Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City legal staff outlines options to regulate broadband in Broken Arrow right‑of‑way; staff to research permitting and fee models
Summary
City legal and engineering staff reviewed the city's authority to regulate utilities in rights‑of‑way via permits, ordinances and franchise agreements, and recommended staff study permit fees, rental models and potential franchise approaches. Staff flagged a key legal distinction between 'information service' providers and 'telecommunications' providers and noted existing franchises for Cox and ONG.
Trevor, speaking on legal matters related to the Open Meeting Act and municipal authority, told council that the city can regulate its rights‑of‑way through ordinances requiring permits, occupancy fees and reporting. He noted two regulatory tools: (1) an expanded right‑of‑way ordinance and permitting process and (2) a franchise agreement authorized by the Oklahoma Constitution (Article 18 § 5(a)) that can collect franchise fees and set terms for use of the right‑of‑way.
Trevor and engineering staff explained the legal distinction that affects what the city can impose on providers: some broadband companies are characterized as information‑service providers (which may be subject to franchise agreements for cable‑style services) while others are telecommunications providers, which often fall under statewide arrangements and are regulated through the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Staff cited the city's existing non‑exclusive cable franchise with Cox (Ordinance 24‑68) and said the ONG franchise expires in Oct. 2026. MetroNet was discussed as an example where the Corporation Commission had issued a certificate of convenience and necessity, suggesting telecom classification in that instance; staff said they did not know whether MetroNet was actively providing telephone services in the city today.
Council members raised neighborhood examples of work in the right‑of‑way—one councilor described a sinkhole left for weeks after a provider's work—which underscored concerns about accountability and repair. Multiple councilors asked for a staff report to identify which providers are operating in city rights‑of‑way, recommend permitting and fee models (including bonds or insurance requirements and possible franchise/rental fees used in nearby jurisdictions), and estimate staff‑time impacts of increased permitting. Engineering staff and legal counsel agreed to assemble a team, review other city approaches (including Tulsa’s rental fee model), and return with recommendations.
