Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears multi-faceted case for converting overhead lines to underground; costs, customer impacts and coordination discussed
Summary
Utility staff presented benefits and liabilities of converting overhead distribution to underground, citing improved reliability and aesthetics versus higher capital costs and longer restoration times. Staff outlined cost examples (Pearl Street conduit ~$600,000; Clay partial work ~ $500,000; Monroe three‑phase $2.5–3 million) and customer premise upgrade costs ($1,000 outside meter swap vs. $5,000 interior panel replacement).
Utility staff presented a detailed overview of converting overhead distribution lines to underground and the trade‑offs that drive any conversion decision. Staff said undergrounding improves aesthetics and reliability by reducing tree and wildlife contacts, but comes with higher capital cost, more complex restoration when faults occur and the need to coordinate with other buried utilities and pole attachers such as Frontier and Spectrum.
Staff provided several cost examples: Clay Street directional‑boring and conduit work was discussed as part of an ongoing project and described as roughly a half‑million dollars for the work already done; Pearl Street secondary conduit, wire and transformers were estimated at about $600,000 (not including customer premise upgrades); and a three‑phase conversion of Monroe from Pearl toward city hall was described as in the range of $2.5 million to $3 million.
Customer premise upgrades are a substantial variable. Staff described an outside meter base swap that would reuse existing wiring and cost approximately $1,000 per home, versus a scenario that requires replacing interior panels that could cost about $5,000 per house. For Pearl Street, staff said the highest‑cost scenario across all homes could add roughly $300,000 in customer‑side upgrades to the project cost. Staff said engineering constraints, underground space conflicts with water, gas and communications, and the terms of pole‑attachment contracts may limit the utility’s ability to force telecommunication companies underground.
Board members asked about timing and budget. Staff said Pearl Street engineering was mostly complete and that the utility expects to proceed on Pearl while other streets may need later phases; street project timing and grant opportunities will shape next steps. Staff also noted existing tree‑trimming contracts (roughly $280,000 on the utility side and $350,000 total split with the city) that produce recurring costs that undergrounding could reduce over time. No formal board action was taken other than guidance to continue coordination with the electrical inspector and the city and to include line items in future budgets as projects are prioritized.
