1998_0420_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ll 111111 co ly with NP's tariffs the ordinance could easily be modified to so state. It is NP's position tzon that the mandatory under grounding of all electric wires when N P's standard ction articular) of feeders, is overhead, is unreasonable and beyond the construction, particularly � city's . lice wer. However, N P as a policy matter will place its facilities . and if it is im ortant enough to a city to enter a written commitment with N P underground P . i to a the added cost of such undergrounding. Undergrounding generally for the c p costs been two and three tunes as much as overhead construction. tivel N P is willing to agree in its franchise that it will surcharge its Aiterna � g customers in e City of Roseville for the added cost of underground construction and place the fads in an account field by the City for that purpose. In this manner, NSP can with the requirements of the U that any special and significant cost which is comply upon imposed u NP b city, such as a franchise fee or special undergrounding a tY ents be aid only b N P#s customers in that city and not as a part of its rates requirements, p � paid by its customers in all of the approximately 300 cities in Minnesota in which N P provides electric serve. This requirement that the city either agree to pay,or arrange to pay, the added cost d oun A;"" of electric facilities in a met, which NP would otherwise construct .of un � overhead � binding an obligation bindin on NP and any attempt by the city to require N P to violate � own wn tariffs will result in litigation. NP would have no choice. Therefore, since this is not an issue which must be resolved as part of the ROW ordinance, it is NAP s request that it be eliminated from the ROW ordinance and discussed, if City Council so desires when NS P seep to renew its electric franchise in the near fume. N P } delivered other objections to city staff and the city attorney. However, none of 1 P's objections or suggested modifications have been given any consideration if ,� they are different from a model ordinance currently being proposed by the LM C. In tier cInml woities notwithstanding the LMC model, a recognition that the primary pose of the Ow ordinance is to prepare for telecommumcation.construction has been franchised utilities from the bonding, ce, and indemnity recognized by exempting requirements of the ordinance. This has avoided an unnecessary conflict with NgP. In ' ` requests that proposed Subdivision 3 of Section 707.30 be stricken. It will addition,Ni P req P • remove abandoned facilities during a scheduled excavation unless the require 1P to requirement waived by b the city. Abandonment in place is NP's long established 'on. It is extreme) expensive to remove abandoned facilities and s of co y �� them is no need to do so unless the y Ni are interfering with a public project, P is willing 0 to agree m ' ehise that it will remove facilities interfering with the construction of a t� fran City improvement to the extent the facilities are exposed by a subsequent excavation by City. no need to impose a more onerous requirement on NP and NP the There 1s Po an attempt b the City to enforce a more onerous requh'ement. would oppose y p y 2