My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-07-11
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-07-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2005 11:23:18 AM
Creation date
7/7/2005 4:08:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
7/11/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
213
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 />Ø/-/7 <br /> <br />TELECOM from page 8 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />prepared for this "new regulatory world" will do <br />much better in shaping these services in their <br />communities. Those communities that are unpre- <br />pared will have these services shaped entirely by <br />the industry and industry will not be concerned <br />with the larger public policy issues in the deploy- <br />ment Df a communications infrastructure (see <br />"Telecommunications Issues Affecting Cities"). <br /> <br />We urge that cities move now to address <br />these issues locally, while this debate continues at <br />the state level. Plan to participate in the statewide <br />meetings that will likely take place in conjunction <br />with the work Dfthe Legislature. To view an issue <br />paper on the telecommunications issues, please <br />visit the Transportation, Communications and <br />Public Works section of the League's website at <br />www.cacities.org/tcpw. <br /> <br />TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES <br />AFFECTING CITIES <br /> <br />0 State Parameters for Local Franchises. <br />One of the communications industry concerns <br />can be described in general as "uniformity." The <br />argument is that the more "uniform" the franchise <br />process is, the better it is for industry. It is a point <br />that is consistent with the industry goal of "speed <br />to market." The contention is that the faster the <br />industry gets to market the more "sound" the <br />industry business plan. This issue has both pros <br />and cons from a local government perspective. It <br />runs the potential of being preemptory of local <br />authority over the local franchise process. On the <br />other hand, it may speed negotiations, which can <br />easily become prolonged, on certain regulatory <br />issues. As with any legislation, the details are <br />impDrtant in how this issue develDps. <br /> <br />0 Local Franchise Fees. Local govern- <br />ments can currently collect a franchise fee from <br />most utilities. It is a substantial amount of money <br />on a statewide basis. Industry is raising the same <br />"uniformity" issues when it comes to fees. The <br />argument is that it would be easier to collect a fee <br />at the state level and remit it back tD local govern- <br />ment. LDcal governments have not had a good <br /> <br />experience with state collected and remitted fees! <br />taxes (remember vehicle license fees (VLF)?). Is <br />there a compromise position on this issue? Will a <br />franchise fee or some other fee apply to what are <br />now the traditional telephone companies? <br /> <br />0 Utility User Taxes. In an attempt to <br />achieve this industry concern for "uniformity," <br />there is interest in trying to lump franchise <br />issues with utility user tax (UUT) issues. <br />Among the problems with this concept is that a <br />franchise fee is just that - a "fee" with a nexus to <br />the public right-of-way. Utilities pay these fees for <br />the privilege of putting down their infrastructure in <br />the public's right-of-way. On the other hand, a UUT <br />is just that - a "tax" and is enacted by a city to pay <br />for general fund services such as police and fire. <br />Combining a tax and a fee is at best wrong, and <br />presents numerous questions as to communities <br />that have these two revenue sources may be held <br />harmless. Approximately 150 local agencies have <br />a UUT and the rates vary considerably across the <br />state. <br /> <br />0 Public, Education and Government <br />Channels (PEG). The requirement of PEG <br />channels for the community is a critical concern to <br />many communities and is one of the more difficult <br />issues in local franchise negotiations. While there <br />is strong legislative sentiment about the need for <br />PEG channels, there are questions about how <br />many are needed and under what conditions? Is <br />there a way to place a portion of the PEG require- <br />ments in state law, but allow local flexibility in <br />negotiations? <br /> <br />0 Build.out of Communications Systems. <br />A key issue, again with good support in the Legis- <br />lature, is the need to build out the communications <br />infrastructure in a community in a manner that <br />does not discriminate against one portion of the <br />community over another. This is a consideration at <br />the city level as well as at a statewide or regional <br />level. <br /> <br />PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 9 <br /> <br />www.cacities.org -- Visit the League's Official Website <br /> <br />T--- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.