2016-01-27 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes January 13,2016 Council Member Love stated that he disagrees with the handling of assessments associated with street maintenance, supports the street maintenance program and importance of keeping the roadways in good condition, struggles with increasing taxes but also understands first hand in seeing and benefiting from the mill and overlay project. Discussion ensued regarding the benefits from the street maintenance project, added roadway life expectancy, future funding, increasing taxes, inability to deduct assessments versus property tax deduction and justification for assessment/benefiting properties. All in favor. Motion carried. b. Res.#16-OXX—Accepting Bid for Construction of Improvement Engineer Statz stated that if Council desired to move forward with the project,they would need to accept and award the bid per the presented resolution. Engineer Statz stated that Knife River Corporation—North Central was the lowest bidder at $233,440. Engineer Statz stated that he felt that Knife River was responsive and responsible. Motion by Council Member Fehrenbacher, seconded by Council Member Love to adopt Res.#16-002—Acceptinp,Bid for Construction of Improvement as presented. All in favor. Motion carried. 2. Ordinance#75, Second Series—Franchise Agreement—Xcel Energy Administrator Ericson stated that Council desired to schedule a public hearing for this meeting and staff completed that task. Administrator Ericson also stated that staff has spent an extensive amount of time working on the presented draft ordinances. Engineer Statz and Legal Counsel Glaser reviewed with Council several concerns that they felt Council needed to address which would affect the draft agreements and they are as follows: • Bonds/Insurance Staff felt that some form of surety (a bond or letter of credit) should be issued by the utility(ies) when working within our right-of-ways to protect the City against damage to infrastructure and require timely repair. Staff also suggested requiring a certificate of insurance for similar reasons. Utility(ies) position is that bonds and other surety are unnecessary expenses and that the City is protected by the franchise agreement(s) and state law which require the utility(ies) to repair damaged infrastructure along with the Public Utilities Commission and/or Office of Pipeline Safety if unresolved issues are not remedied and have the ability to intervene on the City's behalf. Council felt that the City was protected by the Public Utilities Commission and/or Office of Pipeline Safety and concurred that a bond, letter of credit or security was not needed. Page 6of12 6