Home | Publications | News | Policy | International | Spectrum | Grants | Research

Rights-of-Way Laws by State
Last Updated: May 21, 2003

The following is a survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia on key rights-of-way laws.  The matrix includes citations to relevant state statutes and provides a brief description of key statutory provisions relating to jurisdiction, compensation, timelines, nondiscrimination, mediation, remediation and maintenance concerning access to public rights-of-way.  The information in this survey was compiled through original research by NTIA, with reliance on existing research by NARUC and NATOA.  Special thanks to NTIA interns Anne Mitchell, Sara Meadows Tolleson, and Alan Dobson for creating this matrix.
Go to: [Alabama] [Alaska] [Arizona] [Arkansas] [California] [Colorado] [Connecticut] [Delaware] [District of Columbia] [Florida] [Georgia] [Hawaii] [Idaho] [Illinois] [Indiana] [Iowa] [Kansas] [Kentucky] [Louisiana] [Maine] [Maryland] [Massachusetts] [Michigan] [Minnesota] [Mississippi] [Missouri] [Montana] [Nebraska] [Nevada] [New Hampshire] [New Jersey] [New Mexico] [New York] [North Carolina] [North Dakota] [Ohio] [Oregon] [Pennsylvania] [Rhode Island] [South Carolina] [South Dakota] [Tennessee] [Texas] [Utah] [Vermont] [Virginia] [Washington] [West Virginia] [Wisconsin] [Wyoming]
 State Jurisdiction, Terms of Agreement (except fees) Compensation Timelines Nondiscrimination Mediation Condemnation Remediation & Maintenance
Alabama Ala. Code § 11-49-1 (2002): Requires consent from city or town authorities before using public lands for the construction or operation of any private utility or private enterprise. Ala. Code § 11-50-B-3 (2002): Fair and reasonable compensation to municipalities for use of ROW is allowed.   Ala. Code § 11-50B-3 (2002): ROW usage fees must be assessed on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis. On appeal, the right to condemn is to be determined by the court. Nicrosi v. City of Montgomery, 406 So. 2d (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). Ala. Code § 11-50B-10 (2002): Public providers may exercise all powers of eminent domain as they are conferred on Alabama municipalities. However, no public provider may acquire any other person's or entity's cable system, telecommunications equipment, or telecommunications system, or any part or equipment of any other person's or entity's system, including, but not limited to, poles, wires, conduits, transmitters, receivers, towers, appliances, or rights-of-way, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.  
Ala. Code § 11-50-B-3 (2002):  Government agencies at the state and local level have the authority to manage public rights-of-way, and to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers for the use of such rights-of-way. Ala. Code § 40-21-50 (2002): Telecommunications providers subject to 2.2% state gross receipts tax.
Ala. Code § 37-1-35 (2002): Reserves power of municipalities to maintain or require maintenance of their streets and other highways and public places.  Statute protects any power of any municipality to adopt and enforce reasonable police regulations and ordinances in the interest of the public safety, morals and convenience, or to protect the public and also protect any right or power, by contract or otherwise, of any municipality to require utilities to pave and maintain the portions of highways used and occupied by them. Ala. Code § 40-21-64 (2002): Counties prohibited from levying privilege/license tax.
Ala. Code § 10-5-14 (2002): This statute maintains the municipalities' power to regulate construction in public rights of way and to make ordinances accordingly.
Ala. Code § 11-43-62 (2002):  County or municipal councils are in charge of regulating the use of streets for above-ground wire systems as they are used for telecommunications or electric utility purposes.  A council may require that such systems be placed underground, if necessary, to ensure public convenience and safety.  A council may sell or lease their franchise in any manner as it deems advisable, and the money raised is payable to the city treasury.
Alaska Alaska Stat. § 29.35.010 (2002): Municipalities granted the power to regulate rights of way. Alaska Stat. § 42.05.251 (2002): Fee not to exceed actual cost to the municipality of the utility's use of the public way and of administering the permit program.  Utilities may recover fee costs by applying them to customers' utility bills as a surcharge.     Alaska Stat. § 42.05.251 (2002): Disputes regarding fees, terms, conditions or exceptions imposed by municipalities mediated by the Commission. Alaska Stat. § 42.05.631 (2002): "A public utility may exercise the power of eminent domain for public utility uses. This section does not authorize the use of a declaration of taking."  
Alaska Stat. § 38.05.810(e) (2002): The Director of the Mining, Land and Water Division may negotiate with licensed public utilities or common carriers for the lease, sale, or other disposal of state land.  Such negotiations must have the approval of the commissioner, and may only be entered into if the utility or carrier reasonably requires the land to conduct its business.
Alaska Stat. § 38.05.850 (2002): The Division of Mining, Land, and Water Director may issue permits, rights-of-way, or easements on state land for roads, trails, ditches, field gathering lines or transmission and distribution pipelines not subject to AS 38.35, telephone or electric transmission and distribution lines, log storage, oil well drilling sites and production facilities for the purposes of recovering minerals from adjacent land under valid lease, and other similar uses or improvements, or revocable, nonexclusive permits for the personal or commercial use or removal of resources that the director has determined to be of limited value.  These permits may be issued without prior approval from the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 9-581 - 9-583; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-583(A) (2001): A political subdivision (city, county, municipality, etc.) has the authority to manage its public highways and exercise its police powers, but may not exercise such power to prohibit the ability of any telecommunications company to provide its service. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §  9-582(B) (2001): Any application or permit fees must be related to the costs incurred by processing the application, and must also be assessed within a reasonable amount of time after those costs are incurred.   Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-583(B ) (2001): Licenses or franchises must be issued on a competitively-neutral basis, and within a reasonable time after application.  The requirements for such licenses or permits are limited to: 1. Proof that the applicant has received a certificate of convenience and necessity from the AZ Corporation Commission; 2. Public highway use requirements; 3. Mapping requirements; 4. Insurance, performance bonds, or similar requirements; and 5. Enforcement and administrative provisions. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-582(A)(3) (2001): ... ."Political subdivisions shall establish a nonbinding outside arbitration procedure to attempt to resolve disputes over recovery of reasonable, proportionate and attributable costs of construction permit fees pursuant to this paragraph and other fees pursuant to this article before the disputes are submitted to a court for resolution."     
