Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sets hearing date for Foxley Drive street lighting assessment and clarifies process for neighborhood lighting districts
Summary
Council approved a resolution declaring intent to levy the Foxley Drive street lighting assessment and set a public hearing for June 10, 2025; staff reviewed the district petition process and funding mechanics for neighborhood lighting districts.
The Whittier City Council on May 13 adopted a resolution declaring its intent to levy and collect the Foxley Drive street lighting assessment for fiscal year 2025–26 and set a public hearing for June 10, 2025.
Public Works Director Kyle Keesen described the historical process used to establish local lighting assessment districts and how the current petition and assessment procedure works. Under the policy in place when the Foxley Drive district was formed, a majority petition (more than 50% favorable ballots among affected properties) is required to create a local lighting assessment district; property owners in the district pay the installation capital cost and an ongoing assessment through their property tax to fund maintenance.
Council member Mary Anne Pacheco asked whether the proposed ongoing maintenance assessment is comparable to other districts in the city; staff said costs are broadly comparable but that assessment amounts can vary because the city has multiple legacy districts established at different times and under different county arrangements. Keesen noted some lights are city‑owned, some are Southern California Edison infrastructure, and some remain part of county maintenance districts; that legacy patchwork explains variance among assessments.
The council approved the resolution to declare intention and set the hearing by unanimous vote. The action moves the Foxley Drive proposal to the next step in the Proposition 218/assessment process: a noticed public hearing where property owners may protest and where the council will consider final levying of the assessment.
Council members discussed the need to provide clear information to residents about timelines, funding and the difference between citywide lighting responsibilities and neighborhood lighting assessment districts. The council also noted staff had updated the city policy earlier in the year to reflect current Prop 218 requirements for new districts.
