The URL can be used to link to this page

89-1496 S;�bS+�� Sq - �`�`� 6 � GITY OF, AINT �AUL Council �,/%+� . File N 0. ' Y7 Council esolution . � By Referred To Committee: Date ..��/��'��/ Out of Committee By Date SAINT PAUL ST EET LIGHTING POLICY WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul is responsible for providing policy guidance in the annual prep ration of the Capital Improvement Budget; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul i in the midst of a citywide program to separate combined storm and sanit ry sewers, and pave and light streets; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City f Saint Paul on October 20, 1988 adopted a resolutian (#88-1539) requesting the Planning Canmission to study street lighting policy issues and pract ces, and to recommend ways to improve the City's street lighting system; d WHEREAS, the Planning Commissio prepared a draft version of a study entitled Street Liahtinq in Saint Paul, eleased the study for public review. on April 26, 1989, and held a public he ring on the study on June 9, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissi n revised the study based on comrnents received during the period of public r iew, and adopted the revised study on June 23, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Long-Range Capi 1 Improvement Budget Committee (CIB Committee) reviewed the study and on 'Ju y 13, 1989 recanmended, in order to minimize the amount of additional general obligation bonding needed for street light financing, that: 1 . Assessment financing or street lights be increased; and that 2. The spacing of Singl Redesigned Historic Lantern fixtures on local residential streets e greater than that recorrrnended in the Planning Conunission study; COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimo�d �ng [n Favor coswitz Rettman B �be1�� __ Against y Sonnen Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary By gy, A►pproved by Mavor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY WHITE - CITV CLERK . ��a��t �� _ �� ' � � . CAI�ARV - aEP RC MENT � COIIRCII C ' BLUE - MAVOR GITY OF SAI T PAUL File NO. a '�1 ��_ Council R solution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date ��J�� Out of Committee By Date NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that th Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts the attached document en itled Saint Paul Street Li9htin9 Policy; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cou il of the City of Saint Paul directs transmittal to the Neighborhood Cont ct List, the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Conanittee, the Sa nt Paul Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and approp iate City staff persons; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the C ncil of the City of Saint Paul acknowledges that, with the comple ion of sewer separatic�n and street paving work, the number of lighting fixtu es in Saint Paul will inerease substantially; correspondingly, i is expected that future City Councils will appropriate adequate money in the budget for the Department of Public Works to provide far life-cycle operation nd maintenance of street lights; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul requests the Mayor to direct the Histori Preservation Cortwnission to prepare a plan which identifies street lightin guidelines for Heritage Preservation Districts in Saint Paul ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that t e Council of the City of Saint Paul requests the Mayor to direct the Saint Paul Riverfront Co�xnission to prepare a plan which identifies street light ng guidelines for the area of its jurisdiction; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, tha the Council of the City of Saint Paul requests the Mayor to direct the Pla ning Commission to prepare a plan which identifies street lighting guidelines or the downtown area. COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond , ��g In Favor Goswitz / Rettmaqf' s�ne;ne� _ Against BY Sonnen � OG'"t � ��QQQ Form Approved by City Attomey Adopted by CounciL• Date '��o Certified Pass d y ouncil Sec r BY By � I#ppr v by fVlavor: D e O�T 1 �� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By - 0CT 2 81989 �`�- �`��l b � � - r � ��y SAINT PAUL STR ET LIGHTING POLICY Introduction The Saint Paul Street Lighting Policy app ies to two different categories of street lighting systems: o Standard Systems. Systems within his category fulfill basic illumination and aesthetic standards; and are relativ ly inexpensive to install, operate and maintain. o Above-Standard Systems. Systems ithin this category exceed basic illumination and/or aesthetic standards; and/or re relatively expensive to install, operate, and/or maintain. Policies 1 - 3 below apply to Standard str et lighting systems; Above-Standard systems are covered by Policies 4 - 6. Policies applyi g to both kinds of systems are discussed in Policies 7 - 10. Policies 11 - 14 discuss th process for devising additional street lighting guidelines and plans. Finally, Policies 15 - 17 deal with three miscellaneous issues--bridge lighting, a Street Light Retrofitting Prog am, and systems which shall no longer be installed in the future. Standard Street Liehting Svstems 1. Definition oj Standard Systems. S ndard Systems shall consist of the following high-pressure sodium systems, spa ed to meet the Public Works Department lighting standards for traffic safety (base on the standards of the National Illuminating Engineering Society): a. Bent Straw Systems in the ollowing locations: 1) Downtown (define as the area bounded by the Mississippi River on the south, Kellogg oulevard and the I-35E Parkway on the west, and I-94 on the north, d the Lafayette Freeway on the east). 2) The riverfront are (defined as the area bounded by Fillmore Avenue, Robert Str et, Plato Boulevard, and Water Street on the south; the High Br' ge on the west; New Shepard Road, Hill Street, and Kellogg Boule ard on the north; and the Lafayette Freeway on the east). 3) On expressways an streets more than 50 feet wide. b. Single Redesigned Histori Lantern Systems elsewhere in the city (with staggered block face loca ions, spaced at a distance of approximately 165' on local residential streets). c. If requested by petition f the owners of at least 70 percent of all property in the area, the City may install a Bent Straw System in an area where Single Redesigned Histor c Lantern Systems would normally be installed, - and/or may paint Lanter fixtures green instead of brown (See Policy 7 below). Such a plan mus be submitted to the relevant District Council(s) in the area for review and omment. 1 i o -��-�� 2. Capital Financing for Standard Syst ms. The following financing shall be provided for the design and construction of tandard Systems: a. Local Streets. 1) During street reconst uction: 30 percent special assessments; 70 percent City-finance . 2) In other situations (e cept for the Street Light Retrofitting Program described in Policy 1 below): 100 percent special assessments, unless additional financing is obtained through a City program such as the Neighborhood Partn rship Program. b. Collector and Arterial Stre ts. 1) During street recons ruction: special assessments shall be limited to 30 percent of the co t of an equivalent system on a local residential street. 2) In other situations: 00 percent special assessments, unless additional financing is obtain d through a City program such as the Neighborhood Part ership Program. 3. Operating/Maintenance Financing or Standard Systems. Operating and maintenance costs include, but are not limited to the costs of: energy, life-cycle painting, life-cycle fixture replacement, li e-cycle anchor re-rodding, rewiring and conduit replacement, bulb replacemeni, ash, relamp, and emergency repairs. Operating and maintenance costs for Stand rd Systems shall be paid entirely by the City's general fund. Above-Standar Street Li htin S stem 4. Definition of Above-Standard Sys ems. Above-Standard Systems shall consist of all street lighting systems which ar more costly to install, operate, and/or maintain than Standard Systems. Above- tandard Systems include: a. Any system with fixture spaced more closely than is necessary to meet standards for traffic saf ty described in Policy 1. b. Single Old-Design Histor c Lantern Systems. c. Multiple-Headed Histori Lantern systems. d. Combination Bent Straw Historic Lantern systems. e. Multiple-Headed Histori Globe systems. f. Combination Bent Stra /Historic Globe systems. g. Single Redesigned Hist ric Lantern Systems in areas where Bent Straw Systems would normall be installed (see Policy l.a.). 2 � o-i�.-��1 5. Capital Financing for Above-Standard Systems. All design and construction costs in excess of the costs of a Standard Sys em (as defined in Policy 1) shall be financed with special assessments, unless addi ional financing is obtained through a City program such as the Neighborhood rtnership Program. 6. Operating/Maintenance Financing for Above-Standard Systems. a. All Above-Standard Systems n place or under contract for installation as of December 31, 1989, which w re operated and maintained by the City but not assessed for operation an maintenance prior to December 31, 1989: operating and maintenance c sts shall be paid entirely by the City's general fund. b. Other Above-Standard Syste s operated and maintained by the City: all operating/maintenance costs in excess of the costs of a Standard System (as defined in Policy 1) shall b financed by annual special assessments/service charges. Annual charges sh 11 include the costs of operating and maintaining the lighting sys em, as well as City and County costs for billing and collecting special assess ents. Policies A I in to Both Standard and bove-Standard Street Li htin S stems 7. Color. The standard color for all treet lighting fixtures shall be a single shade of brown. Bent Straw fixtures shall e self-weathering steel where this does not cause a problem with rust stains in the urb area. A single shade of green shall be permitted for Lantern fixtures in reas identified via the planning process described in Policies 13 - 15 belo , and in areas where owners of 70 percent of the property have requested green col red Lanterns (see Policy l.c. above). 8. Height of Historic Lantern Fixture . Historic lantern fixtures should not exceed a height of 14 feet, except in areas where existing lanterns already exceed this height. 9. Significant Increase in Operating nd Maintenance Costs for Street Lighting. It is expected that, with the completi of the sewer separation and street paving work, the number of lighting fixtures i Saint Paul will increase substantially. Correspondingly, it is expected t at future City Councils will appropriate adequate money in the budget for the De rtment of Public Works to provide for life-cycle operation and maintenance of st eet lights. 10. Life-Cycle Replacement Program: Light Fixture Style. The City normally shall not change the style of existing ligh ing fixtures during its regular maintenance program. Style changes shall be made if they are requested by property owners, provided that the changes confo ms to street lighting plans and guidelines developed via the process descri ed in Policies 11 - 13 below, and provided the changes are approved by the Ci y Council. Additional Street Li htin uideli es nd Plans 11. Heritage Preservation Guidelines. The Heritage Preservation Commission should prepare a plan for City Counci adoption, which identifies street lighting guidelines for Heritage Preserv tion Districts in Saint Paul. These guidelines may identify areas to receive specif ed Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture colors in accordance w' h Policy 7. 3 ,o-��-��1 12. High-Priority Street Lighting Plans. T e following plans should be prepared to ensure that sound street lighting desi n principles are established for especially visible and sensitive areas of Saint P ul: a. The Saint Paul Riverfront Co mission should prepare a plan for City Council adoption, which iden ifies street lighting guidelines for the area of its jurisdiction. This plan m identify areas to receive specified Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture colors in accordance with Policy 7. b. The Planning Commission sh uld prepare a plan for City Council adoption, which identifies street lighti g guidelines for the downtown area. The process for preparing thi5 pl n should involve groups including the Division of Public Works, the Depart ent of Planning and Economic Development, the Division of Parks and R creation, the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Saint Paul iverfront Commission, the Downtown Community Development C uncil, and the Downtown Council. This plan may identify areas to recei e specified Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture colors in a cordance with Policy 7. 13. Other Street Lighting Plans. The f llowing plans could be useful in improving the street lighting in particular areas f Saint Paul: a. The Parks and Recreation lement of the City's Comprehensive Plan may include street lighting gui lines for parks and parkways. This plan element may identify area to receive specified Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture olors in accordance with Policy 7. b. Commercial or mixed-use ubarea plans that are developed and adopted by the Planning Commission ay include guidelines for street lights in the subarea under considerati n. Such plans may identify areas to receive specified Standard Syste in areas other than those identified in Policy 1, may identify areas to rec ive specified Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture colors in accordance with Policy 7. 14. Planning Commission Oversight. he Planning Commission shall ensure that any plans and/or guidelines identifi d via the process described in Policies 11 - 13 conform to adopted City plans, olicies and standards. Miscellaneous Policies 15. Bridge Lighting. At a minimu lighting installed on bridges shall conform to the lighting planned for the streets approaching the bridges. Lighting on bridges may be enhanced with City Council approval. 16. Street Light Retrofitting Progra . The City shall establish a Street Light Retrofitting Program to make vailable Redesigned Historic Lantern fixtures in areas which were assessed for ent Straw fixtures during previous sewer separation work performed between the ears 1986 and 1989. (The Bent Straw fixtures installed during this time had a planned life expectancy of 20 years for the head, and 35 years for the pole.) T e Street Light Retrofitting Program shall have the following features: 4 i�� y a. The spacing pattern of Redes gned Historic Lanterns in the Street Light Retrofitting Program shall be the same as that used for Redesigned Historic Lanterns installed during str t construction or reconstruction. b. Capital assessments for stree lights installed as part of the Street Light Retrofitting Program shall b reduced by an amount equal to assessments already levied during sewer eparation for street lights in the affected areas. All other capital and perating/maintenance financing policies will remain the same in areas af ected by the retrofitting program. c. The Street Light Retrofittin Program may begin in the year 2006, after the 20-year street paving progra is completed (which coincides with the planned life expectancy of he Bent Straw fixture head). d. The earliest streets to be eli ible for consideration by the Street Light Retrofitting Program shall e those which were the earliest to receive separated sewers. e. An area scheduled for retr fitting may retain a Bent Straw system, or receive an Above-Standard system if the alternative system is identified for the area via the planning rocess described in Policies 13.c. above. 