Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds public hearing and first reading of right‑of‑way ordinance; Verizon asks for delay
Summary
City staff presented Ordinance 9‑25 to create a right‑of‑way licensing fee and align privilege‑tax rates (proposal includes raising many fees to 7%). Verizon asked the council not to adopt the ordinance at this meeting to allow more discussion; council approved a first reading and will consider changes at the next meeting.
City staff and the city attorney presented Ordinance 9‑25 on Jan. 20, proposing to add chapter 13.36 (utility use of public rights of way) to the Scappoose Municipal Code and to amend chapter 3.08 on public utility taxes. The ordinance would standardize licenses and could move many franchise/privilege fees toward a 7% rate for new or renewal agreements.
City Manager Ben Bergener said the approach aims to simplify permitting and reduce repeated franchise negotiations; attorney Nancy Werner told the council the city’s privilege tax has been on the books since 1986 and that the ordinance is intended to streamline authorization rather than impose a new tax.
Troy Gagliano, Verizon’s government affairs representative for Oregon, urged the council “not to adopt this tonight” and requested additional meetings with staff and legal counsel to resolve details. Gagliano explained some carriers lease space on towers and do not directly own much infrastructure in the right of way and asked for further discussion of how the ordinance would apply in practice.
Werner and staff responded that the privilege tax is grandfathered and that the proposed right‑of‑way license and registration provisions are intended to capture users who benefit from facilities in city rights of way while preserving a council option to grant franchises in narrow cases.
Council President Tyler Miller moved, and Councilor Marquis seconded, to approve the first reading of Ordinance 9‑25; the council left the ordinance to a second reading and possible adoption at the next meeting after additional stakeholder outreach and review.
The public hearing produced a mix of commentary from industry representatives and staff; no final ordinance adoption occurred on Jan. 20.
