 and new Fire
Tower Training Facility. I think those of us who pay the Mello-Roos tax deserve an accounting of how our tax dollars have been spent since
2005.
I realize you are busy, but I also want to impress upon you that I have been pursuing answers to my questions for some time.
Thank you,
Dianne
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 7:57 AM Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Good Morning Dianne, see page 41 of the attached staff report for the last fiscal impact analysis of CFD – 2005. A few items:
I have a few questions for the City Attorney’s office on development of a fiscal impact analysis.
There are a lot of things on my plate, while this remains on my list of “things to do”, it may take some time to get to it.
There have been several developments annexed into the CFD since inception in 2005. It’s quite possible a new FIA would result in increased
costs that would warrant a recommendation to the City to raise the assessment. I’m not saying this would happen, or the Council would
recommend it, just wanted you to be aware it is a possibility.
Thanks,
Kris
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hi Kris,
Any updates? In light of the charges against Rostovsky (Queer Works) motivating the City to implement financial audits of City funded
programs, I perceive the
Mello-Roos tax as a "funded program," if you will, by a select number of residents, And that it warrants an FIA, especially in light of the fact
that there has not been
one performed since the 2005 original, which you inform me has not been located.
Therefore, I would like to see one performed to determine the M-R tax relevance, equity and whether or not it would be appropriate to sunset it
at this point in time.
I would like justification for my $500 yearly payment of this tax.
Thanks,
Dianne
P.S. I have cc'd Mayor Bernstein on this email as he is my Council Member and I broached this subject with him a year ago.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 4:30 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kris,
Thank you for your continued efforts. I am hopeful that the 2005 FIA will turn up. I would imagine it would be instrumental for
comparison purposes to a new one, even with a large gap in time between them?
Dianne
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 3:59 PM Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Hi Dianne, thanks for sending. We have found a ton of references in our files to the FIA completed in 2005, but haven’t been able to locate the
05/14/2025
Public Comment
Item 2A
specific document. That being said, I will look into the FIA and see what it would take, and how much it would cost, for the City to conduct another
one.
Thanks,
Kris
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:21 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hi,
Any movement? Will the City be performing a FIA? I posted on NextDoor about my inquiry re this matter and got positive responses
including thanks for doing so. I get that other residents who are paying the Mello-Roos tax are interested in a FIA as it has been 19 years
since the original one was performed.
Thank you,
Dianne Nezgoda
P.S. Did you know that District 5 Council candidate David Reedy was the City Manager in 2005 when the tax went into effect? It would be
interesting to hear his perspective on this.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:47 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kris,
Below is a link to a 2015 Staff Report re APPROVE RESOLUTIONS OF INTENTION AND PROPOSED FROM: BY: BOUNDARY MAPS TO
ANNEX TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 9, ANNEXATION
NO. 10, ANNEXATION NO. 11, AND ANNEXATION NO. 12:
When I started to type this email I went wait, a 2005 tax was approved in 2015? Then I read the subject description and saw that new
territories were annexed into existing CFD's. At least, that is how I interpreted it.
https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/35386/635684388291370000
Here's a link to the 2007 resolution to annex additional property into CFD's. I just found it and haven't had a chance to read it yet.
https://publicportal.palmspringsca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=528708&dbid=0&repo=CityHall-Primary&cr=1
I hope this helps your research into this tax phenomenon. Again, I question it's equity, especially into perpetuity.
Dianne
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 1:10 PM Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Hi Diane, no need to send addresses. You’re correct in your statement that the CFD began in 2005, so it would be any new development that
started after that and annexed into the CFD would be assessed the tax. I’ll send the fiscal impact analysis when I receive it.
Kris
From: Kristopher Mooney
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 12:42 PM
To: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: FW: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
Hi Diane, our City Clerk’s office is still trying to find the fiscal impact analysis. Can you give me your old and new address? I’m checking on the
boundaries of the CFD, it was my understanding that all of Palm Springs City was included so I’m surprised to see that you didn’t have this at
your old address.
Kris
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 6:24 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hello,
Thank you for your response. Some of the background regarding the tax I was aware of. From what you provided me, "The City is to
annex each new development into the CFD when completed and it appears the last developments to be annexed were in 2015." So ostensibly
additional CFD's were created up to 2015? I am only aware of one in 2007.
As a lay person, I am trying to extract the logic behind the tax and I get its basic premise, however I am unsure about the equitable execution of
it. I get that new development requires additional city services like fire and PD personnel, etc., but is the $500 max yearly tax paid into
perpetuity a fair means of funding said services?
