Council asks staff to study right‑of‑way licensing ordinance after utility permitting briefing

The Eugene City Council heard an informational presentation on Feb. 25, 2026 about right‑of‑way utility governance and directed staff to return with a more detailed analysis of whether to pursue a non‑telecommunications right‑of‑way licensing ordinance.

Jack Blackham, interim development services manager in Public Works, explained the city’s current permitting approach and the two governance frameworks for long‑term use of the public right‑of‑way: franchise agreements (individually negotiated contracts) and licensing ordinances (uniform, ordinance‑based requirements and fees). "The average review time for an individual permit is 10 days," Blackham said when describing permit types and review timelines.

What staff presented: Blackham outlined that individual utility permits (required for relocations, expansions or work that affects traffic or street trees) typically undergo a roughly 10‑day review and that annual blanket permits exist for routine maintenance and service connections if the provider is under a franchise or license. He described how a licensing ordinance could standardize rules, reduce staff time spent negotiating franchise agreements and allow the city to adopt changes by ordinance rather than by negotiating new franchise terms. Eugene’s current telecommunication licensing regime (adopted in 1997) uses a combination of registration and license fees (staff noted a 2% registration fee and a 7% license fee on gross revenue) as an example of local fee approaches.

Legal and operational questions: Council members asked whether licenses would require council approval or could be delegated to staff and whether a licensing ordinance could be used to deny a provider access. Staff answered that licensing approval level depends on how the ordinance is drafted and that most Oregon cities delegate licensing approvals to staff. City counsel clarified the city’s authority over right‑of‑way regulation: "This is entirely regulation of our right of way which we have absolute home rule authority to do," counsel said, adding that an ordinance can set clear, objective bases for approval or denial so decisions would not be arbitrary.

Pass‑through facilities and fees: Staff gave examples of entities that use the right‑of‑way without serving city customers (railroad crossings, long‑distance carriers such as MCI communications) and noted those are often charged by linear feet. Blackham compared fee approaches used by other Oregon cities (typical fee ranges of 3.5–10% of gross revenue) and said pass‑through facilities are often charged on lineal length with potential minimums.

Council direction and timing: Councilor Kashinsky moved to direct the city manager to return with an additional work session providing in‑depth analysis of utility providers and regulatory and compensation considerations to help council determine whether to move forward with a right‑of‑way licensing ordinance; the motion passed 7–0. Staff estimated a realistic timeline of about four months to develop decision points and recommendations; staff noted it was more likely the work would be returned after the council’s upcoming break.

What happens next: Staff will prepare deeper analysis into which utility services and providers would be covered, fee structures and implementation and enforcement options, and will report back with recommended decision points and a proposed work plan for council consideration.

Attribution note: Quotes and paraphrases are taken from presentations and council Q&A during the Feb. 25 work session; legal and technical answers reflect staff and city attorney responses during the session.