Responses to Council Questions and Comments
5/5/2025
Sent to Council 5/5/2025 at 3:00 PM
Item #3: Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments Within the City’s Landscape Assessment Districts, Accepting the Engineer’s Report, and Giving Notice of the Time and the Place of the Public Hearing on the Levy of the Proposed Assessments for Fiscal Year 2025/26
• Question: (Please provide) a short summary of this item including number of LADs needing quick action and timing of when we will be doing the outreach to those LADs.
o Response: The current Engineer’s Report reflects the most expedient, reasonable, and legally compliant actions available within the Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs). The City is legally within its rights to increase assessments up to the previously established maximum authorized amount without the need for a new vote. However, in consideration of the current financial realities facing our community members, no assessment was increased by more than 50% in this first year.
We have consistently communicated that reorganizing the LADs is a complex, phased effort that will take time. We remain on schedule to engage the following districts by years end:
• September 2025: Willowglen, Shelter Hills, Stratford Place • October 2025: Fairway Meadows, Cader Farm Highlands, Liberty Farms • November 2025: McNear Landing, Anna’s Meadows
• December 2025: Twin Creeks, Southgate
As part of our engagement process, each district will participate in a district- specific webinar designed to provide residents with a clear understanding of their district’s boundaries, assets, financial status, and related details. This will be followed by an in-person community meeting to explore potential improvement options. These options will be presented in a menu-style format, allowing for customization based on the unique needs and priorities of each district.
While we acknowledge and appreciate the Council’s interest in accelerating this project, we believe the information gained from our internship program, competitive bids from contractors, and benchmarking of successful models from other cities will be invaluable. Our goal is to implement a thoughtful, lasting solution—getting it right the first time. In parallel, we are actively exploring creative and community-driven strategies such as an "Adopt a Landscape" program to foster local stewardship and engagement. We recognize that Cool Block leaders may be ideally positioned to champion and Responses to Council Questions and Comments
5/5/2025
Sent to Council 5/5/2025 at 3:00 PM
support these efforts within their neighborhoods, and we look forward to exploring those partnerships further.
• Question: Does the assessment consider any factors such as lot size, street frontage, etc?
o Response: Our current assessment methodologies do not incorporate variables such as lot size, street frontage, or similar parcel-specific characteristics. This is primarily because many of our assessment districts were established prior to the enactment of Proposition 218 in 1996, which introduced more stringent requirements for calculating and justifying assessments. Under Proposition 218, assessments must be proportional to the special benefits conferred upon each parcel, necessitating a detailed analysis of how specific parcel attributes relate to the benefits received.
• Question: The table on pg 10 of the report should note this fee is per year. o Response: Staff will include this in future reports.
• Question: Why does the assessment for the Oaks (pg 11) drop to zero in FY25-26? o Response: This is an error. The correct assessment amount for the Oaks district is $858.17 per parcel, as accurately reflected on page 110 of the report. We will ensure this correction is made accordingly.
• Question: Why is the total assessment, bottom of pg 11, an approximate value? o Response: This figure is an approximation, as the full amount is not always received from the County within the fiscal year. In cases of delinquent payments, the County undertakes collection efforts, and those revenues are sometimes recognized in subsequent periods once recovered.
• Question: Who did the LAD eng report last year?
o Response: The Public Works, Finance, and Parks departments collaborated closely to develop the Engineer’s Report last year.
• Question: What was the average increase last year? Over the last 5 years? o Response: The average increase across districts last year and for the past 5 or more years has been 2%
Responses to Council Questions and Comments
5/5/2025
Sent to Council 5/5/2025 at 3:00 PM
• Question: Why are all assessments not at the maximum? Some are 2% rather than
2.7%; some are not raised to the MAA, yet likely the public would desire improved performance.
o Response: Not all assessments were raised to their maximum allowable amounts, as doing so would have resulted in significant increases—up to 1,000% in some cases—within a single year. To mitigate the financial impact on property owners, we adopted a phased approach, limiting annual increases to no more than 50% per district.
In certain districts, there remains uncertainty regarding the original maximum assessment levels. We are actively continuing our research efforts to locate supporting documentation that can confirm or clarify these maximums.
Districts that received only a 2% increase either have already reached their maximum allowable assessment or currently lack documentation to justify a higher adjustment. Meanwhile, districts that received a 2.7% increase are those for which we have verified documentation indicating that assessments are to be adjusted annually in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
• Question: Does this year’s action require a vote of the property owners? o Response: No, a new vote of the property owners is not required for this year’s action. These districts are currently assessed at/or below the maximum rates originally approved. Under Proposition 218 and related assessment law, increasing the assessments up to the authorized maximum amount is permitted without triggering a new balloting process. When each Landscape Assessment District (LAD) was formed, the Engineer’s Report established a maximum assessment rate at the time of formation. However, the City has historically levied only a fraction of that authorized rate. The proposed increases are intended to gradually align current assessments with the previously approved maximum levels, as adopted by the City Council and originally supported by property owners through the formation process. This adjustment ensures that each district has adequate funding to support the maintenance and improvements originally envisioned, without exceeding the legal thresholds that would necessitate a new property owner vote. If the City were to assess above the previously approved annual escalator or include new improvements it would require a vote of the property owners.
