Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streetlights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs options after Rivergreen HOA asks city to replace 50 custom streetlights
Summary
Rivergreen HOA requested replacement of about 50 custom streetlights; staff reported a Georgia Power quote of $339,287 for upfront replacement and presented three options — city-funded replacement (SPLOST), cost-sharing with the HOA, or a developer add-on fee for remaining lots (estimated at $1,696.44 per lot). Council expressed concern about fairness to other neighborhoods and asked staff for more detailed costing.
City staff briefed council on a Rivergreen neighborhood request to replace approximately 50 custom streetlights that are in disrepair and currently maintained by the HOA. Miss Watson said Georgia Power provided a prepayment quote of $339,287 for full replacement (installation cost only) and that the city's monthly maintenance and operating costs would be additional. She also said the photometric analysis suggested the project might need a few more than 50 fixtures to meet standard foot-candle guidance.
Staff presented three funding options for council consideration: authorize full city funding (SPLOST funds available), reengage the HOA to negotiate a cost-sharing arrangement, or impose a developer add-on fee on remaining undeveloped lots in the subdivision (staff estimated about 200 undeveloped lots, which would equate to roughly $1,696.44 per lot using that approach). "We would still recommend the 50 lots and no more," Watson said, while noting the photometrics showed some dark spots that could be adjusted by shifting fixture locations.
Council members raised equity concerns: several noted other neighborhoods have no streetlights and questioned whether city taxpayers should shoulder bespoke fixture costs for a single private-development aesthetic. Members also probed the history: the custom fixtures were installed by the original developer and later turned over to the HOA rather than the city because they were nonstandard and lacked a maintenance agreement. Council asked staff to return with accurate counts, exact monthly maintenance projections, and options that could include mixed funding approaches.
No action was taken; staff said it would return with precise costs and a recommended approach at a future meeting.
