Laserfiche WebLink
City of Redwood City Council <br />December 17, 2018 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />The Infrastructure Order states that total right-of-way access fees for small wireless <br />facilities—including application fees—violate Sections 253 or 332(c)(7) of the <br />Telecommunications Act of 1996 unless: "(1) the fees are a reasonable approximation of the <br />... [City's] costs, (2) only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees, and (3) the <br />fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly -situated competitors in similar <br />situations." Duplicating the fee or tying the amount of a small wireless facility application <br />fee to the amount of a different fee in a different City ordinance risks running afoul of these <br />conditions. AT&T suggests that the City either clarify its intent or consider omitting this <br />portion of Section 29.106(d). AT&T further notes that the FCC presumes that federal law <br />would not be violated by a charge of $500 for all non-recurring fees, "including a single up- <br />front application that includes up to five Small Wireless Facilities, with an additional $100 <br />for each Small Wireless Facility beyond five...." The FCC remarked, "There should be <br />only very limited circumstances in which localities can charge higher fees consistent with the <br />requirements of Section 253." Finally, AT&T notes that the City Engineer's authority to <br />determine the amount of any fee established by the Proposed Ordinance (see Section <br />29.104(a)(5)) must be exercised in accordance with the foregoing provisions of the <br />Infrastructure Order. <br />2. Recurring Fees. Section 29.110 of the Proposed Ordinance requires wireless service <br />providers to enter into agreements with the City for the use of Municipal Infrastructure in <br />rights-of-way, and provides that such agreements "shall specify the compensation to the City <br />for use of the structures." AT&T cautions the City that the FCC presumes that a charge in <br />excess of $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees is prohibited by <br />federal law. <br />With respect to paragraphs 1-2 above, the FCC has stated that the City can charge fees that <br />exceed these levels only by demonstrating that (1) the higher fees are a reasonable <br />approximation of costs, (2) those costs themselves are reasonable, and (3) the fees are non- <br />discriminatory. <br />3. Cost Reimbursement. Section 29.110 of the Proposed Ordinance requires applicants <br />to "reimburse the City for all costs the City incurs in connection with its review of, and <br />action upon the person's request for, an agreement." AT&T objects to this provision if such <br />costs are (1) not a reasonable approximation of costs, (2) those costs themselves are <br />unreasonable, or (3) the costs are discriminatory. <br />Under the FCC Infrastructure Order, only objectively reasonable costs that are recovered <br />on a nondiscriminatory basis can be included in fees, not all costs as currently provided in <br />Section 29.110. <br />4. Other Permits and Approvals. Sections 29.103(c) and 29.104(a)(8) of the Proposed <br />Ordinance require additional permits, approvals and conditions of completeness. Under the <br />Infrastructure Order, all associated permits, approvals and conditions of completeness are <br />subject to the applicable Section 332 shot clocks. <br />5. Denial for Incompleteness. Section 29.1060 of the Proposed Ordinance provides <br />that if an application for personal wireless facilities or for eligible facilities requests is <br />incomplete, then the City Engineer may deny the application by notifying the applicant of <br />