The text of SB205 became available a few short moments ago and, as currently worded, would ban the use of RDA funds on telecommunications projects. (See lines 651-3.) The bill is a direct response to Centerville’s attempts to build out fiber optics infrastructure in the city to promote next-generation networks. Given Sen. Bramble’s significant power and influence, it is critically important that each of you contact your state senator and representative to ask that the provision either be stricken or amended to allow use of RDA funds for telecom provided that the infrastructure is open to any provider.
(Update 2/18/09 by Mike Taylor) – Here is the actual text of the bill, the link above shows the status.
I would likewise encourage you to contact them. Believe me, this will make a difference.
To find your legislators:
Senate Map:
http://www.utahsenate.org/perl/distmapal.pl
House Map:
http://www.utahsenate.org/perl/roster2009.pl
Senate Roster:
http://www.utahsenate.org/perl/roster2009.pl
House Roster:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members/membertable1add.asp
I just read the language of the bill and it appears to have the provision that allows for communications projects if they are open to all providers.
Jarrod: I’m curious to know how you derived that meaning. It seems to be a pretty straight-forward “thou shalt not”.
I’m no lawyer, but it doesn’t look like it allows for any wiggle room.
Where did you read that? This is what I read:
742 17C-1-415. Obligations of agencies that use tax increment to pay for
743 communication infrastructure or facility.
744 An agency that uses tax increment after May 11, 2009 to pay for communication
745 infrastructure or a communication facility:
746 (1) may not make or grant any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to a
747 provider of communication service; and
748 (2) shall allow the communication infrastructure and facilities for which tax increment
749 is used to be used by any other provider of communication service on a fair, equitable, and
750 nondiscriminatory basis.
Okay, never mind, I found it. Weird that both are in there. Perhaps the “communication” section is in there to misdirect those concerned about the “telecommunication” section.
That’s a real head-scratcher. It’s almost like lines 651-3 are designed to affirm the city’s ability to be discriminatory before May 11, 2009 and lines 742-750 take that away? You’re right that the use of “telecommunications” in the prior and “communications service” in the latter is confusing.
Any lawyers want to chip in?
As I see it then, the first section quoted by Jesse would probably hurt UTOPIA cities, not just Centerville, because it seems it takes away their ability to be able to use city revenue if necessary to fund bonds (including those of UTOPIA or similar projects).
The second section might or might not hurt UTOPIA depending on whether or not UTOPIA qualifies as a “provider of communication service on a fair, equitable, and
nondiscriminatory basis”.
The difference to me between the two sections seems to be that the first deals with bonds, basically tying the hands of the cities to do any bonding at all related to telecom, the second section says they can use tax increments (but not bonds?) but that it has to be done on a fair basis. What does that mean? When it says “may not make or grant any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to a provider of communication service” does that mean cities couldn’t give money to UTOPIA without also giving it to, say, Qwest?
It seems this bill is another potentially detrimental bill to UTOPIA and other networks in general, not just the Centerville case.
Also, I’m curious, where do bills like these come from? Did Senator Bramble just wake up one day and decide that Utah law needs to stop cities from being able to improve their cities using their own revenue?
Did one of his constituents honestly call him and say that the law needed to be changed to stop cities from improving telecommunications to attract business and improve the quality of life?
Do Qwest representatives get to write bills they think will benefit them?
Based on your reading, Mike, it would seem to ban any new pledging cities from joining UTOPIA. Seems like a Qwest hackjob to me.
Jesse, I think besides stopping all cities from being able to develop their cities economically through telecommuncations, it could also harm cities that are already participating in UTOPIA or iProvo or similar networks.
Not that UTOPIA would do another refinance, but their last refinance would probably have been blocked by this legislation. It could also potentially block any future actions. This bill should be stopped.
Why should cities be allowed to, say, provide tax incentives to bring a Walmart in, or build a community gym, or redevelop roads or other infrastructure, but not improve telecommunications?
No kidding.
I have unfortunately come to expect these solutions in search of a problem from legislative bodies. About the only check is that we get mad and scream loud enough.
I sent this letter to my senator, who happens to be Senator Bramble:
Dear Senator Bramble,
I have waited with interest to see the telecommunications provisions in S.B. 205 – a bill you are sponsoring. I read two sections that deal with the question of community development of communications facilities and services:
651 (8) An agency may not use tax increment to pay any amount related to a bond issued or
652 other obligation incurred after May 11, 2009 if the bond is issued or the obligation is incurred
653 to finance a telecommunication facility.
and
742 17C-1-415. Obligations of agencies that use tax increment to pay for
743 communication infrastructure or facility.
744 An agency that uses tax increment after May 11, 2009 to pay for communication
745 infrastructure or a communication facility:
746 (1) may not make or grant any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to a
747 provider of communication service; and
748 (2) shall allow the communication infrastructure and facilities for which tax increment
749 is used to be used by any other provider of communication service on a fair, equitable, and
750 nondiscriminatory basis.
How I read this is that it prevents community development and renewal agencies from bonding to finance a telecommunication facility (such as iProvo or UTOPIA) and forces them to allow any provider to use the facility in the case that the agency pays for such facilities using tax increments.
Would you please respond with your reasoning as to how these changes benefit or otherwise represent your constituency? Why is this particular use of an RDA something that the state legislature should restrict vs. other uses of RDAs? Is this bill an attempt to prevent Centerville’s proposed use of RDA funds to build fiber optics infrastructure and if so, what is the state’s interest in preventing the local authority from making this decision?
I noted with interest the state legislature’s application of tax funds to fund the Rio Tinto Stadium and am curious if there were similar vendor neutral requirements with regards to the use of the stadium. I am also curious to know if any government or agency bonds were issued in the financing of the stadium and if taxes are being used to repay those bonds.
I look forward to better understanding your reasoning on this bill.
Regards,
Jarrod Ribble
Not that I expect he will respond. He’s much too busy and important for the likes of me.
Turns out he did respond. He suggested I call him. I responded that I would prefer an email response so I could share his response without misinterpretation or paraphrase. We’ll see.
That’s good that he’s being communicative. My state senator is really good about returning e-mails too.
Jarrod, I’m still waiting to hear back from my state senator. But if Sen. Bramble won’t email you back, then you should try calling him as a last resort. Your message to him was very good.
this bill is to broad, be sure to bring up the follow arguments then you call your rep.
Under the stated definition it would be illegal to install a network for streetlight monitoring, utility monitoring, Police radio systems, Other Emergency services radio’s. These all can be classified as telecommunication/communication infrastructure, facility, or service. It seems to me that the current wording would effect many services outside of just retail communication services. or do i read it wrong?