17. Systems No Longer Installed. The City shall no longer install the following types of street lighting systems: a. Post Top Systems. b. Systems of fixtures attache to the fronts of buildings. 5 ,...,�� 9-i��'� ;�: iCIT OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPAR MENTAL MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 1989 T0: Members of the City Counci Council President Jim cheibel Councilmember Tom Dim d Councilmember Roger G switz Councilmember Bob Lon Councilmember Janice ettman Councilmember Kiki So nen Councilmember William ilson cc: Mayor George Latimer Greg Blees, Budget Di ector FROM: Tom Eggum, Director of Pub ic Works � �� Ken Johnson, Director of P anning and Economic Development�� RE: Street Lighting Policy Attached is the draft Saint Pau1 S reet Lighting Policy, a document recommended for City Council adoption by the P blic Works, Utilities and Transportation Committee on October 4, 1989. Thi draft is based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission street lig ting study (Street Lighting in Saint Pau1) , modified to incorporate recommenda ions by the CIB Committee and the Mayor, and to address issues raised by the Pu lic Works, Utilities and Transportation Committee. Key items in the draft policy a�e s follows: 1. Standards: Bent Straw fixtur s in the downtown/riverfront area and on wide streets and expressways Single Redesigned Historic Lantern fixtures elsewhere in the city. 2. Exceptions to Standards: a. Downtown/riverfront: S reet lighting plans for City Council adoption are to be pre ared for the downtown and riverfront areas . It is expected that th se plans will determine what parts of the downtown and riverfron should receive Above-Standard Historic Globe fixtures. b. Elsewhere: If requeste by petition of the owners of 70 percent of property in the area, he City may install Bent Straw fixtures where Single Redesigne Historic Lanterns would normally be installed. Such reque ts must be submitted to relevant District Councils for review a comment. �;��q-�� City Council October 11, 1989 Page Two 3. Financing: a. Capital Costs: Financing ill be provided through some combination of special assessments a d City financing (capital improvement bonds) . The Cotnmittee d d not achieve a consensus on the appropriate balance of t ese two elements. However, it did identify three alternati es for Standard systems to be discussed by the City Council. (Note that each alternative is applicable to local residential stree ; on collector and arterial streets the City would provide fina cing for all additional costs. ) The three alternatives are: 1) 40 percent assess ent for both Bent Straws and Single Redesigned Histor c Lanterns. This is the alter ative recommended by the CIB Committee and the Mayor, and c rrently contained in the draft Saint Paul Street Lighting olicy. The Mayor has supported this alternative beca se it would require essentially no additional gener 1 obligation bonding for street lights. 2) 25 percent asses ment for both Bent Straws and Single Redesigned Histo ic Lanterns. This alternativ would require up to $313,000 annually in additional gene al obligation bonding for street lights. The Mayor has indic ted that he would not support a financing alternative tha required substantial additional general obligation bond ng for street lights. 3) 25 percent ass sment for Bent Straws (requested by petition) ; 40 ercent assessment for Single Redesigned Historic Lante ns. This alternati e would require essentially no additional general obliga ion bonding for street lights. In fact, it could require ess general obligation bonding than the first alternative (i the result of the third alternative is to encourage a g ater use of Bent Straw fixtures) . Budget Director Greg Blees urged the Public Works, Utilities and Transportatio Committee to consider this alternative at the Committee's S ptember 20 meeting. Attached is the pol cy language needed for the three alternative ways of financing t e capital costs of Standard systems. The relevant section f each alternative is a variation of Policy 2 of the draft Saint Pa 1 Street Lighting Policy. Also attached is a table comparing th amount assessed and the amount financed by the City for each of t e three alternatives. For Above-Standard systems, all additional capital costs would normally be financ d by special assessments. ��i�� City Council October 11, 1989 Page Three b. Operating/Maintenance Cos s: For Standard systems, all operating/maintenance cos s would be paid by the City's general fund. For Above-Standard systems, all additional operating/maintenance cos s would be financed through special assessments. ��_,�� SAINT PAUL ST EET LIGHTING POLICY DR T: 10/10/89 Introduction The Saint Paul Street Lighting Policy ap lies to two different categories of street lighting systems: o Standard Systems. Systems within this category fulfill basic illumination and aesthetic standards; and are relati ely inexpensive to install, operate and maintain. o Above-Standard Systems. Systems ithin this category exceed basic illumination and/or aesthetic standards; and/or are relatively expensive to install, operate, and/or maintain. Policies 1 - 3 below apply to Standard str et lighting systems; Above-Standard systems are covered by Policies 4 - 6. Policies applyi g to both kinds of systems are discussed in Policies 7 - 10. Policies 11 - 14 discuss t process for devising additional street lighting guidelines and plans. Finally, Policies 15 - 17 deal with three miscellaneous issues--bridge lighting, a Street Light Retrofitting Prog am, and systems which shall no longer be installed in the future. Standard Street Liehtin¢ Svstems 1. Definition of Standard Systems. St ndard Systems shall consist of the following high-pressure sodium systems, spac d to meet the Public Works Department lighting standards for traffic safety (based on the standards of the National Illuminating Engineering Society): a. Bent Straw Systems in the llowing locations: 1) Downtown (defined s the area bounded by the Mississippi River on the south, Kellogg B ulevard and the I-35E Parkway on the west, and I-94 on the north, an the Lafayette Freeway on the east). 2) The riverfront area defined as the area bounded by Fillmore �`+ Avenue, Robert Stre t, Plato Boulevard, and Water Street on the south; the High Brid e on the west; New Shepard Road, Hill Street, and Kellogg Bouleva d on the north; and the Lafayette Freeway on the east). 3) On expressways and treets more than 50 feet wide. b. Single Redesigned Historic antern Systems elsewhere in the city (with staggered block face locatio s, spaced at a distance of approximately 165' on local residential streets). c. If requested by petition of he owners of at least 70 percent of all property in the area, the City may i tall a Bent Straw System in an area where Single Redesigned Historic antern Systems would normally be installed, 1 �� and/or may paint Lantern fix ures green instead of brown (See Policy 7 below). Such a plan must be bmitted to the relevant District Council(s) in the area for review and com nt. 2. Capital Financing for Standard Syste s. The following financing shall be provided for the design and construction of St ndard Systems: a. Local Streets. 1) During street reconstru tion: 40 percent special assessments; 60 percent City-financed. 2) In other situations (exc pt for the Street Light Retrofitting Program described in Policy 17 elow): 100 percent special assessments, unless additional financing is obtained through a City program such as the Neighborhood Partners ip Program. b. Collector and Arterial Streets. 1) During street reconstru tion: special assessments shall be limited to 40 percent of the cost f an equivalent system on a local residential street. 2) In other situations: 100 percent special assessments, unless additional financing is obtained t rough a City program such as the Neighborhood Partners ip Program. 3. Operating/Maintenance Financing for tandard Systems. Operating and maintenance costs include, but are not limited to t e costs of: energy, life-cycle painting, life-cycle fixture replacement, life-c cle anchor re-rodding, rewiring and conduit replacement, bulb replacement, wash, relamp, and emergency repairs. Operating and maintenance costs for Standard ystems shall be paid entirely by the City's general fund. Above-Standard Street Liehting Svstems 4. Definition of Above-Standard Systems. Above-Standard Systems shall consist of all street lighting systems which are mor costly to install, operate, and/or maintain than Standard Systems. Above-Stand rd Systems include: a. Any system with fixtures spac d more closely than is necessary to meet standards for traffic safety d scribed in Policy 1. b. Single Old-Design Historic La tern Systems. c. Multiple-Headed Historic Lan ern systems. d. Combination Bent Straw/Hist ric Lantern systems. e. Multiple-Headed Historic Glo e systems. f. Combination Bent Straw/Hist ric Globe systems. g. Single Redesigned Historic La tern Systems in areas where Bent Straw Systems would normally be in talled (see Policy l.a.). 2 . I `�'�� 5. Capital Financing jor Above-Stan rd Systems. All design and construction costs in excess of the costs of a Standard System (as defined in Policy 1) shall be financcd with special assessments, unless ditional financing is obtained through a City program such as the Neighborho d Partnership Program. 6. Operating/Maintenance Financing jor Above-Standard Si�stems. a. All Above-Standard Syste s in place or under contract for installation as of December 31, 1989, whic were operated and maintained by the City but not assessed for opera,tio and maintenance prior to December 31, 1989: operating and mainteman e costs shall be paid entirely by the City's general fund. b. Other Above-Standard S tems operated and maintained by the City: all operating/maintenance c sts in excess of the costs of a Standard System (as defined in Policy 1) shal be financed by annual special assessments/servicc charges. Annual charges shall include the costs of operating and maintaining the lighting ystem, as well as City and County costs for billing and collecting special as ssments. Policies A 1 in to Both tandard an Ab v - tan ard Str et Li htin S stems 7. Color. The standard color for 1 street lighting fixtures shall be a single shade of brown. Bent Straw fixtures sh 11 be self-weathering steel where th;s does not cause a problem with rust stains in t e curb area. A single shade of green shall be permitted for Lantern fixtures n areas identified via the planning process described in Policies 13 - 15 be ow, and in areas where owners of 70 percent of the property have requested gren c lored Lanterns (see Policy l.c. above). 8. Height of Historic Lantern Fixt es. Historic lantern fixtures should not exceed a height of 14 feet, except in'ar s where existing lanterns already exceed this height. 9. Significant Increase in Operatin and Maintenance Costs Jor Street Lighting. It is expected that, with the comple ion of the sewer separation and street paving work, the number of lighting fixture in Saint Paul will increase substantially. Correspondingly, it is expecte that future City Councils will appropriate adequate money in the budget for the partment of Public Works to provide for life-cycle operation and maintenance of treet lights. 10. Life-Cycle Replacement Progra : Light Fixture Style. The City normally shall not change the style of existing li hting fixtures during its regular maintenance program. Style changes shall e made if they are requested by property owners, provided that the changes con orms to street lighting plans and guidelines developed via the process des ibed in Policies 11 - 13 below, and provided the changes are approved by the ity Council. Additional Street Li htin Guideline and Plans 11. Heritage Preservation Guidelin . The Heritage Preservation Commission should prepare a plan for City Coun il adoption, which identifies street lighting guidelines for Heritage Prese vation Districts in Saint Paul. These guidelines may identify areas to receive spec fied Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture colors in accordance ith Policy 7. 3 , w ��/�1�� 12. High-Priority Street Lighting Plans. he following plans should be prepared to ensure that sound street lighting d ign principles are established for especially visible and sensitive areas of Saint Paul: a. The Saint Paul Riverfront ommission should prepare a plan for City Council adoption, which id ntifies street lighting guidelines for the area of its jurisdiction. This plan ay identify areas to receive specified Above-Standard Systems, d may identify fixture colors in accordance with Policy 7. b. The Planning Commissio should prepare a plan for City Council adoption, which identifies street li hting guidelines for the downtown area. The process for preparing thi plan should involve groups including the Division of Public Works, the De rtment of Planning and Economic Development, the Division of Parks an Recreation, the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Saint P ul Riverfront Commission, the Downtown Community Developme t Council, and the Downtown Council. This plan may identify areas to r ceive specified Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture colors n accordance with Policy 7. 13. Other Street Lighting Plans. T e following plans could be useful in improving the street lighting in particular a eas of Saint Paul: a. The Parks and Recre ion element of the City's Comprehensive Plan may include street lightin guidelines for parks and parkways. This plan element may identify areas to receive specified Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fi ure colors in accordance with Policy 7. b. Commercial or mixe -use subarea plans that are developed and adopted by the Planning Comm' sion may include guidelines for street lights in the subarea under consi eration. Such plans may identify areas to receive specified Standard ystems in areas other than those identified in Policy 1, may identify areas o receive specified Above-Standard Systems, and may identify fixture co ors in accordance with Policy 7. 14. Planning Commission Over igh[. The Planning Commission shall ensure that any plans and/or guidelines i entified via the process described in Policies 11 - 13 conform to adopted City plans, policies and standards. Miscellaneous Policies 15. Bridge Lighting. At a inimum, lighting installed on bridges shall conform to the lighting planned for th streets approaching the bridges. Lighting on bridges may be enhanced with City Council approval. lb. Street Light RetroJittin Program. The City shall establish a Street Light Retrofitting Program o make available Redesigned Historic Lantern fixtures in areas which were asse sed for Bent Straw fixtures during previous sewer separation work performed betw en the years 1986 and 1989. (The Bent Straw fixtures installed during this ime had a planned life expectancy of 20 years for the head, and 35 years for the ole.) The Street Light Retrofitting Program shall have the following features: 4 . . C?