5.2. SR 07-22-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

League urges city support of right of way initiative The MPUC's recent action on the US West petition under- scores the importance of implementing the League's right of way management initiative. Because the right of way issue is likely to be a dominant issue in the 1997 legislative session, it is imperative for cities to mount a concerted effort to educate city officials, citizens and legislators to the implications and public costs intrinsic to this issue. Letters were sent to all League members in early July asking for their consideration and support for voluntarily funding this League initiative. If your city council has not yet discussed participating in this effort, we hope you will include this item on your next city council agenda. For more information contact Jim Miller at (612) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122. It' MPUC 9 continued from page 1 The legal effect of the MPUC ~ction is unclear, therefore, the League's advice to members will have to wait until the actual order is drafted, released and subsequently analyzed. However, MPUC staff made several points in a briefing paper that indicate the MPUC will interpret "their" statute to provide them with expansive and substantial authority and provide cities with limited authority. While cities may continue to adopt and amend ordinances regulating the use of public rights of way, if the affected users challenge the ordinance in court they may find a litigation partner in the MPUC. In order to assist the MPUC Commissioners, thc MPUC staff summarized and organized the com- ments made by all the parties. MPUC staff also included their interpretations, opinions and recommendations. A review of several portions of the briefing paper gives a fairly clear picture of what the staff-drafted order vilt eventually look like. Full copies of the staff briefing paper are available from the League, either by requesting a copy from the IGR department, or by calling the fax hotline at (612) 215- 4039 and requesting document #64040. Selected excerpts from the MPUC staff briefing paper ·... staff believes that its recom- mendation that the Commission issue an order outlining the Commission's interpretation of its authority under Ch. 237 will provide a more expedient, and at least as useful, solution than would an expedited hearing, contested case hearing or rulemaking. · There are.., jurisdictional problems with regard to the USWC petition.., the Commission has no authority over municipalities and no authority to strike down any city ordinances. · An order resulting from the Commission's meeting on July 9 can just as easily describe the extent of the Commission's authority under Ch. 237 and be concluded in a much shorter period of time. Ifa municipality adopts an ordinance that infringes on the Commission's jurisdiction, then the matter can be pursued in court, as USWC has done in Redwood Falls. · A state agency does have the authority to interpret the Legislature's delegation of power to the agency, attd such interpretations by state agencies are routinely granted deference by the courls. ·... under 237.16, the Commis- sion has the exclusive authority to authorize any person to furnish telephone service while the municipali- ties' authority is limited to specifying the location of poles, wires, and other equipment in the public right of way for the sole purpose of ensuring the safe and convenient use of streets, alleys and other public grounds by the public. · Chapter 237 also confers upon the Commission other substantial responsibilities such as ensuring that rates are just and reasonable... To the extent that an action by a municipality would impact areas of Commission responsibility, then the Commission would be concerned about that municipal action. For example, ifa city ordinance caused a telephone company to incur additional costs, and those costs are in turn proposed to be recovered from ratepayers, then the Commission's ability to establish just and reasonable rates is affected. The Commission has no authority to require a municipality to repeal an ordinance. However, the Commission should be interested in learning of specific municipal ordinances which the industry believes affects the Commission's jurisdiction in order for the Commission to decide whether to request, or join in a request, for judicial review of such an ordinance. · Staff believes that municipalities do not have the authority to impose franchise fees on telephone companies. ·... staff agrees with those parties who have argued that in today's radically changing telecommunications industry., the concern for statewide uniformity is of even greater impor- tance. Parties must face uniform regulation, with no significant barriers to entry. Unique ordinances enacted by each municipality would be problematic for the development of competition. ~. Page 6 LMC Cities Bulletin