COMMENTARY: I won’t vote to send you the bill for Lexington street lights

When I ran for Lexington Town Council, I made a simple commitment: I would treat your money like it was my own.

That means asking hard questions about spending, demanding value for every tax dollar and remembering that every dollar government spends first belonged to you — the people who worked hard to earn it.

Fiscal responsibility also means paying the bills we’re responsible for.

That brings me to street lights and the debate over who should pay for them in the town of Lexington.

Until earlier this year, I served as president of my neighborhood homeowners association. During our annual budget process in late 2025, I noticed that part of our HOA dues was being used to pay the operating costs of street lights throughout the neighborhood.

That struck me as odd because I knew from my service on Town Council that Lexington has an ordinance dating back to 1986 that requires developers to install street lights before final plat approval. It also states that once the town accepts a subdivision’s road infrastructure, the town assumes responsibility for the operating costs.

Naturally, I started asking questions, initially believing this was an administrative oversight that could be easily corrected.

But as I dug deeper, I discovered more and more problems. For one, the ordinance specifies a type of light that is no longer installed or serviced. In fact, many of the lights the town already pays for in a number of neighborhoods are newer fixtures that do not meet that outdated standard.

More importantly, what appeared to be a single oversight began to look like part of a much broader inconsistency.

My concern was no longer about what my neighborhood was paying, but rather, how many other Lexington residents might be in the same position.

Where else was this happening? How many residents were paying out of pocket for something the town’s ordinance says it should provide? And how many had no idea they were missing a benefit other residents receive?

Those questions prompted staff to conduct a town-wide review. Preliminary findings suggest that dozens of Lexington neighborhoods may not be receiving the same street light benefit as others. In many neighborhoods, the town pays. In others, residents or their HOAs do.

To be clear: I am not OK with that.

Once I understood this was a town-wide issue, I resigned as HOA president. State ethics requirements can limit an elected official’s participation when public and private roles overlap, and I wanted to remove any potential conflict so I could address this fully as a councilmember representing the entire town.

Since then, I have worked with staff and other stakeholders to better understand the issue and potential solutions to fix it.

That leads us to our most recent council work session, during which another idea was proposed: instead of correcting the inconsistency, perhaps the town should stop paying for street lights altogether and shift the cost to HOAs or individual residents.

I strongly oppose that idea.

I also reject the notion, which was suggested during our meeting, that basic street lights are essentially neighborhood amenities.

In my opinion, a pool or clubhouse is a neighborhood amenity. And while either may certainly improve a neighborhood or the quality of life in our town, neither is necessary to keep a public street safe and accessible.

A street light, however, serves a fundamentally different purpose — one that’s quite obvious, I believe.

Now, does that mean I believe taxpayers should be responsible for every lighting option a neighborhood may want? No. If the developer or residents choose decorative poles, upgraded fixtures or additional lighting beyond the town standard, I think it’s reasonable to require them to pay the difference.

But the basic street lights required by the town are not optional upgrades. They serve the public, and our ordinance already tells us who is responsible for paying for them.

It has also been suggested that the town shift these costs to citizens through a fee on a utility bill or a charge added directly to residents’ Dominion Energy bills.

I am adamantly opposed to those proposals, too.

Moving the expense to a different bill does not make it disappear.

Whether we call it a fee, a charge or something else, it is still more money coming out of your pocket. And at a time when everything seems to cost more, the last thing Lexington families need is yet another recurring expense.

Shifting this responsibility raises more than a financial concern. It could create a system in which keeping our streets lit depends on whether individual residents or neighborhoods can afford to pay.

That makes this a public safety issue, too.

In 2025, SafeWise ranked Lexington the safest city in South Carolina. That is something we should be proud of — and determined to protect.

Research supports what common sense tells us: well-lit communities are safer. A systematic review of 13 studies found that improved street lighting was associated with a 21% reduction in crime in the areas studied.

So, before anyone treats street lights as an optional neighborhood luxury, we should ask a simple question: What happens when people cannot afford to keep them on? Perhaps, say, the citizen on a fixed income?

Further, not every neighborhood has an HOA, and not every HOA has the same resources.

Public safety should not depend on the strength of an HOA’s balance sheet or whether a citizen or neighborhood can afford to pay a monthly street light bill.

Lastly, and perhaps at its core, there is also the basic issue of fairness.

Some Lexington residents have effectively paid twice — once through taxes that help fund street lights elsewhere and again through HOA dues for the lights in their own neighborhood.

That, to me, just isn’t right.

In this moment, it’s up to us — the people you’ve elected to serve you.

Our council, in my opinion, faces a clear choice: correct this inequity or shift the town’s responsibility onto Lexington families.

When I took office, I swore to exercise the trust placed in me “equally, fairly and impartially.” Allowing some residents to pay twice — or making everyone pay a new fee so Town Hall can claim a savings — would violate both the spirit of that oath and the public’s trust, and I refuse to stand by as it goes on.

It is my personal belief that streetlights illuminating public roads are not luxuries. I believe public safety is not an amenity. And I believe transferring a town expense to your household bill is not fiscal responsibility — no matter how many times you may say it’s in the spirit of “fiscal conservatism.”

The town, in my opinion, and certainly based on my reading of the ordinance, made a commitment to our citizens. We have clearly not honored it consistently. And now it is our responsibility to make it right.

When this issue comes before the council, I will vote to do just that — not to send you the bill.

Gavin J. Smith is a Lexington town councilmember. He was first elected in the May 2023 special election and was re-elected to his first full, four-year term during the November 2025 general election.