�d�i-��{o a. The spacing pattern of Redesign d Historic Lanterns in the Street Light Retrofitting Program shall be th same as that used for Redesigned Historic Lanterns installed during street onstruction or reconstruction. b. Capital assessments for street li hts installed as part of the Street Light Retrofitting Program shall be r duced by an amount equal to assessments already levied during sewer se ration for street lights in the affected areas. All other capital and op rating/maintenance financing policies will remain the same in areas affec ed by the retrofitting program. c. The Street Light Retrofitting rogram may begin in the year 2006, after the 20-year street paving program is completed {which coincides with the planned life expectancy of th Bent Straw fixture head). d. The earliest streets to be elig' le for consideration by the Street Light Retrofitting Program shall b those which were the earliest to receive separated sewers. e. An area scheduled for retro itting may retain a Bent Straw system, or receive an Above-Standard ystem if the alternative system is identified for the area via the planning p ocess described in Policies 13.c. above. 17. Systems No Longer Installed. The ity shall no longer install the following types of street lighting systems: a. Post Top Systems. b. Systems of fixtures attache to the fronts of buildings. 5 �,,��r-i�1�� Poli Language for Capital Fin ncing Alternative 1: 40 Percent Assessm nt for Both Bent Straws and Single Redes ned Historic Lanterns 2. Capital Financing for Standa Systems. The following financing shall be provided for the design and c nstruction of Standard Systems: a. Local Streets. 1) During street rec nstruction: 40 percent special assessments; 60 percent City-f'nanced. 2) In other situatio s (except for the Street Light Retrofitting Program described in Policy 17 below) : 100 percent special assessments, unle s additional financing is obtained through a City program su h as the Neighborhood Partnership Program. b. Collector and Arterial treets. 1) During street rec nstruction: special assessments shall be limited to 40 per ent of the cost of an equivalent system on a local residenti 1 street. 2) In other situatio s: 100 percent special assessments, unless additional financ ng is obtained through a City program such as the Neighborho d Partnership Program. Note: This is the language in the urrent draft of the policy document. ��i�� - Poli y Language for Capital Fi ncing Alternative 2: 25 Percent Assess nt for Both Bent Straws and Single Redes gned Historic Lanterns 2. Capital Financing for Standa d Systerns. The following financing shall be provided for the desig and construction of Standard Systems: a. Local Streets. 1) During street rec nstruction: 4A 25 percent special assessments; 69 7 percent City-financed. 2) In other situa�tio s (except for the Street Light Retrofitting Program described in Policy 17 below) : 100 percent special assessments, unle s additional financing is obtained through a City program su h as the Neighborhood Partnership Program. b. Collector and Arterial treets. 1) During street rec nstruction: special assessments shall be limited to 4A 25 ercent of the cost of an equivalent system on a local reside tial street. 2) In other situatio s: 100 percent special assessments, unless additional financ'ng is obtained through a City program such as the Neighborho d Partnership Program. Note: Strikeouts and underlinings a relative to the language in Alternative 1. �� -�� Policy L nguage for Capital Fina'nc g Alternative 3: 25 Percent Assessment for Ben Straws (Requested by Petition) ; 40 Percent Assessment for Sin le Redesigned Historic Lanterns 2. Capital Financing for Standard S stems. The following financing shall be provided for the design a construction of Standard Systems: a. Local Streets. 1) During street recon truction: 40 percent special assessments; 60 percent City-fin nced. 2Z If a Bent Straw S s em is installed as a result of the etition rocess de cribed in Polic l.c. above: 25 ercent s ecial assessment 75 ercent Cit -financed. 23) In other situatzon (except for the Street Light Retrofitting Program described n Policy 17 below) : 100 percent special assessments, unles additional financing is obtained through a City program suc as the Neighborhood Partnership Program. b. Collector and Arterial S reets. 1) During street rec struction: special assessments shall be limited to 40 per ent of the cost of an equivalent system on a local residenti 1 street. � If a Bent Straw S stem is installed as a result of the etition rocess escribed in Polic l.c. above: s ecial assessments shall be limited to 25 ercent of the cost of an e uivalent s stem on a local residential street. 23) In other situati s: 100 percent special assessments, unless additional finan ing is obtained through a City program such as the Neighborh od Partnership Program. Note: Strikeouts and underlinings re relative to the language in Alternative 1. �'��i-�`�� COSTS OF CAPITAL FINANCING A TERNATIVES FOR STREET LIGHTING -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- - Alternative l: 40 Percent Assessment f r Both Bent Straws and Single Redesigned Historic Lanterns Cost per Assessable Foot Bent Straws Lanterns Annual Total* Assessed $ 3.20 $ 4.67 $ 698,822 CIB $ 4.80 $ 7:00 $1,599,657 Total $ 8.00 $11.67 $2,298,479 ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Alternative 2: 25 Percent Assessment or Both Bent Straws and Single Redesigned Historic Lanterns Cost per Assessable Foot Bent Straws Lanter s Annual Total* Assessed $ 2.00 $ 2.8 $ 436,764 CIB $ 6.00 $ 8.8 $1,861,715 Total $ 8.00 $11. 7 $2,298,479 ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ - Alternative 3: 25 Percent Assessmen for Bent Straws (Requested by Petition) ; 40 Percent Assessment for Single Re esigned Historic Lanterns Cost per Assessable Foo Bent Straws Lant ns Annual Total* Assessed $ 2.00 $ 4 67 $ 698,822 CIB $ 6.00 $ 7 00 $1,599,657 Total $ 8.00 $11 67 $2,298,479 ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- * Note: For budgeting purposes, ' is assumed that lanterns will be installed where indicated by Policy standar s. If any Bent Straws are installed, the annual total will decrease. The nnual total is an estimate applying to collector and arterial streets, a well as local streets. The "Amount per Assessable Foot" figure applies o ly to local streets. (With all alternatives, additional costs for lights on co lector and arterial streets would be financed by City CIB moneys. ) . Q�,,.�-, `C,,, a-� ' � �;, � :�J ;� ,�?�� a�� WHITE - C�TY CLERK � PINK - FINANCE GITY OF S INT PALTL Council CANARV - DEPARTMENT 9 BLUE - MAVOR . FIIC �O• /�• � Counc ' esolution '� � � Presented By ' , eferred �'Fo Committee: Date ��—�� `�� Out of Commi��ee By Date � STREET LIGH ING STUDY .� WHEREAS, the Counci� of the City of Sai Paul is responsible for providing policy guidance in th�annual preparati n of the Capital Improvement Budget; and � � WHEREAS, the City of Saint aul is in t e midst of a citywide program to separate sewers, and pave an light �tr ets; and WHEREAS, the Council of the Cit of Sai t Paul on October 20, 1988 adopted a resolution (#88-1539) requesting he' P1 nning Commission to study street lighting policy issues and practic s, a d to recommend ways to improve the City's street lighting system; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission prepa d a draft version of a study entitled Street Lighting in Saint Paul , release he study for public review on April 26, 1989, and held a public hearing ;on th study on June 9, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reyis d th study based on comments received during the period of public review, ' an appro ed and adopted the revised study on June 23, 1989; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure the implem ntation o the study's recommendation that District Councils may develop str et lighting lans, the Planning Commission further resolved that, f,oll wing City Co cil adoption of the study, the Planning Commission should stablish crit ia to determine when a District street lighting plan confarm to the adopted olicy, and guidelines to help District Councils create a st eet light planni process based on broad, informed community input; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, tha�G t e Council of the Cit of Saint Paul hereby adopts the attached study erhti led Street Li htin i Saint Paul ; and COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Departmenf of: k�.7 ;�. , Yeas Nays � � �u��ic [�`o�'ks; Dimond �� In F�vo Goswitz ��\./ Rettman B ��e1�� A gai h s t Y Sonnen -'%��,� Wilson Form Appro ed by i y ttorney Adopted by Council: Date � Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Ylavor: Date _ Approved b or for Sub ' n Council ^ gy BY WHITE - UTY CLERK COUflCll �� ///j�� PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF S I NT PAU L CANARV - DEPARTMENT /`�y BLUE - MAVOR File NO. � Council� esolution Presented By �� Referred�'o Committee: Date �� /� � Out of Com 'ttee By Date BE IT FURTHER R OLVED, that the Council f the City of Saint Paul directs transmittal to th Neighborhood Contact L st, the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget ommittee, the Saint P ul Planning Cormnnission, and appropriate City stafi�#' persons; and , � BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, ''�hat, in order' to implement in a timely fashion the policy that the City will ��llow District ouncils to create street lighting plans which identify except'Fons to the� st eet lighting standards that would otherwise prevail in each Dis'�,rict, th�e C uncil of the City of Saint Paul requests that within 60 days o City Coun il adoption of Street Lighting in Saint Paul , the Planning Commiss n sh;oul establish criteria to determine when a District street lighting pl Gon rms to the adopted policies, and guidelines to help District Council c�re e a street lighting planning process based on broad, informed community in ' t � ,,� � � , COUNCIL MEMBERS I l Yeas Nays , Requested by Department o�t publ�c WoXkS a nimond � Pla n�ng & Eco�}omic Development �ng [n Favar Gosw;tz Retdnan sche;n�� _ Against� BY Sonnen , Wilson � Form Ap oved by Cit A t ey Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY ` gy, A►pproved by 1+lavor: Date _ Approved or for S ion o Council . By gY G�Ir""`-1 /l� . . . . , ��i-/�� °EP a n�i n �conomi c Devel opment DATE IN o _ �,� o�r�s � 24 9 REEN SHEET No. 3 4 2 3 OONTACT PER80N 3 PHONE IN DATE INITIAUDATE _� �PARTMENT OIRECTOR � �CRY OOUNpL Mark Vander Schaa;f 228-3373 � cmr A�rro��,r 7-�s-�`1 �C�1'aERK MU8T BE ON COUNqL AQENDA 9�I(DA7� ROUTMKi BUDOET DIRECTOR FlN.6 MOT.SERVICES DIR. ,�u►voA�oR,�ss,sr,u�rr, gPubl i c Works 1 r TOTAL A�OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP A L L CATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� ACT10N REGUESTED: Approve resolution to adopt street li�ht�ing policies recommended by Planning Commission. � RECOMMErmATloNS:MP�e(N a�1�(� COUN tTTEE/RESEARCH REPORT OPTION A PLANNINO COMMISSION _dVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �� E �GsooMM�e- reco�nded alternati _STAFF financing °°""ME � �UL 2 8 1989 —��«,� — ' 1a89 SEWER EPARATIONE��7 � �1�� , CITY iNmn�P�eM,issue.o�oRruNmr�wrw,wn.e.wn.�.wn.►.,wn�: �q}�pR� OFFICE . Cit Council Resolution #88-1539 Octo er 20-; 198� requests the Planning� Commission to recommend improvements in the aestheti s nd financing of Saint Paul 's street` l,ighting system. Currently, there is a citywid p oblem consisting of an undesirable mi�,ture of fixture styles, and budgeting and equi y oncerns with the financing of street light installation. Because of accelerated tr et reconstruction (and street light installation) during the sewer separation project, i i important to address this problem soon. ADNANTAOEB IF APPROVED: - Improved aesthetics on city streets - Greater emphasis on Saint Paul 's hi to ic character. - More liqhting oriented toward pedes ri n activity. - Citizen participation in neighborho d treet light planning. - Clear policy framework instead of c rr nt ambiguity. I � � DISADYANTAOES IF APPROVED: - Increased capital costs estimated t 777,654 annually ($191,809 in assessments; $585,845 in capital improvement bo di g) . - Operating/maintenance costs would nc ease at the rate of approximately �5,000 per year over a 50 year period (see at ac ed projections of operating budget needs for bent straws and redesigned lantern ) . I I I DISADVANTAOES IF NOT APPROVED: - Little use of historic street lig ts because the current budgeting assumption is that only bent straw fixtures wil b installed. - No clear process for citizens to ho se what kind of street lights are best for their neighborhood. i Cout�c�l Research Center. - Financing inequities. � AUG 11 i��9 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION = W8T/REVENUE BUDOETED(CIRCLE ON� YE8 NO FUNDING S011RCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FlWWGAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) I i i NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFlCE(PHONE NO.298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred routings for the flve most frequent types of dxuments: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend, BdgtsJ budget exists) Accept.Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Initiating Department 2. Bud�et Director 3. City Attomey 3. Gty Attomey 4. Mayor 4. MayoNAssiatant 5. Finance&Mgmt Svcs. Director 5. City Council 6. Finance Accounting 6. Chief AxouMant, Fin 8 Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNqL RESOLUTION (all others) Revislon) and ORDINANCE 1. Activiry Manager 1. IMtiating Depertment Director 2. Department Ac�ountant 2• GtY AttameY 3. DepartmeM Director 3. Mayor/Aesistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Fin 8�Mgmt Svcs. B ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (ali others) 1. Initiating Department ' 2. City Attorney 3. Mayor/AssistaM 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and p�6rclip each of these pages. ACTION REt,IUESTED ' Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the isaue. Do not write complete sentenc�s. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issne in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s)your projecUrequest supports by Ibting the key word(s)(HOUSINC3, RECREATION, NEI(3HBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION).(SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) COUNCIL COMMITTEE/RESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REQUE3TED BY COUNCIL INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditlons that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED .tndicate whether this is simply an annusl budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are apecNic ways in which the Ciry of Saint Paul and its citizens wili benefit from this projecUaction. