New Search
Finding: Again, this subsection is unchanged from the prior Rule. In addition to the <br />language in this subsection replicating EC 7.302(5) (which cannot be modified or amended <br />by rule), installation of underground conduits in conjunction with a capacity enhancing <br />public project minimizes the inconvenience experienced when utility excavation is <br />performed on an existing street, increases the useful life of the surface, and minimizes the <br />installation cost for the utility. Conduit installed under this Rule remains under the control <br />and ownership of the utility, and the Rule does not address liability for maintaining the <br />condition of the facility. The requirement to install conduit crossings in conjunction with <br />capacity enhancing projects is an appropriate requirement for utility providers using the <br />public way, is required by provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, and is consistent with City <br />objectives in the promotion of undergrounding. No changes were made to the Rule as a <br />result of this comment. <br />Comment 3: With respect to R-7.302-E-3.2, Comcast expressed its opposition to: <br />(a) building and paying for excess capacity that would not be under its control and could be <br />used by a competitor; (b) being liable for the condition of a plant it is not using; and (c) the <br />provision regarding its ability to recover a portion of the cost, asserting that recovery of cost <br />should be at fair market value. <br />Finding: This subsection is also unchanged from the prior Rule and is required to <br />be included in the Rule by EC 7.302(6)(e). One of the objectives is to minimize impacts on <br />the public as a result of reoccurring facility installation and to maximize the useful life of <br />the finished surface. Any excess capacity required of a utility provider remains under the <br />installing provider's control unless relinquished. The Rule does not address liability for <br />maintaining the condition of the facility. The City recognizes the public value provided by <br />competition. Excess capacity maybe available to any authorized user of the public way. <br />Requirements regarding compensation are established to enable the initial provider to recover <br />a portion of its costs in a manner that is not discriminatory, does not prevent competition in <br />the service delivery, or become a barrier to other providers. No changes were made to the <br />Rule as a result of this comment. <br />Comment 4: Comcast expressed a belief that it should be excepted from the <br />requirement of R-7.302-H-1 to provide a public way restoration performance bond or <br />security deposit for any proj ect involving the opening of greater than 4001inear feet of public <br />way because of its requirement to provide the City with a corporate surety bond of $25,000 <br />under its franchise agreement. <br />Finding. As with the prior comments, this objection was raised with respect to a <br />subsection that is unchanged from the Rule that has been in effect since September 2000. <br />In addition to this requirement for provision of a restoration performance bond being separate <br />from any franchise bond requirements, R-7.302-H-1.2 provides an exception process for <br />permittees who have demonstrated prior competence in meeting established requirements for <br />restoration activities, and these exception requests are routinely granted. No changes were <br />Administrative Order - 2 <br />C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB202\03rowr12a0 (00068460)1.WPD(Ol/07/04) <br />