Dean Getz

Policy Hawk & Founder. Influencing Good Government through Public Records & Comparative Data.

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝟗 𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐖𝐀𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 “𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘” — 𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐎 𝐇𝐎𝐀 𝐂𝐀𝐍’𝐓 𝐁𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑?

WHAT THE BOARD PRESIDENT SAID ON RECORD (AUGUST 25, 2026):

"𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭... 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠."

— Chris Nicholson, Serrano HOA Board President

WHAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY DID (AUGUST 12, 2026):

DENIED REVIEW. The Third District Court of Appeal ruling is now final, binding law.

THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR ASSESSMENTS

For nearly a decade, the HOA claimed they were just waiting for "clarity" from the courts. Now the state’s highest courts have ruled—and the legal debate is officially OVER:

HOMEOWNER DUES ARE CAPPED: Monthly assessments charged to homeowners MUST be capped by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) under Exhibit D of the CC&Rs.

DEVELOPER OBLIGATION: The developer (undeveloped member property owner) MUST pay the remaining balance to satisfy the annual budget for all annexed, undeveloped parcels (i.e., raw residential land).

CONTINUOUS LIABILITY: Every single month the Board refuses to correct its billing, they accumulate deeper financial liabilities for improper assessments across a multi-year period.

WHY CONTINUOUSLY INCREASE THE DAMAGE?

𝐅𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 "𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬" 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠—𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐭. 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐮𝐧-𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐎𝐀’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬.

When I served as an HOA Director from 2014 to 2016, I uncovered this exact scheme and put a $9-plus million back-assessment bill on the books against the developer. The then-Board wiped that bill off the books shortly after I was pushed off the board—and, this board today claims a final Supreme Court denial means "nothing to report." Really?

OCTOBER 16, 2026: BACK TO COURT FOR IMMEDIATE ENFORCEMENT

Because the Board refuses to notify homeowners or align its accounting practices with the law, my legal team has filed for an immediate court enforcement order.

𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝:

https://t.co/n0x3kFXwsk

📅 DATE: October 16, 2026

⏰ TIME: 8:30 AM

🏛️ LOCATION: Dept. 9, El Dorado County Superior Court (Judge Balfour)

📜 MATTER: Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate Compliance & Enforcement

No more excuses. Homeowners have a right to the truth.

As always, stay tuned.

Posted 9.4.2026

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐔𝐏𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐄: 𝐃𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐨 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞 🚨

A formal communication has been served on the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) to halt sales and issue a Desist & Refrain Order against Serrano Associates, LLC (File No. H-6346 SAC) in connection seemingly material omissions in the DRE's public reports.

The Core Allegations & Legal Rulings:

Court Rejects Assessment Exemption: The CA 3rd District Court of Appeal (Getz v. Serrano) ruled—with the CA Supreme Court denying review—that annexed land is subject to HOA assessments immediately, defeating previous arguments that undeveloped lots are exempt.

Conflicting Official Disclosures: The petition highlights a sharp conflict: 2016 developer claims to the DRE asserted undeveloped lots were not assessed, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟗 𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 ~𝟕𝟐𝟓 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬.

Budget Disclosure Violations Alleged: Under PJNR, Inc. v. DRE, omitting assessment liabilities on mandatory state disclosures violates B&P Code § 11012.

Specific Demands Filed with the DRE:

Reopen File No. H-6346 SAC.

Freeze lot sales and phase approvals (B&P Code § 11019).

Audit assessment security bonds (10 CCR § 2792.9).

With an appellate ruling established, the petition calls on state regulators to enforce the law immediately.

As always, stay tuned.

#CaliforniaRealEstate #HOA #ConsumerProtection #Serrano #DRE #RealEstateLaw

Posted 8.19.2026

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐈𝐓’𝐒 𝐎𝐅𝐅𝐈𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋: 𝐂𝐀 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖—𝐆𝐄𝐓𝐙’𝐒 𝐖𝐈𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐋!

Back in April, I shared the massive Appellate Court victory dismantling the Serrano El Dorado HOA’s illegal assessment scheme—a scheme that illegally overcharged homeowners to give a free ride to the developer.

So, what did the HOA do after being unanimously struck down by the Court of Appeal? Did they finally do the right thing?

Of course not. They doubled down.

Already deep into over $3 million of insurance-advanced defense costs spent fighting against their own members, they added an expensive Los Angeles law firm to their roster—making it their third law firm on this case. They threw everything at the wall in a desperate attempt to avoid accountability:

𝟏. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐁𝐞𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐃𝐨-𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫

They filed for reconsideration at the Court of Appeal.
The Court’s answer? DENIED.

𝟐. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐑𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭

Out of options, they petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, hoping the highest court in the state would bail them out. The Supreme Court’s answer? DENIED.

