Laserfiche WebLink
COPY OPP <br /> J115 <br /> BERNICK AND LIFSON <br /> A PROFESSIONAL AS S OCIATIO14 <br /> • ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br /> ROSS A. SUSSMAN SUITE 1200. THE COLONNAOE tALSO AOMITTEO IN WISCONSIN <br /> NEAL J. SHAPIRO 3300 WAY2ATA BOULEVARD 'ALSO CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT <br /> SAUL A. BERNICK <br /> MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270 <br /> THOMAS O. CREIG HTON LEGAL ASSISTANTS <br /> SCOTT A. LIF$ON JO BROWN - <br /> TELEPHONE 16121 346-1200 <br /> DAVID K. NIGHTINGALEt JOAN M. SCHULKERS <br /> PAUL J. OUAST* FACSIMILE (612) 346-1003 KATHRYN G. MASTERMAN <br /> THERESA M. KOWALSKI <br /> REBECCA J. HELTZER <br /> ROBERT J. V. VOSE Comparison of Rights-of-Way Ordinances <br /> Bernick and Lifson, P.A. <br /> Ordinance <br /> Compared to: <br /> League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)/ <br /> Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) <br /> Ordinance <br /> i <br /> In late 1994 and early 1995, many public officials and municipal representatives became <br /> concerned about the potential for a dramatic increase in the demand for public property for new <br /> telecommunications facilities and systems. Concern centered around the uncertain scope of <br /> • municipal regulatory authority over providers other than cable television service providers; <br /> particularly telephone companies and other newly emerging video and data transmission service <br /> providers. Efforts to amend and clarify state law were unsuccessful requiring action at the local <br /> level. <br /> Bernick and Lifson, legal advisor to many Minnesota municipalities and municipal <br /> consortia, along with the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) and League of Minnesota Cities <br /> (LMC),. determined to draft ordinances for use throughout the state. Bernick and Lifson's <br /> Ordinance goes somewhat further in developing a permitting scheme to collect compensation for <br /> use of the right-of-way. However, in general, effort was made to maintain uniformity between <br /> the Ordinances so that any municipality's ordinance which might subsequently be subject to <br /> litigation could be mutually defended and the resultant decision afforded precedential weight. <br /> I. Scope of Ordinances. Both Ordinances similarly govern telecommunications providers, <br /> equipment, and facilities using public rights-of-ways (PROW). For example, neither <br /> version covers gas mains or electric lines which should be governed by already existing <br /> ordinances and specific franchises or other permits. <br /> II. Permits. Both. Ordinances generally require a permit whenever a telecommunications <br /> provider installs, repairs or moves any facilities or equipment on' PROW. Both <br /> Ordinances provide that the City shall inspect the permitted work once completed and <br /> 1 <br />