Home » Santa Clarita News » Community News » Santa Clarita Property Owners Informed Of Proposed Fee Increase For Streetlight Maintenance

Santa Clarita Property Owners Informed Of Proposed Fee Increase For Streetlight Maintenance

In the coming days, City of Santa Clarita officials plan to deliver ballots outlining a proposed over 500 percent increase to streetlight maintenance fees.


Sponsored Articles


Don’t miss a thing. Get breaking KHTS Santa Clarita News Alerts delivered right to your inbox.

Approximately 34,000 property owners in the Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD) “Zone A” are expected to be given the opportunity to vote on a streetlight maintenance fee increase from $12.38 to $81.71.

In the last two weeks, property owners to be affected by the change received an informational notice from the City of Santa Clarita about the upcoming delivery of their ballot, according to officials.

“This informational notice is not required by law, but we feel it’s important to make sure our residents have the ability to anticipate the upcoming ballot and take action on it,” said Special Districts Manager Kevin Tonoian. “When they receive the ballot, they also receive a self-addressed return envelope, as required by law. We’ve also made the envelopes’ postage prepaid, which is not state law, but was our own decision for the sake of transparency, to encourage maximum participation and achieve the highest ballot return rate we can get.”

These fees pay for the maintenance, repair and monitoring of street lights by Southern California Edison, who the City of Santa Clarita contracts to perform these services.

The increase in fees would equalize the fee paid by homeowners in “Zone A” with the fee paid by homeowners outside of Zone A, who are slated to pay $81.71 for this year’s fee.

This change would bring Santa Clarita’s Streetlight Maintenance District into accord with a state law, which indicates that lighting assessments may be determined by any formula or method which fairly distributes costs among all lots or parcels.

“Zone A” is not concentrated in one specific area of the city, but rather, consists of all the parcels sprinkled throughout the city that pay a pre-Proposition 218 assessment, according to Tonoian.

Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” was passed by California voters in 1998, and amended the California constitution to require voter approval for local tax levies, as well as assessment and property-related fee reform.

For the past 20 years, property owners in SMD Zone A have had their annual assessment rate for streetlight maintenance remain frozen at $12.38, the maximum rate allowed by Los Angeles County at the time the original district parcels were transferred from Los Angeles County to the City’s jurisdiction.

All subsequent annexations and new developments have been assigned to Street Lighting Zone B, which maintains a higher assessment rate than Zone A, and does account for annual inflation, whereas Zone A’s assessment rate does not.

As streetlight maintenance costs have increased in the last 20 years and assessment revenue from Zone A has remained frozen, a funding gap developed which has been subsidized with general property tax revenue in the meantime, officials said.

“Roughly 25,000 parcels are not paying the full cost of services and are being subsidized, creating an annual funding gap of $2.8 million that is made up by using general property taxes,” Tonoian said.

While the over 500 percent increase may seem sudden to some property owners, Carrie Lujan, communications manager for the City of Santa Clarita, notes that the effort to equalize the burden of streetlight maintenance costs among property owners has been ongoing for the last two decades.

“We haven’t been waiting 20 years, we’ve been doing this over time. We passed 98 different ballot measures in the last 20 years, two of which were within the last year,” said Lujan. “All of those votes have been successful. We believe the property owners really value the services they receive and want to pay a fair rate.”

Delivery of the ballots began Monday, and is scheduled to be completed within the next several days.

The ballots must be returned by the close of the public hearing on the fee change, scheduled to take place at the Santa Clarita City Council meeting planned for Jan. 22, 2019, according to Tonoian.

Once that public hearing closes, ballots may no longer be accepted, and the following day ballots are set to be opened and tallied. The results are scheduled to be announced at the city council meeting on Feb. 12, and if approved, the change will take effect for the upcoming 2019-2020 budget year.

“This ballot process, by and large, if successful, will equalize streetlight rates among property owners in the city,” Tonoian said.

Report a typo or error, email Corrections@hometownstation.com

KHTS FM 98.1 and AM 1220 is Santa Clarita’s only local radio station. KHTS mixes in a combination of news, traffic, sports, and features along with your favorite adult contemporary hits. Santa Clarita news and features are delivered throughout the day over our airwaves, on our website and through a variety of social media platforms. Our KHTS national award-winning daily news briefs are now read daily by 34,000+ residents. A vibrant member of the Santa Clarita community, the KHTS broadcast signal reaches all of the Santa Clarita Valley and parts of the high desert communities located in the Antelope Valley. The station streams its talk shows over the web, reaching a potentially worldwide audience. Follow @KHTSRadio on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

KHTS FM 98.1 & AM 1220 - Santa Clarita News - Santa Clarita Radio

Santa Clarita Property Owners Informed Of Proposed Fee Increase For Streetlight Maintenance

40 comments

  1. Reporting From The Comment Section

    Can anyone explain to me why someone would vote to pay more in Zone A? Pay 12 bucks vs. 80 bucks for the same service and quality of street lighting…

    What’s the advantage of paying more?

