Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.18.15 Work Session Packet City of Farmington Mission Statement 430 Third Street Through teamwork and cooperation, Farmington,MN 55024 the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP May 18, 2015 5:00 PM Farmington City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Dakota County Broadband Project Update 4. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE 5. ADJOURN 00411194, City of Farmington p 430 Third Street Farmington,Minnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 44r,A 4° www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: David J. McKnight, City Administrator SUBJECT: Dakota County Broadband Project Update DATE: May 18, 2015 INTRODUCTION The issue of broadband availability in Dakota County has been discussed for a number of years by both the High Performance Partnership (HiPP) group and the Dakota County City/County Administrators group. The HiPP Group assigned this project to the administrator group and this group has been working on it over the past year plus. The Dakota County Community Development Agency(CDA)has taken the lead on administering this project. DISCUSSION Craig Ebling, a consultant hired by the CDA and the former Burnsville City Manager, and Lisa Alfson from the CDA will be in attendance at your May 18, 2015 work session to update the city council on the status of the project. The presentation will be the time to make sure you understand what this project entails, see how it could work and impact Farmington and ask any questions you may have. I have attached a summary of the study completed by Design Nine on this project. This is a complicated issue in many respects. The work group on this project has continued to meet the past few months and you will be updated on the status of this project at the work session. The work has moved forward at a fast pace since January 2015,the CDA representatives will update you on the work of the committee. They will also have a power point presentation that will show you potential future steps and decision making points you will eventually be asked to consider. Adam Kienberger and I have been participating in the broadband work group. BUDGET IMPACT TBD ACTION REQUESTED Hear the presentation from the Dakota County CDA representatives, ask any questions you may have and provide any feedback you feel is appropriate to the CDA and city staff. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material Broadband Study Overview © Backup Material May 2015 Broadband Committee Information rr I overview of the ,,,,tip,,, , Broadband I ,w. � :I '. tt ■ F Infrastructure :w Study - {� o 'c� • Dakota County, RiN ►Q,ti`` ' ' ix • r t -It,. t 4.4 ' t if''\;:„1 *: 1 • M f M1 ry .' January,2015 DRAFT: Do Not Distribute • DESIGN NINE " broadband planners Copyright©2015 Design Nine,Inc. Provided for the exclusive use of the Dakota County CDA. All other rights reserved. Disclaimer The telecommunications business is continually evolving.We have made our best effort to apply our experience and knowledge to the business and technical information contained herein.We believe the data we have presented at this point in time to be accurate and to be representative of the current state of the telecommunications industry. Market changes and new technology breakthroughs may affect our recommendations over time. Design Nine,Inc.presents this information solely for planning purposes. This document is not intended to be a replacement for formal engineering studies that are normally required to implement a telecommunications infrastructure. No warranty as to the fitness of this information for any particular building,network,or system is expressed or implied. Design Nine,Inc.will not be responsible for the misuse or misapplication of this information. For more information: www.designnine.com Table of Contents Overview and Recommendations . 1 Where lathe tpdvate sector'? • torrent Goals and Activities in DakoteCOunty ,.3 Recommendations - 4 - • Next Steps, Bandwidth and Capacity.Analysis Whet is 13roadband? - Next Generation'Connectivity 11 I-Net and c-Net Analysis, 13 l-Net Benefits and Effidencles . . • 1$ C-Net Benefitsand Economic impact 14 Business Models and Ownership 16 ThepoliciptivAtepartoorship., . , „ - 4 to 4 - 18 Business Model Options 18 Financing Options ,. , , 20 PrOjeCtPhases. • - 22 Infrastructure Maps 23 Overview and Recommendations In the autumn of 2013,Dakota County,its cities and the Dakota County Community Development Agency(CDA)solicited assistance in the advancement of their broadband vision adopted through the efforts of the High Percentage Partnerships(HIPP)process.A detailed Request for Proposals(RFP)was issued. The CDA and its partners desired to better understand what sorts of system improvements would be necessary to link designated public facilities in the County with broadband capabilities. Many of these facilities were already served by fiber optic cable owned by the County and its cities,but it was thought that some gaps may exist. The envisioned I-Net would be a system that links and serves these public sites with a system that utilizes existing publicly owned communication facilities including fiber optic cables, and necessary additions to that system to allow that service. In addition to increasing the efficiencies of local government services,the broadband objectives adopted through the HIPP process include the enhancement of economic development opportunities,growing home-based businesses,and maintaining increases in residential home values.To this end the RFP also asked for an analysis of potential expansions of the I-Net to provide a system that would be of value for outside private entities,referred to as the C-Net,potentially including businesses,wholesalers and/or Internet Service Provider(ISP)/content providers.The thought was that there could be an economic development impact of the C-Net concept-new business creation, strengthening and expanding of existing businesses,education,healthcare,and entertainment and other residential uses including telecommuting. Design Nine was selected through the RFP process to complete the work and began on May1,2014.The following report addresses the RFP requests. Why Fiber? We are now seeing even small and medium-sized businesses asking for fiber connections. Without ubiquitous fiber infrastructure,communities will not be economically competitive. Communities that already worry about losing too many young people to other areas have much more to worry about. Fiber is the only transmission system that will be able to deliver all the services businesses and residents will expect and demand in just a few years. Communities that choose to delay fiber infrastructure investments will be at a severe disadvantage in the next several years when trying to attract and retain businesses and workers. Fiber is a future proof investment. The upper limit of fiber capacity has not yet been found,and off the shelf hardware can handle thousands of times the needs of an average home or business well into the future. Fiber has a life expectancy of thirty to forty years, and may last much longer than that every year,the number goes up as fiber systems installed in the 1970s continue to perform adequately. A single fiber can carry all the Dakota Countyerba'dband Study Summaiy DRAFT: Do Not Distribute traffic and services needed by a home or business,including voice telephone service, television programming,live videoconferencing,and HD television. Over the next thirty years,the businesses,residents,and institutions of Dakota County 2 will spend more than 10 billion dollars on telecommunications services--in today's dollars, unadjusted for inflation and unadjusted for price increases.Some analysts believe that the average household bill for services delivered via broadband may double in the next ten years,which would make the thirty year projection easily reach 14 billion dollars(see the table on the following page).Clearly Dakota County sees the value of good telecommunication services.Numerous studies indicate that the demand for bandwidth is doubling every two years.Are the increasing telecommunications needs of Dakota County public institutions,businesses