Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 5 Legal Analysis ............................................................................................................... 5 Compliance with Current Law ...................................................................................... 8 Plans & Specifications ....................................................................................... 9 Fiscal Year 2025‐26 Estimate of Cost and Budget ............................................ 10 Method of Assessment Apportionment .......................................................... 11 Discussion of Benefit .................................................................................................. 11 Benefit Factors ........................................................................................................... 12 General Versus Special Benefit And Quantification Of General Benefit .................... 14 Method of Assessment ............................................................................................... 16 Assessment Apportionment ....................................................................................... 16 Appeals and Interpretation ........................................................................................ 16 Assessment ..................................................................................................... 18 Assessment Diagram ....................................................................................... 20 Assessment Roll, FY 2025‐26 ........................................................................... 21
106
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
[This page intentionally blank]
107
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
List of Figures
Figure 1: Cost and Budget ................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2: Summary of Cost Estimates ............................................................................... 18
108
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
[This page intentionally blank]
109
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Introduction
Overview
The Wheatland‐Premier Grove Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District (the "District") provides funding for the maintenance, servicing and improvement for the following: landscaping, irrigation, street lights, detention basin, frontage wall and park for the Wheatland Ranch subdivision; street lights for the Premier Grove subdivision; and landscaping, irrigation, street lights, open space, drainage area and park for the Park Place subdivision.
This Engineer’s Report ("Report") was prepared to establish the budget for the Improvements (as described below) that will be funded by the 2025‐26 assessments and other revenue and to determine the special benefits received from the Improvements by property within the District and the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels. This Report and the assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”).
Following submittal of this Report to the City of Wheatland City Council (the “Council”) for preliminary approval, the Council may, by Resolution, call for the Public Hearing on the assessments for landscaping maintenance and improvements. This hearing is scheduled for June 24, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. After the close of the hearing, the Council may take action to approve the continuation of the assessments for fiscal year 2025‐26. If the assessments are so confirmed and approved, the levies would be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller in August 2025 for inclusion on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2025‐26.
Legal Analysis
Proposition 218
This assessment is formed consistent with Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996 and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which specially benefits the assessed property.
110
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Proposition 218 describes a number of important requirements, including a property‐ owner balloting, for the formation and continuation of assessments, and these requirements are satisfied by the process used to establish this assessment.
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
In July of 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA vs.
SCCOSA”). This ruling is the most significant court case in further legally clarifying the substantive assessment requirements of Proposition 218. Several of the most important elements of the ruling included further emphasis that:
Benefit assessments are for special, not general, benefit The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined
Special benefits are directly received by and provide a direct advantage to property in the assessment district
This Report is consistent with the SVTA vs. SCCOSA decision and with the requirements of Article 13C and 13D of the California Constitution based on the following factors:
1. The District is divided into separate zones of benefit, and the assessment revenue derived from real property in each zone is extended only on specifically identified Improvements and/or maintenance and servicing of those Improvements in that zone and other Improvements in the District that confer special benefits to property in that zone.
2. The use of zones of benefit ensures that the improvements constructed and maintained with assessment proceeds are located in close proximity to the real property subject to the assessment, and that such Improvements provide a direct advantage to the property in the zone.
3. Due to their proximity to the assessed parcels, the Improvements and maintenance thereof financed with assessment revenues in each zone benefit the properties in that zone in a manner different in kind from the benefit that other parcels of real property in the District derive from such Improvements, and the benefits conferred on such property in each zone are more extensive and direct than a general increase in property values.
111
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
4. The assessments paid in each zone of benefit are proportional to the special benefit that each parcel within that zone receives from such Improvements and the maintenance thereof because:
a. The specific Improvements and maintenance and utility costs thereof in each zone and the costs thereof are specified in this Engineer’s Report; and b. Such improvement and maintenance costs in each zone are allocated among different types of property located within each zone of benefit, and equally among those properties which have similar characteristics and receive similar special benefits.
Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property
On June 8, 2009, the Court of Appeal approved a benefit assessment for property in the downtown area of the City of Pomona. In Dahms, the Court upheld an assessment that was 100% special benefit (i.e. 0% general benefit) on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were directly provided only to property in the assessment district. The Court also upheld discounts and exemptions from the assessment for certain properties.
