A. Any person engaged in transportation or transmission business within the state may construct and operate lines connecting any points within the state and connect at the state boundary with like lines, except that within the confines of municipal corporations the use and occupancy of streets shall be under rights acquired by franchises according to law or licenses pursuant to title 9, chapter 5, articles 1.1 and 4, and subject to control and regulation by the municipal authorities. The use of highways, except state highways, by public utilities not within any incorporated city or town shall be regulated by the board of supervisors of the county by license or franchise.
B. A board of supervisors in granting a license or franchise, or at any time after it is granted, may impose restrictions and limitations upon the use of the public roads as it deems best for the public safety or welfare.
C. Every franchise granted under this article shall include provisions requiring the grantee to bear all expenses, including damage and compensation for any alteration of the direction, surface, grade or alignment of a county road, made for the purpose of such franchise. If the surface of a county highway is used by any grantee for trackage, the franchise shall include reasonable regulations for maintenance by the grantee of that portion of the highway so used.
D. A board of supervisors may authorize public service corporations, telecommunications corporations, cable operators or video service providers to construct a line, plant, service or system within the right-of-way of any road, highway or easement that is designated for access or public use by plat or survey of record of a subdivision, or of unsubdivided land as defined in section 32-2101, provided that any such authorization or construction pursuant to such authorization does not impose on the county the duty of maintaining the road or highway unless the county accepts the road or highway into the county maintenance system by appropriate resolution. This subsection does not grant county boards of supervisors additional authority to require public service corporations, telecommunications corporations, cable operators or video service providers to obtain licenses or franchises.
E. A board of supervisors, before granting any of the privileges authorized under this section, shall give public notice of its intention to grant such privileges by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation, published within the county, at least once a week for three weeks before the day set for consideration of such action. If, on or before such date, more than fifty percent of the qualified electors of the county petition the board of supervisors to deny the privilege, it shall do so, and any privilege granted against the petition is void.
Notes of Decisions
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler, 217 P.3d 424 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “¶40 Another statute, A.R.S. § 40-283 (2001), provides more pertinent guidance by specifying that the public is entitled to exercise continuing control over the use and occupancy of the streets.”
HOME BUILDERS ASS'N v. City of Maricopa, 158 P.3d 869 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d at 698, quoting A.R.S. § 40-283. It further held that the right to charge the fee was not necessarily implied in the authority to grant a franchise.”
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Co., 153 P.3d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “In order to obtain a franchise, a public service corporation must submit a proposed franchise to the municipality, and if the municipality deems the franchise beneficial, it refers the franchise proposal to the public for a general election, as ultimately occurred here.”
City of Chandler v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 231 P.3d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “2d 179, 183 (1965); see also A.R.S. § 40-283(A) (2001) (stating that the public is entitled to exercise continuing control over the use of public roadways in which transmission lines are placed); Paradise Valley Water Co.”
Sw. Gas Corp. v. Mohave Cnty., 937 P.2d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “”) section 40-283 (1996). Southwest originally obtained such a franchise from Mohave County in 1957.”
City of Tucson v. Pima Cnty., 949 P.2d 38 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “1983) (county board of health’s jurisdiction limited to area within county but outside city’s corporate limits); A.R.S. § 40-283 (use of highways by public utilities not within any incorporated city or town is regulated by county board of supervisors).”
Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 87 P.3d 831 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 4× “In pertinent part, that statute provides: A board of supervisors may authorize public service corporations, telecommunications corporations or cable television systems to construct a line, plant, service or *423 system within the right-of-way of any road, highway or easement…”
Paradise Valley Water Co. v. Hart, 395 P.2d 716 (Ariz. 1964).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 40-283(B) (1956) states: “A board of supervisors in granting a license or franchise, or at any time after it is granted, may impose restrictions and limitations upon the use of the public roads as it deems best for the public safety or welfare.”
Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners'ass'n, 87 P.3d 831 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 4× “In pertinent part, that statute provides: A board of supervisors may authorize public service corporations, telecommunications corporations or cable television systems to construct a line, plant, service or *836 system within the right-of-way of any road, highway or easement…”
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Co. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “In order to obtain a franchise, a public service corporation must submit a proposed franchise to the municipality, and if the municipality deems the franchise beneficial, it refers the franchise proposal to the public for a general election, as ultimately occurred here.”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The court stated that “the absence of a prohibition does not mean a county has the power to engage in the questioned conduct.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-283(A) — 4 cases
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Co., 153 P.3d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“In order to obtain a franchise, a public service corporation must submit a proposed franchise to the municipality, and if the municipality deems the franchise beneficial, it refers the franchise proposal to the public for a general election, as ultimately occurred here.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler, 217 P.3d 424 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“¶40 Another statute, A.R.S. § 40-283 (2001), provides more pertinent guidance by specifying that the public is entitled to exercise continuing control over the use and occupancy of the streets.”
City of Chandler v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 231 P.3d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“2d 179, 183 (1965); see also A.R.S. § 40-283(A) (2001) (stating that the public is entitled to exercise continuing control over the use of public roadways in which transmission lines are placed); Paradise Valley Water Co.”
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Co. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“In order to obtain a franchise, a public service corporation must submit a proposed franchise to the municipality, and if the municipality deems the franchise beneficial, it refers the franchise proposal to the public for a general election, as ultimately occurred here.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-283(B) — 1 case
Paradise Valley Water Co. v. Hart, 395 P.2d 716 (Ariz. 1964).
“” A.R.S. § 40-283(B) (1956) states: “A board of supervisors in granting a license or franchise, or at any time after it is granted, may impose restrictions and limitations upon the use of the public roads as it deems best for the public safety or welfare.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-283(D) — 2 cases
Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 87 P.3d 831 (Ariz. 2004).
“In pertinent part, that statute provides: A board of supervisors may authorize public service corporations, telecommunications corporations or cable television systems to construct a line, plant, service or *423 system within the right-of-way of any road, highway or easement…”
Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners'ass'n, 87 P.3d 831 (Ariz. 2004).
“In pertinent part, that statute provides: A board of supervisors may authorize public service corporations, telecommunications corporations or cable television systems to construct a line, plant, service or *836 system within the right-of-way of any road, highway or easement…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.