Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Verne tallies Prop. 218 ballots: Zone 4‑1 approves assessment increase, Zone 4‑2 rejects it; council selects adjusted engineer’s report
Summary
After staff opened mailed ballots, Zone 4‑1 approved the proposed assessment increase while Zone 4‑2 rejected it; council adopted staff’s Option B engineer’s report to reflect the mixed outcome and directed lower maintenance programming for Zone 4‑2 to balance budgeted services.
La Verne staff certified mailed-ballot results for the city’s Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District Number 6 and presented alternative engineer-report scenarios tied to the outcomes.
City Engineer Cody Howling read the certified returns: for Zone 4‑1, 540 ballots mailed and 216 returned with 131 yes and 85 no (the protest was not upheld and the proposed assessment increase was approved). For Zone 4‑2, 325 ballots mailed and 118 returned with 42 yes and 76 no (the protest was upheld and the proposed increase failed). Staff explained multiple versions of the engineer's report were prepared in advance to match possible voting outcomes.
Council considered staff’s options and moved to adopt Option B — the version reflecting Zone 4‑1 passed and Zone 4‑2 failed. That action keeps the assessment increase for 4‑1 at the level presented by staff and holds 4‑2 at last year’s assessment while allowing the council to retain a higher programmed budget if it chose to subsidize service in 4‑2. In practice, council directed staff to program a lower maintenance tier for 4‑2 (reduced mowing frequency and modest water reductions) to balance the district’s revenue with a lowered assessment level.
Earlier in the meeting the council had adopted annual levy resolutions for Districts 7 and 8 by unanimous vote; the District 6 outcomes only applied to the two voted zones. Councilmembers emphasized the cost of Prop. 218 balloting and the need to better inform property owners about the implications of rejecting an assessment (staff noted the process and advertised notices incurred significant expense). Council also left open the option to revisit assessment districts in a future year.
Outcome: Zone 4‑1 assessment increase approved by voters; Zone 4‑2 increase rejected. Council adopted staff’s Option B engineer’s report and directed lower maintenance programming for Zone 4‑2 to match revenues.
What changes for residents: If council keeps the programmed budgets unchanged, the option exists to subsidize a higher level of service; otherwise, services in Zone 4‑2 will be delivered at a reduced maintenance tier consistent with available revenue.