Bonander v. Town of Tiburon
On December 31, 2009, the Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing overhead utility lines underground in an area of the Town of Tiburon. The Court invalidated the assessments on the grounds the assessments had been apportioned to assessed property based in part on relative costs within sub‐ areas of the assessment district instead of proportional special benefits.
Beutz v. County of Riverside
On May 26, 2010, the Court of Appeal overturned an assessment for park maintenance in Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits associated with improvements and services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits.
112
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego On September 22, 2011, the Court of Appeal issued a decision on the Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego appeal. This decision overturned an assessment for street and landscaping maintenance in the Greater Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The court described two primary reasons for its decision. First, like in Beutz, the court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits. Second, the court found that the City had failed to record the basis for the calculation of the assessment amount on city‐owned parcels.
Compliance with Current Law
This Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the improvements to be funded are clearly defined; the improvements are directly available to and will directly benefit property in the District; and the improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.
This Report is consistent with Buetz, Dahms, and Greater Golden Hill because, the improvements will directly benefit property in the District and the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded from the Assessments. The Engineer’s Report is consistent with Bonander because the Assessments have been apportioned based on the overall proportional special benefit to each property. 113
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Plans & Specifications
The Act requires the Report to include “plans and specifications” that show and describe the existing and proposed “Improvements” (as defined at section 22525 of the Act) that will benefit the property in the District. Consistent with the Act the Improvements are described as follows:
Installation, Maintenance and Servicing of public improvements and facilities (including but not limited to, landscaping, sprinkler systems, park grounds, park facilities, playground equipment, landscape corridors, adjacent streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, storm drainage systems, Public Lighting Facilities, fencing, entry monuments, signage, frontage and retention walls, other landscaping facilities), and related labor, materials, supplies, utilities, equipment, and Incidental Expenses in and for the parks, landscape areas, detention basins and other Public Places in the District owned or maintained by the City of Wheatland. (Collectively the “Improvements.”) Installation means the construction and installation of landscaping, park, detention basin and related improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks and drainage, and lights. Other capitalized words and phrases in this section shall have the meanings as defined in the Act.
114
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Fiscal Year 2025‐26 Estimate of Cost and Budget
The Act requires the Report to estimate the costs of the Improvements for the fiscal year, including estimates for the total costs for the Improvements for the year, the amount of any surplus or deficit to be carried over from a previous fiscal year, and the amount of funding contributions made from sources other than assessment revenue. After determining these amounts, the Report then must calculate the net amount to be assessed upon assessable lands within the District.
Figure 1: Cost and Budget
Improvements Cost:
Wheatland Ranch: Unit 1 & Unit 2
Equipment Purchase and Maintenance 74,007 $
Maintenance and Operation1 $ 59,229
Street Lights 7,496 $
Administration 2,998 $
Incidentals $ 4,284
Premier Grove
Equipment Purchase and Maintenance 9,941 $
Maintenance and Operation1 $ 7,797
Street Lights 1,183 $
Administration 418 $
Incidentals $ 543
Park Place
Equipment Purchase and Maintenance 65,839 $
Maintenance and Operation1 $ 51,491
Street Lights 7,919 $
Administration 2,795 $
Incidentals $ 3,634
Total Budget 149,787 $
Total Benefit of Services and Related Expenses 74,007 $ Wheatland Ranch (Zone 1) SFE Units 188
Benefit received per Single Family Equivalent Unit $ 394 Total Benefit of Services and Related Expenses 9,941 $
Premier Grove (Zone 2) SFE Units 49
Benefit received per Single Family Equivalent Unit $ 203 Total Benefit of Services and Related Expenses 65,839 $ Park Place (Zone 3) SFE Units 209
Benefit received per Single Family Equivalent Unit $ 315 Less:
District Contribution for General Benefits 10,485 $
District Contribution toward Special Benefits 14,540 $
$ 25,025
Total Landscaping & Lighting District 124,762 $
(Net Amount to be Assessed)
Budget Allocation:
Wheatland Ranch Total Assessment Total
SFE Units per SFE Assessment
188 $361.49 $67,959.56
Premier Grove Total Assessment Total
SFE Units per SFE Assessment
49 $153.21 $7,507.32
Park Place Total Assessment Total
SFE Units per SFE Assessment
209 $235.86 $49,294.74
1) Includes park and landscaping maintenance, and adjacent curb and gutter, storm drainage, streets and other infrastructure.
