The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.2 Utilities Underground r I :~ .. . .~ . ~ I I ! I I . CITY CLERK File # [[]~0~-~@] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 5,1999 SUBJECT: Utility Undergrounding Priorities (Update) Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1)' 2) Previously adopted policy, which was reaffirmed in 1995. Location Map RECOMMENDATION: /J ~ Review underground utility projects and establish priorities for future '(/ undergrounding projects. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City has a $1,911 balance in its P.U.C. (public Utilities Commission) Rule 20A account as of the end of 1998 and will accrue additional funds at a rate of about $10 1,400 per year. It is possible to "borrow out" funds three years in advance, which means that the available funding at the end of 1999, including the "borrowed" funds, would be a little over $400,000. The estimated cost of the first segment on the current priority list (Dublin Boulevard from 600' west of Clark Avenue to Sierra Court) is $700,000, which means that approximately $300,000 would need to come from another source. . DESCRIPTION: In September of 1995, the City Council reviewed a list of potential street segments for future undergrounding. The first priority segment, which was Dublin Boulevard from 1-680 to Clark Avenue, was undergrounded in 1996. This project extended from 1-680 to a point approximately 600 feet west of Clark Avenue. Following is the list that was considered at that time. The next priority roadway~ segment on the list, which was Dublin Boulevard from Clark Avenue to Sierra Court, has been modified to include the 600' west of Clark Avenue that was not undergrounded in the previous project. This segment includes some significant facilities near Clark Avenue, which causes the estimated cost per lineal foot to be higher than the Sierra Court to Dublin Court segment. LOCA TION ESTIMATED LINEAL FOOTAGE ESTIMATED COST Dublin Boulevard from 600' west of Clark Ave. to Sierra Court Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Ct. to Dublin Ct. Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Rd. to Silver,gate (Table continued next page) .----------------------------------------------------------------------- / COPIES TO: 8 ( 2 ITEM NO. !J ~ 1 2 3 1,600 1,200 2,100 $700,000 $240,000 to $360,000 $420,000 to $630,000 C:\contract\undergrd\agstupdate ~. 4 Dublin Court 1,200 $240,000 to $360,000 5 Dougherty Road, Dublin Blvd. to SPRR (including Dublin Blvd. from Dublin Ct. to 2,000 $400,000 to $600,000 Dougherty Road) 6 Village Parkway from Dublin Blvd. to 1,800 $360,000 to $540,000 Amador Valley 7 Village Parkway north of Amador Valley 5,700 $1,140,000 to $1,710,000 8 Amador Valley Blvd., Village Pkwy. to 4,000 $800,000 to $1,200,000 Stagecoach 9 San Ramon Road, Amador Valley to AIcosta 6,400 $1,280,000 to $1,920,000 10 Scarlett Court from Scarlett Drive to east end (new addition to list) 1,500 $600,000 At the City Council's request, Scarlett Court from Scarlett Drive to the easterly end has been added to the list but has not been given a priority. As noted in the attached policy, it was determined that commercial areas should be considered before residential areas and that consideration should be given to projects which could include developer participation or could be done prior to or in conjunction with a street widening project. . '" . The widening of Dublin Boulevard between Clark Avenue and Sierra Court is now tentatively scheduled for the 1999-2000 Fiscal Year. It is preferable to install a joint trench prior to completing construction of . the new roadway. At the time of construction, the City should have accrued approximately $103,304 in Rule 20A funds and would be able to borrow out a little over $300,000 in additional funds, based on the current allotment, for a total ofa little over $400,000. The estimated cost of under grounding this segment is $700,000; so it appears that about $300,000 would need to come from another source. Staffwill make every attempt to secure outside funding for all or part of this cost. It may be possible for part of the undergrounding work to be included with the widening project and paid for through the State Transportation Improvement Fund. If it is determined not to be pqssible either through grant restrictions or available grant funding limits, Staffwill request that the City Council provide direction as to whether' undergrounding