At 11:43 PM -0500 6/8/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Does anyone know why it was so critical to only run on 5th
>St? (If this has already been discussed on this list, I'd appreciate being
>directed to those discussions.)
The following doesn't directly answer your question, but it does
answer some questions about that whole law suit thing. It was posted
to MN-Transit, the Minnesota E-Democracy Session Topic list on
Transportation issues. Maybe you've see it before.
I've asked your specific question to that same list and will share
the answer if and when I get it.
Tim Erickson
St. Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
Provided by:
Dayna Kennedy
Communications Manager
Metro Transit/Hiawatha Line
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Utility Relocation Questions and Answers
2/26/01
Why is the Hiawatha Line being sued by Xcel?
In Minnesota, private utilities are allowed to build within a public
right of way (ROW) at no cost. They can maintain their utilities on
those properties for decades, as Xcel has since the 1930s, at no
cost. But, when that ROW is needed for a public use, the private
utility must bear the cost of relocating.
Private utilities need to recognize the value of being allowed to
locate in the Public's Right of Way (ROW) at no cost to them. It
would cost them billions of dollars to either purchase or lease the
real estate necessary to deliver their service.
In the case of the Xcel lawsuit, the issue is not about Light Rail.
This is another attempt in a long series of attempts by private
utilities to find a way to be compensated for relocation costs in
opposition to a law that has been upheld by the US Supreme court
since 1905.
Utilities have pursued this issue for years and are continuing to do
that now. The Hiawatha Light Rail Transit issue is being used to take
advantage of the pressure of time. It is clear that the project is on
a tight timeline. The utilities are using the threat of a delay to
try to get what they would otherwise not get.
This is about an attempt to get the public to cover what should be
and is a reasonable cost of doing business. They are taking advantage
of a situation for the gain of increasing their profits.
Unfortunately, it is the public who loses.
Didn't Anybody Think About the Utilities Issues Until This Month? The
Hiawatha Project Office has been working closely with Xcel, Qwest and
numerous other utility companies for several years.
In the case of Xcel, a letter of intent was signed August 18, 2000 by
Kent Larson, State Vice President of what was then known as Northern
States Power (NSP), Elwyn Tinklenberg, Commissioner, Minnesota
Department of Transportation and Garry Higdem, Vice President of
Minnesota Transit Constructors. The following excerpt indicates their
agreement to pay for relocation costs:
"In order to achieve the lowest possible cost for this work, Mn/DOT
has conceptually agreed to include the construction of the new
concrete manholes and duct banks in the Design/Build (D/B) contract
for Light Rail Transit (LRT) construction. The strategy is for the
D/B contractor to construct the concrete duct banks and manholes and
be compensated through the D/B contract by Mn/DOT. NSP will then
reimburse Mn/DOT for the expenses incurred for this work. NSP will be
responsible for performing the electrical cabling installation in the
new structures. Under this premise, the D/B contractor retains
control of the schedule in performing its work."
Qwest had been working cooperatively with our staff members up until
Tuesday. In fact, as recently as February 8th, Qwest was submitting
permit applications from the Hiawatha Project Office and MnDOT with
the goal of beginning utility relocation in early March.
What did Qwest Pay for when Denver's Light Rail was Built? In Denver,
where Qwest is headquartered, the private utilities in the Public's
Right of Way by franchise agreement or by permit relocated their
utilities at their own cost. CDOT confirmed that the LRT project did
not pay for utility relocation in construction of their LRT line.
Around the country, it is not unusual for private utility companies
to pay utility relocation on Public projects. While it is true that
in some states it is possible for utility relocation to be included
in a project cost, that is not the case in Minnesota.
What is the Law in Minnesota?
Minnesota State Statute is clear in establishing the Commissioner's
authority to require private utilities to relocate at their expense.
MS 174.35 says " the commissioner of transportation may exercise the
powers granted in this chapter and chapter 473, as necessary, to
plan, design, acquire, construct, and equip light rail transit
facilities in the metropolitan area as defined in section 473.121,
subdivision 2". It is within MS 174.06 where all of the
Commissioner's authority, including utility relocation, is
transferred from MS 161 to be included in the establishment of the
Department of Transportation. The only challenge to this authority in
Minnesota was in a case where NSP sued the city of Oakdale over
utility relocation. The court determined very clearly that the city,
acting in it's capacity as an agent with delegated sovereign
authority from the state was acting appropriately by ordering the
relocation of NSP's utility at the owner's expense.
Mn/DOT and Xcel
Months ago, Mn/DOT offered to go with Xcel before a court of law and
allow a judge to settle the issue of who pays the relocation costs of
private utilities that are located in a public right of way. Xcel
refused. This decision points to the fact that this issue is not
about Light Rail Transit. If Xcel thought their case would win over
current state law, they would have agreed to go to a court of law
rather than sue us. With Xcel's February 16, 2001 lawsuit, it now
appears that Xcel is trying to use the threat of a delay for the
project to get what they want.
More Minnesota State Background
If public agencies were to absorb the cost of utility relocation this
would cost the taxpayers upwards of an additional $100 million
annually added on to highway and transit projects.
In an environment where the public is already telling us that we are
not spending enough to reduce congestion these private utilities are
expecting that those transportation dollars be stretched even further
by reimbursing them for an expense that any other private entity
would call a reasonable cost of doing business. It is unreasonable to
expect that the public should subsidize operations in order to drive
up a corporation's profits.
Relocation Background
The private utility relocation plans include system, access and
capacity improvements and are not just relocation costs.
Both Qwest and Xcel have included significant improvements in their
relocation plans allowing them to add more capacity to their system,
make access easier, maintenance less costly and extend the life of
their infrastructure. In other words----these enhancements will
further improve their ability to increase profits. Again, is it
reasonable for private utilities to expect that the public should
subsidize their operations by covering these costs?
The private utility companies seem to feel that their operations
should be subsidized at the expense of an important project that the
public will benefit from.
Doesn't it Sound Like Xcel and Qwest are Using Scare Tactics? The
utilities have attempted to frighten the public with inaccurate costs
estimates. The utilities have consistently overestimated the costs of
utility relocation.
They have even gone so far as to suggest publicly that relocation for
Xcel alone just on 5th street would be in excess of $100M and for
Qwest $50 Million. Mn/DOT's utility coordination consultant reported
this figure was actually in the neighborhood of $8--$12 for all LRT
caused private utility relocations on 5th street. They further
attempt to create fear by suggesting rate increases would have to be
initiated in order to cover these grossly exaggerated costs. Let's
ask the question---if the cost for utility relocation is included in
the project---will utility rates go down to reflect the decrease in
the capital costs that will no longer need to be budgeted for by the
private utilities for relocation and future system enhancements?
Both Quest and Xcel also stand to gain from the operation of LRT. LRT
will generate about $1million annually in electrical usage alone-not
to mention the economic development that is projected to occur in
that corridor. This means growth in the need for electrical, phone
and transmission services.
--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tim Erickson http://www.politalk.com
St. Paul, MN - USA 651-643-0722
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 105978430
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
