The most notable topic during the meeting was the proposal to establish a fee structure for the installation of fiber optic cables in city right-of-way areas. Alan Rumsy, the Corporation Counsel, and Dan Aguia, the Director of Engineering and Planning, presented the agenda item. They stressed the necessity for a fair and comprehensive fee schedule due to multiple companies showing interest in utilizing city property for fiber optic infrastructure. Rumsy highlighted the importance of having fiber internet in Fall River, emphasizing that the city’s challenge is to manage installations while minimizing disruption to existing infrastructure.

Rumsy explained that the proposed ordinance would amend existing regulations to include terminology for cable, wire, fiber, and cabinets. He noted that fees would vary based on the installation type, such as placing equipment in the right-of-way or on city property. The discussion also addressed fees for unused equipment. Compliance with current regulations and the preservation of public spaces were highlighted as priorities, particularly to avoid interference with future developments like sidewalks.

There was an emphasis on the need for clarity in the petition process for fiber installations, with the council urged to consider breaking down large proposals into manageable segments. Concerns were raised about equitable treatment among providers, with questions about whether new fees would apply to existing contracts, such as the ten-year agreement with Comcast. Rumsy admitted uncertainty regarding the council’s ability to impose these fees on existing infrastructure.

The conversation delved into Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines, with Rumsy noting that the proposed fees aligned with FCC recommendations for small cell wireless facilities. The FCC had set a standard annual fee of $270 for pole usage, which influenced the proposed fee structure for fiber optic installations. Rumsy stressed the need for layered regulations to allow the council authority to manage installations effectively and deny proposals in certain areas, like historic districts.

The council discussed the potential for hiring a consultant specialized in utility management to navigate the complexities of these installations.

Another issue was short-term rentals, particularly regarding their impact on housing availability and community dynamics. A proposed ordinance sought to regulate short-term rental properties, such as Airbnbs, within the city. The ordinance requires property owners to reside in the unit for at least nine months annually to qualify for short-term rental status. This measure aims to prevent investors from purchasing properties solely for short-term rentals, which could exacerbate housing shortages and increase rental prices.

The council discussed zoning restrictions, confirming that single-family zoning districts would not allow Airbnbs, while two-family districts would be eligible. Concerns were raised about wealthy investors driving up housing costs and reducing availability for locals. The nine-month residency requirement sparked debate over its sufficiency in ensuring genuine occupancy by owners rather than exploitation for short-term rentals.

Financial implications were also a concern, with properties designated for short-term rentals often selling for 5% to 10% more than standard residential properties. Safety regulations and building codes were discussed, particularly in light of properties operating without meeting necessary safety standards, emphasizing the importance of maintaining building standards for tenant safety.

The council considered logistical aspects of proving residency. They also discussed a proposed annual registration fee of $500 for short-term rentals.