CC_Minutes_1975_0210 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

certain amount for inflation because Northern States Power will raise their rates over the life of this assessment. We called that Alternative Plan 1. Mr. Popovich will be speaking of this in greater detail. But that ends up to a cost of about $4 a year per lot for 20 years plus interest. However, no one else can get these fourteen lights. The best they can do is six, so we went to Alternative Plan 2 that said the full cost we have to pay, plus inflation, times the 14 poles - and this is Alternative 2 - and that would end up to an assessment of just under $21 a year per lot plus interest, but I didn't think that was quite fair to you people either because you aren't getting the benefit of some at large costs that the city is willing to pay normally to anyone else in the city, so we came up with Alternative Plan 3 and what that says is if you lived elsewhere you could have six lights and weld pay $55 for each, and it was my opinion we should give you credit for that and that cost above this amount for the remaining eight lights would have to be assessed against your property. Again, including inflation, this would be about $13.50 per year. These are the three basic alternatives. I have talked to Northern States Power since this report was written because (I) while they said inflation would be about 2% a year, they have requested a 25% rate increase; (2) to see if we couldn't reduce the number of lights which would be saving you expense and still come up with a good street lighting system. The result was they were hesitant to go too much below, but I prevailed if they went to every third lot line instead of every second one. That ends up with the number of poles down from 14 to 11. If any of you have gone through the Heatherwood area, that 11 pole system would be roughly equivalent to what's in Heatherwood today and you find there are some dark spots between the lights but it provides acceptable lighting standards. I would be surprised if Northern States Power would go less than 11 lights because they would feel it's not giving them the return on their system and not meeting their standards. I would recommend that Alternative 3 be followed, if the project goes through, as the most fair. COUNCILMAN CURLEY: That's 11 lights per year. MR. HONCHELL: You can reduce this down about a dollar per light. Since it would be three less, that would be a little over $10 if there were 11 and weld have to run the numbers through again but if we reduced one pole you could take off one 3