I wrote a while back on the Super Municipal Telecommunications Services bill in the legislature – the bill that would eliminate the need for a super –majority to approve a municipal plan to provide telecommunications services. I got the heads up on the bill’s progress from Chris Mitchell. Chris, from the Institute for Local Self Reliance, follows broadband closely especially when it comes to anything related to helping or hindering a city’s chance of providing service (and becoming self reliant).
Chris had an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune yesterday that does a good job of outlining the history of the bill, it’s recent progress in the Legislature and the impact it will have on municipalities looking to provide telecommunications services.
Pingback: Minnesota Broadband Battles « Blandin on Broadband
Ann, I have heard that the municipal bill has been amended so much that muni broadband would be unlikely. Do you know the details?
The initial proposed bill was just to change referendum requirement from a super majority (65%) to a simple majority (50%); the latest engrossment leaves the simple majority but does add so many other barriers that it at least seems to negate the benefits of the super majority change. I’ll paste the additions below – but you can find the whole proposed bill here:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2532.2.html&session=ls86
2.1 Subd. 2. Taxpayer protections. (a) Notwithstanding another law, a municipality
2.2shall not, in whole or in part, finance, refinance, pay the costs or expenses of, or otherwise
2.3fund the construction, acquisition, or operation of a telephone exchange, directly or
2.4indirectly, through issuance of debt, liability, or obligation, or secure or otherwise become
2.5contingently liable for the costs or expenses, except through the use of the revenues
2.6directly earned or to be earned from the operation of the telephone exchange. This
2.7subdivision does not preclude a municipality that has, on the effective date of this act,
2.8already approved a sales tax from using the revenue derived from the tax for constructing,
2.9acquiring, or operating a telephone exchange.
2.10(b) This subdivision does not prohibit:
2.11(1) the use of otherwise available funds to pay the reasonable costs of studying the
2.12feasibility of operating a telephone exchange or conducting an election on a proposal for
2.13the operation of a telephone exchange; or
2.14(2) the sale to nongovernmental investors of revenue bonds to fund the construction
2.15or acquisition of a telephone exchange if principal, interest, and premium are payable
2.16upon maturity or default and are actually paid solely from, and all obligations under the
2.17bonds are secured solely by, the net revenues earned or to be earned by the ownership
2.18or operation of the telephone exchange.
2.19 Subd. 3. Feasibility study. (a) Before conducting the referendum under subdivision
2.201, the municipality must prepare and make publicly available a written report on the
2.21feasibility of owning or acquiring and operating a telephone exchange. The feasibility
2.22report must, at minimum, address and disclose:
2.23(1) the cost of establishing, acquiring, or leasing the telephone exchange facilities
2.24and an explanation of how these costs will be paid;
2.25(2) detailed projected income statements for each of the first five years of operation of
2.26the telephone exchange. In addition to including revenue and expense detail, the projected
2.27income statements must also include allowances for depreciation, and a maintenance and
2.28upgrade plan for the telephone exchange to avoid technological obsolescence;
2.29(3) a five-year projected capital budget; and
2.30(4) the costs incurred by the municipality in preparing the feasibility report and a
2.31list of the individuals or firms paid by the municipality for assistance in studying the
2.32feasibility of the project.
2.33(b) Not less than 60 days before the referendum, the municipality must hold a public
2.34hearing regarding the feasibility report. Public notice of the hearing must be given to
2.35inform the public of the availability of the feasibility report for inspection and copying.
3.1(c) The ballot issue for the referendum must include, in addition to any other
3.2information required by law, a statement of the maximum costs disclosed under paragraph
3.3(a), clauses (1) and (2), to construct, acquire, and operate the telephone exchange, which
3.4costs shall not be exceeded without voter approval in another election.
3.5 Subd. 4. Nondiscrimination. A municipality shall not discriminate in favor of its
3.6own telephone exchange system by granting itself more favorable or less burdensome
3.7terms and conditions than a competitive telephone exchange operator with respect to the
3.8access and use of public rights-of-way, municipally owned or controlled conduit, towers,
3.9telephone poles, and permitting fees charged for access to the municipally owned and
3.10managed facilities. A municipality operating a telephone exchange under this section shall:
3.11(1) approve or reject all permit applications seeking access to the facilities from a
3.12private telecommunications service provider within 30 days of submission; and
3.13(2) deny a permit application only for cause and must provide a written explanation
3.14for any denial.
3.15A permit not acted on within 30 days by a municipality operating a telephone
3.16exchange under this section shall be considered approved.
3.17 Subd. 5. Competitive bidding required. All agreements between a municipality
3.18and any firm or individual related to a feasibility study, construction or acquisition, and
3.19operation of a telephone exchange, is a “contract” as defined under section 471.345,
3.20subdivision 2.
3.21EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.