Council tables low voltage regulations

City Council's committee today decided to table the low voltage regulations that had been proposed.

Apparently, the huge turnout in opposition to the new fees, permits and rules was enough to make city council members say no.

But I just heard a WSPD news interview with one of the administration staffers. It's not yet up on the WSPD website, so this is going from memory right now....

City director Chris J. Zervos says that the low voltage area is an unregulated industry. Reporter Aaron Brilbreck responds and says that AT&T is regulated by the PUCO yet they're not exempted even though they are regulated. Zervos agrees. Brilbeck follows up with, "so the regulation isn't really a valid argument, is it?" Zervos then says, "You know, we're done."

I guess he didn't like having his contradiction pointed out.

The good news is that concerned citizens and businesses in Toledo found out about an onerous and 'not business friendly' regulation, showed up en masse to oppose it, and city council actually listened to them and turned down.

Side note: I'd sent an email to all council members with the questions I raised in my previous post and have, so far, received the following responses.

From George Sarantou:

Maggie,

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the proposed low voltage ordinance 83-09, from the Finkbeiner Administration. Today we had a public hearing, which many constituents attended, and the Community & Neighborhood Development Committee decided that this legislation would effectively be tabled. From all of the testimony, it is clear to me that this legislation would place an unfair burden on business, as well as consumers, who utilize low voltage services. It would also lead to several days of delay for inspectors to come out and approve a telephone, computer, cable, or other low voltage work - thus this will raise the cost of low voltage installation in the City of Toledo and create enormous delays for consumers wanting to get their telephone installed in a timely fashion. It is clear to me that this is not a safety issue because nobody could sight any harm done to consumers regarding low voltage improper installation.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns.

Respectfully,

George Sarantou

From D. Michael Collins,

Ms. Thurber,

Thank you for emailing me concerning the proposed ordinance 83-09 (Low Voltage Installations). I am sure that you are aware that a public meeting was held today in council chambers for the purposes of sharing opinions in this very controversial issue. I attended the entire meeting and do not believe that this ordinance serves the citizens of our community in a positive way. There was no evidence that a community safety issue exists, however the issue of unscrupulous conduct in a minority of the situations exists. The issue of fraud and/or theft will not be addressed with the passage of this ordinance.

In addition it became very clear that the list of exempt organizations as well as businesses needed to be expanded. The matter will remain in Committee and will not be voted on until it is relieved from the Committee. The Chairperson of the Committee Councilman Joe Mc Namara will advise if he is going to have a second meeting.

I have after careful review and deliberation, listening to the testimony and speaking with the business community find no reason to support this legislation. I will be voting no if the matter comes before Council for consideration.

Thank you again for your email.

Sincerely,

D. Michael Collins
Councilman, District 2