Monrovia staff propose citywide assessment district to cover parks, lighting and landscaping costs

MONROVIA, Calif. — At a special study session Tuesday, Feb. 18, Monrovia city staff presented a proposal to combine the city’s Park Maintenance District (PMD) and Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District (LLMD) into a single citywide assessment district to fully cover the cost of maintaining streetlights, traffic signals, trees, landscaping and city parks.

Ray Bowman, deputy administrative services director, told the City Council that the city is subsidizing the two existing districts and that a combined district would be designed “to comply with state law and be sufficient to cover all costs to maintain and operate our street lights, traffic signals, trees, landscaping, and our soon to be nine parks.” Bowman said the proposed rate design was prepared by an engineer working with NBS, the city’s assessment administrator.

Why it matters: The city estimates the two districts together produce a recurring annual deficit—about $1,850,000 according to staff—paid from the general fund. The proposed single district would apply Proposition 218 procedures, require mailed ballots and a majority-weighted protest vote, and would shift the ongoing cost from the general fund to parcel assessments if approved by voters.

What staff presented: The proposal combines PMD and LLMD into one district and bases assessments on a parcel-by-parcel “special benefit” formula. That formula factors land-use category, lot size (a lot factor), and park-benefit points intended to reflect likely use of parks near a parcel. NBS’s engineer estimated the district’s “general benefit” at 18.75 percent; under that approach property owners would pay only for special benefits, while the city covers the identified general-benefit share.

Staff told council there are about 10,400 assessable parcels in the city and an estimated $3.5 million in annual assessment revenue under the proposed structure. Residential parcels with fewer than five units make up roughly 8,700 parcels (about 83 percent of assessable parcels) and would generate an estimated $2.3 million annually. Staff showed ranges of first-year increases by land-use category: many single-family homeowners would see increases in the low hundreds of dollars per year, while some multifamily and commercial parcels could see larger increases (examples presented ranged from under $100 up to several hundred dollars; the highest example ranges presented for some multifamily properties were up to about $800 in the first year).

Bowman said the rate design aimed to be “least impactful to the community” while eliminating the annual deficit, and that the engineer’s calculations were prepared in accordance with applicable law and Proposition 218 requirements.

Council questions and staff responses: Councilmembers asked how the new assessments would be calculated and how residents would be notified. Staff said residential charges in the primary category would be based on lot square footage rather than strictly by dwelling unit and that multifamily buildings would be assessed in a way that accounts for unit count. Staff also described outreach options, including utility bill inserts, the city newsletter, mailed ballot materials required by Proposition 218 and updates on the city website and social media.

Councilmember Jimenez raised questions about which CPI (consumer price index) would be used for future annual adjustments; staff confirmed an index would be applied and noted the city currently uses the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CPI for January-to-January adjustments but that other indices (for construction or regional changes) could be considered when setting escalation mechanisms.

Phasing and timeline options: Staff presented three broad choices: (1) pursue the combined district on the 2025–26 tax roll (a shorter outreach window); (2) staff’s recommendation to target the 2026–27 tax roll to allow more time for outreach and education; or (3) keep the existing districts and seek other ongoing funding to cover the deficit. Staff described phasing options for assessments (for example, spreading increases over one to three years, or longer at council direction) and noted phase-in schedules would delay full deficit elimination until the final phase-in year.

Additional details and trade-offs: Staff emphasized that combining districts could reduce annual administrative costs (one district to administer instead of two) and allow parcel-level fairness in allocation. They also noted technical elements in the engineer’s report, including a traffic-based approach used to estimate general benefit. Staff said utilities and maintenance items (for example, electricity and tree trimming) are included in the cost base, and that LED lighting projects and other capital investments can change operating costs over time but generally require upfront funding.

Next steps: Staff said they will proceed with the city’s annual proceedings for the existing districts in March and that council could direct staff to return with a deeper study session covering phasing scenarios, a side-by-side comparison to current assessments, and additional outreach plans if the council wishes to pursue the combined district.

There were no formal votes on the proposal at the study session.