CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 21 Commission (PUC). Mr. Schwartz advised that the City of Little Canada, as a cost-share participant with the City of Roseville, supported this filing as well. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the original customer cost received from Xcel Energy as a preliminary estimate for undergrounding power lines from County Road B to County Rod B-2, and the final costs submitted for that work. Mr. Schwartz not- ed that, in seeking documentation for those additional costs related to a change of scope in the work, including direction boring versus open cutting and addi- tional traffic control costs conflicting with future reconstruction of the roadway and newly-relocated electrical costs. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the City had been in attendance at each of the construction meetings held among contractors, subcontractors, affected cit- ies, Ramsey County and MnDOT at which Xcel was also a party in attendance, and noted that it had been very clearly outlined and Xcel was fully aware of their direction. As this information gathering continued, Mr. Schwartz advised that MnDOT permits for crossing Highway 36 south and the majority of the conflict on that south side of the bridge and involving the slope of the infiltra- tion pond, documentation was provided by the project team; and Mr. Schwartz advised that it was the consensus of the parties, other than Xcel Energy that Xcel should absorb additional costs based on their prior knowledge of the situa- tion and work to be performed. Since receiving Xcel Energy's Notice of Implementation on May 25, 2012 of the CRFS, for the past six (6) months, both the Cities of Little Canada and Ro- seville continued to seek documentation from Xcel Energy and have repeatedly asked for a meeting with them to discuss the fees. However, to-date, Mr. Schwartz advised that they had declined to provide any of their document, and with their Notice of Implementation of the CRFS, the City had sixty (60) days to file an objection with the PUC, with that deadline being July 25, 2012. Sub- sequently, Mr. Schwartz advised that another letter of request from the City had been sent to Xcel. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was staff's perspective that the City had a strong case to present to the PUC; and last week, Xcel Energy had finally agreed to a meeting to discuss it; however, they were proposing the meeting on July 25, 2012, the deadline for filing, and advised that they had recommended an exten- sion from the PUC to hear the City's objection. Mr. Schwartz advised that, while willing to meet on that date, staff didn't want to limit or negate their abil- ity to file an objection, or rely on the extension option. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz noted staff's recommendation to continue to work with the City Attorney, and Little Canada staff to pursue filing an objection, based on the results of further discussion with Xcel Energy, thus the requested action of the City Council. Mr. Schwartz noted that, in his phone conversations with Xcel Energy representa-