HomeMy WebLinkAbout8C - Street Lighting Issues
AGENDA NUMBER:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
8C
ROBERT BARTH, ENGINEERING INTERN
DISCUSS PROPOSED STREET LIGHTING POLICY AND COST
ESTIMATES
NOVEMBER 21, 1994
INTRODUCTION:
This item has been placed on the Council agenda so that Council can
provide input and direction regarding the proposed policy draft, and
review its budget implications. The Council should also provide direction
on whether street lighting should be addressed in policy only, ordinance
only, or both. Attached to this memorandum is a package of research
materials. They include: an executive summary of the research, an initial
report to staff, a draft street lighting policy, and altemate cost scenarios.
BACKGROUND:
Council directives 94-82 and 94-05 directed the engineering staff to
research and draft new guidelines with respect to residential street
lighting. The City Subdivision Ordinance provides that: "6-7-5:
STREET LIGHTING: Street lighting shall be provided to confonn with
standards adopted by council."
On our existing streets current policy allows for street lighting at major
intersections only. The City does not provide lighting between
intersections unless a clear traffic hazard exists. The current policy does
not address new developments, where developers generally provide more
comprehensive lighting plans - plans that provide street lights for
intersections, between intersections. and at the ends of cul-de-sacs.
Current policy does provide that the City pay all ongoing energy and
maintenance costs for the street lights.
At present developers generally do not pay the total capital cost of the
street lights installed in their developments. They usually enter a lease
agreement with the utility, and the City assumes the monthly payment
once the utility energizes the lights. Lease agreements require less initial
capital, but entail monthly payments two to three times above what
would be paid under an operation and maintenance agreement.
DISCUSSION:
The Engineering Department conducted a survey of surrounding
communities regarding their street lighting policies for both new and
existing developments. The survey showed that, in new developments,
most communities approve lights for intersections. between intersections
at prescribed intervals, and at the ends of cul-de-sacs. Most apply the
same warrants to existing neighborhoods but not without citizen
prompting - unless a clear traffic hazard exists.
The survey pointed out a couple significant differences between Prior
Lake and its neighboring communities in how street lights are funded.
Most the surveyed communities require the developer to purchase street
lights rather than enter a lease agreement. On the chance that the
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-
developer might then purchase cheap lights, these communities insist that
the lights match a standard and be servicable by the utility. In the same
vein, these communities require the developer to pay operation and
maintenance through the warranty period.
In existing developments residents must petition for additional street
lights. This holds true in the communities surrounding Prior Lake and to
some extent in Prior Lake. In most communities, payment for a new light
on an existing street falls to the affected residents; except in those cases
where the light request is for a collector street with heavy traffic.
Currently, in Prior Lake, if the City Engineer's office approves a light for
an existing street the City pays for installation. Installation may mean the
full purchase price of the light or, when the City leases the light, the
associated installation costs. Current policy, though, limits new lights on
existing streets to high traffic intersections or at locations where traffic
safety can clearly be improved.
Two disparities are evident. Residents in new subdivisions pay for their
lighting through the purchase prices of their homes, while lights
approved for existing streets in older subdivisions are purchased by the
City. Yet residents of older subdivisions have less opportunity to obtain
lighting comparable to that which is currently being placed in new
developments.
It became apparent that most commumtIes treated collector roads
differently than residential streets and that we would have to extend our
original mandate and consider those highly traveled roads in our policy
statement. Our policy draft provides an additional warrant for street
lighting: an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 2000 vehicles. In Prior
Lake this ADT roughly separates collector roads from residential streets.
Lighting for collectors, otherwise known as municipal state aid roads,
should be a priority since they carry the bulk of the City's vehicular
traffic. It would seem appropriate that lights for collector streets should
be subject to planning and not citizen initiative. The initiative for
collector lighting should come from the City Engineer; and since
collector roads provide benefit to the City as a whole, their lighting
should be the financial responsibility of the City and not that of a
developer or group of residents, though staff has discussed requiring
developers to pay for lights where residential streets in their
developments intersect a collector. Beyond a 2000 ADT warrant,
warrants for street lights on collector roads might include intersections
and every 300' between intersections.
ISSUES:
The extent to which Prior Lake will be lit depends on both fiscal,
philosophical, and energy concerns. A well lit City requires an extensive
and aggressive lighting plan. Certain residents, though, resist street
lighting, while others believe that additional lighting is needed for
security. Our policy must balance these concerns.
