Bureau of Street Lighting warns repair times could lengthen to 2–3 years without new assessment

The Bureau of Street Lighting told the City Council Budget and Finance Committee on May 2 that current funding and rising costs threaten to extend repair times for outages and physical damage from the present eight-to-nine months to one year by fall, and possibly two to three years next fiscal year without new revenue.

In a presentation, Bureau Director Miguel Sandelan said the bureau now operates with high efficiencynoting a nearly complete LED conversion that saves about $10 million a year in power costsbut that revenue from the property assessment that funds the bureau has been flat since a 1996 assessment reset. "We collect $45 million and need well over $100 million," Sandelan said, and he said the bureau plans to pursue a ballot assessment this summer to raise sustainable funds.

Why this matters: the bureau manages streetlight repairs, theft-prevention fortification programs and critical pole and conduit replacements across Los Angeles. Longer repair times affect public safety, nighttime street lighting and liability exposure from deferred maintenance.

Sandelan told the committee the bureau's repair backlog has multiple drivers: assessment revenue unchanged since the mid-1990s, steep materials inflation (he cited about a 30% increase in some parts), increased theft and vandalism and deferred pole replacement programs cut in prior recessions. He described an internal reorganization and efficiency measures (plasma-cutting and in-house parts fabrication, pilot 3-D printing) that have lowered materials costs, but said those savings do not close the structural funding gap.

Council members pressed the bureau on details. Councilmember Marquee Hernandez asked for a memo asking the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to analyze the bureau's offset proposal and to explore DWP and other revenue options. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield asked about leveraging a state middle-mile broadband joint-build agreement and DWP MOU proposals; Miguel Sandelan said some DWP MOU dollars would be restricted to LADWP project work and could worsen city service delays if staff were reassigned for that MOU work.

Ballot timeline and mechanics: Sandelan said the bureau expects to return this summer with an engineering report and ordinance of intention to begin a Proposition 218 assessment-ballot process, with a target vote and an effective date of Jan. 1 of the following year; due to county tax-roll timing, he said revenues would not be realized until the subsequent fiscal year. He outlined a typical Prop 218 timeline (mailing, 45-day protest period, county role in collection) and said vendors to support the mail ballot process are being engaged. He and CAO staff told the committee they will analyze whether temporary internal borrowing or other tools might bridge cash shortfalls while awaiting assessment collections.

Other program details: Sandelan said the bureau's anti-theft "fortification" program (cement and steel protection of pull boxes and handholes) has about a 90% success rate in preventing theft at fortified sites but is labor- and materials-intensive; he estimated $1,500 per fortified light versus $4,0004,500 for a solar/battery replacement. He also said the LED replacement program to meet lifecycle needs would require roughly $4to $5 million annually to replace roughly 10% of the system each year.

Next steps: The committee requested multiple budget memos, including CAO analysis of the bureau's offset proposals and the feasibility and timing for a Prop 218 assessment ballot; a memo on whether internal borrowing or other financing could bridge the revenue gap without running afoul of Prop 218 rules; and an analysis of incorporating GSD/material costs into any DWP MOU. Sandelan said the bureau will also present more refined cost estimates and a proposed ballot timeline this summer.

The bureau emphasized that without additional assessment revenue or alternate funding, jobs preserved by the mayors proposed budget could come at the expense of streetlight service levels: "The jobs will exist because we will shift them over to doing other work," Sandelan said, "but that does not preserve keeping our street lights on and maintained."

Looking ahead: The committee will review the CAO memos and the bureau's proposed assessment timeline; any ballot requires later council action to transmit an ordinance and schedule the assessment mailing under Proposition 218 procedures.