East 2nd project sparks debate on power lines

As of now, utilities will not be placed underground when the City of Whitefish reconstructs a portion of East Second Street, but city council has decided to consider a policy change that could require future city projects to bury utility lines.

Council Feb. 19 split on a vote that would have called for the East Second Street utilities to be placed underground. Councilors Bill Kahle, Chris Hyatt and Phil Mitchell voted in favor, while councilors Richard Hildner, John Anderson and Frank Sweeney voted against. The tie vote resulted in the motion failing because Mayor John Muhlfeld was absent from the meeting and therefore unable to break the tie.

However, at the March 4 council meeting, Kahle again asked councilors to reconsider.

“I don’t think [the topic] was given its proper due,” he said. “I would like it to come back as an agenda item.”

Needing a motion from a councilor on the prevailing side, Sweeney said he was open to revisiting the topic.

The Second Street reconstruction is set to include a bike and pedestrian path alongside a new street that will provide a safe route from town to the public amenities near the Armory and dog park. Work is set to begin in 2014.

The project has been planned to install overhead utilities and the change to underground would add about $280,000. The project is estimated to cost more than $2 million.

Last month, Kahle asked for the council to reconsider the utility placement and examine the city policy. He noted that private developers are required to install underground utilities.

“This is an issue we’re going to face again and again as we do projects around town,” he said. “I think if we expect private developers to do underground utilities that (the city) should follow the same guidelines. When we do a reconstruction project we should follow by that.”

Councilor John Anderson questioned if the city is willing to spend more money for underground utilities.

“I don’t think that underground utilities on East Second Street fit the policy,” he said. “I think a little more thought needs to be put into it rather than just costing the taxpayers more money. I’m OK with the lines overhead.”

Despite his vote against, Councilor Frank Sweeney earlier in the meeting said the cost of underground utilities is worth it for larger projects like East Second Street.

“There is no better opportunity,” he said. “If we are going to put them underground, let’s do it. It’s the right thing to do from an aesthetics and safety perspective. We’re talking about less than 10 percent in the difference of the cost on this project.”

The council vote came about because of a recommendation by the Resort Tax monitoring committee that utilities should be overhead for the Second Street work. Kahle, who serves on the committee, was the only member to vote against overhead lines.

Doug Reed, representing the committee, explained the recommendation against underground.

“We all understand the benefits of burying power, but we decided not to purely because of the cost,” Reed said.

Public works director John Wilson said council several years ago while working on a few reconstruction projects considered putting utilities underground.

“The council decided it was too expensive and since that time we’ve continued to install ours overhead,” he said. “The subdivision regulations refer to new subdivision utilities for private developers. Originally, when the Resort Tax began, there was a huge focus on getting as many streets reconstructed as possible. Overhead utilities weren’t done merely because of cost.”

City Manager Chuck Stearns said underground is encouraged for city projects downtown, but the type of installation has been on a case-by-case basis and no official policy exists.

“If we’re going to extend brand new utilities to raw land they should certainly be underground,” he said. “The question is on a policy basis — do you always want to place them overhead or underground? Realize there is an extra cost for underground.”

Sweeney acknowledged that the cost increases with underground utilities, but said he would like the city to pursue underground in the future.

“We need to put them underground when we have the opportunity with these kinds of reconstruction projects,” he said. “It’s a cost issue and maybe that means we can’t do as many streets.”

Councilor Richard Hildner asked what the committee’s overall thoughts are on burying utilities.

Reed said the committee recognizes the aesthetic and safety benefits to underground and would like that option if the cost were right.

Chris Schustrom added that the decision about East Second Street came because the project is so far along in the design process, but future construction projects should be done with underground utilities. Redesigning the reconstruction at this point for underground would add up to an estimated $12,000 in engineering costs to the project.

Spending more on street reconstruction because of underground utilities could hamper the budget when it comes to construction and maintenance of streets, cautioned Wilson.

“$300,000 is worth about two city blocks of construction,” he said. “Taking more money for some projects means less chip seals and overlays, which is very important for the long-term life of the road. It has an effect because then we have less money for overlays and streets are going to deteriorate.”