Some more issues:
1) By extending warrants beyond current policy the City would see a
more rapid increase in its utility bill, since the City pays ongoing
operation and maintenance costs
2) The City should require developers to pay the full capital cost of the
street lights in their developments.
3) Developers should pay operation and maintenance through the
warranty period.
4) If developers wish to install non-standard lights or more lights than
policy allows, staff recommends these lights be the responsibility of an
homeowner's association.
-
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDATION:
BUDGET IMPACT:
5) Staff suggests a petition process be used for lighting requests.
6) Staff recommends, at a minimum, that residents pay the full capital
costs of the lights requested in existing neighborhoods. Staff has
discussed whether residents should also pay the operation and
maintenance. Most the surveyed communities do not require residents to
pay for operation and maintenance, though a couple do. Monthly costs
vary between 5 and 10 dollars per month depending on the type of light
and the utility servicing the area.
8) Staff recommends that the lighting of collector streets be done on a
project by project basis.
9) Staff recommends that lighting standards be established in policy
form, since policy content can be changed without a large investment of
time. If an ordinance were used the subdivision ordinance would apply
to new developments only. Street lights need to be addressed on a
city-wide basis.
1) Leave policy as currently written.
2) Discuss the issues identified 1-9 above and provide direction to the
staff so standards can be prepared which reflect Council's desires.
Addressing each of the issues, the Engineering Department recommends
residential warrants that include intersections, between intersections at
intervals of 300 feet, and at the ends of long cul-de-sacs. These should
apply to both new and existing developments. Developers should pay the
full capital cost of the light system they install, as well as operation and
maintenance through the warranty period. Standard lights should be
required. In future developments, where developers wish to install
non-standard lights or a lighting plan contrary to policy, the City might
approve the plan but should refuse to take over the development's
lighting system - instead insisting the system remain the responsibility of
the development's residents through their homeowner's association.
Warrants should be the same for existing subdivisions and new
subdivisions. Lighting requests in existing subdivisions should require a
petition signed by 60% of the residents within 100 feet, on both sides of
the street, of the proposed light. The residents affected by the proposed
light should be responsible for its purchase. The City will pay operation
and maintenance from the time the light is energized.
The Planning Commission has requested a meeting with staff on this
subject for November 17th. The results of this meeting will be presented
to Council. Likewise, the results of the Council meeting of November
21st will be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Currently the City spends approximately $40,000 per year on street
lighting. Several cost estimates for lighting are attached.
For existing residential neighborhoods the cost estimates reflect lights
purchased by residents for which the City pays the operation and
maintenance. Staff acknowledges that in any given year only a fraction
of these lights will be placed, so the figures are intended solely for
comparison between warrant alternatives.
Staff has provided cost estimates for lighting sections of county road due
for improvement. In the case of CSAH 42, CSAH 21, and CSAH 18
these costs could vary significantly depending on the difficulties
encountered bringing underground power to the light system. In the case
of CSAH 44 almost no cost shall be incurred by the City. The reason
why has implications for older neighborhoods in Prior Lake. Power
ACTION REQUIRED:
BBAGE. WRT
poles line CSAH 44. NSP plans to move, not remove, these poles as part
of the improvement plan. Where overhead power is available a
cobra-head mast arm may be hung from an existing pole. These lights
cannot be purchased; and, unless a transformer must be installed, little or
no initial cost falls to the City. These power poles line the older streets
of Prior Lake.
Cost estimates for lighting collector streets in the five year CIP have also
been included, as has an estimate of the increase in operation and
maintenance payed by the City and for residential lights coming on line
in new developments.
-
STREET LIGHTING
EXECUTIVE S1JlGfARY
For new developments, we found that the majority of surveyed
communities approve street lights for intersections, cul-de-sacs,
and every 200 to 400 feet between intersections; while Prior Lake
approves street lights for intersections only. Prior Lake also
differs from the surveyed communi ties in that it assumes the
operation and maintenance costs immediately upon installation of
the street light, while other cities require the developer to pay
these costs for a prescribed time period.
In other cities the placement of street lights in existing
neighborhoods is usually handled by petition, unless the city
engineer finds that traffic volume or accident history clearly
warrants the placement. Where the street lighting plan is found
lacking compared to other neighborhoods, or to new developments,
it is not the policy of any surveyed city to place lights without
prompting from affected neighbors; unless, as noted above,
traffic volume or traffic safety warrant. If a light is
warranted and approved most the surveyed cities would pay for
installation, operation, and maintenance. The survey shows that
unwarranted street lights are generally discouraged, but might be
accepted provided the affected neighbors agree to pay some or all
of the associated costs.
