My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-13-1997 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
08-13-1997 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2013 9:20:55 AM
Creation date
3/11/2013 9:19:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Further, the B &L Model uses the term "City" throughout the ordinance rather than <br />identifying the "Director" or the "Department" or, in some cases, the "City" as in the <br />LMC /CEAM Model. B &L believes that some cities may wish to make a delegation of <br />authority while others may not. Further, some cities may wish to delegate authority to <br />people or positions not currently referred to as the "Director" or the "Department ". <br />Finally, the definition of "Right -of -Way" in the B &L Model is somewhat broader than <br />that found in the LMC /CEAM Model. The B &L Model. generally applies to any <br />property "in which the City has an interest ". The LMC /CEAM Model applies only to <br />City property used for travel or utility purposes. Because the ordinance regulates use <br />of the ROW, the definition of this term is important and should be as broad as is <br />allowed by law. <br />• The LMC /CEAM Model has stricken references to a municipality's legal authority to <br />adopt a ROW ordinance and franchise certain ROW users. The B &L Model <br />specifically indicates that municipalities have authority, pursuant to the new legislation <br />and historical police power, to regulate the ROW. The B &L Model further indicates <br />that municipalities have franchising authority with respect to non - telecommunications <br />users of the ROW. <br />The distinction is that the B &L Model contemplates exercise of the full scope of <br />municipal authority depending on the nature of the ROW user. The LMC / CEAMM <br />Model arguably fails to provide for the exercise of franchise authority with respect to <br />those ROW occupants that can be franchised. <br />• The LMC /CEAM Model provides an optional provision for the inclusion of a "user <br />fee" to be applied to ROW users other than those telecommunications providers <br />specifically exempted from franchising and franchise fees. The user fee apparently <br />replaces a franchise and franchise fees. <br />The B &L Model simply makes provision for the franchising of any and all providers <br />which can be franchised pursuant to law. We believe that the authority to franchise <br />includes more than mere authority to charge a rental or occupancy fee and includes <br />broader regulatory authority than that found in either model ordinance. Further, cities <br />may wish to continue existing franchises or franchising processes with providers in the <br />manner that such providers have been franchised in the past. The B &L Model accounts <br />for this. <br />• The B &L Model makes provision for a "Performance and Restoration Bond" as part of <br />registration with the City. Such bond requirement is specifically authorized by the new <br />legislation. The purpose of such bond is to secure funds to ensure compliance with the <br />ordinance including obligations to fully restore the ROW. <br />Page 97 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.