11-13-2002 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LE -11. Right -of -Way Management (AH) 3 Issue: Cities have fundamental responsibility for managing the safe and convenient use 4 of public rights -of -way, and hold local rights -of -way in trust for the public as an increasingly 5 scarce and valuable asset. As demand increases for use of rights -of -way for tower sites as well as 6 for underground and overhead wireless facilities, cities must continue to exercise their authority 7 to allocate and coordinate that resource among competing uses. Local management 8 responsibilities vary and are site specific, underscoring the necessity for maintaining local 9 authority. 10 11 Response: State and federal policymakers and regulators must: 12 13 w Uphold local authority to manage and protect public rights -of -way, including 14 reasonable zoning and subdivision regulation and the exercise of local police powers. 15 ® Recognize that cities have a paramount role in developing, locating, siting, and 16 enforcing utility construction and safety standards. 17 ® Support local authority to require full recovery of actual costs of managing use of 18 public rights -of -way. 19 ® Maintain city authority to franchise gas, electric, and cable services and to collect 20 franchise fees and alternative revenue streams. 21 ® Maintain the courts as the primary forum for resolving disputes over the exercise of such authority. L3 ® Maintain existing city authority to review and approve or deny plans for installation of 24 additional wires or cables on in -place utility poles. In the alternative, cities should have 25 broader authority to require the undergrounding of new and /or existing services at the 26 cost of the utility or telecommunications entity. 27 28 LE -12. Cable Franchising Authority (AH) 29 30 Issue: Franchising authority allows cities to require cable operators to meet unique local 31 needs and interests, including adequate customer service standards; public, educational, and 32 governmental local origination programming; educational and governmental programming; and 33 institutional networks for voice, video, and data transmission. This franchising process, in its 34 current form, works well. As technologies converge and access to new services expands, 35 however, cities face new challenges such as how to franchise competitive cable overbuilders like 36 competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) providing video services and open video systems. 37 Cities' authority to charge and collect franchise fees for cable modem services is also currently 38 being challenged at the federal level and has resulted in a significant loss of revenue to cities. 39 40 Response: Cities must retain authority to exercise and enforce franchises for 41 provision of video programming services, regardless of the provider. While challenges to 42 existing regulatory regimes arise in an era of convergence, cities need discretion and d'3 flexibility to work with competitive providers so that the intent of the 1996 federal Telecommunications Act can be achieved, including the ability to require PEG support, 45 institutional networks, customer service standards, and franchise fees or similar 13