No preview available
 /
     
01/04/2008 - Joint Eagan Burnsville CommitteeDraft Agenda Eagan / Burnsville Council Members Joint Committee 7:30 AM January 4, 2008 Jensen's Cafe - Burnsville 1. Update on BECT Facilities — Information for School District Partnerships 2. FCC Ruling Number 2 and Statewide Franchising — Possible Ramifications to BECT 3. Update on Cedar Corridor Project 4. Broadband Discussions — "Gig Group" and Proposed Legislation and Other Development 5. Miscellaneous BURNSVILLE EAGAN COMMUNITY TELEVISON SPACE NEEDS Tom Garrison Communications Director City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 tgarrison@cityofeagan.com 651-675-5008 Tom Hansen Deputy City Manager City of Burnsville 100 Civic Center Parkway Burnsville, MN 55337 tom.hansen@ci.burnsville.mn.us 952-895-4466 BURNSVILLE EAGAN COMMUNITY TELEVISION Space Needs Burnsville Eagan Community Television operates from a leased facility located on the Burnsville/Eagan border. The lease for this facility is set to expire on January 1, 2009 and City Council representatives have directed staff to explore relocation of these facilities and/or functions with area school districts. The goal of this process is to determine if synergies could be created for mutual benefit for the city, school and community. These benefits could stretch the use of the public dollar in the following ways: School District Benefits: • Improve learning opportunities for students using professional BECT staff to assist with curricular functions. • Sharing costs of capital purchases — and/or - expanding revenue for district. • Improved opportunity for public to learn about the school district through improved programming options. City Benefits: • Reduce facility costs • Increase volunteer base and expand involvement of youth in community building activities. • Reduce amount of capital purchases to maintain service. City staff will meet with representatives from ISD 191 and ISD 196 to determine if such partnerships can be arranged. To facilitate this process, BECT has developed two options for consideration. This request would move the entire This request would seek to use the studio BECT operation "as is" to School District facility only space. Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday 4:30 to 9:00 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday 50 hours a week Hours: 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 18 hours a week The City Councils of Eagan and Burnsville will need to make a final decision on facility location prior to May 2008. In order to meet that decision making timeline, a response from the district to this proposal is requested by December 15, 2007. It should be noted that these options are considered starting points and the cities are interested in any other thoughts that could help meet the facility needs of BECT. 2 BURNSVILLE EAGAN COMMUNITY TELEVISION Space Needs OPTION 1— RELOCATION OF BECT FACILITIES Basic Requirements • Office space for nine staff. • Ceiling height of at least 16', free of vertical supports for TV production studio space only. This will need to be more sound insulated than rest of facility • HVAC for offices, television production studio, master control, and edit suites must be separate, because it is often necessary to keep equipment areas at a lower temp because of heat generated by equipment. • Studio and set storage must have doors/ceilings tall enough to accommodate set flats of at least 8' in height. SPACE REQUEST: Staff Area • 6 office cubes at 100 sq. ft, 600 • 2 department managers at 100 sq. ft (offices) 200 • 1 technical repair shop/office at 300 sq. ft. (room) 200 • Mail room/copy center/fax 100 Television Studio and Control Room • Television Studio • Control Room • Set Storage Editing/equipment storage • 3 edit suites at 100 sq. ft (offices) • 1 edit suite at 100 sq. ft (office) • Portable equipment storage at 500 sq. ft. located adjacent to an outside exit with parking. Master Control • Master Control/Tape Library Other Areas (could be shared with others) • Lobby/Reception/Restrooms • Meeting/Conference Room • Lunch room/Vending 3 900 200 400 300 100 X11 400 200 200 3,800 - 4,600 1100 1500 800 400 800 BURNSVILLE EAGAN COMMUNITY TELEVISION Space Needs OPTION 2 — STUDIO OPTION Basic Requirements • Office space/desk space for two staff. • Ceiling height of at least 16', free of vertical supports for TV production studio space only. This will need to be more sound insulated than rest of facility • HVAC for offices and television production studio must be separate, because it is often necessary to keep studio at a lower temp because of bright lights. • Studio and set storage must have doors/ceilings tall enough to accommodate set flats of at least 8' in height. TOTAL SQUARE FEET 2,200 - 2,900 Staff Area 200 • 2 areas for BECT staff with desk/computer access 200 Television Studio and Control Room 1500 • Television Studio 900 • Control Room 200 • Set Storage 400 NOTE: This is a preferred option. BECT will consider any existing studio. Editing/equipment storage • 2 edit suites at 100 sq. ft (offices) • 1 edit suite at 100 sq. ft (office) • Portable equipment storage at 200 sq. ft. located adjacent to an outside exit with parking. Other Areas (could be shared with others) • Restrooms • Meeting/Conference Room • Lunch room/Vending al 200 100 Fl 300 200 200 500 700 BURNSVILLE EAGAN COMMUNITY TELEVISION Space Needs TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS CURRENT FACILITY The current facility contains a studio and control room, four edit suites, lunchroom, meeting/conference room, technical repair area, garage, set storage, and master control/tape library center area. There is 7,159 feet of space in the facility. This space is leased from a private party. It is expected that BECT will relocate from this facility prior to January 1, 2009. BECT would be looking for certain characteristics regarding amount of square footage, electrical, heating and air conditioning and other needs as described below. SQUARE FOOTAGE • Ceiling height of at least 16', free of vertical supports for TV production studio space only. This will need to be more sound insulated than rest of facility • HVAC for offices, television production studio, master control, and edit suites must be separate, because it is often necessary to keep equipment areas at a lower temp because of heat generated by equipment. • Studio and set storage must have doors/ceilings tall enough to accommodate set flats of at least 8' in height. ELECTRICAL • Production and playback areas should be on a common electrical ground (edit suites, studio, and master control). • Each edit suite will require 1 - 15 Amp electrical circuit separate from lighting or other electrical use • Master control will require 15 — 15 amp electrical circuits separate from lighting or other electrical use • The studio control room will require 2 — 15 amp circuits separate from lighting or other electrical use • The studio lighting grid will require 20 — 20 amp circuits, and a central control/termination location in the studio/control room area. • inert gas fire suppression system for Master Control area in option 1. 5 BURNSVILLE EAGAN COMMUNITY TELEVISION Space Needs DECISION MAKING TIMELINE ■ Planning Decision Deadlines for Facility/Operations Issues O Technical equipment installation or moving of existing equipment. R Meeting with 191 IIIJ UNEEMENNEENEENE F M A M J J A S 0 N D A E A P A U U U E C 0 E N B R R Y N L G P T V C Meeting with 196 ©Mtg 2/ISD 191 Direction■0�■■■■■■■■■■■■ = D 196 DirectionEqui■0®■■■■■■■■■■■■ v.ment ■■©■a■■■■■■■■■■ v Control: ■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■ • Dir - Po vBECT 5 Year iioiii■■iii®iii■■i ®Studio Location DecisionIde■■■■ ■■■oono■■■ . - .. Eagan ■o■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ®Mobile Studio Location■o■■■■■■■■■■■■o Office Space/Tech Secure M Year - .. ■�■■■■■■■■v■■■■■ ®2008-1013 �P ■i■■■■■■■■v■■■■■ ® • • ■■■■v■■■■■■■■■■ ® �: ■■■■v■■■■■■■■■■ �: ■■■v■■■■■■■■■■■ .Eagan . , ■■■©■■■■■�■■■■■■ Council■■■■v■■■■■■■■�■■ Telecommunications■■■■■o■■■■■■■■■ Relocation■■■■■■o■■■■■■■■ ® ......■■■■■■v■■■■■■■■ ®: ApprovalEagan ■■■■■■■v■■■■■■■ Council Approval ■ Planning Decision Deadlines for Facility/Operations Issues O Technical equipment installation or moving of existing equipment. R BURNSVILLE EAGAN COMMUNITY TELEVISION Space Needs - Schools Option Update Last June, the joint Burnsville/Eagan Council liaison group asked staff to look into how BECT services could be provided more efficiently. This request was driven by three primary factors: an uncertain regulatory environment that could negatively affect PEG revenues; a chronic inability of PEG revenues to cover costs; and the desire to find willing partners that could help provide television services. Eagan and Burnsville staffs developed a decision timeline and a process (see atch). Without foreclosing on other opportunities, it was agreed that school districts 191 and 196 offered the best partnership potential since they already have studios and equipment — so staff started with this "low hanging fruit." This update reports only on the schools option. Other options involving new construction and facility relocation are still being researched by Eagan staff. You'll recall staff explored partnership opportunities with other cities in 2006 with very limited results. Whatever option is selected, a decision involving relocation for 2009 should be made by May of 2008 to give BECT enough time to make the move (the current lease expires December 31, 2008). The following summarizes our work to date on the school district options: Assumptions • BECT services should be provided within PEG Fee revenues as a policy direction from the City Council. BECT will need to relocate to another facility due to high cost of current facility and the inability to sign a long-term lease due to an uncertain funding future. Partnerships with schools meet multiple objectives including lowering costs, improving volunteer participation, and providing more programming for the public. ISD 191 Offer: Burnsville High School has space available to host BECT and has offered a partnership opportunity under the following terms. Capital Improvements Burnsville High School has available space