Wheatland-Premier Grove Landscaping & Lighting District Benefit Assessment
Estimate of Cost for Fiscal Year 2025-26
115
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Method of Assessment Apportionment
This section of the Engineer's Report includes an explanation of the benefits derived from the installation, maintenance and servicing of the Improvements for Wheatland Ranch, Premier Grove and Park Place and the methodology used to apportion the total assessment to properties within the District.
The District consists of all Assessor Parcels within the three subdivisions. The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits derived by the properties in the District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The apportionment of special benefit is a two‐step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the Improvements, and the second step is to allocate the assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.
Discussion of Benefit
In summary, the assessments can only be continued based on the special benefit to property. This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits.
Moreover, such benefit is not based on any one property owner’s use of the Improvements or a property owner’s specific demographic status. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements."
Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:
"No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." The following benefit categories summarize the types of special benefit to residential and other lots and parcels resulting from the installation, maintenance and servicing of the Improvements to be provided with the assessment proceeds. These categories of special benefit are derived from the statutes passed by the California Legislature and other studies which describe the types of special benefit received by property from 116
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
maintenance and improvements such as those within by the District. These types of special benefit are summarized as follows:
A. Proximity to Improved Park and Landscaped Areas Within the Assessment District.
B. Access to Improved Park and Landscaped Areas Within the Assessment District.
C. Improved Views Within the Assessment District.
D. Extension of a Property’s Outdoor Areas and Green Spaces for Properties Within Proximity to the Improvements.
E. Improved Nighttime Visibility and Safety from Streetlights.
The SVTA v. SCCOSA decision provides enhanced clarity to the definitions of special benefits to properties in three distinct areas:
♦ Proximity ♦ Expanded or Improved Access ♦ Views The decision also clarifies that a special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel and that indirect or derivative advantages resulting from the overall public benefits from a service or improvement are general benefits. The SVTA v. SCCOSA decision also provides specific guidance that park improvements are a direct advantage and special benefit to property that is proximate to a park that is improved by an assessment:
The characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g. proximity to a park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g. general enhancement of the district’s property values).
Proximity, improved access and views, in addition to the other special benefits listed above further strengthen the basis of these assessments.
Benefit Factors
The special benefits from the Improvements are further detailed below:
Proximity To Improved Park And Landscaped Areas Within The Assessment District
Only the specific properties within close proximity to the Improvements are included in the District. Therefore, property in the District enjoys unique and valuable proximity and 117
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
access to the Improvements that the public at large and property outside the District do not share.
In absence of the assessments, the Improvements would not be provided and the park and landscape areas in the District would be degraded due to insufficient funding for maintenance, upkeep and repair. Therefore, the assessments provide Improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided. Improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided do not by themselves translate into special benefits but when combined with the unique proximity and access enjoyed by parcels in the District, they provide a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the District.
Access To Improved Park And Landscaped Areas Within The Assessment District
Since the parcels in the District are nearly the only parcels that enjoy close access to the Improvements, they directly benefit from the unique close access to improved landscaping areas that are provided by the Assessments. This is a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the District.
Improved Views Within The Assessment District
The City, by maintaining these park and landscaped areas, provides improved views to properties in the Assessment District. The properties in the District enjoy close and unique proximity, access and views of the Improvements; therefore, the improved and protected views provided by the Assessments are another direct and tangible advantage that is uniquely conferred upon property in the District.