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past prxesses migM this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, - tex increases oi�assessments)?To Whom?When7 For how long? DISADVANTACiES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved?Inabiliry to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate7 Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT ARhough you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in gene�al you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay? CITY OF SAI T PAUL ��✓��y� piT!O� i A4 � o u OFFICE OF TH MAYOR � nt it�� : a vm �o 347 CITY H LL �� SAINT PAUL, MINN SOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMBR (612) 29 8- 3 2 3 MAYOR August 10, 1989 President James Scheibel and Members of the City Council Seventh Floor City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Scheibel and Members of th City Council: I am pleased to transmit to you a Plannin Commission study entitled Street Lighting in Saint Paul. This study is a et of findings and policy recommendations to improve Saint Paul's s reet lighting system, prepared to fulfill a request made by the City Counc' in Council Resolution #88-1539. The conclusion of the report is that his oric streetlights contribute significantly to Saint Paul's identity a a community that is aesthetically sensitive and proud of its past. Change in street lighting policies and practices should refine and build on the existing system of historic fixtures. A simplified and focused approach to str et lighting can lay the foundation for further improving Saint Paul's appea ance in the future. The report makes recommendations in four major areas: design, locations, decision process, and financing. I supp rt the report's overall conclusion and the recommendations dealing with de 'gn, locations and decision process. However, as discussed below, I urge you to adopt a modified plan for financing the installation of street lighting. I bring to your attention three items t at merit special consideration as you discuss the street lighting policies re ommended by the Planning Commission. 1. Financing. The Planning Commission recommend that assessments for the installation of bent straw street lights be se at $2 per assessable foot, and assessments for "preferred stand d" fixtures be $3 per assessable foot. (Redesigned historic lanterns wo ld be the preferred standard in residential neighborhoods and ne ghborhood commercial strips; combination single historic glob /bent straw systems would be the preferred standard in the downto /riverfront area.) It also recommends that the City's capital budget f r street lighting should assume that only preferred standard fixtures will be installed. Based on 1989 prices, it is estimated that thi recommendation would require approximately $586,000 in additi nal capital improvement bond financing annually. 8 48 . . � � �� President James Scheibel and Members of the City Council August 10, 1989 Page Two On July 13, the CIB Committee rev ewed the Planning Commission proposal and recommended an alternative me hod of financing that would require little or no additional capital i provement bond moneys for street lighting. The CIB Committee reco endation is that bent straw and preferred standard fixtures be as essed at 40 percent of cost except on streets where higher levels of li hting are needed to meet minimal traffic safety standards. On th e streets, the City should pay for additional costs. The CIB Commi ee also recommended that the spacing of redesigned historic lanterns local residential streets be increased from the 140 feet reco ended by the Planning Commission to 165 feet. The wider spacing all s for adequate lighting, but is less satisfactory aesthetically. An 'ncrease in spacing would save money by lowering capital costs from $14 er assessable foot to $11.67 per assessable foot. On local residential streets, th CIB Committee recommendation would result in an assessment for b�nt straws of $3.20 per assessable foot, in contrast to the Planning Commiss on recommendation of $2 per assessable foot. For redesigned lanterns o local residential streets, the CIB Committee recommendation would m an an assessment of $4.67 per assessable foot, in contrast to he Planning Commission recommendation of $3 per assessable foot. Under the current circumstances, I support the CIB Committee's recommendation. My position ste s from two trends that became increasingly clear during the re ent CIB Committee evaluation of proposed capital projects. Firs , there is a growing base of capital project proposals which meet hi -priority City goals. Secondly, the amount of available capital imp vement bond financing is very limited. City Council efforts to reduce ity spending have led to a statement in the Saint Paul Ca ital Alloc ti Polic : 1990-1994 that "the CIB Committee and Mayor are request d to recommend capital budgets limiting CIB bonding to $12,000,000 in 1 90 and $12,600,000 in 1991." These levels may not be adequate to m et even the top-priority City needs for the next two years. If circumstances were to change I would support the financing proposal of the Planning Commission or o e similar to it. Specifically, I could support a financing plan that e ables the City to meet its high-priority capital needs while fulfilling he guidelines of its Overlapping Debt Policy on a long-term basis. 2. Operating/Maintenance Costs. Historic lantern and globe fixt res are more costly to operate and maintain than bent straw fixtur s. Historic systems require more pole painting, more electricity and ore bulb maintenance. The Department of Public Works estimates that by he year 2032, the operating/maintenance . . �,��--�i��'� President James Scheibel and Members of the City Council August 10, 1989 Page Three cost difference between a ben straw system and a lantern/globe system would be approximately $200,0 0 annually in 1989 dollars ($620,000 per year for a bent straw system; $820,000 per year for a lantern/globe system) . Because the lantern globe system would develop slowly, the difference in operating/maint nance costs would increase gradually at a rate of about $4,000-$5,000 p r year to the year 2032. After the year 2032, the annual cost differe ce would remain relatively constant at $200,000 in 1989 dollars. 3. Timing. The City Council should adopt the recommended street lighting policies as soon as possible to enable the street light planning process to function smoothly. The recommended policy is th "preferred standard" street lights be installed unless specific pl s direct that other fixtures be used. The most common channel for stre light planning will be for District Councils to indicate areas w re fixtures other than preferred standard systems should be installed. The Planning Commission will establish criteria to determine when a District street lighting plan conforms to the adopted policies, and gu delines to help District Councils create a street light planning proces based on broad, informed community input. Normally, District Councils ill be given a year to submit initial street lighting plans to the Planning Commission. However, even if the new policies were adopted to ay, Districts that are scheduled for 1990 street paving and lighting p ojects would have less than a year to submit a plan that could aff ct those projects. In short, I urge the City Co ncil to adopt the new street lighting policies quickly, in order t give District Councils adequate time to plan for 1990 lighting proje ts. For your information, a table is tached which compares capital costs and financing under the City's curren policy, and under the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the C Committee. The estimates for the current policy are based on the budgeting assumption that only bent straw fixtures will be installed (although curre t policy does allow for historic lanterns and globes in some circumstances) The estimates for the Planning Commission and CIB Committee recommendations are based on the budgeting assumption that only preferred standard fixtures ill be installed (although bent straws would also be permissable under both re ommendations) . A second attached table ("Projected Street Lighting Budge ") illustrates projected operating/maintenance costs for t e City's street lighting system. _ . ��,�� President James Scheibel and Members of the City Council August 10, 1989 Page Four Staff for the Planning Commission study ar Mark Vander Schaaf from the Department of Planning and Economic Develo ment (phone extension 3373) and Mike Klassen from the Department of Public Works (phone extension 6293) . They will be contacting your office to arrange or a briefing on this study during the next few weeks. If you have question about the study, please feel free to call either one of them. Very truly your , George L imer ayor GL/bp Attachments cc: Ken Johnson Peggy Reichert Mark Vander Schaaf Don Nygaard Don Sobania Mike Klassen Greg Blees Tamsen Aichinger . . � � ��'�i��l� STREET LIGHTING COST & FINANCING ALTERNAT VES Annual Capital Costs: Average for 1990 & 991 Current Policy, Planning Commission Reco endation, CIB Committee Recommendation ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- CURRENT POLICY Budgeting for bent straws 25� assessment on local residential reets Change from CSSP on-CSSP � Total � � Current I II Assessed $244,418 $12,700 � $257, 118 � � -- CIB $733,254 815,200 � $1,548,454 ( � -- ___________ __ ________� _________°� ) ___________ Total $977,672 827,900 � $1,805,572 ( � -- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION RECONIlKENDATION Budgeting for "preferred standard" f xtures 140' spacing for redesigned lantern $3/Ass. Ft. assessment for prefer�e standards Change from CSSP Non-CSSP � Total � ) Current I II Assessed $366, 627 $82,300 � $448,927 � � $191,809 CIB $1, 344,299 ; $790,000 � $2,134,299 � � $585,845 ___________ _ _________� �__________� � ___________ Total $1,710,926 $872,300 � $2,583,226 � � $777,654 ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ CIB COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Budgeting for "preferred standard" ixtures 165' spacing for redesigned lanter 40� assessment for preferred stand ds Change from CSSP Non-CSSP � Total � � Current I II Assessed $570,472 $128,350 � $698,822 � � $220,852 CIB $855,707 $743,950 � $1,599,657 � � $25,602 ___________ __________� ___________� � ___________ Total $1,426,179 $872, 300 � $2,298,479 � ) $246,454 Note: CSSP = Combined Street and Sewer Program; includes street lights installed on local residential s reets. Non-CSSP includes street lights installed on collector and arterial streets. � \\�\\\�\\\\\�\\�\��\\\\\�\\��t��'t��`��hh1 � � � -_ �\��\\\\��\��\\\��V��\�� -� --`��.��w��v��a��.�� .� —_—`��•��►�� —�ii.��.��►�� .. �� `�►��.��va��v►��r.��a��a��v � � � �`��.a��.��:��•a��►�� ' � ' _�� .��.��.��►��r��n� , _-- ��a��►��n��. � ___ ��.��.��►��a�� . _—_ ��.��r.��►�� _-_-�\--�\\��\��\\\a\\\\\\►��\�\\�\\\\\\ � . '' \\\�\\\\\\`►��\\\\\��\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\� 1 1 -__-�� -_-_�\\�\\\\\\\\\�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ � • \\\\\\��\\\\\�\\\\\�\►��\�\\\\\\\\�\\\\\ � • • -_-_�� _-_ ��\a\��\��►��\�\�\�\\� � . . . � __- ��►��►��\�� ----�►��.��\��►�� •• ---_- ►��;��►\��\�\�� . � \\\\\�\�\\\\\\`!\\\\�\�\\�\\\\\\�\\\ � � � • ---_�� _--_ ��\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\��\�.\\\\\\ � —�--_ ��w��r��.n�� .. —__-- �� —_—_—_��c►�� :�� . —___��.��►�� .�� —__��►��.��.��v►��►�� . --__{��a'��.ra��c►��rt►�� .�� --_—_—�►�►��. �� • � ' --__—_�`i�� . �� —�—__—�`��ra��►�� .. �—�—�_-L�ra��v�� •� . . ��. �� --_�� —��—��►�� • - ��►�� . � ��v - . � �_—�� —��v.�� . ' ' �� .. . .� ��_�� : : ��---��►��v . = � ��—��—�.��n�r � � ,- ; . - �—��—��n� . . —��—_��—��n�� . . . � : : � —�—_—�---�a►�� :: � . • �--_—�__—♦m�� .. . ��A►��. . .; .. - - ��rl��.�.. : ; - , , ��1��" '' � � - . . ��_�� ` : ' \ �� : � ' Cl�Y Op ' ' / iT/ � N�'/ l 'L� ��$ �. CITY OF SAINT PAUL ° ��„„ ; DEPARTMENT OF PL NING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r �� ,�o' DIVISION OF PLANNING m 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 iea• 612-228-3270 GEORGE LATIMER - MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: July 24, 1989 T0: Mayor George Latimer FROM: Peggy A. Reichert Deputy Director f r Planning RE: Street Lighting Policy The purpose of this memo is to highlight the financial issues relating to Street Lightin� in Saint Paul, a policy tudy adopted by the Planning Commission on June 23, 1989. This stud recommends that the City encourage the use of historic lantern and globe stree lights in Saint Paul. The study includes a Planning Commission recomme ation for financing these lights. However, the CIB Committee has reviewe the study and is recommending a different approach. In Saint Paul, street lights are fina ced through a combination of assessments and capital improvement bonds. Becau e historic fixtures are more expensive • than "bent straw" fixtures, the expa ed use of historic fixtures would involve either higher assessments, a larger apital improvement bond subsidy, or both. The Planning Commission recommended hat the extra costs be covered by capital improvement bonds because that would do the most to encourage the use of historic fixtures. As is explained in a memo to you fr m David McDonell, the CIB Committee has recommended that the higher costs historic street lights be financed with higher assessments. The rationale is that the City's capital improvement bond capacity is increasingly stretched to meet Saint Paul's highest-priority needs. No additional capital improvement ond money is likely to be available in the foreseeable future to support the extra costs of historic street lights. Because of the CIB Committee's e ertise in budgetary matters, Planning staff recommends that you support the IB Committee position under the current circumstances. The enclosed May r's transmittal letter indicates your support for the CIB Committee recommend ion. However, the letter also states that you would support an alternative to this recommendation if the alternative enables the City to continue meeting th long-term guidelines of its Overlapping Debt Policy. . . - - . � �_�� Mayor George Latimer July 24, 1989 Page 1�ao If you have questions about the Plan ing Commission study, contact Mark Vander Schaaf at extension 3373. Please fe 1 free to confer with your budget staff regarding the Mayor's transmittal le ter and to revise it as you see fit. PAR/MEV/bp Enclosure cc: Greg Blees Tamsen Aichinger Ken Johnson Mark Vander Schaaf Don Nygaard Don Sobania Mike Klassen _ . : . . �--� �,��i�� 13. Resolution 89-1496; Adopting the study of APPROVED AS the STREET LIGHTING in Saint Paul , AMENDED directing its trans ittal to the neighborhood contac list, Long Range CIB Committee, Planning Commission and appropriate city st ff, and allowing District Councils t create street lighting plans wMic identify exceptions, and requesting tMe lanning Commission to establish criteria s stated. (Laid in Committee 8/30/8 and 14. Letter of DISTRICT NERGY submitting rates LAID OVER TO to be charged to ho water customers OCTOBER 18 effective October 1 1989. (Laid over in Committee 8/16/89 a d 9/20/89) . 15. To consider the app al of Rachel Zieberman APPROVED to a Summary Abatem nt Order for property located at 2005 PIN HURST AVENUE for a broken sewer line. Referred to Committee 9/14/89) . 16. Draft Resolution: SOLID WASTE M NAGEMENT SYSTEM. TO BE AMENDED AND BROUGHT BACK TO COMMITTEE OCTOBER 18 17. Update on SEWER BAI ING. 18. Other Business. � � � Members: � CITY OF S INT PAUL Roger J. Goswitz, chair ��jj1101"� OFFIC� OF TH CITY COIINCZL Janice Rettman : Tom Dimond Date: October 4, 1989 Committ e Report �; ��,,_� �;�� To: Saint Paul City Council Q�� . �;;. _ �._.�:,.:-� From :Public Works, Utilities, nd Transportation Committee Roger J. Goswitz, Chai 1. Approval of minutes of Septe ber 20, 1989. APPROVED Heari ncl Date 2. 10/17/89 Ratificatio� of Assess ents: For � improving SARGENT AVEN E between Snelling Avenue and Pascal Stre t. (Part of the LAID OVER SYNDICATE/FAIRMOUNT A A STREET PAVING AND INDEFINITELY LIGHTING PROJECT.) Wo k to be completed in the 1989 constructi n season. 3. 