Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Undergrounding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ross council hears push for town‑led approach to undergrounding as costs soar
Summary
Council heard a detailed status update on three undergrounding districts — Town Administration Center, West Ross and Upper West Ross — including revised cost estimates rising into the tens of millions, neighborhood petitions, and calls from residents for clearer rules on parcel counts and early‑stage town risk‑sharing.
The Town of Ross got a progress report on multiple overhead utility undergrounding efforts and a stark update on costs and practical hurdles.
Public works director Richard Siminich told council the Town Administration Center Rule 20A district is about 35% into final bid documents with an estimated project cost of about $2,700,000 and about $290,000 in Rule 20A credits available. The larger West Ross Rule 20B district is roughly ready to go to bid; Siminich said the 2019 estimate of about $7,035,000 has escalated to an estimated $23,000,820 and a total assessed project cost of approximately $24,000,431 once bond financing and reserves are included. Siminich said contributors have put up roughly $276,479 to date to advance design and permitting.
Neighborhood groups and council members pressed staff on details. Gina Nellison, speaking for the Upper West Ross neighborhood, said the town's petition rules leave unresolved whether internal public parcels and other nonresidential parcels should be counted in the petition denominator — a difference that, she said, can drop a neighborhood’s apparent support from 74% to about 64%, potentially below the 65% petition threshold. "We respectfully ask council to direct staff working with the town attorney, bond counsel, and the assessment engineer to return with a clear answer on the correct parcel count and petition denominator for this project," Nellison said.
Council members discussed economies of scale, staff capacity, and project sequencing. Several members urged developing a town‑led implementation plan to avoid a flood of ad hoc neighborhood petitions that would overburden staff and duplicate bond issuances; others noted logistical limits on running multiple large capital projects at once. Siminich urged caution about construction impacts and the substantial staff time needed to coordinate reconnections for hundreds of properties if a district proceeds.
Council directed staff to continue outreach, work with bond counsel to clarify petitioning questions, and return with recommendations. The meeting record shows robust public and council interest in identifying funding options to reduce volunteer up‑front costs and clear rules on how public parcels count during petitioning and balloting.