and residents being adequately met in the most cost- effective manner possible?This study concludes that they are not and finds that government actions could be employed to promote enhanced broadband service. Dakota County 30 Year Telecom Expenditure Analysis Households still on Households with Households with no dial-up "little"broadband cable Internet modem/DSL/wireless Total households 156,641 Total businesses 14,096 Household 3% 82% 15% Percentage Number of 4,699 128,446 23,496 households Average monthly Local phone: $25 Local phone: $25 Local phone: $25 telecom Long distance:$25 Long distance:$25 Long distance:$25 expenditures Cable/satellite TV: $65 Cable/satellite TV: $75 Cable/satellite TV: $65 Dial up Internet:$20 Broadband Internet$45 Annual cost/ $1,620 $2,040 $1,380 household 30 year $228,382,578 $7,860,871,944 $972,740,610 expenditure Total residential $9,061,995,132 expenditures Total $10,421,294,402 expenditures' 1:Includes an estimate of both local government and business expenditures. Where is the private sector? One might reasonably ask if there is so much money being spent on telecommunications, where is the private sector? The core issue applies not just in Dakota County,but Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT: Do Not Distribute nationwide: the incumbent business model is broken. TV and telephone services are low margin commodity services that are rapidly being supplanted by Over The Top(OTT) video services like Netfllx and Hula,and cellphones have made the traditional telephone landline a luxury.Incumbents view the market for telecom as a fixed,static market that 3 requires them to'own"the customer and to bundle all services with the physical infrastructure. Put another way,the incumbents do not have a business model that supports revenue growth in a meaningful way,and without revenue growth,they cannot afford to make substantial capital improvements(e.g.fiber). "Broadband"is not a service--It is a delivery medium. If we think about broadband using a roads analogy,broadband is the road,not the trucks that use the road. Internet access is a service delivered by a broadband road system,and that Internet service is just one of many services that are in demand. Today,congestion on broadband networks is not due just to increased use of email and Web surfing,but many other services. From an economic development perspective,the incumbent reliance on an outdated business model is disastrous. Local businesses should not be punished for using too much of an essential business service. An apt analogy would be if the Department of Transportation told a businesses that the tractor trailers they were using were"too big"and henceforth all deliveries had to be made by pick up truck. We know Intuitively that this would make the business uncompetitive with businesses in other regions that had roads that supported tractor trailers. Current Goals and Activities in Dakota County During the course of this study numerous interviews were conducted with Dakota County,municipal and school district officials.A common theme discussed in these interviews was the desire to apply a more strategic focus to the design and installation of any new publicly owned broadband assets and also to the application of the already well- endowed existing broadband assets.Substantial conduit and fiber assets have already been installed by Dakota County and its cities for institutional use.Over the years this effort has given Dakota County and its cities with an inventory of valuable fiber optic cabling that could potentially be more effectively applied to serving the governments of the County and assisting economic development,if the recommended steps are undertaken. Dakota County now publishes all broadband communications projects,including fiber- optic cabling installation,in its capital improvement program(CIP).This action allows broadband communications projects to be viewed and evaluated on par with other strategic capital improvement projects such as roadways,parks,and building construction. County policies stress appropriate redundancy,building to proper construction standards including strong adherence to the"dig-once"strategy,and serving all the county facilities that need broadband access.The County believes that the formal inclusion of broadband projects in the CIP,and the public visibility this inclusion imparts,will point to even more Dakota County Broadband StudySumtnary DRAFT: DO Not Distribute potentially fruitful partnerships with other governments and private entities.The county is seeking a steady and orderly process for completing its network. Apple Valley has partnered with Dakota County,AccessEagan,Burnsville and 4 Independent School District(ISD)196 to connect ten buildings to a fiber network within the city.The Apple Valley City Hall functions as the network center for the hub and spoke network design.Empty conduit has been placed along Cedar Avenue which will provide future expansion of the fiber network in this heavily concentrated industrial area in what is otherwise a largely residential municipality. Farmington owns ten to twelve miles of fiber which connects several municipal buildings. Farmington relies on its own internal fiber system to connect its buildings and does not contract with Charter or any other cable provider for data,but does contract with Charter for video services. Lakeville,however,relies almost entirely on leased fiber from Charter which services all the municipal connected facilities.The city does own a few short strands connecting the city hall,library and a municipal liquor store.The city also shares some fiber with ISD 194 and gets interact service through State of Minnesota connections at the Western Service Center. Rosemount currently owns fiber connections between the city hall and the fire station.The city is seeking to expand connections to its office park and to portions of the Dakota County network.The only active fiber-to-the-home(FTTH)project in the county, Evermoor,is in Rosemount.Despite mixed financial results from this project,Rosemount sees the potential for economic development with FTTH. A common theme expressed during our interviews with key city officials was that"fiber to the premises"(FTTP)—direct fiber connections to homes and business—is a goal of broadband expansion for the municipalities.FTTP is viewed as a key strategic driver for economic development. Fiber to the home has measurable benefits to homeowners beyond improved Internet access: In a 2013 report to the Fiber To The Home Council, Render Research and Consulting reported that fiber to the premises adds 85000 to$6000 to the sales price of the house. It was undecided how the goal of Fiber To The Premises would be achieved,but the cities of Burnsville and Eagan illustrate two possible approaches.Burnsville and Eagan have both constructed advanced municipal fiber networks,although with slightly differing approaches. In Dakota County,it is likely that private initiatives will lead fiber to the home efforts (new business models being adopted by FTTH start ups and larger firms like Google are showing that FTTH/FTTP efforts can be profitable). However,a well-designed and maintained C-Net could accelerate private investment by reducing the cost of connecting several neighborhood-level FTTH projects together. The C-Net would also make It easier Dakota County'Wombat-id Study'Surnmary DR.AF'c Do Not Distribute for FTTH projects to bring competitive service providers into their FTTH neighborhoods. While Burnsville and Eagan have made a commitment to allow business to access their 5 broadband networks and create a commercial network,or C-Net,Dakota County and its other municipalities have made broadband investments almost exclusively to support government operations.This institutional network,the I-Net,has successfully linked county administrative buildings and other facilities,city halls,fire departments,schools, traffic lights,emergency response facilities,golf courses and municipal liquor stores. Dakota County has focused on the I-Net.The the County's priority has been to develop fiber routes to meet the needs for performing its responsibilities and its partner local governments.Still,one of the