CC_Minutes_2012_0319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 19,2012 Page 9 advised that the City of Little Canada used a portion of their franchise fees to fund their portion of the project in the past; however, funds from that fee are not as readily available for them for Phase II, and they are considering the CRFS option for their community if the authorization moves forward. Mr. Schwartz noted that final costs of the first phase were still under review and negotiation, but they still averaged in the $.50 per month range per customer over a three (3) year period; but he anticipated that the cost of Phase II would be dou- ble the first Phase based on preliminary estimates, and should be within the $1.00 per month average range. Based on regulations of the Public Utilities Commis- sion (PUC), a City is able to charge and stack CRFS fees up to $4.50 per month. If authorized by both City Councils and approved by Xcel Energy, Mr. Schwartz anticipated Roseville customers to pay approximately $1.50 per month. As with any future projects, Mr. Schwartz noted that the CRFS fees are phased over three (3) years, and at their sunset, the customer billing would reflect that. Unfortunately, Mr. Schwartz advised that this phase of the project included addi- tional challenges, since not all business's electrical lines were already under- ground, they were not eligible for the CRFS funding option, leaving about six (6) above-ground commercial lines, with Little Canada having a similar amount. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz advised that the respective City Council's needed to de- termine if this cost should be borne by the private business or if the cities would cost share or assess part of the project costs over all property owners. As more detailed information and a more detailed estimate from Xcel Energy becomes available, Mr. Schwartz advised that he would be returning to the City Council seeking their authorization to proceed. Mr. Schwartz advised that, at that time, staff would provide better preliminary estimates for each private electrical service needed;but at this point was seeking City Council feedback and direction. Councilmember Johnson opined that this was the type of corridor he would like to see overhead lines undergrounded and cleaned up; and expressed his appreciation of the results of Phase I of the project, and that he was happy and proud of that decision to move forward with undergrounding. Councilmember Johnson further opined that he was leaning toward supporting undergrounding private power lines as well, since once committed it needed to be completed and consistent. Mr. Schwartz noted that, since final costs for Phase I of the undergrounding had yet to be completed, the three (3) year surcharge had not yet been applied to cus- tomer billings. Mr. Schwartz advised that the delay in final cost was due to an ar- ea under Highway 36 that needed to be redone, causing Xcel Energy higher costs; and cities remaining adamant that the need to redo the work should be borne by the contractor, Ramsey County and Xcel Energy, and not respective cities since it was through no fault of theirs.