Loading...
CR 96-126 Right Of Way Task Force - Minnesota CitiesAugust 2, 1996 teven C. Mielke, City Manager RIGHT OF WAY TASK FORCE PLAN- - LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Council Report 96 -126 Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve a voluntary contribu- tion of $1,096 to the League of Minnesota Cities for the purpose of implementing the Rights of Way Task Force work plan as requested by the League of Cities. Approval of this action will result in a voluntary contribution being made by the City of Hopkins to the League of Minnesota Cities to assist the League in its efforts to protect lo- cal management of public rights of way in Minnesota cities. Overview US West has been pursuing efforts at the public utilities commission and legislative levels to usurp cities abilities to manage local rights of way in cities. US West has sued at least one Minnesota municipality over some of its regulatory re- quirements and has indicated that other cities may also be sued in order to challenge management controls put in place by those cities. The League of Minnesota Cities has determined it is in the interest of the League and the communities who are members of the League, to participate in defending municipal rights over these issues. They have requested an additional voluntary payment, on top of nor- mal League dues, to help with the effort. Primary Issues to Consider o Common questions about public rights of way See attached LMC response to common questions about public rights of way Supporting Documentation a Correspondence — Blaine C. Hill, President, League of Minnesota Cities, July 2, 1996 o Common questions about public rights of way, League of Minnesota Cities LMC League of Minnesota Gies Cities n ,umoting excellence July 2, 1996 Dear Mayor Redepenning and Members of the Hopkins City Council; By now, you are probably aware of the rights of way issue facing cities in Minnesota. US West's challenge to local management of the public rights of way is one of the most critical issues cities have faced in years. It was a topic of considerable discussion at the Annual __ onfezence, where member cities supported-the-League-Board of Directors- cleeisinmte- move -- forward with an aggressive work program and financing plan to counter this challenge. We need your city to make a special payment to this fund and help put the work plan into action. The work plan developed by the Rights of Way Task Force and approved by the Board could cost $325,000 or more. This assumes that a large portion of the work plan will be coordinated by and implemented through League staff. The Board has agreed to allocate $125,000 from the current League budget for the work plan and is asking member cities to voluntarily pay $200,000. Based on your city's 1995 -96 League dues, your suggested minimum payment is $1,098. Please consider this request in July and submit your payment by August 15, 1996 if at all possible. If each city meets their minimum payment, the $200,000 target is reachable. However, because it is unlikely that all cities will join this voluntary effort, we encourage members to allocate more if this initiative is of particular importance to them. Two important points should be made: First, this is a voluntary payment. As a member of the League of Minnesota Cities, you are not required to take part in this effort. However, if total city payments fall significantly short of the $200,000 goal, the League will not be able to fully underate the Work plan: Second, your voluntary ' payment should not be con ilsed your League membership dues which will be billed at the beginning of September. The Board of Directors and I understand that this issue must be weighed against the priorities in your city. However, we believe that the prospect of losing local control of public property warrants this extraordinary effort. This is a complicated issue, please consider it carefully. Enclosed is a brief information sheet to help you in your deliberations. If you have any questions, contact me at (218) 643 -1431, League Executive Director Jim Miller at (612) 280- 1205 or (800) 925 -1122, or any member of the Board of Directors. Sincerely, Blaine C. Hill President, League of Minnesota Cities cc: City Manager, A E1�StUT T O Oi oh'I`VFTI TY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 Phone: (612) 281 -1200 • (800) 925 -1122 Fax: (612) 281 -1299 • TDD (612) 281 -1290 i • \ r\-„, LMC L eague of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence J Q Why did local management of public rights of way become such an issue? A I: ^ In February, US West challenged a edwood Falls ordinance that set standards for installing fiber optic cable in the public right of way. The ordinance charges a small per foot fee, requires the cable to be encased in concrete conduit, or, if that isn't done, limits the city's liability in case the cable is damaged. US West asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to take over jurisdiction of city rights of way, and set aside any local regulations. Then, US West sued the city of Redwood