Ripon council hears options to shore up aging lighting district; $600,000 replacement estimate cited

Ripon city staff on Jan. 14 told the City Council the lighting district faces mounting utility and capital costs and outlined revenue and expense scenarios that could require either a benefit-assessment vote or other funding sources.

Kevin Warner, a city staff member presenting the review, said the district collects about $322,000 in revenue for fiscal year 2023–24 — roughly 85% from a $42-per-single-family-equivalent assessment and 15% from property taxes — while expenses were about $292,000, leaving a modest operating balance. Warner said the district has not been able to accumulate a capital replacement fund and that utility costs rose by roughly $50,000 in a single recent year, “which does raise some concerns with the ability to continue to maintain a positive balance.”

The staff presentation traced past investments (a 2005 conversion from high-pressure sodium to induction lights and the purchase of a maintenance truck) and projected that many induction fixtures will need replacement within the next decade. Warner estimated a full transition from induction to LED could cost about $600,000, and replacing the maintenance lift truck about $150,000.

To address long-term shortfalls, the city modeled a 20-year forecast under several scenarios. A “do-nothing” model led to a steadily worsening operating balance, approaching a multimillion-dollar deficit by year 20 in the model. Two revenue options were presented: raise the single-family-equivalent (SFE) assessment to $80 per year (flat) or increase it to $55 per year and index it 3% annually. Staff’s modeling projects the $80 option would create a larger reserve over time (approximately $1.6 million in the scenario presented), while the $55 indexed option would average roughly $75 over 20 years and allow an annual transfer of about $70,000 to a capital fund.

Warner emphasized the assessment change would require a Prop 218 engineer’s report, a council resolution, a public hearing and mailed ballots; under Prop 218, the measure would need a majority of weighted ballots in favor (50% plus one) to pass. He also said the city could pursue grants, state or utility programs, or internal cost-saving measures instead of or before seeking voter approval.

Council members pressed staff on assumptions about LED versus induction lifespan and energy use; Warner said both technologies have similar rated lives (about 100,000 hours) and comparable energy use, but that LEDs are now preferred for light coverage and the availability of spare parts for induction has been a concern. He noted the $600,000 figure assumes an out-to-bid contractor and that in-house work by Public Works could reduce costs.

No formal action or vote was taken at the meeting. Several council members urged staff to coordinate any proposed assessment with other potential ballot measures and to research grant and utility programs before bringing a final recommendation.

The council asked staff to include the lighting district’s needs in the upcoming budget discussions and to return with additional information and options.