![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.997222222222222in"
height="1.0361111111111112in"}**\
\
State and Local Rights of Way Success Stories**\
\
[INTRODUCTION](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#INTRODUCTION%23INTRODUCTION)\
\
I. [STATE
APPROACHES](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#STATE_APPROACHES%23STATE_APPROACHES)\
\
A. [Timeliness of
Process](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#A._Timeliness_of_Process%23A._Timeliness_of_Process)\
B.
[Fees](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#B._Fees%23B._Fees)\
C. [Non-Discriminatory Treatment of
Providers](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#C._Non-Discriminatory_Treatment_of%23C._Non-Discriminatory_Treatment_of)\
D.
[Compliance](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#D._Compliance%23D._Compliance)
**\
**E. [Involvement of
Stakeholders](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#E._Involvement_of_Stakeholders%23E._Involvement_of_Stakeholders)\
\
II. [LOCAL SUCCESS
STORIES](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#II._LOCAL_SUCCESS_STORIES_%23II._LOCAL_SUCCESS_STORIES_)\
\
A. [Involvement of
Stakeholders](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#A._Involvement_of_Stakeholders_%23A._Involvement_of_Stakeholders_)\
B. [Information
Collection](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#B._Information_Collection%23B._Information_Collection)\
C. [Timeliness of
Processes](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#C._Timeliness_of_Processes%23C._Timeliness_of_Processes)\
D.
[Fees](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#D._Fees%23D._Fees)\
E. [Remediation and
Maintenance](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#E._Remediation_and_Maintenance%23E._Remediation_and_Maintenance)\
\
[CONCLUSION](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CTMP65m3dkcfb4.htm#CONCLUSION%23CONCLUSION)

**INTRODUCTION**\
\
Rights-of-way management has arisen as a key issue in broadband
deployment at the federal, state, and local levels.  The steps required
for a telephone company to lay new lines on a public street, a cable
company to start providing Internet service, or a cell phone company to
place antennas on public poles, can have real consequences in the
decision to deploy broadband service to a community.\
\
When NTIA conducted a Broadband Forum in October 2001 and received
comments in its [**broadband deployment
proceeding**](http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/broadband/) in 2002,
participants and commenters cited rights-of-way issues as having a major
impact on broadband deployment.  These issues generally fell into four
categories: 1) timeliness of processes; 2) fees; 3) information
collection; and 4) remediation and maintenance.  Broadband providers and
government land managers, however, often offered differing viewpoints on
each of these issues.\
\
A number of providers, for example, noted that deployment was often
slowed by overly burdensome requests for information, lengthy processes
for obtaining permits, unreasonable charges for use of the
rights-of-way, and undue remediation and maintenance requests. 
Additionally, several providers noted that the complex patchwork of
procedures among localities made installation of facilities across
municipal boundaries costly and time-consuming.\
\
At the same time, many cities noted the need for flexibility in
regulating the use of public rights-of-way and in assessing and
recovering costs to ensure the continued safety of their streets. 
Additionally, some cities have cited the lack of personnel resources as
an underlying reason for potential delays in processing permits or the
inability to process them as speedily as companies might like.\
\
At NTIA, we understand that there are valid concerns on all sides, and
we believe it is important to recognize the legitimacy of each
perspective.  Equally important is changing the tenor of the
discussion.  Rather than reiterating negative stories, we have decided
to supply a compendium of "success stories" that can advance the
discussion on rights-of-way.  These stories are examples shared by
industry and/or governments of policies and procedures they believe have
succeeded in improving access to rights-of-way.  The examples illustrate
different mechanisms that can improve the involvement of the
stakeholders, streamline the collection of information, improve the
timeliness of the application process, ensure that fees are reasonable,
and/or improve remediation or maintenance procedures. We highlight these
stories in boxes throughout the following discussion.\
\
By listing these success stories, NTIA is not holding out any one model
as the right model or "the" best practice.  While one process may work
well for one locality, it may not necessarily work for others.  On the
other hand, we believe that these examples may help some stakeholders in
their thinking about new ways to address rights-of-way issues.  The
industry and government contacts provided for each success story also
will help stakeholders obtain more information to determine if a
particular model would work well in their situation.\
\
We know that there are many examples throughout our nation's communities
that exemplify good practices and procedures, and that this represents a
small sample.   We hope that this compendium will continue to grow as we
receive more success stories over the coming months.  Included on this
website is a Submission Box through which we hope additional communities
and companies will share their successful procedures or policies both at
the state and local level.\
\
**I. STATE APPROACHES**\
\
At the state level, a variety of provisions address rights-of-way access
for telecommunications providers.  Among other issues, states have
addressed permit processing timelines, fee structuring,
non-discriminatory treatment of providers, and remediation measures. 
The variety of state approaches is discussed at length in the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' (NARUC's) July 2002
report, titled [**Promoting Broadband Access Through Public
Rights-of-Way and Public
Lands**](http://www.naruc.org/committees/telecom/row.pdf), and in NTIA's
new, comprehensive [**50-state
matrix**](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5Crowtableexcel.htm),
which sets forth all relevant rights-of-way laws within each state. 
This discussion adds to these resources by highlighting in the boxed
text the success stories identified by providers and government
officials. *\
\
***A.  Timeliness of Process**\
\
States have addressed the timeliness and efficiency of processing
rightsof-way permit applications in a number of different ways.  For
example, many states have established minimum times for local
governments to process permit applications.  States such as Kansas,
Indiana, and Ohio have prescribed 30-day deadlines for processing
permits, while Michigan and Virginia have established 45-day deadlines. 
As described in NTIA's state matrix, the deadlines vary significantly
among states that have addressed this issue.  Other states have given
other levels of government, such as cities and towns, the discretion to
establish deadlines of their own.\
\
In addition to establishing statutory timeframes, some states have also
experimented with ways to simplify permit applications on a state-wide
basis.  For example, the use of model license agreements by state
agencies has greatly simplified the registration and permitting
process.  Such an approach is most typically used by a state agency with
jurisdiction over state roads or by a highway authority with
jurisdiction over a highway system.  Companies that can work with such
regional or state authorities benefit from this "one-stop shopping"
method.  They can work with one authority or use one model contract
rather than a multiplicity of localities or contracts in that
region.  The following success story illustrates the use of model
agreements.