10/17/89 Ratification of Assess ents: For APPROVED construction of the gr en lantern style street lighting system on ST. CLAIR AVENUE from Snelling Avenue t Lexington Parkway. (Part of the SYNDICATE FAIRMOUNT AREA STREET PAVING AND LIGH ING PROJECT). Work to be completed in the 1989 construction season. 4. 10/17/89 Ratification of Assess ents: For APPROVED construction of the SY DICATE/FAIRMOUNT AREA STREET PAVING AND GREEN LANTERN STREET LIGHTING PROJEC . Work to be completed in the 1989 onstruction season. CTTY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNFSOTA 55102 a�4 . . 5. 10/17/89 Ratification of Asses ments: For APPROVED construction of the S NDICATE/FAIRMOUNT AREA STORM SEWER PROJ CT. 6. 10/17/89 Ratification of Asse sments: For APPROVED improving SELBY AUEN E between Howell Street and Fairview venue as part of the CLEVELAND/PORTLAND A EA STREET PAVING AND LIGHTING PROJECT. W rk to be completed in the 1989 constructi n season. 7. 10/17/89 Ratification of Ass ssments: For the APPROVED construction of the CLEVELAND/PORTLAND AREA STORM SEWER P JECT. Work to be completed in the 1 9 construction season. 8. 10/17/89 Ratification of As essments: For APPROVED construction of th CLEVELANDJPORTLAND AREA STREET PAVIN AND LIGHTING PROJECT. Work to be comple ed in the 1989 construction seas n. 9. Resolution 89-136 : Authorizing Public APPROVED Works Director to request a variance from MSA rules for th width of VICTORIA between Juno and James. (Referred to Committee 8/3/89 . (Laid over in Committee 8/16/89) . 10. Resolution 89-1 0: Authorizing Public APPROVED Works Director o request a variance from MSA rules for t e design speed of the horizontal curv on VICTORIA from W. Seventh to Tusc rora. (Referred to Committee 8/3/ ) . (Laid over in Committee 8/16 89) . 11. Resolution 89- 172: Requesting the LAID OVER TO Administration to develop and implement a OCTOBER 18 school and pl ground speed zone policy. (Laid over in Committee 8/16/89) . 12. Final Order: idewalk reconstruction at the following property: S89-70 - Sou heast side W. SEVENTH STREET LAID OVER from Walnut treet to Ramsey Street at 270 INDEFINITELY � W. Seventh S reet with integral curb. (Laid over i Committee 9/20/89) . � � � � � STREET LIGHTIN IN SAINT PAUL � FINDINGS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ' � � � � Adopted by the Plan ing Commission June 23, 1989 � j � � '� � ; 1 � � r ' � TABLE O CONTENTS � Introduction 1 � I. Findings 3 - A. Design 5 � B. Locations 7 C. Decision Process 11 D. Financing 12 � 1 II. Policy Recommendations 15 A. Design 17 B. Locations 19 � C. Decision Process 21 D. Financing 24 � Appendix: Street Lightin Polic Issues 33 8 Y � Credits 53 � � � � � � � � � � � INT ODUCTION � Council Resolution #88-1539 requests t e Planning Commission to study street lighting � policies and practices and to recommend ways to improve the City's street lighting system. This report has been prepared at the dire tion of Mayor Latimer to fulfill this request. This report concludes that historic str etlights contribute significantly to Saint Paul's � identity as a community that is aestheti ally sensitive and proud of its past. Changes in street lighting policies and practices sh uld refine and build on the existing system of historic fixtures. A simplified and ocused approach to street lighting can lay the � foundation for further improving Saint aul's identity in the future. The body of the report consists of two se tions. Both sections are based on interviews with � interested City Councilmembers, City st ff, District Council Community Organizers, staff for neighborhood business organizat�ion , and interested citizens. Community input was sought via a Public Forum held on Ma ch 16, 1989. Notice of this event was mailed to District Councils and to neighborhoo business organizations on February 28, 1989. ' Additional information was gained fro field observations of existing Saint Paul street lights, and from studying the enginecrin specifications, costs and aesthetics of these lights. � Formal community input was also provi ed by a Planning Commission public hearing held on June 9, 1989 following a public rev' w of a draft version of the report. The Planning Commission adopted the report on June 3, 1989. � The two sections of the report are: I. Flndings: A description and anal sis of the significant features of Saint Paul's street � lighting policies and practices. II. Policy Recommendatious: Action which the City should take to improve its street lighting policies and practices. � Cost estimates which appear throughou this report are based on 1989 prices. In future years, these costs will likely rise due t inflation. Cost estimates for lighting done within � the context of the City's Combined Stre t and Sewer Program assume that this program will involve the paving of approximately 1 miles of local residential streets per year. If this program is changed, the costs would ch ge accordingly. rA revised version of a detailed street 'ghting issues paper is attached as an appendix to this study. The issues paper was creat by a staff working group from the Department of Planning and Economic Development a d the Department of Public Works, and was used to � generate the findings and recommenda ions of this study. An early version of the paper was made available for informational p rposes on request. � � � � 1 � � I. FIN INGS � Four types of findings have been determined: � A. DESIGN: Early in the century, Saint P ul was a pioneer in the use of historic street lights. Today, such lights contribute ignificantly to the city's identity. Problems which inhibit the increased use of his oric street lights include inefficient lighting � from the historic lantern, and inadeq te guidelines to ensure the aesthetic harmony of the entire street lighting system.. � B. LOCATIONS: Large areas of Saint Pa 1 do not now have historic street lights. But many areas of the city would like to h ve historic street lights if they could. � C. DECISION PROCESS: Adopted City lans have little to say about street lighting. Consequently, street lighting decision are typically made shortly before the lights. are installed. � D. FINANCING: The City's current met od of financing new street lights, combined with the differing costs of existing fi ture options, results in significant budgeting and programming problems for the Ci . � The following pages contain a detailed discu ion of each set of findings. ,� � r � � � � � � � � � EXAMPLES OF HISTORIC LANTERN AND GLOBE FIXT'URES � � � Historic � Lanterns � , � , - � � �.,;�� ' � � J � � � Historic � Globes � � � ' � � ��1 � � `l1''� � � % � 4 � � A. DESIGN: Early in the century, Saint Pau was a pioneer in the use of historic street � lights. Today, such lights contribute sig [ftcantly to the city's identity. Problems which inhibit the increased use of histor e street lights include inefficient lighting from the historic lantern, and inadequate uidelines to ensure the aesthet�c harmony jof the entire street lighting system. Finding 1: Early in the century, Saint P 1 was a pioneer in the use of historic street � lights. � During the 1920's and early 193 's, historic lantern and globe street lights � became popular in Saint Paul. T e fixtures that were developed at that time were intended to synthesize both tradition and modernity by using classical design elements in a form whi h suggested the vertical ascent of energy. � These fixtures also were mea t to be small enough to relate well to pedestrian sidewalk activity. In the middle part of the centur , interest in traditional light fixtures waned � as tastes inclined more toward s reet lighting that was efficient, streamlined and automobile-oriented. � The current revival of interest n historic fixtures dates from the late 1970's and coincides with the rise of t e historic preservation movement and with a renewed concern for pedestri well-being. Updated versions of historic � lantern and globe fixtures ha been developed to reaffirm the link with Saint Paul's past. Examples of hese fixtures are illustrated on page 4. � Finding 2: Historic street lights contrib te significantly to Saint Paul's identity today. In neighborhoods, commercial trips and downtown, historic streetlights have � become important symbols of aint Paul. The following are among the many examples of this fact: o Saint Anthonv Park: antern street lights are found throughout this � area. In 1987, a histor was published in honor of the neighborhood's centennial. A single photo appears on the cover of this book to represent the identity f this community--a closeup of a lantern street light. o Rice Park: This dow own square has been hailed as one of the most civilized and urb ne public spaces in the Twin Cities. � Multiple-headed glo e fixtures illuminate the space between and around the Public Li rary, the Ordway Theatre, the Landmark Center and the Saint Paul H tel. These lights are an integral and memorable � aspect of the Rice Pa k experience. o Grand Avenue: In re ent years, this commercial strip has developed a � national reputation as a shopping district with unique charm and character. A domin nt visual theme on Grand Avenue is the stately row of double lan ern fixtures on each side of the street. A photograph of Gran Avenue street lights was chosen to illustrate the � cover of the 19$6 nnual report of the Department of Planning and Economic Develop nt. � � 5 � o Historic Hill District: Historic lantern street lights are a distinctive and important visual feature of the well-known Historic Hill District, which has developed into a desirable residential neighborhood. The � Heritage Preservation Commission's design guidelines for the area call for the preservation of the lantern style lights and the use of the same style when new lights are installed. � More often than not, street lights are a prominent feature of Saint Paul's most attractive public spaces. Street lights are a city's most visible and � pervasive item of street furniture. The lanterns and globes which grace many of Saint Paul's streets have helped create the special ambience that led Newsweek Magazine recently to remark that development in Saint Paul has preserved the city s flavorful rye character, not turned it into bland white � �� , bread." Finding 3: Existing historic Jixtures are ineJJicient. � Historic lantern and globe fixtures produce a relatively low amount of � useable light. By themselves, such fixtures are unable to illuminate streets with high levels of traffic. This fact also explains the relatively high cost of historic fixtures on a per-assessable-foot basis (see Part D below). � Finding 4: There are jew established guidelines to ensure the aesthetic harmony of the entire street lighting system. � Because existing historic fixtures are inefficient and costly, they cannot be installed by themselves everywhere in Saint Paul. Consequently, the City � installs several types of fixtures. Moreover, many different styles of fixtures were installed at various times in the past and remain on Saint Paul's streets today. There are few guidelines to ensure that the mixture of fixtures relates r aesthetically to the city as a whole. Nor is there a comprehensive decision-making framework to guide the process of street light installation. � The resulting variety at times creates a visual hodge-podge that detracts from the appearance of Saint Paul. � � � � � � 6 � � B. LOCATIONS: Large areas of Saint Pa 1 do not now have historic street lights. But � many areas of the city would like to ha e historic street lights if they could. � Finding S: Despite many instances oj tractive street lights in Saint Paul, large areas o�the city are not served by such fixtur s. The maps on pages 8 and 9 e hibit the areas of Saint Paul where historic � lantern and globe fixtures are ound. The wide variety of street li ting in Saint Paul includes many areas with � functional but unattractive " ood pole" fixtures that are attached to electric poles. Some areas of the city ven have no street lights. � In recent years, "bent straw" fixtures have been considered standard by the City, although the City also elps to finance the installation of lantern and globe fixtures. (Note: The erm "bent straw" encompasses several types of roadway standards which va y from 25 feet to 35 feet in height. Variations � occur especially in the curv ure of the fixture arm, and in the shape of the fixture head.) Bent str�ws are intended to be efficient and aesthetically neutral. Typical bent straw ixtures are illustrated on page 10. � Finding 6: Many Saint Paul resid nts would like to have historic street lights in their neighborhoods. � In a telephone survey of istrict Councils, over half indicated that they would prefer lantern fix ures in their neighborhood. Specifically, the � responses were as follows: T f Fixt r ' D ir Number of District Councils � Lantern 9 No preference stat d 6 Lots of lights/ben straws 2 � � � � � � � � � 7 � �rz _-- .. � �.-°*. --�r-^..-r_'�.a.' _ _ - -�- ry�- x�7 - � : , , �� ;,, ' •..... °"' _ �. ; ��F I ; �-��' � �j�� ^ ;1 � : ` . � i i1Y � `� i . . l d . �� .. -� .el ��, }� � � �� .'�. � /„...• �� •� � I� _ '_� �-�- �`�.. � ,I�..' i . ! ��' \i� ,� � , !\ � I . � ,� 1 �� ,(� (7 �'. � ��__ —' pi. �I "� ! %� t;. „ '..:��^'''��'''��f��//�� _`T- I '�a �I.i'1.I.\r � .1` ,�+. !d �14m. 1 ��f ,�,,. ,�1�� "' ��_ " \ � zl� �,,, .� - � -_-,�.7-,�T �,,�, , , ��i�l �� I 1 I ► � -, ��+' ,� ,� ,; �Y�� , :.�` G � ';�� _�ll�li� I '�'_'_ �G�i�II1fI�� .. � _ ��' - ' • ,�l _�� 6� �fiT� � � ,--`• ��!,I�I�1�L1�111 lI� - , � _ �.—.--�,. � '�� . , �`�' �' ITIIIII�]II�� 1 ,�c� � � [� � ��1' ", � ��T�:1� 7 r °°� � ' �' ' �� I i.L i i �=J'� _-- �_' t LT.I.T�I��TI.��_ " ; �� . i� ' ��4, �` �i i �...,, �L� =� � l��tL!i � � � �_� ��l - - % �--= - � � '�'\ :,.1 i rT T . � � > =�' i� ��j�_� , � , � � 6. � �� - - �i�i1��T �' ,_,.�� ' � �: _ ' ' Y— _. � �. � �h �7 I I L�: 1 1.� � � � ��•�.� � 4�' � � 1 �-! -:. ~IY` a�„ � ji1�]71�TI11 � - r4l ,��f;^ __ __1.40.� �� , � T ) �_''��' ' .. • . � ,� i [ . :�, ,��1 I ,._,3 i l, I,] `1�1� ��; � ' : + , ,�,: o . ,� ' ��-��. . � I [,� � - �- _ , . . , ' ,r� ;�I1 I 1 I :IT f1I�'`(�1�;; ,�'!�, .L�, � ;/ �� .•' � ' ' TI '� �'�FiJ I1J.1IlI.;', �. " % ' . ./ . �l L � t 11�1 I I 1 1 ��:'`_ r I � f IlTll IIJ �_ • '�� I �'' ��I,�I �II� II�'l ��i � � ,;`- ' �iT 1 �11�,i��i i.l,I�i,� � .��I�l�l�i� i ol ii�� / � �. ,�� 1 ' • � l,t,..� ' i �r r� �' �� 1��• �`'� . 1{ • _ _ -j.. ��' �'1'�i � � � � l�� r 1 � 1 �,�►�. ,� �� /.,� - ��,� ,� � � tl'n" .�'_ �_��T �.: �� /��`_.:� �A � �N - ��,/ � � � i ' �i�, il, ,l� I I •I f_ 111� �'G �� •' ' �, Tl��t�•�� i "'��[hi lil � L( i� ]_ �! ��',�r ';� - - � � - z �.a��'I� � �.:� ��u9�.�� ]',I11 ��_�� , � ,� „° ��m,��.� O , � �zl��.r��7 ,z=zzrxizs�� 11 i 1.�_ X �F �� _ � � �, _ ,� � i �-v�� u-1(1 7-3F�1:� —"'S�'- � i;py�� .\`, i �.�� 74 � ,,��11 , . -`�� .�'L'�� ... — l�.l ��\� . \. .`��-j��^�, C�,_ �i�'.+1+�L�� Q '�'�� l � i'T . — • � �C;C�ooe[7�r- _.� - ,-r✓� r �� , i ��\' .� �� . '�,��L� z � � � _.� �_ , -��r��7t��4,�-�r- �it- � �� D� �� _� . � N � � � � d5,. c � ,.a C� ""• G ' C1�=� �d°��, ��'� � �'r� a L � w ,--� �-. .y-.l� , ;� �� o � � � � � � �. � - - - ��--� �- � ��eo�c - , `'� ` _ �� .�� r �,� � � m � �i i �-_ L r ( � � �� O V `n�� O�O�-�1x �i '-�� . .- � "�� ' �.,��1�fi�C�ril,�� , � �G�;� ��''� �_k ,� o°O❑� Q � _ , . .r _ r , ,� � _ : K T i T f_ ... —`` �� ;'.�n�� :��,. �� . � � ¢ , � ..� �� , �� _�;"� `��` -��yt, �ee � � � �.� � I ��'.�j �Li� i��hr�k�ll�Jl„ �+ � � . - B � � � � � � �. • -� __ -�* �� 'I ` . V ; _�� .,G,_' .�. - , r `, � ^� .:� . a -- iF. , �:-'-� �`� _ �� \\' .�J� � a' � -�-,: _--.ai..'r_�-r`� �� - � � � ,.. �� —�-� � l 11" i � �' i� !