The large group meeting began with sub-group presentations.

Mapping group

Sub-group reviewed the Reviser's draft, made several changes and faxed agreed upon changes 
back to the Reviser.

The sub-group will meet again to incorporate issues pending in other sub-groups including the 
definition of abandonment, confidentiality, etc. 

The revised language will be faxed to subcommittee members and distributed to the rest of the 
large group.  


High Density Corridor

HDC funding problem needs to be resolved for the rest of issues to fall into place.  The sub-group 
discussed the risk involved in the investment.

Established a six-step Authority to Proceed (ATP) Process for cities to follow:
	Complete a need or opportunity analysis
	Issue a request for comments
	Develop a business plan
	Take to governing body for approval
	City council issues an ATP
	Finalize, design and build duct bank *

*  There's room here for discussion.  Also noted, remove the first bullet point under #6 on the draft 
ATP Process that states, "Implement permit surcharge to finance spares." 

A suggestion was offered from a large-group member that no one can have more than one spare 
duct.

The industry will come prepared to talk about the possibility of an industry designed and operated 
duct system.  

Indemnification

Sub-group identified issues and sub-issues and determined where there was agreement and 
disagreement.

	Indemnity
		Have agreement on a number of issues.
		Waiting for language on indemnification of local governments as it relates to their 
		inspection and permit issuance.

	Limitation of liability
		Concluded that members may not be able to come to an agreement here; the 
		sub-group may not have this as an issue and may instead submit positions.

	Abandonment
		Tried to come-up with a definition of abandonment – and then what happens to 
		equipment once it has been abandoned.

	Performance Bonds
		Need for security to make sure the city is covered in case it needs to go back and 
		restore.
		How long does the security exist to cover ongoing costs in restoration?

Three out of the four issues should be worked out.


Construction Standards

Sub-group defined: degradation cost; closure of a project; and application form.

Restoration language was prepared by industry members and the group is discussing.

Reviser has taken the sub-group's ideas and definitions and has put them into draft language; the 
sub-group will review.

Three year commitment or guarantee on restoration is something the industry does not agree 
with.


Policy 

Sub-group heard from Local Government Units in response to industry proposals regarding Model 
Ordinance. 

Members identified areas of common ground and of no common ground.  The sub-group will 
discuss areas where it can make changes and delineate others.

This is the proper area to address scope-of-statute issues raised by small groups.



Mapping committee is as far as they can go.  We can reassign Mapping committee members to 
existing committees to deal with the issue of balance.

Next week the large group should finish its work.  On Friday afternoon, sub-groups will provide 
committee reports to the large group.  Members can then use the following week to go back to 
their constituencies.  The task force will bring the project to closure on Saturday, November 1.

The groups will work on a summary document and get it to the PUC within a week or two of the 
November 1 recommendation.  Cities and Industry can also work on minority reports at this same 
time.  We will report to the PUC those areas where we have consensus and have come-up with 
language. 


The large group broke into sub-groups for the remainder of the day.

Right of Way Home

OAH Home

Updated October 22, 1997