Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rooftop Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster Groves commission debates rooftop lighting cost-sharing, maintenance
Summary
Commission members discussed past practice and outstanding questions about cost-sharing for downtown rooftop holiday lighting, landlord participation, and ongoing maintenance at the May meeting; no formal policy change was adopted.
At the May meeting of the Webster Groves Business District Commission, members reviewed outstanding questions about the downtown rooftop lighting program, including who should pay installation costs, how landlords are being contacted and who will be responsible for ongoing maintenance and electricity.
Members said the program’s original plan called for building owners to pay half of installation costs, but the commission covered an initial round when invoicing and collection lagged. One member described the arrangement: “Mara sent a letter out to everybody... Those who wanted to get in were told that they would have to pay half,” and added that the commission ended up “just deciding in our meeting to just float, pay for the whole thing for that first round.”
Commission members raised recurring practical concerns: difficulty reaching some landlords to obtain permission and payment, uncertainty about whether businesses can opt out, and the logistics and expense of maintenance. A member said the monthly electric charge for rooftop lights is borne by the property owner and called it “very small.” Another member warned that replacement and maintenance can be costly because crews or specialized equipment are sometimes needed to change bulbs.
Staff and commissioners discussed options to increase participation: reissuing outreach through city staff, explicitly offering to cover half the installation cost as a default, and letting installers follow up with property owners who agree. One commissioner suggested switching to low-maintenance tube lighting “so there are no bulbs” as a longer-term solution.
No motion or formal vote was taken; several members volunteered to re-check which properties already have working lights and to circulate the contractor’s email and questions to the full group so the commission can resolve outstanding items by email or at a future meeting. Commission staff agreed to forward the contractor’s list of questions and the contact information needed to resume installations.
The discussion underscored two open items the group said it would resolve before next action: (1) a clear cost-sharing procedure (half-installation contribution expected but initial rounds were covered by the commission), and (2) an outreach and installation plan led by city staff or the commission’s contractor to reduce the burden on individual volunteers.