� �;�,�`� V � r" � � , "_ ... -�`� ., --��fl�.l� �1� �-'�r�- �.:� �i'� �� ,� _ . .. � . ,,_ � • \` � I :i = �� ,^` ; ��rTO �� r'� ]b�l7' I�G'�'� \ � ,� '� ',� ��`\d� � � � � ��1��I:TL �rJ�� cm BL-�7� _1� i —{. Fj �� .��.�JI' � I I,L,T�'3. ��rl P �. p ��j� '_� ' �jz '-'�,`��1�'.� �LIGT�I,�T�I,t '�I�][[]��! �� `1 4 �-�,.- ., �/1r�`=-I�z�s�L�lis �;, � � � � * � � ��`�- � � �. ��1��rrT��L�1� � . � �r ;� �� - TTa1�� , � �� , _ , � �� , � t , J�m�+�� 1� - �: �Z�� r �' � � `�� I� � �� :� ��TL �� .� ;� � m�� ..: � � �r� , .�� i� �� T� � m��m� ��, `, a,�� — ��> >,�-�. . ��1��, . ,-��T �� ;�I�� - �� i �-�-�. -' � �'' � = � �� '..,� � '�T�� -� �mm...� a� � . � �� , , --_—_,5.�� . " --' � _ � _-�� `� i y �J �, � .f � � - ! �� '�� —�_� � =c�—i '-_�—.�r.. �-.� � � , �� -_=- �,,J LL ; , ��t .:, v �� a��T�" �' u '-- �B��e � ; - :��1 �� _ -_ �J � - � �� ;�.� � f � „� �� ;� TT� � ..: � _.- , � r�r, �� l� �I: :� �' �ll�`',J�IZI� '� j '. � �" .. ��I��i � ' ' •. L� � f -- ��m�� m�� 8� � �„_ . � ._ �� . mm � ; \� � .� �� _ � �,L � i �- � m� � �� { �� P � � _� � �� - 1 � � � ,— , �� .� �; �-� ,_� ��mmmm � � ' `�,� `i �J"/ ^ rr mm �I .. ;� .'' �, � . ` ;t ��/ �'�� H'�:f� � ..i�__� �� _ __ -•-" ,_. � / � � _ __f�� --�_ -"1� � ,�'� �___�-�� . -- - � �.��- � � �� , s � � �-- - - L- -- - - - - - .. . . � ', . � ��, ' _ i� ,�i , , ,T :� �� j'i-.' ': s •. - : �• .I, .-,.-�. .1 I... � � � ,.eL � j � ¢ � ! ... �.rn• � _ �� - �r � _ � ii ' �I�� i� �. / � � + I r ��\ �� " �_�� I _, ''� � \�+ � ' .. „ _ ' -=- lii':��,��! �'�� , � �'��` `��- � % � :... � � ' _ ' ;; \ ._ _._ �,,. _. � �6 / -.... ?y�r �rj 7 �� !TI,� T`T�{4..i "'�' ��'i��0.L1..�� c` r- -;r ; ��. � -� I . _. '4,. I1 � ��.. - - -_111'T ' i � ,, .:i � ..�� .G � " -.�_ � 11��1�![ IIIIITI___J� i t:� ��__-'� '� � r . ;L�� ,h�T _ . z�` ��I1��,�, ��IT�IZ ''�: ��-°� ��---��. � , �; _�11�1I( '`�`i -?� �I'�IZI�ZTTZ�iJ�� I;��- � � . ' �� :s l�.iT 1 �� _ �i � ��T� ZZ: �- �� . i . i�4; I� Tr��.�� --- ,-�� .'r�"�ti�� -� � �s. � �� . __.. _ _ � � �� _��T�:�,��,- ' T,I : , ��;r � �- ) � � �� .i�� '" 1_l.l I tl' 1 � � �; � ��. �- - s i� G `� �� 1��Til " �''' � I �r� r� _ -� ��li ��1 �IITI � �: - � !� i'� � _ _ � - - �I �. ,� � '' � �,� � , 1 � �t'=,'l_�� . /� '' '� ,�y�+ - _ ��'i- . ,,.� . . \ J i�/ / i �' ., r i i III I l T - ��1,�, ,,, ,T�� '�^ . o, , . , z ,�: 1 i�l� '` l�; 1:l'� . . � �, 4� .f TIIII III� � IIII=:=I TL `' /� %, � , � �;; �, �I�I I� 1 � :< <I lII l� '' °°�..� ' `� �� /-� riTi �I �I�Ih.1 iLl�f,ll �4 �,I�III,��1 t�I' � ,r; '�' '� '.� t-►��F3 �:1 I l I1 T 1 i� `�:�1•�'.;T� (t,y � .t ,�- ; �� kk ;r= , r r i�i rr i � � ;� ', � � j.,, �., i �, i �.l_II ]_L��:� t� �'� ��, �R,G � .�� . ��; -�`_ �' � mm ' � � � �ii�,J � �IiT i�i �''�'-�=fi' �� : _ ,�,�-,, v� � �a- l��111� �0�..�� l �I� -�trt.�-��` ` , % /��OU�!'- � z p�2ir��y.;=-zzTiz22zT ; �zz�lr; x _ .� • , - ;� � omm� p 1 �f r *"Q-ri�� '� �i . i- � � � �--� ✓', I'1'�� - _� ��w'`�� °�i':� 'i� ¢ 1 � � �i i a . _ , ;^ �,y?: B[;C��a �� t�i rr t � � ,M or[�y�o V G� '.�>L 11�_- � -1��1��j�'� �`�F'_� ��- �1 -��. \ p c �6�0 ' Q pQ '�"1� ��.�� ., e. i�..}� , �� '�.' • ��4��C+�❑ ❑ W a � I �,�, � �c i � :r-' �� -.z ��3_ ,�.��`i w � �C.�'� ��T1GBC0� � � � ' � �� I.s.J- \ ��%!� " � �� _ I f, � ' ❑ p�,� � i 3 y i ' . l f � t r . 1' ❑O❑*=-m.l a � �_ �:' _ �•� �.i�,��jb'f�ILlll�'' ��' �` '�,,' � � ¢ ��-- � ��'1 �r� .... .� ' , '�-� .� ,� � �� ❑ U -` .. i 1 Z� _ �_ � ,��s..~�l ��' - � � '"'' � J ��'1� -� � 1�1:�#�� .11� If� _' �� ;� , ae 0 � �I11 ?" 1J 1��T1. �,_��l-F�_ ��J►1� �ki� , ' �� a � r`�- � -}.� �I��#� �'�j '��I I ��_ � � � � O ❑ �1 � �t�y ---i1F ^-�nr � il /�;wJL r`I 'T\ ♦ ' , . (� /� _--.IY�r---f� '7�` �� . .^.. 7 � �_�.r � � �� S¢C'� � �� __�I,�� • � Q� � �:�, � � -� �I ]��- - � ��T,r.n'� �-�r�T-- �o��`"��`. �p, '\ _ �J � -. - -�� - , -'� 0 f�'o I� Y�`�T.'�SS 'T��,', � i LbJ�L :.� �� I �_ � t = =�� - I11��T��: �r��, �l��C�� 'T� � � '�� T� -.T^ � ,/ l .li �t rl'�1 I �7 f� �am B O'�� .�� I � -i f3 1�+�� .'�,�. �(� �� 7�'r �(�,��L - W�� !�� W �Li` n p C. ,. q1. . � �-i�'-'k FrJ�--'��'.L` JuAllTIll � ' �� C� ° �` N —� � = . �1��,T��S'��T��Ti i ETI��;' M;' � � � �� =,� � � ��. � ��z��r,��L�lr ��mm �; �a� �� ._ .. ., , J�� , ��=� 1��T�� L�� m ;�� = � � - � 1_��z��s � ,� ��°o � ,1� � ., � �#� . � � � ��1 �r� � �� mm � ' a a � m � �-\ �. � .lili . � � ��z �T I �� mm : ��mmm � ,� � n � �1, � i � • r� `\��/ \�• ... . � �� z�� o� �� mm m . �- ,. j~��r�;;;��rr;;;� 9 ' ��]i ��L�,�'�� I�" ml� �am"� a� � � � �!k-� � � ��'� � ':�� !l�� 7i � :� ,� � \ � �� _ � � z�� — � �o �� m��mm mm� .;=�� L� ��' i� �� o � e� u __ , �. , . _ ~;;,,,,�T i�,i,- /_ �� ,� �z� , r— ,� �� om mmmm �� o �� :�� _.� �� '��0��.�� - � � �m�� I� ��' � �� , a= m m�� ' ' �. , e � ��. �1 i i� ��:'� � Y 11�� ' �_ T �r; �� :� s,��= _ C , �� 1� --= �� z�rT � eo�� a� , ^ � � �, T � -, moao m, m, � �� p '�: � ' ��_��L � If�Lz_ . ,,. ��1:� �� ' m�mm�m�m :; mm E�-- ��_ �� _ � 2x � � m0�� +�m�l �0�8� �.. '.� .�� _ :i / �� '.� �i i m u� � 4 ' ' �� - �� ,��m ' � � �' �� m m �m�m f � � ;� _ .; ; ... ......_ �� . � _ � .�_ ,�;� _ _ ..�� m , z° ; -�� h ; �� m� � , m __ _ ,. ,/ .¢ ' �'� `` ��T�� m� ��mm�� =�� . '� ' r i , i(� mm� ; , - .CJI� 'S� ' - . . I � I � �_ I� �-( �� r e._ _ / .� i�✓� �I ,� { �� I . i. � ��}I�-`I�1 r -` �; � �� 1� — - .—.—•� — !� // tl I�1„Ll ��f� � — . �� / i _ � __ ' � • � ' _ ` ...�__ ..V i � � �- -- - _ . ��.� � � j, ' -- --�—��_��-' � . �j r' �� 9 � EXAMPLES OF BENT STRAW FIXTURES � 1 � � � � � I � � � . �, ; � � ; �. , � ' � � � �, �� ; � � ,� , : � � � � � . ' �. ,I ; � � � �. , � ��%� �� ; � , � ` + . , 35'High: 30'High: :5'�HigA: Dow�ntown and Expressways Collector and Arterial Streets Local Streets � �� C. DECISION PROCESS: Adopted City Rlan have little to say about street lighting. � Consequently, street lighting decisions ar typically made shortly before the lights are installed. � jFinding 7: Adopted City plans have little to ay about street lighting. There is no adopted citywide street lighting plan. Nor do District Plans refer ' to street lighting. Street lighting s mentioned only in the context of some subarea plans which address design issues for streets and roadways. � The Department of Public Works as its own plan which directs that bent straws are to be installed unless ther fixtures are desired in a particular area. But this plan has no me'ans of identifying what areas should receive � historic fixtures in the future. The Mississippi River Boulevard arkway Restoration Plan, adopted by the City Council in 1983, stipulates th t lantern style fixtures are to be installed � in that area. Since that time, the 1 ntern has been used in all City parkways and ma jor parks. � The fact that street lighting has ot normally been addressed as a planning issue has contributed to the uneve character of Saint Paul's lighting system. � Finding 8: Currently, street lighting decisi s are not made on a timely basis. As mentioned in Finding 6 on pa e 7, bent straw fixtures are considered to � be standard by the Department of ublic Works. However, exceptions to bent straws are permitted under the fol owing conditions: o On parkways (which receiv lantern fixtures); � o In areas which already hav lanterns; � o Where Neighborhood Part ership Program projects have street lights as a component; and � o Where citizens request a di ferent style of fixtures. The normal method of deciding hat type of street lights to install is for the Department of Public Works to eet with affected neighbors before lights � are to be installed. This Depart ent will normally advise the installation of bent straw fixtures, but will m ke exceptions under the conditions listed above. � In 1986, the City began an a celerated sewer separation program (the Combined Street and Sewer P ogram). This program involves street reconstruction and the installat' n of new street lights. Because of this iprogram, areas of sewer separatio are identified well in advance. However, � this program does not determine hether the lighting installed in conjunction with sewer separation will be ben straw or lantern. � Although an established proces does exist for determining what type of street lights belong in particular areas of Saint Paul, the process frequently � occurs so late that it causes bu geting and programming problems for the City. 11 � � D. FINANCING: The City's current method of financing new street lights, combined with the differing costs of existjng fixture options, results in sign[ficant badgeting � and programming problems for the City. Finding 9: The normal method oJ financing new street lights is through a combination � oj assessments and Capital Improvement Bonds (CIB bonds). Financing is sometimes provided by the Neighborhood Partnership Program (NPP) for lantern or globe street lighting systems. � The current policy is to finance new street lighting systems installed in • con junction with street reconstruction on non-State Aid streets at a ratio of � 25 percent assessed, 75 percent CIB bonds. On State Aid streets, the City finances the entire cost of bent straw fixtures, and all but $3 per assessable foot for lanterns. When NPP funds are used, the financing will vary depending on other project characteristics and on the match required for the � neighborhood in question. Finding 10: The higher cost of lantern and globe Jixtures (relative to bent straw � jixtures) limits the number of historic streetlights that can be installed in Saint Paul. New street lights are installed when streets are reconstructed. On local � residential streets involved in the Combined Street and Sewer Program (CSSP), the costs of bent straw and lantern fixtures in 1989 were as follows: Bent Straw L n rn �, Assessments $2/Ass. Ft. $5/Ass. Ft. CIB Bonds $6/Ass. Ft. $15/Ass. Ft. � =a==��c�== TOTAL $8/Ass. Ft. $20/Ass. Ft. This cost differential (and the current relationship between assessments and � CIB financing) limits the installation of lantern fixtures in two ways. First, it leads some property owners to conclude that the assessment for lantern fixtures is more than they can afford. Second, because the amount of CIB � bonding is limited, the City would not be able to finance lantern lights if everyone requested them. On commercial streets, it is even more difficult to obtain historic street � lighting. Existing lanterns cannot adequately illuminate streets and sidewalks on high-volume collector streets and arterial streets. Thus, the � alternative to bent straw fixtures involves adding multiple heads to lantern � or globe fixtures, and/or combining lanterns or globes with bent straws. Costs for these systems are high. There is currently no set policy for financing such systems, so a variety of City subsidies have been negotiated, including many which involve Neighborhood Partnership Program financing. � But usually property owners pay a large share of total costs of such systems via assessments for installation, operation and maintenance. As a result, many business areas can only afford bent straw fixtures, even though they � would like lanterns or globes. Finding I1; The City faces significant problems in trying to budget for historic street � lighting. Budgeting problems stem from two facts. � 12 . � � financing First, as indicated in Find� g 10 above, the amount of City contributed to street lighting varies On lnon-State Aiddst eets,ththet CetY s � fixture chosen for the pro ct. contribution to street lightin lnOO98for lanterns� A$s m lar situat on�occurs � bent straws to $15 per assesse f f inances the entire cost of bent straw on State Aid streets where t City fixtures, and all but $3 per ass ssable foot for lanterns. � Secondly, as mentioned in F nding 7 on page 11, there are virtually no adopted City plans specifying hat type of street lights belong in different areas of Saint Paul. I � Because of the significant cost differential between bent straws and Sl often fixtures, and the lack of adop ed City plans for street lighting, difficult for the City to re range its financing to accommodate street 1 lighting decisions. � 1 • t �. ( � � � � � � � �3 � , � � COMPARISON OF � EXISTING-DESIGN LANTERN, REDESIGNED LANTERN AND POST TOP FIXTURES � � I � � t i � � . i � `�t � I � � , , � � � Existing-Design Redesigned Post Lantern Lantern Top � � 16 � � � A. DESIGN: The City should redesign ht toric lanteru fixtures to improve their efficiency, and should establish guidelin to ensure the aesthetic harmony of the entire street lighting system. � desi n and develo an e icient Policy 1: The Department of Publlc Wo ks should g p ff historic lantern fixture which resembl�s xisting-design historic lanterns as much as � possible. Historic lanterns that are curren ly available in Saint Paul are inefficient � and therefore can only be used n residential local streets and low-volume collector streets. On high-vol me collector streets and arterial streets, historic lanterns currently must e combined with bent straw fixtures to be � functional. The Department of Public VI�'or s has created a prototype of a redesigned historic lantern which would be ore efficient and therefore more versatile. � This prototype uses the head of "post top" fixture but otherwise conforms as closely as possible to existi g-design historic lanterns. Post tops are currently available as effi;cie t alternatives to existing-design historic � lanterns and bent straws. Single redesigned historic lant rns would be able to provide adequate illumination on local, collector and arterial streets. This means that the � redesigned lantern could functi as a standard fixture throughout the city, much in the way that bent str ws are currently standard on all types of streets. An added benefit of th' fixture is that its greater efficiency makes it less expensive than ex sting-design historic lanterns (on a � per-assessable-foot basis). Thi fact has important financing implications (see Part D below). � The figure on page 16 illustrat s the prototype of the redesigned lantern in comparison to the existing-d,�esi n lantern, and in comparison to the post top fixture. The major difference between the two lantern fixtures is that the � existing-design lantern has ,fla glass panels whereas the redesigned lantern will require a curved glass �ur ce. The curved surface helps to increase the efficiency and reduce the glare of the redesigned lantern. � Policy 2: All lantern fixtures should be painted either brown or green. Brown should be the preferred standard color. A single hade of brown or green should be established as � acceptable standards. Painted fixtures other than lanterns should be brown. Unpainted bent straws should be permitted in sodd d or asphalted areas. � Brown and green are the curre t color options for lanterns, with brown being the preferred standard. Be t straws are currently allowed to weather naturally when they are in s dded or asphalted areas. The City lowers its maintenance costs by leaving ent straws unpainted. (The estimated cost in � 1989 dollars of painting one pole is $40 to $45 every seven to ten years.) Unpainted bent straws gradu lly turn dark brown in color, although they appear rusty for three to five ears after installation. � � � 17 � Policy 3: The height oJ lantern and globe fixtures normally should not exceed 14 Jeet. � Lantern and globe fixtures are attractive partly because they are "pedestrian-friendly". Fixtures that become too tall cease to possess this characteristic, because their height no longer is of a human scale. Moreover, � tall fixtures are normally spaced far apart and thus reinforce the feeling of distance from the pedestrian. Exceptions to this guideline