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-582(D) (2001): Arizona permits a political subdivision and a telecommunications licensee or franchisee to agree to an in-kind arrangement, but the costs of the in-kind facilities offset the provider's obligation to pay local transaction privilege taxes or linear foot
charges (applicable to interstate services) and must be equal to or less than the taxes or charges. 		 Ariz. Rev. Stat. §  9-581, para. 4. (2001):  Cable companies are exempt from regulatory statutes relating to rights-of-way because they are excluded from the definition of "telecommunications."  However, A.R.S. § 9-582 (G).  "A municipality may not discriminate against a cable operator in its provision of telecommunications systems if that cable operator complies with the requirements applicable to telecommunications corporations."
Ariz. Rev. Stat.§  9-582(D) (2001): "The in-kind facilities . . . shall remain in possession and ownership of the political subdivision after the term of the existing license or franchise expires."
 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-582 (A), (E) (2001):  Any telecommunications company that was granted its franchise prior to November 1, 1997 is exempt from paying any additional fees.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-582(D) (2001): "... [A] political subdivision shall not require a telecommunications corporation to provide in-kind services, make in-kind payments or pay a fee in addition to the fees [authorized in the act] as a condition of consent to use a highway to provide telecommunications services."   
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-582(D) (2001): "Notwithstanding subsections A and B of this section, in a license or franchise, a political subdivision and a telecommunications corporation may agree to in-kind payments for use of the public highways different from those specified in subsection A or B of this section."
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-582(E) (2001): "... .The license or franchise shall be structured so that the in-kind payments made for use of the public highways to provide interstate telecommunications services under the license or franchise are less than or equal to and are offset against any linear foot charge owed pursuant to section 9-583, subsection C, paragraphs 2 and 3." 
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. § 14-200-101(a)(2) (2002): Cities and towns have jurisdiction to assess franchise fees and other terms and conditions of franchise agreement.  Ark. Code Ann. § 14-200-101(a)(1)(A) (2002): Local franchise fees not to exceed 4.25% of gross receipts from local service or higher amount agreed to by affected provider OR the voters.     Ark. Code Ann. § 14-200-101(b)(1) (2002): A public utility may appeal an ordinance within 20 days of receipt of notice before the Arkansas Public Service Commission.    
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-200-110 (2002): Municipalities may require from the provider, as a condition of the franchise agreement, all books, records, and other information as to any matter pertaining to its business or organization. Utilities shall provide verified itemized and detailed inventory and valuation of any or all of its property as to which the municipal council or city commission should properly have knowledge in order to enable it to perform its duties. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-200-101(a)(1)(D) (2002): Affected utilities may recover fee costs by charging customers an amount equal to the right-of-way fee. 
Ark. Code Ann. § 27-67-304(a) (2002): "The rights-of-way provided for all state highways shall be held inviolate for state highway purposes, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. No physical or functional encroachments, installations, signs other than traffic signs or signals, posters, billboards, roadside stands, gasoline pumps, or other structures or uses shall be permitted within the right-of-way limits of state highways." 
Ark. Code Ann. § 27-67-304(b) (2002): As long as it does not interfere with public use of the highways, any political subdivision, rural electric cooperative, rural telephone cooperative, private cable company or public utility may use State Highway Commission lands under existing permits, or under subsequent permits approved by the Commission.
California  Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 1004 (2002): Providers must obtain a local franchise, license, or permit before applying for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the state. Construction may not begin until a certificate of public convenience and necessity is granted by the Public Utility Commission. However, a provider may be exempted from certification requirements by the Commission and be granted registration status instead. Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 7901.1 (2001): Statutes reserve right of municipalities to impose fees and "exercise reasonable control" over right of way access.                        Cal. Pub. Util. Comm., Dec. No. 98-10-058, No. R.95-04-043 (Filed April 26, 1995), No. I.95-04-044 (Filed April 26, 1995); 1998:  "Parties to a dispute involving access to utility rights of way and support structures may invoke the Commission's dispute resolution procedures, but must first attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute. Disputes involving initial access to utility rights of way and support structures shall be heard and resolved through the following expedited dispute resolution procedure. ..." Cal. Gov. Code § 53066 (2001): Any cable television franchise or license awarded by municipality pursuant to this section may authorize the grantee to place wires, conduits and appurtenances for the community antenna television system along or across such public streets, highways, alleys, public properties, or public easements of the granting municipality. Public easements, as used in this section, shall include but shall not be limited to any easement created by dedication to municipality for public utility purposes or any other purpose whatsoever. Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 10102 (2002):  A municipal corporation exercising its rights under this article shall restore the road, street, alley, avenue, highway, canal, ditch, or flume so used to its former state of usefulness as nearly as may be, and shall locate its use so as to interfere as little as possible with other existing uses of a road, street, alley, avenue, highway, canal, ditch, or flume.
Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 1007.5 (2002): Commission rules pre-empt local ordinances. Cal. Gov. Code § 50030 (2001):  "Any permit fee.shall not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged." Cal. Pub. Util. Comm., Dec. No. 98-10-058, No. R.95-04-043 (Filed April 26, 1995), No. I.95-04-044 (Filed April 26, 1995); 1998:  "In the event that such an application is granted, and the local governmental body refuses to grant access in accordance with the Commission order, the carrier's recourse shall be to file a lawsuit in the appropriate court of civil jurisdiction for resolution." ... 
