Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.05.06 Work Session Minutes COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES April 5, 2006 Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson David Asp, Dakota County IT Department; Becca Vargo Daggett, Institute for Local Self-Reliance; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer; Rob Boerboom, IT Specialist; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Jim Erickson, Russ Cox, Todd Oliver, Joanne Johnson, Michelle Leonard Present: Also Present: MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The United States is falling behind in broadband penetration. Broadband is high speed data transmission. It is an always on connection to the internet unlike dial-up. It is not a particular speed. The National Science Foundation talks about it in terms ofthe ability to use existing applications and to create new applications and content. The FCC refers to high speed as 200 Kbps. That is a little less than four times faster than dial-up. When planning for the future, people are talking in terms of 100 Mbps minimum. With 200 Kbps you can do e-mail and light surfing, with 1 Mbps you can do streaming audio, listen to the radio, with 4 Mbps you can get one channel of standard TV, with 6 Mbps you can get video conferencing, it takes 20 Mbps to do high definition TV. The U.S. is talking about getting 1 Mbps to every house. Local government should get involved. The reason has to do with federal issues. The 1996 Telecommunications Act is played out. It was never effectively implemented. Lawsuits were filed to prevent competition. The vision was for the phone lines to become common carriers for high speed internet services. The premise of the act was that phone lines, DSL, would be open to competing service providers who could purchase access to the phone networks at a regulated rate. Rather than investing in upgrading their infrastructure the carriers focused on filing lawsuits to protest the regulations, to try to get the rates raised, and a competitive market never developed. The FCC says the existence of cable and phone creates competition. The role for local government is infrastructure. Government maintains the infrastructure but does not operate it. Farmington has already made the choice to invest in fiber for City purposes. The City should think of connectivity, cost and control. If the City wants to ensure that residents, businesses, schools, and public services have the level of connectivity they need, then the local government will have to get involved. If the City has an interest in keeping down the cost of doing business and minimizing the cost per megabyte, then the local government has to get involved. Local data transmissions are dependent on private companies. There are no restrictions in MN on City governments owning high-speed networks. There is a claim that a publicly owned network would be a monopoly that stifles competition. The idea that this can be done through franchise and regulation overlooks the fact that this is expensive infrastructure and that the incumbents don't have the resources to build this out. You can keep costs down by extending the timeline for the return on the investment. The City will not do this on its own. Any undertaking will be a public-private partnership. The question is what is the proper balance? Council Workshop April 5, 2006 Page 2 Farmington is in a position to lead the country. There are not that many cities that have fiber to the home throughout the entire community. Farmington has an existing publicly owned fiber network as the backbone, and there is new residential and commercial development. The thing to keep in mind is that building a high-speed network gives the City an advantage not just over the other U.S. cities, but it puts Farmington in a position to compete with the rest of the world. By doing it as a publicly-owned network, the City has control over how it is implemented and what the costs are going forward. As far as the economic advantages, it adds to the job growth rate, it adds to the growth in the number of businesses, it means that the businesses in the community are higher technology often meaning higher wages, and it drives up property values. This is a network that the purpose of which is to speed up connections of data within the City. The cost to provide fiber to a home in California, throughout the home, is $3500. Those homes sold for $5,000 - $10,000 more. Lorna Linda has an ordinance that requires a new home have this connection. It tends to be a good idea to contract out for the management of the network while owning the infrastructure. To provide this service to older developments would depend on where the backbone is and the cost of getting the backbone that the City has in place. To reach a farm, it would cost a lot of money. If it is an older home, it would have fiber up to the outside of the building and just put copper inside to do high definition TV, etc. There is no straight answer right now because the leaps and bounds being made are extraordinary. Once you have the fiber backbone it may very quickly be easier to put a wireless tower connected to the fiber and a wireless connection to the home. This is an investment that has a return. The City would outsource the management of the network, but then collect fees for selling capacity at wholesale to competing service providers. 80% of the cost of putting in the fiber is digging up the ground. In older areas, as streets are dug up it is good to include installing the fiber with the project. Mayor Soderberg felt wireless to existing neighbors is a good interim step until there is a major reconstruct. A disadvantage to having wireless as the objective is that the wireless technology changes quickly. The long-term goal should be to get fiber to each premise. Many other communities are using wireless as an interim step. Mr. David Asp gave background information on Dakota County, the history ofl-Net, discussed the Joint Powers Agreement between Apple Valley, Eagan, Burnsville, the State, Dakota County, and various school districts. He also explained the different sizes of fiber and showed samples of them. In June/July Farmington will be connected to I-Net. Dakota County is the only MN county to be e-commerce ready. The county was able to drop 22 T-1lines and saved $160,000 the first year. Currently Farmington as 2 T -1 lines which cost $600/month. The T -1 lines would be dropped when connected to I-Net. One T-1line is a connection to Logis and would change to fiber. Council wanted the workshop because of the Vermillion River Crossings development. The Northfield Clinic will have a great need for this. The project was just approved and now is the time to look at running the conduit in that development. The City needs to think about where we want the Farmington economy to be. Farmington becomes a very attractive community by being one ofthe cities that is not falling behind in this. As far as privacy, data is not any more private with a private access than public access. There was a discussion on how fiber is actually installed in homes. The limiting factor is the connection to the home, not the technology that people can already get in their homes. The City needs to think about public ownership of the infrastructure and a decision needs to be made soon about whether to run the conduit to the Vermillion River Crossings development. Council Workshop April 5, 2006 Page 3 MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 7:33 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~ /Yl aL:/!i!:/ ynthia Muller Executive Assistant