Ripon council adopts 2025–26 budget, approves small increases for two landscape districts

The Ripon City Council adopted the city’s fiscal year 2025–26 operating and capital budget and approved assessment changes tied to landscape and lighting districts after public hearings on July 8.

City staff presented a budget that staff said balances current revenues and expenses but narrows the annual transfer to the Department Capital Fund. “Revenue on average increased about 4% a year and expenses have increased about 7.3% a year,” Kevin, a city staff member, told the council during the public hearing. Council members then voted to adopt the budget by voice vote; the meeting record shows a motion and second and the motion carried.

The budget includes a three-year capital improvement program and a multi-year street and road maintenance plan that divides the city into eight areas for surface treatment and reconstruction. Staff reported Area 1 work completed in 2024–25 included about eight miles of surface treatment at an approximate cost of $2,000,000 and roughly $350,000 for Third Street reconstruction. Area 2 resurfacing, scheduled to begin mid-July, was bid at about $1,300,000 for roughly eight miles of resurfacing; Cobblestone Court reconstruction is estimated at $300,000. Staff told the council Area 3 will be the most expensive and include reconstruction and complete-streets improvements intended to strengthen grant competitiveness.

Staff also described several capital projects in design or early construction: signal work at River and North Ripon (design expected late 2025/early 2026), a community center parking lot and baseball fields project (about 60% complete), the Welltree treatment system (in redesign after state water-quality rule changes), Well 9 rehabilitation (early design), the ACE Transit Station (about 60% design), a Second Street Safe Route to School project funded in part by a grant, the Stanislaus River bike trail and an SSJID surface-water project. The budget retains about $450,000 in ongoing support for community partners including the chamber, library/museum and the aquatic center, and it establishes a CalPERS contingency in an Internal Revenue Code section 115 trust to address unfunded pension liabilities.

Staff explained one notable change in planned transfers: the calculated transfer to the Department Capital Fund would have been about $540,000 this year but the adopted budget provides $363,000; the remainder of those replacement needs is deferred in the capital planning database. The staff report also separated volatile development-related revenue, which historically has ranged from about $400,000 to $800,000 year to year.

During related public hearings the council approved assessments for Ripon’s landscape maintenance districts and lighting districts. Of the city’s 10 landscape maintenance districts, two districts will see modest increases: the Carolinas district assessment will rise from $250 to $262.50 annually (a $12.50 increase) and the Alexandra Landscape District will increase from $292.28 to $301.62 annually (a $9.34 increase). Staff said those increases are intended to cover operating cost pressures; six smaller districts lack authority or fund balance to increase assessments and will be supported in the budget through transfers from the street/road fund.

The city’s lighting district assessment will remain $42 per single-family equivalent for 2025–26. Staff noted the lighting district has not been setting money aside for capital replacement and said the council will need to consider options — which would require a separate process — to fund future capital needs for lighting replacement.

The council also introduced (first reading) an annual ordinance certifying the city’s appropriation limit under Proposition 4 (the Gann limit) and indicated it will return in August for formal adoption. The city clerk read a written public comment submitted by resident Marty Harris raising questions about recent state changes noted in news coverage, CEQA applicability, SGMA and downstream drainage responsibilities; the comment was entered into the record and distributed to council members.

Decisions taken at the meeting were motions and voice votes recorded in the meeting minutes. Several routine agenda items (minutes, consent calendar, agenda approval) were approved by voice vote earlier in the session.

The council and staff emphasized that the long-term challenge is expense growth outpacing revenue and that the capital program and multi-area pavement strategy are intended to make street maintenance more predictable and to position the city for grant funding for larger reconstruction projects.

Council members did not request additional hearings on the budget; staff said they will return with updates and that some projects will require grant applications or separate design-and-construction approvals.