of utilities in this segment should be paid for from the City's General Fund. The request would occur at the time that the project has been designed and more precise engineering estimates have been prepared. If there are gaps in the street light pattern as a result of removal oflights on wood poles, the City would need to add a Capital Improvement Project to install the lights as part of the underground project. Rule 20A funds do not cover installation of street lighting. For the Dublin Boulevard, Clark to Sierra segment, a project to install four lights would be recommended as part of the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. The following street segments were undergrounded in previous projects: : A. San Ramon Road from Dublin Boulevard to Silvergate Drive (P.U.C. Rule 20A funding) B. Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road to 1-680 (p.U.C. Rule 20A plus City funding) C. Dougherty Road from Southern Pacific right of way to Amador Valley (Developer plus City funding) D. Dublin Boulevard from 1-680 to 600' west of Clark Avenue (P.u.e. Rule 20A funding) Page 2 . v . . Ail of these projects were done as part of other road improvement work. The cost of under grounding private services to commercial buildings or residences that are served overhead at the time undergrounding takes place is an expense that is typically required to be borne by the private property owners. The estimated cost of under grounding a residential service is $1,000 to $1,500. Undergrounding of coinmercial services is dependent upon the extent of the service. There are no overhead services on the Dublin Boulevard, Clark to Sierra segment. Staff recommends that the City Council review the information in this report and provide direction to Staff regarding any changes in undergrounding priorities. . . Page 3 ~, " . '. . ~ ADOPTED POLICY REGARDING PRIORITIES FOR THE UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTlLITIES (June 13, 1983) Commercially fronted streets considered before residential fronted streets because of higher visibility due to commercial setbacks and higher traffic volumes thus affecting more people. Streets with pole lines on two sides of the street be considered before streets with poles on one side of str~et due to the greater reduction in visual pollution. Consideration be given to projects including outside participation such as private developers or assessment districts which would considerably lessen the public cost of the project. Consideration be made where a street is to be widened and the existing overhead utilities will need to be relocated. Review of priorities be made on an annual basis or more often as circumstances warrant. RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES 1. Conunercial Areas More visibility - high traffic use A. San Ramon Road - Dublin Blvd. to Martin Canyon Creek (poles both sides of street and can match timing with widening of roadway). Rule 20A estimated cost $350,000 (total cost with street lights $400,000). B. Dublin Blvd. - San Ramon Road to Golden Gate Drive (poles on both of street and heavy downtown traffic). Rule 20A estimated cost $421,000 (total cost with street lights $463,000). C. Dublin;Blvd. - Golden Gate Drive to 1-680 (poles both sides of street). Rule 20A estimated cost $336,000 (total cost with street lights $372,000). D. Dublin Blvd. - remainder between 1-680 and Dougherty Road E. Dublin Blvd. - San Ramon Road to Silvergate Drive F. Dubliri Court G. Dougherty Road H. Village Parkway - Dublin Blvd. to Amador Valley Blvd. (note that existing overhead lines are already on street light poles). n. Residential Areas Less visibility because oflandscaping and less traffic. More problems with people undergrounding their own overhead services. A. Village Parkway - Amador Valley Blvd. north to City Limit line B. Amador Valley Blvd. - Village Parkway to Stagecoach Road C. San Ramon Road - Amador Valley Blvd. north to City Limit line . , ATIACHr\f~ENT ! - ,; " L~I,j~NU ,/ ./ SAN RAMON ROAD - DUBLIN TO SILVERGATE DUBLIN BLVD. - SAN RAMON TO I-SBO DOUGHERTY ROAD - SPRR TO AMADOR VALLEY DUBLIN BLVD. - 1-680 T:O WEST OF CLARK AVE. ~ . 0 ~~ 0"- 3'" ~ S ... 0 0 q ~ .3 01-' o. ^ 3 N 0 0 q ~ ;:;::: ~. I g /..;;' !!l. /.:; o /.:/ Brya ~ /; ~.(/ p(;' ,(:::. l~ I~ r~... ~ ~!: g, ~ =r o Evans c "'" r- m ;; ::%:J Ave, '. 1\1I A.. P I LC>C:::A.. TIC> N "" Ave ~I ::5.... Cromwell CJ) m .~~ n; len -" r-.J .... =r I~ I:;:~ > - - ATTACHtlJlENT 2t