Comm of the Whole 3/25 - Arthur Lighting Project TONITE!

[marklingm]

From City Hall:

From: Hagan, Mary [mailto:Mary.Hagan@lakewoodoh.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:51 PM
To: Hagan, Mary
Subject: Committee of the Whole 3/25/13

Meeting notice enclosed & attached:


ISSUED 3-19-13
PLEASE POST
The Committee of the Whole will meet Monday, March 25, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the Auditorium of Lakewood City Hall, 12650 Detroit Avenue. The agenda is as follows:

1. Communication from Councilmember Bullock and Council President Powers regarding Arthur Avenue (Detroit to Hilliard) Lighting Project. (Referred to the Committee of the Whole 3/18/13)

2. RESOLUTION NO. 8642-13 - A RESOLUTION to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least five members of Council, or otherwise to take effect at the earliest period allowed by law, declaring it necessary to improve Arthur Avenue (from Detroit Avenue to Hilliard Road) by replacing the existing street lighting system and installing decorative lighting fixtures and associated infrastructure including the necessary removal of existing utility poles and overhead wires and associated appurtenances and the installation of underground conduits, lampposts, lighting fixtures, electrical transmission devices and controls, together with the performance of any necessary tree lawn repair, and including all necessary appurtenances thereto. (Placed on first reading and referred to the Committee of the Whole 3/18/13)

Brian Powers, Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

[Laura Hammel]

Why is decorative street lighting considered a necessity by the city? Street lights on Arthur are working just fine. While decorative street lights are attractive, there is no data that proves they will add value. The Arthur Avenue Enhancement Committee quoted a 4 - 6% increase in property value from the 13-15 lights that will be on the street. It would be great to see some examples of housing values in similar communities that increased after a project like this. Hard data also would make it attractive for other streets in Lakewood to do this considering our property values have not rebounded from the real estate crash in 2008/09. Also--no total cost is addressed in the resolution. BTW--a member of my family has been at every neighborhood meeting and we have read all of the letters circulated by the committee. I implore the council to make a fact-based decision on the correctness of imposing an additional property tax on 68 households in Lakewood.

[Bill Call]

Why is decorative street lighting considered a necessity by the city? Street lights on Arthur are working just fine. While decorative street lights are attractive, there is no data that proves they will add value. The Arthur Avenue Enhancement Committee quoted a 4 - 6% increase in property value from the 13-15 lights that will be on the street. It would be great to see some examples of housing values in similar communities that increased after a project like this.

I'm not sure there are any studies about the affect of decorative street lighting on property values. If such a study existed I'm not sure how much value it would have because of all of the variables.

However....

Landscaping, lighting, brick pavers, flowers and attractive design are used in every planned community, every vacation destination, every development district and every "restored" neighborhood I've ever seen.

Just as trash on the street and graffiti and ugliness detract from value, city wide improvements add to value.

The City should keep that in mine when they plan the improvements to Downtown Avenue.

My wife and I started watching a British show called Doc Martin. It's set in the Welsh countryside. We've both commented on how beautiful the town is, whitewashed houses, unique doors, and lots of flowers. We have also noticed that a lot of Wales looks like your worst vision of West Virginia. Which vision is better?

Cities don't have to be ugly.

And...

We live in a region in economic decline with a declining population. If we are going to hell in a hand basket at least it should be a very pretty hand basket.

Remember this:

The County and State and NOACA are investing millions in downtown and in the exurbs and Lakewood is ineligible for that assistance. We are on our own.

[Peter Grossetti]

Just as trash on the street and graffiti and ugliness detract from value, city wide improvements add to value.



If we are going to hell in a hand basket at least it should be a very pretty hand basket.

I appreciate graffiti for its artistic worth ... and hardly consider it ugly. Granted, profanities spray-painted on a wall may be crass, but if done with artistic merit, hmmmm...

LMAO!! That line about the "pretty hand basket" is pretty funny, Bill. I will most certainly add that to my repertoire.

[Stan Austin]

This is one of the most iconic discussions in Lakewood based on a rather prosaic item - streetlights.

Arthur Avenue has to be one of the premier streets in Lakewood. (Full disclosure, I grew up on Arthur at Athens). It is premier maybe because it incorporates all of the details that we admire on similar streets throughout Lakewood.

That having been said I would offer a couple of thoughts on this discussion. First of all any claim to affecting property values is absolutely ludicrous. The only relevant claim is "do you like this right now and maybe for the next few years." Use the same judgement that you would if you were painting a bedroom and don't exaggerate its significance.