Extension Of A Property’s Outdoor Areas And Green Spaces For Properties Within Proximity To The Improvements
In large part because it is cost prohibitive to provide large open land areas on property in the District, the residential and other benefiting properties in the District do not have large outdoor areas and green spaces. The park and landscaped areas within the District provide additional outdoor areas that serve as an effective extension of the land area for proximate properties because the Improvements are uniquely proximate and accessible to property in close proximity to the Improvements. The Improvements, therefore, provide an important, valuable and desirable extension of usable land area for the direct advantage and special benefit of properties with good and close proximity to the Improvements.
118
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Improved Nighttime Visibility And Safety From Streetlights Well maintained, effective street lighting provides special benefit to proximate parcels, within the range of the light, because it allows for safer and improved use of the property in the evenings and night. Streetlighting also provides special benefit as it increases neighborhood safety and reduces the likelihood of crime on the proximate parcels.
General Versus Special Benefit And Quantification Of General Benefit In light of Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010) and Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v.
City of San Diego (2011), the City has reevaluated the Proposition 218 requirement regarding special and general benefits. Proposition 218 requires an assessing agency to separate the general benefits from the special benefits of a public improvement or service, estimate the quantity of each in relation to the other, and limit the assessment amount to the portion of the improvement or service costs attributable to the special benefits. The courts in Golden Hill and Beutz determined that there usually will be some general benefit associated with a parks improvement project and park‐related services because residents and others who don’t reside in the assessment district probably will use the parks at least to some degree. The separation and quantification of general and special benefits requires an apportionment of the cost of the service or improvement between the two benefit types and assessing assessment district property owners only for the portion of the cost representing special benefits to the assessment district property. General benefits cannot be funded by assessment revenue. Rather, the funding must come from other sources. The city therefore has analyzed the quantity or extent to which the general public may reasonably be expected to use or benefit from the parks and landscape areas in relation to the quantity or extent to which residents of the assessment district use and benefit from the parks and landscape areas.
Although the parks and landscape areas may be available to the general public at large, they have been specifically designed, located and created to provide additional and improved public resources for property inside the District, and not the public at large.
Other properties that are either outside the District, or within the District and not assessed, do not enjoy the unique proximity, access, views and other special benefit factors described previously. These Improvements are of special benefit to properties located within the Assessment District because they provide a direct advantage to properties in the District that would not be provided in absence of the Assessments.
Special Note Regarding General Benefit and the SVTA v. SCCOSA Decision:
There is no widely‐accepted or statutory formula for calculating general benefit.
General benefits are benefits from improvements or services that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” benefits 119
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
received by other properties. The SVTA vs. SCCOSA decision provides some clarification by indicating that general benefits provide “an indirect, derivative advantage” and are not necessarily proximate to the improvements.
In the re‐analysis of general benefit, the city determined that there are several attributes and features relating to the parks and landscaped areas that discourage and limit use by persons who do not reside near the parks and landscape areas: there are no bathrooms; there are no parking lots; the areas are small; the areas are designed for passive use and short duration of use (e.g. less than one hour); there are no ball fields for organized sports teams and play; the areas are not located on major streets; and, the areas are not destination parks. For similar reasons, these attributes and features make the parks and landscape areas much more usable by those who reside within close walking distance.
City police officers, other staff persons and council members over the years also have observed the patterns of usage of the parks and landscape areas and the persons who use those areas. Based on these observations, the city has determined that the vast majority of the persons who use these areas reside in close proximity, that it is extremely rare for someone to drive to park at and use these areas, and that it is extremely rare for someone to walk to these areas from outside the District.
Based on these observations and the park/landscape area attributes and features that discourage and limit use by persons outside the District area, the city has determined that approximately 8% of the persons who use the parks and landscape areas walk or drive to the areas from outside the District.
Regarding the street lighting, it benefits both pedestrians and drivers who reside in the District area as well as those pedestrians and drivers from outside the District (i.e., those walking or driving through or into the District). Because the District involves residential subdivisions with no major arterial roads and few through roads, the vast majority of the walking and driving in the District is by those who reside in the area. City police officers, other staff persons and council members over the years have observed the drivers and pedestrians in the District area. Based on these observations, the city has determined that approximately 3% of the drivers and pedestrians on the District streets with lighting reside outside the District.
