Legislative Policies for the 2005 Legislative Session

New Search

be able to respond to competing needs and provide users equitable access to the public ROW. Cities manage these competing needs through their permitting procedures, which outline location construction Wireless Facility Zonin ang_ d Siting: Along with cities' authority to manage the public ROW for their citizens, the Act also affirmed cities' have legal authority over land use decisions relating to the and traffic control standards. Increased interest in use of public ROW thus increases municipal placement of telecommunications facilities such as cell towers. This authority allows cities to protect the monitoring and managing the increased disruption to the ROW. Despite the increased workload, Indust accusations regarding permitting delays by Oregon cities have not been substantiated, despite municipalry livability of their communities. The cities' authority in this area should not be curtailed. requests for specific permitting problem areas. Thus, legislation aimed at curtailing cities' existing Municipal Provision of Telecommunications Services: In keeping with Congressional efforts to increase permitting procedures is not appropriate and could erode municipal activities that sustain the useful life of city streets and roads as surfaces are repeatedly cut and patched, competition through the Act, cities and municipal utilities should continue to have direct authority to provide telecommunications services for themselves and on afor-hire basis as desired. Recent federal Cities manage the public ROW as a service to their citizens. Cities receive compensation from appellate decisions have reaffirmed cities rights under the Act. telecommunications providers when providers use the public ROW as a part of their doing business. Telecommunications policy remains a critical issue for cities in the 2005. Legislative decisions in the Since the passage of the Actin 1996, carriers are increasingly insistent that local regulation and telecommunications arena could have an enormous impact on city authority and revenues. In addition to management procedures not impede their ability to bring `state-of--the-art' telecommunications services to Oregonians, and argue that the wide variety of fees and charges they are faced with b multi le new attacks onlong-standing municipal policies and standards, advancing technology and changes in the y P industry create a challenge to cities' long standing inherent authority over certain telecommunications jurisdictions has that effect. In light of recent, clearly written court opinions, this argument is simply not issues. credible, Providers offer a wide variety of services at a wide variety of fee structures to thousands of customers without missing a billing; a relative handful of individual city agreements cannot be a barrier to their operations. The same computer chip that can calculate an individual citizen's bill, out of thousands Recommendations: of bills, can calculate one city's fee. The policy is long-standing; complying with the policy is not 1. Su ort existin ci res onsibili to mono a the ublic ROW includin o osin the structurally difficult. Pp g ty p ty g P ~ g Pp g preemption of any portion of Eugene's Telecommunications ordinances, recently upheld by the In conclusion, adequate compensation for use of the public ROW should continue to be collected from Oregon Supreme Court. service providers. Management authority should also remain localized to allow cities to meet existing and 2. Support existing city right and duty to negotiate and collect fair compensation from future federal requirements for nondiscriminatory access. Increasing use of ROW also increases the need telecommunications and cable providers for use of public infrastructure and ROW. for adequate construction and safety criteria. Cities, consulting with appropriate engineering resources, should be responsible for creating and enforcing standards that ensure effective ROW management and 3. Support clear and forthright billing practices between telecommunication providers who use the accessibility. public ROW and their customers. Providers should treat any costs they incur from using the Throughout 2000, cities and industry met (via House Bill 3345, ] 999} as a task force aimed at finding public ROW as a business operating cost, not as a tax. common ground across a number of administrative and compensation areas related to industry's use of 4. Support current city zoning authority regarding the siting of telecommunications towers and other the public ROW. This task force discussed new ways of protecting vital municipal assets while at the facilities. same time simplifying the local management scheme and providing for increased consistency and minimizing the potential for creating competitive disadvantages across the industry. The report of the 5. Support existing ability of cities and municipal utilities (i.e., Eugene Water and Electric Board) to task force's findings is available for review. own, operate, construct and provide telecommunications services on a level playing field with Related Issues: private providers. Oppose any attempt to pre-empt this activity. 6, Support existing local authority to make decisions regarding acceptable in-kind services in lieu of Provider Fee Pass-Through to Customers: Currently, some providers directly pass all or part of their cost franchise fees for use of the public ROW. Oppose any attempt to preempt local use of in-kind for this use of the publicright-of--way onto their customers by calling it a tax on their customers' telephone bills. Such a cost is not a tax. It is a business operating cost incurred by providers when they agreements as a method of valid. compensation. use the public ROW. When the cost is directly passed through to the customer, the citizen is, in effect, paying the telecommunications provider for the providers' privilege to use that citizen's publicly managed ROW. Such a practice is a misrepresentation of billing to telecommunications customers. With few exceptions, providers are not required to pass on these particular expenses to customers; they choose to do so. City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2005 Session 56 City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2005 Session 57