My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1999/07/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
Agenda Packets - 1999/07/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:58 PM
Creation date
6/12/2018 10:29:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/12/1999
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/12/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
UNAPPROVED <br />F. Public Hearing 7:30: for the Second Reading of Ordinance 630, Right of Way <br />Management <br />Mayor Coughlin opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. <br />Harold Bagley, Senior Attorney for Northern States Power Company, stated that this was a very <br />complex ordinance, which followed a proposal of the League of Minnesota Cities, not yet in final form. <br />He stated that they had concerns regarding the League model which, he stated, was still a type of <br />Minneapolis/St. Paul model, and far too complex for the average city. He stated that they had been <br />existing for some time with permit ordinances, usually much shorter in length, and did not see the need or <br />advantage to the city to have all the complexities. He stated that the Public Utility Commission had <br />adopted regulations, by direction of the legislature, regarding restoration of the right-of-way, in terms of <br />what the requirements are from an engineering standpoint. He stated that the city has input into them in <br />regard to how much, and the maximum amount they can require of the utility or other right-of-way user <br />in restoring the right-of-way. He stated that in regard to the right-of-way having an impact on the <br />franchise, he felt he must clarify. He stated that a franchise was a contractual agreement between a city <br />and utility to provide service within an area depicted by the city. He stated that this could be a limited or <br />unlimited area, and that once you have a franchise, you have the right to provide service in whatever area <br />the city gives you. He stated that in regard to rights-of-way, a person properly having the right to use the <br />street is subject to the franchise and reasonable regulation. He stated that reasonable regulation was <br />setting forth the terms and conditions upon which you can use the streets. He stated that both Reliant <br />Energy Minnegasco and Northern States Power have the right to use the streets of the City of Mounds <br />View by State Statutes. He stated that if Minnegasco has a franchise and they come to the City for a <br />permit to extend to a customer that the franchise by area allows them to serve, the City does not have the <br />right to deny them. He stated that when a right-of-way ordinance is passed, it is usually administered by <br />the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Public Works does not have the right to deny a <br />permit if the permittee has met all of the terms and conditions of the ordinance. He stated that 237; 163 <br />and 164 of the statutes, which allowed the Public Utility Commission to adopt these regulations, made it <br />clear that the franchise will prevail over the ordinance. Attorney Bagley stated that the franchise <br />agreement generally provides the right to serve and the insurance and bonding requirements might be <br />unnecessary for some utility providers. He noted that in the case of an unknown provider, more stringent <br />requirements might be in order. He stated that it was their desire to work out these issues, first, with the <br />League of Minnesota Cities, if possible. He noted that the League had invited their comments and <br />concerns on what was a very fresh draft. He stated that they would then like to work through the <br />ordinance with the City's Director of Public Works to determine if the provisions really benefit the City, <br />possibly provide additional options, and have the City staff determine what was best for their city. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated that the Council was open to entertain any evidence they would like to present, <br />which was contrary to the proposed ordinance. He noted that City Attorney Long had suggested the <br />ordinance be laid over, and added that staff had the opportunity to discuss the matter. <br />Attorney Bagley stated that there were many good things in the ordinance and they would just like the <br />opportunity to work through it with staff. He stated that the other concern was in regard to the under <br />grounding of electrical facilities. He stated that Northern States Power has a franchise to provide <br />electricity, as well as a service area assigned by the Public Utilities Commission. He stated that they have <br />filed a tariff with the Public Utilities Commission, and they will go underground if the city pays. He <br />stated that this tariff was attacked by the City of Oakdale, who had an ordinance in place requiring that <br />they go underground, and they were forced to litigate the matter. He stated that the courts determined, <br />14 CAADMIN\MINUTES\CC\6-28-99.CC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.