each parcel in FY 2025/2026. If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be based on the method of apportionment and the assessment rate approved in this Report. Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amount applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.
Section VI: Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Citrus Heights (see Figure 1.1).
ITEM 9
Agenda Packet Page #146
FIGURE 1.1
Lighting District Boundary
ITEM 9
Agenda Packet Page #147
TABLE 1.1
Citrus Heights Lighting District
Budget Analysis
DESCRIPTION FY 23/24
ACTUAL (5)
FY 24/25
ACTUAL
FY 25/26
PROPOSED
BUDGET
SOURCES OF FUNDS:
Interest on Fund Balance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Special Assessments $340,082.79 $333,265.60 $334,000.00 Shared Maintenance Cost Reimbursement (1) $128.30 $134.67 $140.00 Total Sources of Funds: $340,211.09 $333,400.27 $334,140.00
USES OF FUNDS:
Advertising $790.00 $0.00 $1,600.00
Utilities (2) $246,098.86 $248,093.17 $256,000.00
CEC Loan Repayment (3) $23,155.72 $23,155.72 $23,155.72 Professional Services $5,066.60 $10,223.54 $10,600.00 Contract Maintenance (Scheduled) $90,517.44 $90,511.80 $93,000.00 Membership Dues $853.70 $3,867.96 $4,000.00
Contract Maintenance (Unscheduled) (4) $83,581.03 $106,661.61 $110,000.00 New Construction $0.00 $16,500.00 $18,000.00
Cost Allocations $12,989.00 $13,379.00 $13,782.00
Total Uses of Funds: $463,052.35 $512,392.80 $530,137.72
FUND BALANCE:
Beginning Fund Balance (July 1st) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Add Sources of Funds $340,211.09 $333,400.27 $334,140.00 Subtract Uses of Funds $463,052.35 $512,392.80 $530,137.72
Fund Shortfall: $(122,841.26) $(178,992.53) $(195,997.72)
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
Measure A Maintenance Funds (Fund 210) to
cover District shortfall $122,841.26 $178,992.53 $195,997.72
Ending Fund Balance (June 30th) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1) The costs for four streets lights located on Antelope Road, near the I-80 Ramps, are shared with Caltrans (Caltrans reimburses the City for 50% of associated costs). (2) Includes SMUD maintenance costs – Certain street lights are mounted on SMUD-owned power poles.
The District reimburses SMUD for the operation and maintenance of these lights. (3) The city received a low interest (1%) Energy Efficiency Loan from the California Energy Commission (CEC) to cover the capital costs to convert approximately 593 street lights to energy efficient models.
Actual energy cost savings will be used to repay the loan. (4) Contract Maintenance (unscheduled) work includes knock-downs, repairs & materials for aging infrastructure, etc.)
(5) Summary has been updated since the FY 24/25 Engineer’s Report was approved in July 2024. The updated numbers reflect additional expenditures and revenue received after FY 23/24 close.
ITEM 9
Agenda Packet Page #148
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
DATE
: July 9, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FR
OM: Regina Cave, General Services Director
Mary Poole, Operations Manager
SU
BJECT: Resolution Confirming Report of Delinquent Solid Waste Charges and Ordering Collection of Delinquencies on the Property Tax Roll Summary and Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council:
1) Conduc
t a Public Hearing on the Report of Delinquent Solid Waste Charges; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2025 - ______, A Resolution of the City Council of Citrus Heights, California, Confirming a Report of Delinquent Solid Waste Charges and Ordering Collection of Delinquencies on the Property Tax Roll.
Cit
y Council Strategic Goal/Objective
This staff report aligns with the following Citrus Heights City Council Strategic Goal:
Go
al: Maintain and Enhance Fiscal Stability While Supporting Operational Excellence.
Fi
scal Impact
The
re is no impact to the FY 25/26 budget. This item is included in the annual solid waste budget.
Ba
ckground and Analysis
Se
ction 74-169 of the Municipal Code directs that solid waste charges be a lien against the property to which solid waste services are provided.