With 8% of park usage by non‐District residents and 3% benefit from street lighting to non‐District residents, the city next must determine the overall percentage of use and benefit attributable to the general benefit. It is difficult to calculate or reconcile the overall general benefit from these percentages; therefore, the city has determined that the most appropriate calculation is to average the two. In averaging the percentages, the city estimates and determines that the overall general benefit from the Improvements is 7%. The budget on page 6 shows that the amount and portion of city funding of the 120
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
improvement costs from sources other than assessment revenue is $25,052, or 17%, which exceeds the 7% general benefit.
Method of Assessment
After separating out the general benefits, the second step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the relative special benefit received by each property in relation to a single‐ family home, or, in other words, on the basis of Single‐Family Equivalents (SFE). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. For the purposes of this Report, all properties are designated a SFE value, which is each property’s relative special benefit in relation to a single family home on one parcel. In this case, the "benchmark" property is the single family detached dwelling which is one Single Family Equivalent or one SFE.
Assessment Apportionment
The Improvements for Wheatland Ranch, Premier Grove and Park Place would provide direct and special benefit to properties in this District. Wheatland Ranch, Premier Grove and Park Place are residential single family development projects. As such, each residential property receives similar benefit from the Improvements. Therefore, the Engineer has determined that the appropriate method of apportionment of the benefits derived by all parcels is on a dwelling unit basis. All improved properties or properties proposed for development are assigned an SFE factor equal to the number of dwelling units developed or planned for the property. The assessments are listed on the Assessment Roll.
Appeals and Interpretation
Any property owner who claims that the assessment levied on its property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with the City Manager or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City Manager or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Manager or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property 121
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any property owner, who disagrees with the decision of the City Manager or her or his designee, may refer their appeal to the City Council of the City of Wheatland and the decision of the City Council of the City of Wheatland shall be final.
122
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Assessment
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheatland, County of Yuba, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”), adopted its Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Formation of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District; WHEREAS, the Resolution directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting a description of the Improvements, an estimate of the costs of the Improvements, a diagram for the assessment district and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable parcels within the assessment district, to which Resolution and the description of the Improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act and the order of the City Council of the City of Wheatland, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the assessment district.
The amount of the costs of the Improvements and related incidental expense to be paid by the District for the fiscal year 2025‐26 is as follows:
Figure 2: Summary of Cost Estimates
As required by the Act, the Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the District. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Wheatland‐Premier Grove Landscaping and Lighting District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.
Estimate of Improvement
Cost for FY 2025-26
Wheatland
Ranch
Units 1 & 2
Premier
Grove
Park
Place
Maintenance and Operation1 $ 59,229 $ 7,797 $ 51,491
Street Lights $ 7,496 $ 1,183 $ 7,919
Administration $ 2,998 $ 418 $ 2,795
Incidentals $ 4,284 $ 543 $ 3,634
Contribution from other sources2 $ (7,624) $ (2,609) $ (17,695) Total Budget… $ 66,383 $ 7,333 $ 48,145
Budget to Assessment
Total Budget $ 67,960 $ 7,507 $ 49,295
Total SFE Units 188 49 209
Total per SFE $361.49 $153.21 $235.86
1) Includes park and landscaping maintenance, and adjacent curb and gutter, storm drainage, streets and other infrastructure
2) General Fund, Public Works fund, etc.
123
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the related incidental expenses, upon the parcels and lots of land within the District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Cost Estimate and Method of Assessment in the Report.
The assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the District in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the Improvements.
The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment based on the change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area as of December of each succeeding year, with the maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 4%.
In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the minimum of 4% or the yearly CPI change plus any CPI change in previous years that was in excess of 4%, the maximum authorized assessment shall increase by this amount. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years. The CPI change above 4% can be used in a future year when the CPI adjustment is below 4%.
The 2025‐26 rate for Wheatland Ranch (Zone 1) is $361.49 per SFE, Premier Grove (Zone 2) is $153.21 per SFE, and Park Place (Zone 3) is $235.86 per SFE which is a 2.37% increase and the maximum allowed rate for each zone.
Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Yuba for the fiscal year 2025‐
26. For a more particular description of the parcel, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of Yuba County.
I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Rolls, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2025‐26 for each parcel or lot of land within the District.