County's strategic plan goals is to be"good for business", including being the best at the basics(transit,fiber,roads etc.).In addition,one of the Dakota County CDA's strategic goals is to support the economic development goals of Dakota County communities.A strong broadband network is a cornerstone of economic development. Dakota County is well known for its governmental collaboration success.The Dakota Communications Center(DCC)organization is an example of shared services and network sharing that has been in operation since 2007.Dakota County and several other cities in the County belong to LOGIS,which is a Joint Powers,intergovernmental consortium of Minnesota local government units.The mission of LOGIS is to"Facilitate leading-edge,effective and adaptable public sector technology solutions through the sharing of ideas,risks,and resources in a member-driven consortium:To further extend its collaboration effort,Dakota County is finalizing an agreement with the Technology and Information Education Services(TIES)group.TIES is the largest provider of educational technology professional development in the Midwest,offering management software for school operations,instructional administration,and information technology operations. Most of the County network is owned by the County,but the state of Minnesota provides the Internet services.This is true of several of the cities in the county as well.The broadband policy for the County is to procure fewer commercially leased fiber lines and emphasize the construction and use of cooperatively constructed facilities with other institutions.The partnerships with the State have been advantageous to both parties.It seems that the State has more ability to obtain operational cost funds but struggles to fund capital expenditures. The County has been able to fill this need on several occasions.Beyond Apple Valley, Burnsville and Eagan there is little municipal-owned fiber in the other cities involved in this study(Farmington,Hastings,Inver Grove Heights,Lakeville,Mendota Heights, Rosemount,West St.Paul,and South St.Paul).Most of the other municipalities have leased fiber directly from a commercial provider,such as Comcast or Charter,or have joined a consortium,such as NDC4 in the northern part of the county.NDC4 connects Dakota County Broadband StudySummary DRAFt: Do Not Distribute 41 facilities in 13 entities,including 4 cities,3 school districts,county libraries,1 private school,and the South St Paul Library.The cities of Mendota Heights,South St.Paul, West St Paul,and Inver Grove Heights subscribe to NDC4 services.The above mentioned County TIES partnership will be a valuable"hedge"against future unknowns when 6 NDC4 concludes its cable franchise renewal agreement. In addition to economic development,the interviewed city and county officials were concerned with network availability and redundancy.All have expressed interest in some sort of county-wide consortium that would reliably and effectively link county governments with a high-speed network.They recognize that establishing an entity to accomplish this task will be difficult,but they are all interested in participating,under the right conditions. Additional information about activities in the county and the cities is contained in a separate document called Maps,Cost Estimates,and Notes. Recomniendations The decisions surrounding an 1-Net and a C-Net can be completely decoupled,and we suggest that the decision to support a C-Net project could be set aside until an enhanced I-Net has been established and funded, We strongly recommend the following. One We recommend that an enhanced countywide I-Net effort be undertaken and cite the following as some of the reasons:(These factors are discussed in more detail in the body of the report.) * The current ad hoc approach to brokering individual JPAs(now numbering more than 100 for the County)is unsustainable. * Current and future fiber and network assets are going to be under-used because there is no process in place to make good use of unallocated conduit and fiber.As bandwidth demands continue to increase just for local government needs,the sheer number of literally disconnected fiber assets will not be able to be utilized efficiently. * The current tools being used to manage fiber strands is inadequate. * The long time period required to get new joint fiber sharing and/or joint construction cost sharing agreements in place will only get worse,meaning some opportunities to save money or improve services will be missed. Once an enhanced I-Net has been formed to address the existing I-Net only problems,it will be much easier to make a decision about whether to create a C-Net. In fact,we would say that developing a C-Net using existing County and city assets is simply not possible unless the current I-Net asset and process problems are solved. Two: We recommend that the I-Net(and the C-Net if it follows)be implemented utilizing the wholesale-open access-multi-service business model,owned and governed by Dakota Cbtmty Broadband study Summary DRAFT: Do Not Distribute a joint powers agreement(JPA)entity. The various business model options are discussed at length In this report. The recommended structure would provide for a JPA entity that would own and manage all publicly owned telecommunications assets in the County.It would assist all governmental units in required additions to the system to serve their 7 facilities and manage and maintain all of the systems.It would devise fair and equitable policies regarding the compensation for assets owned by the various members of the JPA and would expeditiously oversee the operation of the C-Net should the County and Its cities determine to implement that concept. Three: Making this concept a reality will require a great deal of effort and cooperation among the County and its cities,something that they have demonstrated an ability to do in numerous instances before.The following Three Step Approach is recommended for this concept implementation. Next Steps Step One Create a new JPA entity with a charter to manage fiber and network assets on behalf of the County and any other cities that choose to join. This process will likely take three to six months,including time needed for individual city votes to join.Joining the JPA should require a minimum funding commitment to pay for staff,office space,and other operational expenses(shared among all members). The JPA would have the legal authority to take on management of a C-Net at some time in the future. The JPA could be staffed minimally with a project manager and a network engineer,and most other activities could be outsourced. Where assets are owned by the County or a city the JPA would be authorized to manage those assets and negotiate use of those assets with appropriate oversight. Where revenue Is generated from leasing of those assets,there would be a pre-existing revenue share agreement in place between the JPA and the asset owner(e.g.if the JPA negotiates a fee- based lease of dark fiber in Burnsville,the City of Burnsville would share in the revenue). The JPA would require appropriate oversight and direction,and the WA charter would specify a board,periodic meetings,fiscal oversight,and other organizational and management requirements. Step Mr° The two new staff would be hired/transferred to the JPA(Director/Manager,Senior Technical position). First tasks would include: Development of a comprehensive and accurate inventory of existing and planned assets,map fiber strand assignments based on existing and proposed fiber use and any other shared use agreements(this would have to be contracted out—it's a substantial work effort). Likely time for this effort is five to seven months. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT: Do Not Distribute 4 Analysis of all existing JPA joint use agreements and development of accurate records of partners,terms,restrictions on use,and other pertinent restrictions or requirements in the agreements. 