Bureau of Street Lighting urges property-owner vote to raise assessment after years of theft, aging infrastructure

Miguel Sanglalang, director for the Bureau of Street Lighting, told a special meeting of the Los Angeles City Council that the bureau plans to seek a property‑owner vote under Proposition 218 to raise its assessment rates in order to pay for repairs, fortification and expanded maintenance.

The bureau said most assessment rates have been frozen since 1996 and that the fund that supports street‑lighting operations has not kept pace with inflation and rising material and labor costs. Sanglalang said the bureau currently estimates about $45 million in assessment revenue at the frozen rates and that repair response times have stretched to eight or nine months and could reach roughly a year without new funding.

The assessment proposal matters because the bureau faces repeated theft and vandalism of copper wiring and pull boxes across the city, aging poles and lights that are at or near the end of their useful life, and a recent liability payout the bureau described as $21 million. "Our priority is to make sure that every light goes on," Sanglalang said, explaining why the bureau is weighing a mix of short‑term restoration and longer‑term fortification and solar installations.

City staff described the scale and costs. Sanglalang said about 80,000 LED fixtures are at or near end of life; replacing simple bulbs runs roughly $300 per light, restoration (repairing wiring/pull boxes) runs $500–$700 per light, fortification (concrete and steel around infrastructure) runs $1,000–$1,500 per light, and solar retrofits can run about $4,500 per light. Sanglalang said fortification work has held at roughly a 90% success rate where deployed, but it requires more time and capital than routine bulb replacement.

Council members pressed for detail on timing and scope. Sanglalang said the assessment would require an engineering report and a council ordinance of initiation before ballots are mailed to affected property owners; the bureau estimated about a 45‑day voting window for property‑owner ballots and said the affected roll includes properties currently under a street‑lighting assessment. He said the process could be timed so an approved assessment becomes effective Jan. 1, 2026, if the city completes the ordinance and voting steps this year.

Staff described the legal framework the bureau would use. Sanglalang said state law and the city charter allow assessments, and that Proposition 218 (1996) requires approval by affected property owners for assessment increases. "Proposition 218 essentially required any increase to the assessment to have a vote of the affected parties," he said.

Bureau staff said the assessment increase being discussed would on average roughly double the annual assessment for a typical single‑family home from about $53 per year to approximately $100 per year, but that exact amounts would be determined in the new engineering report. Sanglalang said some newer assessment districts already include cost‑adjustment factors; many older districts remain at the 1996 nominal levels.

Staff also described operational effects of theft and vandalism. Sanglalang and Senior Street Lighting Engineer Victor Chercio said theft and vandalism now account for a larger share of repair calls — about 40% compared with 25% two years earlier — and that many repairs require replacing pulled or damaged wiring and enclosing or abandoning compromised pull boxes. Chercio said fortification work can take days to weeks per circuit and often requires burying pull boxes under concrete, pulling new wires and welding, which increases labor and capital needs.

The bureau described tradeoffs between rapid restoration and more durable fixes. Solar fixtures have been durable in areas with repeat theft and vandalism but cost substantially more up front; staff said solar has performed well in some deployments including parts of CD 6 and along the LA River. Sanglalang said the bureau would prioritize getting lights working quickly while phasing in fortification and solar where cost‑effective.

No formal action or vote was taken at the meeting. Councilmembers expressed support for moving the process forward and asked bureau staff to return with the engineering report and the ordinance of initiation so council and the mayor can decide whether to proceed to ballot. Sanglalang said the bureau is preparing a contract to support the ballot process and noted that a successful ballot would require affirmative votes from a majority of affected property owners.

Next steps: bureau staff will prepare the engineering report and ordinance of initiation for council consideration and said they expect to present details before a property‑owner ballot would be mailed. No changes to assessments were approved at the meeting.