The council finds and declares as follows:
A.
The City of Roseville spends a significant amount of taxpayer funds each year to improve and maintain public streets and alleys;
B.
Nationwide studies have concluded that excavations in paved streets degrade and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance and repair. Certain studies have concluded that pavement degradation occurs no matter how well the excavation is restored;
C.
The cutting of the pavement and trenching in the streets permits water seepage into the street as well as weakening pavement support around the patch, thereby allowing deterioration at an accelerated rate;
D.
In order to determine the extent to which pavement degradation occurs, the city retained qualified pavement management consultants to evaluate the effect of excavations on the structure of local public streets. The results of this evaluation are on file in the office of the city engineer. The evaluation determined that even if pavement restoration in the trench itself appears to be structurally adequate, excavations damage the strength and life of the pavement located adjacent to the trench where the excavation occurs. The potential for damage to the pavement is magnified when a street is subject to multiple excavations being surfaced or resurfaced;
E.
Millions of dollars in public funds have been invested to build, maintain, and repair the city's streets, and they are considered important assets of the community. It is desirable to adopt regulations that will help protect their structural integrity, thereby safeguarding the value of the public's investment. Accordingly, it is appropriate to require that reasonable fees be paid to help offset the shortened life of the streets when they are cut. These fees should provide an incentive encouraging utilities to install, maintain, and repair their underground facilities without making unnecessary excavations whenever feasible, and should promote better coordination among utilities making excavations and between these utilities and the city to: (1) minimize the number of excavations being made wherever feasible, and (2) ensure that excavations are performed, to the maximum extent possible, in streets scheduled for resurfacing within the same or succeeding fiscal year;
F.
Excavations cause the greatest damage to streets that are newly surfaced and/or possess a high pavement quality index (PQI) rating, as defined by the city's pavement management system. Therefore, there shall be an excavation moratorium on streets surfaced within five years and/or with a PQI of 8.5 or greater. The city engineer, in his or her discretion, may grant a waiver for good cause;
G.
Requiring the payment of a fee for excavations not undertaken with the city's resurfacing program will provide an important incentive for utilities to coordinate their excavations with other utilities and with the city's street resurfacing schedule, to avoid excavations in these streets wherever feasible;
H.
Entities making and benefiting from an excavation in a city street also shall comply with standards for compacting, backfilling and pavement restoration and resurfacing that ensure the best possible restoration of the paved surface over and adjacent to the trench or cut;
I.
Provisions of state law, including, but not limited to, Sections 7901 and 12808 of the California Public Utilities Code, grant to some utilities the right to install underground facilities in public streets, while utilities not granted such statutory rights to install underground facilities generally must obtain franchises and pay annual franchise fees in order to do so. Utilities granted the right to install underground facilities within public streets by have claimed that federal and state law prohibit cities from charging them a trench cut fee. Utilities that provide compensation to cities through the payment of annual franchise fees have also claimed that they cannot legally be required to pay additional trench cut fees, because they claim that all costs associated with their use of city streets have already included in their annual franchise fee;
J.
Reasonable trench cut fees are not in conflict with or otherwise affected by provisions of state law granting some utilities the right to install underground facilities within city streets, because trench cut fees are not charged for the same right granted by state law, but, instead, are charged to recover the costs of mitigating the damage that the excavation causes to the pavement over and adjacent to the trench. Similarly, trench cut fees do not conflict with the right of any utility issued a franchise by and paying an annual franchise fee to the city, because: (1) a franchise is intended solely to authorize a utility's use of city streets, ways, alleys and places, (2) franchise fees established for franchises were not intended to recover the costs of mitigating damage to the pavement over or adjacent to the trench; nor was this damage known to the city when fees for the city's existing franchises were established, (3) the city does not use, nor is it required to use, franchise fee revenue to pay for street surfacing, resurfacing and/or reconstruction, and (4) franchises are subject to ordinances and regulations subsequently enacted by the city in the exercise of its police power;
K.
Regulation of excavations in city streets to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the disruption of and interference with public use of the streets, and helping to prevent damage and maintain the safe condition of the streets, is a valid and appropriate exercise of the city's police power, and is a municipal affair;
L.
With respect to the installation of telecommunications facilities, Section 253(c) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly recognizes the authority of local governments to impose reasonable non-discriminatory fees upon telecommunications providers using the public right-of-way, and California Government Code Section 50030 specifically authorizes the imposition of permit fees that do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Trench cut fees imposed by this ordinance and any associated resolution are such reasonable fees.
(Ord. 3524 § 1, 2000; Ord. 5279 § 13, 2014)