Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stockton council declines to approve expanded Downtown Community Improvement District after heated public comment
Summary
Despite weighted ballots showing 76% support by weight, Stockton City Council voted to reject formation of an expanded Downtown Stockton Community Improvement District, citing outreach gaps, inclusion of industrial Fremont Street parcels and assessment burdens on small property owners.
Stockton City Council voted on Oct. 14 not to approve the proposed Downtown Stockton Community Improvement District (CID) expansion after extended public testimony and council deliberation. City staff had opened the public hearing, presented a plan to expand the district from 613 to roughly 841 parcels, move to a single assessment zone with a 20‑year term and an estimated annual budget of about $1.862 million.
Tina McCarty, Economic Development Director, described the proposed assessment rates: approximately $0.07079 per square foot for commercial and multifamily parcels and about $0.04728 per square foot for residential/nonprofit parcels. Staff said the budget would allocate 77% to cleaning, safety and maintenance services, 10% to business development and 13% to advocacy and administration. The proposal would include newly developed areas near the new City Hall and Fremont Street entries in the expanded footprint.
During a public hearing that ran for more than an hour, multiple Fremont Street property owners — including Michael Souza, Alfonso Ron, Tony Faso and other small business/property owners — opposed inclusion of Fremont Street and industrial parcels, saying proposed services did not apply to their businesses, assessments were unaffordable (examples cited: year‑one increases of 13–37% for some properties) and outreach had been insufficient. Mark Dennehy raised specific procedural concerns about the ballot mailings (no map included) and the 5% annual escalation formula.
The City Clerk later read the ballot tabulation: 61.5% of weighted ballots returned; 76% by weight affirming formation and 24% in opposition. Nonetheless, a motion on the council floor to decline approval passed after several members expressed concern that the assessment map, outreach and the inclusion of many publicly owned parcels (city, county and school district property) created conflicts and uneven weight of votes.
Council members who opposed the expansion cited the need for additional outreach, potential legal questions raised by a few speakers (language and procedural requirements), and the disproportionate impact on small private owners relative to large public property holders. The council instructed staff to continue dialogue with downtown stakeholders and explore alternatives to address downtown investment without imposing the current assessment map and structure.
