After a series of power outages occurred in Shenandoah last summer, the city's Electrical Committee began researching the feasibility and cost of an underground utilities project.
The proposed project would convert overhead electrical service to underground service in areas of the city that do not already have it with a goal of providing more reliable electricity for residents.
In 2016, the city held two town hall meetings on the subject—one Aug. 9 and another Nov. 2—with a presentation given by the Electrical Committee Nov. 9.
The project would cost approximately $7.3 million, and all residents would have to agree to a 10-foot easement in their front yards, according to the presentation.
Resident Liane Strigin spoke out against the project, saying she did not believe it fell under the city’s jurisdiction.
“I have never contemplated unintentional power loss as a city’s responsibility, nor did I really expect the city to fix it—it happens all over the country,” Strigin said. “There’s no city in America that I’ve found that guarantees you can have power 100 percent of the time, and I don’t see why [Shenandoah] should be the first one.”
To pay for the project, the city’s tax rate would increase from 22.95 cents per $100 valuation to 28.92 cents per $100 valuation if the city agreed to a 15-year funding option. In addition, a single home in any of the seven phase sections of the project could prevent the entire section from participating by not agreeing to the easement.
“You have to have 100 percent of the easements [for the project to work],” Council Member Darrell Frazier said. “You cannot legally force an easement on someone—I’m a resident and you’re not getting mine. I never have been in favor of this—and never will be—so if we want to kill it, let’s kill it.”
Potential ballot referendum
Due to the magnitude of the cost and disruption the project would inflict upon residents, as well as copious discourse during meetings about the subject, Council Member Jean Teague requested the item be placed on an upcoming ballot.
“I think that’s the only way this project will be dead,” Teague said. “There are enough residents that have spoken out and feel very strongly at town halls and City Council meetings that it is our duty to put their minds at ease that we will not be spending funds—city tax dollars—on improving a utility company’s responsibility.”
However, Council Member Ron Raymaker said the council should delay making a decision until the city has time to review the results of recent cycle trimming—the removal of vegetation that may interfere with power delivery—Entergy Texas conducted throughout the city.
“It’s premature to vote on,” Raymaker said. “We need to see the results of the cycle trim, so there really is no need to go forward with anything at this point; there are so many other options out there.”
Because of a fast-approaching referendum timeline the council is under pressure to make a decision with no recommendation from the city's Electrical Committee.
According to the county election administrator, a referendum decision needs to be made at least 78 days prior to the election date. Based on this timeline, in order for the item to be placed on the May ballot, council needs to decide by Feb.17; to secure a spot on the November ballot, council needs to decide by Aug. 21.
“I think the [Electrical] Committee has done a fantastic job, but I think we should work with Entergy to see if there are alternative options,” Council Member Mike McLeod said. “But burying power lines in people’s front yards is not going to happen—it’s dead on arrival and totally unattainable.”
City Attorney Bill Ferebee said the referendum may only kill the proposal for a year.
"It’s never going to be dead forever," he said. "It’s always subject to come up again in the future.”
City Council will decide whether to place the item on an upcoming ballot at its Jan. 25 meeting.
"You're rolling the dice that [the project] will come up no [if put on a ballot]," Mayor Ritch Wheeler said.
