Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 10-25-2005 SpecialAgenda City of Plymouth Special City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:00 p.m. Conference Room 2 Plymouth Creek Center, lower level 1. Call to Order 2. Cable legislative issue 3. ING land development at the northwest corner of Highway 169 and Highway 55 4. Adjourn Agenda Number: TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager FROM: Helen LaFave,Communications Manager SUBJECT: Presentation on Federal Telecommunciations Legislation and Local Control DATE: September 28, 2005 for October 25, 2005 Study Session At the October 25 study session, Greg Moore, executive director of the Northwest Suburban Cable Communications Commission and Northwest Community Television, will discuss national legislative initiatives that would eliminate and, at best, greatly erode local control of cable television franchises. Cable television franchises give local government bodies the ability to: manage local rights-of-way; fund public, educational and government access channels and facilities; and prevent cherry picking, thereby ensuring that all citizens in a community have equal access to broadband services. 0 - NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 6900 Winnetka Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 763-536-8355 A s SEP 3 Laurie Ahrens City Manager ". City of Plymouth ! 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth MN 55447 Dear Ms Ahrens, The Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission at its September 15th meeting requested the NWSCCC attorney, Adrian Herbst, to prepare a resolution opposing proposed federal telecom legislation. The proposed legislation would substantially reduce or eliminate the rights of local governments to collect franchise fees, and to provide community television -- including city council meetings, public access programming, and Channel 12. The NWSCCC is recommending that each of its nine member cities review and adopt the Resolution and then send it to their Congressmen and Senators. The NWSCCC has previously written our Representatives expressing our strong opposition to this proposed legislation and it is vital that member cities also express their concerns on an issue which is so adverse to our interests. Enclosed is the proposed Resolution as well as a summary of the various bills. It would be helpful if you would send copies of your adopted Resolution to the NWSCCC attorney, Adrian Herbst. Sincerely, a i, Grego re Executiv Director Northwest Suburbs Cable Communication Commission Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Golden Valley • Mable Grove • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale THE BALLER HERBST LA W GROUP, A C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 377N GRAIN EXCHANGE BUILDING 301 FOURTHAVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 1(877)501-1389 612) 339-2026 612) 339-4789 (facsimile) www.baller.com ADRIANE. HERBST 612) 339-2018 ahetbst r@ballencour September 28, 2005 Laurie Ahrens City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE: 2014 P.STREET, N. W., SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 202) 833-5300: (202) 833-1180 (facsimile) RE: Federal Legislation Threatening Local Cable Television Authority Dear Laurie: We have attached to this letter a brief update titled, "Current Events in Communications Reform Affecting Localities." Additionally, we have included a Resolution for consideration by your community. Recent events have made it clear that local governments must take a stand if they are to protect their interests and authority with regard to cable television and related services. Localities have the authority under current federal law, including the federal Cable Acts, to establish requirements for cable service operators using public right -of --way for development and operation of cable systems. As part of this authority, localities receive franchise fees, have authority to establish customer service standards, develop standards and requirements to protect the use of public rights-of-way and issues concerning public safety, require community benefits including channels for public, educational, and governmental use as well as funding, facilities, and equipment for those purposes, and, in addition, capacity on cable systems for governmental and educational purposes. Current and pending federal legislation as outlined in the attached paper, including 5.1504, 5.1349, and HR.3146, will have the affect of either eliminating or substantially reducing the rights of local governments to franchise cable operators, severely limit franchise fees paid to a locality for use of public right-of-way, limit the public, educational, and governmental access channels and funding for those purposes, and requirements for dedicated capacity on the system for public use. Additionally, localities may be severely limited in its authority with regard to the management and control of right-of-way use. September 28, 2005 Page 2 It is absolutely essential that local governments take a stand now to preserve their rights and to make known to their elected officials in Congress that the Bills that are pending in Congress are vigorously opposed by local government, not in the best interest of communities, and by way of resolution or other means, insist that the elected Congressional members representing the community listen to local officials and stand up for the rights of local government and the preservation of the current franchising scheme. It is clear to us that the only reason why Congress is considering change is due to the interests of big telecom companies that want the right to offer competitive cable services, but also want to skip having a franchising process with local government. This is most unfortunate inasmuch as localities are currently able to negotiate franchises that meet their community needs and interests and over the years since initially franchising cable operators, localities have developed positive relationships with cable providers that demonstrate that the current system of franchising and rights and interests of localities has worked well and has made possible that the unique and differing interests of localities throughout the country can be met without undue hardship to the providers. There is no reason why this same structure or scheme of development of cable services cannot also be reasonably applied to new entrants such as the large telecom providers who would now like to compete with the incumbent cable operators. The attached Resolution is most urgent. Your elected representatives in Congress must be made aware now of your interests and concerns and you as a community leader must insist that they either meet with you or discuss this most serious matter. If the pending legislation is passed, not only will your community stand to lose substantial revenues from franchise fees, it will also lose a very valuable local communication service that your community has the right to have a part in ensuring that your special needs will be met. I have been asked by many of my clients to educate local governing bodies about what is taking place and what they can do. I would be pleased to provide you with this assistance. Additionally, it would be most appreciated if you will copy me on any transmittal of a Resolution adopted by your community so that I can monitor on behalf of you and others the response to this letter and the actions taken by communities. This will also be helpful for me to be in a position to inform_ the leaders of national organizations for municipalities about local support and to provide there with information and resolutions of communities who have taken steps to let Congress know about their concerns. Very truly yours, Adrian E. Herbst AEHldnd Attachment NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS REFORM AND YOUR COMMUNITY: WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW! September 2005 THE BALLER HERBST LAW GROUP, P.C. Adrian E. Herbst 377N Grain Exchange Building 301 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612) 339-2018; (612) 339.4789 (facsimile) aherbst@baller.coin Casey E. Lide 2014 P Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 202) 833-3301; (202) 833-1180 (facsimile) Casey@baller.com THE RALLEJ? HERBST LA W GR 0 UP, P. C. APROFESSIONAL CORPOFATION 377N GRAIN EXCHANGE BUILDING 301 FO UR TH A VENUE SO UTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 1-(877) 501-1389 612) 339-2026 612) 339-4789 (facsimile) wwm batter. cont ADAM NE. HERBST WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE: 612) 339-2018 2014 P STREET. IV. W, SUITE 200 akerbsi@baller.com WASHINGTON, D.0 20036 202) 833-5300; (202) 833-1180 (facsimile) Adrian E. Herbst heads the Minneapolis office of The Baller Herbst Law Group. For more than 25 years he has been on the cutting edge of cable and telecommunications matters, providing regular consulting and legal assistance to municipalities throughout the United States. This has included the initial franchising processes for cable communications as well as renewals, transfers of ownership, and a wide -range of administrative enforcement matters and development of local programming and issues related to local programming. Recently, his work has expanded with the broadband services offered in cable and telecommunications systems to include planning, competition policy, and internet services. He has served as a key member of many national organizations in programs to provide assistance to local governments, including International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), the Alliance for Community Media and the National League of Cities (NLC). He has served in many capacities on behalf of these national organizations, including developing model ordinances for IMLA and chairing a specialized rights-of-way taskforce for NATOA that developed policies and guidelines for local units of governments throughout the country. He has served as President of the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association and Vice President of the League of Minnesota Cities and is also a member of various other legal organizations including the Federal Communications Bar Association, and the Telecommunications Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association. Mr. Herbst has a unique background in municipal and governmental law and policy, having been a full-time City Attorney and elected City Councilman for 16 years for the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. While serving as City Attorney, Mr. Herbst led a group that was instrumental in the development of the initial franchises for cable services. As a result of this experience, he advised many municipal organizations both on the state and national level to help initiate procedures and guidelines for cable franchising. Further, because of this unique background, he was selected to serve as General Counsel for the Economic Development Authority for the City of Bloomington, Minnesota and was instrumental in the acquisition of land for development, public financing, and spearheaded the creation, development, and negotiation of a development agreement that led to the development of the Mall of America, the largest single shopping mall and attraction center in the country. Mr. Herbst has been a recognized national leader in municipal law matters and, in particular, cable and telecommunications and as such has been a regular presenter on behalf of various organizations. He has recently spoken at the regional and national conferences for NATOA, IMLA, MACTA, as well as in workshops and seminars for The Pennsylvania League, The Kansas City Webmasters Conference, The Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association and the League of Minnesota Cities. CURRENT EVENTS IN COMMUNICATIONS REFORM AFFECTING LOCALITIES I. Introduction For anyone involved in the world of telecommunications, cable and broadband, this is a tumultuous time, to say the least. Against an uncertain backdrop of looming telecom reform in Congress, state and federal regulators are struggling with how best to promote the deployment of robust broadband nationwide, to protect the concept of universal service, to reduce regulatory barriers to competitive entry, and, with regard to the offering of video services by traditional telcos, whether the traditional local role in cable franchise administration will exist at all in the future. This briefing paper attempts to provide an overview of the most important developments over the past year from the perspective of local government administrators. We focus in particular on the recent push in some states and in Congress to abolish local franchising of cable video services in favor of "one size fits all" franchising at the state or federal level. These efforts amount to a direct threat to local authority, and to the locality's traditional role as the regulator and administrator of the public rights of way. More concretely, these measures would almost certainly reduce local revenue, in some cases by a substantial amount. In addition to challenges to local franchising, we provide a brief overview of a number of other topics of interest, including a high-level review of federal telecommunications reform efforts, an update on efforts to thwart — and to allow — municipal provision of broadband services, the transition to digital television, the current status of "multicast must -carry," and the implications of the Brand X case. 11. State and Federal Threats to Local Franchising Authority While telecommunications companies such as Verizon have long talked about entering the video service business, only in the past 18 months has Verizon (and, to a lesser extent, SBC, BellSouth and other incumbents) done so to an appreciable degree. Verizon and SBC promptly drew state and federal lawmakers' attention to the fact that, before they may offer video service in a given local area, the Cable Act of 1992 requires that they first obtain a franchise from the local govermnent. To this point, Verizon has obtained at least ten local franchises nationwide for its video service. Nevertheless, Verizon and SBC maintain that local franchising for the deployment of video services is untenable to the telco incumbents. The cable industry, which has operated under such a requirement for decades, opposes their efforts vociferously. SBC in fact has taken a harder line than Verizon, insisting that its IPTV service is not subject to the Cable Act's local franchising requirement at all. On September -14, 2005 SBC filed a petition with the FCC to make a ruling to that effect. Unlike Verizon, SBC has not yet pursued any local franchise for the delivery of its video service. In the name of promoting the rapid deployment of competitive service and reducing regulatory overhead (Verizon has claimed it would take 50+ years to obtain the necessary franchises nationwide), the telco incumbents have found plenty of sympathetic lawmakers at the state and federal levels. A. State Initiatives Texas At the state level, the most recent and highest profile battle was in the state of Texas. SBC and Verizon prnt"Mi-d a bill to abolish local franchising in favnr of a single statewide franchising regime, to be administered by the Texas Public Utility Commission. SBC reportedly had 124 lobbyists involved at the Texas Statehouse. On the other was the cable industry, together with some local goverment groups. SBC and Verizon ultimately prevailed, and Governor Perry signed the bill abolishing local franchising in Texas into law on September 7, 2005, The Texas law is a