Minutes - Council - 09/25/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #12: Street Lighting Policy City Engineer Steve Jankowski stated the City currently does not have a street lighting policy but they have been considering the development of such a policy since early, 1989. A detailed policy for street light placement and financing is currently lacking and should be established. Mr. Jankowski stated he feels the street lighting needs should be separated into two distinct categories; one being lighting needs along major arterial streets and the other subdivision lighting. Mr. Jankowski explained that regarding arterial lighting, street lights would be placed at intersections along arterial and collector streets. Motorists would benefit from these lights as street signs would be visible at night and also there would be increased safety at the lighted intersections. Mr. Jankowski stated that the Ramsey Police Department has developed a priority list of intersection locations for street lighting. Mr. Jankowski reviewed the installation costs and also the annual operations and maintenance costs. Mr. Jankowski commented that since the major benefit of arterial street lighting would occur to the general motoring public, it would seem inappropriate to assess costs to the adjacent property owners. The City would have to absorb the installation and operation and maintenance costs. However, new developments could be required to provide street lights along arterial streets when it could be determined that the development would cause need for a street light under the established criteria. Mr. Jankowski briefly described the different types of lighting available. He stated that all the arterial intersections probably wouldn't be lighted. His recommendations are as follows: Specific light placement justification criteria should be established as a part of the street lighting policy to control costs. Such criteria might include: a) threshold levels of traffic on side streets; b) marked pedestrian crossing at schools and parks; c) high frequency of night-time accidents; and d) unusual sight limitations. Regarding Subdivision light, Mr. Jankowski stated that street lights would be placed at regular intervals of approximately 200 feet throughout a local subdivision. The major benefits from this lighting would be increased safety and increased crime protection. These benefits occur chiefly to residents of the subdivision and they would be involved in the decision to provide the street lighting and the financing of the system. There are no subdivisions within Ramsey that have full subdivision lighting. Mr. Jankowski stated that if 70% of the local street system services subdivisions and 50% of the subdivisions would opt to have street lights installed and 100 watt lights are placed approximately 200 feet apart, the annual operational cost could be $60,000.00. Installation costs would be highly dependent upon the degree of restoration required. Mr. Jankowski stated that since the subdivision lighting would primarily benefit the subdivision property owners, it is reasonable to require the developer to install the street lighting system or assess the installation costs to the benefitted property owners. Mr. Jankowski informed the City Council that the utility companies will not bill an individual for street lights, only the City or homeowners associations. If the City wouldn't accept annual operation and maintenance costs, then existing subdivisions without homeowners associations would not be able to establish subdivision street lighting. Mr. Jankowski explained that since the cost of the installation of subdivision street lighting would be taken care of by the developer or property owner, ornamental poles and fixtures could be considered. He commented that the City should establish some standards regarding lamp wattage, spacing and mounting heights. Mr. Jankowski stated there are three rate options which the City may consider. One option is for the utility to provide only the electrical energy for the system which means the City would buy, install and maintain poles, fixtures and luminaries. Mr. Jankowski recommended against this option since it would require the City to invest in expensive equipment which would have limited use within the City. He also felt it would be difficult for the Public Works Department to be cost-effective in performing maintenance considering the utility has specialized equipment and personnel who perform these routine tasks on a daily frequency. The two remaining utility financing options both have one-time installations costs and monthly operation costs. Mr. Jankowski recommended the option having the higher installation cost and corresponding lower monthly user cost. The pay back period between the two options is approximately six to eight years, and these installations should have a service life of over 20 years. This option also minimizes the amount placed on the general tax levy, while the higher installation costs can be recovered from the benefitted individuals and developers. City Council/September 25, 1990 Page 17 of 20