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 /> <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 /> <br /> <br /> <br />Bonds/Insurance <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br /> <br />Abandonment of Facilities <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br /> <br /> <br />Location of Facilities <br /> <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 /> <br />Utility(ies) position is that they do not wish to have the City dictate the location of their facilities. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br /> <br />