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 separate fee for aerial <br />installation~-was prompted in part by Broadband's assertions that the charge 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 charged 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 />staff s 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 calendar year, rather than permit-by-permit. <br />Finding: As a practical matter, it is not feasible for City staff to administer <br />installations at numerous locations around 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 carefully, 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 />r:\adminord\fees\02utilityrow2ao.wpd(02/06/03) <br />