All the cities we surveyed insist on standard lights, for
which a majority have a maintenace agreement with the utility.
Electric utilities recommend 100 to 150 watt high pressure sodium
lamps for residential lighting.
STREET LiGHTiNG
BACKGROUND:
The current city policy regarding the placement of street
lighting reads as follows:
As developer proj ects occur, the
required to pay the city a fee to
lighting as determined by the city
current rate is $300.00 per light.
developer is
install street
engineer. The
On existing streets the addition of lighting is based
on two criteria. One is that the street lighting is
done at maj or intersections where higher volumes of
traffic exist. No lighting will be provided between
intersections. The second criteria is that when
unusual circumstances exist where accidents commonly
occur and\or poor vertical\horizontal alignment
exists, additional lighting can be provided. As
requests for additional lighting are made the City
Engineer may add additional lighting according to
policy. In cases where lighting is denied an appeal
can be made through the City Manager. The cost of
operating and maintaining lighting is born by the
Street Department. This policy was implemented due
to the rising cost of lighting.
The council adopted a policy that in areas where
existing lights did not conform to the above policy,
those lights would remain in place rather than be
removed.
In cases of higher jurisdictions, such as county
roadways, the intersections are referred to the
county for review regarding lighting requirements.
In the case of denial by the county the city may
install the lighting.
wi th an eye toward a more
lighting policy, we surveyed
their policies. Many of the
presented below.
comprehensive and effective street
several local communities regarding
ideas obtained from this survey are
NEW DEVELOPMENTS:
Of interest in this survey was the way cities handle street
light placement in new developments specifically, where will
lights be allowed and who will pay for them.
Generally, the cities contacted for our telephone survey
approve lights for intersections, at the end of cul-de-sacs, and
at intervals ranging from 200 to 400 feet between intersections.
Additionally, lights might be approved for sharp curves, at the
top and bottom of hills, and near heavily wooded areas. In its
present form, Prior Lake policy warrants lights only for
intersections and as traffic safety requires. The policy
excludes lights between intersections and at the ends of
cul-de-sacs.
Prior Lake requires developers to pay for the installation
of street lights in their developments. Either the developer or
the electric utility creates a plan, which the developer submits
to the city for review as part of the subdivision review process.
Generally, in new sudividions, electric utilities install lights
concurrently with other utilities - ideally in the same trench.
Currently, the city bears the costs of operation and
maintenance for the majority of the street lighting within the
city limits. It appears that in our case this obligation starts
immediately. For example, in September NSP billed Prior Lake for
9 new lights in the Cardinal Ridge development, a development
that is far short of completion. In contrast, most of the
communities surveyed require the developer to pay for the
operation and maintenance of the street light until the
development has reached some prescribed level of occupancy, or
until a certain time period has passed (usually two to three
years) .
Since most requests for additional lighting generate from
security concerns, a disclaimer written into the policy statement
and asserting that street lights are not for the deterence of
criminal activity might be appropriate. Or, rather than provide
street lighting, the city might encourage the developer to
install ornamental lighting hooked up to homeowner electrical
service; or the homeowners themselves might lease security lights
from the power companies, for which they are billed directly. If
street lighting is allowed where it has no merit the city might
consider assessing the residents of the development for operation
and maintenance. The surveyed communities practice any or all of
these strategies to defray the costs of street lighting.
Summarizing the information obtained from our survey on new
developments:
1) Most the surveyed cities approve lights for
intersections, cul-de-sacs, and every 200 to 400 feet
between intersections.
2) Current Prior Lake policy approves street lights for
intersections only.
3) Most the surveyed cities require the developer to pay for
street light installation, as does Prior Lake.
4) Most the surveyed cities require the developer to pay
operation and maintenance costs using one of three criteria:
A) Until the development reaches a prescribed level of
occupancy.
B) Until the project is accepted by the city.
C) For two or three years.
5) Prior Lake begins payment of operation and maintenance
costs immediately upon installation.
-
EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS:
In developing a comprehensive street lighting policy for
existing developments the city tackles many of the same problems
encountered with new developments. The merit of a placement must
be evaluated, and the costs must be determined and applied to the
appropriate body. Addi tionally, to streamline the process, a
paticular method of citizen initiative might be sanctioned.
