New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Admin Order 58-03-19-F
COE
>
PW
>
Admin
>
Execs
>
Admin Orders
>
Admin Order 58-03-19-F
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2009 9:35:51 AM
Creation date
6/1/2009 12:16:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Exec
PW_Division_Exec
Administration
PWA_Project_Area
Admin Orders
PW_Subject
ROW
Document_Date
1/14/2004
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
:- ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER N0.58-03-19-F <br />~~~ of the <br />City Manager of the City of Eugene <br />AMENDING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AND <br />USE OF THE PUBLIC WAY RULER 7.302 AND <br />REPEALING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER N0.58-00-13-F. <br />The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds that: <br />A. Pursuant to the authority of Section 2.019 of the Eugene Code,1971, Administrative <br />Order No. 58-00-13-F was issued on September 27, 2000, amending and adopting Construction <br />Within and Use of the Public Way Rule R-7.302. <br />B. Based on the findings set forth in Administrative Order No. 58-03-19-F issued on <br />November 18, 2003 I proposed amendments to Rule R-7.302 and the Utility and Right-of--Way <br />Permits Construction Within and Use of the Public Way Manual attached as Exhibit A thereto, as <br />set forth in fmding B of that order. <br />C. Notice of the proposed amendments was published in the Register Guard for five <br />consecutive days, to-wit, on November 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 2003. The Notice was also made available <br />for persons who had requested such notice, and provided that written comments would be received <br />~' thereon for a period of 30 days from the first date of publication. <br />D. Written comments were received from Comcast of Oregon, to which I make the <br />following specific findings: <br />Comment 1: An objection was raised to the phrase."amount established" in R- <br />7.302-C-1.3.3 in reference to the fee for an exception permit, as being vague, and Comcast <br />suggested it be revised to "an amount to cover City's actual cost." <br />Finding: No amendments were proposed to be made to this subsection, which <br />remains the same as in the prior Rule. It would be inappropriate to amend substantively a <br />portion of the rule that was not proposed for amendment in the Notice without providing a <br />new opportunity for public comment. (This finding applies also to Comments 2, 3 and 4.) <br />The use of the phrase in the subsection is a direction that the fee be established by the City <br />Manager following the procedures of EC 2.020, which requires a public comment period. <br />No changes were made as a result of this comment. <br />Comment 2: Comcast obj ected to the requirement of building and paying for excess <br />capacity that would not be under its control and could be used by a possible competitor, and <br />also objected to being liable for the condition of facilities it was not using as required by R- <br />7.302-E-2. <br />Administrative Order - 1 <br />C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB202\03rowr12a0 (00068460)1.WPD(Ol/07/04) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.