Cal. Pub. Util. Comm., Dec. No. 98-10-058, No. R.95-04-043 (Filed April 26, 1995), No. I.95-04-044 (Filed April 26, 1995); 1998 APPENDIX A COMMISSION-ADOPTED RULES GOVERNING ACCESS TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES OF INCUMBENT TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC UTILITIES: I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF RULES A. These rules govern access to public utility rights-of-way and support structures by telecommunications carriers and cable TV companies in California, and are issued pursuant to the Commission's jurisdiction over access to utility rights of way and support structures under the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 224(c)(1) and subject to California Public Utilities Code §§ 767, 767.5, 767.7, 768, 768.5 and 8001 through 8057. These rules are to be applied as guidelines by parties in negotiating rights of way access agreements.
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 38-5.5-101 - 38-5.5-108; 38-5.5-104 (2002): Any telecommunications provider authorized to do business in Colorado may construct facilities on state public lands upon payment of just compensation and compliance with the requirements set by the State Board of Land Commissioners. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-5.5-107(1)(b) (2002): Any application or permit fees must be related to the costs incurred by processing the application, and must also be assessed within a reasonable amount of time after those costs are incurred.   Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38.5.5.107 (2) (a) (2002): "Any tax, fee, or charge imposed by a political subdivision shall be competitively neutral among telecommunications providers."       
Colo. Rev. Stat. §38-5.5-107(3) (2002): In-kind fee provisions are not allowed, nor may a municipality require one as a condition of consent to use a highway.  Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-5.5-103(2) (2002): Municipalities cannot discriminate among or grant a preference to competing telecommunications providers in the issuance of permits or the passage of any ordinance for the use of its rights-of-way, nor create or erect any unreasonable requirements for entry to the rights-of-way for such providers.
Colo. Rev. Stat. §  38.5.5.102(3) (2002): Cable companies are excluded from the definition of "telecommunications service," and are therefore exempt from right-of-way regulation.
Colo. Rev. Stat. §  38.5.5.101(2)(d) (2002): "Access to rights-of-way and oversight of that access must be competitively neutral, and no telecommunications provider should enjoy any competitive advantage or suffer a competitive disadvantage by virtue of a selective or discriminatory exercise of the police power by a local government."
Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-130d (2001). Municipalities are granted authority to regulate right-of-way. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-130 (2001). Municipalities are granted authority to charge fees.     Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-235 (2001): Carriers may appeal to the Department of Public Utility Control within 30 days after the order is issued from the local government stipulating the terms and conditions of the permit. The Department shall process the appeal as speedily as possible.    
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-148 (2001). Municipalities may regulate installation of facilities and control excavation procedures. 
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-11 (2001): The Department of Public Utility Control will be kept informed as to the condition of all utility facilities, and may order improvements or repairs on these facilities as needed.  
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-18 (2001):  The Department of Public Utility Control may require a telecommunications company to move its lines or for multiple telecommunications companies to string their lines together.  
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-228 (2001):  Telecommunications companies may construct their lines along public roads or navigable waters, as long as such construction does not obstruct the roads or waters.
Delaware Del. Code Ann. tit. 26, § 901 (2002): Local authorities are explicitly granted authority over right-of-way management.  Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, § 5501 (2002): 4.25% Gross Receipts Tax assessed by PSC  on intrastate telecommunications services, including cellular service. Providers may pass through to customers.         Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 61 (2002): Condemnation: "This chapter shall govern the procedure for all condemnations of real and personal property within this State under the power of eminent domain exercised by any authority whatsoever, governmental or otherwise."  Del. Code Ann. tit. 26, § 902(c)(1) (2002): If a telecom or other company alters the street surface in order to place or repair its underground facilities, the company must immediately restore the street surface to its pre-existing condition.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 22, § 103 (2002): "Street openings. No person shall open or excavate the bed of any street or highway of any city, town or village in this State for the purpose of laying or placing pipes, wires or other conductors therein without first obtaining the consent of the duly constituted authorities of such city, town or village. Nothing in this section shall require such consent before opening or excavating the bed of any such street or highway for the purpose of repairing any pipes, wires or other conductors theretofore lawfully laid or placed in such street or highway." Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, § 5502(4) (2002): "A tax is imposed upon any distributor of cable television communications commodities and services which tax shall be at the rate of 2.125% of the gross receipts or tariff charges received by the distributor for such commodities or services distributed within this State."  Del. Code Ann. tit. 26, § 902(c)(2) (2002): If a company fails to restore the street surface, then the municipality may perform the task and recover its costs from the company.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 26, § 115 (2002): Gross revenues assessment on all public utilities for cost of regulation.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 501-518 (2002): Corporate Franchise Tax: "Every telegraph, telephone or cable company . . . to be incorporated under the laws of this State, shall pay an annual tax, for the use of the State, by way of license for the corporate franchise as prescribed in this chapter." 
DC D.C. Code Ann. § 10-1141.03 (2002).  The Mayor may issue permits to occupy or otherwise use public rights-of-way, public space, and public structures for any purpose.  He may do so without regard to whether the permittee owns the property abutting the public areas, and he may revoke the permit at any time.  Any leasing or subleasing of the public areas must be with the express consent of the mayor.  When a permit is revoked or expires, the Mayor may require the permittee to remove any apparatus constructed in the public areas. D.C. Code Ann. § 10-1141.04 (2002):  Right-of-way access permit fees to cover costs of reviewing permit applications. "The Mayor may allow a permittee to pay a fixed charge for a set period of time, pay an amount based upon the amount of the public right-of-way or public space used or occupied, pay an amount based upon a revenue sharing formula, or provide in-kind services to the District in lieu of a monetary payment, or the Mayor may require a permittee to pay a combination of these items."   D.C. Code Ann. § 34-2004 (2002): Terms and conditions of franchise agreement must be competitively neutral and fees must be nondiscriminatory.   D.C. Code Ann. § 34-1921.08 (2002). Rights to build and lay conduits not compensable in event of condemnation [Formerly '43-1417]  D.C. Code Ann. § 34-2004(c) (2002):"The Mayor shall issue rules to establish and regulate the process through which any alteration or damage to public rights of way in the District of Columbia shall be compensated by the telecommunications service provider whose construction or repair work has altered or damaged public rights of way. The rules shall require the telecommunications service provider to repair any alteration or damage pursuant to specifications and inspection by the District of Columbia Department of Public Works, or require that the telecommunications service provider compensate the District of Columbia for the cost of repair to a public right of way." 
