2007-02-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

are not cooperating with AT&T. To the contrary, cities are signing AT&T agreements even though the TV service is not readily available. Cities are not a barrier. The bill was debated this week and will be taken up again soon. It was favorably amended to give cities some authority to regulate the big boxes. However, other provisions are not favorable and the League continues to oppose the bill. It does retain the 5% fee on cable and video services. The League recommends that officials talk to legislators about: 1. The St. Louis County area being exempted since cities are signing agreements with AT&T; 2. Build out: Companies should serve all parts of a city so citizens receive the benefits of competition. As the MML language indicates above by working with AT&T we are eliminating the argument that the State must take control because the cities are th unresponsive. I have included the information for the Feb 26 agenda along with emails I exchanged with the CALOP executive board on the same topic. Reasons to proceed: 1. The threat of state legislation (SB 284) usurping our franchise authority. 2. Residents want competition for Charter. 3. We want some control of the placement of boxes in the r-o-w. 4. We want to protect funding for CALOP. Reasons to postpone legislation: 1. AT&T will not guarantee full build out. 2. AT&T will provide space for public access but not funding (CALOP’s concern) 3. The video boxes in r-o-w are considered ugly or a safety hazard or hindrance to accessibility –whatever the argument. I believe this is an argument we would inevitably lose both legally and at the State level. Overtime Provisions: SCS SB 255 (Loudon) is a combination of three bills filed on the subject and was heard in committee and voted out the same day. It simply clarifies that the 2006 system for overtime for police/fire/EMS is lawful for use in the future. Thanks to Senators Loudon, Gross and Griesheimer for their assistance! (Support) Telecommunications Taxes: SB 209 (Griesheimer) and HB 165 (Cooper) are quite similar to the statute thrown out by the Supreme Court. It still dismisses back taxes simply because the industry asked for it. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all skip our taxes and when challenged in court, ask the legislature to forgive the taxes? That’s a great way to force the tax burden onto others and reward questionable behavior. The bill does say that all cell phones would be subject to the gross receipts tax (just as the courts have said) but then forces a roll back of gross receipts taxes on cell and land phones, followed by a cap. This again forces the tax burden onto others. The League advocates that