**State of Colorado**\
\
T-Mobile hails as a success the use of Master Lease Agreements by the
Departments of Transportation in Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and
Minnesota.  In the case of Colorado, the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) decided to issue a Master License Agreement for
use of its rights-of-way along state highways for wireless facilities. 
The Preamble to the Agreement notes the benefits to both the State and
the carrier.  CDOT benefits by improving wireless services along its
highway systems and adding to its revenues, while the wireless companies
benefit by accessing properties throughout the state (subject to
approval through the local zoning process) that could also be adjacent
to populated areas but not in the heart of residential areas.  Another
benefit, expressed by T-Mobile, is one-stop shopping: it only needed to
sign one contract and deal with one agency to build sites traversing
much of the state.\
\
***Contacts: ***\
• [Laura Altschul](mailto:Laura.Altschul@T-Mobile.com), T-Mobile,
<Laura.Altschul@T-Mobile.com>\
• [Dave Judy](mailto:dave.judy@dot.state.co.us), Colorado Department of
Transportation, <dave.judy@dot.state.co.us>

**State of New York**\
\
In the State of New York, T-Mobile also negotiated a master agreement in
1997 with the New York State Thruway Authority to access rights-of-way
along the state's 640-mile highway corridor.  That agreement arose from
a finding that there was no environmental impact from building sites
along the state highway.  The wireless provider must conduct formal
outreach with local officials when a new site is built, but does not
need to go through a public zoning process in that locality.  Since
1997, T-Mobile has built thirty sites along the New York State
Thruway. \
\
***Contacts: *\
**• [Laura Altschul](mailto:Laura.Altschul@T-Mobile.com), T-Mobile,
<Laura.Altschul@T-Mobile.com>\
• [Gus Lapham](mailto:gus_lapham@thruway.state.ny.us), New York State
Thruway Authority, <gus_lapham@thruway.state.ny.us>

**\
****B. Fees**

States have also developed a variety of fee structures associated with
using the right-of-way.  In general, governmental entities follow either
(or a combination) of two approaches to assess fees for rights-of-way:
cost recovery and rental fees.  Cost recovery pertains to charging a fee
to recover the actual costs of administering access to rights-of-way. 
Many states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Indiana, and
Michigan, have limited fees to cost recovery.  These states permit
municipalities to charge only fees reasonably related to the costs
incurred in granting and/or administering the permits and/or in managing
the rights-of-way.  Several states have actually specified which costs
can be recovered through fees.   Missouri, for example, allows the
recovery of rights-of-way "management costs," which include costs
associated with issuing, processing, and verifying applications;
revoking permits; inspecting job sites and restoration projects;
protecting or moving the rights-of-way user; and determining the
adequacy of restoration.

