Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Oxian suggested that concerned citizens should approach the regulatory commission at its public <br />meetings in order to address tariff concerns. He then explained that various proposals had been made <br />in the past wherein the lights would be turned over to the responsibility of the neighborhood. <br />• Discussion ensued as to metering systems and costs. <br />Mrs. Choitz stated that the lighting issue had not changed since the late 1980s; the regulations <br />demanded that some accommodation needed to be made by the residents of the district if they wanted <br />light; the end result would be that either they owned and maintained responsibilities and costs for <br />the lights or the city and I&M would install and maintain lights at their discretion. The HPC could <br />not control the issue but could only recommend appropriate lights; that had been done in district <br />standards. "The city is caught in the middle ... no matter what they do, no one will be <br />satisfied... there are no pat answers; this is beyond HPC control." <br />Mr. Oxian stated that the city and HPC had agreed to appropriate replacements; agreements had been <br />signed between the HPC, the city and I&M to save historic poles, otherwise none would exist. The <br />main obstacle was I&M; the company would not change its stance. He then asked that a decision be <br />made about the two poles in question. <br />Discussion ensued as to streetlights elsewhere in the city and possible means to apply for CDBG <br />monies to save them. <br />Mr. Talley repeated his experience in trying to save the poles. He stated that the neighborhood was <br />being "penalized" and that the crime rate was bringing down property values. "if we can"t resolve <br />the streetlight thing..) don't want any part of the historic district..." <br />Mrs. Sporleder stated that the NPC was interested in addressing the light and safety problem; the <br />question remains as how best to accomplish that; an appropriate solution had not been found. Because <br />of the specifics of the COA in question, she was inclined to disallow it because it does not solve <br />the problem; it makes the lighting "erratic" and there is no guarantee that additional lights will <br />• be erected in the future. <br />Mr. Talley stated that he "would not remove the light... in his yard." <br />Mr. Murphy asked if he might pull his application to make Mr. Talley's more appropriate. <br />Mr. Talley again stated that he "had a problem if he had to remove the light." <br />Mrs. Sporleder asked Mr. Littrell if he had suggestions. Mr. Littrell replied that in the future <br />salvageable poles would be made available to historic districts. <br />Mrs. Holewicki stated that she would "chain herself to her pole if anyone tried to take it out." <br />Mr. Eide moved to approve the COA as submitted. Mrs. Sporleder seconded the motion. <br />Mr. Oxian called for a vote. Mr. Eide, Ms. Van Dalsen and Mr. Oxian voted ave. Mrs. Sporleder and <br />Mrs. Choitz voted nay. <br />Mrs. Sporleder explained that she was voting no because of the location of the lights in an area <br />over which the property owners have no jurisdiction. <br />Ms. DeRose stated that Mrs. Sporleder did not need to concern herself with that question. Mr. Oxian <br />stated that the question was about the historical appropriateness of the light; whether its on city <br />property is not at question. <br />4 <br />