Jacksonville council committee revises right-of-way permit bill after industry, public works debate over bonds, notices and inspectors

Jacksonville council members and city staff met at a notice session to review proposed changes in ordinance 20240950, a rewrite of the city's right-of-way permitting rules that would change how projects are categorized, how much surety (bond) applicants must post, what community notice is required and whether construction engineering inspection (CEI) checkpoints are mandatory.

The discussion matters to utilities, contractors and neighbors because the bill would set minimum financial guarantees and process rules for any work in the public right of way, from single-family driveway ties to major utility projects. Council staff said they will circulate revised language and bring the item back to committee for further debate.

City staff and the bill's sponsors presented a spreadsheet that compares current code, the council's proposed bill and an industry'supplied substitute. Mr. Teal, a legislative staff member who led the briefing, said the spreadsheet highlights differences in project-size definitions, surety amounts, notice requirements and CEI expectations.

Under the council's current proposal, work limited to a single residential property would fall into a lower-tier category (C1) and carry a $10,000 per-project surety and no required community-notice or CEI checkpoints. All other work (C2) would be treated as a larger project and would require a surety equal to 100% of project cost with a $10,000 minimum, plus community outreach and CEI checkpoint requirements.

Philip Peterson of the Council Auditor's Office said the auditors intended the ordinance to require a surety bond per permitted project, not a single annual bond covering multiple projects. "I think the intent was for a bond per project," Peterson said.

Industry representatives argued for different wording. Carlo Fassi of TECO Peoples Gas and Kevin Craig, AT&T regional director, told the committee backbone practice in their sectors is to hold an annual umbrella bond rather than a separate bond for each permit. Craig said AT&T and other providers have relied on an annual bond while investing heavily in local infrastructure: "We have invested over $400,000,000 in our infrastructure in the last 3 years," he said, and asked for consistency with how the code has been applied in practice.

Council and administration staff said the per-project approach is intended to protect the city and residents if a particular job leaves damage or is not completed to city standards. Nina Sickler of Public Works said the city has received planning and public-works complaints tied to utility installations and right-of-way work and argued that inspections and financial assurances help resolve such problems before they require bond claims.

The committee also discussed community-notice requirements. The draft ordinance would require applicants to notify property owners within 350 feet of a project; the original council text proposed 10 working days'notice for affected properties, while the industry substitute sought a 5-business-day window. Industry representatives supported 5 business days for projects lasting more than two days; city staff favored a single, easier-to-enforce threshold rather than trying to track whether a project would last two days or longer. The council member leading the meeting indicated a preference to move toward the 5-business-day standard.

CEI requirements generated sharp pushback from telecom and utility speakers. The draft would require inspection checkpoints so the city could verify that the right of way is restored to pre-construction condition. Utility representatives called a mandatory CEI program duplicative and costly, arguing that contractors and providers already maintain inspection processes and that the city collects communication services tax revenue that supports permitting and inspections. Kevin Craig said the CEI component would "dramatically grind to a halt our work in the city" and expressed concern about available CEI capacity in the local market.

City staff clarified that the council's intent is not to require an inspector on site for the entire duration of every project but rather to require restoration checkpoints similar to building-department inspections (for example: initial, pre-cover, final). Development Services staff member Alisa Chow said the Land Development Procedures Manual already specifies repair and repaving standards and that certain repair standards apply when a road has been repaved within the last five years.

On exemptions and preemption, staff noted that state statutes enacted for small-cell wireless facilities create notice exemptions for communications service providers; the administration and industry asked for an explicit telecom carve-out in the local code consistent with the state law.

No formal vote was held. The council member presiding said revised language would be circulated and the ordinance deferred to upcoming committee meetings to allow additional meetings with industry and city departments.

The meeting closed with the council member directing staff to draft amendments reflecting the compromises discussed'including (1) treating single-residence projects differently from larger projects, (2) clarifying whether surety is per project or annual, (3) setting notice requirements (committee participants leaned to 5 business days for projects that affect multiple properties or last more than two days), and (4) defining CEI checkpoints rather than requiring continuous on-site inspection.

The committee scheduled follow-up work and additional stakeholder meetings; staff said a revised ordinance would be distributed before the next committee session.