City public‑lighting board warns of year‑long repair waits, seeks new revenue and studies

The Board of Public Lighting told the City Council Budget and Finance Committee on the sixth day of budget hearings that resident wait times for streetlight repairs have lengthened to months and the board needs substantially more money to preserve services.

Miguel Sanglar, director of the Board of Public Lighting, said the board’s average repair time is “entre 8 a 9 meses” after a request and that by fall some repairs could take up to a year. He described rising theft and vandalism costs and said the board’s analysis shows it needs “más de 100000000 de dólares anualmente” while it currently receives roughly “45” million dollars.

Why it matters

Street lighting is a basic public‑safety and city‑operations service. Longer repair times and deferred maintenance increase safety risks, raise liability exposure and can push costs higher over time. The board asked the committee for memoranda and special studies, and discussed a potential public funding measure that would follow the voter notice and protest process under Proposition 218.

What officials said and asked

Sanglar said the board has converted much of its work to digital processes and employs more than 150 field staff, but that those efficiencies do not offset costs from theft, vandalism and inflation for parts. “La mayoría de veces que hablo con residentes no lo pueden creer,” he said, describing resident frustration with service delays.

Councilmember McOsker pressed staff on the timeline and financing options, raising the idea of borrowing against anticipated revenues. McOsker summarized the Prop. 218 timetable discussion and financial constraints: “no lo podemos empezar a recoger hasta 2026 a 27,” citing the required property roll and collection rules. The director replied that a January 1 implementation date was being considered for a future assessment but that any collections would not appear on tax bills until the 2026–27 roll in many scenarios.

Sanglar also described a proposed memorandum of understanding with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) for $7.7 million but cautioned that money tied to an LADWP MOU would only fund LADWP projects and would not substitute for the board’s citywide operating needs. “Ese MO solo es para las proyectos de LADWP; ningún proyecto municipal para nuestros distritos para arreglar estas luces públicas,” he said.

Councilmembers asked for several follow‑ups: written memoranda from the Chief Administrative Office and LADWP on financing options; a study of possible fee structures and permit/permit‑revenue opportunities (for example, street banner and special‑use fees); and a timeline and budget analysis for putting a funding measure on a future ballot.

Background and next steps

Committee members requested: (1) memoranda from the CAO and LADWP about financing alternatives; (2) a special study of fee and revenue opportunities for the board; and (3) a timeline and engineering report that would support any voter measure under Proposition 218. The board said it will return with an updated engineering report, a proposed ordinance of intent for voter consideration and requested memoranda about using internal borrowing or other short‑term options while awaiting voter approval. Councilmembers emphasized the board’s limited ability to absorb more cuts without service and staff impacts.

The committee did not take formal votes at the hearing; members directed staff to prepare the requested memoranda and studies for a future session.

Ending

The board framed its requests as urgent: without additional funding or changes, service levels will continue to decline and legal and infrastructure risks will rise. Committee members asked staff to prioritize analysis of accelerated options and the Prop. 218 timetable so the council can decide whether to place a funding measure before voters.