My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-1997
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
02-19-1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2018 2:54:29 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 2:54:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/19/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
�•- <br />/ <br />; �^ <br />• • � <br />�¢agu¢ o�Mirtnesoia L'i(ias <br />C`itres �v-omotrng esce�%r+ce <br />Nllm�@r � <br />� <br />FB�L°lYa2°�+ ��o �991 <br />.� <br />�• 1; .. 1 :1� :, .�;` �:�:: <br />. _ <br />� <br />. . - � <br />_ _ . <br />, _ <br />Tcm Busse <br />As expected, the M'snnesoca <br />Telephone Associatian (MTA} has <br />introduced a bili with their vision of <br />how public rights of way shouid be <br />managed. Simply put, it isn't a pretty <br />sight. <br />if adopted, H.F. 451 would <br />severely limit Iocal regulazion of <br />Ce�eco►nmunications companies, anci <br />would prohibit fees for the use of the <br />public rights of way. In a nutshe€I, <br />taxpayers would pay for the rights of <br />�'' `'; way; cities wou[d build and maintain <br />;' che rights oF way; and private compa- <br />nies woutd use the rights of way <br />basicaliy for free and with no <br />regulacions. <br />"The MTA proposaf is who[Iy <br />unacceptable," said Jim Miller, League <br />Execucive Directoe. "It anai�gous to <br />the Lea�ue inrroducing a bill that <br />prohibits private use of the public nQhc <br />of way.>. <br />The bitl is rnodeled after a <br />Colorado law thac gives industry free <br />rei;n co use the pubiic n�hu of way. <br />According ta H.F. 451, "'Ttte legisla- <br />ture finds that to require telecommuni- <br />cations companies to seek authority <br />from politica] subdivisions within the <br />state to canduct business is unreason- <br />able, srnpractical, and unduly <br />burdensame.'° <br />The bilE goes on to say that <br />"telecommunications providers have a <br />right to accvpy and utiliae the pub(ic <br />rights of way for the e�ciene conduct <br />of their business withoue the imposi- <br />tion of franchise fees, occupancy fees9 <br />taxes, or similar charges:' The bill <br />would allow cities to charge permit <br />fees for work done in rhe rights of <br />way, but ihe charges would be limited <br />to the costs directly related to grantin� <br />and administerins the permie. <br />"Obviously, sorrteone is going to <br />pay the cost of occupyino and usin, <br />the pubiic rights of way," said Milter. <br />"The telecommunications industry <br />appears to be happy to reap the <br />benefits and let the state and [ocal <br />taxpayers foat the biIt." <br />��cordin� ro the bill, "the <br />construction, maintenance, operatian, <br />oversight, and re;uiation of te]ecom- <br />munications providers and their <br />facil'sties is a matter of statewide <br />concern and interest: teiecommunica- <br />[ions provic�ers operatinQ ander the <br />authoricv of the Federal Communica- <br />tions Commission ar the �Iinnesata <br />public utiiity commission ...are ❑ot <br />subject to any Frarichise aucharity or <br />any additianaE autharity by any <br />municipality or ott�er po[itical subdivi- <br />sion oti the state to conduct business <br />within a ;iven QeaQraphic area..." <br />Pag� 3�-- �roper� tax reiorm Page 7— NLC committees <br />' ihe firsY o� the major property '�iinnesoYa is weit represer�ied <br />` Yax refdrr� prop�sals �nras ; on th� �laiional League c�f <br />unveifer9 this wee�. � Cities poficy at�d steerie�g <br />; CpR7fT1t���S. <br />It's that lack of authoriey thae has <br />city offcials concerned. <br />"This is a management issue -- n�� <br />a matter of cities trying to con�ol or <br />discriminate against uti]ities;' said <br />MiIler. "City residenes, ciey taxpay�rs, <br />look to cities to protect their pubiic <br />assets and to protecc their home <br />values." <br />� In t996, cities Colorado learned <br />firsthand the implications of being <br />forced to give telecommunica�ions <br />companies carte blanche use of tt►e <br />ri�h[s of way. The issue came to roose <br />- quite lieerally - in the frone yards of <br />many residents. Large metal boxes <br />used to house telephone fibre-op[ics <br />equipment popped up in residential <br />neighborhoods, usually between <br />sidewalks and curbs on pe�blic rights c�� <br />�vay in front of private propezty -- <br />without the hameowne� approva! or <br />knowledge. . <br />How iarge are the boxes? About <br />six feet tall, four feet four inches wide, <br />and 18 inches deep, sittinQ on a <br />concrete pad ehat measures 16 feet <br />long by eibht Feee wide. The issue is <br />not unique to Col�rado. San Jose, <br />Califomia was one of the first areas �o <br />recoQnize thas a city must develop <br />rules and re�ulations to pratect the <br />community from obuusive telecommu- <br />�nications paraphemalia. <br />Representative Loren Jennings <br />(DFL-Harris} is the biil's au�►ar. <br />Jennings, Chair of the House Re�u- <br />Cated Industries and �ner�y Corrzmit- <br />tee, has sa'rd he wilI also put his name <br />on any Lea�ue-drafted leaislation. We <br />sre tinishing work on our rishts of way <br />bill and expect it to be introduced as <br />early as next week. � <br />,. - i; <br />�°. <br />i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.