    I didn’t understand the letter in the mail and this article doesn’t make it any clearer.

  2. VOTE NO, The city should be charging all the new developments going on around the city . The city has never done maintenance on our street lights in our neighborhood and I’ve live here those 25 years

    • Agreed. The light across from my house has been on tge fritz for years. I don’t mind an increase but at 500% that’s just silly!

    • Agreed. I have been in my house for 38 years and have had the street light replaced once due to a bulb burning out. Nothing is ever done to “service” any lights on our street by the city. The city decided to allow unnecessary growth and therefore should have any additional fees paid for by those in the growth developments. The city sent me an empty envelope on Friday, 12/7 and a ballot yesterday, Monday, 12/10. I replied with a NO vote today,Tuesday, 12/11.

  3. They changed one lamp in 20 years, after I reported it. I’m going to vote No because I always do unless otherwise pursuaded.

  4. Billions for Brown’s train to nowhere, onerous new gas taxes, and now this. Where can I buy a yellow vest?

  5. The letter is worded threatening! They claim they want to change the lights to LED to reduce cost – I can usnderstand a one time fee to change out the lights but not a 500% increase forever! My property taxes have creeped up over 200 in the last few years already. Getting nearly impossible to stay in this state! A big fat NO is my response!

  6. What a cash grab , they can’t live within their own means . 81$X25k paying parcels. Over 2 million to maintain lights! Even 150 employees making over 130k a year doesn’t make up that much.

  7. I have been here over 40 years and live on ranch with no street lights. Why should I. Pay for nothing

  8. It will sometimes take 3 or more call to SCE to change a burned out streetlight which is considered safety for us, but it takes them forever to change, as there is always an excuse by them, such as “you gave us the wrong pole number “or “which street again”. Totally stupid excuses to waste time to change one bulb!
    We are voting NO!! It’s a big increase however why couldn’t they have us vote for small increases over the past 20 years? It’s not that I can’t afford it, which I can, but it’s the principle of their stupidity!!

  9. In Zone A our current lighting quality and quantity is not anywhere equal to Zone B’s. I agree that we are due for an increase of maybe 20 %, but they are not agreeing to bring Zone A’s lighting up to the standards of Zone B’s. Look at the property values and rework your numbers SCV! This is an unfair increase.

  10. Question for Wyatt Smith and the city – why am I being asked to pay more when I dont even have street lights (or a sidewalk for that matter)?

    This is a NO vote!

  11. I am all for the new lighting that has been going in, but like these new lights thew are so bright they leave dots in my eyes from on coming cars and cars behind you the new lights at intersections are blinding while your waiting for the light to change

  12. No on this. This is outrageous increase.

  13. Even though the street lights have been on, my Honda Accord was stolen a night. The thugs broke the window to gain access and took my car. When I went to the Sherriff Station to file a report, they refused to take a report because no one was injured. They asked me to follow up with my insurance company. So much for service from the officials. Street lights DO NOT MAKE the neighborhood safer. I will be voting NO.

    In 20 years, my SCE bill did not jump by 500%. Why the street lights assessment will jump 500%? It is all FAKE REASON to legally rob homeowners. I am retired and I live on my pension. I cannot afford such an outrageous increase. More reason to vote NO.

  14. Vote no. 500 percent is stupid. Interesting how this came up after the city council election in November. They are always taking about transparency and this is what we get. They should all be thrown out of office.

  15. I understand costs rise over time but $12 ish to almost $82 just like that for street light maintenance? Don’t we already pay enough property tax? I wouldn’t be oppose to a reasonable increase schedule over the next few years but a jump like they are proposing. no sir , gonna vote a big NO. Make sure to attend the city council meeting where they will have open coments about this , January. Check out the letter the time and date are there.