for a television studio, editing suites and office space for 4-6 staff. Costs of facility improvements to accommodate BECT are estimated at $225,000. BECT would pay three annual payments of $35,000 to reimburse the school district for these payments. BECT would not pay rent, utilities or maintenance for facility use. Equipment BECT would provide all equipment and labor needed to equip and install a fully functioning television studio and two editing suites. This equipment would be jointly owned by BECT and ISD 191. A replacement fund would be established for equipment replacement that would be funded cooperatively on a 50/50 basis. As a note, the Five Year Capital Improvements Plan for BECT already includes funding for studio and editing equipment necessary to fulfill the majority of this commitment. Curriculum BECT would be folded into the curriculum with the goal of improving knowledge of youth in television production and increasing volunteer participation with BECT productions. Term A three-year contract with an option to renew or pursue expansion in 2011. PEG Access Public access available on Monday through Friday from 2:30 pm to 10:00 p.m., on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and other times by appointment. Staff will have access during regular business hours, including school hours. ISD 196 Offer: Eagan High School does not have space available to house BECT employees but they have indicated an interest in involving BECT with television production curriculum and with exploring opportunities in community television productions. Financial Projections for Phase 1 of ISD4191 Proposal Existing Facility vs. Proposed School Facility (Total costs including rent, maintenance and utility costs) • BECT services could be delivered within the PEG Fee amounts (approximately $700, 000) and additional revenue including sponsorships and projects for hire. • Franchise Fee Payments will remain with each city. This amount totals approximately $150, 000 annually or about $75, 000 per year/per city. Next Steps Other options exist for BECT. It could remain at the current location with a new lease - or it could be moved to another location. As mentioned earlier, Eagan staff continues to work on finding a new location including a possible new building arrangement of very favorable terms. They should be able to report on that in the near future. Any decision involving relocation for 2009 should be finalized by May of 2008. 2 BECT Facility School Facility Rent/Utilities* Rent/Utilities Difference 2009 $182,793 $35,000 -$147,793 2010 $188,276 $35,000 -$153,276 2011 $193,924 $35,000 -$158,924 2012 $199,741 0 -$199,741 2013 $205.733 0 -$205.733 $970,467 $105,000 -$865,467 • BECT services could be delivered within the PEG Fee amounts (approximately $700, 000) and additional revenue including sponsorships and projects for hire. • Franchise Fee Payments will remain with each city. This amount totals approximately $150, 000 annually or about $75, 000 per year/per city. Next Steps Other options exist for BECT. It could remain at the current location with a new lease - or it could be moved to another location. As mentioned earlier, Eagan staff continues to work on finding a new location including a possible new building arrangement of very favorable terms. They should be able to report on that in the near future. Any decision involving relocation for 2009 should be finalized by May of 2008. 2 4011� City at Eakan ma TO: MAYOR MAGUIRE AND COUNCILMEMBER TILLEY FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JANUARY 3, 2008 SUBJECT: JOINT BURNSVILLE/EAGAN COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING / JANUARY 4, 2008, JENSEN'S CAFE—BURNSVILLE Attached are a few brief talking points for each of the agenda items scheduled for the January 4 joint meeting between Eagan and Burnsville's Council committees. I. Update on BECT Facilities Location As the committees directed at the previous joint meeting, both cities have been exploring location options for BECT following the expiration of the lease on December 31, 2008. It is our intention to have a matrix ready for presentation this spring that will set forth options for the joint committee's consideration, with regard to location considerations, costs, partnership opportunities, pluses and minuses, etc. The purpose of today's discussion is to receive a brief update on some of the options being reviewed to date, but make no commitments except to offer considerations important to the two cities. II. FCC Ruling Number 2 ad Statewide Franchising—Possible Ramifications to BECT • No action is needed today from the committee; rather, an update will be provided on some of the discussions/considerations underway at the Federal and State level with regard to franchise fees and Public, Educational, Governmental (PEG) fee funding. • While the 3-2 FCC ruling appears to indicate that PEG fees may only be used for capital funding and not operations/salaries as is the case now, this matter is being litigated nationally and Comcast has had no previous objection to use of PEG fees for whatever purpose BECT deems necessary. • The City