Agenda - Council - 07/08/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Further, the B&L Model uses the term "City" throughout the ordinance rather than identifying the "Director" or the "Department" or, in some cases, the "City" as in the LMC/CEAM Model. B&L believes that some cities may wish to make a delegation of authority while others may not. Further, some cities may wish to delegate authority to people or positions not currently referred to as the "Director" or the "Department". Finally, the definition of "Right-of-Way" in the B&L Model is somewhat broader than that found in the LMC/CEAM Model. The B&L Model generally applies to any property "in which the City has an interest". The LMC/CEAM Model applies only to City property used for travel or utility purposes. Because the ordinance regulates use of the ROW, the definition of this term is important and should be as broad as is allowed by law. The LMC/CEAM Model has stricken references to a municipality's legal authority to adopt a ROW ordinance and franchise certain ROW users. The B&L Model specifically indicates that municipalities have authority, pursuant to the new legislation and historical police power, to regulate the ROW. The B&L Model further indicates that municipalities have franchising authority with respect to non-telecommunications users of the ROW. The distinction is that the B&L Model contemplates exercise of the full scope of municipal authority depending on the nature of the ROW user. The LMC/CEAM Model arguably fails to provide for the exercise of franchise authority with respect to those ROW occupants that can be franchised. The LMC/CEAM Model provides an optional provision for the inclusion of a "user fee" to be applied to ROW users other than those telecommunications providers specifically exempted from franchising and franchise fees. The user fee apparently replaces a franchise and franchise fees. The B&L Model simply makes provision for the franchisikig (~f any and all providers which can be franchised pursuant to law. We believe that the authority to franchise includes more than mere authority to charge a rental or occupancy fee and includes broader regulatory authority than that found in either model ordinance. Further, cities may wish to continue existing franchises or franchising processes with providers in the manner that such providers have been franchised in the past. The B&L Model accounts for this. The B&L Model makes provision for a "Performance and Restoration Bond" as part of registrati6n with the City. Such bond requirement is specifically authorized by the new legislation. The purpose of such bond is to secure funds to ensure compliance with the ordinance including obligations to fully restore the ROW. I01