Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CFD Increase topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents criticize 4% CFD increase; council points to legal limits and staff explanations
Summary
Multiple Castle Oaks residents and others told the council they were surprised and upset that a Community Facilities District (CFD) levy was increased by 4% when a staff posting listed a 3.03% CPI figure; councilors and staff urged individual follow-up and said they will provide clarifying information.
Several residents used the public-comment period to challenge a recent 4% increase to Castle Oakss Community Facilities District (CFD) charges.
"My CFD is at 857; it's going to 1,023. That's a 19% increase," said Mike Evans, a Castle Oaks resident and former member of the special-district committee, arguing the distribution and parity of CFD charges across subdivisions should be addressed. Amber Hoiska told the council the municipal posting that day listed the applicable CPI change at 3.03% and said, "The 4% actually appears to be a mistake" in the June 16 staff report that requested a 4% increase. Residents pressed the council for both an explanation and a budget showing how CFD funds will be spent.
Assessor Jim Rooney earlier presented county assessment trends, noting Iones assessments rose about 4.19% this year and explaining how Prop 13 allows a 2% annual inflator except on changes of ownership, which can cause large one-time reassessments.
Council members and staff responded cautiously during public comment: the mayor declined on-the-spot Q&A in the public-comment period but offered to meet individually and to provide staff analysis. City staff and a council member noted it is legally permissible in many CFD forms to apply up to a maximum and that staff would provide clarifying documentation. One council member said the city had delayed increases for many years and that some adjustments were needed to address deferred costs.
Ending: The council asked staff to make clarifications available, said the public could follow up with staff, and did not reverse the June 16 action on the council floor during this meeting.
