Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
177 leadership team that is experienced with the DOTD, yet relatively new to the challenges of administrating and managing the utility permitting program. Utility permit fees were established in law that is over 10 years old, to be revenue neutral, but have not been updated or subjected to an economic to maintain a revenue neutral status with the exception of a recent effort to look at small cell facilities. The Louisiana DOTD does not have the rule making authority to revise fees without legislative action. Maryland Department of Transportation Case Study Based on the research team's recommendations, the project advisory panel selected the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) as a case study due to its unique fee structure and valuation approach. As part of the interview, an MDOT SHA's Utility Department representative participated. A copy of the research objectives and interview questions was sent to MDOT SHA representatives. This interview covered permit requirements for general utility works, longitudinal structures, small and macrocellular structures along state highway rights-of-way, and telecommunications infrastructure. General Utility Permit Fee MDOT has a requirement for all utilities accommodated within the public right-of-way to sign an acknowledgement they have reviewed the stateâs accommodation policy and permitting requirements. Prior to performing any utility work within the right-of-way, any authorized public utility has to obtain a utility permit from the MDOT SHA. MDOT SHA permit process includes a fee with the purpose of reimbursing the state for the costs associated with accommodating a utility. These costs are not meant to be revenue generating. There are two types of utility permits issued by MDOT SHA; one is for standard installation and significant maintenance work; the other is for emergency situations and minor (routine) maintenance work. The blanket permit allows utility owners to do their work without having to submit paperwork at the time of the emergency or for minor (routine) maintenance work. Installation of new utilities, significant maintenance, and relocations associated with projects are permitted but handled differently. According to state law, utility permits do not require fees, but they are not specifically prohibited, so they consider the approach to utility accommodations a non-revenue-generating activity. Every year, MDOT reviews the number of permits they approve and emergency responses they respond to. On average, there are 3 to 6,000 permits issued each year and 100 emergency responses (blanket permits). As a general rule, MDOT came up with an average expense to the state to cover the cost of regular construction permits at $350 to $425 and blanket permits at about $1,500, based on how much time is required to accommodate the utility associated with the permit.
178 Telecoms / Longitudinal Fees In accordance with MDOT SHA, Generally, there are two types of access-controlled facilities: fully controlled access and partially controlled access. Longitudinal installations are generally not permitted along fully controlled access roadways except for telecommunications. This allowance is in direct response to federal Broadband initiatives. These installations are subject to resource sharing by the MDOT SHA. Initially, MDOT SHA only approached opportunities for resource sharing on interstates. With the success of the program, resource sharing opportunities are being considered for other full or limited control access roads. Currently, Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) has a separate agency support department called the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) where the valuation of resource sharing is managed, while the logistics are supervised by MDOT. As a result, when MDOT gets into resource-sharing broadband Internet communication, the value of the sharing is determined by DoIT. A Resource Sharing Agreement (RSA) is a required formal agreement that contains details such as compensation terms and conditions, similar to a project agreement. Detailed procedures for requesting resource-sharing agreements are provided by DoIT. In exchange for compensation, equipment, or services, MDOT and MDOT SHA uses RSAs to allow communication providers to place their facilities on MDOT SHA property. Maryland relies on resource sharing to gain value from the telecommunication infrastructure. In addition, the MDOT may charge fees based on fair market value for the use of highway right-of-way for longitudinal communications installations. As part of the standard pricing schedule of fiber optics, DoIT uses the Across the Fence Method (ATF) to determine the valuation of the right-of-way accommodation. here was no information provided about how the ATF method is calculated by DoIT. Typically, an âAcross he Fence valuation compares three similar properties to assess the value of the accommodation. Three different government departments (DoIT, Aviation Administration, and Mass Transit Administration) meet biweekly to discuss resource-sharing agreements which helps with consistent valuations. A telecommunications company, for example, must submit a proposal to MDOT to install fiber optics. This proposal should then be sent to RN in the secretaryâs office because, under the law, both organizations' secretaries must agree that the resource sharing is happening and there is money coming back. A permit should be issued after it has been valued and approved by MDOT and resubmitted to RN before they can finalize an agreement. Resource sharing values were previously set at around $100,000 with just an earmark, but this adds another step since anything over $100,000 then has to be approved by the Board of Public Works, which is composed of the governor, the controller, and the secretary-treasurer, and they must sign off on the agreement and approve it before MDOT can proceed with the logistics of issuing the permit.
