Jacksonville staff, council and utilities negotiate right-of-way notice, bond and inspection changes

At a continuing ordinance 20204950 bill notice meeting, city staff, council members and representatives of utility and telecom companies discussed proposed revisions to Jacksonville's right-of-way permit rules, focusing on three main areas: advance notice to nearby property owners, surety-bond levels for restoration, and certification or documentation of inspections.

The discussion centered on a proposed notification rule that would require permittees to notify property owners within 350 feet of a project site five business days before work begins for any project estimated to last more than two days. Jason Teal, Office of General Counsel, summarized the city's approach: "the proposed changes to this is gonna divide up the types of projects..." explaining that projects affecting a single adjacent single-family residence would carry lighter notice requirements than projects that affect multiple properties.

Industry representatives said they prefer a duration-based trigger. Carlo Fassi, representing TECO/Peoples Gas, said the industry's substitute would require notice only for "projects lasting 2 or more days" and that for "major projects in the right of way, we would communicate as we do already" to affected property owners. Ms. Sickler, speaking for Public Works/Development Services, told the group "We have no changes in our position. We are, glad to provide any, answers that you may have." The city staff acknowledged the current permit application does not require an estimated project duration; Jerry (Jared) Carter, a Peoples Gas representative, confirmed that "your permit application does not have to my knowledge a duration of work, a start and stop date."

Council members and staff debated whether to allow development services discretion to require notice for short projects when special circumstances (parades, funeral processions, high-traffic downtown locations) would make even a one- or two-day interruption significant. Jason Teal said development services could review applications and require notice where an applicant's estimated duration appeared unrealistic or the work would cause a significant disruption.

On bonding, the meeting revisited how the code treats small and large projects. Council discussion treated small projects as those that affect a single adjacent residential property and large projects as those meeting existing code thresholds (including projects over 1,000 linear feet). Teal described the existing code interpretation that large projects may require a performance bond equal to a percentage of estimated costs (historically interpreted as up to 100% for projects over 1,000 linear feet) and that small projects had been treated with a $5,000 bond in practice. The council chair indicated an increase for small projects to $10,000 was acceptable; "we've got the bonding concluded so it will be 10,000 on that," one council member said. Industry representatives, including Kevin Craig of AT&T and Carlo Fassi of Peoples Gas, continued to advocate for an annual blanket bond in lieu of per-project sureties. Kevin Craig said his company remained "willing to go to 50,000 on the annual bond," while Carlo Fassi reiterated that the industry preferred a $50,000 annual blanket bond because the industry has not historically had cause to call such bonds and believes a single annual bond is administratively simpler.

Inspection and certification of restoration work drew substantial debate. City staff proposed requiring certified construction engineering inspection (CEI) at restoration milestones and tying inspector qualifications to existing Florida Department of Transportation training and certification programs. Ms. Sickler said the city sought "somebody on-site when you're restoring it to city standards that can actually lay eyes on it and stand in the shoes of the city to verify that it's getting done properly." Industry representatives said they already perform internal and contractor inspections and provide materials testing and density reports to municipalities when those items are required by the permit. Jared Carter described his company's current practice: "we have internal and external inspectors that are basically doing QAQC on facilities we're installing... everything we do is an OQ covered task." Industry representatives opposed language that would require utilities to pay for a separate third-party CEI inspector in addition to their existing programs; Carlo Fassi called a codified requirement that industry pay for additional city-approved inspectors "an absolute non starter."

Both sides expressed willingness to narrow the gap. Industry offered to supply documentation of materials testing, compaction/density reports and other milestone deliverables if the city provided a clear checklist of required items. City staff said such a checklist and permit-application changes could be prepared through administrative processes rather than by embedding all technical details in the ordinance. The industry also asked to receive existing complaint records for recent months so companies could see the scale and types of right-of-way issues the city encounters; Carlo Fassi asked for "a copy of every complaint submitted to the city in the right of way... in the last 6 months."

The meeting ended with staff, industry and council members agreeing to continue negotiating permit-application language and a list of required documentation. Council members said they preferred leaving large-project bonding and the 1,000-linear-foot threshold unchanged while increasing the small-project bond to $10,000; staff indicated they would begin enforcing the bond requirements that currently exist in code if new legislation did not alter them. Participants agreed to reconvene in committee the following week to attempt to finalize language.

Next steps identified during the meeting included: a draft checklist from Public Works/Development Services of required inspection documentation and submittals; industry review and follow-up meetings to align company inspection practices with city requirements; and placement of the item in committee for further action.

There were no formal motions or recorded votes during the discussion recorded in the transcript.