Dated: May 8, 2025
Engineer of Work
By _____________________________
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091
124
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND PAGE 20
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the Landscaping and Lighting District are displayed on the following Assessment Diagrams.
125
Section 6, Item # 6.1
CITY OF WHEATLAND PAGE 21
WHEATLAND‐PREMIER GROVE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26
By SCIConsultingGroup
Assessment Roll, FY 2025‐26
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the Assessment District and the amount of the assessment) will be filed with the City Clerk is, by reference, made part of this report and is available for public inspection during normal office hours.
Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report.
These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. 126
Section 6, Item # 6.1
1 Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Wheatland City Council approve the amended resolution for the Bishop Pumpkin Farm OASA process, as requested by Yuba LAFCo (see Attachment 1).
Background
On June 27, 2023, the Wheatland City Council directed the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Wheatland and Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm for the City to provide water and wastewater services to a new food service building and a new restroom building planned adjacent to, but outside, the current City boundary.
On April 23, 2024, the Wheatland City Council approved a resolution identifying the Wheatland City Manager as the Authorized Representative for the Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm OASA, as requested by LAFCo.
Discussion
On April 24, 2025, LAFCo requested the City approve a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the OASA process. As a result, Staff has amended the April 23, 2024, City Council Resolution to include the NOE.
Attachment
1) Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm OASA Resolution
Exhibit A – Notice of Exemption
City Council Meeting Staff Report
Meeting Date:
May 13, 2025
Subject: Amend the Bishop Pumpkin Farm Out of Agency Service Agreement (OASA) City Council Resolution for the Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
Prepared By: Tim Raney, Community Development Director
127
Section 6, Item # 6.2
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-**
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND FILE AN OUT OF AGENCY
SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE YUBA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm (Bishop’s) located at 1415 Pumpkin Lane, Wheatland, CA 95692, and more particularly described by Yuba County Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-180-109 (Property), operates a seasonal pumpkin farm within the Wheatland (City) City Limits; and
WHEREAS, in 2012 the City approved Bishop’s application to have the Property rezoned to AG Tourism Planned Development and annexed within the City Limits to connect the Property to the City’s water and wastewater service; and WHEREAS, Bishop’s acquired additional land in 2015 and 2020 located outside the City limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence and adjacent to the City limits; and WHEREAS, Bishop’s has approached the City in an effort to expand the AG Tourism operation by initiating the annexation process to connect the acquired lands to the City’s water and wastewater service; and
WHEREAS, although the annexation process has not yet been completed and has not been approved by Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), Bishop’s wishes to construct a new food service building, restroom building and amusement ride adjacent to, but outside, the current City limits; and
WHEREAS, Bishop’s has requested that the City seek LAFCo approval to provide, and thereafter provide sewer and water service to the new food service building and restroom building prior to their subsequent annexation; and WHEREAS, the City has considered Bishop’s request and has decided that seeking such LAFCo approval is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, the Wheatland City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) directing staff to apply for LAFCo approval of the Out of Agency Service Agreement (OASA); and
WHEREAS, the City of Wheatland designates the City Manager with the authority to complete and file the OASA with LAFCo on behalf of Bishops.
WHEREAS, the Bishop’s OASA is exempt from CEQA review under sections 15301(b) existing facilities and 15303(d) new construction of conversion of small structures; and
128
Section 6, Item # 6.2
Page | 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Wheatland, as follows:
1. The City Manager (the “Authorized Representative”) or designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City, an OASA for the City to provide water and wastewater service to areas of the Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm that currently fall outside the City limits.
2. The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to complete and provide the application materials from the City of Wheatland to Yuba LAFCo.
3. The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the OASA.
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Wheatland on this 13 th day of May 2025, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Lisa Thomason, City Clerk
129
Section 6, Item # 6.2
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of: Yuba
From: (Public Agency): City of Wheatland
111 C St.
Wheatland, CA 95692
945 8th Street, Suite 107
Marysville, CA 95901
Project Title: Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm Out of Area Service Agreement (OASA) Project Applicant: City of Wheatland
Project Location - Specific:
The proposed project site is located at 1415 Pumpkin Lane in the City of Wheatland.
