Bainbridge council forwards 10-year Verizon franchise for further review

Mayor Clarence Moriwaki introduced Ordinance 2026-06, a proposed nonexclusive 10-year franchise agreement with Verizon that would establish a framework for permitting telecommunications facilities in the city right-of-way. The ordinance was presented as an introduction and first of two state-required readings; staff and the city attorney emphasized the franchise itself would not authorize any specific installation and that any future right-of-way permits must comply with existing city code.

Why it matters: The franchise is intended to streamline early-stage requirements for later right-of-way permit applications, provide reporting requirements, and create removal provisions for abandoned equipment. Proponents say it can help facilitate coverage improvements on the island; opponents sought assurances that it would not allow surveillance devices or bypass code safeguards.

What was said: Interim city manager Ellen Schroer told the council the agreement is a common industry practice that would provide a predictable framework for right-of-way access while preserving all current permitting and code standards. City attorney Daniel Kenny said the franchise covers both wireline and wireless facilities and includes indemnification, insurance, and relocation protections. Councilmembers repeatedly asked whether the agreement could be used to require telecom companies to improve coverage, whether a franchise fee would apply, and whether the agreement’s definitions might permit cameras or other data-collection devices in the public right-of-way.

Responses from staff: Kenny said the franchise does not itself authorize surveillance equipment and that definitions in the draft are limited to infrastructure necessary to provide telecom services. On the question of fees, he said statutory limits generally confine franchise fees to cable-TV-type franchises and explained that the agreement primarily addresses administrative costs associated with the franchise. Staff also noted existing code tools can require notifications to adjacent property owners when third parties perform right-of-way work.

Outcome and next steps: Councilmember Franloy Johnson moved and Councilmember Nelson seconded to forward the ordinance to a future business meeting for additional consideration and public comment. The motion passed unanimously (7–0). No final approval occurred at the May 12 meeting; the ordinance will return for a second reading and decision at a later date.

Who to watch: The ordinance is expected to return to the council with any corrections (staff acknowledged several textual references that need updating) and with opportunities for public comment when specific right-of-way permit locations are proposed.