Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Undergrounding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees direct staff to craft amended undergrounding agreement after Xcel estimate rises; applicant to contribute $186,000
Summary
After new Xcel (electric utility) engineering estimates raised the cost of required undergrounding near Highway 133, trustees asked staff to draft an amended agreement that reflects an applicant contribution of $186,000, with no sunset clause and funds earmarked for undergrounding along the east side of Highway 133 corridor.
Trustees directed staff to draft an amendment to a restaurant development improvement agreement after Xcel Energy’s engineering work showed the required undergrounding scope — and cost — is larger than originally estimated.
Planning staff explained that earlier project approvals assumed a lower undergrounding cost; when Xcel produced design work after land‑use approval, the utility identified a transmission splice and other complexities that raised the project price toward roughly $1 million for the entire recommended undergrounding length. The applicant requested a revised agreement that would allow the developer to contribute $186,000 toward undergrounding and proposed a 10‑year sunset on any unspent funds.
Trustees considered three options: require the originally approved undergrounding scope (leaving cost overrun to the developer), increase town and developer contributions to meet the new utility estimate, or accept a fee‑in‑lieu for future undergrounding. Trustees signaled support for a middle path: accept the applicant’s $186,000 contribution but remove the proposed 10‑year sunset so the funds can be used when a corridor project is ready. Several trustees said they prefer earmarking the funds for undergrounding along the east side of Highway 133 (the original corridor) rather than a general, town‑wide undergrounding fund.
Trustee discussion noted precedent concerns — similar projects in town have required developers to underground adjacent utilities — and staff explained that Xcel’s distribution configuration in this block made the engineering unusually expensive because the work requires new splices and upgrades for an existing underground run.
The board did not take a formal roll‑call vote on a final amendment text but directed staff to return with draft language that reflects the $186,000 contribution, no sunset clause tied to refunding, and an earmark for undergrounding along the originally discussed east‑side corridor so funds contribute directly to corridor work when feasible.
Ending: Staff will draft the amended agreement for trustee consideration and return with proposed contract language and timeline.
