The City of Patterson is currently studying the need for additional street lights in the older parts of the city.
The city manager’s report proposes that under stronger economic conditions, we may consider the purchase of approximately 37 new street lights (poles included) @ $14,500 a pop. The total price tag would be $536,500.
While we surely appreciate the effort, we believe this short sided view of providing adequate light is not the best option for Patterson.
We propose a more sustainable option.
The true costs of streetlights for the residents are not fully represented by just the initial purchase. The operating cost of these fixtures (power & maintenance) can add up quickly.
We estimate that Patterson has well over 200 “old” streetlights (this is rough estimate). By replacing every old street light with a new LED fixture, the city of Patterson will save approximately $150 annually for each light. Put another way, $30,000 annually can be saved in energy costs.
Surely, the capital costs for these fixtures are significantly higher than High Pressure Sodium lights (LED – $480 to HPS – $80). But the return on investment is only 3 years.
The total cost to retrofit 200 fixtures would amount to only $96,000. After the third year, when our return on investment is met, we could start using our annual $30,000 in energy savings for other community needs. Maybe this program could help fund more scholarships for recreation. Surely the teen center could use the extra cash to promote more youth related activities. The $30,000 could also be used to purchase more LED fixtures.
Simple energy savings can help rebuild our community. For the next 7 years, the city could enjoy energy savings totaling $210,000!
This should be considered despite budget constraints.
This retrofit program could reduce our city’s CO2 footprint by 50 tonnes annually. SB 32 requirements are right around the corner, this couldn’t hurt.
Doing nothing is the simplest option. Then again, the path of least resistance is what makes rivers run crooked.
Colton said,
May 5, 2009 @ 7:27 AM
This sounds like a great idea! Have presented this option to the city yet?
Big Red said,
May 5, 2009 @ 7:36 AM
Fred,
So your saying with 90K we can switch 200 street lights to LED. This would then give us 30K after four years. Sounds good on paper……maybe stimulus money can subsidize this program. 90K doesn’t come easy at city hall today, but any businessman given those terms would say its a no brainer.
Someone on this blog said John Ramos will be the new planning commissioner, does that even really affect us? Obviously on the West Park issue, but other than that, is it really that important.
Lon's Disciple said,
May 5, 2009 @ 7:52 AM
William Johnston said,
May 6, 2009 @ 1:34 PM
I would imagine that most of the newer developments have efficient street lighting.
The Recorder said,
May 6, 2009 @ 10:40 PM
Caught the city council meeting last night. When the street light item came up, most of the comments were about the durability of current fixtures. You guys will be glad to know that Smith and Farinha mentioned the LED option, I wonder if they caught a glimpse of you post yesterday. Smith went as far as to talk about Ann Arbor, wonder where she saw that:) Mayor Campo dressed up for Cinco de Mayo, it was a nice touch. The more I follow her, the more I like her.
Smith threw a jab at the M street lighted crosswalk. Both her and Staff seem to think that no one has yet to use it. Not sure how they know.
Farinha continues his fascination with areas that need bullet proof protection. Hope this update was helpful.
Not much from Cuellar and Shelton
The Recorder said,
May 13, 2009 @ 11:41 PM
No comments on the future economic problems of the City?
Ramos as our county planning commissioner?
Smith and her M Street comments?
Shelton not willing to push for an african amercan spot on the sheriff committee?
Where did everyone go?
william johnston said,
May 14, 2009 @ 10:27 PM
How about the Keller issue, will he be a candidate in 2010?