Street-lighting board warns year-long repair waits without new funding; council discusses Prop. 218 timeline and MOUs with LADWP

The Bureau of Street Lighting told the City of Los Angeles Budget & Finance Committee that repair wait times for public streetlights have lengthened to about eight to nine months and could reach a year this autumn unless the city identifies new revenue. Bureau Director Miguel Sanglar said the bureau currently receives about $45 million a year but the department’s analysis shows demand and theft-related costs mean it needs “more than $100 million” annually to preserve existing service and reduce deferred maintenance.

The shortfall has forced the bureau to triage work, Sanglar said, and the council pressed for options including increased fees or a ballot measure under Proposition 218, expansion of an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Water and Power and possible short-term internal borrowing while a rate or ballot measure is prepared.

Those options matter for residents because the bureau’s capacity problems affect safety and liability. Sanglar said the bureau is already responding to heavy vandalism and theft that raise replacement costs and slow repairs; councilmembers repeatedly asked for memoranda laying out how long service would deteriorate under the current budget, whether an MOU with LADWP would help, and how quickly a ballot measure under Proposition 218 could be placed before voters.

Committee members sought staff analyses. Councilmember McOsker and others asked the City Administrative Officer and the Chief Administrative Office for a memo on financing choices — including whether the city can front-load anticipated revenue or issue internal loans while a Prop. 218 process runs. Sanglar said an implementation vote could be timed for the fall ballot cycle but that, even with a January 1 effective date for a rate increase, the CAO had told members the city could not begin collecting new property-related charges until the 2026–27 tax roll and therefore any new revenue would not materially arrive until that fiscal year.

Councilmembers also pressed the bureau on program trade-offs: Sanglar explained that staffing and materials losses are cumulative — the bureau estimates current repair delays will grow to one year without additional funds, and that restoring staffing and capital replacement would take multi-year investment. The bureau noted examples: about 60,000 lights need repairs per staff estimate, and a targeted fortification or solar conversion strategy would change replacement costs (Sanglar gave an example that replacing 5 percent of the system with fortified or solar fixtures would cost in the tens of millions of dollars).

The committee asked for multiple budget follow-ups and special studies: written estimates of timeline and costs for a Prop. 218 fee, a CAO memo on options for internal financing or tax-anticipation loans, and a technical memo on how an expanded MOU with LADWP for specific project work would affect bureau operations. No formal vote was taken at the hearing; members directed staff to return with the requested analyses.

The bureau will submit the requested memoranda and engineering reports before the committee’s next meeting so members can evaluate whether short-term funding measures, a ballot measure under Proposition 218 or expanded interdepartmental agreements will close the gap between current expenditures and the bureau’s stated need.