Secondly, I haven't seen any alternatives. This cost is based on hard wiring the lamps and I think some technical alternatives such as battery powered LED lamps should be looked at. What would be the cost differential of individually maintaining lamp batteries as compared to the life cost of paying for underground wiring?

But, overall, the debate and the energy displayed by the Arthur Avenue residents shows off the best of Lakewood even if hand held flashlights end up being the choice!

Stan Austin

[Betsy Voinovich]

Why is decorative street lighting considered a necessity by the city? Street lights on Arthur are working just fine. While decorative street lights are attractive, there is no data that proves they will add value. The Arthur Avenue Enhancement Committee quoted a 4 - 6% increase in property value from the 13-15 lights that will be on the street. It would be great to see some examples of housing values in similar communities that increased after a project like this. Hard data also would make it attractive for other streets in Lakewood to do this considering our property values have not rebounded from the real estate crash in 2008/09. Also--no total cost is addressed in the resolution. BTW--a member of my family has been at every neighborhood meeting and we have read all of the letters circulated by the committee. I implore the council to make a fact-based decision on the correctness of imposing an additional property tax on 68 households in Lakewood.

Hi Laura--

This resolution is the one you're describing in your other post I assume? I'll quote it here:

Here’s a scenario: You live on a street in Lakewood with perfectly serviceable street lights that are paid for and maintained by the city using the taxes collected for this purpose. A handful of your well-meaning neighbors decide they want decorative street lights to beautify the tree lawns. They are able to petition the residents and lobby council to pass an ordinance forcing all residents on the street to pay for the decorative lighting—in this case, approximately $1831 per household for 13-15 lights. Of course, you can spread the cost over 10 years as a non-deductible tax assessment—while paying additional interest (this amount is tied to the city’s bond rates and can change).
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11709

So a group of neighbors decided that they wanted to make the lighting on the street more decorative, and that all the residents on the street should pay for it, to the tune of $1800 a household-- even if all of the residents don't want it. And our City Charter has a provision that allows an ordinance to be written forcing all the residents to pay for this whether they want to or not.

This isn't something I knew about when we bought our house here in Lakewood, though I doubt the neighbors on my street would want to change our lighting. I live in the center of Lakewood also, an area hard hit by city assessments requiring all of us to bring our houses up to code or else. I understand the necessity (there's that word!) of this. When Ian Andrews spoke at the first LOKOL forum he stressed that for the city of Lakewood, our houses ARE economic development. The biggest "industry" in Lakewood, is people wanting to live here. In these houses. So money spent on roofs, rebuilding steps and porches, fixing cracked driveways, hanging gutters, painting and the foundation rebuilding that often goes with it-- is money well spent. And it is necessary. All of us ponying up and somehow replacing our roofs, doing total paintjobs and masonry, benefits all of us. We the homeowners, our neighbors and our city.

I imagine Arthur Avenue which is only a couple of streets away has also been hard hit by these assessments. Even harder given the fact that those houses are much bigger. A drive down the street will show you houses needing some work: paint, gutters falling, etc. Like any street in Lakewood.

So you see where I'm going with this? I'm going to assume very few have $1800 to just hand over, so most people will be assessed and will be paying about 30 dollars a month for the next ten years to get... prettier lighting? If those people had an extra 30 a month wouldn't they be using it on painting their houses or fixing their gutters? These things are necessary.

When your streetlights are working and in good condition, you have streetlights, you don't "need" streetlights. There is no necessity. The wording is insulting in a time when we have so many actual necessities. What is it again? I'll look again in Matt's post.

A RESOLUTION ... declaring it necessary to improve Arthur Avenue (from Detroit Avenue to Hilliard Road) by replacing the existing street lighting system and installing decorative lighting fixtures.

Wow.

This doesn't seem like a good idea to me at this time when so many necessary repairs have to be made by the homeowners. I have read that 70 percent of the people who live on the street have signed a petition for this improvement. In this case, I don't find it that "democratic" that 70 percent can force 30 percent to pay money they may not have, and kind of imply that they "should" have it if they live on a nice street like Arthur. I know I don't have to spell it out for the families out there, but what would you do with an extra 30 dollars a month for the next ten years? What kind of vacation could you take with that $2000 + in ten years? If you could save it. If it wasn't for that pair of shoes, or the tires you were expecting to last but didn't, or maybe taking the family out to a family restaurant, or man! maybe just a quick night out for mom and dad. In our house it is literally being saved for a new roof.