should be considered for areas such as Selby � Avenue and Summit Avenue where existing lanterns are already relatively tall (approximately 16 feet in height). Here, the height of new historic � lanterns should match existing fixtures. � � , � � � � l � � � ! � �8 �. � � B. LOCATIONS: The City should e courage the use of redesigned historic lantern fixtures in residential neighborho ds and neighborhood commerclal areas; and the use of hlstorlc globe fixtures �n the downtown/riverfront area. � Policy 4: Outside of the downtown riverjront area, the prejerred standard should be single redesigned historic lantern j xtures in both residentia! and commercial areas. � Other permissable Jixtures should i clude: existing-design historic lanterns (single or multiple-headed), multiple-headed re esigned historic lanterns, and bent straws. "Post top" fixtures should no longer be inst lled. � The redesigned historic la tern will be both attractive and versatile. Existing-design historic anterns can provide acceptable levels of illumination on local street and low-volume collector streets but not on � high-volume collector streets or arterial streets. The redesigned lantern, on the other hand, is able to me t illumination standards on all kinds of streets (except for streets more than 50 feet wide). Thus, this fixture can function � as the preferred standard thr ughout Saint Paul. Nevertheless, there are some ituations where bent straws or existing-design historic lanterns should be nstalled. Specifically, each type of fixture � should be encouraged in area where a large number of each already exists, and where no new lighting is lanned in the near future. � It is also appropriate to allo combination systems involving both lanterns and bent straw fixtures. Im m �y cases, the addition of bent straws makes it possible to space lanterns mor aesthetically than would be the case if only � lanterns were allowed. On so e large, high-volume streets, the only way to enable lanterns to provide ad quate illumination is to combine them with bent straw fixtures. � The Division of Parks and ecreation has indicated that it wishes to continue using existing-design istoric lanterns as standard fixtures in City parks and parkways. This requ st should not be honored in its entirety. The � Planning Commission believes at redesigned historic lanterns will generally be as appropriate aestheticall in parks and parkways as in residential neighborhoods and neighborh d commercial areas. Because the cost of existing-design lanterns is sign ficantly higher than the cost of redesigned � lanterns, redesigned lanterns s uld also be the preferred standard in parks and parkways. Nevertheless, he Planning Commission acknowledges that special conditions may call fo existing-design lanterns in some park and � � parkway locations. These loca ions should be identified via the planning process discussed in Policy 10 b ow. Post top fixtures are similar in cost to bent straws and in form to lanterns � but are less successful aesthetic lly than lanterns. Few areas of Saint Paul have elected to have post tops nstalled. In the interest of simplicity and consistency, it is desirable to re ove these fixtures from the menu of street � lighting options in Saint Paul. � Policy 5: In the downtown/riverfront ea, the preferred standard should be single historic globe fixtures in combination with bent straws. Permissable systems in this area should also include multiple-headed his ric globe systems and bent straw systems. Street lights attached to the sides of buildi gs should no longer be installed. � 19 � � Several varieties of historic globe fixtures have been installed in the downtown/riverfront area in recent years. These distinctive fixtures have ( helped create an attractive design motif for this area. However, all globe systems are relatively inefficient from a lighting standpoint and threfore are more expensive than lantern systems. Thus, it is recommended that the � preferred standard here be a combination globe/bent straw system. It may even be desirable from a design standpoint to install only bent straws on some downtown/riverfront streets. � Policy 6: Industrial areas should normally receive bent straw fixtures. The beauty of lantern fixtures could be devalued if such fixtures become � standard in areas with otherwise incompatible land uses. Therefore, in industrial areas of Saint Paul, bent straw fixtures will often be most � appropriate. Exceptions could arise in portions of industrial areas that are links between residential or commercial areas, or in industrial areas that are attractively designed to emphasize amenities. � � � � ' � � � � � � � 20 . � � � C. DECISION PROCESS: The City sho ld improve its ability to determiue in advance what street lights are most appropria e for particular areas of Saint Paul. � Because some variety in street lighti g designs should be permitted in Saint Paul, it is useful to improve the process f determining what style of fixtures belong where. Plans could be used to hel the City improve its street lighting decision � making. The following recommen ations discuss what type of process is most appropriate. � Policy 7: The City will normally install street lights according to the jollowing pre ferred standards: � Neighborhood Residential and ommercial Areas (including neighborhood park and parkway areas): single rede igned historic lanterns, painted brown � Downtown/Riverfront Area: si gle historic globes in combination with bent straws, painted brown Industrially-Zoned Areas and st eets more than SO jeet wide: bent straws � Exceptions to this policy should be iden ijied via the jormal planning process identijied in Policies 8 through 14 below. , This policy creates a way to i lement policies 4, 5 and 6. � Policy 8: The Heritage Preservation C mmission should prepare lighting standards for Heritage Preservation Districts in Sain Paul. These standards should be incorporated into any relevant District street lighting lan (see Policy I2). , This policy will enable the H ritage Preservation Commission to fulfill its mandate to review and make r ommendations concerning all City activity to � change the nature or appearan of a Heritage Preservation Site. Policy 9: The Saint Paul Riverfront Commission should prepare a plan for street � lighting in the area of its jurisdiction This plan should be incorporated into any relevant District street lighting plan (see Policy 12). � The high visibility and subtle ariation in the design needs of the riverfront area makes it important to nsider solutions to design problems there carefully, and from a citywide erspective. , Policy 10: The Parks and Recreation e ment oj the City's Comprehensive Plan should contain street lighting standards for pa ks and parkways. These standards should be � incorporated into any relevant District st eet lighting plan (see Policy I2). Street lighting should enhanc and unify the City's park system. This 1 lighting should also harmonize ith lighting in adjacent neighborhoods. The process for creating the Pa ks and Recreation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan ensures t t a balance of citywide and neighborhood perspectives enters into the disc ssion of park/parkway design issues. � � 2 . � As noted in Finding 7, lanterns have been identified as the standard fixture � for parkways and major parks in Saint Paul. However, as discussed in Policy 4, the Planning Commission believes that these lanterns should normally be the redesigned fixture, although existing-design lanterns may sometimes be � more appropriate. The Parks and Recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan is the best vehicle for identifying what areas are to receive each type of lantern. The Division of Parks and Recreation may also work with the Planning � Commission to create an interim plan for park and parkway street lighting which will be in effect until the Parks and Recreation element of the � Comprehensive Plan is updated. For the riverfront area, the Parks and Recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan should incorporate the street lighting plan to be � developed by the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission (see Policy 9). Policy 11: Commercia! or mixed use subarea plans that are developed by the Planning r Commission should stipulate what types oj street lights are needed in the subarea under consideration. These plans should incorporate any relevant street lighting plans or � guidelines Jrom the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Saint Pau! Riverfront Commission and the Parks and Recreation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Street lighting components of commercial or mixed use subarea plans should be incorporated into any relevant District street lighting plan (see Policy I2). � Subarea plans could be developed for commercial or mixed use areas either when a small planning area overlaps several District Council boundaries, or � when it is necessary to study a small area more carefully than can be done in a District Plan. Policy 12: If a District Council wishes to identify exceptions to the preferred standards � discussed in Policy 7, it should submit a street lighting plan to the Planning Commission within a year of City Council adoption oJ a street lighting policy. Where appropriate, � these plans should incorporate street lighting guidelines or plans developed by the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission, the Parks and Recreation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and relevant subarea plans jor � commercia! or mixed use areas. District Councils may update their street lighting plans periodically and submit the update to the Planning Commission. Following City Council adoption of a street lighting policy, the Planning Commission � should establish criteria to determine when a District street lighting plan conforms to the adopted policy; and guidelines to help District Councils create a street light planning process based on broad, informed community input. � It is preferable for the overall pattern of street lighting in Saint Paul to be established well in advance of street lighting budgeting decisions. Because street lights affect neighborhoods significantly, District Councils are usually � the most appropriate bodies to guide the installation of street lights. These plans should apply to all areas within Citizen Participation Districts. � � 22 � � � Policy 13: Districts 3, 4, 9 and 17 shoul determine what areas (ij any) are to be considered as part of the downtown/riverf ont area for street lighting purposes. (Note that Policies 5 and 7 state that com ination globe/bent straw systems--not � lanterns--should be the preferred standard ithin the downtown/riverfront area.) This determination should be submitted to the Pl nning Commission. � District 17 is the Citizen Particip tion District most closely identified with the downtown/riverfront area. evertheless, Districts 3, 4 and 9 also contain small areas that could mer t historic globe street lighting by virtue of their proximity to the downtown core. The areas designated for historic � globe fixtures in these districts s uld harmonize with the areas designated in the District 17 street lighting pl n. � Policy 14: Neighborhood Partnership Progr m street lighting projects should conform to relevant street lighting plans and to other st eet lighting policy guidelines. � Neighborhood Partnership Progr m (NPP) street lighting proposals could differ from the preferred standar system in a particular area. In this case, the District street lighting plan sh uld be updated to reflect District support � for the NPP proposal. � � � � � � � � � � � r23 � D. FINANCING: The City should revise its method of fjnancing street Itghting in a way that is both fair and prudent, to encourage the use of redesigned lantern � systems and globe/6ent straw systems. Revisions in the normal method of financing street lighting through assessments and , CIB bonds are needed for two reasons. First, they are needed to solve the budgetting and programming problems which already face the City. Second, the � redesigned lantern fixture will introduce new cost considerations that must be addressed in the City's street lighting policy. The Department of Public Works has estimated that the redesigned historic lantern � can be developed and made available for a cost of approximately $14 per assessable foot (on local residential streets). This compares with a cost of $20 per assessable foot for existing-design historic lanterns and $8 per assessable foot for bent straw � fixtures. Cost savings would accrue largely from the fact that the more efficient fixtures can be spaced at a distance of approximately 140 feet, rather than the 100 foot distance normally needed for existing lanterns. (Note: Redesigned lanterns are efficient enough to provide adequate illumination at � an average spacing of 165 feet on local streets. Wider spacing would lower the cost of the redesigned lantern system. However, closer spacing is advised for aesthetic � reasons.) The following table summarizes the approximate capital and operating/maintenance � costs of bent straws and the two lantern fixtures on local residential streets. (Different cost figures would apply to other types of streets.) Capital Cost Operating/Maintenance � Fixture ner Assessable Foot Costs ner Ass. Ft. ner Yr. Bent Straw $8.00 $0.08 � Lantern (Redesigned) $14.00 $0.14 Lantern (Existing Design) $20.00 $0.18 � It should be noted that both capital costs and operating/maintenance costs rise for lantern fixtures. Moreover, the additional operating/maintenance costs have an � annual impact, not just a one-time impact (as is the case with capital costs). Increased operating/maintenance costs automatically accompany lantern fixtures � because of the larger number of fixtures required to provide adequate lighting. � A key assumption in the following discussion is that the fundamental capital financing decision involves the tradeoff between CIB financing and assessments. Three decisions apply directly to the financing of lights on local residential streets. � First, it must be determined whether the CIB subsidy should be fixed or variable. Second, the level of CIB subsidy must be determined. Third, it must be determined what to do with any unused CIB subsidy. A fourth decision involves how to ensure � that the financing of lighting on collector and arterial streets is consistent with financing for lighting on local residential streets. � � 24 � , � Policy IS: The City should establish'a ixed dollar CIB subsidy for street lighting installed when local residential streets are econstructed during sewer separation. � Three basic financing options ar available to the City for financing street lighting. The advantages and dis dvantages of each are as follows: Financing Option 1 (Recomme ed Option): Fixed dollar CIB subsidy; � variable dollar assessment. The assumption of this o tion (the recommended option) is that it is � possible to identify and s bsidize a desirable level of public benefit which combines both ae thetic and functional features. Benefits beyond this level are th n considered to be purely private (and � therefore entirely subject o assessments). Of the three options ide tified, this is the option that �s potent�ally most consistent with Pol cy 4 that establishes redesigned historic � lanterns as the preferred standard in neighbarhood residential and commercial areas. A f ixe CIB subsidy can be established at a level that