Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Deb Bloom started by giving background infornlation on this topic. <br />Roseville's streetlight policy was established in 1976, but it only addresses <br />standard streetlights. Since 1976 there have been 29 different streetlight <br />requests that do not meet the standard streetlight policy. Anything not <br />meeting the standard specifications is termed ornamental. A request was <br />made for ornamental lighting on Oakcrest Avenue from Roseville <br />Properties, and the City Council requested staff to prepare a feasibility <br />report. There was a public hearing on July 21, which prompted the <br />Council to direct staff to update the current streetlight policy. Funding is <br />the primary issue. <br /> <br />Tyler Clark, a Roseville Financial Analyst Intern, has been researching the <br />funding issue. He presented four funding options: General Fund, Special <br />Service District, Street Light Utility Fee, and Electric Franchise Fee <br />(Xcel). <br /> <br />Bloom talked about the difference in streetlight needs for commercial and <br />residential locations and went through the criteria used in calculating the <br />figures presented. <br /> <br />There was a discussion on how Xcel is billing the city for streetlights. <br />Member Wilke stated we should make Xcel account for what they are <br />charging the City. Bloom stated she didn't think Xcel would change the <br />way they bill us. <br /> <br />Information was presented on what other cities in the area are doing for <br />billing. There are many different methods being used. <br /> <br />Bloom presented the current City streetlight policy, which was established <br />in 1976. It has two parts: one concerning standard streetlights and one <br />concerning ornamentallburied streetlights. Streetlight policies vary greatly <br />throughout cities in the area. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked for time for the Commission to review the material. <br />This topic will be brought back to the September meeting. <br /> <br />Questions were presented that would help in deciding policy. The first <br />being "What is the primary objective?" Member Rossini said that in his <br />view safety is the first objective and cost is the second. <br /> <br />Member Wilke suggested having a modified service district billing <br />system. Members Anderson and Rossini agreed. <br /> <br />Member Anderson said he had real problems with the Electric Franchise <br />Fee method of funding. <br /> <br />Page 2 of3 <br />