crucial development in that it provides additional impetus and clout for the incumbent telcos to pursue similar measures in other states. It also strengthens their hand with regard to their push in Congress for national video franchise legislation. Other States Immediately after SBC succeeded in Texas, BellSouth in North Carolina brazenly attempted to accomplish the same thing by inserting language in a "technical corrections" bill (normally used to fix punctuation and typos), introduced near the close of the North Carolina legislative session. It would have relieved BellSouth of all cable -related franchise requirements. The cable industry and local governments raised a furor, and the North Carolina Senate committee excised the language. Observers expect BellSouth to try again next session. A debate about one -size -fits -all statewide franchising has been underway in New Jersey for nearly a year. The New Jersey Municipal League has indicated that it is working closely with all parties, and that it does not necessarily oppose statewide franchising. Verizon, in an effort to sweeten the deal, has said it would pay 3% of gross revenues for statewide franchise in New Jersey, instead of the 2% it would be obligated to pay under most local franchises. While there is as of yet no legislation pending, Verizon is expected to cause legislation to be introduced sometime after the November elections in New Jersey. The notion of statewide franchising is not entirely new, and Texas is not the first state to have adopted that approach. For some time the state of Florida has franchised video providers at the state level, as does Puerto Rico. B. Federal Initiatives There are currently three pieces of legislation within Congress that directly threaten the role of localities in cable franchising and right of way administration, To various degrees, these bills 5.1504 (Ensign/McCain), 14R.3146 (Blackburn/Wynn), and 5.1349 (Smith/Rockefeller)) would completely gut local authority to administer the right of way, at least insofar as it related to the deployment and offering of communication services. The legislation would reduce revenue available to localities, would potentially eliminate funding for PEG channels, would remove any incentive to provide institutional networks or other in-kind services, and would place customer service regulation in the hands of the FCC (with enforcement to occur at the state level). On the brighter side, draft legislation was recently released by the House Commerce Committee staff which, while reflecting the same general concepts as the other three bills, appears to provide a more balanced approach. It is crucial to note that the following bills are only a starting point, and reflect the state of the debate only at this moment. Other legislation will undoubtedly be introduced, modifications will be made and compromises reached as the "sausage factory" kicks into high gear over the next 18 months. S.1504 (Ensign I McCain): Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005" The Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005 is the first Congressional foray into comprehensive telecom reform. It is 75 pages long and covers a great deal of territory in addition to cable service franchising, including municipal broadband, telecom price regulation, and program access. It is a highly deregulatory bill, and is backed enthusiastically by the incumbent telecommunications companies. From the perspective of local governments, it is a nightmare. The following are some of the main points of 5.1504 relating to local franchising: Inconsistent terms of existing franchises are preempted. All state and local franchise regulation not expressly allowed by the bill is prohibited. Specifically prohibits any regulation of build -out / redlining: "A video service provider may not be required .. . to build out its video distribution system in any particular manner." Franchise fees may still technically be imposed by state or local government, but would be limited to "cost of compensating such local government for the costs that it incurs in managing the public rights-of-way used by such provider." Does not provide for franchise fee audit. No fees may be charged providers for work in the rights of way. Restricts meaning of "gross revenue" to revenue received directly from video subscribers, excluding non -subscriber revenue such as launch fees, home shopping commissions, and advertising. Prohibits telecommunications service revenue from being used in "gross revenue" calculation. PEG: limits locality to no more than four PEG channels, but provides no funding for them. (Current cable franchises typically include provision for holding.) Location and grouping of channels left to the operator. Does not provide for common "in-kind" services, such as institutional networks and local emergency alert systems. Customer service. No local regulation that gets shifted to the FCC. FCC would be required to adopt new customer service standards, to be enforced by states, not local units of government (although there is a provision for a "local contact" whose sole duty apparently is to pass along any complaints or issues to the state commission). States may not impose standards higher than those adopted by the FCC. Locality may not charge for construction permits for work in the right of way. If an emergency," the provider may proceed with the work without notifying the local or state government. Perpetual franchise. There is no term limit. No ability for locality to revisit needs, examine changes in technology, and alter requirements for future franchises accordingly. r t_ tiA_ r sl + .; ecd- aff—t the locality ai]rl that art. normallylJtllerrn]portant J.eg-unre111e11LJ 1.i]aL u1rvVL1.r , included in local franchise agreements, are mentioned in the Ensign bill (and thus arguably prohibited). Potentially could be included in an FCC rulemaking on customer service, but no assurances that they will be addressed adequately: o Safety code compliance o Local office requirement o Insurance and indemnity requirement o Requirement to restore private property damaged by providers o Requiring personnel to carry ID badges, and trucks to be clearly marked Reaction to the Ensign bill by local governments has been critical, to say the least. The National League of Cities estimates that the Ensign bill would cost municipalities nationwide approximately $3 billion on lost revenues from cable and telephone companies. It also prevents local governments from regulating the price, terms and quality of service. The bill also poses a direct threat to public access television. The Ensign bill's sole treatment of PEG channels is to limit the locality to four of them. It allows the cable operator to choose where the channels may be located on the lineup, and how they may be grouped. It contains no provision for the cable operator to fund the PEG channels. The Association for Community Media (ACM) has produced an extensive criticism of the bill, located at htt ://www.alliancecm.or /index. h ? a e id= 201. HR.3146 (BIackburn / Wynn) / 5.1349 (Smith / Rockefeller): Video Choice Act of 2005" Unlike the Ensign bill outlined above, these companion bills in the House and Senate do not attempt to reform telecommunications law generally. Their purpose is restricted to the concept of nationalizing the cable franchising process. They parallel the Ensign bill's franchise nationalization provisions in a number of respects, and from the perspective of local officials, the bills' shortcomings are similar. Key points of the legislation include: Creates a new regulatory category for "competitive video service provider," excluding them from all other provisions of Title VI (but specifically retaining certain obligations, i.e., retransmission consent, must -carry, etc.). Defined as "any provider of video programming, interactive on -demand services, other programming services, or any other video services who has any right, permission, or authority to access public rights-of-way independent of any cable franchise." Essentially refers to existing providers of telephony services that wish to provide video. No requirement for additional franchise. Existing users of right of way would be exempt from obtaining additional franchise for the provision of video services. Franchise fees would still exist and would be paid to the locality, calculated with reference to gross revenues "attributable to the provision of such service within the provider's service area." No rate regulation by local, state or federal bodies. IF Existing franchise agreements with competitive video service providers "shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act for the term of such agreement." No provision for carriage of PEG channels by competitive video service providers nor PEG financial support. Bill imposes ininimal obligations on competitive video providers, which may prompt incumbent cable operators to file suit on level playing field grounds. No build -out or anti -redlining requirements, arguably. No provision for franchise fee audits. No provision for institutional networks or in-kind compensation. House Commerce Committee Staff Draft Legislation (Dingell/Barton) On Thursday, September 15 the House Commerce Committee staff released consensus draft legislation that, like the Ensign bill, is an attempt to enact wholesale reforms to the Communications Act. The following are the key points of the bill's treatment of video services and video franchising: Provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over "broadband video service providers." Prohibits rate regulation, including the basic tier. Eliminates the notion of local franchise negotiation and local franchise agreements for broadband video service providers. Broadband video service providers must register with the FCC, the state commission, and any local franchising area in which it seeks to offer services. After FCC notifies locality that registration statement has been accepted by it, the franchise becomes effective 15 days after the local franchising authority receives from the provider: o a franchise bond payment, if required, o a statement by the provider "agreeing to any public, educational, and governmental use designated by the local franchising authority under section 304(b) of this Act", and o a designation of a local agent Franchises to be of uniform duration, to be set by the FCC, and FCC is to establish procedures for transfer, renewal, and extension. Franchise fees up to 5% of gross revenues may be assessed by a local franchising authority. Gross revenues" defined relatively broadly. Franchise permits construction in right of way, but provider is responsible for "safety, functioning, and appearance" of property, and the provider must bear the cost of construction, repair, and compensation to affected property owners. Local franchise authority is permitted to impose "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" on construction and maintenance in the right of way. PEG capacity: local franchise authority "may designate broadband video service provider capacity for public, educational, or governmental use in the local franchising area, so long as such use is comparable to the obligations the local franchising authority applies" to existing cable operators and other broadband service providers in the area. Institutional networks: a local franchise authority "may designate or use" broadband video service provider "capacity" for public, educational and governmental use, but cannot require the construction of networks. Redlining: FCC is to adopt regulations prohibiting income -based redlining. p Build -out requirements: the draft legislation includes a blank placeholder for Build -out." Program access: includes non-discrimination and exclusivity provisions. Consumer protection: FCC is tasked with adopting national consumer protection standards. States may enforce but may not expand them. III. Telecommunications Reform For several years now, industry observers have recognized that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not well-suited to the reasonable and predictable regulation of modern broadband communications systems. Some say it has failed miserably from the get -go. While others may not be as harsh, the clear consensus at this point is that something needs to be done to update federal telecommunications laws to deal with IP -enabled services. There appears to be a growing consensus that the "silo" approach of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 'in which various services are placed into "telecommunications service" and information service" boxes, with profound regulatory implications based on that categorization, is probably not the best way to deal with the current world of IP -enabled communications services, in which various services are now simply applications running over any number of kinds of IP -enabled pipes. MCI and others are promoting a "layers" approach to telecom reform, where the regulation would be guided by what level of the network layer the service or facility in question lies, and not by what services are in fact delivered to the consumer. Voice -over -IP, for instance, would conceivably fall within an "applications" layer, while a broadband connection itself may be regulated as a "services" or perhaps a "transport" layer. Fiber optic, copper, and coaxial cable could be regulated at a "facilities" layer. In any event, the debate is raging. Key externalities that promise to affect the outcome include universal service reform (who pays into it, who receives it), intercarrier compensation (whether access charges and reciprocal compensation are retained), and, potentially, obligations to comply with federal wiretapping laws (CALEA). All indications are that no meaningful telecommunications reform bill will be passed this year. Doing so by the end of 2006 is more realistic, but even that may be optimistic. As mentioned above, Sen. Ensign's S.1504 is the first legislative attempt to tackle telecom reform. It is a highly deregulatory bill — backed by the incumbent telecommunications industry — the stated purpose of which is to "establish a market driven telecommunications marketplace, to eliminate government managed competition of existing cominunication service, and to provide parity between functionally equivalent services." It has been referred to as a "wish list" of the incumbent telecommunications providers. Notably, the bill defines "broadband communication service" as "a communications service enabling the trans- mission of communications at a capacity greater than 64 kilobits per second," which is even less than the FCC's much -maligned definition of 200kbps. There is no indication that the Ensign bill is going anywhere soon. There have been no hearings yet in the Senate on the bill, and companion legislation has not introduced in the House. As also mentioned above, the House Commerce Committee staff recently released draft telecom reform legislation. It, too, is highly deregulatory, at least in terms of broadband providers. It prohibits rate regulation of "Broadband Internet Transmission Services", VoIP, and broadband video service providers. It does, however, require such providers to register with the FCC and state commissions before providing service. The draft House staff bill also imposes interconnection obligations on BITS and VoIP providers, tasks the FCC with a rulemaking relating to universal service, contains provisions relating to consumer privacy, and numerous other provisions IV. Municipal Provision of Broadband Services Until the past year, the question of whether municipalities can be prohibited from providing communications network- services was solely a state issue. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, in which it held that states may permissibly prohibit localities from providing such services, there has been a flurry of incumbent -backed efforts to thwart municipal broadband in statehouses around the nation. Multiple initiatives to restrict or prohibit municipal networks were introduced in fourteen states over the past year, and, to the great credit of backers of municipal broadband, all but a handful were defeated. Those that did pass were often weakened enough to be more or less workable for municipalities. Now the battle has moved to the federal level as well. Clearly, incumbent providers increasingly view municipal communications networks as a competitive threat. In addition to the statehouses, incumbents are now lobbying for enactment at the federal level of legislation restricting or outright prohibiting municipal networks. H.R.2726 (Rep. Sessions): "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" Rep, Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who worked for SBC for 16 years, and who has over 500,000 worth of SBC stock options, and whose wife still works for the company, sponsored legislation the effect of which would be to utterly eliminate any competitive municipal broadband efforts. H.R. 2726 — the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" — succinctly states that "neither any State or local government, nor any entity affiliated with such a government, shall provide any telecommunications, telecommunications service, information service, or cable service in any geographic area within the jurisdiction of such government in which a corporation or other private entity that is not affiliated with any State or local gover unCnt is offering a substantially similar cervirp. " The, term "substantially similar" is left undefined. 5.1504 (Sen. Ensign): Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005" Sen. Ensign's telecom deregulation bill also includes a provision that restricts municipal broadband services. While not an outright prohibition along the lines of the Sessions bill, the Ensign bill presumes that local govenunents possess competitive advantages that it should not. and that it is appropriate to transfer any such public advantages to the established providers, without also subjecting them to the corresponding duties and accountability in serving the public interest that apply to local governments. (A more complete analysis of the Ensign bill's provision restricting municipal broadband networks is available at littp://www.baller. comidfs/Ball er Response Sen Ensi n. df.) 5.1294 (Lautenberg/McCain): "Community Broadband Act of 2005" In response to the Sessions and Ensign bills, a broad-based consortium of local govenunent groups, consumer interest organizations, and technology companies have backed the introduction of legislation specifically allowing the creation of municipal broadband networks, should a locality choose to do so. Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. John McCain introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2005" (5.1294) which provides: "No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such provider." In addition, the Lautenberg/McCain bill obligates localities to apply its regulatory ordinances and rules to any public provider of communications, without discrimination. House Commerce Committee Staff Draft Legislation In addition, the recently -released House Commerce Committee draft telecom reform legislation contains a provision friendly to municipal broadband. Similar to the Lautenberg/McCain bill, the House draft legislation states: Neither the 1934 Act nor any State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider of BITS, VOIP services, or broadband video services from providing such services to any person or entity." It also obligates local governments to apply its ordinances and regulations equally to any municipal provider of broadband services. V. Conclusions and Recommendations The $64,000 question is, "What shall local governments do?" There is a great deal of uncertainty as to the continuing role of local government and the regulation and oversight of cable services. Primarily, this has been brought about by the large telecom providers' desire to provide competitive services to cable operators. They argue that they should be entitled to skip the local franchising process on the basis that the franchising process is too time-consuming, too expensive, and would likely impose build -out requirements that may not be conducive to the provider's desire to maximize short-term revenue, Meeting local requirements of serving entire franchise areas can create a dilemma. Further, the telecom providers argue, and we believe have convinced members of Congress and the FCC, that with broadband local or even state control is no longer appropriate, and that all regulation of broadband -related matters should be handled at the federal level. At -the beginning of cable franchising, visionaries recognized that public rights-of-way were a valuable resource, and the grant of a franchise to a cable provider should be made with the understanding that the provider would provide certain benefits for the community in exchange for availing itself of that resource. This led to locally -imposed obligations to provide diversity of programming, opportunities for community expression, educational services, government communication services, and a range of other benefits. Many local governments have expended tremendous public dollars to build relationships with cable providers to meet their local needs, and in many instances community access and PEG programming has evolved thanks to the contribution of significant public expenditures, not to mention the time and talent of persons and resources within individual communities. This should not be taken away. No two communities are exactly the same. Each has a separate personality and the needs and interests of communities vary considerably. Having the authority to negotiate franchise agreements that meet community needs must be preserved to carry on with the opportunity for community benefit. Much of this may be lost if federal legislation prescribes a "one -size -fits -all" approach. [Under the House bill, a prospective competitive franchisee has to agree to PEG guidelines produced by the LFA before it is awarded a franchise. Where is the loss of local control and localized decisions in that case?] Some voices in Washington claim that competition alone will protect the interests of communities and consumers. We do not believe that. Competition between providers may have some impact, but there is little doubt in that it will not bring about the preservation of the community benefits now derived from the rights communities have in franchise negotiations with cable providers. Moreover, with the ongoing mega -mergers and vertical integration in the industry, the idea that meaningful, effective competition exists in the communications and video programming realm is becoming less and less tied to reality. The above Bills may be rewritten and changed numerous times before finalization. Now is the time for local action. We recommend the adoption by local governments of a resolution expressing their sense about the importance of local control and local interests in these matters. Local governments must demand that their Congressional delegation listen to them, and that they understand the importance and interests of their communities A resolution is a considerably stronger form of expression than a simple letter, and would be likely to receive due attention at each community's Congressional delegation. We also suggest that communities go beyond this, and insist that their elected leaders and political persons with contacts provide the information necessary to ensure that the elected Congressional delegation will stand up for the rights of local govemments, and preserve local interests and the franchising process that is now in place. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF , MINNESOTA TO SUPPORT CONTINUED AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING FRANCHISING OF CABLE SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of , Minnesota (herein "City") through its City Council adopts this Resolution to express its concern about proposals coming before Congress that will adversely affect the ability of local governments to continue to franchise cable services; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale. created a joint consortium known as the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (herein "NWSCCC") approximately twenty (20) years ago to streamline cable television administration in our area and to ensure that the needs and interests of each member city was represented in regard to the initial development, installation and continued operation of cable television through our cities' public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has proven to be an effective, efficient model for developing and administering cable franchises, addressing concerns about the use of public right-of-way, and handling customer service issues; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has developed a national standard for providing local programming that promotes civic involvement, public awareness of community news and events via public, educational and government cable channels; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has provided each member city with the tools to efficiently televise city meetings, and provide citizens with gavel -to -gavel coverage and easy access to their local government officials and the decision-making process; and WHEREAS, by providing gavel -to -gavel coverage of local government meetings and local news, NWSCCC has promoted openness and accountability, a key ingredient to successful government and strong communities; and WHEREAS, the NWSCCC has advised the City of recent proposals which Congress is considering that would change the role of local governments in granting cable franchises and negotiating franchise agreements with local cable operators that meet the unique needs and interests of communities; and WHEREAS, on behalf of the City and other communities that are part of the NWSCCC, the NWSCCC has written to Congressional members requesting help with the preservation of local control, a copy of which letter is attached; and WHEREAS, because Congress is giving increasing consideration to principles that threaten the interest of the City and other members of the NWSCCC as well as cities throughout the country, the City believes that through this Resolution now is the time for local government to take a stand to protect the local authority and it is absolutely essential for Congressional representatives to fully understand the importance of retaining the current structure of local franchising authority, which has proven itself to be an effective system for governing the utilization of public rights-of-way by private industry offering cable and related services; and has spawned an important local communications tool; and WHEREAS, many communities throughout the country, including the City and the other members of the NWSCCC consortium, expended substantial sums to negotiate franchises that ensure that local needs are met, including the development of local community programs and televised public meetings of community interest; and WHEREAS NWSCCC and its member r_.ities have worked diligently with cable service providers to offer service to all citizens within the franchise area without regard to location or income status; and WHEREAS, certain Congressional legislation has the potential to destroy these community benefits, robbing communities of rightful sources of revenue for utilization of public right-of-way, and WHEREAS, the proposals under consideration would eliminate the ability of the City and other NWSCCC cities to: Cablecast city meetings, Replace aging cable television equipment; Provide the award-winning local newscasts and community programming covering our franchise area; Offer public access facilities for to allow citizens to produce local, community - oriented and diverse programming services; and Ensure that all citizens of the community are offered access to cable television regardless of their income status or location. NOW, THEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City, it is resolved as follows: 1. That the City hereby vigorously opposes any federal legislation that will reduce the right of local governments to approve and administer franchised cable services; to charge reasonable franchise fees for the use of the right-of-way; to establish benefit requirements including public, educational, and governmental access channels, including funding, facilities, and equipment for such channels; and to require dedicated capacity or institutional network systems for educational and governmental purposes. 2. That representatives serving the City and each of the Member Cities of the NWSCCC, within the United States Senate and House of Representatives be made aware of this Resolution, and that they be invited to confer with community leaders to become better informed on the special needs and interests of the City and other Member Cities of the NWSCCC, and to commit to fight against any form of legislation that will reduce the rights of localities with regard to local franchising and cable system administration and enforcement. 