HCS HB 472 -- UTILITY ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY

SPONSOR:  Mays, 50 (Burton)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Utilities
Regulation by a vote of 19 to 6.

This substitute outlines procedures for public utility
right-of-way user access to the public right-of-way.  Political
subdivisions are prohibited from granting any new franchise for
cable television service that overlaps an area served by an
existing cable television franchise, unless the overlapping
franchise is granted on terms and conditions that are no more or
less favorable or burdensome than those of the existing
franchise.

Political subdivisions may by ordinance require public utility
right-of-way users to obtain excavation permits and to submit
plans for anticipated construction projects requiring excavation
in the public right-of-way.  After excavation, a right-of-way
user must restore the right-of-way to its prior condition.

Right-of-way permits may be denied or revoked for certain
reasons; a review process of denied or revoked permits by the
governing body of the political subdivision is provided.
Right-of-way permit fees must reflect the actual costs of
managing the public right-of-way and be allocated among all
users in a nondiscriminatory manner.  Political subdivisions
must not unlawfully discriminate among users of the
right-of-way, grant preference to any right-of-way user over
another, or create unreasonable requirements for access to the
right-of-way.  Political subdivisions are prohibited from
collecting a right-of-way fee through the provision of in-kind
services by a public utility right-of-way user, except from
cable television service providers as authorized by federal law.

The public utility right-of-way user is responsible for all acts
or omissions of contractors or subcontractors used for
excavating in the public right-of-way.  Political subdivisions
may require public utilities to obtain right-of-way permits
prior to any excavation or work performed within the public
right-of-way after August 28, 2001.  Nothing in the substitute
relieves a political subdivision of any obligations under an
existing franchise.

The substitute has an emergency clause.

FISCAL NOTE:  No impact on state funds.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the bill will resolve a dispute
between municipalities and utilities; the dispute threatens the
development of competition and new technology.  They also point
out that increased right-of-way fees are simply passed through
to customers and show up on the monthly bill.

Testifying for the bill were Representatives Burton and
O'Connor; Missouri Telecommunication Industry Association;
Utilicorp Communications; National Silver-haired Congress;
Ameren UE; Missouri Chamber of Commerce; and Laclede Gas.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that the money
collected by cities from utilities is used to repave roads that
are cut by utility excavations.  Also, they say that because of
innovation in telecommunications services, more and more cuts
are required.  This problem requires local control, and the bill
is a one-size-fits-all approach for all Missouri cities.

Testifying against the bill were Missouri Municipal League;
Mayor of Raytown; City of St. Louis; City of Winchester; City of
Maryland Heights; Alderman, City of Raytown; St. Louis County
Municipal League; and City of Raytown.

Donna Schlosser, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
Last Updated November 26, 2001 at 11:44 am