Public Works Committee

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE MARCH 24, 2015, 6:30 P.M., TERRACE ROOM The Public Works Committee of the Village of Northbrook Board of Trustees will hold a meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the Terrace Room of the Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, Northbrook, Illinois. The following will be discussed. MEETING AGENDA Please note: A light dinner will be provided for Board Members and Staff 1. Call To Order 2. Hear From The Audience 3. Review and Discussion of Subdivision & Development Code Requirement for Burial of Overhead Lines ATTACHMENTS:  Cover Memo  Overhead Utility Fee Memo  Ordinance Regarding Burial of Utility Lines in the Industrial District  May 24, 2005 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes  Montessori Covenant for Burial Fee  Countryside Montessori Utilities Letter  November 26, 2012 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting Minutes  Map of Overhead wires as of March 2015  Map of Properties with Waivers  Intersection Photos  Article Regarding Power Outages and Burying Utility Lines 4. Adjourn Todd Heller, Chair Public Works Committee Members: Trustee Buehler Trustee Israel Village of Northbrook Cook County, Illinois March 24, 2015 The Village of Northbrook is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of this meeting or the facilities, are requested to contact Greg Van Dahm or Debbie Ford (664- 4014 or 4013respectively) promptly to allow the Village of Northbrook to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Hearing impaired individuals may call the TDD number, 564-8645, for more information.  DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING SERVICES TO: RICHARD NAHRSTADT, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: THOMAS POUPARD, DIRECTOR OF DPS DATE: MARCH 19, 2015 SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REVIEW POLICIES FOR REQUIRING A FEE IN LIEU OF BURYING OVERHEAD WIRES The Public Works Committee of the Board of Trustees will meet on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 to discuss the current policy and procedures related to the requirement that developers of subdivisions must bury any and all overhead utility lines. The Subdivision Code allows the Board of Trustees to waive the requirement that utility lines be buried; however, in 2001 the Code was amended to allow the Village to collect a fee in lieu for granting such a waiver. The current Annual Fee Ordinance sets the fee in lieu of burying overhead lines at $100 per linear foot of utility line. The Subdivision Code was further amended in 2005 to not require the burial of existing overhead wires in Industrial areas, unless the property is adjacent to a residential area. We have attached some background reports and meeting minutes related to the establishment of the fee and the decision to eliminate the requirement for industrial properties. The funds collected through the waivers are kept in a separate Utility Burial Account and are used by the Village if and when we have capital projects that involve the burial of overhead wires. The last major Village project involving the burial of overhead wires was competed in the downtown as part of the comprehensive streetscape improvement project; which was completed before establishment of the fee. Since establishing the fee, the Village has collected $344,250. To date, we have spent approximately $30,400 to complete three small burial projects on Highland, Western, and Willow Road. The present balance is $313,850. The cost to bury overhead wires varies widely depending on the number of utilities on the pole (electric, cable, telephone, etc.). ComEd estimates that the average cost of burying wires along a major roadway will be $2.6 million per mile (or almost $500/lineal foot). Burying other overhead utilities (cable, telephone, communications, etc.) will add another $175,000/mile (or approximately $33/lineal foot) per company. These costs are approximate and do not account for any unusual circumstances or any costs associated with acquiring right-of-way or utility easements. The Village fee in lieu of $100/foot will cover only a fraction of the expected costs of burying overhead wires. It can be very expensive for a property with an extensive amount of frontage to bury the overhead wires along the road. A case in point was the Countryside Montessori School project at the corner of Pfingsten and Techny Roads. The Board may recall that the Village granted a waiver of the requirement to bury the 582 feet of overhead utility lines along Pfingsten Road, but deferred any payment of the fee until either: (a) sale of the Montessori School property; or (b) there is a change in the use from a private elementary school. The fee in lieu would have been $58,200 ($100 X 582 feet). We have attached a copy of the restrictive covenant related to the utility line waiver, as well as the minutes form the Planning & Zoning Committee meeting