Minutes - 1999/06/28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that a franchise was a contractual agreement between a city and utility to provide service within an area depicted by the city. He stated that this could be a limited or unlimited area, and that once you have a franchise, you have the right to provide service in whatever area the city gives you. He stated that in regard to rights-of--way, a person properly having the nght to use the street is subject to the franchise and reasonable regulation. He stated that reasonable regulation was setting forth the terms and conditions upon which you can use the streets. He stated that both Reliant Energy Minnegasco and Northern States Power have the right to use the streets of the City of Mounds View by State Statutes. He stated that if Minnegasco has a franchise and they come to the City for a permit to extend to a customer that the franchise by area allows them to serve, the City does not have the right to deny them. He stated that when aright-of--way ordinance is passed, it is usually administered by the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Public Works does not have the right to deny a permit if the permittee has met all of the terms and conditions of the ordinance. He stated that 237; 163 and 164 of the statutes, which allowed the Public Utility Commission to adopt these regulations, made it clear that the franchise will prevail over the ordinance. Attorney Bagley stated that the franchise agreement generally provides the right to serve and the insurance and bonding requirements might be unnecessary for some utility providers. He noted that in the case of an unknown provider, more stringent requirements might be in order. He stated that it was their desire to work out these issues, first, with the League of Minnesota Cities, if possible. He noted that the League had invited their comments and concerns on what was a very fresh draft. He stated that they would then like to work through the ordinance with the City's Director of Public Works to determine if the provisions really benefit the City, possibly provide additional options, and have the City staff determine what was best for their city. Mayor Coughlin stated that the Council was open to entertain any evidence they would like to present, which was contrary to the proposed ordinance. He noted that City Attorney Long had suggested the ordinance be laid over, and added that staff had the opportunity to discuss the matter. Attorney Bagley stated that there were many good things in the ordinance and they would just like the opportunity to work through it with staff. He stated that the other concern was in regard to the under grounding of electrical facilities. He stated that Northern States Power has a franchise to provide electricity, as well as a service area assigned by the Public Utilities Commission. He stated that they have filed a tariff with the Public Utilities Commission, and they will go underground if the city pays. He stated that this tariff was attacked by the City of Oakdale, who had an ordinance in place requiring that they go underground, and they were forced to litigate the matter. He stated that the courts determined, under 216b of the statutes, the City had the right to require under grounding and, under their tariff, Northern States Power had the right to surcharge the added cost to the residents of the community requiring the under grounding. He stated that the tariff has been filed, and not yet approved, noting that it will be another sixty to ninety days before it is in final form and approved by the Public Utilities Commission. He stated that if the City orders under grounding, the added cost will be charged to the residents. He added that without an ordinance, the City is free to request Northern States Power to underground. He advised that under grounding was at such a great cost, the City should look at it on aproject-by-project basis, and not a blanket requirement, unless they decide that their residents can afford it. 16N:\DATA\USERSV OANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\06-28-99.CC