Other states go beyond cost recovery fees and also charge a fee for
using the public land, or a rental fee.  A number of states calculate
fees as a percentage of gross revenue or fee per linear foot or access
line.  For example, Idaho establishes that municipalities may levy fees
on providers up to three percent of gross revenues as a privilege tax
for use of rights-of-way.  In Michigan, most rights-of-way users must
pay an annual maintenance fee of five cents per linear foot.

Another option -- a flat tax -- has been adopted by a few states such as
Florida, Illinois, and South Carolina.  Florida stakeholders, for
example, opted for a flat tax (one state and one local tax) to replace
the previously complex tax scheme of seven separate state, local, and
communications taxes on communications providers, including a state
sales and use tax, a state gross receipts tax, a local public service
tax, and a local option sales tax.  The previous system resulted in
different rates and bases for different types of telecommunications
services.  Florida's new flat tax, which took effect on October 1, 2001,
is based on a percentage of gross local revenues of retail
communications service providers that is applied more evenly across all
types of telecommunications providers. (Further information on the
development of this law can be found in the boxed text below.)  Under
the new law, Florida municipalities are barred from applying franchise
and/or license fees, but in return receive a proportionate share of the
tax revenue.

**State of Florida**\
\
The process leading to Florida's new flat tax and Model Ordinance has
been called a "success story" by many of the stakeholders involved. 
Restructuring of the complex tax system was initiated by then-Governor
Lawton Chiles, who created the Florida Telecommunications Task Force in
1995.  The Florida Telecommunications Industry Association (FTIA),
composed of 34 corporations, formed a Tax Work Group to assist in
developing recommendations.  FTIA sought the contributions of the
Florida League of Cities, the Florida Association of Counties, and the
Florida Cable Telecommunications Industry Association.  The end result
was compromise legislation to simplify taxation of communications
services and a Model Ordinance that satisfied many of the goals of both
public and private stakeholders.  The new legislation replaced multiple
layers of taxation and differing franchise fees with one state and local
tax administered by the state. \
\
The flat tax has the following benefits.  Payment of two taxes, rather
than seven, results in fewer returns, payments, and audits -- a benefit
to providers and government entities alike. Additionally, the new flat
tax benefits providers by lowering the overall tax rate.  At the same
time, because the flat tax applies to wireless, cable, and satellite
providers, as well as wireline carriers, the new tax system has a
broader base than the previous taxation structure and therefore assures
tax neutrality and a higher tax revenue base.  Finally, the flat tax
system replaces the franchise and permit fees for use of rights-of-way,
many of which were seen to be excessive. The new tax structure, however,
ensures revenue stability for municipalities by providing for the
redistribution of tax revenues to municipalities in lieu of permit
fees. \
\
**Contacts: \
**• [Dorian Denburg](mailto:Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com), BellSouth,
<Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com>\
• [Susan Langston](mailto:SusanLangston@Earthlink.net), Executive
Director, Florida Telecommunications Industry Association,
[SusanLangston@Earthlink.net[\
]{.underline}](mailto:SusanLangston@Earthlink.net)• [Kraig
Conn](mailto:kconn@flcities.com), Florida League of Cities,
<kconn@flcities.com>\
• [Sarah Bleakley](mailto:sbleakley@ngn-tally.com), Florida Association
of Counties, <sbleakley@ngn-tally.com>

**C.  Non-Discriminatory Treatment of Providers**\
\
States have also addressed ways to treat different types of providers in
a non-discriminatory manner.  One issue that repeatedly arises for
wireless providers, for example, is whether they have access to
rights-of-way on the same basis as other types of providers that lay
in-ground lines.  As NARUC's report notes, Illinois and Florida have
included wireless providers in their non-discriminatory, broad-based tax
schemes.  This contrasts with other states, such as Virginia, that have
explicitly excluded commercial mobile radio service providers from
paying fees. 

**State of Washington**\
\
Wireless providers point to states such as Washington as success stories
because they explicitly direct municipalities to allow wireless
facilities into the rights-of-way.  Washington passed a law three years
ago that allows the regulation, but not the prohibition, of wireless or
wireline facilities in a town or a town's rights of way.  (An exception
was made for towns smaller than five square miles in size.) 
Washington's state law further provides that if the city or town and
wireless provider are unable to agree on a fee, the parties must submit
the issue to binding arbitration.\
\
***Contact: *\
**• [Laura Altschul](mailto:Laura.Altschul@T-Mobile.com), T-Mobile,
<Laura.Altschul@T-Mobile.com>