when the matter was discussed. Page 1 We have prepared a map that shows the general location of overhead wires along major roadways, most of which are under the jurisdiction of Cook County or the Illinois Department of Transportation. This does not show the wires along smaller streets or those wires located in side or rear yards. The map illustrates those corridors and intersections where we still have a concentration of overhead wires, such as Techny/Shermer and Dundee/Pfingsten. We have also included some street views of those intersections. In addition, we have prepared a map that shows the locations of properties that received a waiver of the burial requirement. At the March 24 meeting, staff will be seeking guidance from the Committee on the following: 1. Should we alter our current policy of requiring a $100/foot payment of a fee in lieu? 2. If we continue to collect the fee, should we begin to identify areas where we want to use the funds collected to bury wires as part of a Village capital project? Staff from Public Works and Development & Planning Services will both be in attendance for the Committee meeting to make an introductory presentation and to answer questions. Page 2  ORDINANCE NO. 05-29 BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Northbrook, County of Cook and State of Illinois THAT: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NORTHBROOK SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT CODE (1991), AS AMENDED, REGARDING BURIAL OF UTILITY LINES be and is hereby adopted as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND Subject to certain exemptions, Paragraph 4-104 F1 of the Northbrook Subdivision and Development Code (1991), as amended, (“Subdivision Code”) requires the burial of all utilities, or the payment of a fee-in-lieu, for developments and subdivisions subject to the jurisdiction of the Subdivision Code. The burial of utilities improves the aesthetic quality of the Village while imposing costs on the developers and subdividers required to bury the utilities or otherwise pay the fee-in-lieu. The President and Board of Trustees have determined that it is in the best interest of the public and the Village to approve an amendment to the Subdivision Code waiving the requirement for developers and subdividers to bury utility lines, or pay a fee-in- lieu, in certain industrial areas of the Village. The amendment set forth in this Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the Village's home rule powers. Section 2. AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION CODE Paragraph 4-104 F2 of the Subdivision Code is hereby amended by adding a new subparagraph (e) as follows: (e) Utilities, as defined in this Code, located on land in an I-1 Restricted Industrial District or I-2 Light Industrial District under the Zoning Code are not required to be installed underground except when the utility is located on land that is across the right-of-way from or adjacent to land in a residential district under the Zoning Code. Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect following its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner required by law. PASSED: This 24th day of May, 2005. AYES: (7) Trustees Frum, Karagianis, Buehler, Scolaro, Heller, Kole and President Marks NAYS: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0) /s/ Eugene Marks Village President ATTEST: /s/ Debra J. Ford Village Clerk  EXCERPT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK MAY 24, 2005 Village President Marks called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. On roll call, those present were: Trustees Frum, Karagianis, Buehler, Scolaro, Heller, Kole and President Marks (7). Absent: (0). The Clerk announced that a quorum was present. Public Works Committee Trustee Scolaro introduced Ordinance No. 05-29. He explained that the Board has a choice of approving the payment of a fee in lieu of burying existing overhead utility lines at 1852-1908 Janke Drive by resolution or amending the Subdivision and Development Code to exempt industrial zoned properties from the utility line burial requirement code by ordinance. Village Manager Novinson clarified by stating the amendment is limited to industrial properties not abutting residential property. The issue is whether this assessment is a discouragement to building expansion projects. This would encourage industrial businesses to expand and improve their facilities. Trustee Scolaro stated he is in favor of amending the code by ordinance on industrial properties not abutting residential properties, seconded by Trustee Buehler Trustee Heller asked about the basis for burying the lines and Village Manager Novinson stated the option to pay a fee in lieu of burial was introduced four years ago. Trustee Heller questioned if it is strictly for aesthetics. Village Manager Novinson stated that was the key research. Burying the lines also improves reliability, but the time it takes to repair underground lines is