Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utilities Franchise topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Des Moines schedules second reading of Lake Haven franchise ordinance; proposed 6% franchise fee included

3248556 · May 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At first reading May 8 the council reviewed draft ordinance 25‑037, which would extend the Lake Haven water/sewer franchise to 2041 and add a 6% franchise payment to the city in line with agreements negotiated with other utilities; the ordinance was set for second reading at the next council meeting.

Assistant City Attorney Matthew Hutchins presented draft ordinance 25‑037 at the May 8 Des Moines City Council meeting proposing an amended franchise agreement with Lake Haven water and sewer utility.

Hutchins said the current Lake Haven agreement dates to 2011 and is set to expire in 2031; it did not include a franchise payment to the city. In 2016, the city negotiated new franchise terms with four other water/sewer utilities; three of those agreements included a 6% franchise payment in exchange for a city promise not to impose a higher utility tax during the agreement term. Last year the city amended Water District 504’s contract to add a 6% payment, and staff was directed to pursue comparable terms with Lake Haven.

The draft ordinance would: extend the Lake Haven franchise by 10 years (out to 2041), add a 6% franchise payment to the City (aligning Lake Haven with other utilities), and update standard franchise provisions (right‑of‑way relocations, insurance and planning coordination). In exchange, Hutchins said, the City promises not to impose a utility tax during the agreement and would not assume the district for the duration of the franchise.

State law prevents council approval of a franchise ordinance on the same day it is introduced, so Hutchins asked that the ordinance be scheduled for second reading at the next regular council meeting. Councilors asked for a comparison chart of provisions across existing franchise agreements and asked staff to surface any provisions related to emergency notifications, fire‑flow obligations, or eminent domain that might vary by utility.

Ending: The council set the ordinance for second reading; staff will provide a comparative summary of franchise terms across utilities for the next meeting.