City to Vote on a New Landscape Upkeep Fee

It costs more than $3 million each year to keep Thousand Oaks looking nice, but figuring out who pays the tab is far from pretty.

Since 1979, about a third of the city’s property owners, who live next to city-maintained landscaping areas in some subdivisions, have been picking up most of the cost on their property-tax bills, according to city officials.

But residents like Wes Macdonald argue that any resident who drives through Thousand Oaks receives equal enjoyment--and should share in the cost.

He is upset that the landscaping bill isn’t spread throughout the city, and is urging fellow residents in a special assessment district to use their new rights under Proposition 218 to end the annual $139 fee.

Proposition 218, approved by voters in 1996, requires the city to get voter approval for such assessments. Because the fee was imposed without a vote in 1979, the city has scheduled an election this month to determine if it can continue.

Ballots are to be mailed April 21 and must be returned by June 9. A community meeting to discuss the process will be held April 30 at 7 p.m. at the Thousand Oaks Library.

Without the funds, Thousand Oaks’ upkeep could be in jeopardy, city officials warn. Almost $2 million is riding on whether the city gets permission from property owners like Macdonald to continue being taxed.

“Do you think the management of this city is going to let the place go to weeds? Of course not,” said Macdonald, a member of the Citizens Action Network. “They’re just trying to coerce people like me to keep paying because they’re afraid a fairer citywide tax won’t pass.”

A ballot on a new city tax would have to pass with a two-thirds majority, a feat the city said is hard to imagine. So for now, it is asking 12,000 of 38,000 property owners to pick up more than half the landscaping tab--in a vote that requires only a simple majority.

“I agree there are inequities in the system,” said Councilwoman Linda Parks. “But new taxes are unpopular and we need to continue this system so we don’t lose services.”

Don Nelson, director of the Public Works Department, said the 12,000 property owners being asked to continue paying the assessment have been singled out because the city maintains landscaping adjacent to their tracts.

Landscaping in public areas, like medians of major thoroughfares and the grounds of the library and Civic Arts Plaza, are paid for out of the general fund--not with assessment dollars, Nelson said.

Of the $3.4 million it costs to landscape Thousand Oaks, $1.6 million comes from the general fund and $1.8 million from assessments.

Nelson said residents in the assessment district are not subsidizing everyone’s landscaping, just what is directly benefiting their property.

Macdonald said there is a bigger picture to consider beyond what landscape abuts which property.

“Every resident benefits from the way the city looks--that’s why people want to live here,” Macdonald said. “Everyone wants a beautiful city to drive through, so all that ambience should be paid by everyone.”

If voters decide to keep the assessment, the amount paid by each property owner will change. The assessment would vary from one property to the next, depending on how much benefit each property owner receives from the landscaping.

“For many people, last year’s $139 fee will actually be reduced,” Nelson said. “And there are others who will pay more.”

In addition to a ballot on the landscaping assessment, more property owners will receive a separate ballot on whether to keep a street-light assessment, Nelson said.

Street lighting in Thousand Oaks costs about $700,000 a year--much cheaper than landscaping, which requires equipment, supplies and staff. About $500,000 comes out of the general fund and just $200,000 from the assessment district.

Unlike landscaping, most of the city’s property owners pick up the assessment portion of the lighting tab--about 26,000 out of 38,000, Nelson said.

“Lighting is just $8 a year per household,” Nelson said, urging people to at least say yes to the separate lighting ballot. “It’s a significant benefit to public safety for a nominal fee.”