New Search
amendment. EC Section 2.020 requires that both the current and proposed fee be set forth <br /> in the notice. Since this is the first time the City has adopted a separate fee for aerial <br /> installations, it was technically necessary to list "none" as the current fee. Previously, <br /> companies and persons working in the right-of--way were charged the same for aerial <br /> installations as for underground work. In fact, the proposal to adopt a sepazate fee for aerial <br /> installation -was prompted in part by Broadband's assertions that the chazge for aerial <br /> installations should be less than for installations on or below ground. <br /> Comment 2: Broadband contends that the fees for aerial installations will require <br /> Broadband to "pay fees extraordinarily in excess of the City's costs." <br /> Finding: I find that not to be the case. The fee adopted herein results from a <br /> thorough analysis of the City's costs, based on recent experience with aerial installations, <br /> much of it by Broadband and its contractors. The fees for aerial installations will be less than <br /> for underground installations, even if the decrease is not as much as Broadband would like. <br /> Comment 3: Broadband implies that under its franchise, it may not be chazged fees <br /> for using the right-of--way, because the fee for that use is covered by its franchise. <br /> Finding: The fee is not for use of the right-of--way, but for the City's costs for <br /> processing the application to engage inwork intheright-of--way and for inspecting the work <br /> during and after its completion. See Eugene Code Section 7.300(1). Having reviewed the <br /> analysis supporting the fee adopted herein, I find that it is intended to cover only the City's <br /> costs for administration and inspection, as required by EC 7.300 and expressly allowed by <br /> Broadband's franchise, section 10(7). Although Broadband claims to have "penciled out" <br /> the personnel costs for administering the permit and inspecting the work, it did not include <br /> those calculations with its comments, so no response can be made to that contention. I find <br /> staffs detailed analysis of costs to be persuasive. Those costs include substantial overtime <br /> needed to administer the permits, inspect the work, advise Broadband's contractors, remedy <br /> their errors, respond to citizen complaints and the like. <br /> Comment 4: Broadband complains that the lower per-foot rate applies only to <br /> circumstances in which a single permit application covers more than five miles of <br /> installation, and suggests that the lower rate should apply after the first five miles of <br /> permitted installation in a calendaz yeaz, rather than permit-by-permit. <br /> F><'nding: As a practical matter, it is not feasible for City staff to administer <br /> installations at numerous locations azound the City as though they were all part of one <br /> installation. The five-mile threshold allows Broadband the opportunity to reduce its permit <br /> fees, if it plans its installation cazefully, while not requiring staff to treat disparate <br /> installations as though they were part of one installation. <br /> Comment 5: Broadband stated that additional information supporting its comments <br /> would be provided at a later date. <br /> Administrative Order - 2 <br /> <br /> r:\adminord\fees\02uHlityrow2a0.wpd(02/06/03) <br /> <br />