8 1 Creation of new uniform"standard"agreements for joint use,fiber sharing(e.g.IRUs) and construction cost sharing so that new opportunities could be negotiated more quickly and at less expense. For all new fiber projects proposed by JPA members or partners, the JPA would be authorized to negotiate agreements using a"standard"fiber lease agreement developed and reviewed by telecom counsel on retainer(I.e.not local government attorneys). JPA staff would coordinate new fiber use and fiber deployment projects among JPA local government members,state agencies,school systems and other partners. Step Three After JPA is formed and asset inventory work is well underway,a separate proposal would be made to the JPA members to create a C-Net,using some of the now clearly identified fiber assets that could be allocated to the C-Net. The C-Net should be operated on an open access wholesale basis;the customers of the C-Net would be private sector service providers. We do not recommend that the JPA offer any retail business or residential services(i.e.Internet,voice telephony,TV,etc.). The C-Net could be operated directly out of the JPA,or a separate LLC could be formed (pending legal opinion on best way to do this). If the JPA members agree to create a C- Net,the JPA would develop a public price list for various assets(e.g.conduit lease,dark fiber lease,lit circuit leasing)and begin marketing availability.Likely time to reach agreement on C-Net formation and readiness to begin marketing:four to six months, Planning and implementation of the C-Net would require additional resources during the planning and development period. The C-Net network could begin as a nucleus of existing assets,but would require some capital funding to create a"Phase One"business class core network. To be successful,the C-Net planning would have to include a careful analysis of current and planned areas of economic growth,and new fiber construction would be needed in many cases,as existing fiber assets have been placed in many cases to support local government activities rather than business activities. T Dakota County Broadband Study-Summary DRAM: Do Not Distribute Bandwidth and Capacity Analysis 9 What is Broadband? There is much confusion about the"true"definition of broadband. From the perspective of economic development,there can be no upper limit on the definition of broadband. Saying that broadband(as an example)is 5 megabits/second of bandwidth or 10 megabits/ second is to immediately tell businesses in the region that there will be structural limits on their ability to do business in the future—it is dictating the size of truck that can be used to deliver goods and services. Here is the only appropriate definition of broadband: Broadband Is whatever amount of bandwidth is needed to support a business'ability to compete In the global economy. Broadband is a community and economic development issue,not a technology issue. The essential question is not,"What system should we buy?"or"Is wireless better or cheaper than fiber?" Instead,the question is: "What do our businesses and residents need to be able to compete globally over the next thirty years?" In short,the County today has some"little broadband"in the form of DSL and cable modem service,along with a very limited amount of"big broadband"in the form of fiber to a few businesses and institutions. If Dakota County is to make investments in broadband and telecommunications infrastructure,it is absolutely critical that those investments are able to scale gracefully to meet business and economic development needs for decades. This drives the solution towards an integrated fiber and wireless system,rather than a wireless only service orientation. Wireless is able to provide basic Internet access needs,but is not able to support advanced video and multimedia services. Some off the shelf business videoconferencing systems in use today require a minimum of 50 megabits of bandwidth— far beyond the capabilities of any wireless system. 'Iiso key concepts that should drive community investments in telecom are "Broadband"Is not the Internet Bandwidth Is not a fixed number Broadband and"the Internet"are often used interchangeably,but this has led to much confusion. Broadband refers to a delivery system,while"the Internet"is just one of many services that can be carried on a broadband network. The challenge for communities is to ensure that businesses and homes have a broadband network with sufficient bandwidth to deliver all the services that will be needed and expected within the next three to four years, including but not limited to"the Internet" Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT: DO Not Distribute Bandwidth needs for the past decade have been growing by 25%to 50%per year,and show no sign of slowing. As computers and associated hardware(e.g.video cameras,audio equipment,VoIP phones)become more powerful and less expensive,new applications and services are continually emerging that drive demand for more bandwidth. The table below 1 indicates the likely growth in bandwidth,based on current uses,emerging high end equipment,and research lab/university/government networks already deployed and in use. Lightpaths refer to placing multiple wavelengths(paths)of light on a single fiber. High end commercial equipment already in production is routinely placing 20+lightpaths on a single fiber,with each lightpath capable of carrying data at gigabit speeds. This technology will move down to ordinary business and residential network equipment over the next ten to fifteen years.Current fiber being installed will require only a relatively inexpensive equipment upgrade to increase carrying capacity over the same fibers. From a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation(March,2009), listed below are the bandwidth requirements for services already commonly in use and for emerging services like telepresence business videoconferencing. Application/ Upstream Downstream Total Combined Service Bandwidth Bandwidth Bandwidth Requirement Requirement Required Medium resolution 1.2 megabits 1.2 megabits 2.4 megabits videoconferencing Streaming video .5 megabits 1.2 megabits 1.7 megabits (720p) Standard definition .25 megabits 4 megabits 4.25 megabits TV Basic HD 1.2 to 4 1.2 to 4 megabits 2 to 8 megabits videoconferencing megabits (720p) Telepresence high 5 megabits 5 megabits 10 megabits for 2 resolution HD attendees,15 meg videoconferencing for 3 attendees Video home security 2-5 megabits .5 megabits 2.5 to 5 megabits service HD digital television 1 megabit 4-8 megabits 5 to 10 megabits (1080p) Telepresence very 15 megabits 15 megabits 30 megabits for 2 high resolution HD attendees,45 videoconferencing megabits for 3 (I080p) attendees 4K digital television 1 megabit 19 megabits 20 megabits Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT: Do Not Distribute Note that the business videoconferencing services all require symmetric bandwidth. This is a critically important issue,as current incumbent"little broadband"services like DSL and cable modem systems do not offer symmetric bandwidth(where the upstream and downstream bandwidth is equal).Using this information we can project what Dakota 11 County homes and businesses will need in the coming years. Next 2-4 Next decade Twenty years years Small business 10-25 megabits of 100 megabits of Gigabit+symmetric needs(I-9 symmetric symmetric bandwidth and 50 to 100 employees) bandwidth and 5-10 bandwidth and megabits of Internet megabits of Internet 20-40 megabits of access access Internet access Medium-sized 50-100 megabits of Gigabit symmetric Multiple gigabit business needs symmetric bandwidth and 50 symmetric circuits and (10-100 bandwidth and to 100 megabits of lightpaths and 100+ employees) 10-20 megabits of Internet access megabits of Internet Internet access access Large business Gigabit and Multiple gigabit Multiple gigabit needs 10Gigabit symmetric symmetric circuits and (100-1000+ symmetric connections and lightpaths and 1 Gigabit employees) bandwidth and 250 to 500 +of Internet access 100+megabits of megabits of Internet access Internet access Residential 25-50 megabits of A Gigabit of A Gigabit symmetric needs symmetric asymmetric or circuit and/or lightpaths, bandwidth and symmetric with 100 to 250 10-15 megabits of bandwidth and megabits of Internet Internet access 80-100 megabits of access Internet access Next Generation Connectivity "Next generation"is the term used to describe future planning for the next step in network connectivity and infrastructure.lhere seems to be an emphasis on deploying fiber-to-the- home(FTTH).But why?By pulling fiber deeper into the neighborhood and providing greater access to connectivity,this allows the infrastructure to be in place to accommodate future communication needs,capacities,and innovations.Because of the U.S.demographic bulge that occurred during the baby boom after WW2 caused exurban migration,the U.S. is currently the only country where fiber is being deployed in largely suburban areas with single family homes. In countries like Japan and Korea,fiber to the apartment is widely available,in part because the cost of delivering fiber to a high rise apartment building that might have 500 subscribers is much lower than the build cost of fiber to 500 single family homes in a sub-division. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT: Do Not Distribute Next generation broadband reaps substantial benefits; there are several key benefits of "Next-Generation Broadband": * Dramatically faster file transfer speeds for both uploads and downloads 12 * The ability to transmit streaming video,transforming the Internet into a far more visual medium * Means to engage in true-real time collaboration * The ability to use many applications simultaneously * Ability to maintain more flexible work schedules by being able to work from home on a part time or full time basis * The ability to obtain health-related services for an occasional illness and/or long term medical services for chronic illnesses. Clearly,consumers have a strong interest in a visual medium from whenever and wherever they are.Youlike is the second most popular search engine after Google,which demonstrates the need to support the infrastructure to transmit streaming video. In addition to video streaming,true-real time collaboration also provides an effective way for people to interact from wherever they are.People can engage in a two-way,real-time collaboration,so that fruitful,visual conversations can be held between friends,family, business associates from the state,country,or internationally. Because of fiber networks,employees have the capabilities of working from their home. Findings suggest that if all Americans had fiber to the home,this would lead to a 5 percent reduction in gasoline use,a 4 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions,$5 billion In lower road expenditures,and 1.5 billion commute hours recaptured. Dakota County Broadband Study,SWri nary DRAFT: DO Not Distribute I- Net and C- Net Analysis The potential county-wide I-Net,or Institutional Network,is envisioned as a logical 13 extension of activities and infrastructure that already exist in the county. For several years, Dakota County has allocated substantial funds to add conduit anchor dark fiber cable to a variety of capital improvement projects and plans to continue to make significant investments over the next several years. The County has also brokered numerous fiber sharing,construction cost sharing,and fiber swap deals with other local and state agencies. These deals have been executed typically as individual Joint Powers Agreements,and there are now more than one hundred individual JPAs that regulate various bits of fiber and broadband infrastructure in the county. As previously discussed individual cities like Apple Valley,Eagan,and Burnsville have also invested in fiber for both government use and commercial use(in some cases). Independent School Districts 192 and 196 both have built private fiber networks to connect schools. The immediate impact of the diverse infrastructure efforts has been direct and measurable savings to taxpayers through reduced costs for connecting government and school facilities. Adding a C-Net on top of an existing or expanded I-Net will result in some interesting efficiencies. Existing local government and 1(12 school networks have their highest use during business hours--put another way,the I-Net capacity is under-utilized during the times(evenings,weekends)when residential use is highest. Adding a C-Net and encouraging private sector development of fiber to the home not only would create a revenue stream that would over time repay some of the capital costs of the network,but would increase the overall efficiency of use. Eagan,Burnsville,and Apple Valley have individually used fiber assets to create local I-Net and C-net infrastructure,but these assets are not connected in a way that provides countywide economic development benefits. I-Net Benefits and Efficiencies An enhanced I-Net would,managed by a cooperative agreement among the dtes and the County(e.g.,a JPA)would have substantial benefits.The new I-Net cooperative management entity would set a goal,over a period of several years,of delivering a minimum of one Gigabit fiber or multi-megabit broadband wireless to every government location In the county,with the ability to upgrade facilities on an as-needed basis to 10Gig and 100Gig circuits. ,, An umbrella management entity would reduce the cost of new fiber deployment opportunities and make it easier for the cities to use County fiber within local boundaries. New agreements and opportunities for inter-governmental network asset • sharing could be executed more quickly and at less cost because the enhanced I-Net entity is empowered to negotiate and execute those agreements. Dakota County Broadband$tudytummary DRAFT: DO Not Distribute to One stop management and tracking of fiber and conduit assets will enable the County and the cities to make more efficient and more timely use of the the I-Net network. The cities would be able to make better use of both existing County fiber and the substantial County fiber route extensions planned for the next several years. 1 Cities,by being able to make use of the shared fiber facilities,should be able to reduce their own planned fiber capital expenditures while simultaneously reducing operating costs for connectivity between their own facilities. The County is already working with MNDOT and the cities on shared fiber use to connect more traffic signals and intersections together,and the traffic control cameras now being used to manage traffic signals also typically have the ability to provide remote video feeds potentially representing thousands of new I-Net circuits using enormous amounts of bandwidth. As more intersections are connected to fiber,more fiber will be needed throughout the County. It is worth noting that while there is an expense related to automated traffic signal management,the cost savings in terms of more efficient fuel use(less fuel burned waiting for traffic lights and/or in traffic backups)represents an indirect but substantial cost savings over time. Fiber- supported traffic management is a green energy initiative. A county-wide shared network would further facilitate local government services resiliency and reliability by creating a series of redundant,self-healing fiber rings throughout the county. This highly resilient and redundant network would support critical city and county services like first responders,fire and rescue services, monitoring of water and sewer facilities,physical security of critical public infrastructure,and reduced use of energy in government facilities through improved monitoring and energy management. * Both the County and the cities could reduce the cost of fiber/conduit outside plant maintenance and repairs(e.g.emergency break fixes,routine repairs and replacement) if that responsibility was delegated to the JPA,which could then negotiate a single Outside Plant(OSP)maintenance contract for JPA members. A C-Net that would aid city-level economic development would be much more difficult to implement without a joint city/County collaboration on an enhanced I- Net network. The cities will find it very difficult to leverage County's very substantial investments in conduit and fiber without a comprehensive sharing and collaboration agreement in place for the I-Net. The I-Net is a necessary first step to provide economic development benefits of Gigabit fiber to the cities. C-Net Benefits and Economic Impact The goals of a C-Net would be as follows: Leverage the already significant investments made by the County