will make redesigne lanterns affordable to property owners. , Existing-design lanterns, though permissible options, would likely be chosen less frequently b cause the additional cost of such fixtures would be financed entirel by assessments to property owners. � A second advantage of his option is that, unlike the other two options, this option solve the budgeting problems associated with a variable CIB subsidy. th a fixed subsidy, the City can estimate � precisely what its contrib tion to street lighting will be, regardless of what fixtures are chosen or a particular area. Because of the stated adv ntages, this option is recommended. � It should be assumed tha the amount of the fixed subsidy would be revised periodically to co pensate for price changes due to inflation. � Financing Option 2: Fixed perc tage CIB subsidy and assessment. � This is the current City olicy for all non-State Aid streets (mostly local residential streets). The assumption of this o tion is that a fixed percentage subsidy is the � most equitable method o financing because the aesthetic features of historic lantern fixtures are partly public benefits which merit an additional City subsidy. his is a plausible assumption so this option , is acceptable from an equ ty standpoint. However, the current pol cy, when combined with the current lack of adopted City plans rel ing to street lighting, creates significant � budgeting and program ing problems. Because the City does not know in advance what reet lights are desired in a particular area, the City cannot adequa ely plan its future expenditures. This is � especially problematic on local residential streets within sewer separation areas. Hcre, the Department of Public Works routinely budgets for bent straw s eet lighting but installs lanterns (at a higher Isubsidy) where they are esired. � 2 . , Because of the budgeting and programming problems associated with � this option, this option is not recommended. Financing Option 3: Variable dollar CIB subsidy; fixed dollar assessment. The assumption of this option is that strict financial equality is the , most equitable. Under this system, property owners would select the type of fixture that is most appropriate aesthetically and functionally, � without regard to cost. This option is not advisable for the same reason that Financing Option 2 is problematic. That is, because there are no adopted plans � stipulating what types of lights belong in particular areas of Saint Paul, a variable CIB subsidy makes budgeting difficult for the City. This option would be even more problematic than Financing Option 2 � because the variation in the required CIB subsidy would be larger. . Policy 16: The level oj CIB subsidy budgeted by the City should be $I1 per assessable � �oot (in 1989 dollars) for street lighting installed during the reconstruction oj local residential streets. A minimum assessment of $2/assessed foot should be established. (The table on page 32 summarizes the impact oJ this policy on the financing of various , street lighting systems.) Three basic options are available for setting the level of the fixed City � subsidy recommended in Financing Option 1: low ($6/ass. ft.); high ($15/ass. ft.) and medium ($11/ass. ft.). The advantages and disadvantages of each are as follows: Subsidy Option 1 (Recommended Option): Moderate CIB subsidy: $11 per � assessable foot (in 1989 dollars). The assumption of this option (the recommended option) is that the � fixed subsidy should be equal to approximately 75 percent of the capital cost of redesigned lantern fixtures (75 percent = $10.50, , rounded off to $11). By implication, then, redesigned lanterns become the preferred standard under this option. Essentially, this option encourages the use of redesigned historic � lanterns by making them considerably more affordable to property owners than existing-design lanterns are currently. (The $3 per � assessable foot assessment for redesigned lanterns would be 40 percent � lower than the current $5 per assessable foot assessment for existing-design lanterns.) This option would allow the installation of existing-design lanterns, but only where property owners are willing to pay $9 per assessable foot for such fixtures. , Bent straw fixtures must be treated specially under this option. Because the amount of CIB subsidy provided by the City would � exceed the total cost of a bent straw fixture, it would be possible to install bent straws at no charge to property owners. However, this would be inequitable because property owners do gain some private � benefit from bent straw fixtures. Moreover, this practice would tend to discourage the choice of redesigned lanterns because many property owners might be attracted by the prospect of "free" bent straws. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimal assessment of $2 per , assessable foot be charged for bent straws under this option. 26 � � � The following is a ummary of relevant information regarding this option (budget fig res are based on 17 miles of street paving per year): � Bent straws: $ /Ass. Ft. CIB; $2/Ass. Ft. Assessed Redesigned la terns: $11/Ass. Ft. CIB; $3/Ass. Ft. Ass'd � Existing-des. 1 nterns: $11/Ass. Ft. CIB; $9/Ass. Ft. Ass'd Annual CIB cu rently budgeted for CSSP lights: a 735,000 1 Maximum addi ional CIB needed for SO 3: $ 617,000 =�sszm=�a= Total CIB requ ed annually $1,352,000 � This option is prefera le because it provides a significant incentive for the use of lante n fixtures, and yet limits the amount of additional annual CIB inancing required for the lighting component � of the Combined Street nd Sewer Program (CSSP). Subsidy Option 2. Low CIB su sidy. $6 per assessable foot (in 1989 dollars). � The assumption of this option is that the fixed subsidy should be equal to 75 percent of he capital cost of bent straw fixtures. By implication, then, bent s raw fixtures become the preferred standard � under this option. The ma jor advantage of his option is that it would not require any � increase in the level of CIB financing needed by the City for its Combined Street and Sew Program (CSSP). Budget estimates for the CSSP have assumed th�t nt straw fixtures are standard and require financing at a level of $2 per assessed foot assessed; $6 per assessed � foot CIB. (When lantern have been installed, the City has taken money from other co�po ents of the CSSP to cover the $15 per assessed foot CIB contribut on to these fixtures.) � The major disadvantage f this option is that it would clearly discourage the use of lante ns because assessments for those fixtures would be quite high. Thus, t conflicts with Policy 4. � The following is a summar of relevant information regarding this option (budget figures axe ased on 17 miles of street paving per � year): Bent straws: $6/Ass. Ft CIB; $2/Ass. Ft. Assessed � Redesigned lanterns: $ /Ass. Ft. CIB; $8/Ass. Ft. Assessed Existing-design lant,ern : $6/Ass. Ft. CIB; $14/Ass. Ft. Assessed Annual CIB current�y b dgeted for CSSP lights: a735,000 � Maximum additional CI needed for this option: $-- 0 _____ Total CIB required a�n lly $735,000 � Subsidy Option 3: High CIB subsidy: $ 5 per assessable foot (in 1989 dollars). The assumption of this option is that the fixed subsidy should be ' equal to 75 percent of the ca ital cost of existing-design historic lantern fixtures. � 27 . � This option would subsidize existing-design lanterns at their current � level. However, it differs from current practice in that it would extend the same subsidy to redesigned lanterns and bent straws. This option would probably go the farthest toward fulfilling Policy 4 , (which identifies redesigned lanterns as the preferred standard in neighborhoods) because such lanterns would be available without to charge to property owners. Existing-design lanterns would still carry � an assessment of $5 per assessable foot. The ma jor drawback of this option is that it would require a � substantial increase in the amount of CIB bonding for CSSP street lights (assuming that most property owners would elect redesigned or existing-design lanterns). The following is a summary of relevant information regarding this � option (budget figures are based on 17 miles of street paving per year): � Bent straws: $8/Ass. Ft. CIB; $0/Ass. Ft. Assessed Redesigned lanterns: $14/Ass. Ft. CIB; $0/Ass. Ft. Assessed Existing-design lanterns: $15/Ass. Ft. CIB; $5/Ass. Ft. Assessed � Annual CIB currently budgeted for CSSP lights: $ 735,000 Maximum additional CIB needed for this option: $1,101,000 — � Total CIB required annually $1,836,000 Policy 17: The City should devote any unused portion of the $11 per assessable foot � subsidy recommended in Policy 16 to the support of additional street reconstruction (paving and lighting) in the Combined Street and Sewer Program (CSSP). , Policy 16 directs that a fixed dollar CIB subsidy of $I1 per assessed foot be established for new street lighting on local residential streets. But for any , street receiving bent straw fixtures, only $6 per assessed foot in CIB would be needed to pay for new lighting. In these situations, an amount of $5 per assessable foot would thus become available for other uses. This unused portion of money could be used in a number of ways, including: � o To reduce the total street reconstruction assessment to property � owners receiving bent straw fixtures (by applying it as a credit to their assessment for paving); o To finance an accelerated street lighting program which could � subsidize new street lights in areas not currently undergoing street reconstruction; o To reduce the amount of CIB bonding needed for the Combined Street , and Sewer Program (CSSP); and o To finance additional lighting and paving in CSSP areas. � i 28 1 � , This policy is the curr nt City policy for capital costs. It reflects existing City priorities for capi al allocation which favor the repair and replacement of existing infrastruct re and discourage the expansion of City services into � areas which currently ack infrastructure. It also reflects the City's policy of combining complemen ary projects (such as paving and lighting) to save money and to reduc the inconveniences caused by construction. For � operating/maintenanc costs, this policy is the same as Policy 18. Policy 20: Unless otherwise i dicated in an authorized street lighting plan, the City � should replace bent straw or other below-standard systems with preferred standard systems if street reconstructio occurs in an area with a lighting system that does not meet the preferred standard. he Jinancing policies recommended in Policies 15 through � 18 should apply in these situat ns as well. The purpose of this p licy is to contribute to the overall goal of encouraging � the use of historic str et lights in Saint Paul while leaving open the option of retaining bent straw f xtures in areas where they predominate. � Policy 21: The City's gener,al und should pay for street lighting repairs, the installation oJ�ixture components, and th replacement oJ individual light jixtures. , This is the current ity practice. An implication of this policy is that existing street lighti g systems which can readily be modified to meet or exceed current stand rds need not be replaced during street reconstruction. For example, existin lantern systems do not require replacement if they can � be brought up to sta dard by substituting efficient luminaires for ones that are obsolete. � � � � , , � � ' 31 � , ��N��:�� " � p II ■ pC 11 � M4 1M1 � Y t 11 � > ► � p � •^ r N T i 11 L M w � � u ✓ M � � LL N u M N LL W W \ w w il » �� x � � �1 � . . . '� LL „ � � � � p � � � �� yO �� N M N N N Vi . � N b N N N M tll M r � N N N N N b 11 N < < < M 10 N t < t tll N N 1,! U < ` < tll (A � • N p\ \ . .<p .<p 11 \ p\ \ � p< t �tp N p\ \ . p< < t II N O O S . dp Jp 1 `O O �O . Op �p dp M p� Op M �O � `O � vp II < N N _N N • N __M 11 N _M N . N _N M h � � �M _M M . N �M M II Y N 11 � N N N �� , M N 11 C „ � M N L � M . L i L N 4 O L 4. L II � � M > Y Y . . . � ► Y M K M w � � \ � y u �. �. \ \ \ M ^ M M u « \ \ \ 11 � �r �r � LL � �r u. � � LL r II \ C y. LL � LL � W � N IYI . . . j yY K N M b N . . 11 N M W . . . 11 O � IA b b . . . jj � Y VI fG Vi tll . Y 11 tll N 1A tll fA fA N O M b tll b tl l M M yM < t t M V i 1 1 < t < f p tll M X V U t t t N N N 11 11 \ \ \ • < < N \ \ \ . < t < N \ \ \ . < < < N � p p p p \ \ 11 f� p A \ \ \ 11 Y O M � p\ p\. \ 11 � O M O O O ; Mp Mp N �,Op O N � dp �p Mp N 6� P M Yq1 . �O N Mp N C U Y N _N M _M __N • M N M � M M M X � N M M � N N N Y � �� M ��p�� 11 N h � N N M ■ � 11 u � � u � Y M C L • • p � pp N \ \ p \ \ M O > > � N Y 4. � � � r LL � � LL � W \ \ \ p � � H 11 N 1 a w rA � LL M M b b y. LL � •m ~ ~ ~ � � LL M M N M p . M . tl N (A N Vl . M . M 1N1 % 0q0 b q . tll !A H 11 M < < < � W a9 N t f < . b a1 • W C < < < . N W M q O N \ p\ \ � < < N \ p\ \ . t < M L \ \ \ . <� < < N < Y N M N , M M M N M N � M M N � 9 M N N � N N N N � _ N _�_ ' —_ h __ ' __�_ �� ___ � ' _ � ■ 11 N C � p OI N M . . „ , M � N 11 • M O L � ry ^ a M \ \ Y > > � 11 \ \ 11 \ \ \ M � � E � .: .: « ^ : LL : . €' « .: « . . �� N N N LL � LL � � � . . LL LL „ �yy W u � W � LL M M tll b b . . . 11 M M Vl . tl . b N N . . . . Ij � M M tll M . tll � Y p M b b . 4A . i9 11 i[ H b M � b M N M O N < < t . ro M H t < < . N tq 11 W C t t\ < . N q (p M � {� � ' O ' . \ \ M M \ M � V\� N\ M Y � y\� N M � \ \y\1 M Y M O • ^ ' X M S M ; N N M � C N N M • q � N p M P N A � p p N �O M ' • p p N O p p _U N N _M N �N __N H N _M M _N _�M N p J M M N . N M N N , �� p �� Y N � � � M1 N • My N . . : . ' S . • 11 � Y C • • W N > Y 11 > > Y lYl p W \ \ N \ \ N p \ \ \ Y � � ■ N M � L M � u � � LL N � W u W W ■ � W r � W r M M � y M W N� N . M . M Y p W N . tl . > M W i S ` i y m y� M M < < t • N tl ■ t t < . W b ■ C 1p q O N \ p\ p\ • t < N \ p\ \ • yt� y<� M L \ \ \' . ( �`y ` ry �L N S O O � b q M M O M ; N N M V YC � � M ' A M N q M�� N P • 11 ' M M � M .q J d � M � N II s "x� «_w M : �__� F a _«w : �__5� " c ``Y « « ; S� S� 5� n qp _____� �_�_ �� N M + � p M . M , „ V N �1 Y Y N � �O ; � � � � � g � � � " b 11 W � W N �r 1� W N 11 N M V ~ u W 11 M M � W W 11 � W W LL 1� LL LL M 11 M W 1A « V N M 0 1y! «q V 1�1 •m fA b MW u V ~ p O M < < \ � N � W 1�1 < i ` • M � 0 M W � i < ` . aN N N N � y 11 \ � t t M \ p\ p\ . pt t N y\� \ \ � t t < Y Y MN a S � : �p � M S O O ; Np Np p � e A M �. . � Np Np M 1.�_1 N N _N M . N __N N M _M N : M __N tl C M N M � M M M Y � � — g �-- — — N p p .p � N . . N . . M V � ' p . ` W M \ \ N � t N Op \ � jj e� u � � " x tl t M Y � LL � ry LL LL u 11 C M N �+ u H � N � N ... N M � w u N LL N yp � 11 W . M � L M b b IaA b . b 1�1 M b tla1 0 . b p X C b b ~4 N • tl N i N N p\ p\ p\ . t , �<p p \ p\ \ � < , < N W G p\ p\ p\ � � , p ry . � O M O O O ; O O M H O S � � ' 11 �p 4C O O O • N � W � p b N '� ' �p p M `� M1 � p p M C O �Oy P � � O O N � K J N M —M M �M --M M N —N N �M --M N V I _—M —M N _N —�M N K N � � � N � � � INI Y � � 1�1 � q y q �q ■ � � � ti b m • ✓y N Cy X N�q 0 • p+ y M 0 m � r � Cy ry � F 11 M �i Y � O t J' Y M ` V � p i � M p < I.d � � < U' M „ u $ � « � g g g a ffi g @ €' R " @ g @ x cy II � uC M M H IMI ~p � � �4 y X Mp � . Lp e M ra � 1. M O LL � p � IYI 4 � � a � Y d � • � M 11 O t=9 1�1 N O � N G �r N tl W . � p � ry �� 11 � � M _�_�_ __�_�_�_�_�_ p ■ p \ N p N p N �p N C y � M R Y 4 �Y O N � E N q[ �yp N M p �` � v O Y W T p � N � � p � � ! � , � 9 " � R .Q � �� ui "x � "x p b 6 `� a u�i � ii i LL R VI p 'Hp b` 8� y \L 1�1 O N tl ~ � M � M Y � L � C N (0 � � = M N N L �p1 py N O u � � � H N C4 M w C C „ V 11 y M m 11 G v � � � M �p M 32 