Oshkosh workshop weighs costs, easibility and corridors for moving overhead utilities underground

Oshkosh City officials and staff held a workshop on Oct. 22, 2024, to examine whether and where overhead utilities should be moved underground, the engineering limits and the likely costs, and to ask staff to return with corridor recommendations and consolidated policy options.

City staff presented technical background, telling the workshop that underground utilities generally reduce weather- and tree-related outages and improve the look of streets but carry higher upfront costs and can be harder and slower to locate and repair when outages occur. Speaker 2, the workshop presenter, said utilities in Oshkosh are split roughly between Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) and AT&T on poles, and that a mix of telecoms, county and school-district attachments creates considerable congestion in many right-of-way corridors.

The discussion focused on three practical constraints: space, easements and financing. Staff said narrow terraces and buildings close to the back of right of way—notably on West Ninth Avenue and parts of Bowen Street—limit room for transformers, service pedestals and the roughly 12-foot easements utilities commonly request outside the public right of way. Speaker 3 noted that state administrative code requires an 8-foot separation between parallel water and sewer/storm lines, and Speaker 2 said city practice seeks a 6-foot clear space around city water and sewer lines from other parallel underground utilities.

On cost, staff declined to give a single ‘‘per-block’’ price because project costs vary widely by system and voltage, but offered ranges: undergrounding can cost roughly 1.5 to 10 times the cost of overhead work depending on circumstances; homeowners would typically face service-conversion costs in the $3,000–$6,000 range for residential service; and an example WPS estimate for one complex relocation project was on the order of $1 million, though Speaker 2 said "a million dollars a block" is unlikely in most residential contexts.

Participants pressed financing questions. Speaker 3 cautioned that if a project primarily benefits private properties, it may not qualify for tax-exempt financing, and stormwater utility funds cannot generally be used to finance undergrounding unless tied directly to stormwater work; as a result, undergrounding costs commonly become part of overall road-construction budgets. Several council members and staff suggested seeking federal or state resiliency grants where possible.

Council members and participants discussed policy options for where to focus work. Multiple speakers recommended prioritizing ‘‘gateways’’ or entrance corridors into the city—wider streets where right-of-way geometry and aesthetics make undergrounding more feasible—and using the existing new-development requirement (that utilities be underground in new subdivisions) as a baseline. Speaker 9 proposed identifying a small set of corridor projects the city would commit to pursue; others urged staff to map outage ‘‘hot spots’’ and target places where undergrounding would measurably improve resilience.

On timing and implementation, staff said utility companies need final street plans years in advance and easement acquisition can take a year or longer, so designs for any targeted projects would need to start three to four years before construction. Staff concluded the workshop by saying they would consolidate the input, return in a few weeks with potential corridors and policy options, and present those for council direction.

The workshop produced no formal votes; staff were directed to report back with consolidated notes and corridor recommendations for further council consideration.