substantially longer than repair of overhead lines Trustee Scolaro stated also received a letter from Chamber of Commerce President Tensley Garris stating her support. Trustee Heller asked if the purpose has some economic advantages. He stated he is trying to understand the justification for burying the lines in commercial areas. Village Manager Novinson stated there is evidence of an increase in property values related to residential property. He stated that in new industrial areas it is common practice to bury the lines. It is difficult to show a similar benefit in industrial areas. Trustee Heller asked how much money would be lost if we go with Trustee Scolaro’s recommendation to exempt industrial properties. Village Engineer Kendzior stated this is the only one in four years. We are talking about approximately $27,500 for this particular instance. Trustee Scolaro moved, seconded by Trustee Buehler, To amend the Amending the Subdivision and Development Code to exempt industrial zoned properties from the utility line burial requirement. On roll call, voting Aye were: Trustees Frum, Karagianis, Buehler, Scolaro, Heller, Kole and President Marks (7). Nay: None. The motion carried. October 30, 2012 Ms. Michaela Mitchell Kohlstedt Senior Planner Village of Northbrook 1225 Cedar Lane Northbrook, IL 60062 RE: Countryside Montessori School Dear Michaela: Please accept this letter as our request to have the Village Board of Trustees reconsider our request for a waiver of the Subdivision and Development Code requirement to bury overhead utility lines and a waiver to pay a fee-in-lieu of burial of the overhead utility lines. As you may be aware, there are overhead utility lines along Pfingsten Road from Willow Road to approximately ½ mile north of Dundee Road, a distance of approximately 2.7 miles. Most, if not all, other properties within the Village of Northbrook along Pfingsten have been developed and it is unlikely that they will come under the purview of the Subdivision and Development Code and require the overhead utility lines to be buried. Therefore, if we are required to bury those utility lines along the approximately 600 foot boundary of our property along Pfingsten Road, those will be the only underground utility lines buried along that 2.7 mile stretch of Pfingsten. The comments made by the Plan Commission were to the effect of “you have to start some place”; however, it would seem that starting with Countryside’s property would not only be the beginning of burying overhead utility lines along Pfingsten, but more than likely the end of that endeavor as well. We have spoken with ComEd and we were provided a rough estimate of approximately $250,000.00 to bury its lines for the length of our property. Comcast was unable to provide an estimate, however, they indicated it would be relatively expensive given the lack of room and the requirement that they maintain a certain distance from the ComEd power lines. We have also attempted to contact AT&T regarding its lines, however, we have been unable to talk with the appropriate person. The individual from Comcast indicated that the AT&T lines are fiber and those lines would be fairly expensive to bury. Given the unlikelihood that any other overhead 14942\00001\1262453.1 Ms. Michaela Mitchell Kohlstedt October 30, 2012 Page 2 utility lines either north or south of our property will ever be buried, spending in excess of $250,000.00 to bury those utility lines at this point in time does not seem to be a reasonable use of anyone’s money. We have also discussed the payment of the in-lieu fees with the Village Planning Staff and while we understand that would be less expensive than actually burying the lines, Countryside Montessori School is a not-for-profit entity and the cost of the in-lieu fees will substantially impact our ability to implement the plan for the school campus that we have proposed, to the extent that we would have to undertake significant redesign measures. We are therefore once again requesting that the Board of Trustees waive the provisions of the Subdivision and Development Code requiring the burial of overhead utility lines and a waiver of the fee-in-lieu in connection with our proposed project. Very truly yours, Countryside Montessori School By: Wendy Calise, Head of School Error! Bookmark not defined.  