and some of the cities to the overall benefit of citizens,businesses,and institutions in the county. Dakota County toadband study S nttnaiy DRAFT: DO Not Distribute • ,, Make the most efficient and effective use of planned future conduit and fiber investments by the County to make the cities more attractive to relocating businesses * To reduce the cost of bandwidth and broadband services for local businesses and to 15 help retain existing businesses and jobs. ® Reduced costs for telecommunications for small businesses. While a main focus of discussion around a C-Net has been on large business needs,the county has thousands of smaller businesses that would benefit from a wider choice of telecom services with competitive pricing. Give city and county economic developers a powerful tool,in the form of a high performance,affordable fiber network,to support economic development. Use the excess capacity of existing and planned I-Net infrastructure to create new revenue streams(on a cost plus basis)to help pay down capital costs already expended,fund additional network expansion,and over the long term,return some revenue to the general fund of the asset owners(i.e.the County and the cities that own the asset). * A county-wide C-Net backbone with affordable wholesale pricing(Le.open access) would make it easier to attract private investment for fiber to the home(FTT'H) expansion,particularly into residential neighborhoods. C-Net fiber passing by a residential neighborhood would make it less expensive for a private provider to develop a business case for the capital cost of constructing fiber to the home. * Revenue generated from the monetization of spare capacity could be used to repay capital expenditures undertaken by the County and the cities. Revenue could also be allocated to directly support expansion,and over time,revenue could be returned to the General Fund of the infrastructure owners(e.g.the County or the cities). The most significant benefit of a C-Net leveraged on top of an enhanced I-Net would be the ability of any city or County economic developer to say to a business relocation prospect "Coma to Dakota County. We can give you whatever amount of bandwidth you need to run your business." With more than three hundred other communities in the U.S.already able to say this or in advanced planning to be able to make this claim,Dakota County needs to be able to retain existing businesses and to attract new ones. We have worked with two other communities in other parts of the country that initiated C-Nets because the largest employer called and said,"We're leaving if you don't reduce the cost of bandwidth and improve the level of • service available."These businesses had the option of leaving precisely because other localities have already made the investment of planning,time,and capital to put business- ready C-Nets in place. Dakota County Broadband Study.Summary DRAPE Do Not Distribute Business Models and Ownership Governments build and manage roads,but don't own or manage the businesses that use 16 those roads to deliver goods and services. In this third way,there is true competitive pricing between competing service providers,and little or no government regulation is required. The tremendous versatility of the Internet and the underlying technology bases now allows services that used to require their own,separate(analog)road system(voice telephony and TV services)to be delivered alongside other services like Internet access on a single,integrated digital road system. If we managed overnight package delivery the way we manage telecom,UPS and Fedex would only deliver packages are to residences and businesses where each delivery firm had built a private road for their exclusive use. We recognize .. immediately the limitations of such a business model—few of us would have overnight package delivery to our homes because the small number of packages delivered would not justify the expense of building a private paved road. 1,77 _ _ Before the rise of the automobile,most roads were built t °4 largely by the private sector. After cars became important to . If commerce and economic development,communities began .'1111 building and maintaining roads because it became an -� economic development imperative to have a modern 110 Arf transportation system in communities. Before the rise of the Internet,digital networks were built - —' largely by the private sector. As broadband has become i —'�- critical to commerce and economic development, communities with digital roads are more competitive globally. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT: Do Not Distribute A UTILITY COMPARISON SHARED ROADS SHARED AIRPORTS SHARED TELECOM l Historically,roads have been Airports are built and Duct,fiber,and wireless sites built and maintained by the maintained by a community or and towers may be built and community for the use of all, region as an economic and maintained by the community especially private firms that community development asset. and/or a neutral owner/ want to use them to deliver Both public and private users operator for the use of all, goods and services. benefit from the shared use of including private firms that a single,well-designed airport want to use them to deliver goods and services. Access to the community road Airport assets like departure In the digital road system, system is provided by parking gates,ticket areas,and runways access across private property lots and driveways,built by provide access to the airline to the community—wide property owners, developers services. network in the public right of and builders. way is provided by duct,fiber, and wireless systems built by property owners and/or developers and builders. The local government uses While the local government or Local government uses the roads only to deliver a consortium of local digital transport system only to government services.Local governments typically own the deliver government services. government does not offer airport facility,the local Government does not offer services like overnight package governments do not offer flight services like Internet access or delivery. services. Voice over IR Private sector businesses use Private sector airlines are able Private sector businesses use roads so that their own cars to offer competitively priced the digital transport system to and trucks can deliver goods airfares because of the shared deliver goods and services to and services to customers. cost of the airport terminal customers.Because businesses Because businesses do not facilities. Each airline does not do not have to build and have to build and maintain build its own airport(which maintain a digital road system, roads,all businesses benefit would sharply increase the cost all service providers benefit directly by being able to reach of airfare). directly by being able to reach more customers at less more customers at less expense. expense. There are no road connection Businesses and citizens do not Any qualified service provider fees,and anyone may connect pay a fee to access the airport may connect to the digital road to the road system for free. facility.The cost of maintaining system for a nominal fee and Governments pay for the cost the airport facility is paid by the begin to offer services,without of maintaining roads largely airlines,which bundle that cost any significant capital expense. from those that use the roads. into the price of airfare. Fees Network capital and operating Fees are proportional to use, are proportional to actual use costs are recovered by charging from taxes on tires and by flying customers. Airlines service providers a small fee gasoline. benefit because they do not that is based on a percentage have to build,own,and operate of their income from services the airport directly.Those offered over the system. costs are shared across all users. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT Do Not Distribute The Public/Private Partnership 18 Because virtually any modern broadband network(and most older telecom networks) use public right of way for a large portion ;� '- of network distribution,ALL business � °� �� models are"public/private partnerships." The notion of the public/private partnership is not a distinct business '4 n r;4;`"'; model,but rather exists along a continuum, .At, with minimal public involvement on one w end(i.e.only use of public right of way)to %N... full public ownership on the other end. Business Model Options There are three business/ownership models that arc were considered as part of the study. These models are: ■ Private Sector Only ■ Municipal Retail ► Wholesale Multi-Service The table below summarizes the three models. Private Sector Municipal Wholesale Multi-Service Features Only Retail Network Three separate services Only three services Very high efficiency achieved Basic (voice,video,data) (voice,video,data)with by end to end automated service Concept with little or no sharing little or no sharing of provisioning. All providers of network. network. share network capacity. No government Government competes Government does not compete involvement. Private directory with the with private sector.Government Government sector decides where private sector. provides high performance Involvement and when to offer Government decides digital road system that benefits services. Some areas what services are all public and private users. get little or no service. offered. Buyers have rich set of choices. Owned by a private Owned and operated by ge government or by aocommunity local government. Governance company. Community Limited triple play enterprise like a broadband must accept whatever authority or coop. Wide variety services are offered. services sold directly by of services sold by private sector local government. companies. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT Do Not Distribute Little or none in most Government officials Level playing field creates areas. Cartel-like pick providers of each robust competition. Service Competition pricing keeps prices service.No incentive to providers drive down costs snd high. lower prices. provide great service to get 1 9 customers. Unlimited.Low cost of market Service Limited. Providers can Limited.Government entry and high level of service Options offer triple play at resells triple play automation attracts service most. services. providers and encourages innovation. Limited by low returns Limited by low returns Unlimited. Revenue directly Revenue on the individual on the triple play linked to demand.Revenue services. services. increases with demand. Limited to high density Unlimited.Expansion population areas. Rural Limited by triple play completely supported by Service Area areas and smaller cities approach,which keeps revenue sharing or use fees. Expansion area at a structural duds for expansion Open services network can disadvantage low provide become financially sustainable relatively quickly. Government officials More complex network Some areas do not get management required,but Risks adequate service or must predict busing reduces costs sharply for service affordable pricing. technology needs years providers,which encourages in advance. competition. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT; R0 Not Distribute Financing Options `There is no money for broadband...." 20 The financial analysis in the first section of this report provides a conservative 30 year expenditure estimate for routine and normal telecom services for businesses,residents, schools,and institutions in Dakota County. Over the next three decades,over 10 billion dollars will be spent on telecom services. This is estimate that does not include any adjustments for inflation or price increases,nor does it take into account the ever expanding demand for new kinds of services. The model looks only at current demand and today's retail prices. A community investment in a community-owned and managed digital road system,where all services are provided by the private sector,would have substantial benefits. What the table shows is that the region is already spending substantial sums of money on broadband—over$333 million a year. This amount represents an estimate of what is being spent by all public,residential,institutional,and business customers for landline services, including telephone,TV,and Internet access across the region. In fact,just the money spent in less than two years by residents,businesses and institutions in Dakota County would more than pay for the complete cost of building the proposed new all- fiber network to most homes and businesses in the county. Funding Options A wide variety of funding strategies are available for building telecom infrastructure. Funding Source Description Notes Long term debt Instruments Revenue Bonds guaranteed with revenue Requires some equity/funding from other sources. from the network. General Long term debt guaranteed Generally more difficult to get approval from elected Obligation by local taxes. officials and voters. Bonds In Minnesota,Statute Special Property Chapter 429 permits a Does not require a vote,but the locality does have Assessment special assessment that can to provide a report to citizens detailing cost, be levied by communities for necessity,and effectiveness of the improvement. infrastructure improvements Many community broadband projects have been Cash Funding provided directly by funded in part or in whole by the local government. the local government(s). These are often treated as a loan to be repaid with revenue. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT Do Not Distribute Funding Source Description Notes 21 Third party guarantees on Revenue Bond revenue bonds; if revenue Guarantors could be local or state governments. Guarantees falls to meet financial targets, Does not require a direct cash outlay. Guarantor bond guarantor makes debt must have a good credit rating. payments. New Markets Tax credits are sold to Project must meet eligibility requirements and Tax Credits investors,and funds are used typically takes a year to plan and to receive for the network. approval. State agencies may be Capital funds are usually small,but direct grants State Funds source of planning&capital from the legislature are possible. funds. Grants and loans of various Federal grant programs and funding tend to change Federal Funds kinds are often available from with changes in administration. Can take 1-2 years Federal agencies. for approval. Municipal Local governments can Can be used for funding specific(limited)projects, Leasing borrow money and pledge like fiber to a school system or government offices. the asset as collateral. Usually requires pledging network assets as Commercial Local banks are often willing collateral. Must be able to show a revenue stream Loans to assist with funding. to pay back the loan. Good for small,high priority network extensions with guaranteed customers. It depends on the corporate structure,but local A public/private partnership businesses and Investors could become approach offers the shareholders or partners In the new telecom firm, Private Sector possibility of attracting a mix effectively vesting community control for the effort. Financing of private investors as well as Because most of the funds will be used to create some local government hard assets,it will be possible to attract institutional financial support. Investors for larger amounts If a good business case is constructed. Grants and Citizens and local Local foundations may require tying funds to a Donations foundations will sometimes specific purpose. provide grants. Assess a small Increase in the local sales tax to pay for Sales Tax construction,or use existing May require a voter referendum. sales tax revenues as a bond guarantee. Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT Do Not Distribute Project Phases Development of an expanded I-Net and a follow-on C-Net would both require the same 22 set of activities,as illustrated in the diagram below. This report represents the Early Phase Planning as shown on the left. 1 1 Decision Early Phase rii point.Ready Implementafton ;;� Network i�jf{�� Operations Planning 'i 1 to move C Planning J �I Construction is i'' i * forward? T • (Asset Assessment) r Detailed Network 1 ( Procurement r Service(Provider 1 I l Design J I ` Management J �re-engineering Cos') Survey y and Route ) ( Construction ) (Network Operation Estimates JJ Design / - � .. _ — I C_ Financial Pro I 1 1 Equipment Network Parma CRoufe Engineodng ) Installation& C Maintenance Testing I J •Network Financial l CGS and Mapping Architecture / Business ) Management I Development r ---1— l I_ Marketing and ( Mopping 1 Planning J (ServlititrceaPciiroovinder 1 Awareness l (Business ) l (Management& I Admi Bunissiness fration Operations ) (Public Awareness, Overview &Marketing J (Recommendations) Phases of Broadband Planning and Project Implementation &Next Steps o > 0 >0 >❑ > 2-3 Months 3.4 Months Variable Ongoing Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT Do Not Distribute Infrastructure Maps During the course of the project Design Nine worked with the county representatives and 23 representatives of the local municipalities to gain an understanding of the existing fiber assets already constructed in the region. Design Nine then created new fiber routes to"glue"together the existing municipal networks including an additional phase to create"laterals"and redundant rings to flush out the network to more locations and create the redundancy required in a carrier grade fiber optic network. Map: 5-Dakota-Basemap-20141030-Existing Networks and Assets A =pESiGN NINE "". a.. ... ..w•�..ea.sw.. rra r—r.....r, ii:,1 .3 if r ,ura sl J f f.. ( tu, .J ///4. F t r 1 i E i , ` � . F , 1 ,,.,._._, , r I r_111[ 1 ' 1 Tr Al i ova. —Pays%F&. —County That Dakoln County,MN-Existing Fiber Networks Samos:Esd.HERE,Oalotma,TernTom.Inhuman.ircnmM I— F°" USGS,FAO.NPS.NRCAN.GooBase.ION,Kadaster NL.Ordn Japan.MEP,E"t China(Hong Kong).ayASStopo,6lapmytncaa,t)OpcnSPoolMap cont,ibUIon,and the OlS Usar Community Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT: Do Not Distribute Map: 7-Dakota-Basemap-20141030-Existing Network and Business/Residential 241 Clusters N „ A DESIGN NINE t MN rim rim nom n! , ri• 1 �L { J` . / liter 0 II a 1R�i+ I `i ■ --- i , , r * •• •• ie , i O -� .v is �';, A rR', • d�t *i r ,•`� •* -i.)et, 14 4 . , , ,1 1 i i 4i' i 0".m t a r ass 7• E E' ,Mil ° �f_,, i. A% ♦� i d f • AdIA._ay r iI .,y ••cri its, di, .,a i . , P-t . .-i 1170;411p _. ' 4.It., ce4. *?lc a. 14. S.. ' . ..M, ;� i.,t `. 1 1' i.A '�f .a we°. lei•'a tii. =i °#e#4/ ` 4 1- 4. 1 .4, . „la ,...:. . i. , oTi :•re•V•Sii • e i..r.. 'iii i , w e �._..lciaz ..,dll *. i ..�rl__.. .x Pt I- H Owner —PdraIe Fibae ,. —County Fiber phi —School Fiber hla6dfWr Addna Pdnb Dakota County,MN-Fiber and Customers 1 Sources:Esd,HERE,DeLorme,TomTom,Inlemmp,Inc n 1306•••e Cucu.naen1en USGS,FAO.NPS,NRCAN.Ger dase.ION,Kadasler h Japan,METI,Esd China(Hong Kong).swisstopo,Mapmylndia,c OpenSlreetMap contributors,and the GIS User Community Dakota County Broadband Study Summary DRAFT Do Not Distribute { Date: May 7, 2015 To: Broadband Work Group From: Craig Ebeling and Lisa Alfson Subject: Background for May 7 Meeting At our April 9 meeting Matt Smith recalled the approach that we had spoken of in our earliest discussions. in that approach we planned to identify the elements of a potential JPA,work out solutions and then give that information to an attorney to formulate the actual JPA document which we would then work our way through.We began that work and identified elements that would need to be in the JPA.The group recognized that there could potentially be other items that we had not identified but we would deal with that as we went.The group also concluded at the February 12 meeting that we should search out example JPA's from across the country to see what we could learn from them. In the process of that search we came across the BayRICS example which seemed to have a lot in common with our situation. It addressed nearly all of the elements that we had previously identified. Because of that example's similarity,the group determined at the March 12 meeting to prepare a first draft of an "agree-to- agree"two-step JPA.We have attached a flow chart for that process.(There were other directives coming from that session as well concerning a memorandum that we would prepare highlighting the present and future uses of an enhanced I-Net and seeking a proposal from Elert regarding a more detailed inventory and preliminary design of the system.) At our April 9 meeting the group concluded that the first draft JPA was an adequate place to begin discussions.We also concluded that we are at a point where legal services would be helpful and necessary. (The CDA has offered to provide those legal services through Step 1 of the two-step process.)The group dived into a page-by-page review of the draft document.There were some sections that were a bit confusing as written, but the group worked its way through them.As we reached the end of our meeting time we discussed the concept of"weighted voting".The observation was made that it is hard for an individual potential member to have an informed opinion on an important single issue without understanding how other related issues would be dealt with.This was the genesis of Matt's recollection of our original thoughts on the process we would use. We concluded that while we can keep working on the JPA text,it would be helpful to have a separate document that lists the most salient points of a JPA without all of the legal jargon.This would help us to keep the various elements of the 11Page • draft JPA in context.Towards that end we formulated that attached list of salient elements that have not yet been addressed in our first JPA draft. At one of our previous meetings we concluded that additional technical help would be necessary in order for Step 2 of the agree-to-agree process to be completed.We hit on the idea of securing a proposal from the Elert Company inasmuch as they are presently under contract with Dakota County on related work and the company is very familiar with fiber in the county having worked for most of the cities as well.A Technical Subcommittee was appointed to formalize the work scope and to work with the Elert company to affix a price for that work.That task has been completed.The Elert proposal for the work is$58,950 plus an amount of up to$10,040 for field testing of existing fiber. Once Step 1 of our agree-to-agree is completed and a JPA entity exists,we will be able to execute the agreement with Elert and to authorize them to proceed. In the process of working with Elert on the work scope for the technical task,the Technical Subcommittee has discussed the elements in the attached list in some depth. This is a hard working group that has met several times and plans additional sessions. They hope to have some thoughts on these salient elements prepared to share with you at the June meeting of our larger work group. We also hope to have Draft 2 of the JPA from the CDA attorneys at that time. 1 ' As you will recall LOGIS has agreed to come to speak with us at our May 7 meeting.We anticipate that their presentation will take at least an hour.We propose that we spend the balance of the session reviewing the JPA elements list to make certain we have not overlooked an issue that we should be pursuing and otherwise updating the group regarding ongoing activities. Attachments: Process for Consideration and Adoption of Broadband JPA Flow Chart Remaining Joint Powers Agreement Elements Discussion Items -------- ------ --------------- - --- Wage to Cu- 7 / \ / r. CO / 7 § k _ @ • m o i o � . / i / \ \ E " < k � CO 7 C 73 3 ® § E 7 C ° 2 crN c 2 $ 2 ' ai 7 % \ CD 7 r 3 E # ) c C ° m c CU r 2 / .0 § \ k cp I 2 f c / f u < / / M % _ / / o » 7 / o \ I c a f / \ 2 O E . . ƒ Co E CL g .. . 2 i .0 0 e $ ƒ q t > bp 2 7Z$ no 0 § \ q \ e 2 L 0 3 Co Q ? 2 Co C E ° 2 aa / i k , E « / % o I o C / E r 0) $ ® / \ o / % _ -0 D .aS o• 1 . ƒ C 0 \ e o Z C14 a o a / k C § a $ / o E \ a ® & » 0 / < u- E a) cc ( ° ° \ < q .0 U c o CIS 2 2 ° O E � 2 I c c « j I E ~ g R o I a) © 2 E 7 O. ri / : C 0 (0 f 2 v) 3 co Co up § 7 ƒ E 2 ( Q _a m $ a, 3 o E E £ 3 t o C k 5 V) m •Co tn w t / 2 \ d ° 0 f c m . k § 2 / = k § < £ 7 3 2 a) 2 E C c o > co 2 m V) m tip ... u \ $ C « < f t -I \ Remaining Joint Powers Agreement Elements Discussion Items A. Asset Acquisition B. Ownership of Assets C. Operational Cost Sharing D. Revenue Generation E. Revenue Sharing F. System Expansion Financing G. System Expansions Implementation H. System Relocation Costs I. Governance