Falls in District Court. US West asked the court to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance, and allow them to lay their fiber optic cable pending resolution of the matter before the PUC. Q Didn't the District Court rule in favor of Redwood Falls? A Yes. The League intervened on behalf of R edwood Falls early in the proceedings and hired outside legal counsel with expertise in utility law. Those efforts paid off when a Fifth District Court Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought by US West. In the order dismissing the suit, the judge stated essentially that the state law creating the PUC authorized it to regulate telephone service providers but did not take away cities' right to impose reasonable regulations and to charge a reasonable franchise fee for the use of their streets and services. The judge wrote "...The public utility commission regulates telephone companies, not cities." Common questions about public rights of way Q Doesn't that settle things? A Not necessarily. The District Court ruling probably will have little bearing on the PUC ruling, which is expected later this summer. US West may also appeal the District Court ruling. Regardless of what happens in these two arenas, the Legislature will be looking at this issue when the 1997 session begins in January. Why is this such an important issue? Ar e implications of this case are enormous. s deregulation and competition among telecommunication and utility providers continues, there will be more and more demand for access to the grourid under city streets. All kinds of businesses and utilities make use of that scarce space - telephone companies, cable television companies, gas companies, power companies - and so on. If cities are not allowed to manage the use of the right of way, streets could be torn up regularly and underground facilities could become a tangled maze. Imagine your city completing a major repaving project, only to have the street torn up by a utility looking to install lines. Imagine the phone calls to city hall from irate residents if streets are blocked off two or three times a year. Imagine your frustration when it becomes obvious that local taxpayers are being forced to subsidize private industry and pay higher taxes to build and maintain city streets. Q So what is the League of Minnesota Cities doing? A As the magnitude of this issue became clear, the League Board of Directors appointed a Rights of Way Task Force to look at what should be done. Through the course of several meetings, the Task Force developed a work program that involves legal, legislative, and public infonnation strategies to protect cities' role in managing the public right of way. The Task Force estimates that full implementation of the work program could cost as much as $325,000. The Board has agreed to finance this work program by allocating $125,000 from the current League budget and asking member cities to voluntarily allocate $200,000. Q $200, 000 is a lot of money. What is the League going to do with all of that? Ar The work plan includes legal epresentation, work with legislative leaders, and an extensive statewide public information campaign. While League staff will take on the bulk of this work, it's likely that outside assistance will be needed. Q How did you decide how much you want our city to pay? ^ Your suggested payment is based on a ercentage of your city's 1995 -96 League dues. Do we have to pay? How will the payment ect our dues? A No city i required to pay. This is strictly a voluntary payment. Also, it's entirely separate from the League dues statement your city will receive in September. A That's your choice. As a member of the eague of Minnesota Cities, you are not required to take part in this effort. However, if total city payments fall significantly short of the $200,000 goal, the League will not be able to fully undertake the work plan. Can our city pay more? A Certainly In fact, we encourage members to allocate more to this fund if this initiative is of particular importance to them. if all member cities meet their minimum payment, the $200,000 target is reachable - but it's unlikely that every city will join this voluntary effort. After we pay, how can we stay up to date on the issue? A We will keep you informed of any developments through articles in Cities Bulletin, direct mailings, and broadcast faxes. Clearly, our payment is only part of the solution. What else can we do? A The best thing city officials can do is stay 1 unformed, and pass that information along to as many others as possible. Discuss rights of way with your local editors and reporters; make local control a campaign issue for your House and Senate candidates; talk to your local Chamber of Commerce about the business impact of torn-up streets; let taxpayers know you're working to protect their investment in streets. What if our city decides not to pay? I'm still confused. Who should I call? A If you have more questions, please contact eague Executive Director Jim Miller at (612) 280 -1205 or (800) 925 -1122, or any member of the Board of Directors.