STREET LIGHTING HEARING
, ~ "'-
MEMO
To: City Council & City Manager
-e
From: Clty Engineer
Re: Street Lighting Hearing (Althea Lane, Herman Terrace, Sweet Briar Lane)
The Engineers report was presented to the Council on March 1, 1983. After a
discussion of the proposals, the Council ordered a public hearing for April 19,
1983. Proposal I and Proposal II were essentially the same as to construction
details such as type of lighting standards and fixtures, spacing of lights, etc.
The difference that has a long range impact is whether or not the City owns the
system. The following data will show the difference in cost to the City under
the two alternatives.
Power cost to City if NSP owns & maintains @ $13.00 per month per 1 i ght
Power cos t to City if City owns & maintains @ $3.55 per month per 1 i gh t
Example:
NSP owned $13.00 x 16 1 i gh ts = $208 per month x 12 mos = $2496.00/year
~ City owned $ 3.55 x 16 1 i ghts = $56.80 per month x 12 mos = $ 681.60/year
Cost saving to City $1814.40/year
5 year saving = $1814.40 x 5 = $ 9,072.00
10 year saving = $1814.40 x 10 = 18,144.00
15 year saving = $1814.40 x 15 = 27,216.00
20 year savlng = $1814.40 x 20 = 36,288.00
In 1964 the City Council decided to require that all alleys that are proposed for
improvement be paved with concrete. This was based on the assumption that the
annual maintenance costs to the City would be less for concrete. Therefore the
City adopted a policy that the City would pay 20% of the construction cost of each
concrete alley. An amount has been placed in the budget each year based on the
anticipated alley construction for the City share.
The question raised by the report was whether or not the City, based on the fact
that a substantial savings will result to the general fund if the City owns the
lights, could participate in a portion of the construction cost of any lighting
project installed in the future.
In the estimated costs of this proje~t, the property owner would pay approximately
25% more per lot if the City installed the project as compared to the cost esti-
mated for the NSP owned system.
~ - "
Street Li ghti ng
Page 2
Example:
+ 15%
$ 25,068
6,267
$18,801
2,820
$21,621
Option II (Clty owned) - Est. Construction Cost
Less 25%
21,621 = $309 (Est. cost without city
70 participation - $412)
Est. cost to each property under NSP option - $314
Difference is $98.00
If the NSP owned system is installed it would cost the homeowner less (without
City participation). However, the long term cost to the City would be great
over the life of the project which is estimated conservatively at 20 years.
If the City were to adopted a long term policy for cost participation, a
resolution would have to be passed.
The third proposal submitted would combine cost cutting measures such as round
poles, wiring between homes, etc. This could be installed by NSP or the City
with the same monthly cost consideration as for the first two alternative proposals.
At the special informational meeting held on 4-6-83 the majority of those attending
favored a City owned system, if the City could absorb some of the cost. The meeting
was not well attended, however so no definite conclusion can be presented.
Respectfully submitted,
~aL\. ~
John J. Strojan
City Engineer
4/14/83
, .
MEMO
'.
To: City Council & City Manager
From: City Engineer
Re: Street Lighting Hearing (Althea Lane, Herman Terrace, Sweet Briar Lane)
The Engineers report was presented to the Council on March 1, 1983. After a
discussion of the proposals, the Council ordered,a publlC hearing for April 19,
1983. Proposal I and Proposal II were essentially the same as to construction
details such as type of lighting standards and fixtures, spacing of lights, etc.
The difference that has a long range impact is whether or not the City owns the
system. The following data will show the difference in cost to the City under
the two alternatives.
Power cost to City if NSP owns & maintains @ $13.00 per month ~r light
Power cost to City if City owns & maintains @ $3.55 per month per light
Example:
NSP owned $13.00 x 16 lights = $208 per month x 12 mos = $2496.00/year
ye City owned $ 3.55 x 16 lights = $56.80 per month x 12 mos = $ 681.60jyear
Cost saving to City
$1814.40jyear
\
~
5 year saving = $1814.40 x 5 = $ 9,072.00
10 year saving = $1814.40 x 10 18,144.00
15 year saving = $1814.40 x 15 = 27,216.00
20 year saving = $1814.40 x 20 = 36,288.00
In 1964 the City Council decided to require that all alleys that are proposed for
improvement be paved with concrete. This was based on the assumption that the
annual maintenance costs to the City would be less for concrete. Therefore the
City adopted a policy that the City would pay 20% of the construction cost of each
concrete alley. An amount has been placed in the budget each year based on the
anticipated alley construction for the City share.
The question raised by the report was whether or not the City, based on the fact
that a substantial savings will result to the general fund if the City owns the
lights, could particlpate in a portion of the construction cost of any lighting
project installed in the future.
In the estimated costs of this project, the property owner would pay approximately
25% more per lot if the City installed the project as compared to the cost esti-
mated for the NSP owned system.
" '
.
Street Lighting
Page 2
Example:
Option II (City owned) - Est. Construction Cost
Less 25%
+ 15%
$ 25,068
6,267
$18,801
2,820
$21,621
21,621 = $309 (Est. cost without city
70 participation - $412)
Est. cost to each property under NSP option - $314
Difference is $98.00
If the NSP owned system is installed it would cost the homeowner less (without
City participation). However, the long term cost to the City would be great
over the life of the project which is estimated conservatively at 20 years.
If the City were to adopted a long term policy for cost participation, a
resolution would have to be passed.
The third proposal submitted would combine cost cutting measures such as round
poles, wiring between homes, etc. This could be installed by NSP or the City
with the same monthly cost consideration as for the first two alternative proposals.
At the special informational meeting held on 4-6-83 the majority of those attending
favored a City owned system, if the City could absorb some of the cost. The meeting
was not well attended, however so no definite conclusion can be presented.
Respectfully submitted,
~oL.).~
John J. Strojan
City Engineer
4/14/83