Escalon council approves four neighborhood assessments, tables disputed Bellaterra vote

Escalon — The City Council on July 21 voted to adopt annual assessments for four of the city’s five landscape and lighting districts but continued the Bellaterra Estates hearing to Aug. 4 after residents and council members pressed for more clarity about what the assessment pays for and how capital-replacement charges were added.

The assessments fund neighborhood landscaping, street lights, walls, parks and related upkeep. At the meeting the council approved the engineer’s reports and levies for Sunrise, Westwood, Estates (other parcels) and the benefit assessment district. The council did not finalize Bellaterra after a 2–2 split on a motion to set a reduced Bellaterra assessment; council later voted 3–1 to continue the Bellaterra hearing to the Aug. 4 regular meeting so staff can provide additional information.

Why it matters: Bellaterra residents said they have paid assessments for years but see limited contractor work on large items — notably tree pruning — and want itemized spending and clearer rules on what is “special benefit” (assessable) versus “general benefit” (city-funded). The issue implicates Proposition 218 rules and longstanding practice under California’s landscaping and lighting law.

Council and staff said the annual engineer’s reports allocate direct operations (mowing, irrigation, utilities) and amortized replacement costs (walls, playground equipment, major tree pruning). Rick Clark of Harris & Associates told the council the firm removed several items from the special-benefit list because they are general benefits and with recent case law engineers have tightened those lists to avoid legal challenge. Rich Wall, an attorney with Best Best & Krieger, said the services lists in the engineer’s reports (page 101 of the agenda packet) are the actual services funded by assessments and that property owners received notice of the districts when they purchased their homes.

Residents urged the council to be more transparent about spending. Peggy Payan, who lives in Bellaterra and said she has lived in the neighborhood since construction, told the council: “I’ve only seen them come out and trim my trees once… I pay taxpayer money. I always pay my taxes… but I don’t see it in my neighborhood like I should.” Natalie Gallegos, also a Bellaterra resident, asked why changes to benefit language were not noticed earlier and said the community should have been given a voice.

Public-works staff and councilors discussed tree pruning as the most immediate maintenance need. Public Works staff said the district has many street trees and that a comprehensive contractor pruning would likely cost in the range of $25,000–$30,000; staff said they have three contractor estimates “ready to pull the trigger.” Staff also said the district has historically been maintained at levels that deferred large contractor pruning until the trees matured.

Council direction and next steps: The council adopted the engineer’s reports and levies for four districts as presented; it left Bellaterra open so staff can return with a clearer, itemized accounting and more detail on the proposed capital amortization and the tree-trimming estimates. Harris & Associates and the city advised the council that the county needs finalized assessment numbers by Aug. 10 to meet the tax-roll deadline; the city and consultant said Aug. 4 provides one additional meeting date to finalize Bellaterra before that deadline.

What was decided tonight: The council approved assessments for four districts and continued Bellaterra to Aug. 4. Staff was directed to provide a more detailed, itemized list of Bellaterra expenditures and to check specific resident complaints (lighting at Noni and Riesling, pedestrian crossings reported as inoperable). The consultant warned the council that missing the August 10 county deadline could jeopardize inclusion of assessments on the tax roll.

A note about terminology: The city and consultants repeatedly distinguished “direct costs” (utilities, mowing, contractor services) from “replacement/amortized costs” (walls, playground equipment, major pruning) and emphasized that the annual engineer’s report is the basis for the assessment each year; formation documents and any Proposition 218 maximum remain the underlying legal framework.

— Evidence from the council meeting: consultant remarks and resident testimony were recorded in the transcript; the council continued Bellaterra to the Aug. 4 meeting.

Ending: The council left the questioned Bellaterra assessment unresolved and gave staff and consultants until Aug. 4 to return with detailed line-item records and contractor estimates before the city must finalize numbers for the county tax roll.