Oxnard committee advances landscape maintenance district assessments after debate over saving for 'projects' vs. maintenance

The City of Oxnard Finance and Governance Committee on May 13 voted 2-1 to recommend that the City Council start proceedings to levy assessments for the city's landscape maintenance districts for fiscal year 2025–26, approve a consolidated engineer's report and declare its intention to levy assessments, setting a public hearing for June 17, 2025.

The motion to forward the staff recommendation passed with Chair MacArthur and Committee member Rodriguez voting yes; Committee member Star voted no. Committee members debated technical and legal questions about when district costs should be treated as a multi-year project financed over installments versus regular maintenance funded from annual assessments.

Committee member Star pressed staff and legal counsel on the distinction in the Streets and Highways Code between improvements and maintenance and whether maintenance items may be included in multi-year installment funding. Director of Public Works Michael Wolfe told the committee that the code allows spreading an estimated cost "by an assessment ... collected in installments over a period not to exceed 5 years" when the cost "cannot be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment," and he read the relevant language from the Streets and Highways Code. Legal counsel Mark Mandel told the committee the key question is whether a cost is a multiyear expense that should be smoothed over several years rather than an annual spike: "sometimes there is work that needs to be smoothed over several years. So, rather than having a spiky rate ... this allows you to spread that cost over several years," he said.

Public works staff and the special districts manager described how projects are classified. Anthony Miller, special districts manager, explained that districts are treated case by case: some districts can include installment payments for capital work or larger projects, while others focus on operating maintenance. Wolfe and Miller said the city sometimes breaks larger work into smaller chunks for pay-as-you-go implementation, and that decisions depend on district revenue capacity and the practical maintenance schedule for assets such as street trees.

Committee members also flagged specific line items in the engineer's report and asked staff to clarify tables in the backup. Committee member Star pointed to table 6.2, which shows a $133,430 project listed for LMD 43 that staff confirmed was for pathway light replacement. She also noted a $45,000 item for LMD 37 that appeared in table 6.2 but not in table 6.30.1. Consultant Amanda Welker confirmed the $45,000 entry had been shown as a maintenance cost in one table and should appear in the project-released column; she said staff would correct the tables and produce an amended exhibit, and estimated the corrected balance for that reserve installment would be $12,006.67 at the end of the fiscal year.

Star said she remained uncomfortable with treating maintenance-like work as multi-year saved projects because of the risk that a property owner who pays into a reserve would not personally receive the benefit when the work is performed, and she asked staff to provide fund-balance projections showing how operating reserves and improvement reserves evolve over a five-year cycle. Miller and Wolfe agreed to meet offline and provide the requested fund-balance illustrations.

The committee voted to forward the following staff recommendations to council: (1) adopt a resolution initiating proceedings to levy assessments against real property for FY 2025–26 in connection with the City's landscape maintenance districts; (2) adopt a resolution approving a consolidated engineer's report regarding those assessments; (3) adopt a resolution declaring the intention to levy assessments and set the public hearing for June 17, 2025; (4) approve a one-time fund-balance contribution from LMD 49 to the general fund (amount as listed in the staff report); and (5) approve distribution of an LMD 54 reserve fund balance to benefit units in LMD 54 (amount as listed in the staff report).

The motion to forward staff's recommendation was moved and seconded on the record; the final vote was 2–1 (MacArthur and Rodriguez in favor; Star opposed). Star indicated she planned to vote no because she was concerned about the overall cost of running the LMD program and the policy implications of funding maintenance via multi-year assessments.

Committee members and staff agreed to follow up with corrected tables and additional financial projections before the item goes to the full City Council so elected members and the public can see projected reserve balances, operating impacts and how a planned project would interact with annual maintenance needs.

The discussion included references to the City's finance policy and the Streets and Highways Code. Staff said they would provide supplemental documentation to address the code/maintenance question and the requested five-year fund-balance scenarios.