HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.f. Gas Utility Ordinance - Second ReadingAGENDA ITEM: Gas Utility Ordinance Second Reading
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City EngineerAGEOT
e�. #6
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance
APPROVED BY: 131/6
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt an Ordinance relating to Gas Pipelines;
Amending City Code Section 4 -2 -1
ACTION:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date: May 17, 2005
ISSUE:
Consider ordinance amendment to require gas utility companies to have in place a franchise
agreement with the City to secure utility permits.
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 2005, Council conducted the first reading of the attached proposed ordinance
amendment The proposed ordinance amendment adds language to the existing ordinance
that will require gas utility companies to have in place a franchise agreement with the City to
secure utility permits for the installation of gas service lines.
The attached supporting information provides background on the proposed ordinance
amendment. No comments have been received by Staff on this proposed amendment.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends Council adoption of this proposed ordinance amendment.
G \GAS FRANCHISE INFO \GasUtilityOrdinanceCC5 -17 -05 doc
2. INSTALLATION APPROVED.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. XL25
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO GAS PIPELINES; AMENDING
CITY CODE SECTION 4 -2 -1
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. PURPOSE. The City Council recognizes that advantages to the public are secured
by the terms of franchise agreements with gas utilities and further recognizes the costs and risks to
the City and its property and to the public health, safety and welfare associated with installation,
maintenance, repair and replacement of gas utility lines without the control and protection afforded
by franchise terms.
This ordinance has the following purposes, among others
1. To protect public property and the public investment in public streets and utilities;
2. To reduce the administrative burdens of oversight of installation, maintenance, repair and
replacement of underground utilities;
3. To reduce interruptions to public travel and inconvenience to owners of properties adjacent
to the public right of way;
4. To minimize the nsks to the public health, safety and welfare and the risk of exposing the
City to civil liability; and
5. To avoid all other adverse effects of unregulated installation of gas facilities on the public
grounds and m the public nght of way.
Section 2 City Code, Section 4 -2 -1, is amended as follows:
a. The location of all underground utilities, including but not limited to natural gas
pipes and mains, electrical distribution and transmission Imes and conduits, cable
television cables, telephone cables and conduits, and appurtenances laid or
constructed within State highways, County roads, City streets, alleys, public grounds
and easements, shall be subject to the direction and approval of the City and shall be
laid or constructed only after receiving wntten approval from the City Clerk. All
private utility companies shall request approval in wnting and shall furnish a
drawing or plat showing the proposed underground utility. The location of said
utilities shall not interfere with other pipes, tunnels or conduits already laid or
CLL-261190v1 1
RS215 -3
constructed. All companies requesting approval shall direct four (4) copies of the
request and maps or plats to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will direct three (3)
copies to the City Engineer for the Engineer's recommendation The City Engineer
shall make such revisions of the drawings as the Engineer shall deem necessary.
The Engineer will make a wntten recommendation to the City Clerk, returning two
(2) copies of the revised drawings. The City Clerk will then, in writing, issue the
Clerk's approval, requests for revisions or denial of the request for approval.
b. After the effective date of this Ordinance, no permits will be issued for installation
of gas pipes and mains to entities that do not hold a current franchise from the City.
This prohibition does not apply to installation of gas transmission mains that are not
designed, intended or used for local service or local distribution, or to installation of
gas pipes and mains to serve areas of the City to which existing gas franchisees
cannot or will not extend service.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in effect following its passage and publication.
ADOPTED this 17 day of May, 2005, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Published this
day of 2005 in the Rosemount Town Pages
CLL-261196v1 2
RS215 -3
William H. Droste, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM: Gas Utility Ordinance First Reading
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Enginee
AGE
A
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance, Council Work Session
Executive Summary 4- 13 -05, Utility
Commission Minutes 3 -7 -05, Utility
Commission Executive Summary 3 -7 -05,
January 10 Letter to Aquila and Xcel,
February 16 Letter from Xcel
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: First Reading
ACTION:
City Council Meeting Date: May 3, 2005
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
ISSUE:
Consider ordinance amendment to require gas utility companies to have in place a franchise
agreement with the City to secure utility permits.
BACKGROUND:
At the April 13, 2005 City Council Work Session, the attached draft ordinance amendment
that would require gas utility companies to have in place a franchise agreement with the City
to be permitted to install new gas service lines was discussed. The need for this proposed
ordinance amendment is to insure the safe and orderly extension of gas service within newly
developing areas of the City.