D.C. Code Ann. § 43-1454(a) (2002): "Any telecommunications provider in the District shall have the right to utilize the public right-of-ways of the District for installation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and operation of its telecommunications system..." D.C. Code Ann. § 47-2501(3) (2002): "After May 31, 1994, pay to the Mayor 10% of these gross receipts from sales included in bills rendered after May 31, 1994, for a telephone company. . ." D.C. Code Ann. § 16-1311 (2002)  If the Mayor needs District lands for an authorized municipal use, and the property cannot be purchased at a price acceptable to District representatives, then a complaint may be filed in Superior Court for the condemnation of the property and the ascertainment of its value.
D.C. Code Ann. § 34-2004(b) (2002): "Prior to constructing each portion of its telecommunications system located within the public ways, a telecommunications service provider shall obtain all necessary construction permits and licenses from the appropriate agency. All such construction shall be performed in compliance with applicable codes and regulations, and all facilities so constructed shall be maintained in compliance with applicable codes and regulations."  D.C. Code Ann. § 16-1301 (2002): "Jurisdiction of District Court.    The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction of all proceedings for the condemnation of real property authorized by subchapters IV and V of this chapter, with full power to hear and determine all issues of law and fact that may arise in the proceedings."
D.C. Code Ann.§ 2-1219.19.  The District may acquire land, property, easements, or other interests in real property through condemnation through eminent domain in furtherance of public purposes.  Any exercise of eminent domain powers must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the District Board. Under this section, the Board must determine that any property to be acquired by this process is one of four types of condemnable land.  Any exercise of eminent domain powers must be submitted to the Council for final approval or disapproval within 30 days of submission.
Florida Fla. Stat. Ch. 202.10-202.41 (2002) COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION LAW  Prohibits municipalities and counties from requiring a telecommunications company to enter franchise, license or other agreements.  Municipal and county right-of-way rules and regulations may only address placement and maintenance of facilities.  Requires local governments to provide notice of proposed right-of-way ordinances to FL Department of State.   Fla. Stat. Ch. 202.10-202.41 (2002) COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION LAW Municipalities & counties may charge permit fees to recover actual costs (not to exceed $100) and tax rate reduced by .12%.  If no permits, may increase tax rate by .12%.   Fla. Stat. Sec. 202.19.  Tax collection scheme applies explicitly to wireless telecommunications providers.     Fla. Stat. Ch. 73.161  Right-of-Way for Telephone and Telegraph over Railroad Right-of-Way.  If a telecom fails to successfully negotiate with a railroad company for the construction of lines along its right-of-way, then this access may be acquired through eminent domain.  The judgment will authorize the petitioner telecom company to enter upon the railroad right-of-way and construct lines.  The lines may not be constructed in any way as to interfere with the railroad's business, and the railroad may require the telecom company to move its lines at any time.  
Fla. Stat. Ch. 202.10-202.41 (2002) Florida enacted a harmonized state and local communications services tax system, which functions as a sales or use tax assessed on the retail price of telecommunications services.  Fla. Stat. Ch. 337.401(3)(c), (2002). The local tax component varies by locality. Of the combined state and local tax rate (which can exceed 10%), 0.24% is earmarked to replace permit fees foregone by local governments that opt to participate in the tax collection system instead of collecting fees.  Fla. Stat. Ch. 337.401 (3)(a)(2).  Cable companies are exempt from the statutory right-of-way access provisions, but do have to pay communications services tax (in lieu of permitting municipalities to negotiate and collect franchise fees.)  
Fla. Stat. Ch. 202.24(2) (2002). Prohibits in kind compensation.
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. § 32-4-92 (2002). Authorizes permitting authority of local governments. Locals may establish reasonable regulations for the installation and construction of facilities in right-of-way, but the regulations may not be more stringent than those enforced by the Dept of Transportation to regulate state highway right-of-way. The locality may require a written application specifying the nature, extent and location of the facilities in the area. They may also require the applicant to furnish indemnification bond or other acceptable security to pay for any damage to public road or member of the public.  Ga. Code Ann. § 46-5-1(a) (2002): A telecom company may have right-of-way access to construct and maintain its lines over any state lands, railroads, or private lands as long as it pays due compensation for such use.       Ga. Code Ann. § 48-5-420 (2002): Telecommunications companies are granted special franchise by the state, granting them the power to exercise right of eminent domain, use any public highway in the state and use land above or below public highways. For these privileges, the telecom must remit to the state a special franchise tax.  
Ga. Code Ann. § 46-5-1(a) (2002): Any telecom company has the right to construct, maintain, or operate its lines along the state public highways, as long as the local municipal authorities approve.   Ga. Code Ann. § 48-5-423 (2002):  "Ascertainment of valuations of special franchises; levy and collection of tax.  (a) In arriving at a proposed assessment, the commissioner shall not be bound to accept the valuation fixed for a special franchise in the return made but shall review the return and valuation. When the commissioner refuses to accept the return, the subsequent proceedings shall be in all particulars the same procedures as are provided by law in the case of refusal to accept the returns made by public utilities of their tangible property.  (b) Special franchises shall be taxed at the same rate as other property upon the value of the special franchise as returned or upon the value determined by the county board of tax assessors. The tax on special franchises shall be levied and collected in the same manner as is provided by law in the case of the tangible property of public utilities." Ga. Code Ann. §22-3-1 (2002). If a telecom company needs to condemn part of a railroad right-of-way in order to construct, maintain, or operate its lines, notice shall be given to the railroad company, and such notice should include:  1.  The manner in which the telecom company proposes to construct its lines on the railroad right-of-way; 2.  Give the time of the hearing; 3.  Give the name of the assessor chosen by the telecom company; and 4.  Instruct the railroad company to select their own assessor.
