My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-08-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2003
>
2003-08-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 3:01:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2005 2:37:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/28/2003
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Roseville Public Works and Transportation Commission <br /> <br />Agenda Item <br /> <br />Date: August 28, 2003 <br /> <br />Item No: 5 <br /> <br />Item Description: Discussion of City Streetlight Policy <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />On April 7, 2003, the City Council received a formal request from a property owner that the <br />Council consider constructing street lights on Oakcrest Avenue, from Prior Avenue to Fairview <br />Avenue. The City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for this improvement. <br /> <br />A public hearing was held at the Council's July 21st meeting, where the Council denied the <br />proposed project request and directed staff to take some time to reevaluate the current City Street <br />Light Policy and return with recommendations to update the policy. The current City Policy was <br />established in 1976 and left considerable room open for interpretation. <br /> <br />During the last month, staff has been looking at street light placement and funding alternatives. <br />We first looked at funding options for the street light budget. These options include continued <br />allocation from the general fund, creating special service districts, adding a street light utility fee <br />on to the water/sewer utility bill, and an electric franchise fee to Xcel Energy. For each of these <br />options, we looked at approximate costs to property owners and identified strengths and <br />weaknesses of each option. <br /> <br />Secondly, street light policies from a number of neighboring cities were reviewed. We also <br />consulted Xcel Energy in an effort to find out what their standard is for street light installation. <br />From our research, we have found that the only standard for street light policies is that there is no <br />standard; they very widely form city to city. <br /> <br />We will be presenting our findings at the meeting on Thursday night. We look forward to candid <br />policy discussion. Attached is a summary of the current street light policy, a discussion of the <br />different funding scenarios and their impacts to property owners, and a summary of neighboring <br />cities street light policies. <br /> <br />Recommended Action: <br /> <br />Feedback is requested from the Roseville Public Works and Transportation Commission in <br />determining Roseville's options for street light funding and policy. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.