**D.**   **Compliance**

NTIA's [50-state
matrix](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5Crowtableexcel.htm)
also provides information on other rights-of-way provisions across the
50 states, including directives regarding remediation and maintenance of
rights-of-way; the authority to condemn or exercise eminent domain; and
any terms regarding, appeal, arbitration or mediation in the event of a
dispute.  For example, states such as California, Delaware, and Missouri
require providers to restore the street surface to its pre-existing
condition.  Some states authorize delay penalties for unreasonable delay
in right-of-way excavation, patching, or restoration, or permit the
municipality to restore the street and charge the company subsequently. 
There are also statutory provisions regarding compensation required for
condemnation of land for rights-of-way uses.  Finally, a number states
have established mediation or arbitration procedures to resolve
conflicts between carriers and local governments.  NTIA has yet to
receive a success story on compliance and is actively seeking
contributions in this area.

##### E.  Involvement of Stakeholders

A final, significant lesson is that the development of new rights-of-way
laws or regulations benefits from early involvement of all stakeholders
in the decision-making process.  Rights-of-way issues are highly
complex, and there can be many parties with diverging interests affected
by rules or regulations concerning rights-of-way.  Some states and
localities have found, therefore, that early input by affected
stakeholders can help shape a more workable, mutually agreeable
resolution.  The stakeholders involved in the process come to understand
each other's positions and may be more likely to reach a mutual
understanding that results in an effective rule or decision.  The
following success story illustrates that lesson.

**State of New Jersey**\
\
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) decided to
bring in all affected stakeholders in developing more detailed rules for
the installation of submarine telecommunication cables.  Most of the
practical questions that NJDEP faced in responding to these applications
for installing submarine cables had to do with possible conflicts
between such cables and the interests of commercial fishing operations
using gear that scrapes or digs into the seabed. After dealing with
these questions in an ad hoc fashion in the context of several cable
projects, NJDEP decided to establish rules of general applicability that
would strike a balance among competing interests.  To that end, NJDEP
invited representatives of the cable industry, the commercial fishing
industry, and relevant state and federal agencies to participate in a
Submarine Cable Task Force. The Task Force met approximately monthly
over most of a year. Through this process the Task Force eventually
hammered out the text of the proposed rule, which was formally published
on January 7, 2002 and adopted as final on February 3, 2003.   During
this process, both the cable companies and the fishing interests began
to better understand each other's interests and reached overall
agreement on a number of elements in the final rule. \
\
***Contacts:*\
**• [Paul E. Shorb](mailto:pschorb@att.com), AT&T,
[pshorb@att.com](mailto:pschorb@att.com)\
• [Ruth Ehinger](mailto:ruth.ehinger@dep.state.nj.us), State of New
Jersey, <ruth.ehinger@dep.state.nj.us>

Lessons from the state level abound.  The 50-state matrix can direct
readers to other types of statutory provisions, and we hope that our
list of anecdotal successes will continue to grow as we receive further
input from government and industry.

**II. LOCAL SUCCESS STORIES **

As extensive as the state provisions may be, much of the decision-making
regarding rights-of-way occurs at the local level.  Municipalities often
address issues of permitting, street cuts, and remediation using their
authority to regulate rights-of-way access and to protect the health and
safety of their residents and public property.  A variety of different
approaches and successes have arisen at the local level, reflecting the
different needs of cities and towns across the Nation.

**A.  Involvement of Stakeholders**

As at the state level, the involvement of affected stakeholders plays a
significant role at the local level.  Involving stakeholders in local
processes may be even more critical because local governments directly
govern the use of rights-of-way through local ordinances and ongoing
regulation and oversight.  Both carriers and local governments,
therefore, have shared success stories relating to the involvement of
affected parties in the ordinance-drafting process as well as the
subsequent planning stages.

***1.     *** ***Involving Stakeholders in the Ordinance Drafting
Process***\
\
Many cities have involved industry in the process of drafting
rights-of-way ordinances.  Allowing for such input has enabled all
stakeholders to understand each other's needs and concerns at the
outset, resulting in more workable ordinances for industry and
government alike. The cities of Plano, Texas, and Beverly Hills,
California both involved rights-of-way users in crafting their
ordinances.  Both cities gave industry the opportunity to comment on a
draft rights-of-way ordinance. 