Ga. Code Ann. § 36-34-2(7) (2002):  Municipalities have the authority to make contracts with or grant franchises to telegraph and telephone companies, as well as other public utilities.
Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. § 264-13 (2002).  The governor or the director of transportation may dispose of easements or rights-of-way along state highways under any terms that are within the public interest. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 264-7(b) (2002): The director of transportation established the fee schedule for permits.  The fee schedule should be calculated to recover any costs spent on issuing the permit.  The applicant shall pay the fee, but the director may waive the fee where he determines that the work to be done will improve the highway or otherwise benefit the state.  No fee is required where the only work to be done is the setting of poles to carry overhead wires.       Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-4 (2002): The right of eminent domain is granted to telecommunications companies, as well as other public utility companies, and public transportation companies.  
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 264-6 (2002).  State highways may not be disturbed without a permit.
Idaho Idaho Code § 62-618 (2002): Municipalities are not permitted to regulate telecommunications companies. Idaho Code § 50-329A (2002). Municipal franchise fees may be levied on providers, but levy may not exceed 3% of gross operating revenues; providers may pass through to customers. This franchise fee is in lieu of any other tax or fee imposed by the municipality related to easements, franchises, rights of way, utility lines and equipment installation.           
Idaho Code § 62-701 (2002):  Telecommunications providers may erect facilities and structures on any public lands, including along public roads, waterways, or other lands, as long as those facilities don't disrupt the use of such roads, etc. Idaho Code §§ 61-1001 & 1004  (2002). Utilities pay yearly gross revenue fee to Public Utilities Commission to reimburse for cost of regulation.  This fee is based upon a consideration of the time and expense devoted to the supervision and regulation of each class of . . . public utilities during the preceding calendar year, including salaries and wages of the commissioners and employees and all other necessary and lawful expenditures of the commission.
Idaho Code § 62-701A(2) (2002): "With respect to the installation of its facilities within public rights-of-way, the telecommunications provider shall at all times be subject to the authority of a city, county or highway district. No grant of authority pursuant to this section shall be deemed to waive other rights or requirements of the codes, ordinances or resolutions of a city, county or highway district regarding permits, reasonable fees to be paid, manner of construction, or the like, nor to grant any property interest in the public rights-of-way."
Illinois   35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 635/5  (2002): Recognizing that telecommunications providers were becoming more competitive, the Illinois General Assembly abolished municipal franchise fees and established a uniform municipal infrastructure maintenance fee.  Although this fee is meant to replace the revenue that municipalities lost from the franchise fees, the statute provides that the fee may not be related to the use of public rights-of-way or to the costs of maintaining and regulating such use.   35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 625/10(b).  Cable companies are excluded from the definition of "telecommunications service," and are therefore exempt from right-of-way regulation.   220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 65/4  (2002): Every telecommunications provider has a right of entry on private lands when necessary to maintain, alter, or extend its system.  Compensation for such condemnation must be calculated according to provisions of the Telegraph Act.  (220 ILCS 55/0.01 et. seq.)  
35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 636/5-60  (2002):  With the implementation of the municipal infrastructure maintenance fee, municipalities were deemed to have waived their rights to any compensation that might subsequently accrue under a franchise agreement executed before January 1, 1998, if: 1)  the municipality imposes a tax at a rate exceeding 5%; 2) the municipality affirmatively waives such fees; or 3) the municipality has a municipal infrastructure maintenance fee in place.
35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 635/15  (2002): The state fee portion of the municipal infrastructure maintenance fee is .05% of the gross retail revenues.
35 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 635/20 (a), (b) (2002):  The municipality's portion of the municipal infrastructure maintenance fee may not exceed 1% of gross retail revenues in areas with a population of 500,000 or less, or 2% in areas with a population of 500,000 or more.
35 Ill. Comp. Stat. 635/30  (2002):  With the implementation of the municipal infrastructure maintenance fee, municipalities may no longer assess franchise fees or other charges on telecommunications providers.
Indiana Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(b) (2002):  Municipalities or county executives may operate and maintain the public roads and other lands for the benefit of public safety.  They may also manage the rights-of-way associated with the public roads or other lands, and may require compensation for their use.  Such compensation must be competitively neutral and non-discriminatory. Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(b) (2002): Compensation may not exceed the municipality's direct and actual costs of managing the right-of-way for the public utility.  These costs shall be assigned individually to the public utility creating the costs. Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(a)(4) (2002). A municipality has 30 days in which to approve construction on a right-of-way.  After 30 days of inaction, may petition the public utility commission for a hearing. Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(b)(2002)  The assessment of compensation for the use of public rights-of-way must be competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.     Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(b) (2002):  Management costs may include the costs of: . . .4. Restoring work inadequately performed; 5. Administering a restoration ordinance that ensures the right-of-way will be returned to its original condition . . .
Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(b) (2002):  Management costs may include the costs of: 1. Registering occupants; 2. Verifying occupation; 3. Inspecting job sites and restoration projects; 4. Restoring work inadequately performed; 5. Administering a restoration ordinance that ensures the right-of-way will be returned to its original condition; and 6. any management costs associated with the implementation of any other ordinance associated with rights-of-way.  These costs may not include rents, franchise fees, or any other fee paid by a public utility for occupation of the right-of-way. Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(b)(2002)  This section specifically defines "right-of-way" as excluding airwaves above the streets (so not including wireless communications.)  However, it does not deal with the issue of wireless transmitters.
Ind. Code § 8-1-2-101(d)(2002)  None of the right-of-way statutes affect franchise agreements between a municipality and a cable company.
Iowa Iowa Code § 364.2(4)(a) (2002):  "A city may grant to any person a franchise to erect, maintain, or operate plants and systems [for telecommunications systems and other utilities] . . .within the city for a term of not more than 25 years.  When considering whether to grant, amend, extend, or renew a franchise, a city shall hold a hearing . . .  The franchise may be granted, extended, or renewed only by an ordinance, but no exclusive franchise shall be granted . . .
