Anchorage Work Session: Five-Year Undergrounding Plan 2025 Annual Review
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Anchorage Work Session: Five-Year Undergrounding Plan 2025 Annual Review
This work session focused on reviewing the five-year undergrounding plan for the Municipality of Anchorage, presented by Chugach Electric, and discussed the ongoing challenges regarding unremoved utility poles left behind after power line undergrounding. Council members expressed significant concern that legacy telecommunications and other utility poles remain in public rights-of-way, creating safety hazards for pedestrians, with one Member noting that people are forced to walk in the street due to these obstacles. Representatives from Chugach Electric, GCI, and Alaska Communications discussed the prioritization criteria, funding mechanisms, and the lack of legal requirements for non-power utilities to participate in undergrounding. The session concluded with a directive to form a collaborative working group to address safety-specific prioritization and potential code changes.
Consent Calendar
- No routine approvals or unanimous actions were taken during this work session.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Council Member Anna (Position: Critical/Safety Concern): Expressed that the current condition of utility poles in sidewalks poses a fundamental safety threat, stating people are "dying on our streets" because they must walk in the roadway to avoid poles. Highlighted a specific 12-year-old incident on Gamble Street where wheelchair users cannot navigate a six-foot sidewalk due to pole remnants.
- Council Member Aaron (Position: Collaborative/Pro-Efficiency): Stressed the need for better coordination between municipalities and utilities to avoid "tragedy of the commons" scenarios where no single entity owns the problem. Expressed willingness to explore alternative mechanisms to relocate poles where full undergrounding is not immediately feasible.
- Council Member Chris Constantine (Position: Critical/Pro-Transparency): Noted that the current process lacks a prioritization mechanism for critical safety issues that fall outside the standard five-year plan timeline. Expressed frustration that safety hazards remain unresolved for decades simply because the utility poles remain after power lines are buried.
- Trish Baker (Chugach Electric, Position: Informative): Explained that safety is the number one criterion for Chugach's undergrounding selection, but noted that other utilities (telecom) are not legally required to remove their infrastructure after Chugach removes power lines.
- Heather Kavanaugh (Alaska Communications, Position: Supportive): Stated that ACS supports the undergrounding program and has historically exceeded regulatory requirements. Expressed a willingness to collaborate and remove poles if informed of public safety issues, though noted economic constraints compared to undergrounding.
- Todd Schmolly and Lewis Manga (GCI, Position: Supportive/Economic Reality): Acknowledged the desire to participate but highlighted the significant cost difference between overhead construction ($40/foot) and undergrounding ($100/foot). Expressed a need for collaboration to identify cost-effective solutions.
Discussion Items
- Selection Criteria and Prioritization: Chugach Electric outlined their prioritization framework: 1. Safety (code compliance), 2. Relocation dependencies (DOT projects), 3. Load growth, 4. Reliability (tree outages), and 5. Target areas. Council members questioned why specific high-traffic or pedestrian-heavy areas (e.g., Fireweed Drive) were not prioritized over lower-traffic residential subdivisions (e.g., Tinigan Park).
- Coordination with Road Projects: Members expressed frustration over "missed opportunities" where road repaving (e.g., Forest Park Drive) occurred without coordination to underground utilities, resulting in double excavation and road deterioration. Chugach representatives explained that coordination typically happens at the 35-65% design phase of road projects, but gaps in communication or lack of conflicts identified at that stage lead to missed timing.
- The "Stub Pole" Problem: Council members emphasized that while Chugach undergrades power lines, telecom poles often remain. Chugach explained that joint use agreements give telecom providers a window to remove their equipment after Chugach acts, but if they do not, the poles (often deemed "ownerless" by Chugach) remain. No mechanism currently exists for the municipality to force removal of non-power utility poles without a full corridor undergrounding.
- Land Rights and Project Delays: Discussion revealed that the Gamble Street project (listed for 2026) has been in planning since 2010/2019 due to land rights negotiations for pad-mounted equipment in commercial zones. Similarly, the Carlock Street project remains incomplete due to inability to secure easements from private commercial property owners.
