California Dept of Finance Opposes SB649

 

Analysis of SB 649 reports $1 million annual State-mandated costs to local agencies; also finds equity and access concerns

“The potential state mandate would stem from: (1) the bill’s $250 limit on the annual lease charge that cities
and counties can impose on each small cell device attached to its vertical infrastructure, and (2) a formula
that limits the annual attachment fees that cities and counties may charge for each small cell
device attached to its vertical infrastructure. If the Commission determines the lease and fee revenue
derived under these caps is insufficient to fund the claimants’ actual inspection and maintenance costs, the
difference would be state-reimbursable.

While the extent of the potential mandate is unknown, Finance believes it can easily approach $1 million
per year.

Finance opposes this bill. While statewide uniform rules can help the expansion of new technologies, this
bill goes too far by usurping city and county zoning authority for infrastructure development, and
it potentially imposes reimbursable, state-mandated costs on cities and counties.

We also note the bill poses equity and access concerns. The bill gives telecommunications providers the
power to determine where they deploy small cell technologies, which can be highly localized. Providers
may cover high-demand neighborhoods first, while low-income neighborhoods may be left underserved.”

Read the entire CA Dept of Finance Bill Analysis

2017-09-03T14:09:56+00:00 September 3rd, 2017|NoOnSB649, Stop SB.649|