of Eagan works well with Comcast; however, despite several requests, they currently are not having communication with the local franchises about this issue as their corporate attorneys are determining the impact on the overall company. It is possible that a new US President could change the make-up or majority on the FCC or the matter could be overturned by the courts. However, the ruling could also lead to possible negotiations with Comcast as the basis for a settlement of these issues providing each side some of the outcomes they desire (funding certainty for cities and channel allocation for Comcast) in the future. • Should statewide franchising move ahead—a move currently opposed by the League of Minnesota Cities based on its task force findings—the cities, would lose their authority over new franchise applicants and likely see current authority over its. existing franchise abandoned by Comcast applying for a statewide franchise instead. The "Qwest bill" as it is known, is continuing to be pushed by the House Telecomm committee chair, even though nationally Qwest has said it is no longer pursuing statewide franchises or providing video services directly. The Chair has indicated his intent is for the Cities not to lose any funding, but the key will be in the details of legislative language not yet seen. III. Update on Cedar Corridor Project • As was noted in the 12/21 Informative Memo, the Cedar Corridor Transportation Group has reviewed three alternatives with regard to BRT-1.) a no -build; 2.) a suburban highway with 2015 improvements and 2030 vision; and 3.) a dual facility—local lanes on top and express lanes below grade. The overall consensus of all of the communities was option #2—a suburban highway with 2015 improvements and 2030 vision. IV. Broadband Discussions—"Gig Group", Proposed Legislation, and Other Developments • A legislative hearing was held in Eagan this past October to hear from local companies and individuals about the importance of broadband speed (Eagan appreciates Mayor Kautz taking time to be present at the hearing). • In light of the many broadband efforts underway by cities within Dakota County, a meeting is going to be held next week with staff from all of the communities in the County to discuss how we can together pursue our respective broadband initiatives while also capitalizing on the opportunity that exists in Dakota County for broadband speeds given the demographics represented in the County. • There is some discussion that Governor Pawlenty may issue an executive order on a statewide broad speed goal in the near future. • While the providers do not favor a specific speed goal, there are indications that the high-tech industry and the Chambers of Commerce would support such a goal. • To learn more about the Gig Group, you can visit www.giggropp.org. • There is emerging consensus amongst companies and stakeholders that statewide mapping should be completed to determine populations that are unserved or underserved in terms of broadband speed/access and to determine what the actual current speed capabilities (both downloading and uploading) are statewide. • Expect to see revised state legislation and a call for cities to endorse the need for the state to have formal broadband goals. V. Miscellaneous As a reminder, the following is summary of the City of Eagan's current efforts in terms of improving broadband speed, connectivity, and access across the City -- Major Initiatives: • Established the Eagan Technology Working Group, which is made up of top technology people at local companies, Chamber representatives, residents with home-based businesses, City staff and representatives from other advisory commissions. • The City has mapped the level of citywide connectivity. • The Eagan City Council adopted 2007/2008 goal of pursuing world class Internet speeds, connectivity and access to all Eagan residents and businesses. • Discussions are underway with incumbent providers (Tech Working group has looked at about 10 different options and narrowed the list.) JOINT EAGAN/BURNSVILLE COUNCIL COMMITTEE January 4, 2008 7:30 a.m., Jensen's Cafe, Burnsville Attendance: Mike Maguire, Mayor, Eagan Meg Tilley, Council Member, Eagan Tom Hedges, City Administrator, Eagan Tom Garrison, Communication Director, Eagan Dan Gustafson, Council Member, Burnsville Dan Kealey, Council Member, Burnsville Tom Hansen, Deputy City Manager, Burnsville Craig Ebeling, City Manager, Burnsville Craig Ebeling welcomed the Eagan representatives to the fair city of Burnsville. He distributed a packet with a draft agenda attached and inquired as to whether the items listed on the agenda were appropriate. There was a consensus that they were. ITEM 1 Update on BECT Facilities Contacts have been made with the Districts 196 and 191. Craig reported that Tom Hanson and Tom Garrison prepared a space needs definition document that they utilized in their contacts with the School Districts. Together, Tom Hansen and Tom Garrison contacted District #191. Tom Garrison and Jim Skelly made a contact with District #196. Because we got two distinctly different reactions from the two districts