Washington County approves Service District for Lighting No. 1 budget as staff warn of rising utility costs

The Washington County Budget Committee approved the fiscal year 2025–26 budget for Service District for Lighting No. 1 at its public meeting, acting after a staff presentation that outlined rising utility costs and the district’s remaining conversion work.

Service District for Lighting No. 1 (SDL) provides street-lighting services for Washington County areas outside city limits. Steven Roberts, director of Land Use and Transportation for the county, and Ailey Langford, senior administrative manager for the department, presented budget details. Langford directed committee members to the proposed budget summary and told the committee staff anticipates a roughly 10% increase in utility costs in fiscal year 2025–26 based on Portland General Electric rate information. "We are anticipating, utility costs to increase approximately 10% for fiscal year 25 26," Langford said during the presentation.

The presentation described how SDL assessments are structured and collected: assessments are set per tax lot when an SDL is formed, with a minimum and maximum per-lot cost (maximum currently calculated as double the minimum), and property owners receive mail notice and a public hearing is required before formation. Langford said the district currently covers about 48,000 tax lots in Washington County, with most property owners paying about $40 to $50 per lot annually; the staff presentation stated there are 1,288 active assessment areas and 12,883 street lights in the district.

Staff outlined that materials and services — primarily utility charges — make up the majority of district expenditures. Langford said contingency in the SDL budget is sized to cover roughly 4.5 months of utility charges until district assessments are collected on property tax bills in mid-November and to absorb short-term PGE or administrative cost increases. The presentation noted the contingency is about 30% of expenditures (just over $1.2 million in the packet) and that overall requirements grew about 4% from the prior year largely because of staff charge allocations and higher utility costs.

Langford reviewed other SDL activities: an ongoing LED conversion project that started several years ago and is nearly finished, the neighborhood-initiated lighting petition process (a petition requires majority support), the use of area lights (a low-cost option for individual property owners), and an option for property owners to request shielded fixtures at their own cost (the crew-install shield fee was described as about $150).

During the public hearing, one commenter raised concerns about light pollution and asked whether shields could be required more broadly; staff and committee members responded that shields can be requested and noted the petition/approval processes for adding or altering lighting.

After public comment, a motion to approve the SDL No. 1 budget as proposed was made, seconded, and the committee approved the budget during the meeting.