Project Location - City: Wheatland Project Location - County: Yuba Project Description:
The proposed project would allow the City of Wheatland to provide water and wastewater services to a new food service building and a new restroom building located adjacent to, but outside the current City boundary.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Wheatland Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Wheatland Exempt Status: (check one):
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
DeclaredEmergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
EmergencyProject(Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Section 15301(b) and Section 15303 (d) Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
The proposed project would allow the City of Wheatland to provide water and wastewater services to the Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Tim Raney, Community Development Director Telephone: (916) 371-6100 If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: Date: Title:
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. 130
Section 6, Item # 6.2
City Council Meeting Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 13, 2025
Subject: Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving an Electronic Signature Policy
Prepared By: Bill Zenoni, City Manager
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Wheatland City Council consider adopting the resolution approving an Electronic Signature Policy.
Discussion: The City’s current practice is to require manual signatures on all legally binding documents.
Advances in technology have increased the use and security of electronic document management.
California legislation (Government Code section 16.5 and Civil Code section 1633.1) authorize the use of digital signatures on written documents with a public entity. Digital signatures have the same force and effect as a manual signature if the following five attributes are required:
1. It is unique to the person using it.
2. It is capable of verification.
3. It is under the sole control of the person using it.
4. It is linked to data in such a manner that if the data are changed, the digital signature is invalidated.
5. It conforms to regulations adopted by the Secretary of State.
The City Attorney, working with staff, has drafted an Electronic Signature Policy which is in compliance with State legislation and which will improve the efficiency of current City processes, including the ability to sign up for a City business license or utility services online. This policy will not supersede laws specifically requiring a written signature, nor does it limit the right or option to conduct a transaction on paper or non-electronic forms. The policy provides that the City will accept electronic signatures as legally binding and equivalent to hand-written signatures on those transactions for which the parties have agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means. If the Electronic Signature Policy is approved by the City Council, the City Manager will coordinate the selection of an appropriate electronic signature method with the City Attorney and City Clerk.
Fiscal Impact: The estimated annual cost of implementing this policy is approximately $1,000.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Electronic Signature Policy
131
Section 6, Item # 6.3
WHEATLAND CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. XX-25
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
APPROVING AN ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE POLICY
WHEREAS, the City’s use of electronic signatures is authorized by California Government Code section 16.5 and California Civil Code section 1633.1 (the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act); and
WHEREAS, the use of electronic signatures on legally-binding documents has become increasingly prevalent; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current process requires manual signatures on all legally binding documents which is time consuming and inefficient; and
WHEREAS, approval of an Electronic Signature Policy would allow the City to accept electronic signatures on documents and certain automated processes that has the same force and effect as a manual signature; and
WHEREAS, the Electronic Signature Policy does not supersede laws specifically requiring a manual written signature and does not limit the right or option to conduct a transaction on paper or non-electronic forms.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the City Council of the City of Wheatland that:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
B. The Electronic Signature Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of City of Wheatland on this 13th day of May 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Angela Teter, Mayor
ATTEST:
______
Lisa Thomason, City Clerk
132
Section 6, Item # 6.3
Exhibit A
City of Wheatland
Electronic Signature Policy
PURPOSE:
This policy enables the City of Wheatland (“City”) to accept electronic signature(s), in lieu of wet ink signatures, on documents and certain automated processes on the City’s website. This policy does not supersede laws specifically requiring a written signature nor does this policy limit the right or option to conduct a transaction on paper or non-electronic forms.
DEFINITIONS:
“Certificate Authority” means an entity that stores, signs, and issues digital Certificates. “Certificate” means an electronic document issued by a Certificate Authority that contains the public key for and specifies the identity and organization of each attached Digital Signature. “Digital Signature” is a type of “Electronic Signature,” and means an electronic identifier, created by computer, intended by the party using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature. “Electronic” means relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities.
“Electronic Record” means a record created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means.
