Jot, has PSO agreed to your change? Have you had that conversation with them? Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 9, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Jot Hartley <jothartley@gmail.com> wrote: > >  > I am having that provision stricken from any franchise. PSO has no right to condemn such rights either. > > JOT HARTLEY > THE HARTLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC > 177 W. Delaware Ave. > Vinita, OK 74301 > (918) 256-2100 FAX (918) 256-2121 > Cell: (918) 244-0394 > Mail to: jothartley@gmail.com > > This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and may be legally privileged. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and is intended solely for review and use by the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. > > >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:03 AM <Kim@spadylaw.com> wrote: >> I just noticed that PSO is now including the right to “allow others who have a permitted right given by Grantor, or as may otherwise be authorized or required by applicable law, to attach telecommunications and cable facilities to its poles and structures on such conditions as it considers just and reasonable and in compliance with applicable law.” >> >> >> >> Has anyone else noticed this? My first reaction is that I don’t like it because of the “or as may otherwise be authorized” verbiage. >> >> >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kim Spady >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org

Well, PSO rejected my requested changes wholesale. I don’t know why the municipality should approve the proposed franchise ordinance as written. The franchise is really for the utility provider’s benefit. There is a gross receipts tax in effect, so the income should be the same. Am I missing something? Thanks Kim Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 9, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Kimberlee Spady <Kim@spadylaw.com> wrote: > > Jot, has PSO agreed to your change? Have you had that conversation with them? > > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On Aug 9, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Jot Hartley <jothartley@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>  >> I am having that provision stricken from any franchise. PSO has no right to condemn such rights either. >> >> JOT HARTLEY >> THE HARTLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC >> 177 W. Delaware Ave. >> Vinita, OK 74301 >> (918) 256-2100 FAX (918) 256-2121 >> Cell: (918) 244-0394 >> Mail to: jothartley@gmail.com >> >> This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and may be legally privileged. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and is intended solely for review and use by the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:03 AM <Kim@spadylaw.com> wrote: >>> I just noticed that PSO is now including the right to “allow others who have a permitted right given by Grantor, or as may otherwise be authorized or required by applicable law, to attach telecommunications and cable facilities to its poles and structures on such conditions as it considers just and reasonable and in compliance with applicable law.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Has anyone else noticed this? My first reaction is that I don’t like it because of the “or as may otherwise be authorized” verbiage. >>> >>> >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Kim Spady >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org

I’d tell them “No, thanks, we won’t agree to put you in the telecommunications/cable business.” If the franchise expires, I believe Oklahoma case law provides that the expired franchise contract continues by implication under the same terms and conditions until the city gives notice to the franchise holder to remove it’s facilities from the public rights-of-way. I have a 4:10 dental appointment so I cannot find the case until tomorrow. Perhaps Wiley or Laura remembers the case cite or has it handy. (I think it is Cochran v. Town of Pittsburg, or vice versa, but that is purely from memory so it might be wrong.) This same point was an issue when we renewed our Cox franchise a few years back. From: Kimberlee Spady <Kim@spadylaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 3:25 PM Cc: OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) <OAMA@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Re: PSO Franchise Well, PSO rejected my requested changes wholesale. I don’t know why the municipality should approve the proposed franchise ordinance as written. The franchise is really for the utility provider’s benefit. There is a gross receipts tax in effect, so the income should be the same. Am I missing something? Thanks Kim Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Kimberlee Spady <Kim@spadylaw.com<mailto:Kim@spadylaw.com>> wrote: Jot, has PSO agreed to your change? Have you had that conversation with them? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Jot Hartley <jothartley@gmail.com<mailto:jothartley@gmail.com>> wrote:  I am having that provision stricken from any franchise. PSO has no right to condemn such rights either. JOT HARTLEY THE HARTLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC 177 W. Delaware Ave. Vinita, OK 74301 (918) 256-2100 FAX (918) 256-2121 Cell: (918) 244-0394 Mail to: jothartley@gmail.com<mailto:jothartley@gmail.com> This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and may be legally privileged. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and is intended solely for review and use by the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:03 AM <Kim@spadylaw.com<mailto:Kim@spadylaw.com>> wrote: I just noticed that PSO is now including the right to “allow others who have a permitted right given by Grantor, or as may otherwise be authorized or required by applicable law, to attach telecommunications and cable facilities to its poles and structures on such conditions as it considers just and reasonable and in compliance with applicable law.” Has anyone else noticed this? My first reaction is that I don’t like it because of the “or as may otherwise be authorized” verbiage. Any thoughts? Thanks, Kim Spady -- Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org> To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama-leave@lists.imla.org> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.

That’s exactly right — Pittsburg v Cochrane 1945 OK 88. Thank you! Hope your dentist appointment went well! Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 10, 2021, at 3:44 PM, Jordan, Kenneth <kenneth.jordan@okc.gov> wrote: > >  > I’d tell them “No, thanks, we won’t agree to put you in the telecommunications/cable business.” > > If the franchise expires, I believe Oklahoma case law provides that the expired franchise contract continues by implication under the same terms and conditions until the city gives notice to the franchise holder to remove it’s facilities from the public rights-of-way. I have a 4:10 dental appointment so I cannot find the case until tomorrow. > > Perhaps Wiley or Laura remembers the case cite or has it handy. (I think it is Cochran v. Town of Pittsburg, or vice versa, but that is purely from memory so it might be wrong.) This same point was an issue when we renewed our Cox franchise a few years back. > > From: Kimberlee Spady <Kim@spadylaw.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 3:25 PM > Cc: OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) <OAMA@lists.imla.org> > Subject: [Oama] Re: PSO Franchise > > Well, PSO rejected my requested changes wholesale. > > I don’t know why the municipality should approve the proposed franchise ordinance as written. The franchise is really for the utility provider’s benefit. There is a gross receipts tax in effect, so the income should be the same. > > Am I missing something? > > Thanks > Kim > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 9, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Kimberlee Spady <Kim@spadylaw.com> wrote: > > Jot, has PSO agreed to your change? Have you had that conversation with them? > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 9, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Jot Hartley <jothartley@gmail.com> wrote: > >  > I am having that provision stricken from any franchise. PSO has no right to condemn such rights either. > > JOT HARTLEY > THE HARTLEY LAW FIRM, PLLC > 177 W. Delaware Ave. > Vinita, OK 74301 > (918) 256-2100 FAX (918) 256-2121 > Cell: (918) 244-0394 > Mail to: jothartley@gmail.com > > This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and may be legally privileged. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and is intended solely for review and use by the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:03 AM <Kim@spadylaw.com> wrote: > I just noticed that PSO is now including the right to “allow others who have a permitted right given by Grantor, or as may otherwise be authorized or required by applicable law, to attach telecommunications and cable facilities to its poles and structures on such conditions as it considers just and reasonable and in compliance with applicable law.” > > Has anyone else noticed this? My first reaction is that I don’t like it because of the “or as may otherwise be authorized” verbiage. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Kim Spady > > > -- > Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws. PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy > bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1