City of Imperial Refuses to Hold a Public Hearing on the Mayfield Ranch Tax
The City of Imperial has refused to hold a public hearing on the Mello-Roos special tax paid by the owners of Mayfield Ranch's 87 homes. The refusal came in a September 29, 2026 letter from City Attorney Paul Early, rejecting a property owners' petition that, under state law, leads to a public hearing. The Imperial City Council, which serves as the governing board of Community Facilities District No. 2004-2 (Mayfield), has not voted on the petition at any public meeting.
What the petition asked for
Mayfield Ranch homeowners pay a Mello-Roos special tax of roughly $2,100 a year on top of their regular property taxes. The tax pays off bonds that funded streets and other improvements, and it is scheduled to run through 2037.
On August 31, 2026, Novalk, LLC, which owns 97 of the 185 lots in the neighborhood, asked the City to change how that tax is divided:
The 87 homeowners would pay nothing more toward the bonds after the current 2026-27 tax year.
The owners of the undeveloped lots, mainly Novalk itself, would pay off the rest of the bond debt.
No street, park, or public service would change, and the bonds would be paid off years ahead of schedule.
What state law says
California's Mello-Roos law (Government Code section 53332) lets owners of 25 percent or more of the land in a district petition to change the rate or method of apportionment of a special tax. Novalk owns more than half of the lots and nearly half of the land. Once a landowner petition is filed, the statute says the legislative body shall set a processing fee within 45 days. After the fee is paid, the City must adopt a resolution of consideration and hold a public hearing.
The City's position, and the owners' response
The City Attorney's letter says the petition is really an attempt to repeal the tax, which the petition process does not allow, and that the City therefore has no deadline to set the fee or act on the petition at all.
Counsel for the property owners disagrees. The tax stays in place and stays a lien on every undeveloped lot until the bonds are paid; the petition changes only who pays it. A rate of zero for one category of property is still a rate. The same statute expressly contemplates that a tax may be reduced or terminated as long as doing so does not interfere with timely retirement of the debt, and this petition would retire the bonds early. For settlement purposes, Novalk has also offered that the zero rate for homes would take effect only after the money to retire the bonds is deposited with the District's fiscal agent.
Not the first time
According to the lawsuit property owners filed against the City, the refusal fits a pattern of avoiding public discussion of the Mayfield tax:
2024: The City published a notice promising full transparency about the tax-defaulted Mayfield lots. No public hearing followed; the matter went to closed session.
August and October 2025: Novalk filed two earlier petitions under the same statute. The City never set the required fee, never adopted a resolution, and never scheduled a hearing.
September 3, 2025: Novalk's counsel presented an offer to the Council to pay the unpaid special taxes, which would retire the neighborhood's bond debt. It was one of at least three such presentations. Council members asked no questions, and the offer has never been placed on an agenda for a vote.
April 15, 2026: After more than 27% of registered voters signed a petition to repeal the tax, the Council certified it and ordered it onto the November 3, 2026 ballot. The City did not send the County the required map of the voting district, and the County then refused to put the measure on the ballot. That refusal is also challenged in the lawsuit.
August 31, 2026: Novalk filed its current petition under Government Code section 53332.
September 29, 2026: The City Attorney rejected the petition by letter. No public vote was taken.
What happens next
In a letter to the City Attorney also dated September 29, counsel for Novalk and homeowner Lia Sanchez asked the City to set the fee by the October 15, 2026 statutory deadline and to schedule the public hearing, and asked for a written answer by October 2, 2026. The letter also asks the City to identify the meeting and agenda item at which the Council voted to reject the petition. If the City refuses, the property owners will ask the Imperial County Superior Court for a writ of mandate ordering it to act. The case is Novalk, LLC and Lia Sanchez v. City of Imperial, Case No. ECU004587. Read more about the lawsuit.
“We are offering to take the tax off the owners of 87 homes and pay the neighborhood's bonds off early. The law says that proposal gets a public hearing. The City has answered with a lawyer's letter and no public vote. All we have asked for is a meeting where the people who pay this tax can hear their elected officials discuss it in the open.” — Andrew K. Rauch, counsel for the property owners
How you can be heard
City Council meetings are open to the public, and any resident may speak during public comment. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 8, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. The members of the Imperial City Council are Mayor Ida Obeso-Martinez, Mayor Pro Tem Stacy Mendoza, and Council Members James Tucker, Katherine Burnworth, and Robert Amparano.
If you live in Mayfield Ranch, add your name to the Mayfield petition and subscribe to our newsletter for updates.
By the numbers: Mayfield Ranch (CFD 2004-2)
Homes paying the special tax: 87
Typical homeowner's annual special tax: about $2,100
Year the tax is scheduled to end: 2037
Lots owned by the petitioner: 97 of 185
Share of land owned by the petitioner: nearly half
Land ownership required to file a petition: 25%
Deadline for the City to answer counsel's letter: October 2, 2026
Deadline for the City to set the petition fee: October 15, 2026
Public votes the Council has taken on a proposal for tax relief: 0
This post describes a pending lawsuit and correspondence with the City of Imperial. Allegations in the complaint are claims, not findings; no court has ruled on them, and the City and other defendants are entitled to contest them. The First Amended Complaint is a public record on file with the Imperial County Superior Court, Case No. ECU004587.
Media contact: Andrew K. Rauch, In Rem Law, Inc. · (619) 723-0423 · andrew@inremlaw.com
Comments