CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - At the September 22 meeting of the Citrus Heights City Council, Vice Mayor Tim Schaefer pulled Item 10 from the consent calendar. The item was a resolution approving a cost-of-living adjustment plus a one-time payment for full-time unrepresented employees, and Schaefer said he received several concerned emails about the item. He wanted to make it clear to the public that “this is a group of folks that haven’t had a raise in a couple of years.”

The item applies only to unrepresented employees, who don’t have a union negotiating salaries for them. Recent inflationary pressures have significantly raised the cost of living, and other agencies in the region have given unrepresented employees some type of cost-of-living increase, generally between 2%-6%. To meet this need for their employees and match regional salaries, the City was considering a cost-of-living adjustment of 3% retroactive to July 3, 2022, along with a one-time payment of 3%.

City Manager Ashley Feeney explained that the executive management team was not included in this action, and it was just for “the unrepresented group at City Hall that produce a lot of work.” He said, “It’s important from a retention and attraction standpoint that we’re acknowledging what’s happening within the region and also acknowledging the good work that our team does here.”

The budget impact from this resolution is approximately $290,000, but no budget adjustment is necessary because of the current surplus.  

Councilmember Bret Daniels said they want the employees to know that the City values them and their hard work. Vice Mayor Schaefer moved the item, and it passed unanimously.

The Council then gave direction to staff regarding potential annexations into the city. Community Development Director Casey Kempenaar said there is a General Plan goal to expand the boundaries of the city for future development, and the City had considered several potential annexation sites in the past. But the analysis at that time determined it would create a deficit by requiring more services without bringing in enough revenue to offset those costs. However, now that the City’s revenue neutrality agreement with Sacramento County is nearing its end, the City will begin to receive property taxes for all properties within Citrus Heights, so a new analysis might reveal that annexations could now be a financial benefit.

The annexation process is governed by Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which oversees incorporations and boundary changes for cities and special districts. LAFCo determines if a City has sufficient revenue to serve the annexed land and would analyze the potential property tax exchange with Sacramento County.

Councilmember Jeannie Bruins said that while potential annexations didn’t have a fiscal benefit in the past because “we were under the binds of revenue neutrality,” she suspects the analysis will be significantly different this time.

Councilmember Daniels expressed concern about the potential Roseville Pointe annexation including any of the nearby railyard, because of the potential issues that could bring. Councilmember Bruins agreed: “We’d be buying into problems.”

Council consensus was to ask staff for evaluation of several potential annexation sites: Roseville Pointe (northwest of city limits, excluding the railyard), Dewey Drive near Celtic Cross Church, the northwest corner of the Fair Oaks Blvd./Madison Ave. intersection (which is mostly commercial buildings), and Greenback Gateway (west of city limits to Hwy 80).

Staff will evaluate those areas for potential annexation by opening a dialogue with Sacramento County, starting outreach campaigns to see if there is interest in annexation in those areas, and conducting fiscal impact analyses. All of the findings will be reported back to the Council for consideration.

The next item under discussion was the condition of City-owned and -maintained streets, which has long been an issue—with an $82 million backlog of repairs needed to get all city roads into good condition. Without funding to meet that need, the City has been prioritizing repairs of roads in the worst condition. But major repairs are more expensive than preventative maintenance, and this strategy allows roads in fair or good condition to degrade during that time until they are also in poor condition and more expensive to fix.

At this time, 20% of city roads are in good condition, 28% in fair condition, 41% in poor condition, and 11% in very poor condition. If the City continues fixing only the poorest condition roads, it is projected that by 2027, 60% of the roads will be in very poor condition.

While the City doesn’t have sufficient funds to move poor condition roads into good condition, they can focus instead on preventative maintenance on roads that are used most frequently and those near schools and other significant areas.

Staff presented a plan to use 50% of anticipated funds to address high-traffic streets such as arterial and collector streets and using the other half to work on residential streets that will be done by districts or neighborhoods. Focusing on preventative maintenance will keep more of the city’s roads in good condition for a longer period of time.

Vice Mayor Schaefer asked “how much time are we buying” with this strategy? But staff explained that this is not a question of kicking the can down the road, but rather maximizing funding to prevent fair and good condition roads from ever degrading into poor condition.

Councilmember Bruins expresses concern that this plan would ignore poor condition roads, allowing them to become safety hazards. But staff said the plan would have flexibility, allowing any major issues to be addressed as needed.

City Manager Feeney said this approach will make sure that the roads with most traffic are improved and maintained so that they don’t fall into the poor category, but this plan won’t abandon the neighborhood streets: “It’s trying to take a balanced approach.”

Council agreed that staff should work to identify highest priorities and come back to present specific plans.

The Council then considered whether to allocate some of the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for a Community Project Grant Program, which would facilitate community projects to promote engagement, involvement, and community pride. Eligibility for the program would be flexible, allowing for new ideas and new groups to get involved. They hope to see proposals for music, art, block parties, neighborhood cleanups, pop-up events, and more.

A review process will determine if the proposal can be completed with the requested funding, if it will benefit the community by serving a public good or increasing connection, and if it can be completed within one year. The projects must take place within city limits, and activities/events must be free to participants and open to the public. This is designed to be a reimbursement grant, but there is flexibility in the guidelines to allow for alternatives when necessary.

The pilot round of this program would launch early in 2023, and staff recommended $50,000 be allocated for this first round (out of $8 million in remaining ARPA funds). The pilot round will provide data on demand for the program. If there is high demand, two rounds could be implemented per year for the duration of ARPA funding availability—which much be allocated by December 2024 and expended by December 2026.

Council voted unanimously to approve the program.