5.2. SR 07-22-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

What does US West want? JoelJamnik Though imprecisely drafted, the petition filed by US West that was recently dismissed by the MPUC cited a number of recent city ordinances that the company believes infringe on the Commission's jurisdiction over public fights of way. By asking for the Commission to exercise jurisdiction, the company sought to avoid being bound by city ordinances or regula- tions. The documents filed by US West indicate that the following municipal actions or requirements are at least considered unreasonable, if not unauthorized and illegal, by the company: · Encase all fiber within the city limits in concrete; · Execute easement agreements in which the city purports to grant authority to use the fight of way; · Pay a fee of 2.6 cents per lineal foot per year during the term of the easement; · Execute a limitation of liability agreement with the city limiting liability of anyone cutting cable to $2,000; · Provide the city with proprietary information concerning the specific telecommunications services intended to be provisioned over the fiber placed in the fight of way; · Provide statements concerning its intention to sell, convey, lease or otherwise allow another the use of its fiber; · Acknowledge city authority over telecommunication facilities; · Provide a permit fee which "shall be set from time to time by the City Council by resolution;" and, · Deposit, prior to commencement of work, security in a sufficient amount as determined by the director for completion of work with the security to be held until 16 months after work is com- pleted. Following the MPUC's decision on Tuesday, Mary Hisley, a US West spokeswoman, was quoted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune as saying that the dispute "is not just a franchise fee issue. The issue is who has substantial authority over the public right of way." These statements seem to differ from what the company told Minnesota mayors in a recent letter (see below). Ironically, the letter is dated May 31, the very date that the Redwood County District Court ruled against US West's legal challenge of several of the city actions listed above. ~ GOMMUNICADOIV$ (~ May 31, 1996 Robert Benke. Mayor City of New Brighton 803 5th Avenue: N.W. New Bdghton MN 55112-2792 Dear Mayor Benke: As part of my ongoing effor~ to provide you with updatns on various issues concerning telecommunications, I am writing to advis~ you of ~cent activities regarding the public right-of-way. Ks you may know, U S WEST Communications is wofldng with ~be public Utilifins Commission, the Minnesota Telephone Association, the D~pastment of Public Services and the League of Minnesota Cities in an attempt to bring uniformity to the public right-of-way permitting process. Our efforts have focused on ensuring the enforcement of municipal police power interest over the public right-of-way while clarifying the Minnesota Public Utility Commi,~ion's jurisdiction over telephone companies and the substantive issues under which access to the public right-of-way may he obtained. U S WEST wishes it to he clear that it doe~ not advocate: · Taking away any authority cities have under exizting Minnesota law. or · Modifying or eliminating protection citi~ currently have under existing law related to liability associated with right-of-way. Rather U S WEST seeks to: · Maintain the allocation of authority found in existing s:atutes. · Acknowledge and respect the police power rights of municipalities to the location of poles, wires and other equipment. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue, please give me a call on 663-5730. ff you prefer to write, my address is: Kathy Kolbo U S WEST Communications 200 South 5th Street, Room 390 Minneapolis, MN 55402 or kkolbo@uswest.com Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Kathy Kolbo Community Affairs Manager July 12, 1996 Page 3