Laserfiche WebLink
MAR 171982 <br />anuary 21, 1932 <br />Comm`s sioner Bill Wodtke <br />I :dian ?sive. County board of <br />Co-mmiss ione rs <br />Post 'Office. Box 3 <br />Vee o Boach, rL 32961 <br />Lear. Cor..LLissi.oner Wodt_ke: <br />gin=:• `t�^.:i.:a.'. et�.� r .:r,�.'1 '5/d�E � X.g^ ' • <br />.* <br />FL0F:IDA P , LIGE$ <br />T,°,R JOK <br />Air. Dennis Gentile of the County Engineering Department has requested, <br />in your behalf, the reasoning for locating an electrical feeder line <br />along Si -f 21 Street in Vero Beach highlands. I am very much z::ara that <br />our customers along SW 21 Street are objecting to having the pole line <br />relocated directly in front of their property. Their uranin question <br />was: :'+ny wasn't the existing pole line used or an alternative route <br />found? =I hope to arMwer their question. <br />Because of increasing electrical demand in Indian Ri-ver County, Florida <br />rower & Light Company needed to increase feeder capacity and rel--c-bility <br />in the sero Beach Highlands - US 1 area. This required iracreasing the <br />anaacity of the existing feeder along SW 21 Street from Su -rise Drive <br />to SW 1 Avenue. The existing feeder line was located on the south side <br />of S,•1 21 Street in unplatted, private property unsecured by a recorded <br />eas-zmr nt. <br />The most important tactors to consider in routing an ove.!:cad feeder <br />line are: accessibility for maintenance, initial cost, future <br />maintenance costs, probability of future relocation, and v; ;dant <br />impact on existing customers. There were five alternative for <br />the feeder capacity. <br />1) _Reconductor the existing line in place; <br />2) F.eroute the lire to SW 27 ?lace; <br />3) Reroute the line to rear easemept of Siff 21 Street; <br />4) Install underground feeder; <br />S) Reroute the line to the north side of SW 21 Street. <br />Alternative #1 was not chosen because the existing pole lisle ::as; not <br />in easement or public right-of-way, and the line would <br />have to be rebuilt energized at premium Inbor costs. <br />ti'r:lative V. Was not ChOSer .be:ause it Would require addlt__onal poles. <br />anchors, and coni!Llctl.'s; 1t would place a po'_e: 11-.'! <br />a street that, at t:lr_' present, dee;; not :l:i'Je a 1)C is <br />and it would require c}:tonsive- rebtAld'ing of rhe <br />lines. <br />..%ti:rna-'.vo i1.3 Was not caosen because It would re!;a ire rebuil d: rF, t;:, <br />e::iStill; re. -.r lot pole line energized, addi.ti-o-al. <br />and exp-nsive guying would be needed, ---.-..dua nto.:1:1Rcc, ` <br />would be a problem because of inaccessibiiiL"y. <br />�4 Was not chosen because the diff-rantial expense O: 111.3 .'..1.. <br />underc;round cable Would have to be borne by t:1i <br />requesting an underground feeder. This under,., -.ld feedar <br />Would require large S'x3'x6' switching cabirc•ts to ;e <br />installed on th'-o <br />e h6meowers' property in r:iee' <br />r to serve <br />any future development in the area. <br />W M <br />69 <br />