My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1998_0824_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1998
>
1998_0824_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2011 3:08:50 PM
Creation date
10/5/2011 2:45:23 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
238
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
August 14, 1998 <br /> Page 3 <br /> RESPONSE: Again, ,section 707.15? subd. 1 states that obtaining a right-of-way permit <br /> does not relieve a right-of-way user of its duty to obtain all necessary permits, licenses, <br /> etc. <br /> OMMEE ITT 5: Although there is an indemnity provision, insurance should be <br /> referenced and it is my suggestion that there be linkage to the insurance requirements <br /> contained in the Right-of-Way Ordinance. Generally also, a franchisee will keep current} <br /> and on file, insurance with the City. Also, you may wish to consider whether or not the <br /> amounts of the insurance can be updated from time to time. <br /> RESPONSE: The Right-of-Way Ordinance, Section 707.06, subd.l(c) imposes <br /> insurance requirements on all right-of-gray users, including NSP. The section also <br /> cates that the coverage shad be an amount sufficient to protect the City and the <br /> public, which gives the City the flexibility to update the amounts from time to time. <br /> CONENIENT : with regard to the Right-of-Way Ordinance and conditions and terms <br /> for use of the right-of-way, It shall be subject to the reasonable police power of the City <br /> to adopt} from time to time, such requirements as may be applicable for the protection <br /> and safety of the community. <br /> RESPONSE., In both franchise ordinances, Section 2.1 indicates that the grant of <br /> franchise is subject to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the City <br /> pursuant to ordinance. <br /> ONEME1 TT 7: I-do not know whether or not the City of Roseville has an underground <br /> utWty ordinance. Further, I am not sure whether or not there are specific requirements <br /> that must be complied with by the company relative to new subdivisions or extension of <br /> their services into new areas, but you may wish to reference, unless you feel that the <br /> general statement that is described above, with reference to comphance with other <br /> ordinances of the City, covers this. <br /> RESPONSE: Section 707.23, subd. 1 of the Right-of-Way Ordinance gives the City the <br /> discretion to require new construction and the installation of new facilities to be done <br /> underground. As there is no conflict, or contradictory language in the franchise <br /> ordinances, this requirement is applicable to NSP. <br /> CONMENT g: There is an acceptance provision in the ordi.=ce in Section 2.2. You <br /> may wish to indicate that acceptance must be accompanied by a corporate resolution or <br /> other authorization acknowledging and authoring the authority for acceptance and the <br /> execution of the franchise. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.