§ 3-9-201. PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING.

(a)

In general. The county administration may grant a franchise on, above, or below the surface of a highway, avenue, street, lane, or alley as provided in this subtitle.

(b)

Diligent inquiry. Before the first publication of notice under this section, the county administration shall make a diligent inquiry regarding the value of the proposed franchise and the adequacy of the compensation proposed to be paid for the franchise.

(c)

Publication.

(1)

The applicant for a franchise shall publish a notice of the application for a franchise once per week for 3 successive weeks in two newspapers of general circulation.

(2)

The notice shall include:

(i)

A summary of the terms and duration of the proposed franchise;

(ii)

The compensation to be received by the county; and

(iii)

Information about filing an objection to the granting of the franchise with the Director of Public Works.

(d)

Objections. If a person, either as a county taxpayer or as a person with property rights involved in the proposed franchise, has any objection to the proposed franchise, the person shall file the person's specific objections in writing with the Director of Public Works before the expiration date established in the notice.

(e)

Hearing. The County Administrative Officer or the County Administrative Officer's designee shall:

(1)

Set a time for hearing any valid objections filed under subsection (d) of this section;

(2)

Conduct the hearing; and

(3)

Issue a decision that is final and from which there is no appeal to the Board of Appeals or any court.

(f)

County may grant franchise. If no valid objection is made to the granting of the franchise and the county administration determines that granting the franchise is expedient and proper, the county administration may grant the franchise.

(1988 Code, §§ 31-86, 31-87) (Bill No. 3, 1990, § 2, 3-30-1990; Bill No. 30-99, § 1, 5-21-1999; Bill No. 31-99, § 3, 7-1-2004)

Annotations:
  Certain statutory precursors of the sections in this subtitle have been cited and construed in two decisions by the Court of Appeals. In Consolidated Gas Co. v. County Commissioners of Baltimore County, 99 Md. 403, 58 A. 214 (1904), these sections were held not to protect the monopoly of a utility by forbidding franchises to competing individuals, but merely to prohibit destruction of vested rights of the utility in streets. In Public Service Commission v. Md. Gas Transmission Corp., 162 Md. 298, 159 A. 758 (1932), the Court determined that abutting owners granting an easement for county highways retain the right of user for themselves and their assigns in the subsurface of the right-of-way, without necessity of application for a franchise under these sections.