It is not the policy of any surveyed city to place street
lights without prompting from affected neighbors, unless traffic
volume or traffic safety clearly warrants. Placements that do
not have this immediacy are generally addressed through the
petition process. The surveyed cities have general criteria for
existing developments identical to those for new developments.
These might include intersections, ends of cul-de-sacs, and
between intersections at prescribed intervals. Additionally, in
existing developments, an accident history of the area in
question might be considered. A minimal plan might include
lights for intersections only, yet many intersections do not have
sufficient traffic to warrant street lighting. In those cases, a
minimum ADT might be applied that would exclude lights where
traffic volume is low. Occasionally the surveyed cities place
lights for security. The majority, though, reject such
placements - instead recommending yard or security lights.
Application of costs for new street lights in existing
neighborhoods can be handled in different ways. In Chanhassen,
if the light costs less than $2,000 the city assumes the cost.
For more expensive lights the city assesses the affected
neighbors. In both cases the city pays the electrical and
maintenance costs. Burnsville assigns the cost of the light at
the direction of the city council, which usually takes the form
of a charge against all property benefitting from the lighting.
Burnsville establishes these rates based on what charges it
incurs from the power company. In Chaska, if the light placement
is clearly warranted, the installation will be done at city
expense upon approval by the city council. If, from time to
time, residents consider their lighting to be inadequate,
standard lights might be installed at the residents' expense.
To handle lighting requests from residents in existing
developments a standardized petitioning process would be
recommended. If a majority of the residents can be brought to
support a lighting placement, say 60%, the matter would be
brought before the city council. The majority of communities
surveyed handle requests in this manner. Unfortunately, with
petitions, a handful of residents often force their preferences
on the neighborhood as a whole. When peti tioners arrive at a
neighbor's door, they have already spent time with the issue.
They arrive prepared, and can often subtly coerce their neighbors
to sign something the neighbors might not otherwise support.
Linda Gloor, with the city of Burnsville, cited this as the
reason Burnsville will soon experiment with a ballot process.
Burnsville's pilot program requires 10% of the affected
residents, by petition or letter, to initiate the ballot process.
The city then sends form letters to all affected residents
exlaining what lighting is proposed and where it will go. Ballots
must be returned by a certain date; ballots not returned will
count against the proposed lighting. If 60% of the dispatched
ballots return marked yes, the matter goes before the city
council, where passage requires a 4/5 vote.
Summarizing the information obtained from our survey on existing
developments:
1) possible criteria for street light warrants:
A) Traffic volumes
B) Accidents
C) Security
2) Citizens of the communities surveyed may petition their
cities for additional street lighting.
3) If the light is warranted and approved, most the cities
surveyed would pay installation, operation, and maintenance.
4) For lights that are not warranted by traffic safety
several options are employed:
A) Affected ci tizens pay for installation, the ci ty
pays for operation and maintenance.
B) Affected ci tizens pay for installation, operation,
and maintenance.
C) The light is rejected
LIGHTS:
100 to 150 watt high pressure sodium bulbs are recommended
for residential use. Bulbs of higher wattage provide a less
appealing lighting color and generally are reserved for
commercial zones. Additionally, bulbs of lower wattages are more
efficient. All the cities surveyed insist on a standard light,
usually a cobra head or shoe-box style. Presently, the majority
of street lights in Prior Lake's residential neighborhoods are
100 or 150 watt cobra head fixtures some mounted on wood
utility poles, some on fiberglass poles.
POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS:
I. Basis of street light warrants
A. ADT
B. Traffic accidents
c. Security
II. Payment for warranted light
A. City
B. Affected residents
1. Define affected residents radius of specified
length from light?) .
2. Assess affected residents for light cost, be it
contributions in aid of construction for a leased
light or the price of a purchased light. City pays
operation and maintenance.
3. Assess residents for initial costs and operation
and maintenance.
c. Residents in new developments pay for their street
lighting.
III. Warrant process
A. Initiated by petition.
B. Initiated by recommendation of city engineer.
~ ~o ~ \<..f\l=T
RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING POLICY
BACKGROUND:
The City intends that this street lighting policy promote the safe
travel of city streets in a manner both fair and affordable to the City and
its residents. Residential street lighting promotes pedestrian and traffic
safety to the extent that the City shall approve street lighting where
warranted by such concerns. Lighting requests shall come either by
recommendation of the City Engineer or by resident petition. The capital
costs of residential street lighting shall be the responsibility of those
residents, or any portion of those residents, determined to be affected by
the light.
