My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-01-13 CC Handout (2)
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2016
>
2016-01-13 CC Handout (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2016 8:53:25 AM
Creation date
1/19/2016 8:53:23 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Centerville Franchise Fee Ordinance and Franchise Agreements <br /> Council Discussion Outline <br /> Issue 1—Bonds/Insurance <br /> Our position: We would like to require some form of surety(a bond,or Letter of Credit)when a utility is <br /> working within our right-of-way to protect the city in case they damage city infrastructure and do not <br /> repair it in a timely manner. We would also like to have a certificate of insurance submitted for similar <br /> reasons. <br /> Their position: Bonds or other surety are unnecessary expenses. The city is protected by the franchise <br /> agreement and state law which requires the utility to repair damaged infrastructure. Additionally, the <br /> Public Utilities commission and/or Office of Pipeline Safety can be contacted if there are unresolved <br /> issues and can intervene on the city's behalf. <br /> Issue 2—Abandonment of Facilities <br /> Our position:We would like language that requires removal of abandoned facilities if and when the city <br /> reconstructs the street above these facilities. <br /> Their position: The agreements generally say that they will remove abandoned facilities if they are in <br /> the way of the current project. <br /> Issue 3—Location of Facilities <br /> Our position:We would like language that allows our standards and policies to guide the placement of <br /> utilities in our right-of-way. We could do so by ordinance, but do not currently have such an ordinance. <br /> Their position: They do not wish to have the city dictate the location of their facilities. <br /> Issue 4—Advanced Notice of Projects <br /> Our position:We would like to rely on current law which requires us to hold at least one Preliminary <br /> Design Meeting and a Preconstruction Conference to give utilities advanced notice of projects. <br /> Their position: They would like more specific language about advanced notification. <br /> General <br /> An overarching issue is that the utilities have a strong desire to have consistency among their franchise <br /> agreements across often hundreds of cities. Therefore, substantial changes to the agreements make it <br /> difficult to adhere to their conditions. Furthermore,they point to the successful partnership they have <br /> had with our city to date and to the successful partnerships they have with many other cities across the <br /> metro. They feel that they are in a unique position as utilities in that they are regulated by bodies which <br /> take public input very seriously and therefore have strong incentive to remedy situations as they may <br /> arise. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.