Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears plan to address underfunded landscape assessment districts; staff recommends phased ballots
Summary
City staff outlined a five‑point plan to address 43 landscape assessment districts in Hanford, focusing on rescoping consultants, targeted outreach and balloting to raise assessments in deficient districts; council generally agreed to rescope the Willdan contract and directed staff to return with candidate districts and outreach materials.
City staff, led by Director Brad Albert, briefed the council on the history, current condition and recommended next steps for Hanford’s landscape assessment districts (LADs).
Albert said the city has 43 LADs, 11 of which are financially deficient (many lack CPI escalators) and seven of which have been downgraded to a ‘triple x’ rating with no contracted landscape services. Using a sample property in District 0403 (Cambridge Homes), staff showed how an annual assessment of about $154 is allocated — roughly 51% to contract maintenance, 18% to utilities, about 7% for city service allocation, and the remainder to fund balance — and explained why aging assessments without escalators become insufficient as water and maintenance costs rise.
Staff presented five recommended steps: (1) rescope Willdan Financial’s agreement so the city performs the annual engineer’s report in‑house (saving roughly the current contract amount) and redirect some savings to outreach; (2) develop a targeted analysis to identify which deficient districts to ballot in a first phase (staff suggested 5–6 districts as a realistic start); (3) execute a focused outreach and education campaign (postcards, block meetings, influencer engagement and visual examples showing cost per homeowner); (4) create a district‑specific CIP to reinvest excess fund balances in healthy districts; and (5) establish an LAD working group of the internal departments that touch assessment districts.
Council members debated the desired standard of service (some favoring A or B levels), phasing versus balloting all 11 deficient districts at once, and whether to hire a consulting firm for outreach or rely on council and staff canvassing. Several councilmembers emphasized that past balloting attempts had failed and that carefully tailored, neighborhood‑level messaging will be critical to success.
Council reached consensus to rescope Willdan’s contract and for staff to return with an analysis of candidate districts, outreach strategy and estimated assessment increases needed to raise service levels; staff said ballots would need to be prepared by March–April to be included in the county roll by the August 9 deadline.
The council did not take a binding vote to ballot specific districts at this meeting; staff will return with a recommended set of districts and financial details for council direction.
