Councilors spent a sustained portion of the Dec. 4 meeting debating requests from residents for additional street lighting at entrances to North Hill Terrace and nearby streets.

Staff summarized past outreach (2017–2019) and outlined three primary approaches: utility‑installed lights with monthly maintenance fees, guard/yard lights that homeowners can request individually, and solar LED fixtures that require higher upfront costs but no long‑term electricity bills. Staff noted that some existing power poles run behind homes rather than along streets, making traditional overhead installation expensive in locations that would require new poles, transformers or buried lines.

"Street lights are important because they improve safety, to drivers, pedestrians by increasing visibility and reducing accidents," a staff presenter said. He cited examples where the nearest existing poles are too distant to light intersections effectively and noted that TxDOT’s wide right‑of‑way on 3048 limits how close the city can place poles to an intersection without TxDOT approval.

Council members and residents expressed mixed views. Some neighborhood homeowners told council they dislike poles in front yards and prefer limited entrance lighting; others urged urgency because of visibility and safety concerns when turning from dark side streets onto busier roads. One council member said he had surveyed nearly 98 homes over six years and described lighting as their top request.

Staff presented a vendor quote showing a per‑unit estimated range of roughly $3,500–$4,000 for many solar/LED guard‑style fixtures and higher per‑unit costs (up to $15,000) where new infrastructure, longer runs, or battery replacement over time are required. Council discussed tradeoffs including night‑sky impacts near the university observatory and long‑term maintenance obligations.

Council gave staff direction to contact TxDOT about possible pole placement near the state right‑of‑way, to gather and provide a list of interested residents and exact intersection addresses, and to return with options and a recommended timeline (council indicated March as a target month for follow‑up, before budget decisions). No funding decision or immediate purchase was authorized at the Dec. 4 meeting.

Ending: Staff will return with a focused proposal and resident input for council consideration in March, and the city manager said staff will add lighting options to next year’s budget planning.