Item A: Adoption of 2007 Legislative Policies

Home Browse Search

of the 1996 Act, municipalities have seen a myriad of mergers and acquisitions among the largest communications companies in the nation. Along with continued increases in many service costs, and technology changes, recent interpretations by the FCC and courts are blurring the landscape of municipal authority. Rent for Private Use of Public ROW: Procedurally, the 1996 Act continued the federal government’s role as primary regulator, but cities and states retained critical ROW management authority under the Act. The Act specificallycontinues municipal authority to manage the public ROW and to receive compensation for its use, considered as rent. As recently as September 2006 in the Qwest v Portland case, court decisions have reaffirmed cities’ rights to receive reasonable compensation – not limited simply to ‘costs’ associated with ROW maintenance as a result of any specific use. A series of Oregon th appellate court and Federal 9 Circuit legal decisions reaffirmed cities’ authority to manage and charge for use of their rights-of-way. S150 (Wyden,2004) extended the tax moratorium on Internet taxation, but also clarified that the bill was to have no impact on municipal rights to charge rights of way use fees or taxes on facility-based broadband voice service operations (such as Qwest DLS, ClearWire, Comcast Digital Voice). FCC members have also voiced that their rule-making regarding the Internet or cable not modem is intended to interfere with cities’ authority to manage the ROW or to impose taxes. Construction Permits for Private Use of Public ROW: Cities are realizing that technological advancement and growth contribute to the busy and crowded nature of our public ROW today. An increasing amount of activity occurs above, 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 cable, natural gas, telecommunications, electricity, water and sewer lines. As users compete for access, local management of the public ROW becomes increasingly critical. Cities must 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, and traffic control standards. Increased interest in use of public ROW thus increases municipal monitoring to mitigate disruption to the ROW. Despite the increased workload, industry accusations regarding permitting delays by Oregon cities have notbeen substantiated. Thus, legislation aimed at curtailing cities’ existing 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. Cities manage the public ROW as a service to their citizens. Cities receive compensation from telecommunications providers when providers use the public ROW as a part of their doing business. Since the passage of the Telecommunications Act in 1996, carriers are 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 municipal fees and charges they are faced with by multiple jurisdictions have that effect. In light of recent, clearly written court opinions, this argument is simply not credible. City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2007 Session With IGR Mtg 10/17 and 10/26 Amendments C:\Documents and Settings\ceexelf\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10B\LegPol2007Sesxx1.doc Updated on: 11/6/2006 By: Last saved by ceexmfw 75