ITEM 10
Agenda Packet Page #149
Subject: Resolution to Record Delinquent Solid Waste Charges on Tax Roll Date: July 9, 2025
Government Code Sections 38790.1 and 25831 authorize the City to collect delinquent solid waste charges on the property tax roll. Delinquencies are charges that are at least three months overdue. Amounts on the property tax roll are collected by the County on the annual property tax bills in two equal installments that must be paid by December and April.
A report of delinquencies was prepared by Republic Services and filed with the City Clerk. It lists amounts that were originally due on March 1, 2025 or earlier, and remained unpaid at the time the report was filed. By its Resolution No. 2025-035, adopted on June 11, 2025, the City Council declared its intention to collect delinquencies on the property tax roll and set a public hearing on the report of delinquencies for the July 9, 2025 City Council meeting. Staff mailed notice of the public hearing to each property owner listed on the report at least ten days prior to the scheduled public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to give affected property owners a chance to dispute their inclusion on the report (or the amount of the delinquency) before the amount is turned over to the County for collection on the property tax bill.
The original report as filed listed 1137 delinquent accounts, with a past due balance of $742,753.49 and penalties of $74,275.35 for a total of $817,028.24.
An updated report has been filed with the City Clerk to remove delinquencies that have been paid since the original report was produced. The attached resolution confirms that revised report.
The City Council may also make other changes to the report after hearing objections and protests at the public hearing,
It is possible that some payments will be made to Republic Services after the adoption of tonight’s resolution. If such payments are made prior to submission of the report to the County, staff and Republic Services will endeavor to remove the paid delinquencies from the report.
Attachments
1) Resolution No. 2025-_____ , a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Confirming a Report of Delinquent Solid Waste Charges and Ordering Collection of Delinquencies on the Property Tax Roll
ITEM 10
Agenda Packet Page #150
RESOLUTION NO. 2025- ___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A REPORT OF
DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE CHARGES AND ORDERING COLLECTION
OF DELINQUENCIES ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 74-169 of the Municipal Code, solid waste charges constitute a lien against the property to which services are provided; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 38790.1 and 25831 authorize the City to collect delinquent solid waste charges on the property tax roll; and
WHEREAS, a report of delinquencies, listing each delinquent parcel and the amount of its delinquency, has been prepared and placed on file in the Office of the City Clerk and made available for public inspection (the “Report’); and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, by its Resolution No. 2025-035 (the “Resolution of Intention”), the City Council declared its intention to collect delinquent solid waste fees on the 2025-26 property tax roll; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention set July 9, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights as the time and place for a public hearing on the Report and any objections or protests to the Report (the “Public Hearing”); and
WHEREAS, notice of the Public Hearing and the filing of the Report was mailed to the landowners listed on the Report at least ten days prior to the date of the Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, prior to the Public Hearing, a revised report of delinquencies was prepared to omit delinquencies that have been paid since the Report was originally prepared (the “Revised Report”); and
WHEREAS, the Revised Report, which contains no additional delinquencies that were also not on the original Report, is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection, and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, at the appointed time and place, the City Council held the Public Hearing and heard objections and protests from all interested persons; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to confirm the Revised Report, without additional changes and to cause the delinquencies listed on the Revised Report to be collected by the County along with property taxes.
ITEM 10
Agenda Packet Page #151
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. Pursuant to Section 258319(c) of the Government Code, the City Council confirms the Revised Report without additional changes.
2. The City Council directs staff to file a certified copy of the Revised Report with the County Auditor for collection on the 2025-26 Property Tax Roll and take any other action necessary to cause such collection.
3. The delinquent charges (including penalties and interest) listed on the Revised Report shall constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land and are a lien on the property for the amount of the delinquency. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary county ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for those taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of county ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the assessment, except that if any real property to which the lien would attach has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of the taxes would become delinquent, then the lien that would otherwise be imposed by this section shall not attach to the real property and the delinquent fees, as confirmed, relating to the property shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection.
