03/28/2011 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • what rights Zayo will have to utilize public rights -of -way to reach community anchor institutions. • The concept of "connectivity services" is not clearly defined in the Anoka County versions of the connectivity service agreement. Accordingly, it is not evident what participants would be buying, and what expectations they could have concerning connectivity services. • Zayo and Anoka County are not guaranteeing service speeds. Consequently, municipalities could be paying for services they are not actually getting, or receiving services that do not consistently meet their needs, particularly for mission critical applications. • The Anoka County draft agreement likely contains hidden costs (e.g., for possibly re- wiring co- location sites, adding necessary outlets, providing back -up power, improving heating and air conditioning systems, and re- configuring space to accommodate Zayo equipment and to satisfy Zayo /Anoka County specifications). • Many important terms are not defined in the Anoka County versions of the connectivity service agreement. This will inevitably lead to contract interpretation and enforcement issues down the road. Anoka County has suggested that certain terms in the connectivity service agreement should have the meaning ascribed to them in other agreements. However, those definitions and contracts are not incorporated into the connectivity service agreement, and would therefore have little or no force or utility as to the connectivity service agreement. • Anoka County's and Zayo's proposed service level standards would allow portions of the Zayo system and certain connectivity services to be down for approximately 500 minutes a year, which could lead to serious problems for mission critical applications and potential liability for municipalities (e.g., if police or fire communications were not functional when needed). • The Anoka County version of the connectivity service agreement may also pose logistical, financial and legal issues for municipalities. For example, if the Zayo system is unavailable in a city hall at 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning, who is going provide Zayo with access and who is going to pay for any costs associated with such access? If the equipment in City Hall is used to serve commercial customers, will a municipality be liable to Zayo or the customers for damages, costs, etc. associated with any delay in providing access? As you will see, a variety of additional issues are also addressed in the template. In the process of preparing the template, the NMTC reached out to Anoka County to ask for basic information about the Zayo system so as to ensure it had an accurate understanding of what Anoka County and Zayo are actually proposing (as opposed to what may actually be reflected in the Anoka County draft connectivity service agreement). Anoka County, however, was unwilling to provide the NMTC with requested information in a timeframe that would make it possible to complete the template and meet Anoka County's self - imposed deadlines for entering into connectivity service agreements. Accordingly, in the interest of time, the NMTC was forced to prepare the connectivity services agreement without the benefit of certain information from Anoka County. In doing so, the NMTC relied on best available information. As a result, it is possible that the connectivity service agreement template may need to be updated if requested data is ultimately made available to the NMTC. In addition to drafting the connectivity service agreement template, the NMTC also revised Attachments A -D, crafted a new Attachment E and incorporated a new Attachment F (which is a revised version of an Anoka County document referred to as Exhibit E). The remaining 2 P35