03/28/2011 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

.a e rive • • e Drive Attorneys at Law Michael R. Bradleyff Stephen J. Guzzetta* Telecommunications Consultant Laura E. Bergus www.bradleyguzzetta.com tAlso admitted in Wisconsin 'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia ^Qualified Neutral under Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice March 21, 2011 TO: North Metro Telecommunications Commission Member Cities FROM: Stephen J. Guzzetta Counsel to the North Metro Telecommunications Commission SUBJECT: Connectivity Services Agreement Template At the request of a number of its member cities, the North Metro Telecommunications Commission (the "NMTC ") has prepared a connectivity service agreement template that can be used in discussions with Anoka County about the co- location of equipment in municipal institutions, the construction of a "broadband network" and the provision of certain "connectivity services." The purposes of the template are to address a number of deficiencies in the Anoka County versions of the connectivity service agreement, to cover issues not necessarily contemplated by Anoka County, to protect the member cities' interests, to avoid near -term and long -term conflicts with Anoka County and Zayo Bandwidth, LLC ( "Zayo "), so far as possible, and to facilitate the viability and success of the overall Connect Anoka County project. It is not the NMTC's intent to undermine or delay the Connect Anoka County project or the deployment of broadband facilities in member cities and Anoka County in general. Some of the major issues posed by the Anoka County connectivity service agreement drafts that are covered by the template include (but are not limited to): • Zayo is not a party to the agreement, even though it is responsible for almost all obligations under the agreement. Anoka County sees itself as an intermediary between municipalities and Zayo, which in many cases may only serve to add an additional layer of bureaucracy that could delay Zayo's performance. Moreover, if Zayo is not a party to the agreement, it is likely that enforcement issues will arise over time (e.g., can and should a municipality be enforcing the agreement against Anoka County for a deficiency in service, when it is actually Zayo who is providing the service ?) • Anoka County's versions of the agreement, as a whole, do not adequately protect cities' cable franchises and right -of -way management authority. In addition, Anoka County's drafts do not make sufficiently clear P34 • • •