Approved MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS NOVEMBER 26, 2012 Chairman Karagianis called the meeting to order in the Terrace Room of the Village Hall at 7:05 PM. On roll call, present were: Trustees Buehler and Heller and Chairman Karagianis; also present: President Frum, Director of Development & Planning Services T. Poupard, Assistant Director of Development & Planning Services D. Schoon, Senior Planner M. Kohlstedt, Village Attorney S. Weiss and Village Clerk D Ford. Call to Order Hear from the Audience None Discussion: Docket No. 12-16: 1945 – 1985 Pfingsten – Countryside Montessori School Expansion Senior Planner Michaela Kohlstedt opened with a brief overview on the proposed development that included a history of the development to date. She reviewed the scale of the proposed building expansion in relation to the existing building on the subject property and the waiver of the burial of overhead utility lines, as well as the waiver of payment of the fee-in-lieu of burial. Planner Kohlstedt explained the applicant is still requesting a waiver of payment of the fee in lieu of burial. Senior Planner Kohlstedt reviewed the Village’s history with burial-in-lieu, how many applicants have paid since 2000 and what funds are currently maintained in the escrow account to date. Tom Dobbins, Dobbins Group, presented a “neighborhood massing model” for the Trustees to see. Alex Vaysman, Dobbins Group, showed five views of the proposed site via the massing model. Trustee Buehler questioned the materials the fence was made of and Mr. Dobbins stated it was a stockade fence. The Trustees asked a number of questions on the proposed development. Trustees Heller and Karagianis noted their approval. Trustee Karagianis asked if the middle house would remain as residency and Wendy Calise, representative of Countryside Montessori, replied yes the founders of the school would continue to live in it. She explained they take care of the grounds. The house was there before the school was. Trustee Karagianis asked what would happen when the residents leaves? Trustee Buehler pointed out the school would own the house. Ms. Calise stated the plan now is to keep the house as a residence. Trustee Heller questioned if the Village has an agreement in place for this residency? Director Poupard stated language could be included in the Special Permit. The Commission discussed, noting they do not want it to become a boarding home in the future. Trustee Buehler had questions on the height and asked the applicant to discuss the trees on the property. He asked if the building would have any solar benefits and Wendy stated no. All of the Trustees noted they find the bulk and scale of the development appropriate; however, they all had comments on the issue of the fee in lieu. Trustee Heller gave the opinion that he did not want to break from precedent, from what was done in past. He noted Montessori’s concern with a restrictive covenant in place for the owed fees if they decide to sell the property in the future. He suggested they just pay the fees now then it is not an issue in the future. Trustee Heller stated enough has been done. Mr. Schoon stated the fee has been waived only once for the synagogue at Willow and Landwehr roads. 1 Trustee Buehler suggested having the school pay the fee-in-lieu if they sell to anyone other than a not- for-profit organization. President Frum stated she agreed with Trustee Buehler. Trustee Karagianis agreed to waive the fee now. When the Village collects the fee is up to the applicant; however, the fee is the fee, no matter when they pay it. Attorney Stewart Weiss questioned what should the fee amount be if the applicant does sell the property. In response, Trustee Karagianis stated they can pay the going rate when they decide to pay or at the time of sale. Attorney Weiss clarified that the proposal would be that the school would not be obligated to pay the fee while the current owner holds title. Trustee Karagianis commented that there is presently money in the escrow account the Village has not used. He stated the Village should use the collected funds; not have a fee in lieu and forget about the funds. Attorney Weiss explained fee in lieu is not tied to the specific property paying the fee in lieu. They then discussed the fees collected. President Frum noted any change to the current procedure is a policy discussion, which may require further discussion later with the Public Works Committee. Planner Kohlstedt noted sometimes the funds are used piece meal for other projects. Director Poupard clarified the funds are used to help supplement other projects. Presently nothing is programmed. Trustee Karagianis stated he did not want to cut the funding source. He stated it is not fair to others who have paid and any policy change has to be approved by a majority of the Board. Ms. Calise asked the Trustees for consideration. She stated this is a 45-year old not-for-profit business and questioned if now was the time to change precedent. Trustee Karagianis stated there is no precedent. Ms. Calise noted the financial burden paying the fee-in-lieu would cause the school. Trustee Karagianis explained they are not pushing them to pay it now, it will be an encumbrance, but he will not vote to waive it. Trustee Buehler noted his concerns with them paying now. Trustee Heller stated he agreed with Trustee Karagianis, so the recommendation of the committee is not to waive the fee in lieu. He stated Staff and the Board can work on coming up with a policy for deferring and a triggering methodology. Trustee Buehler suggested waiving the fee for the existing use and deferring