NEW SUBDIVISIONS:
In new subdivisions street lights shall be approved for intersections,
every 300 feet between intersections when intersections are more than 600
feet apart, and at the ends of cul-de-sacs when the distance from said end to
the intersection of the cul-de-sac with the street is greater than 300 feet.
The developer shall pay the full capital cost of every light to be installed.
The developer shall also pay operation and maintenance for the light system
until the City accepts the project, at which time the billing may be
transferred to the City. 100 or 150 watt high pressure sodium lights in
traditional style shall be the standard for new subdivisions.
In cases where developers wish to install more lights than warranted
by city policy, or wish to install non-standard lights, monthly operation and
maintenance becomes the responsibility of the development's residents through
their homeowner's association or similar organization. The City will not
take over such non-standard systems.
EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS:
Where traffic safety clearly warrants, a street light may be placed
upon the recommendation of the City Engineer's office. The basis of such
warrants shall be a minimum Average Daily Traffic of 2000 vehicles or a
layout such that, in the City Engineer's estimation, significant improvement
in safety might be obtained by the placement of a street light. Since the
benefit of such installations extends to the City as a whole, these will be
done at City expense.
vJhen residents request additional lighting for their neighborhoods,
they must do so by petition - signed by 60% of the neighbors affected by the
proposed light. The affected area shall be 100 linear feet on either side of
the proposed light, on both sides of the street. The placement of the
proposed light shall be specified in the petition. Lights shall be
considered only as they meet the following policy for existing subdivisions:
intersections, between intersections at intervals of 300 feet when the
distance between intersections is greater than 600 feet, and at the ends of
cul-de-sacs when the distance from said end to the intersection of the
cul-de-sac with the street is greater than 300 feet.
If approved, the street light shall be purchased by the affected
residents. Payment shall be made prior to the installation of the light. The
method of payment shall be as directed by the City Finance Department.
In existing developments new lights shall match in style and wattage
those already in place. If no lights are currently in place, then 100 or 150
watt high pressure sodium lights in cobra-head or traditional style shall be
the standard.
Update: 11/09/94
STREET LXGHT COSTS
NEWLY ENERGXZED LXGHTS XN NEW
RESXDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The number of lights needed originates from the proposed policy of lights for
intersections, every 300' between intersections where the distance between
intersections is greater than 600', and at the ends of cul-de-sacs, where the
distance to said end from the intersection is greater than 300'.
It is estimated that under the policy draft one new street light will be
placed for every eleven new homes. In 1994 an estimated 200 single family
building permits will be issued. This would mean another 18 street lights on
line over the next year. If the developers pay the full capital costs of
these lights, the City would be responsible only for operation and
maintenance at a rate of roughly $6.00 per month per light. Our monthly bill
would be expected to rise $108 over the next year.
STREET LZGBT COSTS
COON"l'Y ROADS DOE FOR :IMPROVEMENT
The number of lights needed originates from the proposed policy of lights for
intersections, every 300' between intersections where the distance between
intersections is greater than 600', and at the ends of cul-de-sacs, where the
distance to said end from the intersection is greater than 300'.
The following sections of roadway are county roads due for improvement.
Lighting these sections provides benefit to the City as a whole and thus,
according to the policy draft, the City pays installation, operation, and
maintenance.
Two plans are offered: A) where the developers pay to install lights at those
locations where residential streets intersect the county road, and B) where
the City pays to install all the lights.
The costs given here apply to purchased lights with a monthly operation and
maintenance agreement. Leased lights require less money "up front" but
larger monthly payments.
CSAH 21 (FROM CXTY LXMXT TO FXSH POXNT ROAD)
These cost estimates are for cobra-head lights on fiberglass poles.
Lights needed:
8
Option A:
Option B:
Monthly O&M (8 lights): $48
Lights paid for
by city
NA
8
Estimated Cost
NA
$11,000
CSAH 44 (FROM TH 13 TO CXTY LXMXTS)
These cost estimates are for cobra-head mast arms leased from the utility and
hung on existing power poles.
Lights needed:
8
Virtually no initial cost to the City.