**City of Plano**\
\
The City of Plano conducted a multi-tiered process, first holding a
workshop to review the draft ordinance.  This was followed by a period
during which companies could file written comments on the ordinance. 
Finally, the City of Plano met with individual companies to work through
any remaining concerns.  This process resulted in several provisions
that addressed the carriers' concerns.  For example, the City agreed
that emergency and maintenance permits could be faxed or emailed (and
the City typically responds to these in two or three days).  The City
also crafted a records provision to address carriers' concerns.  Rather
than requiring "as built" plans of all existing facilities, the City of
Plano agreed that carriers need only mark the major streets where their
facilities currently exist and that such records would remain
confidential.\
***\
Contact:***\
• [Deputy Mayor Steve Stovall](mailto:sstovall@plano.gov), City of
Plano, Texas, <sstovall@plano.gov>

**City of Beverly Hills**\
\
A similar consultative process in Beverly Hills resulted in a mutually
agreeable ordinance as well.  By holding a comment period on the draft
ordinance, the City learned what industry planned for its buildout,
methods of construction, and construction standards.  The opportunity
for dialogue also gave industry an understanding of the City's needs in
managing rights-of-way. \
 \
***Contact:*\
**• [Sandy Sakamoto](mailto:sandy.sakamoto@sbc.com), Pacific Telesis
Group Legal Department, <sandy.sakamoto@sbc.com>

***2.  Involving Stakeholders in Subsequent Planning***\
\
The involvement of rights-of-way stakeholders may also be critical
throughout subsequent planning for use of the rights-of-way.  As a
result, a number of cities have developed methods to involve
telecommunications providers in their ongoing planning process, such as
by holding regular meetings or requiring written submissions for
upcoming plans.

**City of Plano**\
\
The City of Plano holds quarterly Utility Coordination Meetings to
discuss projects being undertaken in rights-of-way with companies
currently in that space.  During these meetings, companies learn what
projects are starting or ongoing and what may be required of them as
rights-of-way users.  The District of Columbia holds two different
monthly meetings with utilities using the rights-of-way: a Utility
Policy Meeting to discuss general policy issues that may affect those
with permits in the rights-of-way, as well as a Street Coordination
Meeting to compare plans for the Department of Transportation's capital
improvements with those being undertaken by utility providers.\
\
***Contact:***\
• [Deputy Mayor Steve Stovall](mailto:sstovall@plano.gov), City of
Plano, Texas, <sstovall@plano.gov>

**City of Eugene**\
\
The City of Eugene, Oregon also hosts bi-monthly utility coordination
meetings between staff and local rights-of-way users.  By bringing
together city staff with local providers, these meetings have resulted
in simple, cost-cutting solutions.  At one such meeting, for example,
the first utility in an area agreed to install sleeves under major
facilities so subsequent utilities did not then have to bypass existing
facilities and enter a more congested or less accessible space.\
\
***Contact:***\
• [Damon Joyner](mailto:damon.d.joyner@ci.eugene.or.us), Utility Permit
and Inspections Supervisor, City of Eugene, Oregon,
<damon.d.joyner@ci.eugene.or.us> 

**District of Columbia**\
\
While regular meetings help coordinate rights-of-way uses, the District
of Columbia also requires that plans be submitted in writing.  Occupancy
Permit holders must submit an updated "Two Year Plan" twice a year so
that the District's Department of Transportation knows where future
construction may take place.  While the District of Columbia does not
have a comprehensive record of the underground infrastructure installed
in previous decades, the new plans are helping the City to put together
a forward-looking map of all underground lines and pipes.  These plans
are kept confidential.  However, in a meeting held with each company
after the plan is filed, District officials let a company know whether
it has overlapping plans with other carriers so that they can coordinate
street cuts and share expenses.\
\
***Contact:***\
• [Denise Wiktor](mailto:denise.turner@dc.gov), District of Columbia
Department of Transportation,
[denise.wiktor@dc.gov](mailto:denise.turner@dc.gov)

**B.  Information Collection**

Another area where success stories can provide useful models is
information collection prior to obtaining a permit or registration. 
Companies trying to access rights-of-way have raised several concerns
with the amount and manner in which such information is collected.  
Many have noted that some localities collect an excess of information
that is often unrelated to rights-of-way management.  Additionally, some
providers have expressed concern about the diverse requirements for
permit applications among municipalities.  This patchwork of varying
requirements can make the application process costly and difficult for
providers putting in facilities in multiple jurisdictions or across
municipal boundaries.  The experiences of localities set forth below
illustrate how information collection can be streamlined and
standardized to save time and reduce costs for both industry and
municipalities.

***1.  Simplifying Information Collection***\
\
Some cities have set forth very clear and easy-to-follow requirements
for the registration and permit applications in order to simplify the
information collection process.  The registration application is
typically required of all providers that use, or plan to use, the public
rights-of-way.  Once registered, a provider can then apply for a permit
to install facilities in a particular right-of-way.  Simplifying
information collection in either part of this process can greatly assist
providers trying to install facilities in public rights-of-way.

