Laserfiche WebLink
said they could run an additional 85 feet of wire underground and get the light to the end <br />of the cul -de -sac at a total cost of $3475. <br />In 2006, after a year of dealing with Xcel Energy, a proposed streetlight at the corner of <br />Leeward and Winward was denied due to excessive costs. The light request came from a <br />resident of the area and fit the City's criteria for streetlight installation but the cost to <br />install it was $2300 at the low end and $3249 at the high end. Staff checked into four or <br />five different locations for the light and a few different methods of installing the light, but <br />could only lower the installation cost to $2300. <br />A request for a streetlight at the end of Morrison Road has been examined and does <br />appear to fit the City's policy. Initially, it was thought that this light would also be cost <br />prohibitive when compared to benefits received by the surrounding neighborhood, but <br />further discussions with Xcel have revealed that a light could be installed at the end of the <br />cul -de -sac at no charge to the City due to the existing overhead power lines that run along <br />Morrison. The City is waiting to hear back from Xcel to confirm that this is the case and <br />will have the light installed if there are no upfront costs. <br />Xcel Energy offers two options for installing new streetlights. The first is the City pays <br />all construction costs upfront and then the light is placed in the Group V rate for billing, <br />which is $5.82 per month. The second is Xcel pays all upfront construction costs with <br />the exception of the underground portion and the light is billed at a rate of $15.12 per <br />month. In order to keep our upfront costs down we have been using the second option <br />when getting installation prices. But underground costs have risen to a level that makes <br />installing streetlights cost prohibitive. <br />The question is what is a reasonable price to pay to provide a streetlight that fits the <br />City's policy? Xcel offers cost - effective and even free installations for overhead lines <br />running to streetlights but charges a lot more to run wire underground. The underground <br />installations are much more aesthetically pleasing and do not affect trees in the short term <br />or long term. All new developments are installing underground wiring for power and <br />streetlights. It is extremely cost prohibitive to install streetlights even where they should <br />be installed under the City's policy. I'm not sure what the best route to take is but it is <br />difficult telling residents that the City cannot install a streetlight because the cost is so <br />high. Especially when one considers the fact that, had they chosen to live on a street that <br />already has a light on it, there would be no issue. But, since they happen to live on a <br />street that didn't get a light in the past they cannot get one installed now due to high costs <br />associated with streetlights. <br />Staff would like the Council's input on streetlight installations. Specifically, what is a <br />reasonable price to pay for a streetlight installation? The policy does not discuss how <br />new streetlights are to be paid for. The City could look into assessing benefiting property <br />owners the entire cost of installation or splitting the cost. Another option would be to <br />establish a street light utility and charge everyone a fee on a periodic basis that would be <br />used to offset street light installation and operation costs. (Shoreview uses this <br />approach.) <br />2 <br />