Let's be absolutely clear... Getz has won, folks—it is now final. The appellate ruling stands, and they are out of courts to appeal to. The debate over what the CC&Rs mean is officially over. 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐂&𝐑 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐤𝐬.

But this fight isn't finished yet. Next, we're going to demonstrate that they knew all along what they were doing. The receipts are coming. Stay tuned.
#SerranoElDorado #HOA #HomeownerRights #CASupremeCourt #CourtOfAppeal #FollowTheMoney #ElDoradoCounty #accountability #JusticeServed #TruthRevealed

Posted 8.12.2026

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

🚨 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐀𝐗𝐏𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐁𝐔𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐀𝐌𝐄 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐊 𝐓𝐖𝐈𝐂𝐄: 𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐎 𝐕𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐉 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐊 🚨

Why I Just Appealed the Serrano M5 Map...

Last week, the County Planning Commission approved a map for 10 new lots in Serrano (Village M5). But there is a massive, multi-million-dollar elephant in the room: Taxpayers are being forced to pay for a community park we already bought. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐢𝐜𝐞:

1. We Already Paid Once (The Missing Park & Money): Decades ago, the developer was legally obligated to build a fully funded, "turnkey" community park in exchange for the right to build homes. They were allowed to keep millions in impact fee credits to get this done. They kept the credits, but they never built the park.

2. Now They Want Us to Pay Again (The $7+ Million Bailout): Instead of forcing the developer to finish the job with the fee credits they retained, the County and CSD signed a backdoor deal in 2020 to accept a piece of empty dirt instead. According to the government's own financial studies, this leaves local taxpayers on the hook for a $7+ million shortfall to actually construct the park.

We cannot keep approving new subdivisions while taxpayers are forced to subsidize a corporate developer's broken promises and buy the exact same park twice.

Today, I filed an official administrative appeal to the Board of Supervisors to freeze the Village M5 map. Our (my) demand is simple: The County must assign an independent auditor to track down the retained fee credits and claw back the original money for our park before a single new lot is approved.

The Board of Supervisors will have to hold a public hearing and vote on this soon. I will post the date here once it’s scheduled. We need to pack the room and demand accountability.

As always, stay tuned...

Posted 5.20.2026

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

⚡𝐆𝐄𝐓𝐙 𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐋—𝐀𝐆𝐀𝐈𝐍 (𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐍𝐄’𝐒 𝐇𝐔𝐆𝐄) ⚡

I've repeatedly stated that the Serrano mis-assessment scheme is, was, and always has been a fraud. Specifically, undeveloped property in Serrano was deliberately not assessed, as evidenced by the concealment of hundreds of undeveloped lots annexed in back in 2013.

For the second time, I’ve successfully gotten the Court of Appeal to unanimously overturn a deeply flawed ruling out of El Dorado County!

Let’s get into it—because this is as outrageous as it is revealing.

The Serrano El Dorado HOA has burned through over $3 million in insurance-funded legal fees—not to protect homeowners, but to fight against them. Why? To shield the developer, Serrano Associates, from paying their fair share.

For years, the HOA allowed the developer to dodge assessments on undeveloped land. To make up the shortfall, they illegally overcharged homeowners, ignoring a strict cap written into the CC&Rs.

When I challenged it, the (El Dorado County) trial court dismissed my case. The judge (McLaughlin) even called my interpretation “an absurd parsing of the words,” ruling that once homeowners could cover the costs, the developer was permanently off the hook.
That ruling didn’t hold up.

The appellate court stepped in—and dismantled it.

Here’s what they found:

𝟏. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫

The court made it clear: as long as undeveloped property exists, the developer must cover budget shortfalls. Homeowner assessments are capped by CPI. No exceptions.

𝟐. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 “𝐓𝐨𝐨 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞” 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝

The developer and the HOA argued this had been going on for years, so it was too late to sue. The court rejected that argument, applying the continuous accrual doctrine (currently reaching back to 2013 to date)—meaning every year's improper overcharge is a new violation.

Let that sink in: millions spent fighting homeowners, all to protect a developer from paying what they owe.

And they lost.

The case now goes back to trial court—but this time, the rules are clear. The fight over what the CC&Rs mean is over. Now it’s about how much they violated them. Stay tuned—this next phase could be very big.

Accountability is coming.
#SerranoElDorado #HOA #HomeownerRights #CourtOfAppeal #FollowTheMoney #ElDoradoCounty #Accountability #JusticeServed

Posted 4.30.2026

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩, 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫. 𝐅𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩!

Yet Directors Mattock, Martinelli, and Hannaman continue to torpedo agenda items—removed in October, the November meeting canceled, and the December item pulled—that were intended to correct former GM Loewen’s wrongdoing related to CFD 2019-01.

