City reviews street‑lighting program after years of vandalism and aging fixtures; ordinance and assessment process discussed

City officials gave a verbal update to the council on the Office of Street Lighting’s policies and programs, describing long‑standing vandalism, a large inventory of aging fixtures and rising repair costs and outlining a path toward a property‑assessment vote under Proposition 218.

The presentation was made by José Carmiga García, identified in the meeting as director of the Office of Street Lighting, with technical detail from Victor Turch, a senior engineer in the office. They told the council that roughly 80,000 fixtures are near or at end of life and that material and labor costs have risen sharply in recent years. The office said a basic lamp replacement costs about $300; second‑level restoration runs about $500–$700 per fixture; and “fortification” measures to harden equipment cost roughly $1,000–$1,500 per fixture. The office said it has budgeted capacity for about 4,000 replacements this year.

The presenters described repeated theft and vandalism of copper, damage to circuits that can disable long strings of lights, and operational impacts that lengthen repair times. They said fortification tactics such as burying junction boxes in concrete have produced a roughly 90% success rate in preventing repeat vandalism in some locations. The office also called out pilot and expanded installations of solar lighting in multiple council districts and a larger solar installation in CD6; staff said solar is not viable at every location because of shade, tree cover or other site constraints.

Councilmembers and other speakers asked about timelines, prioritization and customer service. Councilmember Padilla pressed for clearer timelines for repairs and for a long‑range priority list for locations with no lighting. In reply, staff said routine repairs can take months depending on parts and workforce availability and that fuller replacement of aging infrastructure had been deferred in past budget cycles.

On funding, staff described an engineering and assessment process tied to Proposition 218 (the California voter‑approval process for property‑related fees and assessments). They said the next steps include producing an engineering report and ordinance language; staff indicated they planned to bring an ordinance of initiation for council consideration in the coming months with the goal of moving toward a ballot/assessment process later this year or in the near fall budget cycle. Staff cautioned that the engineering analysis must cover multiple property types and that final costs and the per‑property assessment would depend on that analysis.

Members of the public who spoke during the meeting asked the council to restore lighting in District 14 and raised separate concerns about ADA access at a federal building. A staff member read public‑comment instructions at the start of the item; the council did not take any formal vote or adopt any ordinance during this session.

Next steps described in the meeting: the Office of Street Lighting will complete an engineering and cost analysis required for the Proposition 218 process, return with ordinance language for initiation, and provide additional details during the budget cycle about how many replacements and fortification projects can be funded in future years.