Monthly O&M (8 lights): $80
CSAB 21 (FROM 154'l'B TO CSAH 42)
These cost estimates are for cobra-head lights on fiberglass poles.
Lights needed:
24
Option A:
Option B:
Monthly O&M (24 lights): $144
Lights paid
by City
21
24
for
Estimated Cost
$28,875
$33,000
CSAH 42 (FROM CSAB 21 TO FERND.ALE)
These cost estimates are for double mast arm cobra-head lights on fiberglass
poles.
Lights needed:
21
Option A:
Option B:
Monthly O&M (21 lights): $126
Lights paid
by City
NA
21
for
Estimated Cost
NA
$31,500
Note: Trenching costs to place these lights in the roadway center island
could significantly raise this cost.
CSAB 18 (FROM CSAB 42 TO CZTT LZMZTS)
These cost estimates are for double mast arm cobra-head lights on fiberglass
poles.
Lights needed:
8
Option A:
Option B:
Monthly O&M (8 lights): $48
Lights paid for
by City
NA
8
Estimated Cost
NA
$12,000
Note: Trenching costs to place these lights in the roadway center islands
could significantly raise this cost.
EXISTING RESIDENT~ NEIGHBORHOODS
LIGHTS NEEDED AND COST SlJMMARY
Note: Monthly operation and maintenance for City owned lights was averaged at
$6.00 per light. "Lights needed" designates the potential number of light
warrants that would meet the plan's criteria for locations, in existing
neighborhoods, presently without street lighting. Costs are in dollars.
Plan: Intersections only
Lights needed:
By territory
NSP 57
MVEC 59
SPU 17
TOTAL- 133
Estimated Cost:
Monthly O&M
NSP
MVEC
SPU
TOTAL-
$342
$354
$102
$798
Yearly O&M
$4104
$4248
$1224
$9576
Lights needed:
Plan: Intersections and every 300 feet between intersections.
By territory
NSP 166
MVEC 180
SPU 39
TOTAL- 385
Estimated Cost:
Monthly O&M
NSP
MVEC
SPU
TOTAL-
$996
$1080
$234
$2310
Yearly O&M
$11,952
$12,960
$2808
$27,720
Plan: Intersections,
of cul-de-sacs.
every 300 feet between intersections, and at the ends
By territory
NSP 193
MVEC 213
SPU 49
TOTAL- 455
Lights needed:
Estimated cost:
Monthly O&M
NSP
MVEC
SPU
TOTAL-
Update: 11/14/94
$1158
$1278
$294
$2730
Yearly O&M
$13,896
$15,336
$3528
$32,760
STREET LIGHT COSTS
STATE AID ROADWAYS IN 1995 C.I.P.
The number of lights needed originates from the proposed policy of lights for
intersections, every 300' between intersections where the distance between
intersections is greater than 600', and at the ends of cul-de-sacs, where the
distance to said end from the intersection is greater than 300'.
The following sections of roadways are collectors or will be in the near
future. As such, they cross (or will cross) the minimum Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) threshold of 2000 vehicles. Benefit can be ascribed to the city as a
whole and thus, according to the policy draft, the City pays installation,
operation and maintenance.
Two plans are offered: A) where the developers pay to install street lights
where the collector street intersects residential streets and B) where the
City pays to install all the lights.
The costs given here apply for purchased lights with a monthly operation and
maintenance agreement. Leased lights require less money "up front" but
larger monthly payments.
STREET: CARR:IAGE HJ:LLS PARKWAY (FROM CSAH 21 TO PJ:KE LAKE TRAJ:L)
These cost estimates are for "traditional" style lights.
Lights needed: 9
Estimated cost
Lights paid for
by City
Option A: 5
Option B: 9
Monthly O&M (9 lights): $54
$4125
$7425
STREET: PJ:KE LAKE 'l'RAJ:L (FROM CSAH 42 TO CHATONKA)
These cost estimates are for "traditional" style lights.
Lights needed: 14
Estimated cost
Lights paid for
by City
Option A: 11
Option B: 14
Monthly O&M (14 lights): $84
$9075
$11,550
STREET: FJ:SH POJ:NT RD. (FROM CSAH 44 SOOTH '1'0 TERMJ:NUS)
These cost estimates are for cobra-head lights on fiberglass poles.
Lights needed: 4
Estimated cost
Lights paid for
by City
Option A: 3
Option B: 4
Monthly O&M (4 lights): $24
$4125
$5500