08/25/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B. Street Lighting, Central Business District - Copies of street lighting proposal were previously distributed to Council members recommending approval of high-rise light- - .ing in the central business district (generally bounded by 5th, High, 13th, and Lincoln to 8th to Lawrence). Authorization was requested for installation {after results of installation at one test location are known] of SO-foot 1000-watt metal halide lights on laminated wood poles at 13 locations in the area of 13th to 10th, Olive to Lincoln (as shown on exhibits distributed with agenda). It was estimated that high-rise installations within the CBD would save about 30% in energy require- ments and about 10% in cost when compared to a low-level system. A general fund carryover at the end of this fiscal year of $20,000/$30.,000 was anticipated after accounting for amortization costs for existing ligh~to be removed from the 13 loca- t,ions where the new lights will be instill.Ied and an expected deficit because of EWEB's proposed 10% rate increase .in October. The proposal anticipated that addi- tional funding to continue the high-rise installations in the CBD would have to be taken into consideration in the normal budgeting process each year. Councilman Haws asked about the meaning of the statement in the proposal with regard to integration of isolated concerns of neighborhood groups, other than Downtown r,'csts.ide , into the norlllal street lighting system. Al Williams, traffic engineer, explained the process for installation of lights - logging of requests, approval of EWEB engineering design, notice to property owners most immediately affected by the installation, and authorization for installation if the majority of those people most immediately a (fccted want the light. That process was followed in contacting neig}worhood groups [as directed by Council at the time downtown high-rise lights were considered). III response to further questioning, traffic engineer said four of sixteen groups responded, less than 25 individual requests. In the Oak Hills area 17 requests were receJved from the neighborhood group there, two or three of those locations hav.ing already had negative reactions from previous requests submi tted. He said that was the reason for the process outlined, to determine if a majority of e the people affected the most really wanted the lights at the locations requested. Traffic engineer continued t:hatgenerally speaking all intersections in the ci ty at those locations where the people wanted them, except in very newly developed areas, were lighted, The occasional intersections in older areas w.i thou t Ii ghts do not have them because they were not wanted by the people living there. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve the area of interest Corom for high-rise lighting in the central business district as presented 8/13/75 and authorize staff to proceed with implementation of high-rise lighting Approve at the 13 locations as outlined. Motion carried unanimously. C. Right-of-way Acquisition, 28th Avenue Sidewalk for which authoriz9tion was requested: Gary E. Smith (18-03-06-33-4200) - $2Q5 Gary E. Smith (18-03-06-33-4100) - $120 Donald L. and Dorothy .7. Stone (18-04-01-44-4700) - $181 " " ( " " 4800) - $159 " " ( " " 4900) - $167 Marcus and Mary O. Williams (18-03-06-33-11000) - $252 Corom Alice A. Horwood (18-04-01-44-1200) - $261 8/13/75 Approve Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Beal to authorize the purchases. Motion carried unanimously. D. 'Right-of-way Acquisition, Barger Drive - Authorization was requested to purchase Barger Drive right-of-way from Judward O. and Io1a N. Taylor (17-4-21-2-2400) for $692.00. Corom e 8/20/75 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to authorize the purchase as Approve presented. Motion carried unanimously. 47S.'- 8/25/75 - 11