Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Utilities Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose Title 12 changes to clarify utility easements and require timely facility locates for planning
Summary
Assistant City Attorney Bob Gallimore and City Engineer Nate Baldwin presented proposed amendments to Title 12 to clarify the city's administration of utility easements versus right of way and to impose expectations (and potential penalties) for utilities to supply facility locates for planning, aiming to reduce design delays and change orders.
Get email alerts on the Public Utilities Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assistant City Attorney Bob Gallimore and City Engineer Nate Baldwin asked the council during the Nov. 4 planning session to approve ordinance language amending Title 12 (right of way and public utilities) to clarify the city's relationship to dedicated public utility easements and to address delays caused when utilities do not provide facility locates during project planning.
Gallimore told the council the proposed code changes would codify current practice for management of public utility easements and would add provisions to encourage timely locates for planning purposes — a gap staff said exists because the state Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act primarily applies to shovel‑ready locates, not early planning. The intent, staff said, is to reduce redesigns and construction delays that increase project costs.
Nate Baldwin said the city currently gets locates from only about 25% of utilities for planning requests, which often leads to conflicts during construction and change orders. Councilmembers asked about enforcement and penalties; staff said existing right‑of‑way penalties (a public offense with fines currently identified as not less than $200 nor more than $500 per day for each violation) could be used and that franchise agreements with some providers create additional enforcement pathways. Staff referenced practices in Overland Park and Wichita as precedents for local rules to encourage timely locates.
Council discussion focused on clarifying the scope of the code changes, the nature of penalties as a deterrent rather than a first resort, and coordination with the Kansas Corporation Commission. No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff said they will return with the proposed ordinance language and additional detail about penalties and implementation.
