Opinion ID: 1354613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Portland's authority to order uncompensated relocation

Text: Portland's city charter, [10] adopted in 1903, specified the city's authority regarding street uses. Chapter 1, Article I, Section 3, of that charter provided a general grant of authority: The City of Portland shall be invested within its limits with authority to perform all public services and with all governmental powers except such as are expressly conferred by law upon other public corporations and subject to the limitations prescribed by the constitution and laws of the state, except as hereinafter provided. The Portland charter also provided specific areas open to municipal legislation. Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 73. These areas included the location of water pipes, and the furnishing of water and lighting for the city. Section 73(12) specifically authorized the city to provide for    the opening, laying out, establishing, altering, extending, vacating and closing or for establishing and changing the grades of streets, squares, parks, public places, and to provide for the improving and repairing of streets, squares, parks and public places or of any land over which any right of way has been obtained, or granted for any purpose of public travel by means of any kind of work, improvement or repair mentioned in this Charter, subject to the provisions and limitations contained in this Charter, and in the Constitution of the State of Oregon. (Emphasis added.) Section 73(60) and (61) authorized the city to regulate and control the streets for any and every purpose. Lastly, Section 74 of Chapter 3 stated that none of these enumerated powers limited the initial general grant of authority, quoted ante. The charter provisions authorized the City of Portland to exercise governmental powers, to locate certain utility fixtures, and to improve, repair and regulate the streets and other public rights-of-way. Such regulation necessarily would include the ordering of utility relocation to accommodate a public improvement such as a light rail transit system. As early as 1911, the state legislature empowered the cities to regulate utilities. Oregon Laws 1911, chapter 279, section 61, provided in pertinent part: Every municipality shall have power  (1) To determine by contract, ordinance or otherwise the quality and character of each kind of product or service to be furnished or rendered by any public utility furnishing any product of [ sic ] service within said municipality and all other terms and conditions not inconsistent with this Act upon which such public utility may be permitted to occupy the streets, highways or other public property within such municipality and such municipality shall be in force and prima facie reasonable.    (2) To require of any public utility by ordinance or otherwise such modifications, additions and extensions to its physical equipment, facilities or plant or service within said municipality as shall be reasonable and necessary in the interest of the public, and to designate the location and nature of all such additions and extensions, the time within which they must be completed and all conditions under which they must be constructed subject to review by the Commission as provided in this section. This statute was later redesignated as ORS 221.420, which provides in relevant part: (2) Every city may: (a) Determine by contract or prescribe by ordinance or otherwise, the quality and character of each kind of product or service to be furnished or rendered by any public utility, furnishing any product or service within such city, and all other terms and conditions upon which any public utility may be permitted to occupy the streets, highways or other public property within such city and exclude or eject any public utility therefrom. (b) Require any public utility, by ordinance or otherwise, to make such modifications, additions and extensions to its physical equipment, facilities or plant or service within such city as shall be reasonable or necessary in the interest of the public, and designate the location and nature of all additions and extensions, the time within which they must be completed, and all conditions under which they must be constructed. This statute delegates power to the cities. The cities may govern all conditions associated with the utilities' use of the public streets. Pursuant to this statutory authority, the City of Portland, in 1969, enacted Portland City Code Section 17.56.060, which provides: Every person owning, operating, or managing any public utility in the City and using poles located in public area for utility purposes, shall relocate any pole at the expense of the utility whenever required by the City Engineer. When other facilities used for public utility purposes are located in public area such facilities shall be relocated at utility expense whenever required by the City Engineer for a public improvement or for the public safety. This ordinance authorizes the City of Portland to order uncompensated relocations of poles and other facilities for public improvements. Here the administrator of the Department of Public Works, who supervises the city engineer, ordered the relocations to accommodate the LRT. As we have previously stated, the LRT was planned for the general welfare and public convenience. It is a public improvement within the ordinance. The utilities argue that this ordinance does not apply because it was enacted in 1969, after the utilities had been granted their franchises. There is no question and the parties do not dispute that the utilities could never take away the municipality's authority to act for the public's general welfare; this is a power that cannot be bargained away. Highway Com. v. Clackamas W. Dist., 247 Or. 216, 220, 428 P.2d 395 (1967); New Orleans Gas Co. v. Drainage Comm., 197 U.S. 453, 25 S.Ct. 471, 49 L.Ed. 831 (1905). The regulation of city streets for purposes of transportation is a proper exercise of the city's governmental authority. The 1969 city ordinance, based on these well-entrenched principles of municipal law, merely articulated preexisting rights. The ordinance also codified the general principle that courts applied to utility relocations before the ordinance existed. This general principle was that utilities must bear the expense of utility relocation when such relocation is required to accommodate a public work. New Orleans Gas Co. v. Drainage Comm., supra, 197 U.S. at 462, 25 S.Ct. at 474; see also Norfolk R & H Auth. v. Chesapeake and Potomac Tel., 464 U.S. 30, 104 S.Ct. 304, 78 L.Ed.2d 29 (1983) (favorably citing the common law principle enunciated in the New Orleans Gas case). The general principle has been adopted by this court. When a franchise allows utilities to use the streets, it is reasonable to imply a limitation on the grant requiring the grantee to bear the cost of relocation in the event that the construction of a highway or other public work is deemed desirable. Highway Com. v. Clackamas W. Dist., supra, 247 Or. at 222, 428 P.2d 395. The Portland City Charter allows the city to act with governmental power of the state; statutes authorize the city to regulate utilities; and the ordinances passed under the charter allow the city to order uncompensated relocation when the relocation is for the public benefit. We now turn to the specific franchises to determine whether they give the utilities any specific contract rights to recover compensation for relocation independent of any general law, statute or city ordinance.