2003-12-18_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Wilke suggested lumen levels be specified in Section 3. Schwartz said that a lumen level was not specified because it could pull the lights closer together than what the city desires. They agreed to limit lumen requirement levels to pedestrian level lighting with a statement that this is only for those areas where the City requests it. Wilke suggested removing Item IV regarding maximum number oflights that can be installed in one year. During discussion of the qualifications for streetlight placement, Wilke suggested that a statement be added specifically about mid-block placement. Rossini thought that the listed qualifications were adequate to cover that situation. Wilke said he feels mid-block lights are very desirable and would like to see a general statement about them. Schwartz suggesting adding a comment to the third requirement about mid-block lighting being desirable and allowed if the distance between existing streetlights is 600'. During discussion of the petition and ballot processes outlined in Section V, Willenbring questions why there are two processes to go through. It's repetitious and doubles the amount of time. Schwartz said that it's a way to initiate the process without contacting every person. Willenbring wants to eliminate the ballot process and keep it simple. Wilke wants to recommend taking out the ballot process. Rossini thought maybe the ballot process would allow people to keep their feelings to themselves so they wouldn't have to fear retribution or bad feelings from neighbors. Wilke suggested more research into the ballot process to see what the reasoning is behind it and why it is used. Schwartz said staff would look into it and bring the information to the next meeting. During the discussion on funding, Wilke said he disagreed assessing all residents within 150' of the light. Ifresidents live on the next block over, they may be within that distance; but they don't benefit from the light. Why should they have to pay for it? Schwartz said the intent was to assess residents 150' on the same street. The item will be reworded for better understanding. Marasteanu stated that we're allowing for streetlights every 600', but we're only assessing people within 150' of the light. Wilke suggested assessing all residents who benefit from the light. Schwartz said an assessment has to be legally proven to be a benefit to the resident. Since the light illuminates 150', those would be the people to be assessed. Willenbring asked about a 25-year assessment. Schwartz said it was the maintenance cost that went for 25 years, not the assessment. After 25 years, the cost has been recouped and the energy cost is paid from the General Fund. Page 2 of 4