That CFD was sold as a districtwide maintenance funding mechanism. In reality, it permanently excludes undeveloped property from contributing to the upkeep of public infrastructure—directly contradicting the County’s own Financing Plan, which states that financing tools must work together to avoid burdening undeveloped land during development, while ensuring infrastructure is built when needed and that developers—not the County or residents—carry the financial risk.

That distinction matters.

CFD 2019-01 funds maintenance of streetscapes, medians, parks—and potentially even a vineyard proposed under the Marble Valley Specific Plan. These are facilities that must be publicly owned to qualify for public CFD financing. Yet undeveloped land—both within Marble Valley and elsewhere—has been carved out of the funding obligation forever, even though the Financing Plan contemplates that undeveloped property will eventually participate through fees or private financing when it develops.

This raises the question these directors refuse to address publicly—because the structure cannot withstand scrutiny:

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 (maintenance) 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 “𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜”?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦. 𝐈𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩:

“𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭…𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐃𝐇𝐂𝐒𝐃… 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐲𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐅𝐃.” (see picture)

Read that carefully.

An easement is not public ownership—and the proposal concedes that if public ownership does not actually occur, CFD funding would be improper. The County’s Financing Plan says the same thing in principle: when facilities are not truly public, private (developer) financing is the appropriate tool, and the risk belongs with developers—not residents. Bottom line: if a property benefits, it pays—developed or undeveloped.

That is precisely why Mattock, Martinelli, and Hannaman don’t want this debated in public. Once the Financing Plan, the CFD structure, and the Marble Valley proposal are read together, the justification collapses.

So why block efforts to fix a CFD structure that:

1) Permanently exempts undeveloped land,

2) Shifts long-term maintenance costs onto a subset of homeowners,

3) Maximizes development returns at the expense of residents, and

4) Advances Parker Development’s Marble Valley while ignoring constitutional, statutory, and policy limits?

Public infrastructure requires public ownership and fair participation. Anything less is not just bad policy—it’s legally suspect.

𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐆𝐌 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 (effectively) 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐬, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐤: 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲?

Stay tuned.

Full report linked here:

https://t.co/TtOQCoFMvW

#CFD201901, #CommunityFirst, #DevelopmentAccountability, #DoTheRightThing, #eldoradohills, #FairParticipation, #FairShare
#FollowTheMoney

Posted 12.21.25

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐄𝐃𝐇𝐂𝐒𝐃’𝐬 ‘𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭’ 𝐄𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫: 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

I’ve repeatedly explained—both at the podium and in written public comments—that using Oakridge Village as an example, forcing 57 homeowners next to Harvard Way Park to get every voter in all of El Dorado Hills to approve their little LLAD repeal makes no sense. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩 𝟐𝟏𝟖 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐈𝐧 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐄𝐃𝐇𝐂𝐒𝐃’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞.

And now, a Sacramento Superior Court’s tentative ruling is making that point loud and clear.

One of the biggest takeaways from the tentative ruling is this:
The CSD argued that an individual Landscape & Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) cannot repeal its own assessment unless the entire CSD population votes on it.

Ruling linked here:

https://t.co/niAi63U7MD

Here’s the problem:

The California Constitution already defines the word “district” for assessment purposes—and it does not mean the whole CSD. It means the LLAD itself.

Prop 218 requires that only the property owners in that LLAD get to vote on establishing, changing, or repealing their own assessment—because assessments are based on special benefits to their parcels, not to the entire community.

So, what happens if you accept the CSD’s interpretation?

1. You erase Prop 218’s protections.

2. You make neighborhood concerns and self-governance impossible.

3. You give tens of thousands of unrelated voters veto power over a handful of homeowners who are the only ones paying the assessment.

In other words, the CSD’s reading would swallow the rule entirely—turning “district” into District—and stripping LLAD residents of rights the Constitution clearly gives them.

It appears the court is seeing right through it. And it validates what voters in Measures Q, R, and S already understood: A neighborhood gets to vote on its own assessments. Period.
For years, EDHCSD has brazenly billed whatever it wanted with reckless abandon—now, it looks like another costly self-inflicted black eye.

The law has always been this clear to me: the people directly affected make the decision. That is exactly what Prop 218 protects, and that’s how it should work.

𝐄𝐃𝐇𝐂𝐒𝐃'𝐬 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 - 𝐄𝐃𝐇𝐂𝐒𝐃!

#LocalControl #TaxpayerRights #LLAD #CommunityVoice #Prop218 #EDH

Posted 12.11.25

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐒𝐃 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐧: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐓𝐀/𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗-𝟎𝟏 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞

In early 2020, now indicted former GM Loewen told the EDHCSD Board that CFD 2019-01 (a "public services" special tax) complied with all District goals and policies. (Top of picture) It didn’t. In fact, it violated them outright.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐥𝐢𝐞:

𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗-𝟎𝟏 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞, 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞—𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭’𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐲. 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭. (Bottom of picture)

What the law actually requires:

• Gov. Code §53321(d): Special taxes must be fair and reasonable across property classes.

