2019.07.09 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

803 Old Highway 8 NW, New Brighton, MN 55112 | 651‐638‐2100 | www.newbrightonmn.gov July 9, 2019 Senator Amy Klobuchar 1200 Washington Avenue South, Room 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Senator Klobuchar, As a city leader and a constituent, I am writing to express New Brighton’s opposition to the “Streamlining The Rapid Evolution And Modernization of Leading‐edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance (STREAMLINE) Small Cell Deployment Act” (S. 1699). This bill represents a direct affront to traditionally‐held local authority and will complicate, rather than simplify, national efforts to expedite infrastructure deployment by prolonging state and local processes. We share Congress’s goal of ensuring efficient, safe, and appropriate deployment of new broadband technology. However, this bill is not the best way to achieve that shared goal. S. 1699 will complicate the existing efforts by state and local governments to deploy small cell infrastructure. Roughly half of all US states have passed legislation specifically addressing the deployment of small cell wireless structures, and the local governments in those states are busy implementing new ordinances and procedures to comply with those changes, as well as negotiating with industry partners on deployments. Further, recent regulations from the Federal Communications Commission are currently being challenged in court by dozens of local governments. This bill introduces an unnecessary, one‐size‐fits‐all preemption of those efforts, when little data exists to determine what is most effective or necessary. Next, the bill imposes unfair and inappropriate timelines on local governments. The shot clocks proposed by S. 1699 are considerably shorter than those the federal government applied to itself in the bipartisan MOBILE NOW Act. The reduced size per installation of small cell infrastructure does not directly translate to an accordingly reduced procedural burden on local governments. Cities must still review each site individually to ensure that it meets the jurisdiction’s requirements. Further, the limited extension for small jurisdictions and bulk requests of over fifty applications does not address these resource challenges for states and localities. Finally, limiting fees and rates to direct and actual costs is an extreme overreach by the federal government. Cities negotiate with providers to ensure appropriate compensation to taxpayers for private, profit‐generating use of public property and to incentivize development that benefits community residents. In some cases, state constitutions’ prohibition on gifts to private entities prohibit cities from assessing less than a fair market value for rental of public property. When cities are