3. That a copy of this Resolution shall be provided to each of the Member Cities that is part of the NWSCCC and shall be also through a certified copy delivered immediately after its passage to the members of the U.S. Congress serving this City. Passed and Adopted this day of , 2005. CITY OF , MINNESOTA By Its Mayor Channel 12 Programs & Air Times Mike Johnson, Jennifer Anderson and John .Jacobson Dave Kiser Jay Wilcox and John Jacobson 12 News Community News & sports Monday - Friday Live at 4:00pm replays throughout the evening Weekends News & Sports Recap Saturday and Sunday 9:00am and throughout the day Sports .lam Highlights, Features, Interviews Monday through Wednesday 3:30pm, 7:00pm, 10:00pm Community .Journal Business, People, Lifestyles Monday through Sunday 8:00am, 12:30pm, 6:00pm Thursday through Sunday 10:00am, 3:30pm, 10:00pm 77)0 Viewing Area with area high schools Champlin Park High School Brookivn Park G Center , I Totino Grace High School M Plymouth 1115 Golden Valley New Hopkins High School Hope Brooklyn Center Golden Valley Brooklyn Park Maple Grove Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale Local News, Sports and Events Every Day'. Programming Lifeline Spm bpm 7pm S Prime time4pmMrpBpm NgyiS u V u Monday through Spm ' to y & 12 Sews 9Pm G x a °' u ; m NW Cities Wednesday 2pm 12 News r z "day. 8g lopm n a e°°"tsJ NW Cities IPM M -Way: sports a events) x,119 Y See daily schedules on C -mm 12Nev+s llpm 0nity JQUrna! & Channel 7 and Channel 18 Nor cities Noon 12 News ACCU W M1$ sports Jam Midnight Every 10 Mintrtes NW Cities 72 Ney,B 1iam pyy & lam loam gam ` F NW C41eg a Sam lam Gam 5am 10a For more information on Channel 12 shows visit www.twelve.ty 7pm rz$ QHS Spm Prime time Y epO'a$da es 10pm gam , , ...r3 Sam v o Sam 7am 6.00am 5am l 1pm J Midnight lam tam 6Spm 4pm Thursday through C' 3Pm T' G Zxg Is Cites tilri s1,.I n dGiry y2pm12 IONews o NW Cities l pm Thursday and Sunday: sports 6 events) Carp n,n, JOU 7.) a, Noon 12 News ACCU 101 10a For more information on Channel 12 shows visit www.twelve.ty 7pm rz$ QHS Spm Prime time Y epO'a$da es 10pm gam , , ...r3 Sam v o Sam 7am 6.00am 5am l 1pm J Midnight lam tam 2005 Community ticipation Denotes: Fuil Event Coverage Live Event Highlights Participation Saturday, February 5 Plymouth Fire and Ice Festival Friday, April 1 Maple Grove Kids Fair Saturday, April 2 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair Saturday, April 9 Plymouth Yard and Garden Expo Saturday, April16 Run the Valley — Golden Valley Monday, April 11 Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Seniors Forum Saturday, May 7 Vehicle Fair in Crystal Saturday, May 14 Kids Day America -- Maple Grove Saturday, May 21 Golden Valley Days June — August Concerts in the Park Thursday, June 16 Brooklyn Park Tater Daze Parade Friday, June 17 Live from Tater Daze Saturday, June 18 Hennepin Parks Carp Fest Thursday, June 23 Brooklyn Center Earle Brown Parade Friday, July 8 Robbinsdale Whiz Bang Days block party Sunday, July 10 Robbinsdale Whiz Bang Days Parade Thursday, July 14 Maple Grove Pierre Bottineau Parade Saturday, July 16 Live from Maple Grove Days Saturday, July 16 New Hope Duk Duk Days Sunday, July 31 Crystal Frolics Parade Tuesday, August 2 National Night Out -Brooklyn Park Friday, September 16 Golden Valley Golf Classic Saturday, September 10 Osseo Lion's Roar Parade Saturday, September 24 Plymouth on Parade Saturday, October 8 Autumn Woods Classic Saturday, October 15 What's Up! Live from Brookdale Shopping Center November 25 & 26 Wayzata Boys Turkey Trot Hockey Tournament December US Marine Corp Reserves Toys for Tots Campaign December 4 Crystal Winter Fest December 27-29 Channel 12 Northwest Girls' Hockey Tournament Chap" nal 1 2 NEWS SPORTS EVENTS Northwest Community Television, 6900 Winnetka Avenue North, Brooklyn Park MN 55428-1688 PHONE 763.533.8196 Telecommunications Reform Educational Symposium FAX Contact Information 763,533.1346 Greg Moore, executive director WEB Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission www.twelve.ty Northwest Community Television Phone: 763-533-8196 Fax: 763-533-1346 Email: gmoore@NWCT.org Mike Johnson, assistant executive director Northwest Community Television Phone: 763-533-8196 Email: mjohnson@NWCT.org Tamisha Werner, studio manager Northwest Community Television Phone: 763-533-8196 Email: twerner@nvi ct.org Mike Johnson, news director Channel 12 - Northwest Community Television Phone: 763-533-8196 Email: news_mjohnson @twelve.ty Dave Kiser, programming and sales manager Channel 12 - Northwest Community Television Phone: 763-533-8196 Email: dkiser@twelve.ty Adrian Herbst Bailer Herbst LTD Phone: 612-339-2018 aherbst@baller.com SERVING L.eAnne Christensen, promotions manager Brooklyn Center Channel 12 -- Northwest Community Television Brooklyn Park Phone: 763-533-8196 Crystal Email: IchristensenC)twelve.ty Golden Valley Maple Valle Tim Gaffron, production manager Channel 12 - Northwest Community Television New Hope Phone: 763-533-8196 Osseo Email: tgaffron@nwct.org Plymouth Robbinsdale Telecommunications reform and your community: What you really need to know! An educational symposl"um presented by Northwest suburbs Cable Communications Commission and Northwest Community Television OVERVIEW Northwest Community Television 6900 Winnetka Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota Welcome and Introduction Greg Moore, Executive Director Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (NWSCCC) Northwest Community Television (NWCT) See attachments A and B) Purpose of this symposium NWSCC and NWCT past, present and future Describe how telecom reform, intended to create greater competition, could adversely affect local franchising and our community Describe the services and benefits provided by NWSCCC and NWCT made possible because of local franchising Historical Background - NWSCCC/NWCT - Past NWSCCC was formed in 1971 to grant and enforce the cable television franchise agreement Originally four cities: Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale In 1981, the NWSCCC included all nine cities adding: Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Osseo and Plymouth Purpose of Joint Powers Commission was fourfold: o To create a large attractive market for potential cable operators o Greatly increase the leverage of cities to negotiate o To enforce and share costs o To greatly increase resources 1 o To make sure service was available to everyone regardless of neighborhoods or economic status o Each city has two representatives First cable franchise granted in 1981 o Competitive process — four applicants o Key criteria Construction schedule Community TV o Franchise was transferred eleven times since 1981 and renewed for 15 years in 1997 o Franchise renewal included commitment to upgrade cable systems with fiber by year 2000 and offer telephone and internet service o Granted two additional franchises in 2000 o Denied franchise to applicant that served limited, upscale a rea NWSCC Present: What NWSCCC does not regulate: o Rates o Telephone o Internet o Content What NWSCCC does regulate and oversees: See attachment Q o The design and capacity of the system o Community television and 6 access channels and capital grants for TV equipment 2 o Franchise fee to a limit of 5% of gross revenue o Customer service o Rights -of way o Who gets served o Heavily involved with state and federal government to protect local franchising and community interests and benefits o Oversees budget and policies of NWCT NWCT Past NWSCCC created NWCT and dedicated 100% of its franchise fees as funding. The purpose of NWCT was to advise and subsequently operate and manage community television Formed in 1982 Initially it was advisory to NWSCC and the cable company regarding community television It became apparent that the cable companies had little or no interest in community television In 1985, with the first transfer of ownership, NWCT took responsibility for community television Why did NWSCC and NWCT want to assume responsibility for community television? o Community leaders felt underserved by major media o Major media treated our area not as communities in and of themselves but rather as satellites of Minneapolis. o Only coverage was negative - coverage wasn't balanced o Better communication was required to build a strong sense of community and informed, involved citizens 3 Three constituencies were targeted in 1988: o Subscribers o Cities o Public Access Producers MISSION AND PURPOSE In 1488 the Commission adopted "Subscriber Satisfaction" as the overall mission for Northwest Community Television. Consistent with that mission the purpose of Northwest Community Television is to create a better informed, more involved citizenry and to build a stronger sense of community by providing news and information to cable television subscribers which is family appropriate and specifically about the area we serve: to provide area residents with the opportunity to make television programs and to cablecast those programs: and to assist member cities to make television programs and to cablecast its official meetings and to provide technical support to the member cities. rl NWCT TODAY Mike Johnson Assistant Executive Director Northwest Community Television Overview Governing body Organizational Chart Funding Budget Facilities Equipment Staff Who's watching? Public Access City Council Meetings Channel 12: o 12 News o 12 Events o Northwest Cities o Community Journal o Sports Jam Comparisons to other systems Comparisons to other cable channels Video: What is Channel 12 WI Public Access Programming Tamisha Werner Studio Manager Northwest Community Television Goals: 1. To provide area residents with the TV production training, facilities, and equipment necessary to effectively communicate their ideas to fellow community residents. 2. To provide continuing education for trained NWCT volunteers. 3. To raise awareness of NWCT and build support among community members and organizations. Description of programming and participants Prohibitions Facts and figures Political Candidates Channel 12 12 News Mike Johnson News Director The goal of Channel 12 News is to provide an independent source of news and information and to maintain the highest standards of journalistic integrity. It is produced every day Monday through Friday and a weekend version is also done. 12 News Local Community News and Events Issues important to the NW Metro Stories featuring local residents/officials rol 12 News Local elections Candidate profiles Election Night Coverage 12 News 6 newscasts per week Live and 4pm Holiday features and special reports 12 News Professional experienced staff Reporters photographers and anchors Channel 12 programming Dave Kiser Programming and Sales Manager Channel 12 Events, NorthWest Cities, Community Journal, Sports Jam, Advertising and business promotion and community involvement Goals o Events The goal is to make area residents much more aware of all the wonderful events taking place in our community and allowing people who cannot attend personally to watch on N, or who want a record of the event to do so. The numeric goal is to produce between 130 and 150 (about two or three per week) high profile community events per year and to create a well balanced mix of events including: high school sports both boys and girls, community parades and festivals, choir and music events and some special events o NorthWest Cities The goal of NorthWest Cities is, at the direction of city personnel, to describe and explain city services 7 and city issues from the perspective of the cities. It is produced twice per week o Community Journal The goal of Community Journal is to profile local residents making a positive contribution to our community. Business leaders, elected officials, volunteers, social and church organizations, as well as civic organizations are all covered by this program. It is produced once per week o Sports Jam The goal of Sports Jam is to profile young people in our area that are engaged in positive, constructive activities and to include students whose sports or other activities are not always covered by events programming. Sports Jam is produced during the fall, winter and spring of the year once per week. o Support to Member Cities To provide production crews to member cities so they can cablecast official meetings. To help cities with cable television related technical problems. To assist cities with the purchase of television production equipment. To produce programs for cities on as needed basis. To produce "Northwest Cities" for cities. o Advertising business promotion insert goals here) o Community Involvement To promote Channel 12 programming To maintain Channel 12's presence in the community, outside of programming, through participation and sponsorship of major area community events. Proposed Legislation and its affect on the community Adrian Herbst, esq. Northwest Community Television Attorney Baller Herbst LTD Will proposed federal legislation, intended to foster greater competition, weaken or destroy local control and community programming by eliminating local franchising? What should local governments do to protect local control? Local franchising and the Franchise Agreement Brief background of Minnesota franchising Goals Benefit communities Education and local interests Diversity of programs and services Available to all areas System development and operations Cable service territories Community consortiums Access corporations Expenditure of public funds Relationship with cable operators Current events in communications reform affecting communities State and federal threats to local franchising authority Teleco entry and cable industry response State initiatives Minnesota Other states Federal initiatives Three bills direct threat to role of communities S/1504 S/1349 HR 3146 One bill offers a more balanced approach House Commerce Committee draft Some of the terms in bills that are a direct threat Removes local franchising Either removes or substantially limits franchise fees (gross revenue narrowly defined) Limit number of PEG channels and no funding No regulation of customer service No limit on term Limits on public safety and rights-of-way management Some of the terms in the Commerce Committee draft Provides national jurisdiction over broadband Prohibits basic rate regulation Registration with FCC Local rights to; Bonding PEG ROW management PEG and I/Net Retain franchising fee (gross revenue defined broadly) Redlining Customer service What can be done Educate Congress Work with national groups; i.e., League of Cities, NATOA, IML4, ICMA Prepare educational videos Adopt resolutions Other 10 Telecommunications reform and your community Greg Moore Executive Director Attachments Northwest Community Television 6900 Winnetka Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 763-533-8196 Attachment A Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission CABLE COMMISSIONERS Bill Blon iga n, Robbinsdale Dan Donahue, New Hope Steve Elrich, Osseo Garry Grimes, Crystal Mary Gwin-Lenth, New Hope Susan Hall, Osseo Sandy Hewitt, Plymouth Mike Holtz, Robbinsdale Helen LaFave, Plymouth AI Madsen, Maple Grove Mike Meinz, Brooklyn Park Rex Newman, Brooklyn Center Anne Norris, Crystal Mary O'Connor, Brooklyn Center Doug Reeder, Brooklyn Park Joan Russell, Golden Valley Bob Shaffer, Golden Valley Attachment B Northwest Community Television Board of Directors Jeanne Andre, Golden Valley Dan Donahue, New Hope Marcia Glick, Robbinsdale Mike Goebel, Volunteer Representative Susan Hall, Osseo Mike Holtz, Robbinsdale Judy Homme, Volunteer Representative Helen LaFave, Plymouth Al Madsen, Maple Grove Mike Meinz, Brooklyn Park Anne Norris, Crystal Dr. Duane Orn, Brooklyn Center Rex Newman, Brooklyn Center Doug Reeder, Brooklyn Park Joan Russell, Golden Valley Attachment C Northwest Suburbs Cable Communication Commission Cable Communications Franchise Agreement Table of Contents See www.nwsece.org for the complete agreement ARTICLE 1. STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE, FINDINGS, AND AUTHORITY 1.1 Statement of Intent and Purpose 1.2 Authority. ARTICLE 2. SHORT TITLE ARTICLE 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1 Agreement" 3.2 Basic Cable Service" 3.3 Cable Act" 3.4 Cable Service" or "Service" 3.5 Cable Television System" or "Cable System" 3.6 Channel" 3.7 Cities" 3.8 Class IV Cable Communications Channel" 3.9 Community Access Corporation" or "CAC" 3.10 Complaint" 3.11 Converter" 3.12 Drop" 3.13 FCC" 3.14 Effective Date" 3.15 Franchise" . 3.16 Franchise Area" 3.17 Franchise Fee" 3.18 Grantee" 3.19 Grantor" 3.20 Gross Revenues" 3.21 Lockout Device" 3.22 Local Origination Programming" 3.23 Member" 3.24 Normal Business Hours" 3.25 Normal Operating Conditions" 3.26 Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission" or NWSCCC"-or "Commission" 3.27 Other Programming Service" 3.28 Person" I 3.29 "Public, Educational or Government Access" or "PEG Access" 3.30 "Public Property" 3.31 "Resident" 3.32 "Service Interruption" 3.33 "Standard Installation" 3.34 "Street" 3.35 "Subscriber" 3.36 "System" ARTICLE 4. GRANT OF AUTHORITY AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 4.1 Grant of Franchise 4.2 Authority for Use of Streets 4.3 Grantee's Agreement to be Bound by this Franchise 4.4 Franchise Term 4.5 Area Covered 4.6 Police Powers 4.7 Use of Grantee Facilities 4.8 Written Notice 4.9 Franchise Non -Exclusive 4.10 Franchise Requirements for other Franchise Holders ARTICLE S. DESIGN PROVISIONS 5.1 Systerri Design 5.2 Home Subscriber Network 5.3 Home Subscriber Network Drops to Public Buildings 5.4 Upgrade of Home Subscriber Network 5.5 Construction Timetable 5.6 Institutional Communications Network or "ICN" ARTICLE 6. PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS OR 6.1 PEG and Leased Access Channels 6.2 Additional Channels 6.3 Unused Channels 6.4 Community Access Corporation or "CAC" 6.5 Participation in CAC by City after Withdrawal from Commission. 