Coos Bay renews Pacific Power franchise; council debates term length and review options
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Coos Bay City Council enacted an ordinance renewing Pacific Power's franchise to use the city's public right-of-way, maintaining a 9% franchise fee on gross revenues. Councilors discussed whether the 10‑year term should include a five‑year review; staff noted a contract clause allows rate changes with notice.
The Coos Bay City Council enacted an ordinance renewing Pacific Power's electric franchise and general utility easement, preserving a 9% franchise fee on gross revenues and renewing the city's long‑running franchise arrangement.
Nicole (city staff) told the council the franchise gives the utility the right to place and maintain infrastructure in public rights‑of‑way and provides a revenue stream the city uses in part for the general and transportation funds. "Pacific Power has had a franchise agreement with the city of Coos Bay as the electric utility in our community for decades," Nicole said, describing the renewal as a routine ordinance with no substantive changes other than extending the term. Staff noted the prior franchise expired June 30.
Councilors asked whether a 10‑year term is too long and whether the city could require a midterm review at five years. Nicole and other staff said the term length is negotiable and that the current draft contains language that allows the city to reopen compensation discussions and request changes with notice; staff also cautioned that any rate change could be passed through to customers because the fee is levied on gross revenues.
Council discussion contrasted the 9% franchise fee to other local franchise rates (telecommunications fees of roughly 5–7 percent were cited as lower examples) and emphasized the franchise's revenue significance. Staff estimated the franchise generates about $1.3 million for the general fund and about $300,000 for the transportation fund (these were presented in the meeting as approximate figures). Several councilors said they would prefer a mechanism to check the agreement midterm; staff noted they could return to Pacific Power to seek a shorter term or an explicit review schedule.
Councilor votes were recorded on the ordinance. The council voted in support and the ordinance was enacted as Ordinance No. 586.
Staff said it will follow up with Pacific Power if the council wants to pursue a shorter term or scheduled review and reminded the council that franchise fees are part of the city's operating revenue used for streetlights and other services.