I can't help think that the biggest cost, way more than 2K per household is the effect this has had on the neighbors' relationships with each other. "Hi neighbor, I'm forcing you to pay $2000 for these pretty lamps. Think of me, every month, for the next ten years. Enjoy the lamplight instead of the new shoes, dinner with your spouse, saving it for something you might use on your own house."

I think it would be more fair if the people who want the improvement pay for all of it.

No matter what, no-one can make the case that this "improvement" is a necessity.

In terms of returning the look of Arthur Avenue to a "former time of grace and beauty with antique period lighting," I think that possibility ended when the Detroit entrance of Arthur metamorphosed from the pastoral feeling of a blonde stone church with a beautiful steeple and stained glass, with big lawns and gorgeous old trees into a massive parking lot and drive-through drugstore, no matter how aesthetically pleasing that drugstore may be. (And yes, of course I know that that church was vacant. It probably wasn't when the antique lamp posts were first on Arthur. These are different times.)

In a time of limited resources, we have make really really good choices.

And I haven't mentioned the extra money each of us is being asked to set aside per month for the school levy. (Which many of us, including me, consider an actual "necessity.")

Betsy Voinovich


For more details and to see another point of view on this situation read the front page article in this week's Lakewood Observer, "Arthur Avenue Project Shines Light On Democracy" http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/20 ... -democracy

[Laura Hammel]

Why is decorative street lighting considered a necessity by the city? Street lights on Arthur are working just fine. While decorative street lights are attractive, there is no data that proves they will add value. The Arthur Avenue Enhancement Committee quoted a 4 - 6% increase in property value from the 13-15 lights that will be on the street. It would be great to see some examples of housing values in similar communities that increased after a project like this.

I'm not sure there are any studies about the affect of decorative street lighting on property values. If such a study existed I'm not sure how much value it would have because of all of the variables.

However....

Landscaping, lighting, brick pavers, flowers and attractive design are used in every planned community, every vacation destination, every development district and every "restored" neighborhood I've ever seen.

Just as trash on the street and graffiti and ugliness detract from value, city wide improvements add to value.

The City should keep that in mine when they plan the improvements to Downtown Avenue.

My wife and I started watching a British show called Doc Martin. It's set in the Welsh countryside. We've both commented on how beautiful the town is, whitewashed houses, unique doors, and lots of flowers. We have also noticed that a lot of Wales looks like your worst vision of West Virginia. Which vision is better?

Cities don't have to be ugly.

And...

We live in a region in economic decline with a declining population. If we are going to hell in a hand basket at least it should be a very pretty hand basket.

Remember this:

The County and State and NOACA are investing millions in downtown and in the exurbs and Lakewood is ineligible for that assistance. We are on our own.

Hi Bill:
You are quite correct about beautification. We all keep our homes as beautiful as we can afford on Arthur, but if the city wants to force beautification because it can't afford to do so, it should be a mandate for all residents to purchase their own streetlighting. One SEGMENT of a street with fancy lights is not going to make our city more desirable (let me remind you that Arthur is a very long street and, to my knowledge, none of the residents south of Hilliard was invited to the table on this).

[Charlie Page]

I agree with Betsy. I could list a hundred things I'd rather spend $1,831 on besides fancy lighting. Some of these ideas include improving our own house. But apparently, there's an obsession with fancy light poles over the last few years with the Detroit and Clifton signal projects.

Could someone explain why CVS and the library are exempted from sharing in the cost? There's a light pole on the side of the library that will be replaced.

I was perusing the section of the codified ordinances referenced in another post when I found this:

"SECTION 1. LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
Council may provide for the construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance, by contract or directly by the employment of labor, of all things in the nature of local improvements, and to provide for the payment of any part of the cost of any such improvement by levying and collecting special assessments upon abutting, adjacent and contiguous or other specially benefitted property. The amount assessed against the property specially benefitted to pay for such local improvements shall not exceed the amount of benefits accruing to such property. Any cost for such improvement in excess of any sum assessed therefor shall be paid by the City."

I may have missed it, but I couldn't find anything in the Arthur Avenue (Detroit to Hilliard) Lighting Project and supporting material that specifies any benefits other than in the letter to council saying "the project would beautify this historic street and increase the property values of homes in the neighborhood". No percentage or dollar amount of increase in property values is specified.

BTW, how much have property values on Alameda increased due to their fancy light poles? How much have property values increased along Detroit and Clifton due to the fancy poles? My guess would be a zero or negligible increase is directly attributable to fancy poles.

