Illinois Compiled Statutes
35 ILCS 635/30 (2026)
Validity of existing franchise fees and agreements
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(35 ILCS 635/30)
Sec. 30.
Validity of existing franchise fees and agreements.
(a) No new franchise fees or other charges
for the use of the public rights-of-way, including charges for the recovery of
reasonable costs of regulating the use of the public rights-of-way,
shall be imposed upon, levied on, or otherwise required of telecommunications
retailers by ordinance, resolution, or contract, nor shall any other
new charges be required from telecommunications retailers by
municipalities from and
after the effective date of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall excuse any person or entity from obligations imposed
under any law concerning generally applicable taxes or standards for
construction on, over, under, or within, use of or
repair of the public rights-of-way, including standards relating to free
standing towers and other structures upon the public way, nor shall any
person or entity be excused
from any liability imposed by any such law for the failure to comply with such
generally applicable taxes or standards governing construction on, over, under,
or within, use of or repair of the
public rights-of-way.
(b) Agreements between telecommunications retailers and municipalities
entered into before the effective date of this Act regarding use of
the public ways shall remain valid according to and for their stated terms,
except as to fees or charges waived under Section 5-60 of the Simplified
Municipal Telecommunications Tax Act.
(c) The regulation of the terms and conditions upon which poles, conduits,
and other facilities located in the public way may be shared by or between
telecommunications retailers shall be committed exclusively to the jurisdiction
of the Illinois Commerce Commission and the Federal Communications Commission,
and such regulation shall not be among the home rule powers and functions
described in subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois
Constitution. Moreover, no municipality may enter into any
contract or agreement with a telecommunications retailer with respect to the
terms and conditions upon which poles, conduits, and other facilities located
in
the public way may be shared by or between telecommunications retailers.
(Source: P.A. 92-526, eff. 1-1-03.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2001–2001 · leading case: Primeco Pers. Commc'ns, L.P. v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 750 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. 2001).
Primeco Pers. Commc'ns, L.P. v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 750 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. 2001). “35 ILCS 635/30 (West 1998). The municipal IMF is a fee paid to a certain municipality that has passed an ordinance imposing one.”
Primeco Pers. Commc'ns, L.P. v. Illinois Com. Comm'n Dissenting opinion added upon denial of rehearing - June 4, 2001 (Ill. 2001). “35 ILCS 635/30 (West 1998). The municipal IMF is a fee paid to a certain municipality that has passed an ordinance imposing one.”
— 35 ILCS 635/30(a) — 2 cases
Primeco Pers. Commc'ns, L.P. v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 750 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. 2001). “35 ILCS 635/30 (West 1998). The municipal IMF is a fee paid to a certain municipality that has passed an ordinance imposing one.”
Primeco Pers. Commc'ns, L.P. v. Illinois Com. Comm'n Dissenting opinion added upon denial of rehearing - June 4, 2001 (Ill. 2001). “35 ILCS 635/30 (West 1998). The municipal IMF is a fee paid to a certain municipality that has passed an ordinance imposing one.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|