221.515
Privilege tax on telecommunications carriers; maximum rate; deduction of
additional fees.
(1) The council of every municipality in this state may levy and collect from
every telecommunications carrier operating within the municipality and actually
using the streets, alleys or highways, or all of them, in such municipality for
other than travel, a privilege tax for the use of those streets, alleys or
highways, or all of them, in such municipality in an amount which may not
exceed seven percent of the gross revenues of the telecommunications carrier
currently earned within the boundaries of the municipality. The privilege tax
authorized in this section shall be for each year, or part of each year, that
such telecommunications carrier operates within the municipality.
(2) As used in
this section, “gross revenues” means those revenues derived from exchange
access services, as defined in ORS 403.105, less net uncollectibles from such
revenues.
(3) A
telecommunications carrier paying the privilege tax authorized by this section
shall not be required to pay any additional fee, compensation or consideration,
including the free use or construction of telecommunications facilities and
equipment, to the municipality for its use of public streets, alleys, or
highways, or all of them, and shall not be required to pay any additional tax
or fee on the gross revenues that are the measure of the privilege tax. As used
in this subsection, “use” includes, but is not limited to, street openings,
construction and maintenance of fixtures or facilities by telecommunications
carriers. As used in this subsection, “additional fee, compensation or
consideration” does not include commissions paid for siting public telephones
on municipal property. To the extent that separate fees are imposed by the
municipality on telecommunications carriers for street openings, construction,
inspection or maintenance of fixtures or facilities, such fees may be deducted
from the privilege tax authorized by this section. However, telecommunications
carriers shall not deduct charges and penalties imposed by the municipality for
noncompliance with charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions or permit
conditions from the privilege tax authorized by this section.
(4) For purposes
of this section, “telecommunications carrier” has the meaning given that term
in ORS 133.721. [1989 c.484 §5; 1999 c.1093 §10]
DISINCORPORATION
Notes of Decisions
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 81 P.3d 702 (Or. 2003).
· cites it 35× “Among other things, US West sought a declaration that ORS 221.515 bars the city from collecting both the two percent registration fee and the seven percent franchise fee.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 365 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 62× “BACKGROUND For context, we begin with an overview of ORS 221.515, the statute on which Qwest relies, and provisions of the city code that permit the city to obtain revenues from Qwest’s operations within the city.”
At&T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc. v. City of Eugene, 35 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 12× “They alleged that the ordinance is preempted by various state and federal statutes and the state constitution, specifically: (1) ORS 221.515, which authorizes local governments to impose a right-of-way tax on telecommunications carriers not to exceed seven percent of gross…”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. City of Gresham, 374 P.3d 829 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 4× “515 limits only the city’s ability to recover a privilege tax for the use of public rights-of-way” but does not limit a city’s ability to impose other license and registration fees or taxes on telecommunications carrier). 10 The legislature’s use of the term “privilege tax” in…”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 37 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 12× “According to US West, the city’s telecommunications ordinance is preempted by: (1) ORS 221.515, which limits any right-of-way taxation to seven percent of gross annual revenues derived from exchange access services after deducting net uncollectibles; (2) ORS 307.”
Rogue Valley Sewer Servs. v. City of Phoenix, 329 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “City of Eugene, 336 Or 181, 186 , 81 P3d 702 (2003) (“The question is not whether ORS 221.515 authorizes the city to impose its two percent registration fee.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Or. 2002).
· cites it 6× “” Or.Rev.Stat. § 221.515. I conclude that the City of Auburn decision does not stand for the proposition that § 253(a) categorically bars all revenue-based right-of-way fees.”
City of Portland v. Elec. Lightwave, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Or. 2005).
· cites it 2× “This is identical to the privilege tax the City is authorized to levy on Qwest under Or.Rev.Stat. § 221.515. The terms of Qwest’s permit and ELI’s Franchise Agreement have several similarities.”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. City of Gresham, 330 P.3d 65 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“However, that statement in US West is inapplicable dicta because the case was not concerned with the construction or application of ORS 221.”
TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 38 P.3d 269 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “*436 TCI and TCINS contend that the registration fee requirement is preempted by: (1) ORS 221.515, which authorizes local governments to impose a tax of seven percent of gross revenues on telecommunications carriers who use local rights-of-way; (2) ORS chapter 759, which…”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. City of Gresham (Or. 2016).
· cites it 4× “10 The legislature’s use of the term “privilege tax” in the present context is unremarkable, as that term often is used in the context of a “tax on the privilege of carrying on a business for which a license or franchise is required,” Black’s Law Dictionary at 1422, and ORS 221.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.515(1) — 5 cases
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 365 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“BACKGROUND For context, we begin with an overview of ORS 221.515, the statute on which Qwest relies, and provisions of the city code that permit the city to obtain revenues from Qwest’s operations within the city.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 81 P.3d 702 (Or. 2003).
“Among other things, US West sought a declaration that ORS 221.515 bars the city from collecting both the two percent registration fee and the seven percent franchise fee.”
At&T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc. v. City of Eugene, 35 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“They alleged that the ordinance is preempted by various state and federal statutes and the state constitution, specifically: (1) ORS 221.515, which authorizes local governments to impose a right-of-way tax on telecommunications carriers not to exceed seven percent of gross…”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Or. 2002).
“” Or.Rev.Stat. § 221.515. I conclude that the City of Auburn decision does not stand for the proposition that § 253(a) categorically bars all revenue-based right-of-way fees.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 37 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“According to US West, the city’s telecommunications ordinance is preempted by: (1) ORS 221.515, which limits any right-of-way taxation to seven percent of gross annual revenues derived from exchange access services after deducting net uncollectibles; (2) ORS 307.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.515(2) — 3 cases
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 81 P.3d 702 (Or. 2003).
“Among other things, US West sought a declaration that ORS 221.515 bars the city from collecting both the two percent registration fee and the seven percent franchise fee.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Or. 2002).
“” Or.Rev.Stat. § 221.515. I conclude that the City of Auburn decision does not stand for the proposition that § 253(a) categorically bars all revenue-based right-of-way fees.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 365 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“BACKGROUND For context, we begin with an overview of ORS 221.515, the statute on which Qwest relies, and provisions of the city code that permit the city to obtain revenues from Qwest’s operations within the city.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.515(3) — 3 cases
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 81 P.3d 702 (Or. 2003).
“Among other things, US West sought a declaration that ORS 221.515 bars the city from collecting both the two percent registration fee and the seven percent franchise fee.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 37 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“According to US West, the city’s telecommunications ordinance is preempted by: (1) ORS 221.515, which limits any right-of-way taxation to seven percent of gross annual revenues derived from exchange access services after deducting net uncollectibles; (2) ORS 307.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 365 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“BACKGROUND For context, we begin with an overview of ORS 221.515, the statute on which Qwest relies, and provisions of the city code that permit the city to obtain revenues from Qwest’s operations within the city.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.515(4) — 1 case
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 365 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“BACKGROUND For context, we begin with an overview of ORS 221.515, the statute on which Qwest relies, and provisions of the city code that permit the city to obtain revenues from Qwest’s operations within the city.”
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.