• Gov. Code §53325.3: The RMA must reflect relative burdens and benefits.

• Prop 218 (Art. XIII D, §4(a)): Taxes must be proportional to the benefit a parcel receives.

Translation: the CSD can’t just “declare” undeveloped parcels exempt. They must prove—through real findings or a study—that the parcels receive no maintenance benefit. Without that nexus, the exemption violates Mello-Roos and Prop 218. Courts have struck down similar schemes (Beutz v. Riverside).

And the kicker:

Communities like the CSD’s own Promontory charge undeveloped parcels a reduced, lawful maintenance rate. Yet the CSD is suing them under Measures Q/R/S to force continued payments—while letting other developers in CFD 2019-01 skate free. And taxpayers are footing the bill for the CSD’s lawyers.

This isn’t policy. This isn’t discretion. This is a structurally unlawful tax scheme built under false pretenses—and homeowners are the ones paying for it.

There is no statute of limitations and no “free pass” for an unconstitutionally formed CFD. If the District folds Marble Valley into this already broken scheme, a legal challenge is almost guaranteed—and the CSD will be left holding the bag when the entire structure collapses.

#ElDoradoHills #CFD201901 #EDHCSD #MelloRoos #Prop218 #TaxFairness #DeveloperExemptions #PublicFinance #LocalGovernment #AccountabilityMatters #StopTheScheme #FixTheCFD #TransparencyNow #EDHPolitics #GoodGovernance

Posted 12.09.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐈𝐑𝐒 𝐁𝐎𝐌𝐁: $𝟐.𝟕𝐌 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠—𝐀𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭!

The County Supervisors have cemented their understanding of a devastating pattern: public funds are paying for private assets, breaching contract, and risking severe federal penalties. The $2.7 Million in violations is just the beginning.
The Private Subsidy: $2.7 Million Given Away (and counting)

•The Assets: The public paid $2.7 million for the K1/K2 Trail ($1M) and now we're identifying a Serrano Streetscape Improvement ($1.7M), yet the improvements remain un-deeded and under private control.

•The Ironclad Requirement: The developer's own documents state these improvements are authorized for acquisition by the CFD "upon dedication of said improvements to the District." Dedication has not happened.

•Breach of Contract (A&DA): The County's own rules (CFD 1992-1 A&DA) and the easement recitals mandate Transfer of Title/Dedication before Reimbursement. The County illegally released millions while the developer retained ownership.

Lack of Control & The Federal Tax Bomb
This isn't just local mismanagement—it's a massive federal risk.

•Ignored Control (Streetscape): For the $1.7M reimbursement, the developer acknowledged a minimum prerequisite: "you cannot release reimbursement until we provide you with a copy of the recorded Grant of Easement." The funds were released anyway, demonstrating a critical failure of internal controls.

• Worse, that easement grants the District use "solely for purposes of maintenance," confirming no public access or use for the $1.7M improvement.

•The IRS Risk: By funding the retention of private property, the County created a $2.7 Million Private Subsidy. This violates the IRS Private Business Tests (the 5% Private Loan and 10% Private Use Limits) for tax-exempt bond financing.

Read the A&DA Here: [https://t.co/IIP3NtHdmN]

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲'𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧/𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 "𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧" 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐱-𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲'𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐑𝐒 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞.

#GovernFundsAbuse #PublicFundsScam #ElDoradoCounty #CFDAudit #IRSViolation #TaxpayerRisk

Posted 12.4.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

$𝟏 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 “𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜” 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬

It’s really simple: public ownership is required before a developer can be reimbursed with Mello-Roos (CFD) dollars.

Yet the County reimbursed Serrano over $1,000,000 for the K1/K2 trail, even though the land was never deeded to the public. Guess who exposed this nifty little trick? I digress. More importantly, the trail remains deep behind Serrano’s private gates, under Serrano’s private control.

And here’s the kicker — in January 2023 the developer themselves wrote:

“𝐓𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐄𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐈𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭.” (𝐒𝐞𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞)

If the developer believed it was already public property, then don't they want to deed it now, as required or return the public money?

County CFD rules are crystal clear:

✔️ Fee title or an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication must be transferred before reimbursement.

❌ An easement does not qualify.

❌ Paying public funds for a private asset violates CFD guidelines, the A&DA, the Mello-Roos Act, and California’s prohibition on gifts of public funds.

Bottom line:

The public paid for a “public” trail the public cannot access, the County does not own, and Serrano controls.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐱 𝐢𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞:

𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐎𝐃 — 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞.

