Today MN Senate Agriculture, Broadband, and Rural Development learned about SF 3952, the bill by Senator Hauschild related to lower population density grant broadband program matching requirements modification. They want to change the match in the grants from 75 percent to 90 percent, which would help offset community and/or provider costs of builds in areas with lower population density.

Here are documents from the meeting:

• • Ag_20240228_SF3952.pdf (PDF)
  • Ag_20240228_SF3952-summary.pdf (PDF)

Video  (I will swap out “live” video link with archive when available.)

Notes:

• A1 amendment: changes effective date to “after passage” rather than a given date.
• $40 million was dedicated to lower population density last year. Last year match went from 50 to 75 percent. But that still isn’t enough in very small communities. I want match to be 90 percent.
• Border to Boder grants 38 applications worth $65M for $35M; Lower population density odds were even lower – much applications for amounts that surpassed budget.
• Testimony from Jan Keough: from Northstar township, 203 residents. We need the better match to make broadband happen in our communities. We don’t have the customer base to create a ROI for the build out required to reach us. We have a provider than is interested but they need at least 80 percent of funding met before they can agree to it.
  The unserved areas are not the hardest ones to reach. It’s going to cost more money  but we need it for the same reasons everyone else has needed it.

Questions:

Are you looking for funds to get broadband to the driveway? Would the homeowner pay from there?
A (from Bree Maki): our grants get to the premise – to get service to the home.

In my townships, it’s up to $2000 to get broadband from the driveway to the house. Why don’t these guys have to do that?
You may have a deal with the provider, not with the State.

But it’s still not fair. Homeowners should have skin in the game.

Is this for homeowners or towns/schools/libraries et al?
These would be community applications. This isn’t the line extension program

We just changed match to 75 percent. How much have we paid out yet?
One grant round worth $30 million. There were 9 awards. We are in the next round – we have 31 applications worth $85M for $20M available.

Can we infer that those programs were good but we just didn’t have funding.
Right. They are for the most part excellent applications.

I was first senator to propose greater match. The concern at that time was that I was ahead of the time – maybe we’re still ahead of the time for going to 90 percent. Let’s give 75 percent a chance. If we go for 90 percent match now, that will be where people will bid.

What would we do with 90 percent match versus 75?
I am a tech resource, I haven’t thought through what a differentiation might be.

The previous director used to say let’s not fund these expensive projects until we have to. We can use less expensive projects to get the backbone closer to the need. I don’t want to put more gov money into projects where we can leverage corporate spending.

Lastly, at what point do we look at a different technology? What if someone wants to live on an island? Then what is lots of people move there – do we need to serve them?
These are issues that we are considering.
These are helpful comments. My concern is that rural communities are constantly told to wait. Maybe we need an ultra low density population option. Why did we invest more in border to border than lower population grants? Because rural is always told to wait.

Looking at the map, Senator Hauschild serves the area that’s unserved. So that makes sense. I get it.

What about a reserve bid program for these areas?
The line extension program is a reserve bid program but you need to have a line nearby.

What happens to applications when funds run out?
Line extension applications stay in the hopper. Border to Border and lower population density grants reapply. We have funding for one more round. We assume the applications who don’t’ get funded we reapply.

Are there applications from one applicant for both border to border and lower population density grants?
We could spend the funds from any bucket, we just didn’t know how it would break out without a pilot.

What’s up with 2022 funding – the $200 million? And what’s up with mapping?
We do mapping and it’s updated twice a year. We have robust mapping on the website with speed test and links to providers available in the area. The FCC map designated $652M in federal funds in the state. We will soon have a chance to challenge those maps to make sure that the funds goes to places where it’s needed. \

How much money from 2022 is out the door? What’s the response to border to border grants?
Last fall, there were 21 projects we could fund out of 60 that applied. The ask surpasses the budget.

Are tribal nations eligible?
Yes. And NTIA has direct tribal grants. We give priorities to providers that have tribal support.

Bill is laid over.