**City of Jacksonville Beach**\
\
The City of [Jacksonville Beach, Florida
Ordinance](http://livepublish.municode.com/5/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-j.htm&vid=11041)
offers one method of simplifying the collection process.  The City has
adopted a succinct, clear registration process based on the Florida
Model Ordinance, discussed below.  The registration requires a name,
address, phone number, evidence of insurance coverage, and the
applicant's certificate of authorization or license issued by the
Florida Public Service Commission, or other federal or state authority
with jurisdiction.  These registration requirements focus on collecting
information that is relevant and useful to a locality managing
rights-of-way.\
\
***Contacts:***\
• [Dorian Denburg](mailto:Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com), BellSouth,
<Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com>\
• [George Forbes](mailto:citymgroffice@jaxbchfl.net), City Manager,
Jacksonville Beach, Florida, <citymgroffice@jaxbchfl.net>

***2.  Model Ordinances***\
\
The model ordinance approach has been adopted in numerous locales, such
as the state of Florida and the Denver metropolitan area.  The creation
of a model ordinance gives municipalities a template to follow on
rights-of-way processes and makes it more likely that neighboring
localities will adopt similar procedures.  Such an approach generally
helps standardize information collection, making it easier for companies
to predict what information will be collected in a permit application.

**State of Florida**\
\
As noted above in the discussion of state laws, the [Florida Model
Ordinance](http://www.flcities.com/legal/files/8F80DEF607A8466F86033FE3613C75F2.pdf)
was developed after passage of the new legislation through the efforts
of the Florida Telecommunications Industry Association, the Florida
League of Cities, and the Florida Association of Counties. These groups
saw a model ordinance as a good vehicle to ensure that local codes
complied with the new law.  Once the registration is approved, the
carrier must then file a permit  application to conduct specific
installations. Providers have noted that the permit application is
relatively easy for them to complete because it requires a "plan" for
the location of the proposed installation of facilities, rather than an
"as built" map.  The latter consists of horizontal and vertical locates
for all facilities laid in ground, which can be very costly for
companies to conduct.\
\
***Contacts:***\
• Dorian Denburg, BellSouth, <Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com>\
• Susan Langston, Executive Director, Florida Telecommunications
Industry Association,
[SusanLangston@Earthlink.net](../../../../../../../../S:%5Chtdocs%5Cntiahome%5Cstaterow%5CSusanLangston@Earthlink.net)\
• Kraig Conn, Florida League of Cities, <kconn@flcities.com>\
• Sarah Bleakley, Florida Association of Counties,
<sbleakley@ngn-tally.com>

**Greater Denver Area**\
\
Using a standardized ordinance benefits not only companies, but also
municipalities.  Twenty-eight cities and counties around Denver founded
an inter-city consortium, called the [Greater Metropolitan
Telecommunications Consortium (GMTC)](http://www.gmtc.org/), to address
collectively issues of common interest.  One of these issues concerned
rights-of-way access and pricing structures.  GMTC members found benefit
in developing a [Model
Ordinance](http://www.gmtc.org/Model_row_ordinance.pdf) to address
pricing and other issues facing these governmental entities.  By
examining these issues collectively, the GMTC municipalities pooled
resources and expertise and developed a model ordinance that many GMTC
members have adopted as their own municipal ordinance.\
\
***Contact:***\
• Mayor Ken Fellman, City of Arvada, <kfellman@kandf.com>\
 

**C.  Timeliness of Processes**

Another category of success stories concerns the timing of the process
itself.  As noted above, some companies have cited slow, cumbersome
permit processes as factors that can impede broadband deployment.  In
many locales, however, rules and procedures have been crafted to ensure
timely and appropriate action on rights-of-way permitting.  The examples
below show how different procedures can accommodate faster entry of
broadband providers.*\
\
**1.  Speeding Up the Permitting Process***\
\
Many localities have recognized the need for a faster turnaround time
between the initial filing of an application to obtain access to a
right-of-way and the final installation of the facilities.  To reduce
installation time, some cities have imposed tight deadlines for
approving or denying registrations.  Other cities have authorized
blanket permits, eliminating the need to require registration for each
separate installation of facilities.  Steps like these help companies
gain faster access to rights-of-way.

