The Nebraska Legislature heard testimony on Monday related to installing broadband infrastructure on existing utility poles and towers. The bill, LB1112, focuses on capping fees and setting deadlines for permitting, reported the Unicameral Update.
LB1112 proposes that counties, cities, and other local governing entities requiring permits on public or private utility poles and towers can charge up to a $100 application fee and $250 for a permit fee. According to bill sponsor Sen. Robert Clements, some counties have partnered with third parties, charging as much as $16,000 and taking up to nine months to review applications. LB1112 would restrict third-party reviewers from charging an applicant, putting the burden on the cities or counties instead.
The bill also requires local governments to publish certain information on their websites, including:
- The application form
- The application and permit fees
- The schedule for processing and reviewing applications/issuing permits
- The criteria and standards used to approve or deny an application
LB1112 requires local governing entities to confirm receipt of an application and approve or deny it within 30-40 days. If a deadline is missed, an application is considered approved.
Several officials opposed the bill. Valerie Grimes, director of planning and development for the city of Norfolk, stated that the city lacks the engineering and legal background required to review permit applications, relying on third parties to consult.
“Our city taxpayers should not front the cost of compliance,” Grimes said. “That should be on the telecommunication companies who, in our experience, are often eager to push projects quickly and without … regard for local health and safety regulations.”
Another opponent was Lash Chaffin of the League of Nebraska Municipalities, noting that most applications are approved within days and the few exceptions are being “blown out of proportion.” On behalf of Greater Nebraska Cities, Blair MacDonald said the proposed 30-day timeline is “very restrictive.”
The committee took no immediate action on the bill, reported the Unicameral Update.
Reader Interactions