“Electronic Signature” means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an Electronic Record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the Electronic Record. “Record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
LEGAL BASIS:
The City’s use of Electronic Signatures is authorized by two California statutes, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), codified at Civil Code section 1633.1 et seq., and Government Code section
16.5. The UETA provides that a signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. In order for the UETA to apply, the parties must agree to conduct the transaction by electronic means, and whether they have agreed to do so “is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.”
Government Code section 16.5 applies to public entities, including the City, and authorizes any party to a written communication with a public entity, in which a signature is required or used, to affix a signature by use of a digital signature that complies with the requirements of Government Code section 16.5.
Government Code section 16.5 and State regulations require that a Digital Signature (i) be created by a technology that is acceptable for use by the State of California and (ii) embody the following five attributes:
1. It is unique to the person using it;
2. It is capable of verification;
3. It is under the sole control of the person using it;
4. It is linked to data in such a manner that if the data are changed, the Digital Signature is invalidated; and,
133
Section 6, Item # 6.3
2 5. It conforms to regulations adopted by the Secretary of State, codified at Chapter 10 of Division 7 of Title 2 (commencing at Section 22000) of the California Code of Regulations.
POLICY:
1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City accepts electronic signatures as legally binding and equivalent to handwritten signatures to signify an agreement in accordance with California Government Code section 16.5.
2. This policy applies only to transactions between parties agreeing to conduct transactions by electronic means with the use of the City’s approved Electronic Signature method. If the parties to a transaction have agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means, the parties are required to utilize the City’s Electronic Signature system for approved, electronically signed documents and all applicable security processes for authentication must be followed.
3. This policy applies to all employees of the City and governs all uses of Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records used to conduct the official business of the City. Such business may include, but is not limited to, electronic communications, transactions, contracts, and other official purposes, both internal and external to the City.
4. The City’s right or option to conduct a transaction on paper or in non-electronic form shall not affect the City’s right, option or obligation to have documents provided or made available in electronic format.
5. Approved and automated processes for City transactions are automatically subject to the provisions of this policy.
6. The final approval of any Electronic Signature method will be made by the City Manager and City Attorney. In determining whether to approve an Electronic Signature method, consideration will be given to the systems and procedures associated with using that Electronic Signature, and whether the use of the Electronic Signature is at least as reliable as the existing method being used. As advised by the Secretary of State, the City shall consider the following issues and other issues when identifying the appropriate technology to use for each document that includes a Digital Signature component:
A. Are the documents containing signatures going to be transmitted over an "open" or a "closed" network?
B. Does the signature on the document need to be verified? C. How much time and resources can be allocated to verification? D. Does the signature need to be compared to a manual signature on paper or can a digital Certificate adequately provide one-stop verification?
E. Will immediate verifiability reduce the potential of fraud? F. Will the documents containing Digital Signatures need to be reproduced for public access to the records?
G. Will the documents containing Digital Signatures need to be utilized by another local, state or federal agency? If so, is the technology compatible with the other agency's needs?
7. In the event it is determined an approved Electronic Signature method is no longer trustworthy, the City Manager or the City Attorney shall revoke the approval of that Electronic Signature method.
Any records that were signed prior to the finding that the approved Electronic Signature method is no longer trustworthy shall continue to be valid.
PROHIBITED USES OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES:
1. Documents requiring notarization, County recording, or the City’s seal. 134
Section 6, Item # 6.3
3 2. Any records, reports or other documents required by federal law, state law, or City policy to be maintained in physical form with original manual signature.
3. Ordinances, resolutions, and minutes of the City Council.
4. Documents or transactions that require a handwritten signature, including, but not limited to, transfers of interests in real property.
5. Certificates or permits (except as otherwise authorized by applicable laws).
6. Documents or transactions that are not signed using approved Electronic Signature technologies and/or vendors.
7. Any other documents which the City Manager deems appropriate to require original manual signatures.
STORAGE OF ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED DOCUMENTS:
If a document exists only electronically, steps shall be taken by the City to ensure that a fixed version of the final document and the document’s audit trail, which details the Electronic Signature process, are stored in a manner consistent with the City’s policies, including the City’s Records Retention policy, and any applicable laws.
135
Section 6, Item # 6.3