I previously lived in a development, 48 @ Arenas, built in 2002-2003 prior to the first CFD. I was not billed for a Mello Roos tax on my property
tax bill. Now I live at 43 @ Racquet Club built in 2007 and am in a CFD and am billed for a 2005 Mello Roo tax. So any new development from
2005 to 2015 built in a CFD is subject to this tax, yet any prior or after not? And what about new developments outside of the CFD's? It appears
05/14/2025
Public Comment
Item 2A
on the surface to me that the subset of people residing in the 2005 and 2007 CFD's may be carrying an inequitable burden of taxation for City
services.
You further stated that, "The fiscal impact analysis was done back in 2005 and I currently have our City Clerk’s office looking for that analysis,
once they locate it, I will forward to you. The City currently doesn’t have any further plans to do another fiscal impact, we’ve been advised that
it probably isn’t necessary, the first one should still apply." I would like to know the reasoning behind your comment that the fiscal impact
performed at the inception of the tax "should still apply" and upon advice "probably isn't necessary." Upon whose advice? Five year intervals
were suggested for review and it has been nineteen years since the tax was imposed and simultaneously had a fiscal impact report
performed.
I will await the copy of the 2005 fiscal analysis to help better inform me in understanding the scope of the tax.
As an aside, may I please know what the City income threshold is for applying for exemption of the tax? My property taxes run in the vicinity of
$10K a year with the $500 tax inclusive. I am a senior on a fixed income and if I am eligible to receive exemption for the tax, it would be a
beneficial savings that I could expend on say my SCE bills. I think it would be helpful to share this exemption availability with the citizens of
Palm Springs now and then.
Thank you,
Dianne
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:11 PM Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Good Afternoon Donna, sorry for the delay, below is the information I have:
CFD (Community Development District0 2005 was established in 2005 to assess a special tax via the property tax methodology to help fund
public safety services (see attached section 5 for a description of services). The City is to annex each new development into the CFD when
completed and it appears the last developments to be annexed were in 2015. The starting tax for fee land was $350 and for allottee land was
$295. Each year, an escalation factor was added and that is how we have reached the max tax of $500. Currently the CFD funds public
safety salary and some contractual services for our consultant to put the tax onto the County tax rolls to be collected. The fiscal impact
analysis was done back in 2005 and I currently have our City Clerk’s office looking for that analysis, once they locate it, I will forward to you.
The City currently doesn’t have any further plans to do another fiscal impact, we’ve been advised that it probably isn’t necessary, the first
one should still apply.
The attached resolution is what was approved by Council and has a lot of useful information in it. Feel free to ask more questions or do a
public records request to the City Clerk’s office.
Hope this helps,
Kris
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc: Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Thank you Mr. Mooney. I know you are busy so if you need more time, that's fine. I appreciate your response that you are reviewing
my query.
Dianne Nezgoda
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 2:35 PM Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov> wrote:
Hi Dianne, I’m Kris Mooney, the Finance Director for the City, I am working a response and should have one for you by tomorrow evening.
Thanks,
Kris
From: Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 2:03 PM
To: Kristopher Mooney <Kristopher.Mooney@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: RE: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
Maybe you can help me with a short response to her.
<image001.png>
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 12:10 PM
To: Scott Stiles <Scott.Stiles@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Re: 68-2636-FC CFD 2005-1 Palm Springs (Mello Roos tax)
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hello,
I am following up on my email sent to you on 7/8/2024 re Mello Roos tax relevance for a response.
Thank you,
Dianne Nezgoda
djnezgoda@gmail.com
284 Cheryl Dr.
Palm Springs
05/14/2025
Public Comment
Item 2A
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 1:53 PM Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Mr. Styles,
My name is Dianne Nezgoda and I reside at 284 Cheryl Drive in Palm Springs. I purchased this residence
on June 1, 2023. Upon reviewing my property tax bill I
noticed a $500 charge for the subject line matter on my bill. I have attempted to learn about the genesis
and relevance of this charge via Internet research and reaching out to City staff (ex., Mayor Bernstein) and
some prominent residents. A City staff person referred me to SCI Consulting Group. I spoke to Brandon
Van Leuven who informed me they only secure the funds acquired from the tax and that any questions
about the tax needed to be addressed by the City.
As new developments are mandated to be annexed into the Community Facilities District, are the cumulative proceeds satisfying thecriteria of the vague, in my opinion, concept "to assist in the financing of police, fire and life safety services to new residentialdevelopment"? Because the following language acknowledges a mechanism for the reexamination of said relevancy: H. TERM OF SPECIALTAX Every Five years after the establishment of the District, the City Council may reexamine, if deemed necessary by City Council, thenecessity of the continuance of the Special Tax through the preparation of a Fiscal Impact Analysis, otherwise the Special Tax shall be leviedin perpetuity. I suppose a starting point would be to find out if and when a Fiscal Impact Analysis has been performed, and if so, what werethe results.