    • For those of us who are Seniors it is difficult to pay those charges after 12 years of retirement on a Fixed Income. My property taxes went up to $6000.00 this year and it is making our life harder than ever…

      We will vote NO on that tax on street lights. One of the reasons our area is pretty safe is that we all keep an eye on each others’ house too. Be aware of strangers in your area and you can also get a RING SYSTEM at Best Buy that will take a picture of anyone coming up to your front door and back door too…Good way to catch a thief!!! It sends an alert on your phone too! Mary & Bill Statler

  16. Get ready for other services to be cut like Sheriff and Parks because the City is spending almost $3 million a year from the General Fund because some homeowners are not paying their fair share.

  17. SCV, well we love you. We bought our first home here in 1980 and raised two children in this valley. But I gotta tell you, utilities continue to increase annually (especially electric, SCE), the gas taxes are some of the highest in the country and the general taxes keep increasing. When we retire, we will not be able to stay in SCV and close to our children and grandchildren because of the living expenses needed to stay in SCV. Our meager Social Security checks won’t cover much.. And you now want residents to vote ‘yes’ to a 500% tax increase for streetlight maintenance? Maybe I’m missing something but really, are there that many people kicking your door in to pay for this one? Haven’t seen one comment above that is agreeable to your proposed tax increase.

  18. No. No. No. No.
    But why do I have this feeling, that even though everyone I ask about this says no. It will be approved anyway.

  19. The city has more than enough property tax funds to pay for this. Instead, the three city council members from Newhall decided that the funds should be used for an unnecessary $20 million new theater and parking lot in Newhall. The other night I drove by the parking lot and saw that there were only 10 cars parked there.

    Unfortunately. this is just another scam, It was mailed and expected to be returned during the holiday season, when people receive extra mail and may just throw it away. Even though nearly all votes received will be NO, that will not be the majority of property owners and it will go through.

  20. KHTS is now doing the City’s job. The city’s letter was so vague as to be misleading. Why did letters that went out not describe in detail that this is a distribution of monies ploy? I shopped and purchased a home a year ago in Santa Clarita. I spent an enormous amount of effort studying what my cost would be especially in the realm of taxes. Now the city is going to change the numbers. I already subsidize the homeowner’s that live in burn areas through higher fire insurance rate’s on my home that is a safe zone. As I make studied decisions why should I pay for another’s hap hazard “oh well” choices. As you can guess I did not purchase in a Mellos Roos district. I can only guess the City will want me to start helping those individuals with their choices also. VOTE NO.

  21. Time for a rebellion. Vote no. Tell your neighbors. “Equalizing” taxes is not a good reason to charge more. If they want to equalize them, why not bring the other communities down?

  22. There are 40 homes on my block. The current rate of $12.38 for each parcel provides $495.20 yearly for street light maintenance.
    An increase to an annual assessment of $81.71 would raise the total for 40 homes to $3,268.40, $272.36 a month for street lights for the block.

  23. Fees/Taxes. Everybody wants Your Money, the City, the County, the State. Every year More and More Fees and Taxes. Oh and on the Gas Tax/Car Registration, They Don’t even have to ask for our Approval on the Hikes, They Can Do it Any Time they want to since the vote on Prop 6. Thanks Mr Beccera and Brown.

    • Not to mention all the extra fees on the phone bill. Seems like every month I get a notice from some utility company that the fees are going up AGAIN. Also, I don’t know how seniors can live on their scrimpy ss checks. Luckily I planned my retirement when I was working but its still too much to live here. As long as Democrats are in charge of this state everything will go up. Next year will be hell.

  24. Vote no! We already have over $600 of voter indebtedness on our property tax bill and each year it creeps a lil bit to the point of over 200 in 2 years. LED change is supposed to reduce cost in electricity and maintenance yet you want a 500% increase? Neighborhood light changes should be the burden of each street residents and common city streets changes the burden of all city residents. Ask for a one time assessment for the change and I’ll agree because maintenance and elect Cost does not support 500% increase

  25. A neighborhood committee could maintain the streetlights in their own neighborhood for a fraction of this. But if we’re going to do all the work ourselves then what do we need Government for?

  26. Like a lot of the letter writers, I was totally confused by the letter and ballot and supporting information. For a while, I got it confused with proposed changes to Prop 13. Thanks to your letters and KHTS, I think I understand.
    We live in a 30 yr old subdivision T20. We have been paying $300 and if we vote ‘yes’ our assessment rate will drop $5! So it looks like we have been paying pretty close to our fair share.
    The biggest complaints seem to have been about the street lights, but lighting costs and maintenance are probably proportionally tiny. My guess it is the landscaping: there is a lot of city-owned landscape (plants, irrigation). Probably that is the biggest cost, not light bulbs. But the literature did not mention it. Too bad the City did not spell it out. Landscaping is what makes SCV beautiful. The landscaping is one of several reasons why Santa Clarita is a gem of a city and a great place to live.

