My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-03-27_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-03-27_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 12:07:54 PM
Creation date
4/26/2012 12:07:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/27/2012
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chair DeBenedet questioned if a right-of-way plan was in place, if that would <br /> allow the undergrounding project to be initiated; or through joint projects with <br /> other jurisdictions. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that it would require the project funding in place to <br /> purchase rights-of-way before the final project scope and timing was known. <br /> Background <br /> Chair DeBenedet suggested the need to include language encouraging <br /> undergrounding for aesthetics, especially at entries to the community. <br /> Member Vanderwall concurred; suggesting discussion and consideration of <br /> neighborhood-initiated projects, whether as a criteria as part of the process, not <br /> necessarily through CRFS funding. As an example, Member Vanderwall <br /> suggested initiation by the neighborhood where the city was considering a road <br /> reconstruction with them sparking participation to incorporate undergrounding as <br /> part of that project. <br /> Member Gjerdingen suggested explicit language for new projects (e.g. Twin <br /> Lakes Redevelopment Area, Josephine Woods development); with Mr. Schwartz <br /> responding that City Code already requires all new development underground <br /> utilities. <br /> Member Felice questioned those streets having overhead lines. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that it wouldn't be cost-effective for just that piece. <br /> Member Vanderwall, in terms of calculating savings, noted the advantages in <br /> undergrounding (e.g. cost of moving poles for projects; tree trimming; storms); <br /> and opined that there must be less frequency in underground problems, creating <br /> lower maintenance costs. <br /> However, Mr. Schwartz referenced national studies performed by the power <br /> industry, asserting that undergrounding is purely for aesthetics, and provided no <br /> cost-savings. <br /> Member Vanderwall questioned if any independent studies had been done and if <br /> so, if that data had been considered and/or supported those studies performed by <br /> the power industry. <br /> Mr. Schwartz opined that the power industry was under considerable pressure to <br /> underground lines. <br /> Chair DeBenedet requested that staff provide the PWET Commission with an <br /> overlay of Roseville arterial, collector and sub-collector streets with Xcel Energy <br /> Page 12 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.