involved, there is a difference in the amount of information that can be garnered about both possibilities at this point in time. Craig went on to indicate that he and Tom Hedges have spent some time in the past discussing this potential with other cities. Because of differing PEG fees this becomes a difficult concept to implement. Craig also indicated that it was his understanding that Tom Garrison is pursuing some separate possibilities with privately owned buildings. Tom Hansen reported on the discussions with District #191. He noted that they have been extremely enthusiastic about the idea and have proposed several specific aspects of what might be in an agreement if the BECT were to go this direction. They proposed a phased implementation of a shared space arrangement. In the first phase, two to six employees would be housed at a location at the Burnsville High School. This first phase would be in place for three years. The second phase would take place in year four and would involve the conversion of a classroom for additional space at which time the entire BECT operation could be facilitated at that location. In the interim, some employees may need to be housed at the respective City Halls. District #191 was very enthusiastic because of the curriculum advantages that there would be for them. They presently do have an older facility in the High School and the equipment is becoming outdated. (This is in contrast to the much updated facilities that are in District #196 at Eagan High School.) District #191 was certain that access for the public would not be a problem for them after school hours. Tom briefly skimmed through the other major elements of the proposal from District #191. The facility would have editing suites and office space for 4 of the 6 staff to begin with. The initial cost of the facilities would be approximately $225K. BECT would pay three annual payments of $35K each to reimburse the School District. BECT would not pay for rent, utilities or maintenance for the facility either during this three year period or any time after. BECT would provide equipment and labor needed to install the studio and two editing suites in a functional state. Equipment would be jointly owned by BECT and District #191. A replacement fund would be established for equipment replacement. The contributions to the fund would be shared cooperatively on a 50/50 basis. As noted above, public access would be available Monday through Friday from 2:30 p.m. -1- to 10:00 p.m. BECT staff would have access after that time as well. The saving to BECT would range from approximately $148K in 2009 to $206K in 2013. Tom Garrison indicated that because Eagan High School is in a different position that the response from District #196 was not nearly as definitive as from District #191. It appears that there would be very little or no space at Eagan High School. District #196 is, however, amenable to making after-hours usage of their facilities available. Another option in dealing with District #196 would be to utilize the School of Environmental Studies. Tom Garrison is still waiting for a response on that possibility. The director of these facilities for District #196, Ram Singh, still thinks there may be some possibilities at Eagan High School. Mike Maguire asked if Mark Hotchkiss had been involved in the discussion and, specifically, what he thinks about the usage of the District #196 facilities or the impact of phasing following the District #191 proposal. Tom Hansen indicated that Mark Hotchkiss had helped in preparing the RFP documents but had not been involved in the various negotiations. It was suggested that a staff review of the options by Mr. Hotchkiss be included prior to the next meeting. Tom Hedges went on to report that Tom Garrison is also working on the possibility of locating the BECT facilities in existing privately owned buildings or in a building to be constructed specifically for BECT. He suggested that all of the options be included in a comparison matrix to be reviewed at a meeting later in February. That matrix should address all of the various parameters that would be important in the decision. Craig reported on the discussions that he and Tom Hedges have had with other cities. As noted above, this is difficult because Eagan and Burnsville run a considerably different operation than the other cities. The PEG fees from Burnsville and Eagan are higher than other cities in the county. This makes formulating an agreement acceptable to all parties more complex. Dan Gustafson talked about the curriculum enhancements that could be achieved in working with the school districts. He thought that was a significant benefit to partnering with one of the districts. Meg Tilley agreed and said that there really is a need for students that have these skills in the employment market. Mike Maguire agreed but said that we need to make certain that we understand what the cost for this curriculum improvement would be to BECT. Tom Hedges also wondered aloud as to how these different locations would affect our volunteers. He talked about the need to include all the various decision