Loading...
Pursuant to § 15(5) of the Act, a telecommunications provider undertaking an excavation or construction or installing telecommunications facilities within a public right-of-way or temporarily obstructing a public right-of-way in the city, as authorized by a permit, shall promptly repair all damage done to the street surface and all installations under, over, below, or within the public right-of-way and shall promptly restore the public right-of-way to its preexisting condition.
In addition to the nonrefundable application fee paid to the city set forth in § 90.004(D) above, a telecommunications provider with telecommunications facilities in the city’s public rights-of-way shall pay an annual maintenance fee to the Authority pursuant to § 8 of the Act.
(A) Modification of existing fees. In compliance with the requirements of § 13(1) of the Act, the city hereby modifies, to the extent necessary, any fees charged to telecommunications providers after November 1, 2002, the effective date of the Act, relating to access and usage of the public rights-of-way, to an amount not exceeding the amounts of fees and charges required under the Act, which shall be paid to the Authority. In compliance with the requirements of Section 13(4) of the Act, the city also hereby approves modification of the fees of providers with telecommunication facilities in public rights-of-way within the city’s boundaries, so that those providers pay only those fees required under § 8 of the Act. The city shall provide each telecommunications provider affected by the fee with a copy of this ordinance, in compliance with the requirement of § 13(4) of the Act. To the extent any fees are charged telecommunications providers in excess of the amounts permitted under the Act, or which are otherwise inconsistent with the Act, that imposition is hereby declared to be contrary to the city’s policy and intent, and upon application by a provider or discovery by the city, shall be promptly refunded as having been charged in error.
(B) Savings clause. Pursuant to § 13(5) of the Act, if § 8 of the Act is found to be invalid or unconstitutional, the modification of fees under subsection (A) above shall be void from the date the modification was made.
(A) Use of funds. Pursuant to § 10(4) of the Act, all amounts received by the city from the Authority shall be used by the city solely for rights-of-way related purposes. In conformance with that requirement, all funds received by the city from the Authority shall be deposited into the Major Street Fund or the Local Street Fund maintained by the city under Public Act 51 of 1951.
(B) Annual report. Pursuant to § 10(5) of the Act, the Mayor shall file an annual report with the Authority on the use and disposition of funds annually distributed by the Authority.
Pursuant to § 13(6) of the Act, the city shall not hold a cable television operator in default or seek any remedy for its failure to satisfy an obligation, if any, to pay after November 1, 2002, the effective date of this Act, a franchise fee or similar fee on that portion of gross revenues from charges the cable operator received for cable modem services provided through broadband internet transport access services.
Pursuant to § 4(2) of the Act, except as expressly provided herein with respect to fees, this ordinance shall not affect any existing rights that a telecommunications provider or the city may have under a permit issued by the city or under a contract between the city and a telecommunications provider related to the use of the public rights-of-way.
(A) The city hereby declares that its policy and intent in adopting this ordinance is to fully comply with the requirements of the Act, and the provisions hereof should be construed in such a manner as to achieve that purpose.
(B) The city shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the Act, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Exempting certain route maps from the Freedom of Information Act, Public Act 442 of 1976, being M.C.L.A. §§ 15.231, 215.246, as provided in § 90.004(C) of this code;
(2) Allowing certain previously issued permits to satisfy the permit requirements hereof, in accordance with § 90.004(F) of this code;
(3) Allowing existing providers additional time in which to submit an application for a permit, and excusing those providers from the application fee, in accordance with § 90.004(G) of this code;
(4) Approving or denying an application for a permit within 45 days from the date a telecommunications provider files an application for a permit for access to and usage of a public right-of- way within the city, in accordance with § 90.005(A) of this code;
(5) Notifying the MPSC when the city has granted or denied a permit, in accordance with § 90.005(A) of this code;
(6) Not unreasonably denying an application for a permit, in accordance with § 90.005(A) of this code;
(7) Issuing a permit in the form approved by the MPSC, with or without additional or different permit terms, as provided in § 90.005(B) of this code;
(8) Limiting the conditions imposed on the issuance of a permit to the telecommunications provider’s access and usage of the public right-of-way, in accordance with § 90.005(C) of this code;
(9) Not requiring a bond of a telecommunications provider which exceeds the reasonable cost to ensure that the public right-of-way is returned to its original condition during and after the telecommunication provider’s access and use, in accordance with § 90.005(D) of this code;
(10) Not charging any telecommunications providers any additional fees for construction or engineering permits, in accordance with § 90.006 of this code;
(11) Providing each telecommunications provider affected by the city’s right-of-way fees with a copy of this ordinance, in accordance with § 90.011(A) of this code;
(12) Submitting an annual report to the Authority, in accordance with § 90.012(B) of this code; and
(13) Not holding a cable television operator in default for a failure to pay certain franchise fees, in accordance with § 90.013 of this code.
Pursuant to § 15(2) of the Act, this ordinance shall not limit the city’s right to review and approve a telecommunication provider’s access to and ongoing use of a public right-of-way or limit the city’s authority to ensure and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Loading...