6.6 Grantee Support for Local Programming. 6,7 Regional Channel 6 6.8 Reservation of Channels 6.9 Access Channel Designations 6.10 PEG Access Rules and Procedures 6.11 Assistance with Soliciting Contributions 6.12 Ad Avail Grants 6.13 Channel 14 Trap 6.14 Proof of Performance Testing IT ARTICLE 7. SERVICE PROVISIONS 7.1 Provision of Service 7.2 Technical Standards 7.3 Test and Compliance Procedure 7.4 Emergency Requirements 7.5 Programming Decisions 7.6 Cable System Office Hours and Telephone Availability 7.7 Installations, Outages and Service Calls 7.8 Communications Between Grantee and Subscribers 7.9 Complaint Log 7.10 Subscriber Contracts 7.11 Lockout Device 7.12 Periodic Subscriber Survey 7.13 Line Extension Policy 7.14 Disconnection/Denial of Service 7.15 Customer Service Reporting Requirements ARTICLE 8. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 8.1 Permits 8.2 Right of Inspection of Construction 8.3 Construction Codes 8.4 Repair of Streets 8.5 Erection of Poles Prohibited 8.6 Reservations of Street Rights 8.7 Movement of Facilities 8.8 Underground Installation 8.9 Conduit ARTICLE 9. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 9.1 Open Books and Records 9.2 Communications with Regulatory Agencies 9.3 Annual Reports 9.4 Monitoring and Compliance Reports 9.5 Additional Reports 9.6 Safety 9.7 Service Contract and Subscriber Information 9.8 Subscriber Practices 9.9 Performance Review: Performance Monitoring 9.10 Franchise Modification 9.11 Grantee Cooperation 9.12 Refunds to Subscribers and Programmers ARTICLE 10. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 10.1 Franchise Fee 10.2 Security Fund 10.3 Penalties Procedure III 10.4 Bonds 10.5 Indemnification Damages and Defense 10.6 Liability Insurance ARTICLE 11. REVOCATION 11.1 Grounds for Revocation 11.2 Procedure ARTICLE 12. FORECLOSURE, RECEIVERSHIP AND ABANDONMENT 12.1 Foreclosure 12.2 Receivership ARTICLE 13. PURCHASE OF SYSTEM 13.1 Grantor's Right to Purchase System upon Receipt By Grantee of a Bona Fide Offer 13.2 Procedures 13.3 Purchase By Grantor Upon Termination of Franchise Term or Revocation of Franchise ARTICLE 14. RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS PROTECTED 14.1 Discriminatory Practices Prohibited 14.2 Cable Tapping Prohibited ARTICLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 15.1 Sale or Transfer of Franchise 15.2 Amendment of Franchise Ordinance 15.3 Continuity of Service Mandatory 15.4 Removal after Termination or Revocation 15.5 Work Performed by Others 15.6 Duty to Grantee 15.7 Interest Rate 15.8 Applicable Law and Court Decisions; Severability 159 Nonenforcement by Grantor 15.10 Administration of Franchise 15.11 General Provision on Rights and Remedies 15.12 Publication of Notices 15.13 Effectiveness of Franchise 15.14 Incorporation by Reference 15.15 Withdrawal 15.16 Dissolution of Grantor 15.17 Successor in Interest and Grantee's Rights IV Telecommunications reform and your community Mike Johnson Assistant Executive Director Attachments Northwest Community Television 6900 Winnetka Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 763-533-8196 Northwest Community Television/Channel 12 Organization Chart EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASSISTANT Admin SupportStaf# EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Programming and Ad Sales Manager Technical Production News Public Sports Manager Manager Director Access Director Anchor Manager Tech Assistant Studio Crew Anchor/Reporter Studio Managers Promotions Manager City Council Crew Producer Studio Assistants NW Cities StaffWEventsReportersMediaConsultant PhotographersAd Producers Master Control AWARENESS of NWCT 100 2003 Subsrciber Survey CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 32 Resources, 70 60 50 46 40 30 20 CHANNEL 12 NEWS VIEWERSHIP 2003 Subsrciber Study 32 45 42 0 2001 2002 2003 Decision Resources, Lt Past Month _ NORTHWEST CITIES VIEWERSHIP 2003 Subsrciber Study 27 2003 Decision Resources, Ltd. PROGRAM VIEWERSHIP IN PAST MONTH 2003 Subscriber Survey Ull 5 M SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS 1992 1993 1994 4 Subscriber Survey Decision Resources, Ltd. Frequent Viewers +AII Viewers IL 49 CHANNEL VIEWERSHIP: ALL VIEWERS 61 F j3433 30 31 2003 subscriber survey 59 75 77 Channel 12 13 Public Access 41 [L3 40 City 36 [35 Schaal District 28 32 30 25 24 10 CHANNEL VIEWERSHIP: FREQUENT VIEWERS 2003 Subscriber Survey 18 5 4 15 15 4 4 18 20 21 J . IL M2llllllllllllllllllllllll2 U20 .2 2 r--7 . 2 2 F = m = 0 7 M A= "I= ff Channel 12 0 Public Access mcity M School District NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS REFORM AND YOUR COMMUNITY: WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW! September 22, 2005 THE BALLER HERBST LAW GROUP, P.C. Adrian E. Herbst 377N Grain Exchange Building 3 01 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612) 339-2018; (612) 339-4789 (facsimile) aherbst@baller.com Casey E. Lide 2014 P Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 202) 833-3301; (202) 833-1180 (facsimile) casey@baller.com THE BALLER HERBST LAW GR O UP, P.C. A PROFESSIONA CORPORATION 377N GRAINEXCHANGE BUILDING 301 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 1-(877) 501-1389 612) 339-2026 612) 339-4789 (facsimile) www.baller.com ADRL4NE. HERBST WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE; 612) 339-2018 2014 P STREET, N. TV., SUITE 200 aherbsl@ballencown WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 202) 833-5300; (202) 833-1180 (facsimile) Adrian E. Herbst heads the Minneapolis office of The Baller Herbst Law Group. For more than 25 years he has been on the cutting edge of cable and telecommunications matters, providing regular consulting and legal assistance to municipalities throughout the United States. This has included the initial franchising processes for cable communications as well as renewals, transfers of ownership, and a wide -range of administrative enforcement matters and development of local programming and issues related to local programming. Recently, his work has expanded with the broadband services offered in cable and telecommunications systems to include planning, competition policy, and internet services. He has served as a key member of many national organizations in programs to provide assistance to local governments, including International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), the Alliance for Community Media and the National League of Cities (NLC). He has served in many capacities on behalf of these national organizations, including developing model ordinances for IMLA and chairing a specialized rights-of-way taskforce for NATOA that developed policies and guidelines for local units of governments throughout the country. He has served as President of the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association and Vice President of the League of Minnesota Cities and is also a member of various other legal organizations including the Federal Communications Bar Association, and the Telecommunications Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association. Mr. Herbst has a unique background in municipal and governmental law and policy, having been a full-time City Attorney and elected City Councilman for 16 years for the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. While serving as City Attorney, Mr. Herbst led a group that was instrumental in the development of the initial franchises for cable services. As a result of this experience, he advised many municipal organizations -both on the state and national level to help initiate procedures and guidelines for cable franchising. Further, because of this unique background, he was selected to serve as General Counsel for the Economic Development Authority for the City of Bloomington, Minnesota and was instrumental in the acquisition of land for development, public financing, and spearheaded the creation, development, and negotiation of a development agreement that led to the development of -the Mall of America, the largest single shopping mall and attraction center in the country. Mr: Herbst has been a recognized national leader in municipal law matters and, in particular, cable and telecommunications and as such has been a regular presenter on behalf of various organizations. He has recently spoken at the regional and national conferences for NATOA, HILA, MACTA, as well as in workshops and seminars for The Pennsylvania League; The Kansas City Webmasters Conference, The Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association and the League of Minnesota Cities. CURRENT EVENTS IN COMMUNICATIONS REFORM AFFECTING LOCALITIES I. Introduction For anyone involved in the world of telecommunications, cable and broadband, this is a tumultuous time, to say the least. Against an uncertain backdrop of looming telecom reform in Congress, state and federal regulators are struggling with how best to promote the deployment of robust broadband nationwide, to protect the concept of universal service, to reduce regulatory barriers to competitive entry, and, with regard to the offering of video services by traditional telcos, whether the traditional local role in cable franchise administration will exist at all in the future. This briefing paper attempts to provide an overview of the most important developments over the past year from the perspective of local government administrators. We focus in particular on the recent push in some states and in Congress to abolish local franchising of cable video services in favor of "one size fits all" franchising at the state or federal level. These efforts amount to a direct threat to local authority, and to the locality's traditional role as the regulator and administrator of the public rights of way. More concretely, these measures would almost certainly reduce local revenue, in some cases by a substantial amount. In addition to challenges to .local franchising, we provide a brief overview of a number of other topics of interest, including a high-level review of federal telecommunications reform efforts, an update on efforts to thwart — and to allow — municipal provision of broadband services, the transition to digital television, the current status of "multicast must -carry," and the implications of the Brand X case. IL State and Federal Threats to Local Franchising Authority While telecommunications companies such as Verizon have long talked about entering the video service business, only in the past 18 months has Verizon ;and, to a lesser extent, SBC, BellSouth and other incumbents) done so to an appreciable degree. Verizon and SBC promptly drew state and federal lawmakers' attention to the fact that, before they may offer video service in a given local area, the Cable Act of 1992 requires that they first obtain a franchise from the local government. To this point, Verizon has obtained at least ten local franchises. nationwide for its video service. Nevertheless, Verizon and SBC maintain that local franchising for the deployment of video services is untenable to the telco incumbents. The cable industry, which has operated under such a requirement for decades, opposes their efforts vociferously. SBC in fact has taken a harder line than Verizon, insisting that its IFTV service is not subject to the Cable Act's local franchising requirement at all. On September 14, 2005 SBC filed a petition with the FCC to make a ruling to that effect. Unlike Verizon, SBC has not yet pursued any local franchise for the delivery of its video service. In the name of promoting the rapid deployment of competitive service and reducing regulatory overhead (Verizon has claimed it would take 50+ years to obtain the necessary franchises nationwide), the telco incumbents have found plenty of sympathetic lawmakers at the state and federal levels. A. State Initiatives Texas At the state level, the most recent and highest profile battle was in the state of Texas. SBC and Verizon promoted a bill to abolish local franchising in favor of a single statewide franchising regime, to be administered by the Texas Public Utility Commission. SBC reportedly had 124 lobbyists involved at the Texas Statehouse. On the other was the cable industry, together with some local government groups. SBC and Verizon ultimately prevailed, and Governor Perry signed the bill abolishing local franchising in Texas into law on September 7, 2005. The Texas law is a crucial development in that it provides additional impetus and clout for the incumbent telcos to pursue similar measures in other states. It also strengthens their hand with regard to their push in Congress for national video franchise legislation. Other States Immediately after SBC succeeded in Texas, BellSouth in North Carolina brazenly attempted to accomplish the same thing by inserting language in a "technical corrections" bill (normally used to fix punctuation and typos), introduced near the close of the North Carolina legislative session. It would have relieved BellSouth of all cable -related franchise requirements. The cable industry and local governments raised a furor, and the North Carolina Senate committee excised the language. Observers expect BellSouth to try again next session. A debate about one -size -fits -all statewide franchising has been underway in New Jersey for nearly a year. The New Jersey Municipal League has indicated that it is working closely with all parties, and that it does not necessarily oppose statewide franchising. Verizon, in an effort to sweeten the deal, has said it would pay 3% of gross revenues for statewide franchise in New Jersey, instead of the 2% it would be obligated to pay under most local franchises. While there is as of yet no legislation pending, Verizon is expected to cause legislation to be introduced sometime after the November elections in New Jersey. The notion of statewide franchising is not entirely new, and Texas is not the first state to have adopted that approach. For some time the state of Florida has franchised video providers at the state level, as does Puerto Rico. B. Federal Initiatives There are currently three pieces of legislation within Congress that directly threaten the role of localities in cable franchising and right of way administration, To various degrees, these bills 5.1504 (Ensign/McCain), HR.3146 (Blackburn/Wynn), and S.1349 (Smith/Rockefeller)) would completely gut local authority to administer the right of way, at least insofar as it related to the deployment and offering of communication services. The legislation would reduce revenue available to localities, would potentially eliminate funding for PEG channels, would remove any incentive to provide institutional networks or other in-kind services, and would place customer service regulation in the hands of the FCC (with enforcement to occur at the state level). On the brighter side, draft legislation was recently released by the House Commerce Committee staff which, while reflecting the same general concepts as the other three bills, appears to provide a more balanced approach. It is crucial to note that the following bills are only a starting point, and reflect the state of the debate only at this moment. Other legislation will undoubtedly be introduced, modifications will be made and compromises reached as the "sausage factory" kicks into high gear over the next 18 months. 