The City of Rosemount currently has three gas utility providers, Aquila, Xcel and Center Point
Energy. Up to this time, the three utility companies have extended gas service to areas
within the City that were agreed upon in 1989 With a recent development, the previously
agreed to service boundaries were dismissed and a situation occurred where two gas utility
companies were seeking permits for the same development.
As discussed with Council, there is strong concern about maintaining an environment that
allows for the planned expansion of gas service within the City to 1) avoid redundant gas
lines within limited right -of -way corridors; 2) ensure reliable and accurate mapping of gas
service areas for emergency and non emergency events; and 3) allow for efficient
administration of gas utility permits.
To ensure that a fair and competitive environment is maintained, the proposed ordinance
amendment does include language that reserves the right of the City to issue permits to
utilities that do not hold a current franchise agreement with the City in the event existing gas
franchises cannot or will not extend service.
SUMMARY:
It is the recommendation of Staff for Council to consider the 1 st reading of the proposed
ordinance amendment.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO GAS PIPELINES;
AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4 -2 -1
Section 2. City Code, Section 4 -2 -1, is amended as follows:
2. INSTALLATION APPROVED.
CLL- 261190v1 1
RS215 -3
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRA-
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. PURPOSE. The City Council recognizes that advantages to the public are
secured by the terms of franchise agreements with gas utilities and further recognizes the
costs and nsks to the City and its property and to the public health, safety and welfare
associated with installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of gas utility lines without
the control and protection afforded by franchise terms.
This ordinance has the following purposes, among others:
1. To protect public property and the public investment in public streets and utilites;
2. To reduce the administrative burdens of oversight of installation, maintenance,
repair and replacement of underground utilities;
3. To reduce interruptions to public travel and inconvenience to owners of properties
adjacent to the public right of way;
4. To minimize the nsks to the public health, safety and welfare and the risk of
exposing the City to civil hability; and
5. To avoid all other adverse effects of unregulated installation of gas facilities on the
public grounds and in the public nght of way.
a. The location of all underground utilities, including but not limited to natural
gas pipes and mains, electrical distribution and transmission lines and
conduits, cable television cables, telephone cables and conduits, and
appurtenances laid or constructed within State highways, County roads, City
streets, alleys, public grounds and easements, shall be subject to the
direction and approval of the City and shall be laid or constructed only after
ATTEST:
Linda Jentmk, City Clerk
receiving written approval from the City Clerk. All private utility
compames shall request approval m wntmg and shall furnish a drawing or
plat showing the proposed underground utility The location of said utilities
shall not interfere with other pipes, tunnels or conduits already laid or
constructed. All companies requesting approval shall direct four (4) copies
of the request and maps or plats to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will direct
three (3) copies to the City Engineer for histhe Engineer's recommendation.
The City Engineer shall make such revisions of the drawings as hethe
Engineer shall deem necessary. The Engineer will make a wntten
recommendation to the City Clerk, returning two (2) copies of the revised
drawings. The City Clerk will then, in writing, issue itsthe Clerk's approval,
requests for revisions or denial of the request for approval.
b. After the effective date of this Ordinance, no permits will be issued for
installation of gas pipes and mains to entities that do not hold a current
franchise from the City This prohibition does not apply to installation of
as transmission mains that are not designed intended or used for local
service or local distribution. or to installation of gas pipes and mains to serve
areas of the City to which existing gas franchisees cannot or will not extend
service.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in effect following its passage and publication.
Underlining indicates new material. Lining through indicates deleted material.
ADOPTED this day of 2005, by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount.
CLL- 261190v1 2
RS215 -3
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H. Droste, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM: Gas Utility Ordinance Amendment
AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P E., City Engineer
AGE a
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Minutes from Utility Commission
2) Draft Ordinance Amendment
3) Utility Commission Agenda Item from
March 7, 2005
APPROVED BY
RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Discussion
City Council Work Session Date: April 13, 2005
ISSUE:
Consider ordinance amendment to require gas utility companies to have in place a franchise
agreement with the City to secure utility permits for the installation of new gas service lines.
BACKGROUND:
SUMMARY:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
At the March 7, 2995 Utility Commission meeting, Staff reviewed with the Commission an
issue that emerged recently with the development of Harmony (formerly Brockway) regarding
the extension of gas utility service to the site. As noted in the attached Executive Summary,
the issue is the establishment of service boundaries by utility company, in this case Aquila
and Xcel.
In response to this matter and based on the recommendation of the Utility Commission, the
City Attorney has drafted the attached ordinance amendment. This amendment would
require all gas utility providers to have in place a franchise agreement with the City in order to
secure utility permits for new gas service lines.