• Question: Why is the Argus notice on May 23 for a July 7 Hearing (45 days)? Why not a second notice more timely?
o Response: The City of Petaluma is adhering to this legal requirement by ensuring that all affected property owners receive the mandated 45-day notice period before the scheduled public hearing. This process guarantees that property owners are adequately informed and have sufficient time to review and respond to any proposed changes.
Responses to Council Questions and Comments
5/5/2025
Sent to Council 5/5/2025 at 3:00 PM
• Question: What is the ratio of survey replies to parcels in LADs to this date (6 of 8 weeks in)?
o Response: As of Tuesday, April 29, we have received 395 survey responses out of a total of 4,089 invitations sent, reflecting a response rate just shy of 10%.
A second reminder postcard was mailed out and is expected to have reached households by Thursday or Friday of last week. This mailing included a reminder that the survey deadline has been extended to May 16, 2025.
So far, we have seen participation from 40 different districts. • Question: The item blurs two topics – 1 this year’s required Eng Rpt and 2 addressing the property owner’s dissatisfaction with the LAD maintenance level. o Response: This item appears to conflict between two distinct issues:
• The current year's required Engineer’s Report, which is a statutory obligation necessary to continue funding maintenance activities within the Landscape Assessment District (LAD); and
• Concerns expressed by the property owner regarding the current level of maintenance being provided within the LAD, which we recognize as a separate matter requiring further evaluation and have a detailed plan to engage in broader discussions about service levels and expectations with our community members.
To maintain clarity and focus, we suggest addressing the Engineer’s Report and its approval as a standalone action. We will separately engage with the property owners to better understand and respond to their concerns about maintenance standards within the district. Staff will return to Council on July 7 with a presentation that will more thoroughly address the next steps for community engagement, share the results of the property owner survey, and outline how we intend to incorporate feedback moving forward.
• Question: There is no context for “district priority year” on page 3. Does the Eng Rpt cover this year and change in fees this year.
o Response: To clarify, the Engineer’s Report for this year reflects only minor adjustments that could be implemented internally, based on staff’s decision to limit any district increase to no more than 50%. It does not include or imply any Proposition 218 action at this time.
Looking ahead, the City is planning a separate, comprehensive Prop 218 engagement process for the first ten districts, tentatively scheduled for the January–March 2026 window. These districts will be engaged according to the following schedule:
• September 2025: Willowglen, Shelter Hills, Stratford Place • October 2025: Fairway Meadows, Cader Farm Highlands, Liberty Farms Responses to Council Questions and Comments
5/5/2025
Sent to Council 5/5/2025 at 3:00 PM
• November 2025: McNear Landing, Anna’s Meadows
• December 2025: Twin Creeks, Southgate
Each of these districts will participate in a district-specific webinar providing residents with an overview of their district’s boundaries, assets, and financial standing. This will be followed by an in-person community meeting to explore potential improvements. Options will be presented in a menu-style format, allowing residents to select from a range of service levels and enhancement opportunities tailored to their district’s unique needs and preferences.
• Question: Is the only Public Outreach related to the future maintenance level changes and associated fee increases?
o Response: No, the districts will not only be engaged on maintenance levels and related charges. Instead, each will be provided the opportunity to select from a menu of service and enhancement options, informed by the results of their district-specific survey feedback and asset inventory assessments, which are scheduled for completion this summer.
District residents will receive ballpark cost estimates corresponding to various levels of maintenance/improvement and then be given the opportunity to opt-into other program opportunities such as:
• Water-wise or xeriscape landscaping
• Grazing, where appropriate
• Conversion to recycled water, where feasible
In addition to individual service options, districts will also be presented with cost estimates and feasibility assessments for potential consolidation with adjacent or similar districts. Where applicable, we will also explore the possibility of partnering with well-functioning homeowner’s associations (HOAs) that may be interested in assuming responsibility for certain aspects of Landscape Assessment District (LAD) maintenance.
This tailored, data-informed approach is intended to ensure that each district can make informed decisions aligned with its unique needs, values, and financial considerations.
• Question: If enhanced LAD maintenance is considered in this staff report, reference should be made to a Prop 218 hearing and LAD voting?
o Response: Each district is in a unique financial and operational position. As a result, some districts may be able to absorb incremental cost increases Responses to Council Questions and Comments
5/5/2025
Sent to Council 5/5/2025 at 3:00 PM
without requiring a Proposition 218 process. Only a subset of districts may ultimately require and/or choose Prop 218 proceedings. These determinations will be made based on a more detailed analysis and community input, and will be more appropriately addressed during next year’s Landscape Assessment District (LAD) annual process. • Question: Do any district responsibilities contain anything other than plants and irrigation?
o Response: Yes, all districts include assets beyond just planting and irrigation systems. Additional examples may include trees, ground cover, pathways, pathway lighting, sound walls, neighborhood entry features, fencing, turf areas, outdoor furniture, and pedestrian bridges, among others. The specific assets maintained within each district are determined by the original formation documents, which outline the scope of improvements and maintenance responsibilities unique to each district.
• Question: Will the “Notice” be direct mailed to all owners within the assessment? And include a map of the LAD that there funds provide for?
o Response: As required by law, the public hearing notice will be published in The Argus-Courier, which satisfies the public notification requirements for hearings of this nature. Individual mailed notices are not required at this stage. Should a district elect to proceed with a Proposition 218 process in the future, official notices and ballots will be mailed directly to all affected parcel owners in accordance with the legal requirements of that process.