until the property is sold to another entity so that then they can come back in and appeal. Trustee Karagianis stated he understood, but any policy decision has to first be approved by the Board. Trustee Buehler noted the applicant is asking for something now, and we don’t have a policy. If they can defer until the time they sell the entity, they can at that time make a case. This would allow staff to come up with a policy similar to what we have discussed. Trustee Karagianis stated the fee-in-lieu can be waived for a period of time, and let Montessori recover to pay for it later. President Frum and Trustee Buehler stated they would like to see the fee tied to the sale. It is cleaner. Trustee Heller suggested deferring the payment to the time of sale or any major change in character in the use of the property. Trustee Karagianis agreed. Attorney Weiss clarified the fee-in-lieu will be in the form of a restrictive covenant. Payment of the fee will be what it is at that time of sale or a significant change in the use of the property. If sold, the new owner would have the ability to come and appeal the fee. Discussion: Next Steps for the Proposed Timbers Edge Development Site Located at 3895, 3925, & 3955 Dundee Road Assistant Director Schoon gave a brief overview of the development site as outlined in the staff report. He reminded the Trustees of the tree removal done on the site in which there was much discussion when the third extension was granted. He stated the Applicant worked with staff to replant some trees on the site and a letter of credit was provided to guarantee the planting of additional trees in the future. If the applicant does not install the trees by May, the Village can cash in the letter of credit. Mr. Schoon noted the Developer wants to speak about the state of the market for the types of homes needed. They have indicated they would like to explore other options. Given the challenges the Applicant is facing the 2 Applicant is seeking direction regarding possible ways to proceed with future redevelopment of the site. Mr. Schoon noted Danny Zivin and Steve Friedman are present to address the committee. Trustee Buehler first questioned how the trees on the site are doing with the drought this year? He noted that if they fail that is the first issue that will come to the Board. In response, Mr. Zivin stated they are doing fine as far as he knows; however, he has not recently checked the viability of the trees. Trustee Heller stated as far as what type of residential development consistent with the R-4 zoning would be appropriate on this site; he felt it was not their call. He clarified it is different if an Applicant comes in with a proposal that is too dense. He stated you have to come to us with ideas. He doesn’t want to tell the Applicant, as a developer, what to develop. President Frum explained Mr. Zivin and Friedman previously asked to meet with her and staff. It was stated at this meeting the market is not supporting the approved development plan, and it was felt it was a good time for the applicant to come back to this group to see how they should move forward. Mr. Zivin stated they had hoped when they purchased the site in foreclosure they would make money with the prices they anticipated to sell the lots for. Now it is not possible. They are trying to figure out what to put there. They have spent a lot of time marketing the property, but they have run across a few issues. The underground vault is an issue; it is cost prohibited - close to $1M. With the cost of the land, the vault, etc., it has put us $200,000 away from the estimated market price we anticipated for each home proposed. Mr. Zivin explained they thought of lowering the asking price for the homes, but they have found they can’t even do that. Mr. Zivin stated they don’t feel it is a good idea to keep the site empty. They would like the site to be a viable part of Northbrook. Mr. Zivin explained he spoke to Tracy Cross marketing consultant firm. An analysis showed a demand in this market towards the empty nester, with a cost per unit of approximately $400,000, would do very well. He stated there are a lot of people in this area that would buy for that amount, in compared to Royal Ridge or the Cotswolds, which started out in the mid $800,000. Mr. Zivin explained they have only had one day to discuss the details. He explained the Board liked KZF’s earlier proposal, but noted they would like something less dense. He noted they were not aware of the cost of the underground vault then. Mr. Zivin explained he asked a handful of people for their input. In response they stated they like smaller detached single family units or duplex units, which are more cost effective. He showed a diagram of the Carlyle Development. He stated duplex units appear visually less dense from a structure point. You can build 10 buildings and get 20 units. Mr. Zivin stated a duplex, at Meadow Ridge is typically 75 feet. He pointed out some people do not even realize the