Staff is requesting Council consideration of this proposed ordinance amendment.
ROSEMOUNT DRAFT
UTILITY COMMISSSION MINUTES
MARCH 7, 2005
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Utility Commission meeting of the City of
Rosemount was held on Monday, March 7, 2005. President Mulhem called the meeting to order
at 5:32 p.m. with Commissioner Heimkes and Commissioner Schnieder present. Also in
attendance were Mayor Droste, City Engineer Brotzler, City Administrator Verbrugge and
Recording Secretary Dorniden
ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA
None.
AUDIENCE INPUT
None.
MOTION by Heimkes to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2005 regular Utility
Commission meeting. Second by Mulhern. Ayes: Mulhem, Heimkes, Schnieder. Nays: None.
Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
5a. LEBANON HILLS REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER UPDATE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
City Engineer Brotzler apprised the Commission of the meetings he has attended with the City of
Eagan, Dakota County Parks, DNR, Gun Club Watershed and the Vermillion River Watershed
regarding the run -off within the Lebanon Hills Regional Park and the City of Eagan
The Engineering firm of Bonestroo completed a report for the City of Eagan identifying
improvement options. Attached to the executive summary is a memo from Bonestroo detailing
three different options to alleviate the problems of run -off for Eagan.
Option 1 is the lowest cost at S900,000. This cost is based on the assumption that water is from
Rosemount would be held in Rosemount without discharge and does not reflect the cost to
Rosemount to impound this water.
Option 3 reflects a project that would require Eagan to expand its work effort within Eagan, but
would require Rosemount to do only limited improvements. The cost for this option is estimated
to range from $1.4 million to $1.9 mullion.
Eagan has preliminarily selected Option 1 as their best choice, and if that option is implemented,
would require the City of Rosemount to expend 1.0 to 1.5 Million to implement improvements in
Rosemount to prevent water from entenng Eagan from this area of the City. It was also noted
SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS
2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 651- 423 -4411 TDD/TTY 651- 423 -6219 Fax 651- 322 -2694
www.ci.rosemount.mn.us
UTILITY COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 7, 2005
that downstream ponds such as Marsh Lake and McDonough Lake would still be flooded and
based on comments provided by Dakota County Parks; this plan does not meet their objectives.
Pete Willenbnng from WSB Associates advised the Commission that, to date, no report has
been prepared by Dakota County Parks or the City of Eagan that suggests the City of Rosemount
should contnbute to these downstream improvements.
As mentioned above, Bonestroo is the Engineering firm for the City of Eagan and Barr
Engineenng is the consultant for Dakota County Parks. WSB Associates has shared all our
hydrologic and computer simulation information with Barr Bonestroo so all the models to be
run will be the same
City Administrator Verbrugge asked if anyone could compel the City to do the project. Mr.
Willenbring indicated that without the establishment of a special purpose tax district or the
development of a joint Powers agreement, it would be difficult for either the City of Eagan or
Dakota County parks to force the City of Rosemount to fund or unwillingly cooperate in the
implementation of the project.
Future development might also provide the opportunity to improve the downstream situation as
the City's Stormwater Management Plan tightens run -off control for new developments.
Mr. Willenbnng went through the recommendations in his attached memo. He highlighted that
within Option 1 there wouldn't be any condemnation of property and that Option 3 might be
considered justifiable. It was also noted that the City has already diverted 300 acres away from
the regional park as part of the development of the City of Rosemount's Stormwater Plan, so
we've actually helped to alleviate the run -off. Rosemount is considered 1/3 of the drainage area.
The City is not changing the flow direction; it's just holding what we have.
After further discussion, Staff suggested the Commission recommend to the council the adoption
of a resolution or letter consistent with the recommendations outlined in the staff memo, but
leaving out the fourth recommendation. The Mayor would also like to make sure that the equity
issues are further expanded in the resolution
The Commission also generally agreed the best case scenario would be to spend the $1.9 million
in Eagan, and fund the project by getting grant money from the Legislature with DNR support.
NEW BUSINESS
6a, 2005 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 392
Council had ordered the project and authorized the plans and specifications to be drawn up for
this 7,200 foot project in the southwest project area between Cameo and Chippendale Avenue,
south of 145 Street and north of County Road 42. The northern part of the project has old
vitnfied clay pipe and is usually replaced with PVC. The sewer lines were televised and shows
root intrusion in joints and service connections. The City would like to coordinate full
2
UTILITY COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 7, 2005
replacement of streets with utility replacements, however right now that isn't likely There is a
new technology that uses in place slip liners within the sewer lines. This gives the lines a little
more life, but doesn't replace them. To do a total reconstruction of the 7,200 feet it would cost
approximately $730,000 as opposed to the slip line area at $276,000.
