Laserfiche WebLink
Minnesota was a part of a nationwide <br />effort by wireless providers to pass laws <br />providing them with easier access to <br />public rights -of -way and city -owned <br />infrastructure. While Minnesota's law <br />maintains more local control than those <br />passed in many other states, the League of <br />Minnesota Cities opposes efforts to <br />further restrict local government <br />authority over the public right-of-way. <br />Furthermore, the Federal <br />Communications Commission is <br />undergoing review of <br />Telecommunications Act rules and <br />policies related to local government <br />regulatory authority. State and federal <br />policymakers and regulators should: <br />a) Uphold local authority to manage and <br />protect public rights -of -way, including <br />reasonable zoning and subdivision <br />regulation, reasonable regulations of <br />structures in the public right-of-way, <br />and the exercise of local police <br />powers; <br />b) Recognize that cities have a <br />paramount role in developing, <br />locating, siting, and enforcing utility <br />construction and safety standards; <br />c) Support local authority to require <br />reimbursement and compensation <br />from service providers for managing <br />use of public rights -of -way; <br />d) Maintain city authority to franchise <br />gas, electric, open video systems and <br />cable services, and expand city ability <br />to collect compensation for other <br />services utilizing the PROW including <br />but not limited to telecommunications <br />and broadband services, and all other <br />wireline programming platforms and <br />services to support maintenance and <br />management of the traveled portion of <br />the PROW and other public services <br />of importance to communities; <br />e) Encourage a collaborative process <br />with stakeholders, including cities, to <br />86 <br />determine any revised standards if <br />needed; <br />f) Recognize that as rights -of -way <br />become more crowded, the costs of <br />disrupting critical infrastructure <br />become evident and the exercise of <br />local authority to manage competing <br />demands and ensure public safety in <br />the PROWs becomes increasingly <br />important; <br />Ensure the removal of abandoned <br />equipment and accompanying support <br />structures by the service providers <br />from the public right-of-way; <br />h) Maintain the courts as the primary <br />forum for resolving disputes over the <br />exercise of such authority; and <br />i) Maintain existing local authority to <br />review and approve or deny plans for <br />installation or relocation of additional <br />wires or cables on in -place utility <br />poles. In the alternative, cities should <br />have broader authority to require the <br />underground placement of new and/or <br />existing services at the cost of the <br />utility or telecommunications <br />provider. <br />Support the collaboration with local <br />units of government as the state <br />explores efforts to expand <br />infrastructure in the public right-of- <br />way to provide for increased <br />connectivity for Connected <br />Autonomous Vehicles (CAV). <br />g) <br />J) <br />LE-21. Wireless Infrastructure and <br />Equipment Siting <br />Issue: Demand for wireless communication <br />service has increased requests by private and <br />public sector providers to site additional <br />towers, antennas, small cells and other <br />facilities in cities. It is anticipated that <br />applications to install small cell wireless <br />facilities and distributed antenna systems <br />(DAS) will continue to grow as technology <br />