Legislative Policies for the 2007 Oregon Legislative Session

New Search

City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2007 Oregon Legislative Session City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2007 Oregon Legislative Session cable modem is not intended to interfere with cities' authority to manage the ROW or to D. WIRELESS FACILITY ZONING AND SITING impose taxes. Along with cities' authority to manage the public ROW for their citizens, the Telecommunications Act also affirmed cities' legal authority over land use decisions B. CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY relating to the placement of telecommunications facilities such as cell towers. This Cities are realizing that technological advancement and growth contribute to the busy and authority allows cities to protect the livability of their communities. The cities' authorit in crowded nature of the public ROW today. An increasing amount of activity occurs above, this area should not be curtailed. Y on and below the ROW. Residents and businesses make ordinary use of the public ROW by walking or driving on it. Others access the public ROW for extraordinary uses such as E. MUNICIPAL PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES cable, natural gas, telecommunications, electricity, water and sewer lines. As users In keeping with Congressional efforts to increase competition through the act, cities and compete for access, local management of the public ROW becomes increasingly critical. municipal utilities. should continue to have direct authority to provide telecommunications Cities must be able to respond to competing needs and provide users with equitable services for themselves and on afor-hire basis as desired. Recent federal appellate access to the public ROW. Cities manage these competing needs through their permitting decisions have reaffirmed cities' rights under the act. procedures, which outline location, construction, and traffic control standards. Increased interest in use of public ROW thus increases municipal monitoring to mitigate disruption to F. .TELECOM PROVIDERS AND VIDEO SERVICES the ROW. Despite the increased workload, industry accusations regarding permitting Within the last couple of years, telecommunications providers, such as Verizon, have delays by Oregon cities have not been substantiated. Thus, legislation aimed at curtailing developed fhe_technologicalexpertise to offer video programming services over their cities' existing permitting procedures is not appropriate and could erode municipal telecommunications lines. Whether these providers should be treated as a cable activities that sustain the useful life of city streets and roads as surfaces are repeatedly cut since they look and act like a cable provider, .has been the discussion in other state rovider, and patched. legislatures and in Congress. Industry has moved from state to state with pre ared legislation that calls for State, not local, video programming franchising when offered by Cities manage the public ROW as a service to their citizens. Cities receive compensation telecommunications companies. Many bills have already been adopted, most notabl in from telecommunications providers when providers use the public ROW as a part of doing California, that are not beneficial to ctties from a programmatic, financial, or consumer business. Since the passage of the Telecommunications Actin 1996, carriers are perspective. increasingly insistent that local regulation and management procedures not impede their ability to bring `state-of-the-art' telecommunications services to Oregonians, and argue that Telecommunications policy remains a critical issue for cities facing the 2007 Ore on municipal fees and charges they are faced with by multiple jurisdictions have that effect, legislative session. Legislative decisions in the telecommunications arena could have an In light of recent, clearly written court opinions, this argument is simply not credible. enormous impact on city authority and revenues. In addition to new attacks on long- standing municipal policies and standards, advancing technology and changes in the In conclusion, fair and reasonable compensation for use. of the public ROW should industry create a challenge to cities' long standing, inherent authority over certain continue to be collected from service providers. Management authority should also remain telecommunications issues. localized to allow cities to meet existing and future federal requirements for nondiscriminatory access. Increasing use of ROW also increases the need for ode uate q Recommendations construction and safety criteria. Cities, consulting with appropriate engineering resources, ~ SupportexistingCityresponsibilitytomanagethepublicROW inc/udin should be responsible for creating and enforcing standards that ensure effective ROW ~ g opposing the preemption of any portion of Eugene's telecommunications ordinances, upheld management and accessibility, bythe Oregon Supreme Court. ~ Support existing Cityright and duty to collect fair compensation from C. PROVIDER FEE PASS THROUGH TO CUSTOMERS telecommunications and cable providers foruse ofpublicinfrastructure Some providers directly pass all or part of their cost for their business use of the ublic and ROW. right-of-way on to their customers by calling it a tax on their customers' tele hone bills. ~ Supportclearand forthrightbilling practices between telecommunication providers Such a cost is not a tax. It is a business o eratin cost incurred b rovide s when the who use the public ROW and theircustomers. Providers should treatany costs p g Y p Y they incur from using the public ROW as a business operating cost, not as a tax. use the public ROW. When the cost is directly passed through to the customer, the citizen ~ SupportcurrentCityzoningauthorityregardingthesitingoftelecommunications is, in effect, paying the telecommunications provider for the providers' privilege to use that .towers and otherfacilities. citizen's publicly managed ROW. Such a practice is a misrepresentation of billing to ~ Supportexistingabilityofcitiesandmunicipal utilities (i.e., Eugene Water& Electric telecommunications customers. With few exceptions, providers are not required to pass Board) to own, operate, constructand provide telecommunications services on a on these particular expenses to customers; they choose to do so, as allowed but not level playing field with private providers. Oppose anyattemptto preempt this required by federal law. activity. 46 47