Anyway, is an increase in property value really a benefit? Sure, if you're planning to sell your house. If not, then you get saddled with higher property taxes along with the lighting assessment.

Per Section 1 above, "the amount assessed against the property specially benefitted to pay for such local improvements shall not exceed the amount of benefits accruing to such property". In the absence of any quantifiable benefit specified, I would argue there is zero or negligible benefit. Therefore, zero dollars should be assessed to homeowners.

Per Section 1 above, "any cost for such improvement in excess of any sum assessed therefor shall be paid by the City". I'd have to opine that the City should pay for the entire project, based on zero dollars assessed.

Further, per the Long Term Cost Comparison, the 50 year operating cost savings will benefit the City to the tune of $66,146. If the home owners are made to pay, then the net present value of the City's savings should be deducted from the overall cost of the project. That's only fair...right?

If I was one of the 30%, I'd be in front of Council arguing these points.

[Laura Hammel]

Hi Charlie:
I would agree with you on all of these points. Several of us "30%-ers" created a pros and cons list (and distributed it on the street) that included this point exactly--but not as eloquently as you have stated it. There also is no total dollar amount specified on this resolution. As far as your questions about CVS, etc., we were told that the library supports the project (well, if I were getting a free light, maybe I would as well). The wording of our latest and last printed piece of information from the Arthur Avenue Enhancement Committee states, "By working with CVS Pharmacy and the lighting vendor we have brought the cost down by $40,000." So CVS plays some role in this, and you know that no business in this economic climate (or any other, for that matter), is going to subsidize a project without getting something in return. I don't have an answer as to why CVS is on board--other than perhaps to appease the neighbors who really didn't want a drive through pharmacy to replace a historic church (yes, I realize the church was vacant). Let me clarify that these last two sentences are my opinion and speculation. But an answer would be nice.

[Bill Call]

Hi Bill:
You are quite correct about beautification. We all keep our homes as beautiful as we can afford on Arthur, but if the city wants to force beautification because it can't afford to do so, it should be a mandate for all residents to purchase their own streetlighting. One SEGMENT of a street with fancy lights is not going to make our city more desirable (let me remind you that Arthur is a very long street and, to my knowledge, none of the residents south of Hilliard was invited to the table on this).

I mostly agree.

Street improvements and beautification are an integral part of any effort to attract residents and business. However, in every case I can think of those improvements are paid for with other people's money; State or Federal grants, gifts or whatever.

Since Lakewood is not eligible for those grants we are on our own. Rather than seeking new lighting the residents of Manor Park should petition the City to rename the street Downtown Avenue or Crocker Park Way.

As long as Ed Fitzgerald doesn't realize where Crocker Park Way is located there might be a chance to get some County development dollars. Secrecy is essential.

The sad fact is: Lakewood is everyone else's cash cow.

[Charlie Page]

Hi Charlie:
I would agree with you on all of these points. Several of us "30%-ers" created a pros and cons list (and distributed it on the street) that included this point exactly--but not as eloquently as you have stated it. There also is no total dollar amount specified on this resolution. As far as your questions about CVS, etc., we were told that the library supports the project (well, if I were getting a free light, maybe I would as well). The wording of our latest and last printed piece of information from the Arthur Avenue Enhancement Committee states, "By working with CVS Pharmacy and the lighting vendor we have brought the cost down by $40,000." So CVS plays some role in this, and you know that no business in this economic climate (or any other, for that matter), is going to subsidize a project without getting something in return. I don't have an answer as to why CVS is on board--other than perhaps to appease the neighbors who really didn't want a drive through pharmacy to replace a historic church (yes, I realize the church was vacant). Let me clarify that these last two sentences are my opinion and speculation. But an answer would be nice.

I read in the Lakewood Sun Post that CVS purchased one light and has it in storage now. So, their share is one light. I would imagine the library has not been asked to share in the cost as they are a non-profit public entity and to be nice.

Would you mind listing out the pro’s and con’s your group came up with? I can’t imagine the pro’s would be much more than improving the look of the street, which is already a fine street.

[Charlie Page]

Street improvements and beautification are an integral part of any effort to attract residents and business. However, in every case I can think of those improvements are paid for with other people's money; State or Federal grants, gifts or whatever.

I agree with you Bill. However, I don’t think Arthur has much trouble attracting residents. It’s definitely one of my favorite streets in Lakewood!

Since Lakewood is not eligible for those grants we are on our own.