 Iowa Code § 480A.3 (2002):  The only fee that a municipality can recover from a utility are those management costs caused by the utility's occupation of the right-of-way.  If the management costs are attributed to more than one entity, the costs shall be allocated proportionately to the users of the right-of-way.  Any other obligations must be imposed on a competitively neutral basis.    Iowa Code § 480A.2  (2002): This section specifically defines "right-of-way" as excluding airwaves above the streets (so not including wireless communications.)  However, it does not deal with the issue of wireless transmitters. Iowa Code § 480A.5 (2002). Arbitration upon completion of administrative review.  Iowa Code § 364.2(4)(e) (2002): "The franchise ordinance may regulate the conditions required and the manner of use of the streets and public grounds of the city, and it may, for the purpose of providing electrical, gas, heating, or water service, confer the power to appropriate and condemn private property upon the person franchised."   
Iowa Code § 364.2(4)(e) (2002): "The franchise ordinance may regulate the conditions required and the manner of use of the streets and public grounds of the city, and it may, for the purpose of providing electrical, gas, heating, or water service, confer the power to appropriate and condemn private property upon the person franchised."  Iowa Code § 480A.4 (2002):  A municipality may not allow in-kind services in lieu of fees, nor may it require in-kind services as a condition for use of the right-of-way. Iowa Code § 480A.2 (2002): Cable companies are excluded from the definition of "public utility," and are therefore exempt from right-of-way regulation.  (Other telecommunications providers are included.)
Iowa Code § 477.1 (2002): Any telecommunications provider may construct its system along the public roads, along public waterways, or through public or private lands.  However, construction along a primary road is subject to rules adopted by the state department of transportation.
Iowa Code § 480A.1- § 480A.6 (2002). § 480A.1:  "Purpose. The general assembly finds that it is in the public interest to define the right of local governments to charge public utilities for the location and operation of public utility facilities in local government rights-of-way." 
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(B) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective Jul 1, 2002): Any provider has the right to construct systems and related facilities along the state's public rights-of-way.  The systems and facilities must be constructed so as not to obstruct other entities' use of the rights-of-way. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(N) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective Jul 1, 2002).  A city may charge for the reasonable, actual, and verifiable costs of managing the city right-of-way.  Fees may include: a permit fee, excavation fee, inspection fee, repair and restoration costs, performance bond.  Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1201(h) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective Jul 1, 2002).  Franchise applications must be processed within 90 days of receipt. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(D) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective Jul 1, 2002).  The ability of a provider to use a right-of-way is subject to public health and safety considerations.  A city may regulate the use of a right-of-way provided that such exercise is competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(F). (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective July 1, 2002)  Before the city government can deny a provider access to a right-of-way, it must give the provider notice and an opportunity for public hearing.  The subsequent denial may be appealed to district court.   Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(k) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective July 1, 2002):  A city may require a telecommunications provider to repair all damage to a right-of-way cause by the use of that right-of-way.  If the provider fails to make such repairs, the city may effect the repairs and charge the provider for their cost.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(k) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective Jul 1, 2002):  A city may require a telecommunications provider to repair all damage to a right-of-way cause by the use of that right-of-way.  If the provider fails to make such repairs, the city may effect the repairs and charge the provider for their cost. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(h) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective Jul 1, 2002):  A city may not require a telecommunications company to provide it with in-kind services.   Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(I) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective Jul 1, 2002).  A city must process a valid construction application with 30 days.  Kan Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(a)(1) (2002):   This section specifically defines "right-of-way" as excluding airwaves above the streets (so not including wireless communications.)  However, it does not deal with the issue of wireless transmitters. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1902(N) (2002) (Amended by Senate Bill 397, effective July 1, 2002).  A city may charge for the reasonable, actual, and verifiable costs of managing the city right-of-way.  Fees may include: . . . repair and restoration costs . . .
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-2001(g), (j).  Each city may assess a one-time franchise application fee to cover the costs of reviewing the application.  It may also impose either an access line fee of up to $2.00 per access line per month, or a gross receipts fee of up to 5% on local services. 
Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278.540 (2002): Once just compensation has been made, the provider gains the right to construct, maintain and operate its lines through any public lands of this state and across and along any public road. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278.540(1) (2002): Just compensation for right-of-way access is authorized.       Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278.540(1) (2002): As long as just compensation is paid, telecommunications companies have the right to construct and maintain its lines on any public lands, public roads, or navigable waters.  
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278.130 (2002): Cities are prohibited from assessing occupational license tax on public utilities. Instead, PSC assesses annual license tax on utilities. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278.540(2) (2002):  A telecommunications company may contract with a private property owner for right-of-way over private lands, or if they are unable to reach an agreement by contract, the telecommunications company may condemn the private land under the Eminent Domain Act of Kentucky.  (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 416.450 - 416.680).
Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48:381.1(C) (2002). Providers requesting access to state highways must apply for a right-of-way access permit with the PSC chief engineer.  La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48:381.2 (A)(2), (2002):  When fiber optic cable providers apply for permits, their application commits them to a one-time permit fee.     La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48:381.2(A)(1)(2002): "The chief engineer or his duly authorized representative may issue nonexclusive permits, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis for use of public rights-of-way, to utility operators for the purpose of installation of fiber-optic cable facilities within controlled-access highway rights-of-way."      
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48:381.3(A)(2) (2002). Providers seeking access to locally controlled right-of-way are subject to the ordinances and resolutions of the locality where they are located. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48:381.2(F) (2002):  In-kind services (shared resources)  may help defray permit fee costs for providers.  "F. The fee for fiber-optic telecommunication installations placed within a controlled access highway right-of-way shall not exceed the actual cost of the administration of the program. The department may reduce fees in exchange for shared resources. The department is authorized to reduce fees for its agents, defined for the purposes of this Subsection as those applicants who erect facilities on behalf of the department in order to conduct department work." 
