BILL ANALYSIS
AB 855
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Sarah Reyes, Chair
AB 855 (Firebaugh) - As Introduced: February 20, 2003
SUBJECT : Wireless telecommunications: access to state
property.
SUMMARY : This bill would require the Director of General
Services (DGS) and/or the Director of Transportation (DOT) to
negotiate, on behalf of the state, a lease of state-owned
property with the wireless telecommunications providers.
Specifically, this bill requires:
1)DGS to compile, maintain and prepare an inventory state-owned
real property that may be available for lease to wireless
telecommunications providers for location of wireless
telecommunications facilities.
2)Make the inventory of available properties be put on DGS
website.
3)That 15% of the revenues from fees collected from the lease to
the providers of wireless telecommunications services be
deposited in the Digital Divide Account established by this
bill in the California Teleconnect Fund Administrative
Committee Fund (Fund).
4)Those revenues be deposited in the Fund and made available,
upon appropriation by the Legislature, and be administered by
the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to finance
digital divide projects through the Digital Divide Grant
Program established by this bill.
5)PUC to report to the Legislature and the Governor on the
effectiveness of the program annually.
6)That it would take effect immediately as it contains an
urgency statute.
EXISTING LAW requires:
1)The Directors of General Services, with the approval of the
state agency concerned, and Transportation to negotiate access
AB 855
Page 2
to state-owned property, to include highway rights-of way.
2)Provides that this requirement also applies to
telecommunications and information technologies.
3)The director of both agencies to determine the amount of
consideration for, and means of access to include lease permit
or other form of providing a monetary or service consideration
for the access.
4)Requires PUC to develop a plan to encourage the widespread
availability and use of advance communications infrastructure
consistent with the state policy of bridging the digital
divide.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : The intent of this bill is to provide cellular
carriers with an access to place cellular towers on state
property while providing an additional revenue stream for the
digital divide.
What additional administrative duties will PUC will incur ? PUC
currently administers the California Teleconnect Administrative
Fund, however the author directs PUC, in this bill, to
administer the funds deposited in the Digital Divide Account
(DDA). The DDA (set up by this bill) is a subdivision of the
California Teleconnect Fund Administrative Committee Fund to be
used solely for the digital divide pilot project. The author
states that 15% of the funds from this bill will be used for the
digital divide however, upon further conversations with the
author's office, the true percentage is 10% with 5% going for
administrative cost. The PUC currently administers the digital
divide account and the author may want to take a technical
amendment to clarify what additional administrative costs PUC
would incur (warranting the 5% admin cost) in addition to what
they are currently doing.
PUC vs. IRS Code criteria ? This bill also states, that PUC
shall provide grants on a competitive basis, subject to criteria
established by PUC, that distributes the funds in urban and
rural areas and those grants will be awarded to community-based
non-profit organizations that have established themselves as a
501(c)(3) thru criteria of the Internal Revenue Service Code for
the purpose of funding community technology programs. In
AB 855
Page 3
addition, the recipients said grants will be required, by this
bill, to report annually to PUC on the effectiveness of the
grant and in turn PUC will report to the Legislature and the
governor on the effectiveness of the program administered.
Should PUC be responsible for digital divide issues or is this
best served else where?
This bill also leaves several questions unanswered:
What are towers or facilities ? The aesthetic impact of wireless
telecommunications towers and facilities is necessary to support
wireless networks however, AB 855 fails to define the criteria
to be used by cellular carriers to determine what a tower or
facility is and the author may want to address this issue. In
addition, the minimization of the aesthetic impact of wireless
telecommunications towers and facilities is not clear.
Which Director will negotiate ? AB 855 would require "the
Director" to negotiate on behalf of the state and to enter into
a lease agreement on state on real property however the author
does not state which director, DGS or DOT or both nor does it
state how often negotiations can take place or how often the
director can (t) negotiate on be half of the state. Currently,
DGS negotiates on behalf of the state for all state buildings
except for DOT. Another question for the author is the funds
negotiated by DOT goes into its account but according to AB 855
the funds negotiated by DOT would go into DDA.
Which agency will compile and maintain the information ? The
director shall develop and distribute materials for use by local
agencies on state and local agency property however, the
criteria to be used to compile the information on said property
to be provided to cellular carriers needs to be clarified. As
well as, which director DGS or DOT will maintain and update the
information or if either agency has the manpower to do so.
The governor vetoed a similar measure to this bill, AB 486
(Firebaugh), 2001-2002 legislative session stating:
Requiring approval of the applicable state
department, the location of telecommunication
facilities, is then exempt from local land use
review. In some communities the location of cell
towers is a matter of great community interest. I
am unwilling to thwart the discretionary review of
AB 855
Page 4
local governments??.. The deposit of revenues into
a new digital divide account is nothing more than
a transfer of the same revenues from the General
fund.
The author has yet to justify how this bill is different from AB
486 in order for this bill to receive the governor's signature.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AT&T Wireless (Sponsor)
Cingular Wireless
California Community Technology Policy Group
Nextel Communications
Verizon Wireless
Opposition
Town of Apple Valley
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Haywood / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083