Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said that while the <br /> City does not have to enter into a franchise agreement, the law stipulates <br /> that it may not unreasonably withhold the public right-of-way. If the City <br /> was to refuse to negotiate an agreement, it would risk an anti-trust lawsuit. <br /> In response to a question from Mayor Miller, Mr. Gleason said that, tradi- <br /> tionally, companies build franchise fees into the rate structure. <br /> Mr. MacDonald said that he is interested in discussing this issue at acoun-. <br /> cil work session. However, the council must be realistic about what it can <br /> accomplish. <br /> The council reached consensus on the need to hold a work session on this <br /> issue in the future. <br /> VIII. FIRST READING: AN ORDINANCE RENEWING RAILROAD FRANCHISE <br /> City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Tony Mounts, Finance Divi- <br /> sion, said that the City's franchise agreement with Burlington Northern Rail- <br /> road Company expired' in 1987. Since that time, the City has. been without a <br /> formal agreement regarding the rights and responsibilities for use of the <br /> public way. The proposed ordinance establishes a new franchise agreement <br /> with the railroad. Significant changes to the old agreement include changes <br /> in the extent of right-of-way used by the railroad, the addition of indemni- <br /> fication language to protect the City in the event of property damage caused <br />e by the railroad or a third party, and a change in compensation from a <br /> percentage-of-gross-revenues basis to a flat fee. <br /> Mr. MacDonald noted that the staff notes, in the council agenda packet on <br /> this issue, indicate that the final quarter mile of trackage down 5th Avenue <br /> was removed from the public way since the last contract amendment was adopted <br /> in 1977. He noted that track often poses a safety hazard to bicycles and <br /> asked whether the track had been removed completely. Mr. Gleason agreed to <br /> investigate whether the track has been removed by Burlington Northern Rail- <br /> road. <br /> Mr. Boles noted that there is a potential risk associated with the presence <br /> of traffic on the public right-of-way at railroad crossings and questioned <br /> whether the risk has been factored in to the cost or whether the City assumes <br /> that an accident will never occur. <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Mounts said that the City <br /> receives no compensation from Southern Pacific Railroad. This agreement with <br /> Burlington Northern is establishing a precedent for charging railroads fran- <br /> chise fees; it is expected that next time the discussion occurs with Southern <br /> Pacific the City will look toward compensation. Mr. Nicholson said that the <br /> City should establish the precedent with a higher fee and suggested that the <br /> fees be tied to a more functional factor, such as a fee for the length of <br /> time that the crossings are blocked. <br />e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1991 Page 10 <br />