Q:
When and how must the municipalities "opt in"?
A: Initially the municipalities had to "opt-in" by December 31, 2003 if they wished to be eligible to receive PA 48 funding. The municipalities were required to send the Authority as well as the providers (Sec. 13(4)) a resolution or ordinance stating their decision to comply with the METRO Act. In addition, the municipalities were required to modify "any fees charged to providers after November 1, 2002 relating to access to and usage of the public rights of way to an amount not exceeding the amount of fees and charges required under this Act."
Due to mitigating circumstances, the METRO Authority on April 7, 2003 provided 74 non-compliant municipalities one more opportunity to "opt-in" by May 15, 2003; resulting in 35 additional municipalities "opting-in".
Legislation to amend the METRO Act was introduced in 2006 to allow yet another opportunity for the remaining 39 municipalities to opt in. As a result of the proposed legislation, 19 municipalities submitted the appropriate opt-in resolutions/ordinances. However, SB1211 was not passed in 2006. Subsequent legislation (SB108/PA130) was introduced and enacted in 2008. This legislation allowed these 19 municipalities to opt-in to receive METRO Act funding escrowed in 2007 and all future distributions beginning June 2008. More info.
A list of the 20 municipalities that are not opted in and therefore ineligible to receive METRO Act funds can be found here.
|
|
Q:
If a municipality "opts out", must the provider still file a permit with that municipality?
A: Yes, and the provider and the municipality are still obligated to comply with any other existing rules and regulations of the METRO Act (PA 48 of 2002).
|
|
Q:
If a municipality decides to "opt out", what will happen?
A: The municipalities that "opt out" will not be eligible to receive any funds from the METRO Authority but still must adhere to applicable provisions of the METRO Act (PA 48 of 2002). The municipality will then be required to use its existing bilateral or unilateral permit agreements with telecom providers. At such time as the permit expires, it will be unable to charge fees. Note: Non-opted-in municipality funds are redistributed to eligible municipalities.
|
Q:
How will a provider know whether a municipality is in compliance with the act or not?
A:
The municipalities shall provide each provider affected by the fee a copy of the resolution or ordinance as adopted by the municipality in compliance with section 14(1) of PA 48. The provider may also contact the METRO Authority at (517) 373-0194 to confirm municipality compliance.
|
|
|
|
Q:
How can the municipalities spend monies distributed from the fund?
|
A: Distributions must be used "solely for rights-of-way related purposes" (Sec. 10(4)) (See the METRO Authority's Annual Report Guidelines/Guidelines for the Use of Right-of-Way Funds). In addition, municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more must file an annual report with the Authority on use and disposition of funds to continue receiving METRO Act (PA 48) funds. Note: METRO Act funds do not have to be spent in the year received; and can be carried-over from year to year.
|
|
Q:
Would Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) improvements, sidewalks, and management tool software be considered "rights-of-way related purposes"?
|
A: These items can be considered "rights-of-way related purposes" if they comply with section 10(4) of the METRO Act (PA 48). (See the METRO Authority's Annual Report Guidelines/Guidelines for the Use of Right-of-Way Funds).
|
|
Q:
Could insurance be purchased instead of a bond?
|
A:
The METRO Act clearly specifies "…a municipality may require as a condition of the permit that a bond be posted by the provider, which shall not exceed the reasonable cost to ensure that the public right-of-way is returned to its original condition during and after the provider's access and use." (Sec. 15(3)).
|
|
Q:
How many municipalities are affected by the METRO Act?
|
A: All of Michigan's 1,773 municipalities, including
|
- Cities
- Villages
- Townships
|
272 (1 ineligible)
261 (16 ineligible)
1,240 (3 ineligible) |
The municipalities listed below are not opted in and are ineligible to
receive METRO Act funds. However, they must still comply with
PA 48 requirements.
| Village of Twining |
Arenac County |
| Village of Three Oaks |
Berrien County |
| Village of Mulliken |
Eaton County |
| Village of Allen |
Hillsdale County |
| Village of Camden |
Hillsdale County |
| Village of Montgomery |
Hillsdale County |
| Township of Pte Aux Barques |
Huron County |
| Village of Port Hope |
Huron County |
| Village of Addison |
Lenawee County |
| Village of Clayton |
Lenawee County |
| Village of Newberry |
Luce County |
| Township of Lenox |
Macomb County |
| City of Luna Pier |
Monroe County |
| Township of Novi |
Oakland County |
| Village of Millersburg |
Presque Isle County |
| Village of Oakley |
Saginaw County |
| Village of Applegate |
Sanilac County |
| Village of Emmett |
St. Clair County |
| Village of Centreville |
St. Joseph County |
| Village of Barton Hills |
Washtenaw County |
|
|
Q:
Where and in what format do the telecom providers send the route maps as required by the Act under Sec. 6(8) of PA 48?
|
A: Route maps have been a matter for discussion since the enactment of PA 48 in 2002. The Michigan Public Service Commission adopted an order on November 25, 2003 finalizing the format (paper or electronic) requirement for the route maps as required under section 6(8). A committee comprised of representatives from the telecom industry and municipalities (Route Map Work Group) met regularly from February through May of 2006. The METRO Authority has issued
guidelines based on the collaborative consensus of the Route Map Work Group in accordance with Section 6 of the METRO Act. |
