Beckett Park nearly finished
Marshall vs. Valley View
Chaminade Julienne vs. Monroe
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > May > 14 > Entry
Editorial: Joint effort could turn down cost of lights
A light over your head is a public necessity; a light over your car is not.
That’s the ruling so far from two courts in an interesting tussle between the city of Englewood and a DPL, Inc., subsidiary that could affect how area communities light their streets. Lots of other municipalities are watching.
While it looks like the subsidiary, Miami Valley Lighting, will win the court battle, all may not be lost for cities that want to lower street lighting costs — which they seem to be overpaying for. In fact, bargaining as a group may prove to be an even better strategy than suing.
This all began with the city of Englewood asking the question: would it be cheaper for the city to light the streets rather than to pay Miami Valley Lighting?
Over many years, that company has all but cornered the market on providing street lights in the region. It put the lights up (most many years ago), maintains them and charges most local communities for the service.
But a few years ago, Englewood, which has more than 1,000 streetlights managed by Miami Valley Lighting, decided to buy 300 decorative lights for a downtown project. City officials found they could buy the lights cheaper, fix them more quickly and operate them at lower cost than what Miami Valley Lighting would have charged.
Intrigued by the discovery, City Manager Eric Smith commissioned a study and received an estimate that Englewood could cut its street lighting bill by $100,000 annually — saving almost 50 percent of the cost — if it operated the system itself.
He then had Englewood’s lights appraised and offered Miami Valley Lighting $210,000 to buy them.
The company was in no mood to play “let’s make a deal.” So Smith asked his lawyers if he could go to court and argue that the lights are a “public utility,” the same as the grid that serves homes with electricity. If so, Englewood could take control of the system by paying a fair market price for the equipment.
Unless the Ohio Supreme Court takes up the case (a long shot), that legal strategy has failed. Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Judge Frances McGee’s ruling that street lights benefit society, but are not a service that “society has deemed ‘necessary,’” was upheld on appeal.
This would seem to leave the parties at a stalemate. Englewood could demand Miami Valley Lighting uproot 1,000 streetlights at the end of its contract in two years and then set about installing new lights; but that would be costly, slow and leave the city mostly dark for a period.
Instead, Englewood could consider another avenue. It should try to persuade other communities to help create leverage through negotiation to bring down their street lighting costs.
The rates for this service are negotiated oddly. Because the Miami Valley Cable Council already acts as an agent for Englewood and seven other cities to negotiate cable rates, those communities also use the council to negotiate the rates for street lighting. Then a host of other cities usually follow with copycat contracts, and generally accept the same rates that were agreed to in the council’s talks with Miami Valley Lighting.
The result hasn’t been altogether happy for the municipalities. A council survey found street lighting rates here are higher than in other parts of the state.
The rates possibly could be driven down if communities formed a wider coalition for the purpose of negotiating the street light costs. If enough communities pooled their resources, that should carry some weight at the bargaining table. After all, a large coalition could potentially buy, install and maintain new lights cooperatively on its own.
Local communities have to be concerned about what they’re paying for their lighting systems. The evidence is that they’re paying too much. They have to get creative — and united — in an effort to reduce that spending.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
Comments