Pleasant Hill hires engineer to study assessment‑district rate increases for aging maintenance funds

Pleasant Hill’s City Council voted unanimously on March 2 to hire SCI Consulting Group to prepare engineerreports and outreach for proposed assessment increases in two city landscape/lighting assessment districts after staff said assessment revenues are no longer keeping pace with maintenance needs.

The move starts the Proposition 218 process for Assessment District 20 (zones 1–6, including downtown) and Assessment District 22 (Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk). City staff and consultants told council that most zones are at their current maximum assessments, that utility and maintenance costs have risen significantly, and that nearly all zones show negative fund balances heading into fiscal year 2025–26.

Why it matters: the assessments pay for street‑lighting, median upkeep and other safety‑related maintenance in defined districts. Without new maximums and an annual escalation clause, staff said the districts cannot sustain routine upkeep or fund new improvements; the city risks reducing maintenance to basic safety tasks only.

What was approved: council authorized the city manager to execute professional services agreements with SCI to prepare the required engineerreports, budgets and property‑owner ballots under Proposition 218. Consultants estimated a 6–9 month outreach and report timeline, followed by a minimum 45‑day balloting period; the earliest potential tax‑roll placement would be August 2027 if schedules hold.

Consultants’ approach and outreach: Melanie Lee of SEI/SCI outlined the Prop 218 mechanics — an engineerreport that apportions special vs. general benefit, a parcel‑weighted ballot (one ballot per parcel weighted by the proposed assessment amount), and strict noticing and hearing deadlines. SCI said it will use a mix of mailed surveys, stakeholder interviews, zone‑specific web pages, multilingual materials and identified neighborhood “community champions” to improve ballot return rates. The consultant said a reasonable outreach target is a 20–25% ballot return and that final rate choices (one‑year, multi‑year tiered increases, CPI escalators) would be recommended to council after the engineersreport and budget committee review.

Equity and timing concerns: council members asked specifically about impacts on homeowners in HOAs, apartment and commercial parcels that already receive separate bills, and low‑income or fixed‑income residents. Staff and consultants said the engineersreport will propose proportional assessments by parcel type and that the council and budget committee will consider duration and escalation (for example a multi‑year tier and thereafter a capped CPI adjustment) before any ballot is mailed. Staff emphasized tonight's vote authorized the study and outreach only; any final rate schedule will return to council.

Next steps: SCI will prepare preliminary engineersreports and outreach materials, return to council with the proposed rates and ballots, and then staff will proceed with the mailed ballot process if council approves. If a parcel‑weighted majority of returned ballots supports the proposed assessments, council will certify the results and the county will place levies on property tax bills.

Action: resolutions authorizing the professional services agreements for Assessment District 20 and Assessment District 22 were adopted on roll calls with all council members voting yes.

The council's authorization does not itself change assessments; any increase would require the Proposition 218 parcel‑weighted ballot process and subsequent council certification.