Maintenance can be assigned back to the HOA afterward.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for private property. The County must correct this and honor its fiduciary duty to the public.

It’s on the Supervisors’ consent agenda tomorrow (#25‑2006) to sweep back under the rug. See how this all works, folks? Wink, wink. As always, stay tuned.

Posted 12.01.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐄𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐂𝐒𝐃 𝐯𝐬. 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

It’s shocking: the EDH CSD is suing County Auditor-Controller Harn for doing his job—upholding the California Constitution—while pushing CFD 2019-01 as a condition of development despite clear constitutional defects.

📌 Annexation No. 2 exposes the problem (see picture):

A 2.86-acre parcel with two existing structures (homes) benefits from CFD-funded services but pays nothing.

Subdivided future lots on the same parcel are being forced to pay even though the owners never voted in the original CFD formation.

⚖️ 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬:

𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐨 𝐯. 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐞𝐠𝐨 & 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐗𝐈𝐈𝐈 𝐀 §𝟒: 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐳 𝐯. 𝐄𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲: 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐝.

💥 Bottom line:
This is unconstitutional. Forced annexation + coerced waiver cannot fix a void special tax. If not immediately corrected, affidavits will be filed documenting active violations of the Directors’ and County officials’ oaths of office.

The viability of "cityhood" will be threatened, and the CSD's social media "public" defenders will see their arguments crumble, if the CSD refuses to address what remains an unconstitutional structure. Let's hope it doesn't come to this.

#Prop218 #Shapiro #CFD2019 #ElDoradoHills #Constitution

Posted 11.28.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐃𝐚𝐲: 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐆𝐌 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐓𝐀’𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐬

EDHCSD can trot out all the paid and unpaid advocates—lawyers, cheerleaders, whoever—but here’s the truth they don’t want residents to know:

The El Dorado Hills CSD formed a Community Facilities District (CFD) using a developer landowner vote—even though the official CFD boundaries already included tens of thousands of registered voters in a so-called “future annexation area.”

In other words, only the parcel(s) in “Zone 1” (Saratoga) were allowed to vote (a landowner), even though the recorded CFD map—approved and incorporated by reference on November 22, 2019 (Book 5, Page 28, Instrument No. 2019-0050233)—defined the entire CFD and its future annexation area as the official boundaries of CFD 2019-01. (See Picture)

California law is explicit:

If 12 or more voters live anywhere inside the CFD boundaries, the special tax must be approved by a registered-voter election.
But under former GM Loewen and the consultant DTA, the district pushed the measure through using a developer-only vote—something the law simply does not allow.

By formally adopting the entire area as the CFD boundaries, including the neighborhoods with tens of thousands of voters, the district created an inhabited CFD.
That makes the landowner vote illegal, and the special tax never validly enacted under Government Code §53326, Proposition 218, and the Shapiro decision.

And here’s the kicker:

This is a constitutional voting-rights violation, not a minor procedural hiccup. Because the wrong electorate was used, the tax has a jurisdictional defect—and that means it can be challenged at any time. Every annual levy is a new, challengeable act.

So while we’re carving turkeys, remember:

Former GM Loewen and DTA carved up EDH residents’ voting rights—and left the community with one big, avoidable mess.

A government action taken without jurisdiction cannot be made valid by time limits.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝.

Loewen’s tax scheme is out there like a sitting duck—ripe for takedown. Happy Turkey Day, folks!

Posted 11.25.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟔𝟎-𝐒𝐞𝐜. 𝐀𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐨 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐁𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐔𝐩 𝐂𝐒𝐃’𝐬 𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Director Martinelli, Director Mattock, and Director Hannaman have no real interest in addressing the systemic problems affecting this community.

Director Martinelli and Director Mattock supported and approved the original CFD structure—engineered under former GM Kevin Loewen (now indicted in an unrelated matter) and DTA—a tax scheme that appears to violate the most basic requirements of the Mello-Roos Act and Proposition 218 (California Constitution).

Yet their own policy manual—predicated on the state statute governing the implementation of Mello-Roos (shown on the right)—states:

“All property within the CFD not otherwise statutorily exempt… shall bear its appropriate share of the special tax liability.”

The CFD they implemented does the exact opposite.

What’s Wrong With It? (see picture)

🔹 Undeveloped parcels are exempt from all taxes, even though they receive direct and measurable benefit from the publicly funded improvements (streetscapes, medians, parks, trails).

🔹 Homeowners are forced to pay 100% of the maintenance burden, the exact type of disproportionate cost-shifting the Shapiro decision and Prop 218 prohibit.

🔹 The CFD relies on forced “unanimous approval” annexation, even though courts have explicitly warned this tool cannot be used to bypass required voter approval.

And now, we have the proof in their own voices.

