Laserfiche WebLink
Recess <br /> Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at <br /> 8:09 P.M. <br /> 7. Overhead Electric/Underground Policy <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the City Council had requested staff to develop an <br /> Overhead Electric Power Line Undergrounding Policy with the assistance of the <br /> PWET Commission; and provided a rough draft from staff for discussion purpose <br /> only at tonight's meeting. Mr. Schwartz noted that the PWET Commission had <br /> previously discussed such a policy in early 2011; and he had encapsulated some <br /> of that criterion from those initial discussions in the draft policy presented tonight; <br /> specifically how corridors could be ranked and rated for such undergrounding. <br /> During those initial discussions, Mr. Schwartz noted funding constrictions, with <br /> no identified funding source other than through the Community Requested <br /> Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) option that Xcel was entitled to under PUC rules. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that, if the City chose to fund the undergrounding through <br /> this option, it would also be constricted to the maximum of$4.50 per month per <br /> utility customer stacked; with room for additional surcharges becoming available <br /> as older projects were paid off. <br /> Mr. Schwartz referenced the criteria drafted by staff on page two (2), specifically <br /> the fifth criteria addressing corridors with over 5,000 ADT traffic volumes, <br /> especially significant with the number of county roads in Roseville and few of <br /> those corridors that are under city jurisdiction (e.g. Lexington Avenue, the <br /> Ramsey County portions of Dale, County Road B-2, and Rice Street). <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had attempted to tie the criteria to the current <br /> Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and advised that he was waiting to confirm with <br /> Xcel Energy's Community Relations representative whether the CRFS was <br /> limited to those areas proposed for or underway for construction; or if the City <br /> could request undergrounding as a stand-alone project for those areas. <br /> Chair DeBenedet opined that attempting undergrounding with no concurrent <br /> project would require pre-project planning process; and questioned if pre- <br /> planning could include long-range application of surcharges as long as they <br /> remained under the $4.50 maximum, but delaying them until a series of projects <br /> could be done at one time. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that there were many variables, with undergrounding needing <br /> to be undertaken approximately one (1) year before the actual construction project <br /> to avoid potential conflicts with utility and road contractors; and challenges in <br /> having a defined right-of-way planned if expansion is part of the project, as well <br /> as whether there was the need for the county or city to purchase additional rights- <br /> of-way and cost prohibitions and unknowns in pre-planning under those <br /> circumstances. <br /> Page 11 of 15 <br />