res_6676 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

more than 600 feet long, \1e will, at no cost to the m'mers, install a street liaht if the ?eople petition for it; and the adjacent property o,vners where the light will be located, concur. Unfortunately there's also a regulation that says in new subdivisions all wiring must be underqround. This means that Northern States Power cannot put its standard above ground wiring utility systems in on either Brenner or Evelyn, so any street lights that go on either of these roadways will have to be buried underground and will carry a higher rate per month that the city has to pay per month for each light. The first alternative would say that, all right, we would propose that street liohts he ~ut at locations that would meet our standard policy, namely at the corner, here at Brenner an0 Evelyn and at mid-block, roughly between 3087 and 3083 on Evelyn, and another one approximately mid-block between Cleveland anc1. Hount Ridge bet,,,een 2030 anc1 2020. That woulc. be if they were strictly overhead liqhts. In doinq this, the city would actually pick up most of the cost of those lights. Ne ",oule. assume the cost as part of the general taxes for those lights, as if they were our standard overhead system. The only thing \"J'e would assess would be the difference between what we pay for the regular lights and ~nlat we have to pay NSP for the overhead lights, so as you hear the assessment figures later, this Alternate I is really the cheapest we can provide and get lighting into the area. This is as if it was a routine area. Ho\';rever, 'lie have to assess the difference between the cost for underground and overhead. A second alternative, in response to the people's request on Evelyn for a higher level of liqhting, would place two lights mid-block rather than the one. This one would not exist. There would be one here and one there and one extra light placed. In doing that, tilat would be one light not in conformance with our regular procedure which woulo. have to be charged to assessments. So Alternate 2 is higher than 1 even though only one light was added because all the cost of that light has to be assessed. If this is approved as anticipated, these lights would be placed approximately 2 to 3 months from the time they are approved by NSP. MR. POPOVICH: T'Jhen '~e published the notice, it "ras pub- lished at the total cost of $4,l82. That's because Alternate 2 was that much more expensive. For Alternate 1, ~mich is the less expensive, the total additional cost required is $1,260. You divide that by the number of lots involved, which is approximately 35 lots, the additional cost required to be assessed would be $45.79 a lot proposed to be assessed over a two year period of time with an 8% carrying charge. Then there would be no further assessments. Under Alternate 2, because of the additional cost, there you have $4,182. If you divide that by the 35 lots involved,