4. Staff is authorized to remove such items from the Revised Report as are paid prior to the submission of the Revised Report to the County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 9 th day of July, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
Dr. Jayna Karpinski Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Van, City Clerk
ITEM 10
Agenda Packet Page #152
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
DATE
: July 9, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FR
OM: Ryan Jones, City Attorney
SU
BJECT: Approval to Submit a Letter Response to the Sacramento Grand Jury Report – No Equal Justice for Victims of Elder Financial Abuse Summary and Recommendation
St
aff is requesting the City Council’s feedback and approval to transmit a response to the recent Sacramento Grand Jury report entitled No Equal Justice for Victims of Elder Financial Abuse.
Fi
scal Impact
The
re is no fiscal impact associated with responding to the findings and recommendations of the Sacramento Grand Jury.
Ba
ckground and Analysis
On
May 29, 2025, the City of Citrus Heights received the report, No Equal Justice for Victims of Elder Financial Abuse (Attachment 1), issued by the Sacramento Grand Jury. The report calls for the City of Citrus Heights to respond to their findings, numbered: F3, F6, F8, F9 and F13.
Additionally, the Grand Jury asked for responses to recommendations, numbered: R3, R6, R9 and R13.
The
City is required to respond to this Grand Jury report. Penal Code section 933 states, in part, the following:
No l
ater than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a report regarding the operations of any public agency, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.
Th
e Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations are general and address areas of concern across the county. The Grand Jury requested multiple law enforcement agencies to provide data related ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #153
Subject: Approval to Submit a Letter Response to the Sacramento Grand Jury Date: July 9, 2025
to elder financial abuse offenses. The Citrus Heights Police Department was the only agency that responded and provided complete information for the requested time period.
Staff has prepared a draft letter response to the Sacramento Grand Jury for the City of Citrus Heights (Attachment 2) containing the City’s responses to each of the report’s findings and recommendations applicable to Citrus Heights.
Attachments
1. Sacramento Grand Jury Report
2. (See Memo) Draft Response Letter to the Sacramento Grand Jury ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #154
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #155
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #156
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #157
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #158
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #159
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #160
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #161
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #162
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #163
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #164
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #165
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #166
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #167
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #168
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #169
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #170
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #171
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #172
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #173
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #174
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #175
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk’s Office
SUBJECT: I TEM 11 (Attachment 2) – Response to Sacramento Grand Jury Report
Attachment 2, the Draft Response Letter to the Sacramento Grand Jury, will not be included with the agenda packet published today, July 3, 2025. It will be distributed prior to the July 9 City Council Meeting under separate cover.
ITEM 11
Agenda Packet Page #176
July 9, 2025
The Honorable Bunmi Awoniyi
Presiding Judge
Sacramento County Superior Court
720 9
th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: City of Citrus Heights Response to the Sacramento Grand Jury Report on Elder Adult Financial Abuse Crimes
Dear Judge Awoniyi,
The City is in receipt of the Grand Jury’s Report. We appreciate the time and effort the Grand Jury took to investigate and author this report.
Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the City of Citrus Heights submits the following response to the Sacramento County report on elder adult financial abuse crimes.
Finding F3.
The Grand Jury finds some local law enforcement agencies do not consistently collect data to track elder financial abuse cases received from APS, making it impossible to determine if these cases are fully investigated or referred to the DA for prosecution.
Response to F3.
Disagree: The Citrus Heights Police Department maintains a comprehensive report management system and a case management system to track all submitted reports and the status of cases referred for investigation. This system was utilized to gather all the data requested by the Grand Jury.
Finding F6.
The Grand Jury finds law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County are not placing as much priority on elder financial abuse as other types of elder abuse, allowing abusers to avoid consequences.
July 9, 2025
Response to F6.
