From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Juan Guerra
Subject:Fwd: Written Public Comment – Item 6A Rancho Mirage Amphitheater Master Plan Date:Wednesday, May 20, 2026 3:14:20 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Juan,
Please send this public comment to Records for Laserfiche and add to the public comment binder.
Thank you,
Kristie
Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov
TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920-7931, et seq.) Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Harrington
Date: May 20, 2026 at 2:11:45 PM PDT
To: "Kristie Ramos, CMC"
Subject: Written Public Comment – Item 6A Rancho Mirage Amphitheater Master Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address.
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Mayor and Council Members,
Please accept the following written public comment regarding Item 6A, the Rancho
Mirage Amphitheater Master Plan.
I strongly urge caution regarding this proposal.
This item is being advanced during a period in which the City itself has publicly warned residents about rising public safety costs, increasing operational pressures, and possible future tax increases or new revenue measures.
At the same time, the Master Plan repeatedly promotes:
- financial sustainability,
- cost recovery,
- sponsorship development,
- tourism activation,
- expanded programming,
- and economic development.
However, despite all of this language regarding revenue and sustainability, the report provides no meaningful public financial evidence demonstrating that the current nonprofit-supported model has materially improved the City’s fiscal position or reduced taxpayer burden.
There are no quantified operating-cost disclosures, no measurable ROI analysis, no subsidy comparisons, no projected net revenue analysis, and no realistic public discussion of long-term taxpayer exposure.
Instead, residents are being asked to accept broad promises about “opportunities,” “potential,” and “future planning” without measurable financial evidence.
There is also a major distinction between successful civic programming and successful entertainment economics.
The Rancho Mirage Library & Observatory Foundation and related library organizations may have experience supporting lectures, concerts, films, festivals, and community programming. However, there is no demonstrated evidence showing these organizations possess a proven track record operating profitable entertainment ventures or financially self-sustaining regional event operations in a highly competitive entertainment market.
This Valley already contains sophisticated and established entertainment operators, including Acrisure Arena and Agua Caliente’s casino and entertainment operations, with extensive infrastructure, industry expertise, sponsorship networks, and operational experience.
Residents therefore have every right to ask:
Why is the City positioning itself to enter a crowded regional entertainment marketplace while simultaneously warning residents about fiscal pressures and possible future taxes?
If this proposal is truly about cultural enrichment, then that should be stated honestly.
But if the City intends to justify this proposal partly on financial sustainability and
revenue-generation grounds, then residents deserve measurable evidence — not aspirational planning language.
I am also deeply concerned about governance structure, concentration of influence, and the erosion of meaningful checks and balances.
The overlap between the Library & Observatory Advisory Commission, the Library & Observatory Foundation, City Council participation, and City staffing appears extensive. Many of the same individuals operate across multiple layers of these interconnected structures.
The Foundation Board itself includes the sitting Mayor, while City Council members serve within the broader advisory framework connected to these same facilities and operations.
When the same individuals participate across advisory bodies, nonprofit leadership, and City governance structures simultaneously, meaningful checks and balances become weakened.
At that point, separate commissions, committees, and nonprofit entities begin functioning less like independent oversight structures and more like extensions of the same interconnected governing network.
That raises legitimate concerns regarding:
- independence,
- accountability,
- public transparency,
- concentration of influence,
- and whether important City business is effectively migrating into less visible committee and nonprofit structures outside the normal level of direct public scrutiny.
I am additionally concerned that City-paid personnel time already appears intertwined with nonprofit operations.
I note that nonprofit IRS Form 990 filings reportedly reference substantial hours contributed by City officials and City staff, including involvement associated with City Council members and the Library Director, even though those individuals are compensated by the City and funded by taxpayers.
That raises legitimate questions regarding:
- allocation of public resources,
- indirect taxpayer subsidization of nonprofit activities, - and whether the growing integration between City operations and nonprofit programming will continue expanding over time.
If the City moves further toward a nonprofit-supported operating structure for the amphitheater and related facilities, residents deserve clarity regarding how much additional City staff time, operational support, administrative involvement, and taxpayer-funded infrastructure will increasingly be directed toward nonprofit- supported activities.
The concern is that this arrangement may continue evolving into a structure where:
- the City bears the infrastructure costs,
- the City bears the staffing costs,
- the City bears the maintenance and liability costs,
- the City bears the insurance and public safety costs, - while nonprofit organizations increasingly shape programming, fundraising, sponsorships, and operational influence.
Most importantly, the public should recognize that the City itself remains financially responsible for virtually all of the underlying infrastructure and operational burden associated with these facilities.
The City remains responsible for:
- the buildings,
- the amphitheater,
- the observatory,
- infrastructure,
- maintenance,
- insurance,
- utilities,
- public safety,
- staffing,
- employee compensation,
- pensions,
- operational support,
- and long-term capital improvements.
In other words, taxpayers remain on the hook for the physical infrastructure, operational systems, and long-term liabilities, while nonprofit-associated organizations increasingly position themselves around programming, sponsorships, fundraising, and operational influence.
The report itself acknowledges that the Foundation does not directly employ programming staff and instead relies upon a combined Foundation and City staff model.
That is an important distinction.
Because from the outside, this increasingly appears to be a structure in which the public bears the long-term costs, liabilities, infrastructure obligations, and operational risks, while nonprofit entities gain growing influence over programming direction and strategic operations.
I am also concerned that basic transparency questions are not being answered clearly.
At recent public town halls intended for resident questions regarding City finances and future revenue needs, I asked straightforward questions regarding:
- who the major donors to the Foundation are,
- and what operational costs are being borne by the City for the library and amphitheater systems.
I did not receive substantive answers.
Residents should not have to “go look it up” in order to understand:
- operational costs,
- taxpayer obligations,
- donor influence,
- governance structures,
- or allocation of public resources connected to nonprofit-supported operations.
I am also concerned that prominent Library patrons, Foundation donors, and individuals connected to these nonprofit structures have reportedly contributed financially to City Council campaigns over a period of years, including into recent election cycles.
Whether lawful or not, these overlapping relationships between major donors, nonprofit leadership, advisory structures, and elected officials create legitimate public concerns regarding influence, access, concentration of power, and whether important decisions involving publicly owned assets are occurring within an increasingly interconnected network operating outside ordinary public visibility and independent checks and balances.
Transparency should increase when public-private relationships become more intertwined — not decrease.
Before moving further, I respectfully believe the Council should require:
- detailed public financial projections,
- independent fiscal analysis,
- quantified subsidy disclosures,
- donor transparency,
- governance transparency,
- measurable performance benchmarks,
- and full public accounting regarding long-term taxpayer obligations and operational risks.
Residents deserve evidence before expansion, not promises before accountability.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mike Harrington