parameters in a matrix. He agreed that Mark Hotchkiss should give this some input from an operational standpoint. Mike Maguire went back to the District #191 idea and asked if the facilities would be a renovation of an existing studio or would be a new area. Tom said that #191 does have a studio and it would be renovated. He went on to review a sketch plan that has been worked up by WOLD Architects, the architects for the District. He noted that the District does presently have someone involved in television work by the name of Tim Lund. Dan Kealey asked how many programs are actually produced in the existing studio. Dan Gustafson thought there were about 100 per year of which about 30 are Council business reports by Mayor Kautz. Mike Maguire indicated that he also does reports like this although not on a regular basis. Dan Kealey inquired as to whether this would cause BECT to change their operation. He noted that #191 is not and should not be the driving force behind this effort. Mike Maguire added that he was fully cognizant of the potential curriculum gains but that we need to understand all the implications of a potential change. For instance, are there impacts on the life of the technical equipment? Tom Garrison pressed Council members as to what parameters should be in the matrix. There was a sense that operational costs, -2- relocation costs, operational impacts, hours of operation, curriculum gains, effects on volunteers, impacts of centralization vs. decentralization should be included. Tom Garrison made a more detailed report on his inquires regarding private buildings. One of the possibilities that he is following would utilize an existing building near the present BECT facility. BECT was contacted by that building owner. The same owner has real estate in the area on which he would build a new building specifically suited for BECT. Tom said that there is 7100 sq. ft. presently utilized by BECT; however, there is a considerable amount of wasted space in that building and a new building could possibly be smaller than that. He said there is a third option with an existing building on Silver Bell Road. He will be receiving prices very soon. Tom Garrison asked if the Council members desired that he pursue additional private building options. Perhaps, even an RFP process could be implemented. There was a consensus that since time is an issue that may not be possible. Dan Kealey asked if cost would be the highest consideration for Eagan. Mike Maguire said that cost certainly is of concern to Eagan but that all of the costs have to be recognized - capital and operational. Funding is a concern in all of this because of the uncertainties of the future regarding the recent FCC regulations. Meg said that cost definitely matters to her as well but said that partnerships are one of the hopes for containing costs. Tom Hedges indicated that none of these comments should be interpreted to mean that Eagan is not enthusiastic about any of the ideas but they really feel that all of the aspects need to be understood. Dan Kealey wondered out loud as to exactly how many hours of access to the facility we would need. Certainly, the volunteers don't need access during all hours of the day. Meg said that Mark Hotchkiss would be a good judge of that. Two potential dates were suggested for the next meeting, February 8 at 7:30 a.m. for breakfast or February 15 at 12:00 p.m. for lunch (depending on Meg's availability). She will get back to Tom Hedges on which of the dates will work best for her. Tom Garrison, Tom Hansen, Jim Skelly and Mark Hotchkiss will work diligently on preparing the decision matrix. ITEM 2 FCC Ruling #2 and the Concept of Statewide Franchising Tom Garrison gave a brief update on the impact of Ruling #1 by the FCC. Since that applied only to new entrants into the video market, this ruling had little impact on the BECT. However, FCC Ruling #2 now applies all of the Ruling #1 provisions to existing providers. Certainly court challenges are already filed. However, the FCC is moving to implement the regulations while those court challenges are underway. Whether or not they will be enjoined from doing so is unknown at this point in time. The biggest implication of Ruling #2 would be that the cities' PEG fees could potentially be limited to usage for capital costs only. The Ruling hints that existing contracts might still hold. Historically, the agreement with Comcast has allowed PEG fees to be used for all operational costs as well as capital costs. In a letter to Comcast, the attorney for BECT has asserted that this operational mode still is in effect. There has been no reply from Comcast at this time. It appears that Comcast does have interest in acquiring one of the BECT channels for their own purposes. This may enter into discussions with Comcast. Tom went on to talk about 2007 "Qwest Bill." That bill would have provided for a statewide franchising process that would be administered through the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This arrangement is in place in twelve other states; however, there is very little demonstration that improved competition has resulted. Mostly, the incumbents just opt out of existing franchise agreements and revert back to the state franchise agreements with the cities losing all of the benefits of the original franchise agreements. