Woodland Hills council debates 2.5% city tax-rate bump, eyes roads and water funding

Woodland Hills — At a June work session held immediately after a public hearing with no speakers, staff presented certified property-tax numbers and councilors discussed a tentative recommendation to forward a city property tax rate of 0.003404 (the city's current rate plus 2.5 percent) to the county auditor for the truth-in-taxation process.

The city's finance presenter, identified in the meeting as Chris (staff member), told the council the state has proposed a rate of 0.003093 for the coming year, down from last year's 0.003321. "The state is proposing a 0.003093, which is less than the 0.003321 from last year," Chris said, but noted that even accepting the state's certified rate would increase city revenue compared with this year because assessed values have risen.

Chris showed multiple scenarios comparing (a) adopting the state's certified rate, (b) keeping the city rate level at last year's 0.003321, and (c) raising the city portion by incremental percentages. Under the staff calculations presented, the city would collect about $1,012,000 if it accepted the state's rate; keeping last year's city rate would produce roughly $1,087,000. Current-year collections were described as about $983,000.

Why it matters: Council members repeatedly tied the rate discussion to the pavement management plan and another near-term water-related road project. Staff and councilors said small increases now could avoid larger, politically difficult spikes later and reduce the need to draw down savings. "We know safety is a number one priority, which includes roads," one councilor said during the discussion.

Staff presented a multi-year view of road and water work: the city has roughly $1.8 million in road work that staff intends to complete over a 6- to 7-year cycle (excluding about $1.1 million of road work that would be done as part of water-line projects). The pavement-management schedule and the timing of water-line work (examples named in the meeting included Maple, Skylake, Highline, Homestead and Summit) affect both scope and cash-flow needs.

Financing options were also discussed. Chris said the city had explored borrowing capacity with local lenders and with bonding options. "We have capacity for about... $1.8 to $3,000,000 that we could borrow just in the general account," Chris said, noting that general-obligation bonds (which are voter-authorized) would be a different path but that water projects were often best financed from the water enterprise because water revenues can service that debt.

Council members and staff emphasized communication with residents before the county's July notices: the council asked staff to prepare a clear explanation (video and newsletter text) about how the property-tax bill is allocated across taxing entities and why a modest city increase does not equate to the same percentage change on a homeowner's total bill.

Direction to staff: While the council did not record a formal adoption during the session, members settled on a working target of 0.003404 (city rate + 2.5%) to be advertised and taken through the truth-in-taxation process. Councilors asked staff to produce (1) a side-by-side budget impact summary showing the state-certified rate versus the 2.5-percent hybrid option; (2) a scenario that shows what rate would be necessary to avoid dipping into current savings at all (staff's rough calculation that day put that near a substantially higher percentage); and (3) a plain-language outreach package for residents explaining what the city controls and what other taxing entities control.

Quotes: Chris (staff member) said, "Kudos to the state and the county. They got us our tax rates" and later summarized the certified number: "The state is proposing a 0.003093, which is less than the 0.003321 from last year." Janet (council member) framed the trade-off: "If we keep it level, the rate level of what it was this year, so it is a slight increase. I'm okay with that if we have a plan of how we can pay for the roads." Ted (staff member, public works) cautioned that construction inflation and deferred maintenance mean the city may need to blend cash reserves, incremental rate increases and financing to meet the pavement plan timeline.

Ending: Councilors agreed to proceed with staff work on the 0.003404 proposal and to bring final numbers and outreach material back to an upcoming meeting and the August truth-in-taxation hearing for formal consideration. No final vote was recorded during the work session.