**City of Jacksonville Beach**\
\
The City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida is one of many cities that have
established steps to facilitate the permitting process.  First, the
[Jacksonville Beach
Ordinance](http://livepublish.municode.com/5/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-j.htm&vid=11041),
closely modeled on the Florida Model Ordinance, sets forth very clear,
straight-forward registration requirements.  As discussed above, the
simplicity of these requirements cuts down on the time for carriers in
collecting information.  Second, the Ordinance provides for a quick
turnaround once the registration is received.  The City has thirty days
to approve or deny registrations to access rights-of-way.  Imposing such
a deadline reduces the time before which providers can then apply for a
permit. \
\
***Contacts:***\
• [Dorian Denburg](mailto:Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com), BellSouth,
<Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com>\
• [George Forbes](mailto:citymgroffice@jaxbchfl.net), City Manager,
Jacksonville Beach, Florida, <citymgroffice@jaxbchfl.net>

***2.  Streamlining Permitting Processes***\
\
In addition to reducing the amount of time required for the application
process, some cities have adopted other methods to facilitate access to
rights-of-way for new entrants.  The examples below describe new
approaches to reduce administrative burdens on carriers that are adding
new services in the rights-of-way, such as cable providers and wireless
carriers.

**City of Omaha**\
\
In Omaha, Nebraska, Cox Cable was able to introduce competitive phone
service and high-speed Internet access without going through new
rights-of-way permitting.  The City's regulators did not require Cox to
get a new "telecommunications service" permit or additional franchise to
install phone/Internet service.  Instead, the regulators relied on the
existing permitting processes established through the cable franchise,
which already addressed rights-of-way issues.  According to Cox, the
regulators promptly issued new construction permits for the upgrades to
the system.   The same speedy permitting process was also applied to
Cox's competitor, Qwest, which was rolling out new data, voice, and
video services in direct competition.\
\
***Contact:*** \
• [Alexandra Wilson](mailto:Alexandra.Wilson@cox.com), Cox Cable,
<Alexandra.Wilson@cox.com>

**Cities in the State of California**\
\
Wireless providers typically find themselves in a different situation
from other providers with respect to rights-of-way access.  They are
often excluded from the general municipal rights-of-way ordinance and
subject to other rules.  Additionally, service quality is dependent on
access to rights-of-way across residential and non-residential
neighborhoods, yet access often can be difficult to obtain.  Typically,
for example, the siting of wireless facilities in a right-of-way is
subject to a conditional use permit process, which involves
environmental and design evaluations.  Approval of a conditional use
permit can take up to two years. \
\
Several cities in California, however, have interpreted the California
Public Utilities Code to provide for administrative encroachment
permits, rather than conditional use permits, for wireless siting. 
Cities such as Los Angeles, Ocean Side, La Mesa, and Silana Beach
recently allowed Sprint PCS to apply for an administrative encroachment
permit (or above ground facilities permit) in order to place their
towers in local rights-of-way.  The administrative process involves a
public hearing, allowing community and environmental input, and an
administrative determination, but eliminates the need for an
environmental and design evaluation.  As a result, the approval for such
a permit can take approximately one month rather than two years.\
\
***Contacts:***\
• [Roger Sherman](mailto:rhsherm01@sprintspectrum.com), Sprint PCS,
<rhsherm01@sprintspectrum.com>\
*In Califorinia:*\
• [Larry Doherty](mailto:ldoher01@sprintspectrum.com), Sprint PCS,
<ldoher01@sprintspectrum.com>\
• [Stella Acuna](mailto:sacuna01@sprintspectrum.com), Sprint
PCS,<sacuna01@sprintspectrum.com>\
• [Julie Allen](mailto:jallen@eng.lacity.org), Department of Public
Works, City of Los Angeles, <jallen@eng.lacity.org>

**D.  Fees**

As at the state level, there are often disputes between local
governments and providers about the appropriate fee structure. 
Providers typically favor basing rights-of-way fees on cost recovery,
i.e., basing fees on costs directly related to the administration of the
rights-of-way.  Municipalities, on the other hand, tend to prefer fees
that are comparable to a rental fee for use of the rights-of-way or that
cover a broader array of costs, such as road degradation.

While many states have addressed this issue in recent years, there is
still much latitude at the local level for unique approaches.  Not
surprisingly, cities with lower annual fees receive strong praise from
rights-of-way users.  Other municipalities have developed approaches
that allow providers to substitute other services for fees, or for
partial payment of fees.

