PAY UP AND HIT THE LIGHTS MAYOR BACKS INCREASE OF FEES FOR STREET LAMPS.

Byline: Jim Skeen  Staff Writer

PALMDALE - Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford has said he supports Los Angeles County's proposal to hike street-light fees.

The new rate hike proposal includes a provision to tie any future increases to the consumer price index and is more in keeping with Proposition 218, a 1996 law that requires assessment increases to be approved by homeowners, than was a defeated 2001 rate hike proposal, the mayor said.

``With 218 parameters in place, it becomes more of a public safety issue for me,'' Ledford said. ``This is something they (voters) should strongly analyze and support.''

In 2001, Palmdale homeowners voted 2-1 against a proposed rate hike which included a provision allowing future rate hikes to be tied to rate increases by Southern California Edison approved by the Public Utilities Commission.

During the 2001 vote, the City Council voted to formally oppose the rate hike, largely because of the PUC-based rate hike provision.

In addition to the provisions for future rate hikes, the new proposal differs from the 2001 proposal in two other ways.

First, the new proposal calls for a hike from $50 to $70 instead of $77 as proposed in 2001.

Second, the voting will be done by individual tracts rather than citywide, as was done in 2001.

The vast majority of Palmdale homeowners is expected to begin voting on the rate hike in February. If approved, the higher fees would take effect starting in July and appear on the 2003-04 property tax bill.

As happened last time, the voting will be done by mailed ballots. With voting on a housing-tract basis, homeowners in one tract could approve the increase even if those in other tracts don't.

Seven tracts have already voted on the rate hike, with five of them approving it. Those tracts were among 30 such subdivisions whose lighting service was in limbo after Palmdale property owners rejected a citywide street-light rate increase in 2001.

Those 30 tracts, all relatively new, were paying no street-light fees; instead, the costs had been covered by funds put up by the developers. But now the money is running out, officials said.

The two tracts that rejected joining the district are the 89-lot Harris tract and the 165-parcel Beezer tract, both in Rancho Vista. It is normal Edison practice to turn off the lights immediately and, if there is no push for a revote, the light poles will be removed, an Edison official said.

Ledford said city and county officials have discussed the idea of allowing for a second vote if 15 percent of the homeowners in a tract sign a petition for such a vote.

A report on the street light voting is scheduled to be presented during a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting Wednesday.

The rate hike request is being triggered by rising electricity costs from the 2000-01 energy crisis, county officials say.