🎧 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐎𝐰𝐧 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 — 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐒𝐚𝐲 𝐈𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝟔𝟎-𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐆𝐌 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗-𝟎𝟏 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲:

https://t.co/IWrEKRm3qQ

“In this case the CFD actually does have the mechanism that new subdivisions will be brought into the fold" — in other words forced.

This concept is devastating for the CFD’s legality.

Under Government Code §53339.3 and Shapiro v. San Diego, “unanimous approval” annexation is only valid if the property owner has a voluntary choice.

Government Code §53339.3 says that if a landowner signs a “unanimous approval” petition to annex into a Community Facilities District (CFD), that approval is only valid if the landowner voluntarily agrees.

The landowner must not be coerced,

must not be forced as a condition of receiving approvals, and

must have a real choice to say yes or no.

The statute is designed to ensure that “unanimous approval” is truly voluntary, not compelled by a city, county, CSD, or developer via the entitlement process.

Yet, other staff, like the CSD's Planner, Jeff Kernan, have repeatedly stated the same thing: annexation into CFD 2019-01 is required—an absolute condition of the entitlement process.

That is not a vote.
That is not voluntary.
That is coercion—and it invalidates the tax.

Continuing to operate this way is likely unconstitutional, and every board member and staff involved has sworn an oath to uphold the California Constitution. Persisting in a forced-annexation scheme raises real questions about compliance with that oath.

Residents deserve transparency, legality, and fairness—not a special tax engineered to let developers walk away without paying a dime while saddling families with millions in long-term liabilities.

𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢, 𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭—𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠—𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐱 𝐚 𝐂𝐅𝐃 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰?

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐍 𝐄𝐋 𝐃𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐎 𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐀𝐗𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐅𝐔𝐋𝐋𝐘 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃

We’ve submitted formal notice that EDHCSD’s (former GM & DTA created) Community Facilities District 2019-01 (“Districtwide”) was formed through an unconstitutional manipulation of the electorate, violating Article XIII C (Prop 218) and the City of San Diego v. Shapiro (2014) ruling.

𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐆𝐌 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐓𝐀’𝐬 𝐏𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐥 (𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞):

– 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗: 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝-𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

– 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗: 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐥𝐲 “𝐩𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝” 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤.

– 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐂𝐈 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝, 𝐃𝐓𝐀 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 “𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭” 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐱 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 “𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞” 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 (𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬).

City of San Diego v. Shapiro

This is precisely the structure the Shapiro court condemned.

Adding to the violation: the Developer Exemption. The very class that created the tax was exempted forever, leaving future homeowners to pay a tax they never voted on and never consented to—raising major Equal Protection and fiduciary duty issues.

Officials Are Now ON NOTICE: The EDHCSD Board, EDC Supervisors, Planning Commission, and Auditor-Controller have been formally alerted. Continuing to enforce or expand this void special tax is a failure to uphold their oath to support and defend the California Constitution.

We Demand Immediate Action:

➡ Suspend annexations

➡ Launch an independent legal review

➡ Prepare to invalidate CFD 2019-01

𝐄𝐃𝐇𝐂𝐒𝐃’𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐠𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐪𝐮𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦. 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫? "Stay tuned".

#EDHCSD #ElDoradoHills #Prop218 #ShapiroRuling #VoidTax #EqualProtection #OathOfOffice

Posted 11.25.25

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐄𝐋 𝐃𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐘 𝐀𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐓 𝐅𝐈𝐀𝐒𝐂𝐎 𝐔𝐍𝐅𝐎𝐋𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆!

Guess who just got called out? The County's external auditor, LSL CPAs, is now facing the heat over publicly-identified issues that seemingly they’ve tried to sweep under the rug? That’s right—every partner in the audit firm has been alerted.

Remember the Serrano Mello Roos streetscapes and K1/K2 trail? We’ve been saying they were never properly deeded to the public, despite being publicly funded (and Serrano homeowners are still paying back the principal and interest)!

· The Shock: Formation documents and tax-exempt bond requirements were ignored. These assets were NEVER deeded as required.
· The Kicker: LSL CPAs was told about this, promised to address it months ago, and it's STILL not corrected!
This could threaten the County's tax-exempt bond status going back to the original issuance, likely making it as much or more significant than Austin v. El Dorado County!

What's with what seems like a cover-up? For example, the 2014-15 external audit of the County disclosed the Austin problem that eventually resulted in a $25 million loss. 𝐀𝐧𝐝, 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲, 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐤𝐬—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐋𝐄𝐃 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐱-𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬) 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

I assure you that the County will need to address this likely larger issue—not sweep it under the rug—or it could cost the County millions in additional public funds and wreck its ability to access the bond markets in the process!

Stay tuned. This saga is getting 🔥stickier. 🍿

#ElDoradoCounty #MelloRoos

Posted 11.23.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐄𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐍𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬, 𝐓𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐡, 𝐙𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐏𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤—𝐖𝐡𝐨’𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠?

