My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0828_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0828_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 12:57:51 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:38:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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.
/
213
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
City Council Study Session — 08/21/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 13 <br />underground protected pipes or sleeves, similar to the City's <br />water and sewer systems; which, once in place, could be used by <br />numerous services provided to connect individual premises to <br />those facilities via fiber, as well as serving the City for a variety <br />of applications. Mr. Miller expanded on the potential <br />opportunity for establishing a city-owned fiber conduit system <br />and fiber optic technologies and evaluations of those <br />opportunities. <br />Mr. Miller discussed the establishment, by ordinance, of a"high- <br />density corridor" designating a portion of the public right-of-way <br />for which telecommunication service providers would be <br />required to locate their cable (i.e., co-locate). <br />A City Attorney opinion dated May 22, 2006 entitled, <br />"Placement of Fiber Optic Cable in City Owned Conduit" was <br />included for reference. <br />Terre Heiser, InformationTechnology Network Manager <br />Mr. Miller and Mr. Heiser provided an example, the Twin Lalces <br />Redevelopment Project, where the developer would be required <br />to install the conduit, and convey the asset bacic to the City; <br />presuming the developer would pass the added costs on to <br />eventual property own��s in the same manner they currently do <br />for the cost of buildings, utilities, and other infrastructure <br />improvements. Advantages and disadvantages were detailed. <br />Discussion included public policy rationale; future uses (i.e., life <br />safety application monitoring for elderly stay at home; <br />monitoring of home alarm systems; meter reading); speed of the <br />fiber optic networlc; other cities practices; future avoidance of <br />disrupting streetscapes; development applications and triggers <br />(i.e., PUD applications); future opportunities; cost sharing with <br />some other partners; service provider participation, benefits, and <br />responsibilities; policy implications; socio-economic distinctions <br />of individual homeowners and businesses; public sector <br />competition with the private sector; and preservation of City <br />rights-of-way. <br />Further discussion included projected costs depending on square <br />miles and number of households; wireless networlcs and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.