5.1.504 (Ensign / McCain): Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005" The Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005 is the first Congressional foray into comprehensive telecom reform. It is 75 pages long and covers a great deal of territory in addition to cable service franchising, including municipal broadband, telecom price regulation, and program access. It is a highly deregulatory bill, and is backed enthusiastically by the incumbent telecommunications companies. From the perspective of local governments, it is a nightmare. The following are some of the main points of 5.150} relating to local franchising: Inconsistent terms of existing franchises are preempted. All state and local franchise regulation not expressly allowed by the bill is prohibited. Specifically prohibits any regulation of build -out / redlining: "A video service provider may not be required .. , to build out its video distribution system in any particular manner." Franchise fees may still technically be imposed by state or local government, but would be limited to "cost of compensating such local government for the costs that it incurs in managing the public rights-of-way used by such provider." Does not provide for franchise fee audit. No fees may be charged providers for work in the rights of way. Restricts meaning of "gross revenue" to revenue received directly from video subscribers, excluding non -subscriber revenue such as launch fees, home shopping commissions, and advertising. Prohibits telecommunications service revenue from being used in "gross revenue" calculation. PEG: limits locality to no more than four PEG channels, but provides no funding for them. (Current cable franchises typically include provision for funding.) Location and grouping of channels left to the operator. Does not provide for common "in-kind" services, such as institutional networks and local emergency alert systems. Customer service. No local regulation — that gets shifted to the FCC. FCC would be required to adopt new customer service standards, to be enforced by states, not local units of government (although there is a provision for a "local contact" whose sole duty apparently is to pass along any complaints or issues to the state commission). States may not impose standards higher than those adopted by the FCC. Locality may not charge for construction permits for work in the right of way. If an emergency," the provider may proceed with the work without notifying the local or state government. Perpetual franchise. There is no term limit. No ability for locality to revisit needs, examine changes in technology, and alter requirements for future franchises accordingly. Other important requirements that directly affect the locality, and that are normally included in local franchise agreements, are mentioned in the Ensign bill (and thus arguably prohibited). Potentially could be included in an FCC rulemaking on customer service, but no assurances that they will be addressed adequately: o Safety code compliance o Local office requirement o Insurance and indemnity requirement o Requirement to restore private property damaged by providers o Requiring personnel to carry ID badges, and trucks to be clearly marked Reaction to the Ensign bill by local governments has been critical, to say the least. The National League of Cities estimates that the Ensign bill would cost municipalities nationwide approximately $3 billion on lost revenues from cable and telephone companies. It also prevents local governments from regulating the price, terms and quality of service. The bill also poses a direct threat to public access television. The Ensign bill's sole treatment of PEG channels is to limit the locality to four of them. It allows the cable operator to choose where the channels may be located on the lineup, and how they may be grouped. It contains no provision for the cable operator to fund the PEG channels. The Association for Community Media (ACM) has produced an extensive criticism of the bill, located at hM2://www.allianceem.org/index.pht)?page—id=201. HR.3146 (Blackburn / Wynn) / 5.1349 (Smith / RockefeIler): Video Choice Act of 2005" Unlike the Ensign bill outlined above, these companion bills in the House and Senate do not attempt to reform telecommunications law generally. Their purpose is restricted to the concept of nationalizing the cable franchising process. They parallel the Ensign bill's franchise nationalization provisions in a number of respects, and from the perspective of local officials, the bills' shortcomings are similar. Key points of the legislation include: Creates a - new regulatory category for "competitive video service provider," excluding them from all other provisions of Title VI (but specifically retaining certain obligations, i.e., retransmission consent, must -carry, etc.). Defined as "any provider of video programming, interactive on -demand services, other programming services, or any other video services who has any right, permission, or authority to access public rights-of-way independent of any cable franchise." Essentially refers to existing providers of telephony services that wish to provide video. No requirement for additional franchise. Existing users of right of way would be exempt from obtaining additional franchise for the provision of video services. Franchise fees would still exist and would be paid to the locality, calculated with reference to gross revenues "attributable to the provision of such service within the provider's service area." No rate regulation by local, state or federal bodies. Existing franchise agreements with competitive video service providers "shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act for the term of such agreement." No provision for carriage of PEG channels by competitive video service providers nor PEG financial support. Bill imposes minimal obligations on competitive video providers, which may prompt incumbent cable operators to file suit on level playing field grounds. No build -out or anti -redlining requirements, arguably. No provision for franchise fee audits. No provision for institutional networks or in -bind compensation. House Commerce Committee Staff Draft Legislation (DingelUBarton) On Thursday, September 15 the House Commerce Committee staff released consensus draft legislation that, like the Ensign bill, is an attempt to enact wholesale reforms to the Communications Act. The following are the key points of the bill's treatment of video services and video franchising; Provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over "broadband video service providers." Prohibits rate regulation, including the basic tier. Eliminates the notion of local franchise negotiation and local franchise agreements for broadband video service providers. Broadband video service providers must register with the FCC, the state commission, and any local franchising area in which it seeks to offer services. After FCC notifies locality that registration statement has been accepted by it, the franchise becomes effective 15 days after the local franchising authority receives from the provider: o a franchise bond payment, if required, o a statement by the provider "agreeing to any public, educational, and governmental use designated by the local franchising authority under section 304(b) of this Act", and o a designation of a local agent Franchises to be of uniform duration, to be set by the FCC, and FCC is to establish procedures for transfer, renewal, and extension. Franchise fees up to 5% of gross revenues may be assessed by a local franchising authority. Gross revenues" defined relatively broadly. Franchise permits construction in right of way, but provider is responsible for "safety, functioning, and appearance" of property, and the provider must bear the cost of construction, repair, and compensation to affected property owners. Local franchise authority is permitted to impose "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" on construction and maintenance in the right of way. PEG capacity: local franchise authority "may designate broadband video service provider capacity for public, educational, or governmental use in the local franchising area, so long as such use is comparable to the obligations the local franchising authority applies" to existing cable operators and other broadband service providers in the area. Institutional networks: a local franchise authority "may designate or use" broadband video service provider "capacity" for public, educational and governmental use, but cannot require the construction of networks. Redlining: FCC is to adopt regulations prohibiting income -based redlining. Build -out requirements: the draft legislation includes a blank placeholder for Build -out." Program access: includes non-discrimination and exclusivity provisions. Consumer protection: FCC is tasked with adopting national consumer protection standards. States may enforce but may not expand them. III. Telecommunications Reform For several years now, industry observers have recognized that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not well-suited to the reasonable and predictable regulation of modern broadband communications systems. Some say it has failed miserably from the get -go. While others may not be as harsh, the clear consensus at this point is that something needs to be done to update federal telecommunications laws to deal with IP -enabled services. There appears to be a growing consensus that the "silo' approach of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in which various services are placed into "telecommunications service" and information service" boxes, with profound regulatory implications based on that categorization, is probably not the best way to deal with the current world of IP -enabled communications services, in which various services are now simply applications running over any number of kinds of IP -enabled pipes. MCI and others are promoting a "layers" approach to telecom reform, where the regulation would be guided by what level of the network layer the service or facility in question lies, and not by what set -vices are in fact delivered to the consumer. Voice -over -IP, for instance, would conceivably fall within an "applications" layer, while a broadband connection itself may be regulated as a "services" or perhaps a "transport" layer. Fiber optic, copper, and coaxial cable could be regulated at a "facilities" layer. In any event, the debate is raging. Key externalities that promise to affect the outcome include universal service reform (who pays into it, who receives it), intercarrier compensation (whether access charges and reciprocal compensation are retained), and, potentially, obligations to comply with federal wiretapping laws (GALEA). All indications are that no meaningful telecommunications reform bill will be passed this year. Doing so by the end of 2006 is more realistic, but even that may be optimistic. As mentioned above, Sen. Ensign's 5.1504 is the first legislative attempt to tackle telecom reform. It is a highly deregulatory bill — backed by the incumbent telecommunications industry — the stated purpose of which is to "establish a market driven telecommunications marketplace, to eliminate government managed competition of existing communication service, and to provide parity between functionally equivalent services." It has been referred to as a "wish list" of the incumbent telecommunications providers. Notably, the bill defines "broadband communication service" as "a communications service enabling the trans- mission of communications at a capacity greater than 64 kilobits per second," which is even less than the FCC's much -maligned defmition of 200kbps. There is no indication that the Ensign bill is going anywhere soon. There have been no hearings yet in the Senate on the bill, and companion legislation has not introduced in the House. As also mentioned above, the House Commerce Committee staff recently released draft telecom reform legislation. It, too, is highly deregulatory, at least in terms of broadband providers. It prohibits rate regulation of "Broadband Internet Transmission Services", VoIP, and broadband video service providers. It does, however, require such providers to register with the FCC and state commissions before providing service. The draft House staff bill also imposes interconnection obligations on BITS and VoIP providers, tasks the FCC with a rulemaking relating to universal service, contains provisions relating to consumer privacy, and numerous other provisions IV. Municipal Provision of Broadband Services Until the past year, the question of whether municipalities can be prohibited from providing communications network services was solely a state issue. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, in which it held that states may permissibly prohibit localities from providing such services, there has been a flurry of incumbent -backed efforts to thwart municipal broadband in statehouses around the nation. Multiple initiatives to restrict or prohibit municipal networks were introduced in fourteen states over the past year, and, to the great credit of backers of municipal broadband, all but a handful were defeated. Those that did pass were often weakened enough to be more or less workable for municipalities. Now the battle has moved to the federal level as well. Clearly, incumbent providers increasingly view municipal communications networks as a competitive threat. In addition to the statehouses, incumbents are now lobbying for enactment at the federal level of legislation restricting or outright prohibiting municipal networks. H.R.2726 (Rep. Sessions): `Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who worked for SBC for 16 years, and who has over 500,000 worth of SBC stock options, and whose wife still works for the company, sponsored legislation the effect of which would be to utterly eliminate any competitive municipal broadband efforts. H.R. 2726 — the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" — succinetly states that "neither any State or local government, nor any entity affiliated with such a government, shall provide any telecommunications, telecommunications service, information service, or cable service in any geographic area within the jurisdiction of such government in which a corporation or other private entity that is not affiliated with any State or local government is offering a substantially similar service." The term "substantially similar" is left undefined. 5.1504 (Sen. Ensign): Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005" Sen. Ensign's telecom deregulation bill also includes a provision that restricts municipal broadband services. While not an outright prohibition along the lines of the Sessions bill, the Ensign bill presumes that local governments possess competitive advantages that it should not. and that it is appropriate to transfer any such public advantages to the established providers, without also subjecting them to the corresponding duties and accountability in serving the public interest that apply to local governments. (A more complete analysis of the Ensign bill's provision restricting municipal broadband networks is available at ham://www.baller.com/pdfsBaller Response—Sen Ensign.pdf.) 5.1294 (Lautenberg/McCain): "Community Broadband Act of 2005" In response to the Sessions and Ensign bills, a broad-based consortium of local government groups, consumer interest organizations, and technology companies have backed the introduction of legislation specifically allowing the creation of municipal broadband networks, should a locality choose to do so. Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. John McCain introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2005" (5.1294) which provides: "No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such provider." In addition, the Lautenberg/McCain bill obligates localities to apply its regulatory ordinances and rules to any public provider of communications, without discrimination. House Commerce Committee Staff Draft Legislation In addition, the recently -released House Commerce Committee draft telecom reform legislation contains a provision ftiendly to municipal broadband. Similar to the Lautenberg/McCain bill, the House draft legislation states: Neither the 1934 Act nor any State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider of BITS, VOIP services, or broadband video services from providing such services to any person or entity." It also obligates local governments to apply its ordinances and regulations equally to any municipal provider of broadband services. V. Conclusions and Recommendations The $64,000 question is, "What shall local governments do?" There is a great deal of uncertainty as to the continuing role of local government and the regulation and oversight of cable services. Primarily, this has been brought about by the large telecom providers' desire to provide competitive services to cable operators. They argue that they should be entitled to skip the local franchising process on the basis that the franchising process is too time-consuming, too expensive, and would likely impose build -out requirements that may not be conducive to the provider's desire to maximize short-term revenue. Meeting local requirements of serving entire franchise areas can create a dilemma. Further, the telecom providers argue, and we believe have convinced members of Congress and the FCC, that with broadband local or even state control is no longer appropriate, and that all regulation of broadband -related matters should be handled at the federal level. At the beginning of cable franchising, visionaries recognized that public rights-of-way were a valuable resource, and the grant of a franchise to a cable provider should be made with the understanding that the provider would provide certain benefits for the community in exchange for availing itself of that resource. This led to locally -imposed obligations to provide diversity of programming, opportunities for community expression, educational services, government communication services, and a range of other benefits. Many local governments have expended tremendous public dollars to build relationships with cable providers to meet their local needs, and in many instances community access and PEG programming has evolved thanks to the contribution of significant public expenditures, not to mention the time and talent of persons and resources within individual communities. This should not be taken away. No two communities are exactly the same. Each has a separate personality and the needs and interests of communities vary considerably. Having the authority to negotiate franchise agreements that meet community needs must be preserved to carry on with the opportunity for community benefit. Much of this may be lost if federal legislation prescribes a "one -size -fits -all" approach. [Under the House bill, a prospective competitive franchisee has to agree to PEG guidelines produced by the LFA before it is awarded a franchise. Where is the loss of local control and localized decisions in that case?] Some voices in Washington claim that competition alone will protect the interests of communities and consumers. We do not believe that. Competition between providers may have some impact, but there is little doubt in that it will not bring about the preservation of the community benefits now derived from the rights communities have in franchise negotiations with cable providers. Moreover, with the ongoing mega -mergers and vertical integration in the industry, the idea that meaningful, effective competition exists in the communications and video programming realm is becoming less and less tied to reality. The above Bills may be rewritten and changed numerous times before finalization. Now is the time for local action. We recommend the adoption by local governments of a resolution expressing their sense about the importance of local control and local interests in these matters. Local governments must demand that their Congressional delegation listen to them, and that they understand the importance and interests of their communities A resolution is a considerably stronger form of expression than a simple letter, and would be likely to receive due attention at each community's Congressional delegation. We also suggest that communities go beyond this, and insist that their elected leaders and political persons with contacts provide the information necessary to ensure that the elected Congressional delegation will stand up for the rights of local governments, and preserve local interests and the franchising process that is now in place. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF , MINNESOTA TO SUPPORT CONTINUED AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING FRANCHISING OF CABLE SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of , Minnesota (herein "City") through its City Council adopts this Resolution to express its concern about proposals coming before Congress that will adversely affect the ability of local governments to continue to franchise cable services; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale created a joint consortium known as the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (herein "NWSCCC") approximately twenty (20) years ago to streamline cable television administration in our area and to ensure that the needs and interests of each member city was represented in regard to the initial development, installation and continued operation of cable television through our cities' public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has proven to be an effective, efficient model for developing and administering cable franchises, addressing concerns about the use of public right-of-way, and handling customer service issues; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has developed a national standard for providing local programming that promotes civic involvement, public awareness of community news and events via public, educational and government cable channels; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has provided each member city with the tools to efficiently televise city meetings, and provide citizens with gavel -to -gavel coverage and easy access to their local government officials and the decision-making process; and WHEREAS, by providing gavel -to -gavel coverage of local government meetings and local news, NWSCCC has promoted openness and accountability, a key ingredient to successful government and strong communities; and WHEREAS, the NWSCCC has advised the City of recent proposals which Congress is considering that would change the role of local governments in granting cable franchises and negotiating franchise agreements with local cable operators that meet the unique needs and interests of communities; and WHEREAS, on behalf of the City and other communities that are part of the NWSCCC, the NWSCCC has written to Congressional members requesting help with the preservation of local control, a copy of which letter is attached; and WHEREAS, because Congress is giving increasing consideration to principles that threaten the interest of the City and other members of the NWSCCC as well as cities throughout the country, the City believes that through this Resolution now is the time for local government to take a stand to protect the local authority and it is absolutely essential for Congressional representatives to fully understand the importance of retaining the current structure of focal franchising authority, which has proven itself to be an effective system for governing the utilization of public rights-of-way by private industry offering cable and related services; and has spawned an important local communications tool; and WHEREAS, many communities throughout the country, including the City and the other members of the NWSCCC consortium, expended substantial sums to negotiate franchises that ensure that local needs are met, including the development of local community programs and televised public meetings of community interest; and WHEREAS NWSCCC and its member cities have worked diligently with cable service providers to offer service to all citizens within the franchise area without regard to location or income status; and WHEREAS, certain Congressional legislation has the potential to destroy these community benefits, robbing communities of rightful sources of revenue for utilization of public right-of-way, and WHEREAS, the proposals under consideration would eliminate the ability of the City and other NWSCCC cities to: Cablecast city meetings, Replace aging cable television equipment; Provide the award-winning local newscasts and community programming covering our franchise area; Offer public access facilities for to allow citizens to produce local, community - oriented and diverse programming services; and Ensure that all citizens of the community are offered access to cable television regardless of their income status or location. NOW, THEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City, it is resolved as follows; 1. That the City hereby vigorously opposes any federal legislation that will reduce the right of local governments to approve and administer franchised cable services; to charge reasonable franchise fees for the use of the right-of-way; to establish benefit requirements including public, educational, and governmental access channels, including funding, facilities, and equipment for such channels; and to require dedicated capacity or institutional network systems for educational and governmental purposes. 2. That representatives serving the City and each of the Member Cities of the NWSCCC, within the United States Senate and House of Representatives be made aware of this Resolution, and that they be invited to confer with community leaders to become better informed on the special needs and interests of the City and other Member Cities of the NWSCCC, and to commit to fight against any form of legislation that will reduce the rights of localities with regard to local franchising and cable system administration and enforcement. 3. That a copy of this Resolution shall be provided to each of the Member Cities that is part of the NWSCCC and shall be also through a certified copy delivered immediately after its passage to the members of the U.S. Congress serving this City. Passed and Adopted this day of , 2005. CITY OF , MINNESOTA By Its Mayor Agenda Number: 3 TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager FROM: Anne Hurlbuio rmnunity Development Director SUBJECT: ING Property (Waterford site, NW quadrant of TH55 & TH169) Welsh Companies/ Dunbar Development Proposal DATE: October 19, 2005 for the Special City Council Meeting of October 24, 2005 Welsh Companies requested an opportunity. to meet with the City Council to discuss a mixed-use project for the approximately 18 acre site located in the northwest quadrant of Highways 55 and 169, north and west of the Waterford Plaza office buildings. The sketch shows a 198 -unit, market -rate rental apartment building, 3 stories over one level of parking; and two, 3 -story, 30,000 square ft. office buildings. They are requesting the Council's feedback on Dunbar Development's proposal before they complete formal applications for development. At a minimum, this project would require comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning and site plan applications and likely others (such as a plat -and/or conditional use permit.) The Council discussed a previous sketch with Welsh at a study session on April 19, 2005 (see minutes and other exhibits from that meeting, attached.) Since then they have continued to try to sell the property. Staff met with someone interested in a warehouse project on the site earlier this summer. In late June, we received a letter from ING (the property owner) indicating that they were working with Dunbar Development on a plan, and we received a new sketch. We suggested that they submit a Sketch Plan application so that the City could undertake a complete review. The attached sketches prepared by architects Miller -Hanson Partners were submitted on October 18. In addition, Dunbar Development submitted a memorandum from Maxfield Research, a preliminary assessment of demand for rental units at this site. These materials are not sufficient to undertake a sketch plan review or to schedule the required hearings on the applications that would be -required. The character of the surrounding area is a mix of office, retail and industrial use. The:suitability of the site for residential use and the possible impact on the existing surrounding development continue to be concerns. If the Council believes that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this site may have merit, we recommend that you encourage the developer to present a complete application with sufficient information for the City's review and consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial Photo/ Location Map 2. Land Use & Zoning Classification Maps 3. April, 2005 Sketch 4. Minutes of April 19, 2005 Special City Council Meeting 5. Letter from ING dated June 29, 2005 6. June, 2005 Sketch 7. October 17, 2005 Memorandum from Maxfield Research 8. October, 2005 Sketches by Miller -Hanson Partners 2 200 100 0 200 400 600 800 Site Q RM 10TH AVE u r Nz 8TH AVE Nz i/ i..,•/ :/;r : ' F !I. I• k d j a ° . CE 7 _ 4tih "\\\\. ,\\\\ to \, \ x11N i / :%; // /' W 41 3 3 r !\\` \ : ` \:\,\\\\,\\\\NN\ \\\\\\\\\\\`\\\\\ \ \\\\ \ \ W Nz S1 ' ' J e3 r w1 " ti\Q,\\ N7\NN- 11 r (t G \NN\: ` \ 11\\\\\ Nz Nz STgTEti/v Zoning Classification ss 200 100 0 200 400 600 .800 Feet SCA GF: IN F EET m Ayr, ONv'L S') f'!!. 6' lii l.MM Adopted Council Minutes Special Meeting of April 19, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Councilmember Willis suggested things that the Council discussed requested that the City Attorne sent. Welsh Companies Proposal t f draft correspondence memorializing the evening regarding redevelopment of this site. He the Council review the correspondence before it is Representatives of Welsh Companies discussed a proposal that they have received from a developer for the vacant Waterford site. The site is surrounded by existing development, which limits the visibility from either Highway 55 or Highway 169. They explained that they have been marketing this property for quite some time, and during the past three to four years, the only interest has basically been residential. They feel that a mixed use, incorporating office and residential, would be a good fit, especially with the adjacent retail area. They illustrated a very preliminary sketch plan from the developer that would consist of apartment housing and an office use. They acknowledged that access to this property is difficult, and the office market isn't there currently for office use. They requested that the Council provide feedback this evening on a mixed-use site. Councilmember Bildsoe stated that he could support a mixed use for this site, but he suggested that there be owner -occupied housing units versus rental housing. Councilmember Willis agreed and stated that his preference would be the office use. Councilmember Stein suggested that if there would be housing at this site, there be screening and/or berming from adjacent industrial uses as well as a walking trail to the retail area. Mayor Johnson stated she is very interested in doing something with this site as it has been vacant for a long time. It would be an asset to the adjacent retail area. She stated she also prefers ownership housing, and screening and berming. She would be concerned on the height of the buildings. Councilmember Hewitt stated she is hesitant with a residential use due to industrial uses being in such close proximity. However, if a housing use would be proposed, she wouldn't support rental housing. Councilmember Slaivk stated it appears it would be difficult to market any housing units due to the adjacent industrial units. She stated she isn't totally opposed to rental housing if it were done properly. She stated that it would be necessary for transition between this property and the adjacent properties. Adopted Council Minutes Special Meeting of April 19, 2005 Page 4 of 4 Councilmember Black stated due to the close proximity of loading docks, that if there would be any housing on this site, it would need to be rental rather than owner -occupied. The representatives of Welsh Companies thanked the Council for their comments this evening. Set Future Study Sessions Motion was made by Counc ber to schedule a Special Meeting on Mqy 10 at 6:00 .m. r the 12uEpose of meeting with a re resentative of Senator Da on's office to discuss edian barrier funding. