Alltel Communications, Inc. v. City of Macon

• Decision Date: 16 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-15969.,02-15969.
• Parties: ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. CITY OF MACON, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

345 F.3d 1219

ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. CITY OF MACON, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.

No. 02-15969.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

September 16, 2003.

Thomas C. James, III, James, Bates, Pope & Spivey, Macon, GA, for City of Macon.

Adam Scott Katz and Nisbet S. Kendrick, III, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Atlanta, GA, for Alltel Communications, Inc.

Robert J. Middleton, Jr., Albany, GA, Amicus Curiae for Georgia Municipal Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Before ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and PROPST^*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 15-2-9.

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES:

The City of Macon, Georgia ("Macon") appeals a declaratory judgment granted to Alltel Communications, Inc. ("Alltel") and a permanent injunction imposed against Macon. In deciding the ultimate issues of this case, we must first determine whether the district court properly interpreted and applied Georgia law. Because the district court concluded, and the parties agree, that this case involves issues of Georgia law which have not been directly decided, we certify a question of law to the Supreme Court of Georgia and postpone any further consideration of the appeal in this case until we receive an answer from that court.

Background¹

Alltel is a telecommunications company providing telephone service throughout the United States, using a network of fiber optic cable. In July 1997, Alltel contracted with Georgia Power Company for the purpose of installing fiber optic cable on utility poles owned and maintained by Georgia Power along city streets within Macon. Pursuant to the existing municipal ordinance, Alltel sought and obtained a permit from Macon on July 4, 1997, authorizing placement of the fiber optic cable. Alltel installed a total of 25,555 feet of fiber optic cable. None of the cable was installed upon the rights-of-way which are under the direct authority of the Georgia Department of Transportation. From July 1997 through April 11, 2000, the City charged a $2.00 per linear foot annual permit fee under Section 18-153 of Article VII, Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances for Macon. Alltel paid the fees without objection. The purpose of the ordinance is to "... govern the compensation charged by the City in its franchising and licensing of telecommunications providers and in the City's management of the use of the public right-of-way within the corporate limits and boundaries of the City."

On July 8, 1999, Macon amended the ordinance, increasing the permit fee from $2.00 to $4.50 per linear foot ("the Amended Ordinance"). On April 11, 2000, Macon submitted an invoice to Alltel for $114,997.50 for one-year fees under the Amended Ordinance. Alltel has refused to pay this amount, contending that Macon cannot charge $4.50 per foot but rather is limited to $5,000 per mile ($0.947 per foot), the rate charged by the Georgia Department of Transportation on its rights-of-way.

The Proceedings In The District Court

On April 4, 2001, Alltel filed its complaint. Alltel alleged two counts. In Count I, it charged that the Amended Ordinance violated the federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), because it assessed a fee which was not fair and reasonable and because its effect was to "prohibit" Alltel from providing interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.² In Count II, it alleged that the Amended Ordinance violated Georgia Code § 34-4-92 (and related code sections) because it charged more than the maximum permitted by the Department of Transportation under Regulation 672-11-03. Alltel sought a declaratory judgment. Macon filed a counterclaim for unpaid permit fees.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 27, 2002, the district court entered an order granting Alltel's motion and concluding that under Georgia Code § 32-4-92(a)(10), Macon's Amended Ordinance was invalid because it is "preempted by state law" and charges a rate that exceeds that charged by the Georgia Department of Transportation (D.O.T.). The court enjoined Macon from enforcing the Amended Ordinance.

Both sides agree that the standard of review is de novo.

Positions of Parties³

Macon's Position⁴

Section 32-4-92(a)(10) and its cross-reference to § 32-6-174 are intended to address only technical issues such as installation, construction, maintenance, removal, etc., and do not limit a municipality's right to charge a revenue producing and licensing fee. There is no authority directly on point. However, the statute reads:

A municipality may grant permits and establish reasonable regulations for the installation, construction, maintenance, renewal, removal, and relocation of pipes, mains, conduits, cables, wires poles, towers, traffic and other signals, and other equipment, facilities, or appliances of any utility in, on, along, over, or under any part of its municipal street system and of a county road system lying within its municipal limits. However, such regulations shall not be more restrictive with respect to utilities affected thereby than are equivalent regulations promulgated by the department with respect to utilities on the state highway system under authority of Code Section 32-6-174.