At this time Staff isn't recommending either. Deficient areas will be spot repaired at this time.
The program will have an outside vendor come in and router out the pipes and remove the roots
and then monitor them for another 25 years.
For the most part the project will be leaving curb gutter only repairing what is damaged, and
then taking the pavement to full depth leaving the sub -grade and replace the full depth pavement.
A total reconstruction should coincide with sewer and water replacement in about 25 years. Slip
lines are suppose to have a 40 -SO year lifetime and would just be in the mainlines.
6b. GAS UTILITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS
City Engineer Brotzler apprised the Commission that the developer for the Brockway property
had asked Xcel Energy to supply the development. According to a map from 1989, NSP and
Peoples Natural Gas had boundaries set, but because there is no Franchise Agreement in place
for the two, the City Attorney advised that there are no statutory requirements for the area Staff
met with both Xcel and Aquila to discuss these boundaries and through a gentlemen's agreement
the boundary will be modified to include Brockway for Xcel Energy.
The City will maintain the right that if the provider can't provide in a costly and timely manner
we would recommend the developer not use them.
To have the boundaries set is good for emergency personnel to find locations, especially having
one service provider in the main comdors
The City Attorney offered the option of adopting an ordinance to secure franchise agreements
with the three different companies.
If Gopher State One call would get a border line on the boundanes they would Just have to call
both companies.
The Commission was supportive of a proposed ordinance to require gas utility companies to
have a franchise agreement with the City to secure a Utility Permit.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
8a. PROJECT UPDATE
Gopher One MNOPTS is trying new legislation to get cities to locate to houses. Right now our
PVC pipe (sanitary sewer) has no method to locate and the as -built records supposedly locate the
3
UTILITY COMMISL SON MINUTES
MARCH 7, 2005
lines 3' from the curbstop downstream. Mainlines are usually in the street right -of -way and put
the shortest distance to the house.
President Mulhern mentioned receiving the letter and bid tab for Well #12 Wellhouse.
Mayor Droste commented again on the ugly color of the Chippendale Tower and a brief
discussion ensued.
8d. SET NEXT MEETING AGENDA FOR APRIL 11, 2005
No one had anything at this time.
The Commission wished Commissioner Heimkes good luck in his future endeavors since this
was his last meeting.
MOTION by Heimkes to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
4
Respectfully Submitted,
Cindy Dorniden
Recording Secretary
AGENDA ITEM: Gas Utility Franchise Agreements
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer
y'
AGENDA NO:
6b.
ATTACHMENTS: January 10, 2005 Letter; February 16,
2005 Letter
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 7, 2005
During the development of the Harmony (formerly Brockway) project, Staff encountered
an issue regarding the extension of gas service to the development. Prior to this project
the City and gas utility companies, Aquila and Xcel, had been following a service area
that was developed in 1989 by the City and presumably the utility companies. Based
on this 1989 service area map, the Harmony project was within the service area for
Aquila.
The issue that developed with the Harmony project was a request by the developer and
Xcel to allow the extension of gas service to be completed by Xcel rather than Aquila.
After reviewing this issue with the City Attorney, it was determined that the City did not
have the legal authority to deny a permit to Xcel for the extension of gas service beyond
the boundary established in 1989.
As a result of this situation, Staff met with representatives from Aquila and Xcel to
discuss the merits of mutually agreeing to predetermine service areas within the City of
Rosemount. The attached January 10, 2005 letter summarizes the discussions of this
meeting. Since this meeting, Staff has received the attached February 16, 2005 letter
from Xcel outlining their intention to continue to pursue the expansion of their gas
service beyond a predetermined service area.
Xcel's position as outlined in the attached letter is very concerning to Staff for the
following reasons:
1. Limiting the number of gas providers with predetermined service areas
reduces the likelihood of redundant pipelines being constructed within the
same corridors Based on Xcel's position, the expansion of gas service by
Xcel into areas previously planned to be served by Aquila will result in
duplicate lines within the City's right -of -way.
2. Currently, the pattern of gas service within the City based on predetermined
service areas allows for timely identification of service provides in both
emergency and non emergency situations. For an emergency situation, the
existing pattern helps to ensure that the correct service provider is called to
G:/ gasfranchise /gasunIdyfranchiseagreeUC3 -7 -05
the situation. Considering Xcel's position, this efficient manay_inent of
service areas would be lost.
