Council tables Rocky Mountain Power franchise as members press for as-built plans, shorter term

Kamas — The Kamas City Council unanimously tabled consideration of a proposed franchise agreement and general utility easement with Rocky Mountain Power after council members said key protections were missing from the draft and asked the city attorney to seek changes.

The council opened discussion on a draft ordinance to grant Rocky Mountain Power a franchise to place electric facilities in the city’s rights-of-way. Council members focused on two recurring concerns: the absence of a requirement that Rocky Mountain provide as-built plans to the city and the proposed 15-year term in the company’s standard draft.

“The biggest thing I look for when we do these is that they are responsible ... if we’re widening a road for our purposes or any kind of project that requires them to move their poles. If it’s for our purposes, it’s at no cost to the city,” said a city staff member presenting the draft to the council. Councilmember David pressed for explicit language requiring as-built drawings and said he was concerned about long-term transmission upgrades and new substations that could be routed through the city, potentially along Main Street. “I am concerned about the growth happening down south … and that one of these days they’re going to be wanting to upsize their transmission,” David said.

Other council members questioned the 15-year term proposed in Rocky Mountain Power’s draft and noted that some nearby jurisdictions obtain shorter terms. “How did the 15 years come about? … Salt Lake City has a 5-year term as well as Summit County,” one councilmember observed, citing examples used in the meeting.

City staff and the city attorney confirmed that the draft franchise permits Rocky Mountain Power to place poles, wires and substations in city rights-of-way consistent with the franchise, but that some previously included clauses had been struck (including language about providing as‑built plans and certain emergency-management provisions). Joel, the city attorney, was asked to review whether the removed clauses should be restored.

Councilmember David moved to table the ordinance and asked Joel to return with options that would: (1) reduce the proposed franchise term (the motion referenced exploring a five-year term), (2) add language requiring Rocky Mountain Power to provide the city with as-built drawings for facilities placed in rights-of-way, and (3) research protections the city might include to minimize impacts of large transmission facilities through town. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Councilmembers set a date certain for reconsideration at the council’s Jan. 14 meeting.

Council discussion also covered practical permitting questions: transmission pole heights, permitting through state right-of-way (UDOT) vs. city authority, and how the city has worked with utilities on past projects to move lines away from Main Street for aesthetic and safety reasons. Staff noted the utility must obtain required permits for new construction and that the franchise language already requires utilities to “construct, install, maintain, and clear vegetation” to cause “minimum interference” with public ways.

Councilmembers asked the city attorney to draft proposed franchise language requiring as-built plans, to evaluate term length options, and to consider wording in the notices section to require Rocky Mountain Power to brief the council when it plans major projects that would affect the city.

Ending — The council took no final action on the franchise; the ordinance was formally tabled to the Jan. 14 meeting so Joel can propose language for as-built plans, term length and other protections. The council recorded the tabling vote as unanimous.