179 In addition to receiving additional fiber to be used, MDOT generates revenue from fiber optic installations in LARWs. They receive approximately $7 million a year from this program. These funds must be distributed back to the transportation fund. In response to Dig Once Law and FHWA guidance, Maryland added a Dig Once policy, which further encourages broadband and fiber optic lines along ROWs. A project of 70 miles, for example, would be advertised so that carriers could install it, and this also applies to county government projects. The MDOT is in the process of figuring out how to split up construction costs when the MDOT is responsible for completing the installation under the Dig Once policy when there are multiple carriers involved. As pointed out by the MDOT representative, Dig Once does not affect the resource sharing or valuation approach, but is still subject to resource sharing rules (COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations). Cellular Device Permits/Fees Currently, MDOT allows telecommunication providers to build only one kind of cell tower, which is a Monopole type. Lattice towers are not permitted on MDOT's right-of-way. However, as part of the Emergency Management System, the National Guard and the State Police were only allowed to use lattice towers (an average of about 300 feet) on state highways. For cell tower permits, the standard pricing schedule charged by MDOT SHA based on the type of equipment and traffic - highway determines the permit fee in the installation area according to zone level (from 1 to 4). A 5 to a 10-year term with a renewal option is included in the agreement. In contrast, the annual fees average $1,575 to $3,700, including a 3% rent escalation increase. In terms of fees, DoIT set a flat rate for one-time and recurring charges as annual fees for small cell facilities. The agreement is for a period of five to ten years with the option of extending it for three to five years. For each antenna, there is a recurring annual fee of $270. On the other hand, the non-recurring (one-time) fee for use of a single pole or strandline that includes the first five antenna attachments is $500, plus $270 for each additional antenna when the initial application has six or more antennas. A one-time fee of $1,000 is also charged for the installation of a new pole. A telecommunication provider that provides rural broadband access to rural areas can qualify for certain exceptions in MDOT's policy regarding broadband, for example, they won't have to pay these fees if that provider offers rural broadband to rural areas. On average, MDOT gets about $30K to $50K back per carrier for monopoles and cell towers and $1M annually for small cell facilities across the state.
180 Alternative Uses of Highway ROW In MDOT's view, EV installations could create synergies across the state, however, questions remain about how alternative uses of ROW can be implemented that are appropriate for Maryland. In order to make them successful, we must identify the appropriate places, policies, rules, and codes for their implementation, as well as the appropriate places, policies, rules, and codes that are required. Despite MDOT's general discussions about electric vehicles and renewable energy, there are many specific concerns about the alternative uses of highway ROW. In order to expedite the deployment of alternative ROW uses, MDOT SHA believes EV should be treated as utilities. Lessons Learned Permit fees are not required for utility permits under state law, but they are not specifically prohibited, so permits in general are considered nonrevenue-generating. Instead of charging permit fees to communication providers (public and private entities) who wish to locate their facilities in the stateâs-controlled access rights-of-way, MDOT SHA uses a revenue compensation program and resource sharing of infrastructures such as towers, fiber optics, microwaves, and equipment shelters. The longitudinal installation rights-of-way access rates are currently calculated by DoIT using the Across the Fence Method (ATF), and there is no information available at MDOT about how the ATF method is calculated. MDOT Interview Conclusions The Maryland Department of Transportation uses a unique resource-sharing approach to accommodate telecommunication facilities within its right-of-way. While MDOT does not generate revenue from utility permits, they do generate revenue from resource sharing, which goes back into the transportation fund. MDOT generates around $7 million per year from resource sharing, around $30,000 to $50,000 on average per carrier per year for monopoles and cell towers, and $1,000,000 per year from small cells across the state. As long as the industry continues to use RW longitudinally, MDOT plans to partner with them. A program is currently in place for MDOT to receive compensation in the form of shared resources for fiber optics, monopoles, and cell towers. MDOT applies the Dig-Once strategy to its policy, which does not affect its approach to resource sharing or valuation. The MDOT wants more information and discussion about electric vehicles, believing that they will have a synergistic effect across the state, but they have questions about implementing federally
