Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
A.Existing overhead wires. <br />B.Replacement of overhead wires. <br />In the case of new subdivisions, the cost of the underground <br />lines which is 3 to 4 times that of overhead is absorbed by the <br />development in which its installed. <br />According to Marlowe Peterson of NSP he is not aware of any time <br />that the City has required NSP to bury its lines within a certain <br />time period. As for burying when the overhead plant has to be <br />replaced because of age has apparently not been an issue either. <br />There are times that they have been required to move them for <br />highway construction etc. In such cases they will determine the <br />cost of the move to another overhead and credit that to the cost <br />of the underground. This however, requires the resident or <br />business to install an underground service to their building <br />which ranges from $750-1,000 per residence in order to eliminate <br />the poles. The cost for businesses depends on the amperage size <br />of the service. <br />They will however, do underground where it makes economic sense <br />for them. Two examples are; <br />a. ) Current property owners agree to pay for burying it <br />and having underground service to the buildings This <br />was the case along 15 between County 51 and the Areola <br />Bridge. <br />b. ) In Chanhassen they had to redo the electrical lines <br />in downtown for the redevelopment.It cost $200,000. <br />The City said that the increased development would <br />generate additional utility revenue.As such they <br />agreed to have the City pay $100,000 upfront and a <br />$100,000 letter of credit. The amount of the <br />installation is then reduced by additional revenue <br />gained by NSP due to growth in the area. <br />It is anticipated that NSP*s position is that their rate paying <br />base should not subsidize certain areas to bury electric line but <br />would do so where the economics made it viable.It is the City <br />Attorney's opinion that while our current ordinances on new <br />installations being underground is satisfactory as it is; any <br />requirement of underground replacement within a certain period or <br />upon a change would need to be in the franchise ordinance.That <br />would then involve the PUC in the negotiations as that provision <br />becomes a rate issue.The model SRA franchise proposed for <br />adoption has been approved by the PUC. <br />Issue #2 - Wright Hennepin - The City Attorney has heard from <br />Wright Hennepin and recommends the City adopt the basic form set <br />forth in Attachment A for the franchise with a language change <br />for Wright Hennepin reflecting that as a Co-Op they are governed <br />differently by State Law than NSP which is subject to the PUC.