3. The current system allows for more efficient administration of utility permits
by the City. Again, considering Xcel's position, a change from this system will
result in guilt like pattern of gas service areas within the City and will increase
administration time and costs for utility permits.
Based on the concerns outlined above, Staff has worked with the City Attomey to
research options for the City on how to move forward with this issue. The City
Attorney has indicated that the City Council can adopt an ordinance which requires
that a utility company have a franchise agreement in order to be permitted to do
work within the City. As the City currently has a franchise agreement with Aquila,
Staff is supportive of the concept of developing an ordinance to this effect.
At this time, Staff is seeking input from the Utility Commission on this matter to
forward to the City Council.
G•/ gasfranchise /gasutilityfranchtseagreeUC3 -7 -05
January 10, 2005
Aquila
Attn Dave Perron
2665 145 Street West
PO Box 455
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Gas Service Area Map
Dear Dave and Colette:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Xcel Energy
Attn Colette Jurek
3000 Maxwell Avenue
Newport, MN 55055
I would like to begin by thanking you for taking the time to meet on December 9, 2004 to discuss the
continued expansion of gas service within the City of Rosemount. Your participation in this meeting was
greatly appreciated.
As discussed at the meeting, the number one priority for all parties involved is the safe, effective and
manageable expansion of gas service to newly developed areas within the City To ensure that the
expansion of gas service could be appropriately planned for, the City and gas utility companies developed
in the laze 1980's, a service area map for the City of Rosemount. With the recent development of the
Brockway site and City permitting to Xcel Energy to serve this development with gas service, area
formerly within Aquila service area, the previously developed service area map has been updated A
copy of this updated service area map is enclosed for your use and reference
To reiterate our discussion at the December 9, 2004 meeting, the City will process gas utility permits in
accordance with this updated service area map, dated January, 2005. Should a situation occur where a
provider is not able to provide gas utility service in a cost effective and timely manner, a joint meeting will
be conducted with the City and involved parties to determine the most cost effective and timely manner to
provide service to property owners within the City of Rosemount
Your continued cooperation with the safe, effective and manageable expansion of gas service within the
City of Rosemount is greatly appreciated
Should you have questions or,comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/wl C
Andrew Brotz er, P E
City Engineer
Cc. Rosemount Utility Commission
Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney
cfTy HALL
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, PAN
55068-4997
Phone 651- 423 -4411
Hearing Impaired 651- 423 -6219
Fax 651- 423 -5203
Xcel Energy
February 16, 2005
Mr. Andrew J. Brotzler
CityEngineer
City of Rosemount
2875 145t Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Andrew:
SUBJECT: Gas Service Territory Map
Kerry C Koep
Assistant General Counsel
800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 2900
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone 612 215 4583
Fax. 612 215 4544
Colette Jurek forwarded your letter and accompanying gas territory map dated January
10, 2005, to my attention. This written response serves as notification that Xcel Energy
objects to the city's assignment of gas service territories for the following reasons:
1. Natural gas distribution is a non re gulated competitive industry in our state. This
competition ultimately works to the benefit of the City's residents and businesses.
2. Neither the map of January 10 nor the assigned service territories authored in 1989
under Richard Hefti, a former city engineer and public works director, were ever
formally adopted by city council.
3. Open competition for new development projects encourages gas providers to
provide better marketing programs and construction practices. For example,
competition required our company to review its previous single main installation
practice. As a result, dirni main installation has become a standard construction
practice for Xcel Energy. Dual main installation provides year -round access to
natural gas and, simultaneously; has eliminated the need for road boring. Dual main
installation benefits developers and the city.
4. We have an on -going responsibility to Xcel Energy ratepayers and shareholders to
expand our natural gas business wherever financiallyfeasible.
Mr. Andrew J. Brotzler
February 16, 2005
Page two
For the above stated reasons, it is appropriate for us to continue to pursue gas
business development opportunities within the City of Rosemount wherever the expansion
of our gas distribution system cost justifies and product offerings are a viable option for our
local developers and future customers.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the position of our company on
this matter, please feel free to contact me directly at 612- 215 -4583.
Kerry C. Koep
Assistant General Counsel
cc: Colette Jurek, Manager Community Local Government Relations
Becky Harasyn Gas Business Development
Jamie Verbrugge Rosemount City Administrator
Charlie LeFevere Rosemount City Attorney
Dave Perron Aquila