Laserfiche WebLink
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-03-19~F <br /> of the <br /> City Manager of the City of Eugene <br /> <br /> AMENDING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AND <br /> USE OF THE PUBLIC WAY RULE R-7.302 AND <br /> REPEALING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-00-13-F. <br /> <br /> The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds that: <br /> <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-T302. <br /> <br /> B. Based on the findings set forth in Administrative Order No. 58-03-19-F issued on <br />November 18, 2003 ~ 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 finding B of that order. <br /> <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 /> <br /> D. Written comments were received from Comcast of Oregon~ to which I make the <br />following specific findings: <br /> <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 /> <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 inappropriale 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 /> <br /> Comment 2: Comcast objected 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 offacilit/es it was not using as required by R- <br /> 7.302-E-2. <br /> <br /> Administrative Order - 1 <br /> C \WINDOWSXTemporary ln~emet Files\OLl<kB202',03ro;vrl2a0 (00k)68460)1 WPD{01/07/04) <br /> <br /> <br />