Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br /> Council Meeting Minutes <br /> January 13,2016 <br /> Administrator Ericson stated that Council desired to schedule a public hearing for this meeting <br /> and staff completed that task. Administrator Ericson also stated that staff has spent an extensive <br /> amount of time working on the presented draft ordinances. <br /> Engineer Statz and Legal Counsel Glaser reviewed with Council several concerns that they felt <br /> Council needed to address which would affect the draft agreements and they are as follows: <br /> • Bonds/Insurance <br /> Staff felt that some form of surety (a bond or letter of credit) should be issued by the utility(ies) <br /> when working within our right-of-ways to protect the City against damage to infrastructure and <br /> require timely repair. Staff also suggested requiring a certificate of insurance for similar reasons. <br /> Utility(ies) position is that bonds and other surety are unnecessary expenses and that the City is <br /> protected by the franchise agreement(s) and state law which require the utility(ies) to repair <br /> damaged infrastructure along with the Public Utilities Commission and/or Office of Pipeline <br /> Safety if unresolved issues are not remedied and have the ability to intervene on the City's <br /> behalf. <br /> Council felt that the City was protected by the Public Utilities Commission and/or Office of <br /> Pipeline Safety and concurred that a bond, letter of credit or security was not needed. <br /> • Abandonment of Facilities <br /> Staff felt that language should be included in the ordinances that require removal of abandoned <br /> facilities if and when the City reconstructs roadways above their facilities. <br /> Utility(ies) position is that the agreements general stated that they will remove abandoned <br /> facilities if they are in the way of the current project. <br /> Council questioned the probability of this and staff replied not often and reminded Council that <br /> the agreements are for a 20 year term. Council felt that sufficient language was already <br /> contained in the agreements to ensure removal if hindering our infrastructure,but if Staff desired <br /> it would be taken into consideration. <br /> • Location of Facilities <br /> Staff felt that language should be included to allow the City's standards and policies to guide the <br /> placement of utilities in the right-of-ways. <br /> Utility(ies)position is that they do not wish to have the City dictate the location of their facilities. <br /> City Attorney Glaser stated that if the City desired to adopt an ordinance dictating the location of <br /> facilities they could but currently have nothing in place. <br /> Council thanked Staff for their proactivity. Engineer Statz stated that the City has not <br /> experienced an issue in the past. Council felt that discussions could take place between the <br /> Page 7 of 12 <br /> 7 <br />