**City of Beverly Hills**\
\
The City of Beverly Hills developed a creative and mutually agreeable
resolution for fee payment.  In this case, Sprint was interested in
placing new antennae throughout the City.  The City appeared reluctant
to allow placement of these antennae in existing public rights-of-way,
however, and Sprint believed the proposed rents for using these
rights-of-way were extremely high.  Instead, Sprint proposed a unique
pubic-private partnership.  The City needed new street lights in certain
areas.  Sprint agreed to install the new lights in return for permission
to place their antennae on top of the lights and paying the City a
nominal fee for maintaining these antennae.\
\
***Contacts:***\
• [Roger Sherman](mailto:rhsherm01@sprintspectrum.com), Sprint,
<rhsherm01@sprintspectrum.com>\
• [Shana Epstein](mailto:sepstein@ci.beverly-hills.ca.us), City of
Beverly Hills, <sepstein@ci.beverly-hills.ca.us>

**E.  Remediation and Maintenance**

Once the installation of facilities has taken place, the restoration of
rights-of-way raises another set of concerns for both cities and
carriers.  The issues of remediation and maintenance involve questions
such as the time in which carriers must restore the right-of-way after
installing new facilities; the condition to which the right-of-way must
be restored; the period of time such restoration must be guaranteed; and
how cities can monitor the work being done.

At this phase, cities are eager to have such work done swiftly to ensure
that streets are returned to a safe and usable condition as soon as
possible.  Carriers, meanwhile, need sufficient time to conduct such
repairs and are concerned that restoration requirements might impose
unreasonable burdens or expectations.  The success stories provided
below strike a reasonable balance between the cities' and providers'
interests.  They also offer innovative methods to review that repair and
maintenance is successfully completed.

**City of Jacksonville**\
\
The City of Jacksonville Ordinance again establishes a tight, but
reasonable, deadline for this phase of the installation.  The Registrant
is required to restore the right-of-way to its original condition within
thirty days from the placement of the Registrant's facilities.  If the
carrier fails to complete that work within thirty days, the City can
perform the restoration and charge the total costs to the Registrant. 
The affected carriers have considered this time period to be
reasonable.  (They have voiced objections, however, to Ordinance
language that requires the carrier to restore the rights-of-way to the
original "or superior to the original condition," on the basis that they
should not be responsible for improving the streets beyond the
pre-existing conditions.)  In addition, carriers have found troublesome
the requirement that the Registrant must guarantee restoration for the
next twelve months because they fear they might be held responsible for
damage caused by a subsequent registrant.   \
\
***Contacts: ***\
• [Dorian Denburg](mailto:Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com), BellSouth,
<Dorian.Denburg@BellSouth.com>\
• [George Forbes](mailto:citymgroffice@jaxbchfl.net), City Manager,
Jacksonville Beach, Florida, <citymgroffice@jaxbchfl.net>

**District of Columbia**\
\
Another aspect of remediation and maintenance is ensuring that this
repair work is completed satisfactorily.  The District of Columbia has
addressed this issue through several innovative measures.  First, it
requires that the rights-of-way user post large public notices next to
each construction site.  These notices are 5' by 7' double-sided metal
signs that include the name of the permittee, a contact person and
telephone number, the duration of work, and the start and end date of
the work.  The sign must be posted at least five calendar days prior to
the beginning of the installation.  The permittee is also required to
notify in writing all affected property owners or building managers that
will be affected by the construction.  These measures enable the public
to see which company is doing the construction and to contact that
company if there are any problems.  The notice also contains an
emergency number in the District of Columbia in case problems arise.\
\
The District of Columbia has also has put in place a Neighborhood
Infrastructure Maintenance Organization (NIMO) of thirty employees to
inspect construction and remediation activities.  These employees travel
through their designated areas on a daily basis to inspect street
excavations and restorations.  This gives them first-hand knowledge that
carriers are complying with their permits and proper remediation
procedures.  Along the way, NIMO employees are also able to address
other neighborhood concerns or violations. \
\
***Contact:***\
• [Denise Wiktor](mailto:denise.turner@dc.gov), District of Columbia
Department of Transportation,
[denise.wiktor@dc.gov](mailto:denise.turner@dc.gov)

**CONCLUSION**

 The above stories are some of the many ways that carriers and
governments have successfully resolved issues relating to
rights-of-way.  Obviously, not every example will apply to every type of
carrier or work well for every state or municipality.  These examples,
however, are intended to provide a resource for governments and carriers
that are seeking better solutions.  They demonstrate that the best
solutions at the local level emerge through dialogue and continuing
discussions among all stakeholders in the rights-of-way debate.  They
also demonstrate that mutually agreeable solutions can arise when the
parties are willing to try a novel approach.

We hope that readers will continue to provide NTIA with further examples
by submitting new "success stories" through our website so that this
document can evolve as new ideas and new models emerge.