We already know that former Promise Foundation’s CEO, Kevin Loewen, left behind a mess of paperwork at the El Dorado Hills Community Services Foundation—seemingly without proper safeguards to prevent friends and family from benefiting privately. Today, those running Promise say they’re part of the El Dorado Community Foundation (EDCF), which is supposedly handling all regulatory filings, properly.

But here’s the kicker: EDCF isn’t just a foundation—it’s the umbrella for a 501(c)(3) and hundreds of funds, many (or all) under Tax ID 68-0255556. That means any activity under its umbrella—from raffles to fundraisers—likely falls on EDCF’s legal shoulders.

Yet, it appears that EDCF still hasn’t filed a required raffle license since February 2025, even while managing money for nearly 300 local causes—including the Promise Foundation and El Dorado Hills Area Foundation, both linked to EDCF President Alan Priest.

While Promise is technically an independent entity, many of these “Foundations” aren’t actually independent legal entities, yet EDCF treats the funds as its own. 𝐋𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫: 𝐄𝐃𝐂𝐅 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐤 (𝟕%) 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭-𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 (currently in excess of $30 million) 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢’𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐭’𝐬?

Translation: EDCF is seemingly responsible for hundreds of projects, any of which could run a raffle, while failing to follow basic state law.

No wonder Alan Priest and Promise Foundation don’t want to open the books to El Dorado Hills CSD? Do they even have the required paperwork, folks?

Who’s watching? Who even cares, right? Maybe those who were supposed to be overseeing Loewen, for example—and all this money—should be asking themselves these very questions? Just imagine what we might uncover next...

#ElDorado #TransparencyFail #FollowTheMoney #FoundationDrama #501c3Watch

Posted 11.13.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲, 𝐄𝐇𝐃𝐂𝐒𝐃 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐳𝐞𝐧

In October, Hannaman and board member allies gutted the CSD agenda—stripping out items tied to former GM Kevin Loewen. Now Loewen’s been indicted for concealing an improper (financial) relationship with the District's tax engineer dating back to 2023, when he also served as CEO of the CSD’s Promise Foundation.

Records show that during that same period, a CSD Foundation grant went to the immediate family of current CSD Director Hannaman. (Earlier posts detailing this were removed since the recipient was a minor.)

The fact is, the Promise Foundation isn’t independent—records show it’s the CSD’s own philanthropic arm. El Dorado Community Foundation has even confirmed this. And the Loewen-run Foundation (per IRS filings) still hasn’t produced any financial records?

Fast forward to 2025: Director Hannaman now sits on both the CSD Board and the Promise Board. In October, the Foundation promised transparency. Hannaman blocked Loewen-related agenda items from consideration that month, and the November meeting was subsequently canceled for lack of quorum. Now, the Promise Foundation is reneging on its promise to share spending details, including those from the Loewen era?

What's the concern?

𝐑𝐮𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐒𝐃’𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 “𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬” 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭.

Ask yourself: Why hide the details of public funds? Does the CSD’s Promise Foundation really think it can escape financial scrutiny—and, more importantly, why would it even try?

#CSDTransparency #PublicFunds #AccountabilityMatters #PromiseFoundation #FinancialTransparency #LoewenIndictment #ConflictOfInterest #LocalGovernmentWatch #CivicOversight #EthicsInGovernment #FoundationGrants #BoardAccountability #PublicTrust #governmentscrutiny

Posted 11.12.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐂𝐒𝐃 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰

At the October 2025 meeting, the EDH Promise Foundation (formed using CSD public funds and operating as the “Promise Foundation”) committed to providing its financial records after questions were raised about fund management and governance.

Since then:

The CSD Board majority has faced scrutiny for alleged Brown Act agenda issues.

Former General Manager Kevin Loewen was indicted by a criminal grand jury.

𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 (𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐧, 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢) 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐒𝐃 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 “𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐪𝐮𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦”—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞:

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭 “𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭” 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝

𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐮𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐮𝐞

𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬.

These delays raise questions about transparency and governance, particularly regarding Directors like Hannaman, who also:

Works for State Senator Roger Niello’s office, where Interim GM McGann-Jantzen previously served,

Previously served as a CSDA lobbyist and resigned at a time when questions arose around the former GM’s DTA relationship,

Serves on the Promise Foundation board, which has not yet demonstrated updated state or IRS filings,

Has family members who have received grants directly from the Foundation/

According to the Mt. Democrat article, Savannah Hannaman received a grant from the EDH Promise Foundation while her mother, Heidi Hannaman, was a sitting CSD Director. Savannah credited her mother for guidance: “She taught me how to work with people and check my emails… she helped me power through.”

