Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-26 City Council Workshop PacketCity Council Workshop 3880 Laverne Avenue North Tuesday, January 13, 2026 6:30 p.m. AGENDA Call To Order Broadband Franchise Discussion Michael Bradley presenting COUNCIL MEMO -BROADBAND FRANCHISE DISCUSSION.PDF FIRST BROADBAND FRANCHISE USHERS IN A NEW ERA IN FRANCHISING - BRADLEY WERNER, LLC.PDF MUNCIPAL LAWYER - BRADLEY BROADBAND FRANCHISING ARTICLE FROM JANUARY -FEBRUARY 2025.PDF MEMORANDUM TO RWSCCC FROM MICHAEL BRADLEY.PDF Commissioner/Council Training Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney presenting PRESENTATION -CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONER TRAINING.PDF Planning Commission Work Plan Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner presenting COUNCIL MEMO - PC CC JOINT WORKSHOP.PDF PRESENTATION - PC CC JOINT SESSION AND WORK PLAN.PDF Parks Commission Work Plan Adam Swanepoel, Interim Public Works Director presenting MEMO - PARKS COMMISSION WORKPLAN.PDF 2026 PARKS WORK PLAN.PDF Draft Legislative Policies Nicole Miller, City Administrator presenting COUNCIL MEMO -2026 DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.PDF 2026 DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.PDF Future Agenda Items FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF Adjourn Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership with our Community I. II. Documents: III. Documents: IV. Documents: V. Documents: VI. Documents: VII. Documents: VIII. City Council Workshop3880 Laverne Avenue NorthTuesday, January 13, 20266:30 p.m.AGENDACall To OrderBroadband Franchise DiscussionMichael Bradley presentingCOUNCIL MEMO -BROADBAND FRANCHISE DISCUSSION.PDFFIRST BROADBAND FRANCHISE USHERS IN A NEW ERA IN FRANCHISING -BRADLEY WERNER, LLC.PDFMUNCIPAL LAWYER - BRADLEY BROADBAND FRANCHISING ARTICLE FROM JANUARY -FEBRUARY 2025.PDFMEMORANDUM TO RWSCCC FROM MICHAEL BRADLEY.PDFCommissioner/Council TrainingSarah Sonsalla, City Attorney presentingPRESENTATION-CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONER TRAINING.PDFPlanning Commission Work PlanSophia Jensen, Senior City Planner presentingCOUNCIL MEMO - PC CC JOINT WORKSHOP.PDFPRESENTATION - PC CC JOINT SESSION AND WORK PLAN.PDF Parks Commission Work Plan Adam Swanepoel, Interim Public Works Director presenting MEMO - PARKS COMMISSION WORKPLAN.PDF 2026 PARKS WORK PLAN.PDF Draft Legislative Policies Nicole Miller, City Administrator presenting COUNCIL MEMO -2026 DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.PDF 2026 DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.PDF Future Agenda Items FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF Adjourn Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership with our Community I.II.Documents:III.Documents:IV.Documents: V. Documents: VI. Documents: VII. Documents: VIII. STAFF REPORT DATE:January 13, 2026 WORKSHOP DISCUSSION TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Nicole Miller, City Administrator AGENDA ITEM: Broadband Franchise Discussion CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐ Balanced Finances now and future ☐ Managed Growth ☒ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: The Ramsey Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission has approached its nine member cities, including Lake Elmo, to determine whether there is interest in a potential opportunity to establish franchise agreements with fiber broadband companies operating in the public right-of-way (ROW). This opportunity emerged after recent legal decisions at the federal level which led the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission to adopt the first broadband franchise in Minnesota with Intrepid Fiber Networks for the City of Woodbury on September 25, 2025. The attorney that worked on that franchise, Michael Bradley of Bradley Werner, LLC, will be in attendance to provide a brief overview of broadband franchising and answer questions. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Is the City Council interested in pursuing broadband franchising through the Cable Commission? ATTACHMENTS: “First Broadband Franchise Ushers in New Era in Franchising” dated September 29, 2025 “This is the Way: Equal Access to Broadband Through Municipal Franchising” Municipal Lawyer January-February 2025 Memorandum to Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission from Michael Bradley dated October 30, 2025. Summary The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission adopted the first broadband franchise in Minnesota. A broadband franchise is vastly superior to mere permitting. A broadband franchise, unlike a permit, addresses multiple issues that benefit residents and consumers, such as buildout standards, customer service standards, senior and disabled person discounts, system performance standards, consideration