- Cost and Feasibility of Relocation: Telecom representatives noted that simply relocating existing overhead poles is cheaper ($40/ft) than undergrounding ($100/ft), suggesting it as an alternative for critical safety locations where full undergrounding is unaffordable or logistically impossible.
- Code and Legislative Solutions: Council Members discussed the need to update municipal code (Title 21) to mandate telecom participation in undergrounding. Legal staff indicated that while they have explored this previously (citing a 2017/2018 RCA complaint resolution), the issue now requires a new economic analysis to determine the cost of a "100-year plan" that includes mandatory telecom undergrounding.
Key Outcomes
- Action Item 1: Deputy Municipal Manager Mark Spafford volunteered to convene a working group including Chugach Electric, GCI, ACS, the Municipality of Anchorage, and DOT to address utility pole safety and coordination.
- Action Item 2: Council members to provide a list of specific high-priority safety locations (e.g., Gamble Street) to staff for tracking and prioritization.
- Action Item 3: Staff to prepare a briefing for the Infrastructure Enterprise Utility Oversight Committee regarding strategies to update municipal code and funding models to require telecom undergrounding.
- Action Item 4: Staff to commission an economic analysis comparing the long-term costs of maintaining the current "stub pole" system versus the cost of requiring telecom undergrounding under a revised 100-year plan.
- Referral: The issue of pedestrian safety due to utility poles was referred to the Transportation Committee and Infrastructure Enterprise Committee for further deliberation on prioritization mechanisms.
Meeting Transcript
Today is recording. Thanks. Now we're recording. All right. So today is Friday, December fifth, twenty twenty-five. We're on the record for a work session regarding the five year plan for two undergrounding. So we'll start with introductions. Christopher Constantine on the phone, Mr. Martinez. So normally we don't operate an agenda-driven work session. We'll hear from ChuGash Electric on their last five years, the next five years. You have before us two documents. One is their slide deck for today, and one is the five-year plan from the time of the transaction and what it includes is uh kind of before and after photographs, which will be very instructive or illustrative for members to understand what why this conversation is important. We'll also invite members from the telecoms to come forward, uh, which is GCI and ACS. I think we have is anyone from GCI here? We do. Awesome. We have GCI. No, we have ACS. And then we'll have a discussion of um kind of what's working, what's not working, and any potential code changes. Is uh Dean coming. Uh he is coming. He's just doing homework. Yeah, understood. Thank you. So okay. So for my part, when the transaction of MLP came up, um, and we were going through that whole process, it became apparent that the North District, the kind of legacy area is at risk for failing to be undergrounded because the um at the time the per linear foot cost of undergrounding in the north in the urban areas is substantially higher than the linear foot costs in the south. And I needed to make sure that those of us who are going to pay for the next hundred years are also receiving some benefit from the undergrounding program. The secondary problem has kind of emerged in the undergrounding conversation, which is the fact that the telecoms aren't required under the law to be participating in the undergrounding. And so what we're ending up with, if you look through the five-year plan is a bunch of stub polls with power lines or utility lines on them. And um, I don't mean to point fingers at the telecoms. It's A, the rules and B, the funding that drive how things are done. And so that's part of the conversation is to understand what happened over the last five years, what is proposed for the next five years and the landscape of potential changes to make sure we actually get undergrounding completed in the century that we've set out to do it in. Um, so with that, then I'll hand it off to Mr. Spofford for a few minutes. Um, Mark Spaper, deputy municipal manager with um you know, per view over the the enterprise and utilities here at the municipality of Anchorage as well as public transit and the safety program. And I just wanted to uh uh thank my friends from the utilities for being here. Um so making the time to talk with us about this important uh topic here in Anchorage. And so without further ado, I'll just um turn it back over to Chris. Thank you. All right. So then what we'll do is invite Chugash like to come forward and let's have a discussion about the undergrounding for the last five in the next five years. Welcome. Seats and microphones. Just please uh state your name uh before you start speaking so the record is clear. Chair, uh Miss Baldwin Day. Thank you. Um Mr. Farina, could could we get these slides in the PDF? Thank you.
openpublica.com