  27. I addressed the City Council on this issue this evening. The Council members pretty much said they were confused on this issue as well and grinned Kevin Tonoian pretty good on how this could happen. I guess my next question would be, if they were confused tonight, why did they approve this to go forward at the meeting on November 13? Were they less confused then, or had they not done their homework and simply trusted the staff did this right? I think the latter. This will pass folks. The voting methodology has coupled the streetlight assessment increase with the landscape decrease for 21 zones. The weighted yes vote for the 21 LMD zones will be huge and will be like a massive wave overcoming the no votes on the lighting zone. The “election engineering” bending the rules of Prop 218 to assure a “positive” outcome for the city is unconscionable.

    • I first want to thank Mr. Farley for his time addressing the Council and Mr. Tonoian on issue.
      There is absolutely no excuse for our residents hearing this type of NEGLECT from our Council and Mr. Tonian for whom we’ve place in position to have a full understanding of the issue before it goes to ballot since its their job in representing the Residents and performing their duties to execute a ballot that they themselves should not be confused of the issues of what was included within the ballot.
      How can a City ask their Residents to vote on an issue if they have no full comprehension of what it is that is being requested to be voted on?
      IS THAT NOT GROSS NEGLECT OF OUR CITY OFFICIALS?
      THIS SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE A NO VOTE IF OUR OWN CITY OFFICIALS (CITY COUNCIL AND MR. TONOIAN) HAVE NO COMPREHENSION WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE BALLOT AND THEREFORE SHOULD THE BALLOT NOT BE WITHDRAWN?

      FURTHERMORE, WHAT DO WE HAVE SHOULD THAT KEEPS THE CITY IN CHECK AND WATCH THEM TO MAINTAIN THESE FUNDS IF GOD FORBID THEY WERE TO GET A YES VOTE? TO MANAGE THESE FUNDS AND NOT MISMANAGE THEM USING THEM ELSEWHERE SHOULD THEY PLEASE. NOT THAT THE CITY COULD NOT BE TRUSTED, WHICH I WOULD NEVER TRUST THEM WITH MY MONEY. SORRY!
      ANYWAYS, THAT’S MY OPINION BASED OFF OF EXPERIENCE WITH A MAJOR CITY AND BEING RIPPED OFF.

  28. Mr Farley’s comment shows how dishonest the people at city hall really are. Unless the city writer lacked comprehension of the English language, it was intentionally confusing to get the results that they wanted. The COSTS OF STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH A 560% INCREASE.
    My guess they want to change all the streetlights to the “climate change” mandated LED lights.
    That is very expensive, and as some posts mentioned too bright and distracting.
    NOTHING IS WRONG WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW!
    Maybe they want to change to the fancy dancy streetlights shown in the video.
    Last year they changed the paseo lights in Valencia Northbridge at a cost of $1.2 Million. They claimed to have saved $10,000 a year. Yes, they will notice a return on the investment after 120 years.
    After all, it’s not their money. I, all the posters, and everyone I know is voting NO.
    Lets see what happens!

  29. The “streetlight zone” assessment will equalize with a yes vote but most in the “T” zones will see a drop in the cost to maintain the paseos, bridges, tunnels and landscaping, etc.. This simply shifts the cost of maintaining the streetlights and does not generate more net revenue. Are we to believe that the cost of maintaining the vast amounts of landscaping around the “T” zones properties justify a decrease? I’m sure it costs more to maintain the landscape and such than it does to maintain the streetlights. VOTE NO!!

  30. My email from the City

    I am glad to answer your questions. In addition to the information below, I have included a link to our website that provides answers to the most Frequently Asked Questions – santa-clarita.com/StreetlightAssessment. Per your request, I have also included a link to the Landscape and Lighting District Engineer’s Report for the current budget year – https://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=16004

    The City is balloting approximately 34,000 other property owners in Santa Clarita who currently pay an annual assessment of $12.38 rate for streetlight services. The $12.38 rate, established by Los Angeles County, did not include an escalation provision allowing for incremental adjustments each year equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index. As a result, this rate has remained the same since 1998.

    The ability to increase the rate incrementally is necessary for the streetlight assessment to keep pace with increases in operating costs. Examples include Southern California Edison electricity charges, system maintenance including replacement of light fixtures and replacing streetlight pole knockdowns.