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33:4401(2002): Municipalities may grant franchises to telecommunications companies or other public utilities, allowing them to use public streets, sewers, alleys, etc. for their wire system.  These franchises may not be exclusive, and may not extend beyond 60 years.
Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2502 (2001): Statutes specifically designate licensing authority among municipal, county, and state governments, based on the location of the right-of-way. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A §§ 2503, 2510 (2001):  There are two permits, the right-of-way location permit and the right-of-way excavation permit.  Each one has its own fee.       Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2503-13 (2001). Appeals may be filed within 2 weeks of the decision and must be heard within 30 days of the filing of such appeal. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 7904 (2001):  Telecommunications companies may purchase or take land as needed for the public use of constructing lines, poles, etc.  If land is taken damages must be estimated and paid in accordance with sections 6502-6512.   Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2512 (2001): If the provider does not properly restore the excavated right-of-way, the local government may restore the right-of-way and charge the provider the cost of redoing the work plus 50%.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2507 (2001): No provider may begin construction without a permit from the proper licensing authority. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2510-1 (2001): Local excavation fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of replacing the excavated pavement.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A §§ 2503-2505 (2001): Permits may require description of facilities. Terms and conditions of permits may specify other requirements determined necessary in the best interests of the public safety and use of the right-of-way so as not to obstruct use for public travel.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A §§ 2503 - 2506 (2001): Providers are liable only for acts of negligence in the installation or maintenance of the facility.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2503-8,9 (2001): Additional permits are not required for replacing or maintaining facilities.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2503-14 (2001): Permit required for installing underground facilities.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2312-1,2 (2001): If a provider owns facilities in a municipally designated historic district, the municipality may require the provider to offer services to buildings located therein, but the municipality is required to bear the cost of relocating or constructing facilities to those buildings.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2522 (2001): Providers must provide written notice to local government and interested area residents before cutting, trimming or removing trees in order to access right-of-way. 
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2301, 2307 (2001): Except as limited, every corporation organized under section 2101 for the purpose of operating telephones and every corporation organized for the purpose of transmitting television signals by wire may construct, maintain and operate its lines upon and along the route or routes and between the points stated in its certificate of incorporation; and may construct its lines and necessary erections and fixtures for them along, over, under and across any of the roads and streets and across or under any of the waters upon and along the route or routes subject to the conditions and under the restrictions provided in this chapter.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A § 2307 (2001): Telecommunications companies and public utilities may place their systems under streets and highways as long as they obtain a written permit from the licensing authority.  The permit may be subject to additional rules concerning the location and construction of such systems.
Maryland Md. Ann. Code art. 23A, § 2(13) (2002): Municipalities have the express power to grant exclusive or non-exclusive franchises to a community antenna system or cable systems that use rights-of-way.  The municipality may impose franchise fees and establish rates, rules and regulations for the franchises.   Md. Code Ann., Public Utility Companies § 5-410 (4)(b) (2002):  Telecommunications companies have the power to construct their systems on any authorized route, and acquire by condemnation any property deemed necessary for their purposes.  
Mass.  Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 166 § 25 (2002): Municipalities may permit construction of telecommunications systems in public areas, and they may also establish reasonable regulations for the construction and maintenance of telecommunications systems, as well as other public utility systems.   Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 166 § 25A (2002):  The telecommunications and energy department has the authority to set rates for right-of-way use, and in setting those rates the department must consider consumer interests.          
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 166 § 22 (2002): Providers must provide written notice of intent to access right-of-way for construction purposes. The municipality must hold a hearing and issue written notice of the hearing. After the hearing, the municipality may grant to the provider a location for the lines and allowances for the number and height of the lines to be installed. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 166 §25A (2002):  The telecommunications and energy department shall set reasonable rates for telecommunications attachments to existing right-of-way.  The rates shall not be lower than the cost to the utility providing the existing facility, nor more than the proportional cost of the attachment.
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 166 § 25A (2002): Any municipal regulations pertaining to the installation or construction of telecom lines must be approved by the state Department of Telecommunications and Energy.
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 166 § 38 (2002): Penalties for intentional or malicious injury of telecom facilities in right-of-way.
Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 484.3101-484.3120 (2002) Metropolitan extension telecommunications rights-of-way oversight act.   § 484.3103: "(1) Pursuant to section 27 of article VII of the state constitution of 1963 and any other applicable law, the metropolitan extension telecommunications rights-of-way oversight authority is established as an autonomous agency within the department of consumer and industry services."   Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3108 (2002) Maintenance fee. "...(3) Except as otherwise provided under subsection (6), for the period of November 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, a provider shall pay an initial annual maintenance fee to the authority on April 29, 2003 of 2 cents per each linear foot of public right-of-way occupied by the provider's facilities within a metropolitan area, prorated for the period specified in this subsection. (4) Except as otherwise provided under subsection (6), for each year after the initial period provided for under subsection (3), a provider shall pay the authority an annual maintenance fee of 5 cents per each linear foot of public right-of-way occupied by the provider's facilities within a metropolitan area. (5) The fee required under this section is based on the linear feet occupied by the provider regardless of the quantity or type of the provider's facilities utilizing the public right-of-way or whether the facilities are leased to another provider. (6) In recognition of the need to provide nondiscriminatory compensation to municipalities for management of their rights-of-way, the fees required under this section shall be the lesser of the amounts prescribed under subsections (3) and (4) or 1 of the following: (a) For a provider that was an incumbent local exchange carrier in this state on January 1, 2002, the fees within the exchange in which that provider was providing basic local exchange service on January 1, 2002, when restated by the authority on a per access line per year basis, shall not exceed the statewide per access line per year fee of the provider with the highest number of access lines in this state. The authority shall annually determine the statewide per access line per year fee by dividing the amount of the total annual fees the provider is required to pay under subsections (3) and (4) by the provider's total number of access lines in this state. (b) For all other providers in an exchange, the fee per linear foot for the provider's facilities located in the public rights-of-way in that exchange shall be the same as that of the incumbent local exchange carrier. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3106 (2002):  The commission website has information regarding the length of time each municipality requires to grant an application. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3115(3) (2002): "... .A provider's right to access and use of a public right-of-way shall not be unreasonably denied by a municipality. ."  Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3117 (2002).  If requested, the Commission may review an Oversight Authority decision de novo.  The Commission's decision or order is reviewable pursuant to section 26 of 1901 PA 300, MCL 462.26.    
