HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07251995 - SD15 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Gayle Bishop, Supervisor, District HI
DATE: July 25, 1995
SUBJECT: Board Consider Action on Provisions of H.R. 1555 (Bliley), the Communications
Act of 1995
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
The House of Representatives is expected to begin floor debate of H.R. 1555 (Bliley), the Communications
Act of 1995, in mid to late July. As currently written, the bill has several provisions that strip local
governments of authority to manage and receive compensation for public rights of way, set zoning and
building codes, and receive franchise fees for the non-cable related revenues of cable operators.
RECOMMENDATION:
AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign letters to Contra Costa County's House of
.Representatives delegation, with copies to the entire California delegation, requesting support for the Board's
position on the following provisions of H.R. 1555:
1. Preserve local governments' ability to protect public rights of way and the right to receive
compensation for the use of that right of way.
2. Oppose any provision which attacks local governments' zoning authority, particularly as it applies to
cellular towers, similar structures and to satellite dish antennas.
3. Prohibit wholesale cable rate deregulation prior to true competition.
4. Provide preferential rates to local government, including police and fire facilities, in addition to those .
provided for education and medical facilities in S. 652.
FISCAL EMPACI':
The County could lose millions in revenue from franchise fees, rights of way fees, and permits, if protection
of public rights of way is not preserved.
BACKGROUND:
H.R. 1555 is the House of Representatives' version of the recently passed Senate telecommunications
legislation. As with the Senate bill before amendments - amendments which local government fought for,
concerns are directed towards loss of local control.
Preemption of Public Rights of.Way
In Title I, Section 243, local governments' authority is preempted over the management of the public rights
of way and local governments' ability to receive fair and reasonable compensation for the use of that public
property by telecommunications providers. Under its provisions, local governments' authority islimited to
the issuance of construction permits and requires parity of compensation from all telecommunications
providers, including the local exchange company. This effectively eliminates compensation in the many
states where the local telephone company does not have to pay franchise fees for the use of the rights of
way.
Preemption of Zoning Authority
Title III, Section 306 proposes to preempt local governments' zoning authority over antenna/placement. In
addition Title 1, Section 107 of the legislation requires the FCC to issue regulations concerning placement
and construction of cellular antennas. FCC Chairman Hundt has stated that he wants to preempt local
authority. The cellular industry has aggressively lobbied for this provision.
J
r
July 25, 1995
H.R. 1555 (Bliley)
Page Two
Restrictions on Franchise Fees
Title I, Section 106(b) limits the fees cable operators pay local government to use the public rights of way
for private profit by reducing the revenue base upon which such fees are based. By reducing these fees,
local taxpayers will be forced to subsidize the cable industry's "non-cable service" related use of the public
rights of way for competitive telecommunications services.
Cable Rat_e_Dereizulation Prior to Development of Competition
Under H.R. 1555, the Bell companies can'enter long distance only if they meet a comprehensive check list
of condition necessary for competitors to enter local markets It is the position of local government
organizations, such as the National League of Cities, the National Association Counties, CSAC and the
League of California Cities, that the competition should be real, it should be effective and show evidence
that the competition will be sustained.
Preferential Rates to Local.Government
It is proposed that preferential rates be given to local governments, including police and fire facilities, in
addition to those provided for education and medical facilities in S. 652.
Given both fiscal and local control losses which could be sustained if these revisions are not instituted, it is
recommended that the Board act on these issues forthwith.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECObMNDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 25 , 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUP ISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
AYES: NOES: i
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED
PHIL/4ATCHEDOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPEVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CC: Board of Supervisors ,
i
,DEPUTY