Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Avx Fcc Rescission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Avalon rescinds May 22 FCC letter and authorizes attorney to file responses to AVX
Summary
The Avalon council voted to rescind a May 22 letter to the FCC and directed the city attorney to file responses correcting what the city says are inaccurate statements in AVX's filings; council members framed the filings as seeking federal preemption of local control. The motion passed 4–0 with one member absent.
The Avalon City Council voted June 25 to rescind a May 22 letter to the Federal Communications Commission and to authorize the city attorney to file responses to filings submitted by AVX.
Scott Campbell summarized the matter: AVX has filed several letters with the FCC alleging Avalon and its staff obstructed AVX's efforts to secure entitlements and permits. "There were several statements made in those filings that, we believe are inaccurate, and should be corrected, for, for the record," Campbell said, asking the council to rescind the earlier city letter and allow the city attorney to submit corrected comments to the FCC.
Campbell also described AVX's broader request: the company has sought federal preemption of local laws for certain federally funded projects, which would constrain local authority. Campbell said the city "would not want the federal government setting all the rules" and that staff seeks to preserve the city's right to participate in local land-use decisions.
Council members asked why the project had stalled and why it had not gone before the planning commission. Campbell said there is not yet an agreed written agreement, staff has requested full applications, city and AVX staff are negotiating a right-of-way agreement, and a $100,000 city commitment was described as conditional on a final agreement about the use or benefits the city would receive.
A council member moved to rescind the May 22 letter and authorize the city attorney to file responses to AVX's FCC filings; the motion was seconded and recorded as passing 4–0 with one member absent.