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3115 (2002): Municipalities shall grant providers a permit to use any public rights-of-way located within the municipal jurisdiction.  If an application involves an easement or public place, then the municipality should act promptly in granting the permit.    Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3106 (2002): When applying for a municipal permit, a provider must pay a $500 application fee.  This fee must be paid to each municipality where the provider needs access to a right-of-way. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3115 (2002): "(3) A municipality shall approve or deny access under this section within 45 days from the date a provider files an application for a permit for access to a public right-of-way." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3107 (2002). If irresolvable disputes arise between a municipality and a provider,... "the commission shall appoint a mediator within 7 days from the date of the notice to make recommendations within 30 days from the date of the appointment for a resolution of the dispute. If any of the parties are unwilling to comply with the mediator's recommendations, any party to the dispute may within 30 days of receipt of the recommendation request the commission for a review and determination of a resolution of the dispute. ..."
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §484.3114 (2002): "(1)(a) Before the passage of any ordinance or resolution authorizing a county or municipality to either construct telecommunication facilities or provide a telecommunication or cable modem service provided through a broadband internet access transport service, a county or municipality shall conduct at least one public hearing. A notice of the public hearing shall be provided as required by law." 
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.3115 (2002): If in constructing its facilities a provider damages or causes damage to the street or highway adjacent to the right-of-way, the provider must return the street or highway to its preexisting condition.
Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 237.04 (2002): The Minn. Department of Commerce has the authority to establish rules for the use of right-of-way by public utilities.  These rules shall include regulations for construction, maintenance, and operation of facilities along right-of-ways.                                                                Minn. Stat. § 237.163(6)(a) (2002): "A local government unit may recover its right-of-way management costs by imposing a fee for registration, a fee for each right-of-way permit, or, when appropriate, a fee applicable to a particular telecommunications right-of-way user when that user causes the local government unit to incur costs as a result of actions or inactions of that user. A local government unit may not recover from a telecommunications right-of-way user costs caused by another entity's activity in the right-of-way."     Minn. R. 7819.1000(2) (2002) "Permit fees must be allocated in a competitively neutral manner and must be imposed in a manner so that aboveground uses of public rights-of-way do not bear costs incurred by the local government unit to regulate underground uses of public rights-of-way." 
     
Minn. R. 7819.4000 (2002) Municipalities may establish a right-of-way mapping system to facilitate right-of-way management, enhance public safety, improve right-of-way design, and encourage cooperation between municipalities.   Minn. Stat. § 237.163(6)(b) (2002): "Fees, or other right-of-way obligations, imposed by a local government unit on telecommunications right-of-way users under this section must be: (1) based on the actual costs incurred by the local government unit in managing the public right-of-way; (2) based on an allocation among all users of the public right-of-way, including the local government unit itself, which shall reflect the proportionate costs imposed on the local government unit by each of the various types of uses of the public rights-of-way; (3) imposed on a competitively neutral basis; and (4) imposed in a manner so that aboveground uses of public rights-of-way do not bear costs incurred by the local government unit to regulate underground uses of public rights-of-way."  Minn. Stat. § 237.162 (2002):  This section specifically defines "right-of-way" as excluding airwaves above the streets (so not including wireless communications.)  However, it does not deal with the issue of wireless transmitters.
MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 
CHAPTER 7819 PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY STANDARDS   ---->>>		 Minn. Stat. § 237.163(7)(d) (2002): "A local government unit may not collect a fee imposed under this section through the provision of in-kind services by a telecommunications right-of-way user, nor may a local government unit require the provision of in-kind services as a condition of consent to use the local government unit's public right-of-way."  Minn. Stat. § 237.162 (2002):  Cable systems are exempted from the definition of "telecommunications right-of-way user."  
Minn. R. 7819.1100(3) (2002): "Degradation fee. A right-of-way user may elect to pay a degradation fee in lieu of restoration. However, the right-of-way user shall remain responsible for replacing and compacting the subgrade and aggregate base material in the excavation and the degradation fee must not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities." 
Minn. R. 7819.1000(1) (2002): "Permit fee. A local government unit that requires a permit for excavation in or obstruction of the public right-of-way shall make its permit fee schedule available to the public. The permit fee schedule must be established in advance and designed to recover the local government unit's actual costs incurred in managing the public right-of-way."  
 Minn. R. 7819.1000(2) (2002): "Allocation of permit fees. Permit fees must be based on an allocation among all users of the public right-of-way, which shall include the local government unit itself, so as to reflect the proportionate costs imposed on the local government unit by each of the various types of users of the public rights-of-way. Although the local government unit must be allocated its proportionate share of permit fees, the local government unit need not transfer funds to pay permit fees. Permit fees must be allocated in a competitively neutral manner and must be imposed in a manner so that aboveground uses of public rights-of-way do not bear costs incurred by the local government unit to regulate underground uses of public rights-of-way." 
 Minn. R. 7819.1000(3) (2002): "Delay penalty. A local government unit may establish and impose a reasonable penalty for unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty must be established from time to time by resolution of the local government unit's governing body. A delay penalty must not be imposed if the delay in project completion is due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, including without limitation inclement weather, acts of God, or civil strife." 
Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. § 21-27-1 (2002): Municipalities do not have the right to grant exclusive use of rights-of-way, nor may they grant a franchise without compensation, or for a period of more than 25 years.