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried/ dsecondedMotionwasmadebCouncilmemberStein b Councilmember Bildsoe to schedule a Special Meeting on June 7 at 7 p.m. for purpose of discussing budget priorities with Jim Rice volunteer cons ant. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. made by CouncilmeAber Bildsoe, and to cancel the Special MeetingZat was scheduled on June 28 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss stree reconstruction and Special sessment Policy, but rather add this item to the MqY 17 Special Meeting a enda aigbegin that meeting at 6:30 p.m. With all members voting in favor, the motion carrieff Adjournment" Mayor Jolulson®declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:05 p.m. Sandra R. Paulson, City Clerk AMERICAS coftPORATE REAL 9d7AYE AND PROPUTY MANAGEMENT June 29, 2005 Ame Hurlbmt City of Plymouth 3" I"lys 6U1h )31Vd. Plymouth, UX 5544V-1482 Re: 18 -at=e Ste mar Anne, I nage a portfolio of asseto f' RehaSiar Ike bstvauce Comp=y iAduding 18 -acres of land located at the ?w WC of Hwys. 55 and 169 it Plymouth, Mr. Pr mk Dunbar has expressed serloue interest in purchasing the site w-Ld, to that end, has-subn-dtted to tsls a Idgh Iml sketdi of a development plan k4ucUng office atd multifarx&y buildings. I beHew- he ltas slaaxed, sketch with you also. I am interested in pursuing a sale of the property to Mr. D=baw on behalf of R Ww and would ask that the cty favorably consider his plan for the site. Re tar would be suppordye of an action to Peru* multifa naYy building on the property in addifaon to &a uses a=ently permitted. At present, Mr. Drag repxesants our best opportmlity to sell, the property at an acceptable price. 14avhxg owxted, the property for a lr+ig per: od of tithe, Reha&ar is underrstan4ably interested in selllxtg to a. bcdia fide p=chasera Thank you for your consi,deraWxt, is this matter. Very trwy yaaxs, Steven Hufenclick W) 3n,5412 Phone 612) =-7323 PacWmile steveri.lrufavB ,j .com W 4p5l I October 17, 2005 MEMORANDUM Inc TO: Mr. Frank Dunbar Dunbar Development 5000 Glenwood Avenue Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55422 FROM: Ms. Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Preliminary Assessment of Demand for Rental Units on a Site in Plymouth, Minnesota Introduction This letter summarizes our findings regarding the potential demand for rental units on a site in Plymouth, Minnesota. As we understand, you are considering the development of 200 units of market rate rental housing that would be located west of Highway 169 and north of Highway 55. The site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection and is situated behind the 701 office tower and adjacent to the Waterford Plaza Shopping Center, anchored by Rainbow Foods. This letter provides a very brief assessment of average rents and vacancies in the Plymouth area and comments on the potential demand for additional rental units in -the area. Site Location The subject property is an excellent location for the development of market rate rental housing. New rental developments located along Highway 169 have, for the most part, all leased up rapidly and have been able to maintain relatively high occupancy rates. The site is conveniently located off Highways 55 and 169 and is easily accessible to other major thoroughfares such as 615 1' Avenue NE #400, Minneapolis, MN 55413 612) 338-0012 (612) 904-7979 fax www.maxfieldresearch.com Mr. Frank Dunbar October 17, 2005 Dunbar Development Corporation Page 2 I-394, I-494 and I-694. Shopping is conveniently located adjacent to the site at Waterford Plaza. Major shopping is located at Ridgedale Mall and at Westridge at County Road 73. The site is also conveniently located near to a variety of major employment concentrations. Existing Market Conditions According to the Metro Update Report issued by GVA Marquette Advisers for 3rd Quarter 2005, the overall metro area vacancy rate dropped significantly from 6.7% in 3rd Quarter 2004 to 5.6% as of the 3rd Q 2005. The vacancy rate also exhibited a decline from only one quarter earlier (2nd Q 2005) when the overall metro area vacancy rate was 6.0%. The amount of rental product in the pipeline declined substantially between 2003 and 2005 as projects that had been planned earlier in the decade were either placed on hold or had been built. There was also a dearth in the number of new developments planned between 2004 and 2005 as a response to high vacancy rates, concessions and generally stagnant rents. While the overall vacancy rate has declined, average rents have remained the same over the past year at $848 per month. While we have seen the use of concessions decrease in the marketplace, especially among Class A properties, the overall rent adjustments that occurred at many properties because of these concessions are just now beginning to shake out. According to the GVA report, larger size two-bedroom and three-bedroom units and Class A properties continue to lag in occupancy improvement. However, our analysis of most Class A properties revealed that, in general, these properties had performed better overall, during this period of higher vacancies, and have been the first to recover in terms of occupancy rates. Our conversations with local rental property management companies indicate that their Class A properties in general faired better during this slow period and that they believed that they continued to struggle more with their Class B and Class C properties. The suburban rental market has been less affected by condominium conversions than have Downtown Minneapolis and southwest Minneapolis (particularly Uptown) where we have seen a much greater number of apartment conversions over the past year. Generally, new housing product continues to attract renters away from upscale rental properties, but it is more focused on single-family and townhomes than condominiums. Most condominiums are attracting empty -nesters and seniors in suburban markets versus young to mid -age- households which continue to comprise the majority of renters. Plymouth showed significant improvement in its overall vacancy rate from 31d Q 2004 to 3rd Q 2005, dropping from 9.7% to 6.1 %. There were more than 1,000 rental units added to this community between late 2000 and 2004, more than any other in the Twin Cities. Again, rents have generally remained the same in Plymouth over the past 12 months, at $985 per month average rent. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Frank Dunbar October 17, 2005 Dunbar Development Corporation Page -3 The properties below are those that have come on-line most recently in Plymouth. Shown below is the rent range and rent per square foot range for each of the developments. The average weighted rent per square foot is $L21 per square foot overall. We have taken this into account when setting the preliminary rents for the proposed development. Table 1 presents our suggested unit mix, sizes and rents for the proposed development. This mix is preliminary. We recommend further refinements to this concept as a formal site plan is developed. Rents are shown in 2005 dollars and could be'adjusted upward somewhat for a 2007/2008 opening. TABLE 1 PRELIMINARY UNIT MIX/SIZES/RENTS PLYMOUTH APARTMENTS October 2005 Rent Range PSF Rent Range Stone Creek at Medicine Lake (2004) 640-$1,560 1.05=$1.24 Stoneleigh at the Reserve (2003) 790-$1,720 1.25-$1.49 Jefferson at Plymouth (2002) 886-$1,560 1.1141.31 Shadow Hills Estates (2001) 895-$1,525 1.0041.21 The average weighted rent per square foot is $L21 per square foot overall. We have taken this into account when setting the preliminary rents for the proposed development. Table 1 presents our suggested unit mix, sizes and rents for the proposed development. This mix is preliminary. We recommend further refinements to this concept as a formal site plan is developed. Rents are shown in 2005 dollars and could be'adjusted upward somewhat for a 2007/2008 opening. TABLE 1 PRELIMINARY UNIT MIX/SIZES/RENTS PLYMOUTH APARTMENTS October 2005 Note: Rents are in 2005 dollars. Rent includes one garage stall. Rent excludes heat and electricity; includes water, sewer and trash removal. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Rent/Sq. Ft. At this time, we estimate that a rental development with 200 units at the proposed location could achieve a monthly absorption of 12 units per month. We expect that the market will continue to improve gradually. As such, by the time this development would come on-line in late 2007 or early 2008, we estimate that a per month absorption of 15 to 18 units per month could be achieved. This is provided that vacancy rates in Plymouth and the immediate surrounding area decline to 5.0%. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. No. of of Unit Type Units Total Square Feet Rent 1BR/113a 54 27.0 725 - 850 950 - $1,050 113R+Den/113a 32 16.0 875 - 900 1,100 - $1,150 213R/213A 84 42.0 1,200 - 1,250 1,300 - $1,350 2BR+Den/2BA 12 6.0 1,350 - 1,500 1,550 - $1,700 313R/213a 18 9.0 1,400 - 1,450 1,550 - $1,650 Total 200 100.0 Note: Rents are in 2005 dollars. Rent includes one garage stall. Rent excludes heat and electricity; includes water, sewer and trash removal. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Rent/Sq. Ft. At this time, we estimate that a rental development with 200 units at the proposed location could achieve a monthly absorption of 12 units per month. We expect that the market will continue to improve gradually. As such, by the time this development would come on-line in late 2007 or early 2008, we estimate that a per month absorption of 15 to 18 units per month could be achieved. This is provided that vacancy rates in Plymouth and the immediate surrounding area decline to 5.0%. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Frank Dunbar Dunbar Development Corporation If you need additional information or have questions, please contact me. Sincerely, MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mary C. Bujold President MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. October 17, 2005 Page 4 Miller Hanson Partners I r: R c.11 t _I E r -r s t September 20, 2005 Re: Plymouth - Mixed Use Development Project Description MHP Project No. 0511 The site is located at the theoretical intersection of 91h Avenue and Nathan Lane in Plymouth Minnesota. The entire area is approximately 800,000 sq.ft., with 300,000 sq.ft. that are identified as wetlands; pond or creek. The conceptual site plan calls for the development of two 30,000 sq.ft. office buildings and two 98 -unit apartment structures. The 4 -story wood frame apartment buildings will have one level of underground parking that will have approximately 220 spaces. Orientation of these buildings will take advantage of the open space to the south and west of this site. These areas are mostly pond and wetlands, but are also edged with woods. Our intent would be to maintain a major green space to the south of the buildings and preserve the mature trees which surround the pond. Much of the wooded area to the west is identified as 4" to 12" of box elder. This area would be thinned out to make it more attractive. A turnaround and drop off area will serve as the buildings entries, as well as a one story connecting link. The link will contain all of the community type facilities, exercise areas and an access to the exterior pool. A transit stop is planned in the center of the site to function for both the residents and office workers. The two office buildings will be located along the north and east edges of the property. These structures will be 3 stories, and will be provided with 300 parking spaces. The apartments will have one underground garage space assigned per residence and will also have an additional 85 spaces of on grade parking. If parking were developed on the south side of the building, this space could provide another 100 parking spaces. Major access to the site will be developed off 9th Avenue, with a secondary access to Nathan. The parking areas will be defined with concrete curbs, and broken up with islands for planting areas. Major trees along the north and east edge of the property would also be preserved and enhanced with additional plantings. 1201 HAWTHORNE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55403 USA T 612.332.5420 F 612.332.5425 W W W.MILLERHANSON.COM o IT, T 14;11 top— at MM 11"ll- t. 77. ALI- r-n-ymoul-H — ?-C-NTAL- *r- Of-Ie-ca I r see, wil vON! nV : I clklc cc vv.vv via7Vf,E0ESTR.1 att v.ttX? XMe. v Alpva)a iiiFff lE.r/D x , pi `' Vyj lop `\ \ xwe4 QRS \ xYaR53 \\ Xla1A ! f t X awl f' - 9".2 r i l r of 3 uNljL 7 L ISL U#DUf rlzOclf r' 4Er-'KIST1 t- TI:441L- d so' W' 0100N MILLER MANS©N PARTNERS f Plymouth Ave IN ygg. 'OTH Avemom ZV 4 8TH Ave N _ ..... 6,'i Ave N MM Gooden Valley Rd4-1serviceRa A tisopt2004K"eyhc le, Inc. O ;.. Image Q 2004.'Di')itaIG obeyf7 # ' + 'A'a1 r)t I. Y ) WIRE FENCE)[ x r J1 ! w H N,Bq'S7'13` W 771.00 ,— Cow 001 1 WIRE F,f r 1 h z 7UT L\\ fR.7 i _— / Bei OT..-. . - PFA p! 93t] air 11 OH LINE; ---- I % / a xtlts i E 1.1 _4. 7taEE , gyp . w_,POT•—• I I SAA 117' 4- 'tx I900.62 i 12'iR1+LE ..' // t i NTII-KJ471 F, tow•d'3.001 a S ppm c3. C4 t, W // ! / ' • l-•a°r• r ~ P4tli-C 'S \ f I t :-:r 1JATER GR',1NS 1 / /' •„ 7Y us.a 9Jh '..OR LO lli`a FROM PARKINGi /rr JJ f U Cyt• '` I X' AREA 10 PIPE f ` R}2J J fry 4J19 f r j( 1 ! ^,6\ice U'iC PIPE mop! ' wl'' ' rGy1 'lQ I 124a \` I'` 7 Msi+.f -s` p1iQ 1._J I' T = f76a r d y\ /'a s'o 1: j p opq.. f( \ to y'2 r' ` • .,•' 1 i- - --- • - ._..- ..,..., r i E; . \t ) ,SO / M car ~ ve ,-_. -. - '` i< 9R 1 VF SAVE (67H AVE f fa's `s I / i i` N7Rur). E SUMS ISA o _ ti N S8 56 54"W pp _ - jq1dAES' ` 4 ''\ ` Y =9241 =975.9 MIT opt 10`[iW a6za ,1r -17, w ti ) : rul xtws :1-tt 4• 4!'S 0.23 f N 'S8' E 313.2+4x — \ N 88° 13't9"E fIygb`6 .\ aft-. 36 Ir 6'FtE s o -,v <. y'NE. 008 r ME 6, Pt 4eTREE 0 awwe .... . / - f ' `; :3p IT EASWENT C1\" A Ta-osaalTY8 NO 6445227 4'T LP i 1. le"AFVt.ti '-- 1 RILLOW' s}w w1 E FY.9'1L7v TR+4 4 AtYY0r1 sTvu has PA,JJi- e ° a 1L ' Z 4 x t ftT.a ~•4_ = 3Ya` iY ' I " a +%+ as 2 asu _ ?S awt j f1 '+fit :.1 r+c:it ffc pf+Y. PLf>v5fi =ic .tfT — 4} rl1rND y 770.6 IPua 071v+) R 10 Jv MILLER HANSON PARTNERS