My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-26-1999
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCP 07-26-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:32 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 11:23:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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
<br />III <br />.,{ <br /> <br />i <br />.' <br />, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Model Right-of-Way Ordinance <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />The following model Right-of-Way Ordinance is the result ofa cooperative effort between the <br />City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the League of Minnesota Cities. <br /> <br />The purpose of the model is to give cities a uniform set ofregulations to help them govern the <br />use of their rights-of-way. It is intended to provide a single set of regulations that cities can <br />apply to all right-of-way users, including telecommunications companies. The ordinance <br />conforms to the provisions of the new telecommunications right-of-way legislation adopted into <br />law as Minn. Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123 (Chapter 123). In particular, the ordinance <br />implements a city's authority to manage its right-of-ways and to recover its actual costs incurred <br />in managing excavations and/or obstruction within the right of way. <br /> <br />Each city must evaluate the importance of the various provisions of this model. One ordinance <br />cannot anticipate the many variations of city-utility relationships. In recognition of this fact, <br />some provisions are specifically identified as optional. <br /> <br />Of particular significance, is the fact that the main text of the model does not seek reimbursement <br />for the privilege of using the right-of-way. However, an optional provision for the imposition of <br />"user fees" is provided in the event a city would like to impose user fees on non- <br />telecommunication right-of-way users. (Chapter 123 prohibits imposition ofusers fees and/or <br />franchise fees on telecommunication right of way users.) If a city is considering including the <br />user fee option, please consult with your city attorney and call the League for further assistance <br />on developing a formula for its implementation. <br /> <br />Notes <br /> <br />As many cities are aware, since the spring of 1996 the League of Minnesota Cities and the city of <br />Redwood Falls have been involved in a dispute with U.S. West Communications and other <br />telecommunications interests over the scope of municipal authority to manage and regulate <br />telecommunication companies using city right of ways. With the adoption of Chapter 123, many <br />of the questions concerning municipal authority have been answered. There remain several <br />unresolved issues that will be addressed by a task force commissioned to make recommendations <br />to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission by November 1, 1997. The task force will consist <br />of engineering and other experts representing, in equal proportions, local governments and <br />utilities and other right-of-way users. <br /> <br />Under the new law, the PUC has been given responsibility for adopting uniform statewide <br />construction standards, where appropriate, for telecommunication companies placing facilities in <br />the right-of-way. In addition, the task force has been asked to make recommendations to the <br />PUC on calculation of degradation costs, the establishment of right-of-way mapping systems, the <br />establishment of high-density corridors, and indemnification and insurance requirements. The <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.