Ross council hears push for town‑led plan as undergrounding costs balloon

The town’s public works director told the Ross Town Council on July 9 that three undergrounding projects are moving forward but face big technical and financial hurdles, including a large escalation in construction estimates that residents and council members said threatens equitable participation.

Public works director Richard Siminich said the Town Administration Center district (Rule 20A) is in design with an estimated construction cost of about $2.7 million and plans to use approximately $290,000 in accumulated Rule 20A credits. The larger West Ross Rule 20B assessment district is near the bidding stage, but updated PG&E figures and other cost changes pushed an earlier 2019 estimate of about $7 million to a current assessed project total in the low‑to‑mid‑$20 million range, he said. The proposed Upper West Ross Rule 20D district is circulating petitions and needs at least 65% property‑owner support to initiate.

“Costs have risen mostly from construction materials, logistics and labor,” Siminich said, summarizing engineering updates and PG&E estimates. He told council there are about 125 assessed parcels in the West Ross boundary and that contributors have placed roughly $276,000 in escrow to cover up‑front engineering and legal expenses.

Neighborhood organizers urged the town to clarify several policy gaps. Gina Nellison, speaking for the Upper West Ross group, said uncertainty about how to count public parcels — for example, town‑owned internal open‑space parcels that may not sign petitions — could drop her group’s petition support from roughly 74% to about 64%, putting the project below the 65% threshold. She also warned that required up‑front contributions create “hundreds of thousands of dollars” of risk for volunteer contributors before the community can even test ballot support.

“It may be workable if the town can offer limited early‑stage risk‑sharing, a reimbursable advance or a revolving feasibility fund,” Nellison said.

Council members from across the dais said the town needs to take a lead role. Council member Matt (last name on file with the clerk) and others proposed a coordinated plan so the town can manage multiple neighborhood petitions without overtaxing staff and repeat bond issuances. Siminich acknowledged staffing constraints, including his own pending retirement, and said final petition and balloting steps, bond counsel work and potential boundary amendments will all require additional staff and consultant time.

At a technical level, bond counsel Nick Yager told the council the bonds would be payable only from special assessments and that the town’s general fund would not back the sale; bond security instead relies on assessment‑based foreclosure rights and the value of assessed properties. That makes credit calculations dependent on local property values, Yager noted.

Next steps flagged for council included clarifying town policy on how to count public or non‑residential parcels in petition denominators, confirming who would pay the small “general benefit” share the town policy allows the town to contribute (a policy default contribution of $25,000), and deciding whether to combine nearby petitions to capture economies of scale. Staff said it would return with specific procedural recommendations and legal analysis as petitioning and design advance.

If a ballot fails, Siminich warned, contributors risk losing unspent upfront funds, and the project would not proceed. Council members said that reality — coupled with the rapidly rising cost estimates — makes early coordination and clearer town guidance a priority.

The council’s discussion left several outstanding policy questions for future agenda work: whether the town should create a formal implementation plan or a permanent staff role to manage undergrounding districts, how to treat town‑owned parcels during petitioning, and whether the council should explore limited early‑stage financial assistance to reduce barriers to petitioning.