Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 UNDERGD UTILITY 09-05-95DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 NO. 19 9-5-95 Inter-Com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION RED HILL AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 14 RECOMMENDATION That the Tustin City Council at their meeting of September 5, 1995 reaffirm the existing priority list for undcrgrounding overhead utility lines and direct staff to submit Red Hill Avenue Underground Utility District No. 14 for Council consideration when adequate Rule 20A funds become available. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. BACKGROUND In February of 1992, the City Council established a priority list consisting of nine projects for the undergrounding of overhead utilities. Since that time one project has been added to the list (Yorba Street) and three projects have been completed (Prospect Avenue, Yorba Street, First Street). The following list represents the current prioritization for future undergrounding districts: Red Hill Avenue between CoPperfield Drive and the I-5 Freeway. 2. Red Hill Avenue between I-5 Freeway and Bryan Avenue. 3. Bryan Avenue/Main Street between Red Hill Avenue and Newport Avenue. 4. Main Street between "C" Street and the SR-55 Freeway. 5. El Camino Real between Newport Avenue and Browning Avenue. 6. Nisson Road between Pasadena Avenue and "B" Street. 7. Yorba Street between Irvine Boulevard and Seventeenth Street. An engineer's report was prepared and a public hearing was held by the City Council on February 22, 1994 to consider undergrounding the existing overhead utilities on Red Hill Avenue between Copperfield Drive and the I-5 Freeway. The engineer's report estimated the total construction cost to be approximately $259,600 and was detailed as follows: · . SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EXPENSE Edison Company cost for conduit structure and cable (Rule 20A) ................................................... $250,000.00 CITY EXPENSE Cost for six street lights .................................. $ 6,000.00 PROPERTY OWNERS. EXPENSE 14122 Red Hill Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14242 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14252 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14262 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14272 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14282 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14292 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14312 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 14322 Green Valley Avenue ................................ $ 400.00 The above mentioned costs were estimated by an electrical contractor and include both the electrical and telephone service conversion costs. There were no other property owner conversion expenses anticipated. Utility undergrounding is usually funded by the Public Utilities Commission Rule 20A Regulation. Rule 20A provides for the total cost of undergrounding to be borne by the utility company with the exceptions of street lights and the cost of private property service conversion. The utility company will provide the service/lateral conduit for each service conversion from the mainline up to a maximum length of 100 lineal feet. The cost to install any remaining service lines would be borne by the property owner. Based upon the adjacent property owner's concerns involving their costs, the Council, at the conclusion of the public hearing in February 1994 unanimously voted to delay any action on Undergrounding District No. 14 until such time as it could be reviewed with future Capital Improvement Programs. The Red Hill Avenue Undergrounding District No. 14 as considered by the Council at the public hearing on February 22, 1994, was proposed to be financed primary with Rule 20A funds. At that time Southern California Edison was willing to advance the City of Tustin's future year's Rule 20A allocation to cover the cost o~' immediately proceeding with the undergrounding construction. However, with the California Public Utilities Commission's proposed restructuring of the state's electric utility industry, Southern California Edison is' no longer willing to advance Rule 20A funds. The Edison Company will currently schedule an undergrounding project when a City's allocation balance is sufficient to cover the anticipated construction costs and an underground district has been established by Council Ordinance. Representatives of Southern California Edison have indicated that the company currently has a backlog of undergrounding projects and it may take 18 to 24 months to start construction after ordinance adoption. Due to the prior construction of the three prioritized undergrounding projects, Tustin's anticipated allocation balance on December 31, 1995 is expected to be a negative $134,045. Edison representatives are reasonably sure that the Rule 20A program will continue to be funded for calendars 1996 and 1997. If Tustin continues to be allocated an amount equivalent to the 1995 allocation of $178,974, on January 1, 1997 the allocation balance would be approximately $223,903. If the allocation increases annually by 5% due to an increase in number of meters during the 1996 and 1997 years, the City may have enough funds to reconsider the formation of the underground district. However, this funding could still not be Used to cover the cost of private service connections. Using the current backlog schedule, construction would begin in 1998/99. Tim D. Serlet~ ' ' Director of Public Works/ City Engineer TDS:kib:u~dg~d