2011_0822_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION M Date: 8/22/11 Item No.: 12 . a City Manager Approval Item Description: Update on Pole Relocations for Dale Street Reconstruction Project 2 During the preliminary design process for the Dale Street Reconstruction project, Staff identified 3 private utilities within the City's right of way that would possibly need relocation as a result of 4, the proposed improvements. Staff identified 9 utility poles that were in potential conflict with 5 the improvements as designed. One of the poles is located in the right of way in front of the 6 residential home at 2782 Dale Street. The residents at that address, Tom and Janine Hadlich, "7 requested that it be relocated as a part of the project as well. The residential lots addressed as 8 2778 and 2782 Dale Street were created through a minor subdivision in 1999. The power pole 9 existed in this location prior to this subdivision. The new homes were constructed in 2000, and 110 both of them have their underground services fed from this pole. The pole is located in the right of way, approximately 25 feet from the south property line. 12 During the project information meetings staff committed to the property owner that we would 13 request Xcel to relocate the pole for the reconstruction project because it appeared it may be in 14, conflict with the project. The pole was included on a preliminary list of poles that needed to be 15 verified in the field for relocation by Xcel to accommodate the project. Relocating poles is a cost 116 to Xcel and ultimately their customers. Xcel requests the City stake the project out in the field 1 ��7 prior to proceeding with relocations to confirm the pole conflicts and determine the best location 11 111",,'11 for the new poles. NVhen the project limits were identified in the field, this pole was not in 119 conflict with the project improvements. Since it was not necessary to move the pole for the 20 project, Xcel refused to relocate it and two other poles that were identified as potential conflicts 2 i during the design process. 22 Staff has discussed this matter with Xcel twice since the July 16 City Council meeting. They 23 have indicated that since the pole is not in conflict with the project, they will not relocate it at 24, their expense. 25 The City has an electric franchise agreement with Xcel that requires them to relocate poles when 26 they are in conflict with City improvement projects. The pole in front of 2782 Dale Street was 27 originally identified as being in potential conflict with the reconstruction project, however, upon 28 w w staking the project limits, it as determined that it as not necessary to relocate the pole. 29 Outside of this agreement there is nothing within City Code that the City could cite to require 30 Xcel to relocate this pole at their cost. 3 1 Staff has reviewed both the Public Hearing minutes and the video. Utility under grounding was 32 discussed during the course of the public hearing for this project; however, the City Council did 33 not order the under grounding of overhead utilities on this project. This pole relocation was also 34, not identified in project Feasibility Report or project budget. Page I of 2