homes in Royal Ridge are mixed family. Mr. Zivin stated they are trying to get it up to 20 units to make it price effective. President Frum explained to the Committee they are not looking for them to approve the concept tonight. She stated her question is the R4 zoning expires this year and would they allow another extension of the existing tentative plat and zoning approvals in order to provide the Applicant time to pursue an alternative development on the site? Mr. Zivin noted the financial ramifications he is facing with his investors. The Committee discussed the letter of credit for the trees, the R-4 Zoning and a possible Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the site. Trustee Karagianis stated he thought most people who downsize are not looking at $1M homes. If the price is lower and the master bedroom is on the main floor they will sell out. Mr. Zivin stated the development will stay zoned R-4, but it would likely be a PUD. Trustee Karagianis stated he did not have a problem with an extension, and Trustee Heller agreed. Trustee Karagianis agreed the market is not feasible for the development that was originally proposed. Trustee Buehler stated he did not mind looking at an alternative plan; however, no matter what comes in he does not want the asking for a waiver of school fees. President Frum stated she would like the units to 3 have the appearance of single family homes. Trustee Buehler discussed with Director Poupard what would happen if the extension is granted and the applicant changes the plans down the road. President Frum asked that the applicant keep the property maintained so there are not complaints. Mr. Zivin explained he obtained a permit to put up a fence, but he held off doing it to avoid conflict with the neighbors. He questioned if they should move forward with fence? It was suggested he hold off on the fence for now. If need be, he can put it up later. Trustee Karagianis stated the committee will recommend approving an extension for one year and removing the letter of credit, in exchange of the developer putting up the cash. Discussion: Status of Development & Planning Services Department Code Initiatives. Director Poupard stated he just wanted to give the Committee a status on updating the Zoning Code. He stated the Development and Planning Services Department is presently working on a number of initiatives. It is their intention to make it a priority after the first of the year. DPS is looking at initiating a whole range of other changes also, for example storm drainage improvements, etc. In the spring staff will be working with the Board to prioritize the changes. President Frum noted the two major developments that are being proposed and the need to prioritize these two new developments if/when they come in. Adjourn Trustee Heller moved, seconded by Trustee Buehler to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 PM. 4  RID GE REE LAKE COOK COUNTY LINE NORTHBROOK EXET AVON HUEHL ER SPRU CE PINE T PAMELLA LEE COTTONWOOD T RE PHYLLIS U VE LN WILLIAMSBURG RE O LINDENW WOODHEAD MACARTHUR SK A OOD TE W TA ELM KIE HUEHL ANTIQUE -I S COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL OAKWOOD FOREST VIEW TR MARIA RA E XPY MORRISON BERNAY MP EDENS ACADEMY SUNSET LINDBERG SORREL I IC ANTHONY NR DUNSTEN PICARDY BORD EAUX GREENWOOD HELEN TR A HE LEE COTS ALICE WOLD IL BRITTANY BACH FIRE H SAR S A DUNDEE SANDER DUNDEE S PALM CANYON EN FAIR BIG OAK ED Y O TIMBER YORK SK D OW SURREY PO ACOR N E E DA U TON PEACHTR N CE WA SUT MEA KIE SHABONEE TRAIL TRI-STATE Y R GA ASH KE WA MID RUTGERS WESTERN A CRABTREE KIEST MEDFORD GLENOAK DONEGAL N CAYUG SHANNON HILLSIDE GREENBRIAR GREENACRE D CHERRY AP LEE ELL WENDY EL RUSSETT HIGH POINT BRIARWOOD RADCLIFFE HICKORY CH CEDAR HOLLY HERITAGE LINDEN CENTER T ATE FIRS WILLOW GRANT TRI-ST WALTERS DANIEL WALTERS PARK ORCH ARD ELM ELM CHURCH MAPLE MAPLE COUNTRY ALLEY ER ARBOR WELL FOREST TRAIL RIVER FALLS OAK OAK TERRI-LYN ILLINOIS KEYSTONE ILLINOIS VOLTZ MISSION HILLS WOODLAWN LANDWEHR SUNNYSIDE SU CARTER PFINGSTEN KOEPKE ZA VO SUNSET RIDGE FARNSWORTH PRAIRIE N IDE LTZ HOLLY N TS BRAES ANE S IVY BIRCH DEHNE ED EN R STANLEY PENFOLD T HE LAKESIDE OLD HUNT CENTRAL ITH HEA JESSICA SM MULBERRY PENSIVE SHERMER TIMBERLANE POST TECHNY SUNSET SECOND I SH MAPLE L WA OLD MIL GREENVIEW FOXGLOVE JANKE S OLD FARM SANDER U NG TE LONGMEADOW FO WHITE OAK TA FLORAL TO N IS RAYMOND P HAP ND TR WHIRLAWAY VER S OLI ER MANOR O SHERMAN COUN TRY WO E ANNE RIDG DORIANN ED AM BRIAR VALENC D UNNAMED PRINCE IA N HIGHLAND HIGHLAND UN SALCEDA WILLOW WILLOW TRISTATE BRIAN QUAIL YAL E HOLSTE © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Legend Overhead Wires on Major Roads Northbrook Limits Location of Existing Overhead Wires Along Major Roads in Northbrook (March 2015) 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 ° 2 Miles Developments Receiving a Waiver of the Overhead Utility Burial Requirement Dundee & Pfingsten Intersection Techny & Shermer Intersection