Stockton council reauthorizes Downtown Stockton CID but removes two proposed expansion areas after contested hearing

The Stockton City Council on Feb. 3 voted 4–3 to approve the formation of a renewed Downtown Stockton Community Improvement District (CID) but removed two controversial proposed expansion areas after a lengthy public hearing and council debate.

The council’s action followed a presentation by Mike Huber, executive director of the Downtown Stockton Alliance (DSA), who described the group’s services — street cleaning, biweekly power washing, a community ambassador outreach team, marketing and small-business loan programs — and urged reauthorization. "We most of what we do is homeless outreach to try to connect them with supportive services," Huber said, summarizing the DSA’s role in downtown operations.

Opponents in expansion area A, including several Fremont Street property owners, argued the process failed to provide required notice and that the earlier ballots and tabulation unduly reflected the votes of large government-owned parcels rather than small private owners. Natalie Rahn, who said she had not received mailed notice, told the council, "The property owners were not lawfully notified of this meeting," and raised multiple concerns about ballot mailing and tabulation procedures.

City Attorney staff told the council there was legal risk in reopening a closed public hearing because reconsideration is not expressly contemplated by the applicable codes, but the office had identified no explicit prohibition to proceeding. The attorney advised the council that, if it modified district boundaries, the record should include findings that excluded areas would not receive the CID’s proposed benefits.

Councilman Michael Blauer moved to form the CID but exclude expansions A and B; Vice Mayor Jason Lee seconded. Blauer said the vote reflected feedback from residents and property owners in the expansion areas, noting heavy opposition there. The motion passed 4–3. The council’s action preserves the DSA’s core territory and services while explicitly removing the two expansion zones that had drawn the strongest opposition.

The resolution requires findings for exclusions and preserves the council’s authority to adjust assessments and boundaries. Staff told the council there are timing requirements for implementing an assessment: the council must complete required steps in time to submit any adopted assessment to the county tax assessor on the consultant’s schedule to take effect with the next tax roll.

Supporters who spoke at the hearing — longtime downtown property owners and businesses — urged the council to preserve the DSA, stressing the group’s role in making the downtown safer and more inviting. "The work they were doing every single day," said small-business owner Matthew Amen, describing DSA efforts to improve perceptions of safety and cleanliness.

The council’s final vote does not itself levy new taxes; it authorizes the district and the assessment framework that would be applied only after final findings and the necessary assessment process. Council members split on term length and assessment structure: some members questioned the 20‑year term offered under the city’s charter code and asked for protections for small residential owners and clear offsets if city-owned buildings are assessed.

Next procedural steps include drafting findings supporting the specific exclusions and completing any required noticing or ministerial filings tied to the assessment timeline. The council did not adopt the expansion areas A and B, and DSA representatives were directed to work with staff on the revised formation documents.