Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br /> <br />- <br />45 <br /> <br />LE-ll. Right-of-Way Management (AH) <br /> <br />Issue: Cities have fundamental responsibility for managing the safe and convenient use <br />of public rights-of-way, and hold local rights-of-way in trust for the public as an increasingly <br />scarce and valuable asset. As demand increases for use of rights-of-way for tower sites as well as <br />for underground and overhead wireless facilities, cities must continue 10 exercise their authority <br />to allocate and coordinate that resource among competing uses. Local management <br />responsibilities vary and are site specific, underscoring the necessity for maintaining local <br />authority. <br /> <br />Response: State and federal policymakers and regulators must: <br /> <br />· Uphold local authority to manage and protect public rights-of-way, including <br />reasonable zoning and subdivision regulation and the exercise oflocal police powers. <br /> <br />· Recognize that cities have a paramount role in developing, locating, siting, and <br />enforcing utility construction and safety standards. <br /> <br />· Support local authority to require full recovery of actual costs of managing use of <br />public rights-of-way. <br /> <br />· Maintain city authority to franchise gas, electric, and cable services and to collect <br />franchise fees and alternative revenue streams. <br /> <br />Maintain the courts as the primary forum for resolving disputes over the exercise of <br />such authority. <br /> <br />· Maintain existing city authority to review and approve or deny plans for installation of <br />additional wires or cables on in-place utility poles. In the alternative, cities should have <br />broader authority to require the undergrounding of new and/or existing services at the <br />cost of the utility or telecommunications entity. <br /> <br />LE-l2. Cable Franchising Authority (AH) <br /> <br />Issue: Franchising authority allows cities to require cable operators 10 meet unique local <br />needs and interests, including adequate customer service standards; public, educational, and <br />governmental local origination prograrruning; educational and governmental prograrruning; and <br />institutional networks for voice, video, and data transmission. This franchising process, in its <br />current form, works welL As technologies converge and access to new services expands, <br />however, cities face new challenges such as how to franchise competitive cable overbuilders like <br />competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) providing video services and open video systems. <br />Cities' authority to charge and collect franchise fees for cable modem services is also currently <br />being challenged at the federal level and has resulted in a significant loss of revenue to cities. <br /> <br />Response: Cities must retain authority to exercise and enforce franchises for <br />provision of video programming services, regardless of the provider. While challenges to <br />existing regulatory regimes arise in an era of convergence, cities need discretion and <br />flexibility to work with competitive providers so that the intent of the 1996 federal <br />Telecommunications Act can be achieved, including the ability to reqnire PEG support, <br />institutional networks, customer service standards, and franchise fees or similar <br /> <br />13 <br />