Lake Cook & Sanders Today in Energy July 25, 2012 Power outages often spur questions around burying power lines Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Edison Electric Institute, Out of Sight, Out of Mind Revisited, December 2009. Extended power outages in the aftermath of a large storm or hurricane often result in discussions around burying local power lines to prevent storm­related outages. Calls for "undergrounding" are common from customers, elected officials, and sometimes state utility commissions. However, undergrounding is costly and the decisions are complex. The cost of underground power lines is significant—up to five to ten times more than overhead distribution lines. And converting existing overhead lines includes the added cost of dismantling the overhead system. Life cycle costs of underground lines are further increased due to a shorter useful life and higher repair and replacement costs. However, power outages are also costly for our electricity­dependent society—loss of revenue to businesses forced to shut down, costs to families throwing out spoiled food or providing their own power with home generators. And for power outages during extreme weather, such as the recent Mid­Atlantic/Northeast heat wave, extreme discomfort and health consequences are a further concern. The cost ranges shown for undergrounding represent wide variation around a number of factors, including customer density (urban vs. rural), labor costs, and the type of ground—consider Colorado's granite bedrock, or Florida's high water table. Each construction project is unique and costs from one utility's study may not be easily comparable with another. The chart above shows the cost to the utility, which may or may not flow through to consumers in its entirety. For example a regulated utility may not be allowed to transfer all of the costs to their customers' electricity bills. Or, a municipality might provide funds, land, or materials for the project, avoiding costs transferred directly to consumers. If individuals want their own connections put underground, they are typically responsible for the cost. The effect of undergrounding on a customer's utility bill depends on the characteristics of each unique project. A few examples show a range of effects: A 2010 study assessing undergrounding options requested by the District of Columbia Public Utility Commission noted that burying all overhead equipment would cost $5.8 billion. A local utility official later stated this would add $226 to the average monthly bill over 10 years, or $107 per month for 30 years.  After a series of storms, North Carolina investigated the costs of undergrounding the state's distribution infrastructure and found it would raise electric rates by over 125%. Anaheim, California, decided to completely convert its system for aesthetic reasons. To minimize the impact on customer bills, undergrounding is taking place slowly over a period of 50 years, funded by a 4% surcharge on electric bills. Despite the cost, underground power lines are often found in urban areas, where the density of the required overhead wire would cause significant obstructions. Also, nearly all new residential and commercial developments have underground utility infrastructure, often required by law for aesthetic reasons. This is often the least expensive type of undergrounding project, as undergrounding costs are reduced when earthmoving equipment is already being used to prepare a building site. Overall, roughly 18% of distribution line mileage is underground, according to the Edison Electric Institute's 2009 update of the Out of Sight, Out of Mind study on underground circuits. On the transmission system, 0.5% of line mileage of 200 kilovolts or higher capacity is underground. Buried power lines are protected from the wind, ice, and tree damage that are common causes of outages, and so suffer fewer weather or vegetation­related outages. But buried lines are more vulnerable to flooding, and can still fail due to equipment issues or lightning. Problems with underground lines are harder to locate and repair. Underground distribution circuits are typically still linked to aboveground facilities, such as substations and transmission lines, so homes and buildings served by underground infrastructure will not necessarily be spared in the event of system­wide outages from a major storm. Undergrounding an entire power system is considered cost prohibitive. More commonly, a utility will study undergrounding a few key circuits. This is compared against other options for preventing outages, such as "hardening" the system with protective equipment at vulnerable points, taking a more aggressive approach to vegetation management, improving the system design, or implementing new technology. Smart grid technology, which would allow a utility to pinpoint problems, divert power through other circuits to minimize outages, and optimize crew deployments is another potential approach to reducing outages.