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has taken a position that the case for gains through additional competition has not been proven and it would be premature to act on the statewide Franchising Bill this year. Indeed, Qwest has never even applied for a franchise in any city in -3- the State. They now indicate that they may not do so. However, the House Committee Chair concerned with this is still interested in doing something with the bill and is conducting informational meetings at the present. ITEM 3 The Cedar Group Tom Hedges reported that all of the work by the group to date has been boiled down to three alternates. The first would be a no-build alternate. The second option would be a two phase implementation idea. Target dates would be 2015 and 2030. The third concept would be a grade separation arrangement whereby there would be a depressed channel that would provide for two lanes of through-traffic through Apple Valley. The consensus by the group is that Alternative #2 makes the most sense. It also has the greatest chance of being fundable. Tom noted that the emphasis in the discussion has traditionally been for Apple Valley and Lakeville. The needs for the Cedar Grove station are often pushed into the background. He is convinced that the work for 2015 is reasonably certain although the funding for the work for 2030 is much less likely at this point in time. Dan Gustafson reported that this subject has received a fair amount of discussion at the 13 5W Solutions Alliance. He specifically reported that Lakeville was chastised for not joining the transit taxing district. Mike Maguire asked if Cedar Avenue and 13 5W are competitors for funding. Dan Gustafson said that he does not see it that way. Certainly, the 13 5W Solutions Alliance has supported the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) which includes funding for both improvements on the Cedar Corridor project and 13 5W. ITEM 4 Broadband Discussions - Gil Group Tom Garrison reported that the Gig group is a diverse gathering with governmental interests, businesses, representatives from the University of Minnesota, representatives from the High Tech Association, and others. They formulated a bill last year with an articulated goal of 1 gigabit service by 2010. The bill received a courtesy hearing only last year. It appears that the bill could have been structured better and there has been a considerable amount of discussion since. In those discussions, the incumbents have been involved and there was some effort to try to find some point at which the incumbents were willing to set a target for speed. However, it is becoming clear that the incumbents are not willing to agree to any specific goal for speeds to be provided. The focus for a new bill this year will be statewide mapping and to identify served and underserved areas. There is also a rumor that the Governor is considering an executive order on broadband. Tom Hedges talked about a group that is forming from among the Dakota County managers group to see what if any synergies can be gained by working between cities. He said that the articulated goal of that group will be that Dakota County be considered the "broadband place of choice in Minnesota." Dan Kealey indicated this sounds like a good collaboration. He wondered if the Chambers of Commerce could and should be involved in this effort. Tom Hedges said that while the Gig group involved several interest groups from the City of Eagan, Thompson West for example, is very much interested in the wider implementation of broadband since many of their employees live throughout Dakota County and other counties as well. Tom Garrison talked about the unique advantages that Dakota County may have in becoming the broadband location of choice. Dakota County has experienced a 9% growth in so called "knowledge workers" whereas the state as a whole has experienced a 6% decline. Craig indicated that the City of Burnsville has a legislative position that supports the Gig build. Craig reported on the City of Burnsville's plans for implementing a fiber loop during the next construction season. Council has authorized this project. It would be utilized primarily for the City's SCADA system; however, it will also connect all of the city facilities and would serve the same purpose as the INet furnished by Comcast should that INet service ever be discontinued. He believes that the -4- loss of INET service is a distinct possibility at some point. He also talked about the idea of utilizing Minnesota Statute #429 to pay for some of the costs related to the so-called last mile construction. The City is presently in the preliminary stages of investigating that at the present time. This is a funding approach strategy that has never been used before. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m. Next meeting will be held on February 8 or February 15. Date and location to be announced. -5-