§ 15-78 COMPLIANCE.

   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. The City shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the Act, including but not limited to the following:

   (a)   Exempting certain route maps from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, Public Act 442 of 1976, MCLA §§ 15.231 to 15.246, as provided in § 15-65(c) of this ordinance;

   (b)   Allowing certain previously issued permits to satisfy the permit requirements hereof, in accordance with § 15-65(f) of this ordinance;

   (c)   Allowing existing providers additional time in which to submit an application for a permit, and excusing such providers from the $500.00 application fee, in accordance with § 15-65(g) of this ordinance;

   (d)   Approving or denying an application for a permit within forty-five (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 § 15-66(a) of this ordinance;

   (e)   Notifying the MPSC when the City has granted or denied a permit, in accordance with § 15-66(a) of this ordinance;

   (f)   Not unreasonably denying an application for a permit, in accordance with § 15-66(a) of this ordinance;

   (g)   Issuing a permit in the form approved by the MPSC, with or without additional or different permit terms, as provided in § 15-66(b) of this ordinance;

   (h)   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 § 15-66(c) of this ordinance;

   (i)   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 § 15-66(d) of this ordinance;

   (j)   Not charging any telecommunications providers any additional fees for construction or engineering permits, in accordance with § 15-67 of this ordinance;

   (k)   Providing each telecommunications provider affected by the City’s right-of-way fees with a copy of this article, in accordance with § 15-72 of this ordinance;

   (l)   Submitting an annual report to the Authority, in accordance with § 15-75 of this ordinance; and

   (m)   Not holding a cable television operator in default for a failure to pay certain franchise fees, in accordance with § 15-76 of this ordinance.

(Ord. 3512, passed 4-28-2003)

Statutory reference:

   Freedom of Information Act, see MCLA 15.231 et seq.

§ 15-79 RESERVATION OF POLICE POWERS.

   Pursuant to Section 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.

(Ord. 3512, passed 4-28-2003)

§ 15-80 AUTHORIZED CITY OFFICIALS.

   The Mayor or Mayor’s designee is hereby designated as the authorized City official to issue municipal civil infraction citations (directing alleged violators to appear in court) or municipal civil infraction violation notices (directing alleged violators to appear at the Municipal Chapter Violations Bureau) for violations under this ordinance as provided by the City Code.

(Ord. 3512, passed 4-28-2003)

§ 15-81 MUNICIPAL CIVIL INFRACTIONS.

   Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance or the terms or conditions of a permit is responsible for a municipal civil infraction, and shall be subject to a civil fine, sanctions and remedies as prescribed in § 1-7 of the City of Flint Code of Ordinances.

(Ord. 3512, passed 4-28-2003)

§ 15-82 SEVERABILITY.

   This ordinance and each article, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, part, provision, sentence, word and portion thereof are hereby declared to be severable, and if they or any of them are declared to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it is hereby provided that the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby.

(Ord. 3512, passed 4-28-2003)

§ 15-83 REPEAL.

   All regulatory provisions contained in other City ordinances, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, are hereby repealed.

(Ord. 3512, passed 4-28-2003)

ARTICLE IX. VIDEO SERVICE PROVIDER RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT

§ 15-84 PURPOSE.

   (a)   Under the Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act, video service providers may obtain a franchise to provide video services in the municipality using a standardized uniform form of franchise agreement established by the MPSC. This form includes the right to use the public right-of-way to provide such service but does not contain right-of-way management and related provisions.

   (b)   Municipality’s cable television franchise with its current cable operator predates the Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act and may be interpreted to have right-of-way management and related provisions, directly or through the Charter and City Code provisions referenced therein. The Act states that as of January 1, 2007, “any provisions” of such an agreement “that are inconsistent with or in addition to” the standardized, uniform form of franchise agreement established by the MPSC “are unreasonable and unenforceable by the franchising entity.” Although the municipality and other local units of government have challenged this provision of the Act in Court, there has been no final resolution of the challenges, and there may not be one for some time.

   (c)   Telecommunications providers who obtain a standardized, uniform form of franchise agreement generally will have previously obtained from municipality a permit under the Metro Act to construct and maintain their telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way. These Metro Act permits set forth the terms and conditions for the right-of-way usage; standard forms of such permits were agreed to in a collaborative process between municipalities and providers that was initiated by the MPSC; and such standard forms have since been approved by the legislature and the MPSC.

   (d)   Because telecommunications providers typically provide video services over combined video and telecommunications facilities, such Metro Act permits generally provide adequate public right-of-way related protections for municipality and the public when such providers are providing video services.

   (e)   Other video service providers, in particular new providers or existing cable operators, may not have a Metro Act permit issued by municipality.

   (f)   The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act and the standardized, uniform franchise agreement require video service providers with such an agreement to comply with all valid and enforceable local regulations regarding the use and occupation of the public right-of-way in the delivery of video services, including the police powers of the franchising entity, and makes such right-of-way usage subject to the laws of the State of Michigan and the police powers of the franchising entity.

   (g)   The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act and the standardized uniform franchise agreement state that franchising entities shall provide video service providers with open, comparable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral access to the public right-of-way, and may not discriminate against a video service provider for the authorization or placement of a video-service or communications network in the public right-of-way.

   (h)   The Michigan Constitution reserves reasonable control of the highways, streets, alleys and public places to local units of government, which may exercise such authority through the use of their police powers.

   (i)   The purpose of this ordinance is to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare and exercise reasonable control over the public right-of-way by regulating the use and occupation of such rights-of-way by video service providers who lack a Metro Act permit from the municipality. This ordinance does so by setting forth terms and conditions for such usage and occupation from the forms of Metro Act permit approved by the MPSC and approved by the legislature in Section 6(1) of the Metro Act, thus providing open, comparable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral access to the public right-of-way and not discriminating against a video service provider for the authorization or placement of a video service or communications network in the public right-of-way.

(Ord. 3760, passed 11-23-2009)

§ 15-85 CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION.

   This ordinance shall be interpreted and applied so as to be consistent with the Metro Act and corresponding provisions of the forms of Metro Act permit approved by the MPSC, including applicable MPSC, metro authority and Court decisions and determinations relating to same.

(Ord. 3760, passed 11-23-2009)