I think information from any Fiscal Impact Analysis of the tax would be timely in concert with the analysis of the impact of Measure J'scontributions to city services.
Thank you,
Dianne Nezgoda
djnezgoda@gmail.com
284 Cheryl Drive
Palm Springs
<image001.png>
05/14/2025
Public Comment
Item 2A
From:Dianne Nezgoda
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: City Council 5/13/2025 Agenda item
Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 1:31:10 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Please submit the forwarded email as a formal comment submission for tonight's City Council
Meeting.
Thank you,
Dianne Nezgoda
284 Cheryl Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dianne Nezgoda <djnezgoda@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 14, 2025 at 1:17 PM
Subject: City Council 5/13/2025 Agenda item
To: Ron deHarte <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>, Jeffrey Bernstein
<jeffrey.bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>, <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>,
<David.Ready@palmspringsca.gov>, <Naomi.Soto@palmspringsca.gov>
Hello City Council Members,
I submit this email as my statement re the above agenda item. I previously confused the
process of approval of adopting these projects into CFD's, and am reminded that a vote will
take place amongst the landowners of the parcels upon which these projects are built
proceeding your vote on approval. If my assumption is incorrect, please let me know.
I don't recall Latitude 61 being previously recognized in past agendas as a recommended
annexation. I also note that it is to be annexed into 2007 CFD as opposed to the other two into
2005 CFD. I am unclear as to the differentiation, but my larger concern has to do with the
overall concept of continuing the process.
You are aware that I suggest this mechanism for taxing landowners throughout town for
supplemental public safety services may not be an equitable solution to funding public safety.
I will use Latitude 61 as an example. In a Planning Commission Report re the project, an
overview was provided of the scope and number of staff involved providing services for the
whole City. "The Project will also be required through conditions of approval to participate in
a Community Facilities District for the provision of police and fire services, to assure that its
impacts will be mitigated as both departments grow. These standard requirements will assure
that the proposed Project will )significantly impact public safety."
In my attempt to analyze the equity of this model, I drew upon other municipal services
05/14/2025
Public Comment
2A
provided to this new development to get an understanding of how these services are funded.
Water: The Project wastewater discharges will be typical of residential uses and would not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the City or Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Less than significant impacts are expected related to the proposed Project. Waste
management: Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Electricity and gas: SCE and
SCG anticipate providing continued and increased service with no significant impact.
(The report mentions that "There are existing electrical transmission lines located under
Amado Road and Hermosa Drive adjacent to the property. Will the project be undergrounded
and if so, who pays for it? Will there be a cost impact to the City? Taxpayers?)
The utilities impact assessments were based on metric measurements and all stated, based on
those measurements, whether they would have impact or not. The public safety impact
assessment does not provide a metric measurement component, but instead states that the
project's participation in a CFD is based on assurance that any impacts will be mitigated as
both departments grow and an assumption that these standard requirements will not
significantly impact public safety. I am unclear as to what standard requirements are being
referred to.
I think it is safe to say that all landowners are paying for all of these services uniformly, with
the exception of those whose properties were annexed into CFD's for public safety, who are
paying more for that service. We all absorb the cost of new infrastructure whether it be for
SCE, water treatment, etc., everytime new demands are created by new development, one
project at a time.
I think the existing CFD model for public safety should be sunsetted. I suggest that it has not
been managed properly, especially in light of the fact that no fiscal analysis study has been
performed since its inception. I would also suggest that it is not economically prudent to
facilitate the separate mechanism for collecting the tax wherein an outside consultant provides
a list of the parcel owners to the County to assess the tax, and provides the City with an
Annual Financial Statement with the same template language, pie charts and graphs year after
year, and allegedly the Excel graph titled Income Statement I received per my public records
request with a notation: "The CFD 2005 fund pays for 1 full time Police Officer and 1 full
time Firefighter and all of their associated benefits. In addition, the fund pays a consultant a
fee to prepare all the necessary documentation to provide the County Assessor in order for
them to assess the property tax. The consultant also prepares the annual
reporting requirements of the CFD." I did not see the consultant's fees included in the graph.
With any outside consultation model, it is still incumbent upon staff and Council to perform
accountability measures to ensure it fulfills its mandate created nearly 20 years and, in it's own
term language, is still necessary. I add that the validity of the tax, the way it's calculated and
the use of the funds should be evaluated.
Thank you,
Dianne Nezgoda
05/14/2025
Public Comment
2A