Hannaman’s FPPC disclosure does not list this Promise Foundation funding. While this may have been an oversight, the public’s expectation is clear: public agencies must manage funds properly, foundations tied to those agencies must disclose their finances, and board members must avoid conflicts of interest—real or perceived. Ignorance is no excuse.

In short, how can the public have confidence in open governance when meetings are canceled and key financial reviews are delayed? This is not about accusations—it’s about transparency and public oversight. The CSD’s Promise Foundation financials must be made public.

#EDHCSD #Transparency #Accountability #ElDoradoHills

Posted 11.9.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐔𝐩 — 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐈𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐲

Let’s be clear: Board President Steve Ferry is trying to fix problems the community didn’t create — problems that trace back to decisions made under former GM Kevin Loewen, who has since been indicted for concealing improper financial ties to DTA, the same tax firm behind CFD 2019-01.

In the shadow of that recent indictment, what could possibly motivate the board majority to shut down Ferry’s effort to shine light on the Loewen-era CFDs — and ensure public funds and public trust aren’t casualties of past misconduct?

𝐅𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 — 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢, 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐨𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐧 — 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐅𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐲’𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Why did CFD 2019-01 grant permanent developer exemptions from paying for public services — without the proportionality findings required by Gov. Code §66001(b)?
A public records request produced no such analysis.
And rather than allow discussion, Hannaman moved for the board majority to block it — even pre-voting to block it again if placed on the November agenda.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐆𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐧?

• CFD originally marketed as CFD 2019-01 “Saratoga”

• Later rebranded to CFD 2019-01 “Public Services”

• Approved under a GM later indicted for undisclosed financial
ties to the district’s tax consultant, DTA, who engineered it

• Developer property exempted forever from (maintenance) service costs throughout El Dorado Hills

• No proportionality study produced

• Ferry pushes for answers — and suddenly the agenda gets stripped

Transparency threatened the status quo. So the status quo tried to silence transparency.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲’𝐬 𝐒𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬

If the former GM’s undisclosed financial ties led to public-cost shifts that benefit private interests, we need to know — and it needs to be fixed.

If developers were given permanent carve-outs without legal justification, we need to know — and it can be fixed.
If only one board member is trying to protect taxpayers from legacy misconduct, we need to stand with him.

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐓𝐨 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
1. Demand the proportionality study — or the admission it doesn’t exist

2. Require this item return to the agenda for public discussion

3. Support leaders who are cleaning up past issues, not covering them up!

The Loewen indictment blew open the door. Ferry is trying to walk through it — and some don’t want him to fix what was done.

However, I bet the community does…

#EDHCSD #CFD201901 #LoewenIndictment #PublicFunds #Accountability #FollowTheMoney #GovCode66001 #Prop218 #ElDoradoHills #GoodGovernance #SupportTransparency #CleanUpNotCoverUp #TaxpayerRights

Posted 11.04.2025

[Dean Getz @getzworking4us]

𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧'𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐢𝐝—𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐮𝐫 “𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬” 𝐆𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠

With $10 million in restricted park, fire, and road funds already flowing to lawyers in the Austin case, we now turn to the question of where the refunds owed to “fee payers” will actually go.

Look closely, folks — County staff are suggesting those refunds might take the form of future development fee credits instead of cash returned to the homebuyers who ultimately paid the fees.

The County's October 8, 2025 press release states:

"Within the next two months, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐬, 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬. Once the method of prorated refund is determined, the eligible property owners will be identified, and processing of payments can begin. Depending on the method chosen by the Board, payment processing could take seven months or more to complete."

On the surface, that might sound harmless. Look closer. Here’s what it really means:

A. Fees were originally paid years ago (2014–2016)

B. Those costs were built into home prices — meaning homebuyers paid them

C. Instead of refunding the public, the County may grant future fee discounts to developers still building

So instead of returning unlawfully-collected funds to the people who actually paid them, the County could:

Grant fee credits for new projects

Lower future developer costs

Leave homeowners and the public with zero benefit

Call it what you want — but that’s not a refund.

𝐈𝐭’𝐬 (𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲) 𝐚 𝐩𝐢𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭-𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬.

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 $𝟏𝟎𝐌 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲-𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝:

𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭.

Let’s be clear:

When impact-fee dollars meant for parks, fire stations, and roads are first siphoned into legal bills — and now may be handed out as developer discounts — that’s not prioritizing the public's interest.

It turns public mitigation dollars into a development-to-developer pipeline, bypassing the very residents who paid the fees in the first place.

The results?

❌ Parks not built
❌ Fire facilities unfunded
❌ Traffic improvements postponed
❌ And now refunds that might bypass the public entirely

El Dorado Hills deserves transparency, accountability, and refunds that actually go back to the community — not fee credits that reward whoever builds next.

More to come. "Stay tuned".

Post 11.1.2025