Lakewood gets a lot of Fed and State money. We get about 2 million each year in CDBG funds. And look at the new signals on Clifton and Detroit. And we’ll soon get million dollar bus shelters on Clifton, complete with GPS arrival notifications! What more could you want

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), Lakewood is not run down enough to get Gordon Square type dollars.

[Bill Call]

Lakewood gets a lot of Fed and State money. We get about 2 million each year in CDBG funds. And look at the new signals on Clifton and Detroit. And we’ll soon get million dollar bus shelters on Clifton, complete with GPS arrival notifications! What more could you want

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), Lakewood is not run down enough to get Gordon Square type dollars.

Both good points. However...

Lakewood gets about $1.4 million per year the State from the gas tax for those types of improvements. The amount received is based on the number of registered vehicles in the City. Each County receives the same amount from the gas tax no matter how many vehicles are registered in the County. So the $1.4 million we receive is actually a PARTIAL refund of the money we send to the State. Every once in awhile they return another small portion in the form of traffic lights.

Since amounts distributed to Counties are NOT dependent upon vehicle registrations Cuyahoga County cities are subsidizing roads in Medina and Lorain and Stark County.

Your point about Gordon Square is very well taken. We aren't there yet.

I support a wholesale redevelopment of Clifton Avenue from the Rocky River Freeway portion to West 25th as long as we have access to other peoples money. The squeaky wheel gets oiled and we need to squeak louder and more often.

I'm bemused every time an editorial writer credits the:

Euclid Avenue Bus Down The Middle of Road

project with all the new Cleveland Clinic buildings at University Circle

but I'm self contradictory enough to believe that $200 million spent along Clifton on street improvements, housing, public transportation and real estate would have accomplished a lot more.

[Peter Grossetti]

Lakewood gets about $1.4 million per year the State from the gas tax. The amount received is based on the number of registered vehicles in the City.

Sounds like we've been barking up the wrong tree! It's time to ditch all our talk about this whole "walkable" and "bike-friendly" nonsense and do everything possible to attract more car owners.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

[Betsy Voinovich]

Would you mind listing out the pro’s and con’s your group came up with? I can’t imagine the pro’s would be much more than improving the look of the street, which is already a fine street.

Hi Charlie,

Here is the content of the flyer. I know that City Council was sent a copy.


Have you considered the pros and cons of decorative street improvements paid for by residents?

Pros:
Decorative street lights add distinction to Arthur.
Lights use less energy.


Cons:
Has not been offered to entire street (Short Arthur and south of Madison). More resident participation could offset the cost.

No guaranteed maintenance plan (in writing) for replacement bulbs; domes; underground wiring; poles; graffiti (will this become our responsibility because we’ve purchased these lights?).

No tax deduction allowed for light costs

About $450 in interest payments if you choose to spread your payments over 10 years, so the lights will cost each homeowner who does not pay upfront an estimated $2,281 (interest rates amounts are tied to city bond rating and can change)

Disruption of street and potential disruption of water/gas lines during installation

Removal of perfectly serviceable current lighting that has been paid for by us (our taxes) already

Everyone pays but not everyone gets a light on their tree lawn.

More lights on the street to maintain.

No written information about return on investment. Our houses have decreased in value due to the recession—will decorative lighting truly increase the value? What are the numbers verifying this?

Will this action open a can of worms? Can a neighborhood committee in the future tell us what color to paint (or not) our homes? Or what type of concrete to use for our driveway? Or what shrubs to plant in our front yards?



I think that the more this gets looked at, the more residents (all of us-- not just the ones on this short section of Arthur) are wondering what the real benefits are.

The wording of the resolution is a mystery--- "necessary improvements"--- these lights are luxuries, not necessities, and this process will spend a lot of money that could be spent on real necessities (like people painting their houses and fixing their gutters.)

It's one thing for the City to use our tax money (I don't know how much of it was tax money and how much of it grant money, another mystery) on decorative signs, with three colors and a cut out "L." Not a necessity.

It's another to be told you'll be paying out of pocket for the next 10 years more than 30 dollars a month for some people's idea of something being "pretty."

The code that you quoted, which says that residents should only pay up to the amount that they are benefiting, seems to make it clear that the residents shouldn't be paying anything, since there is no provable benefit whatsoever, along with there being no "necessity."

I think if this happens it sets a bad precedent. Where is the process that vets whether something is an "improvement"? What is the criteria? If it's random, that's really scary.

If you are concerned about this issue, this meeting is TONIGHT! Lakewood City Hall. 7 PM in the Auditorium. Be there or be square (perhaps a square lit with LED antique lighting that you will be paying for whether you like it or not.)

Betsy Voinovich