Ga.Code Ann. § 32-4-92(a)(10)(2002)(emphasis added). All the terms of the statute focus on technical matters. Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the naming of a word is to be determined from the accompanying word. See Haddon v. Shaheen & Co., 231 Ga.App. 596, 499 S.E.2d 693, 695 (1998) (citations omitted). Also, under the doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others. See In re Copelan, 250 Ga.App. 856, 553 S.E.2d 278, 287 (2002). Under these canons of statutory construction, it is clear that the "permit" authorized by the statute deals with installation, construction, etc., and nothing more.

Georgia Code § 32-6-174, which is referenced in the statute at issue, was also passed as part of the 1973 legislation. It contains the same "technical" language found in the statute at issue. At the time the statutes were passed, there were no D.O.T. regulations addressing fees, and the legislature was simply trying to insure that utilities were not presented with conflicting responsibilities. For example, the statutes were designed to keep municipalities and the D.O.T. from requiring that the same cables be constructed from different materials. The last sentence of § 32-6-174 reads: "In addition to the requirements of such department regulations, it shall be the responsibility of the utility to obtain whatever franchise is required by law." Obviously, this statute contemplates that utilities may have to acquire franchises pursuant to Georgia Code § 36-34-2(7).

The D.O.T. did not intend for its 1985 fee schedule to limit or affect municipal fees, and if Alltel's interpretation is correct, the regulation is an invalid delegation of legislative power. The D.O.T.'s regulations apply only to the state highway system and roads funded with federal aid. The fees would apply to all roads if the regulations were intended to limit a municipality's power. Nowhere in the regulations is it indicated that the D.O.T. intended or expected that its fees would govern what could be charged by a municipality. These fee regulations are more akin to the state's regulating power, while the Amended Ordinance is more akin to the revenue raising power.

As to the separation of powers argument, i.e., that D.O.T. was supposed to take over a municipality's taxing/franchising power, Macon notes that a delegation of legislative power must provide "sufficient guidelines" to avoid violating the Georgia Constitution. See Dep't of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, 260 Ga. 699, 398 S.E.2d 567, 571-72 (1990). Further, an administrative rule that "exceeds the scope of or is inconsistent with the authority of the statute upon which it is predicated is invalid." Dep't of Human Res. v. Siggers, 219 Ga.App. 1, 463 S.E.2d 544, 546 (1995) (citation omitted). Georgia Code § 32-4-92(a)(10) does not indicate whether it is a "regulatory" power statute or a "revenue-raising" and/or "franchise" statute as set out in § 36-34-2(7). No guidance was given about "rural" versus "urban" fee areas. There are simply no guideposts at all. Thus, if Alltel's interpretation is correct, there has been an improper delegation of power.

A statute that is nearly identical to § 32-4-92(a)(10) has been interpreted in a way favorable to Macon's position. Georgia Code § 32-4-42(6), which applies to county governments, has the same "technical" language as the statute at issue. It also references the D.O.T. fees pursuant to § 32-6-174. In DeKalb County v. Georgia Power Co., 249 Ga. 704, 292 S.E.2d 709 (1982), the court, interpreting § 32-4-42(6), stated:

DeKalb County is not entitled to extract from the power company a tax, franchise fee, rental fee, or other charge (however designated) in return for permission to use the county's road rights-of-way outside of municipalities for the erection, maintenance and use of power transmission lines.

Id. at 710. The fact that counties are not entitled to charge any fee at all under that statute reinforces the argument that the subject statute only addresses technical matters. Since it only addresses technical matters, § 32-4-92(a)(10) was not intended to limit Macon's franchise power under § 36-34-2(7). Macon also cites an Attorney General's opinion, which it argues is consistent with its position.

Macon's power to impose a franchise fee is found in § 36-34-2(7) and is not limited by § 32-4-92(a)(10). The "franchise" power was enacted in 1963, eleven years before the statutes at issue. Section 36-34-2(7) states...