    The $12.38 rate does not cover the full cost of streetlight services, requiring the City to subsidize the difference. The amount of this funding gap is $2.8 million per year, supported by general property taxes, and provides a subsidy for streetlight services to every property owner who pays the $12.38 assessment. Conversely, approximately 25,000 property owners in the City currently pay an assessment rate of $81.71 each year. These property owners pay the full cost for streetlight services and do not receive any subsides.

    State law requires proportionality among all property owners paying for similar levels of streetlight services. The City’s Streetlight District is out of compliance with State law as one group of property owners currently pay the full cost for these services, while another group of property owners pay less than the full cost and have their service subsidized.

    To resolve this discrepancy, State law requires property owner approval for any proposed change to an existing assessment rate. Pursuant to state law, the City mailed ballots to all property owners currently paying the subsidized streetlight rate of $12.38. A “yes” vote indicates support for increasing the current assessment for streetlight services to $81.71 and a “no” vote indicates opposition to the increase. If the majority of property owners returning ballots oppose the change, the rate of $12.38 will remain the same and the City will re-evaluate how we approach equalizing the assessment rate among all property owners to be in compliance with State law.

    Sincerely,

    Kevin Tonoian

    Special Districts Manager

    • I have a few ethical questions about the streetlight assessment.

      Portions of the assessment fee has appeared in multiple places. On the letter from Mr. Tonoian, the city spokesperson Ms Lujan, KHTS, The Signal, and The Santa Clarita Gazette. All the responses have come from the city, and are different.

      WHY MUST WE PIECE THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER?

      In the Signal and Gazette Mr. Tonoian stated that the city would be paying $16 million for the ownership of the streetlights, and for the purchase of LED lighting. It’s expensive, and why is this necessary?
      You claim that the city would be savings of around $32 million through the first 30 years. This is a big expense that is unnecessary to make at one time. A more cost effective approach would be to replace the lights when they go out.

      The 58,664 households will be paying $81.71 a year, or almost $5 million a year. The $16 million initial cost would be paid off after 3 years. The recurring cost of the “LED” lights would be significantly less that the present costs. Why would we continue to pay the current operating costs when the future costs are so much less. Over 30 years that is almost $150 million dollars. A LOT OF MONEY!

      Yes, you claimed that the city would be saving $32 million, but that is OUR MONEY. NOT THE CITY’S!
      The increased streetlight assessment and future increases would be there forever.

      I live in an older area that received a dual issue ballot. The landscaping assessment savings were a lie. The ballot stated that my current rate was double what was on my property tax bill, and would be reduced to what was actually on my property tax bill if I voted for the huge streetlight assessment increase.
      VERY DISHONEST.

      And lastly, the issue that is the most unethical is the holding of a public hearing AFTER the votes have been cast. VERY DISHONEST. Most people believe that the decisions of the city council have been made up in advance, and talking at an open meeting is a wast of time.

      The city really needs to have an ethics plan for its employees.
      .

  31. Read the Santa Clarita GAZETTE Issue 1057 December 14 – 20, 2018, RESIDENTS LIT OVER LIGHTS by Lee Barnathan. I knew something was fishy when the notice mentioned about increase in street lightning and to sway people to keep light maintenance so vote for it, BUT we will need YOUR money. Heck no. Street lightning means safety for our neighborhoods. To even suggest such a question to property owners is ridiculous. What’s even more ridiculous is the article stated we are already taxed for this under our general property tax called ad valorem. IF this ballot passes, then the City won’t have to dive into using the ad valorem (what’s it’s supposed to take care of) funds, BUT instead have property owners pony up the “extra” money so that they don’t have to use the ad valorem (money that was supposed to take care of it). Vote NO! This is the main issue with voting to take care of things, BUT once the state, district, county, etc. increase you payments and then want more to allocate to actually do things they suppose to take care of already…not ask for more money. Just NO.

  32. Who is going to be the watchdog of how the City is going to be spending these funds should a yes vote happen to somehow pass, like Prop 6?
    Not like we the residents would not trust our own City management, which I for one would not!
    My apologies, but there has to be public accountability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About Wyatt Smith

Wyatt was born and raised in Santa Clarita. After graduating from Hart High School in 2012, he continued his studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he earned a degree in applied statistics. After a year and a half working in the digital advertising industry, Wyatt left his previous field of work to pursue his interest in writing.