Somewhat Agree: Due to finite resources, the Citrus Heights Police Department has prioritized elder violent crimes over the investigation of elder financial abuse cases. While a higher priority is placed on crimes of violence, our detectives investigate any elder abuse case with significant solvability factors. In 2024, the Citrus Heights Police Department investigated 73 financial elder abuse cases, including 11 cross reports from Adult Protective services, 17 of those cases were referred to the District Attorney for prosecution.
Finding F8.
The Grand Jury finds several of the law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County lack dedicated detectives with specialized training in the investigation of elder financial abuse and as a result many abusers are not being held accountable.
Response to F8.
Partially Agree: The Citrus Heights Police Department does not currently have a detective exclusively dedicated to elder financial abuse cases. We utilize a general detective model where our detectives are able to handle a myriad of investigations. They do receive specialized training on a variety of topics, including elder financial abuse, but none of our detectives are solely focused on elder financial abuse. As a medium size agency, our personnel must be agile and respond to priority investigations across all disciplines. Dedicating a detective to only one crime category would not be an efficient use of a full-time position.
Finding F9.
The Grand Jury finds local uniformed law enforcement officers do not receive continuing education and training in how to recognize the signs of elder financial abuse, thereby allowing abusers to continue their victimization without consequences.
Response to F9.
Partially Agree: Continuing education on elder financial abuse is not mandated by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), nor is it regularly provided within the Citrus Heights Police Department. However, officers receive initial training in the academy and field training program to recognize elder financial crimes. Our detectives also provide in service trainings, to officers, on major case law updates or anytime they note an investigation deficiency on specific crime types such as elder financial abuse. While additional training would be beneficial, we do not believe the lack of ongoing training is the primary cause of continued victimization.
Finding F13.
The Grand Jury finds that there is insufficient community outreach by agencies within Sacramento County to educate elder citizens and their families and caregivers about financial abuse, so the signs of abuse may not be recognized.
Response to F 13.
Disagree: The Citrus Heights Police Department has a robust community engagement model.
Members of our Command staff attend monthly neighborhood area and service club meetings to July 9, 2025
provide crime prevention updates and trends. Elder financial abuse is a regular topic of questions and information provided to our elderly community, in person, at these meetings.
Recommendation R3.
The Grand Jury recommends that all local law enforcement agencies maintain a record of elder financial abuse cases referred by APS, including whether the law enforcement agency conducted additional investigation and whether it sent the case to the DA for potential prosecution, to begin by December 31, 2025.
Response to R3.
The Citrus Heights Police Department already maintains the described records.
Recommendation R6.
The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County raise the priority of elder financial abuse investigations to that of physical abuse, to being September 30, 2025.
Response to R6.
The Citrus Heights Police Department prioritizes violent crimes, including murder and sexual abuse. All other crimes are prioritized based on solvability factors and the likelihood of seeking prosecution against the perpetrator. This allows the Department to provide service across all crime types within the restraints of finite resources.
Recommendation R8.
The Grand Jury recommends that each law enforcement agency in Sacramento County have at least one trained detective dedicated to investigating elder financial abuse crimes by December 31, 2025.
Response to R8.
Assigning a detective exclusively to investigate financial elder abuse cases would not be a proper use of a full-time position as it would decrease the investigative bandwidth to handle other crime types. Our data shows our detectives and officers have conducted effective financial elder abuse cases while actively working a myriad of other criminal investigations.
Recommendation R9.
The Grand Jury recommends that the uniformed officers of each local law enforcement agency receive regular ongoing education and training to recognize signs of elder financial abuse, to begin by December 31, 2025.
Response to R9.
The Citrus Heights Police Department will specifically document the elder financial abuse training, provided to uniformed personnel, to meet this recommendation within the stated timeline.
July 9, 2025
Recommendation R13.
The Grand Jury recommends that law enforcement agencies, APS, the DA’s office, and the FAST team develop and implement a coordinated plan for more widespread community outreach by all parties, by December 31, 2025.
Response to R13.
The Citrus Heights Police Department has a robust community engagement model. We are willing to partner with allied regional agencies on coordinated outreach as well.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa
Mayor
City of Citrus Heights