Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges council to revisit CFD 2004-3 payouts, claims remaining funds could resolve delinquencies

Imperial City Council · March 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During public comment, Mister Rausch told the council developers were reimbursed about $3.6 million for a 2004 Community Facilities District and alleged the city paid roughly $2.0 million, with additional payouts to successors despite delinquencies; he urged the city to use remaining funds to settle outstanding delinquencies.

A member of the public told the Imperial City Council at its March 4 meeting that the city may have authority and available funds to address outstanding delinquencies in Community Facilities District (CFD) 2004‑3.

Mister Rausch summarized his review of the CFD’s formation and subsequent payments, saying the original acquisition agreement anticipated roughly $3.6 million in reimbursements to developers for public improvements. He said the city’s prior manager indicated approximately $2.0 million had been paid, leaving an estimated $1.6 million unpaid. Rausch further alleged that in 2018 the city approved payouts totaling about $450,000 to successors of delinquent properties even though there was an outstanding liability of about $400,000. He said additional consent‑calendar payouts over time added roughly $300,000 and left ‘‘some $910,000 still remaining in the account to be paid out.’’

Rausch asked the council to consider authorizing resolution or settlement measures that could use available CFD funds to address the delinquencies and asserted the council had not been advised of the full set of prior transactions. ‘‘Nobody advised the council. No deliberations on this,’’ he said during public comment.

Council members asked a clarifying question about whether a referenced property (called Gazette Ranch in staff materials) was the open parcel across from Cross School; the city attorney confirmed that was the parcel in question. The comment was entered into the public record and a printed copy of Rausch’s emailed materials was noted as available from the clerk.

The council did not take action on the item during the meeting; no staff response or motion to investigate was recorded on the transcript.