for use of public property, and many other public benefits. The South Washington County Telecommunications Commission (SWCTC) has adopted the first local broadband franchise agreement in Minnesota. The agreement with Intrepid Fiber Networks was approved at the SWCTC meeting on September 25, 2025. This is the future of franchising and communications. It secures future-proof digital infrastructure for the City of Woodbury area. The franchise grants Intrepid the privilege to construct an open access Fiber-to- the-Home (FTTH) cable communications system in the City of Woodbury. This franchise marks a new era in franchising for local governments in Minnesota. SWCTC showed how local governments can protect the public rights-of-way, while securing important protections for its residents. I. Franchising Superior to Permitting Franchising is fundamentally different from standard right-of-way permitting. While permitting generally dictates how a construction project is executed (e.g., pavement repair, traffic control), franchising provides a formal, binding contract that guarantees specific public benefits in exchange for the use of public real estate. Minneapolis/St. Paul (651) 379-0900 Chicago (847) 510-5999 Attorneys Practice Areas Contact Blog Sep 29, 2025 —by Michael Bradley in Broadband, Municipal First Broadband Franchise Ushers in a New Era in Franchising The SWCTC’s track record of protecting area residents, spanning four decades, is proof of the effectiveness of local franchising. The SWCTC’s long-time attorney, Mike Bradley of Bradley Werner, LLC, detailed the Commission’s history of success: “For over 40 years this commission has franchised cable communication systems on behalf of its member cities and their residents.” The first franchise granted by the SWCTC was in 1983. Bradley then summarized the overwhelming success of this approach: “Through franchising, the Commission oversaw a company with initially no presence in the public right of way and no customers, and we saw that company start up and ultimately become the most robust cable communication system in the area.” Franchising by the SWCTC has also resulted in many tangible benefits benefiting residents. The success of local franchising should come as no surprise. It was a predicted outcome when the legislature decided cable communications systems should be regulated at the local level, moving away from state regulation of legacy phone systems. Bradley explained, that through local franchising: “This Commission has made certain of many things that benefit residents, including having all residents having service, having buildout obligations, making sure all residents were covered, making sure the communication system was upgraded to meet community needs, enforcing customer service standards… and, we shouldn’t forget, also developing a robust community media center in what is now TrueLens Community Media.” In short, franchising ensures that local governments retain the authority to hold providers accountable for key community objectives. This power is lost under mere permitting. II. Summary of the SWCTC Broadband Franchise The franchise granted to Intrepid Fiber Networks is a modern model for local governments authorizing open-access fiber optic cable communications systems in their jurisdictions. Key provisions secured by the SWCTC on behalf of its member city include: Not Exclusive. The SWCTC is allowed to franchise other broadband providers serving its member cities. Equal Access to Broadband. The franchise mandates that Intrepid provide equal access to broadband to all residents. This ensures the same quality of service to all homes and businesses in the franchise area. Open Access System. Intrepid will build the network as a wholesale provider. Other franchised retail service providers will operate on this single, robust network, fostering competition in services and pricing for residents. Authorization for Open Access Service Providers. All open access service providers using the Intrepid system will be allowed to sign on to this master franchise by signing a Joinder Agreement. This will allow users of the system to sign the Joinder Agreement and start providing service immediately. Buildout Obligation. Intrepid must essentially complete construction of the entire city over a 5-year period. They must also ensure access across the entire jurisdiction. Financial Consideration. Intrepid has agreed to pay a 5% gross revenue fee. This payment is for the privilege to use the public rights-of-way. It secures a long-term revenue source for the community. Public Benefits & Protections. The agreement secures commitments for free or discounted broadband services for government facilities. It ensures the provision of dark fiber under certain conditions. It also includes a provision for a discount of no less than 10% for seniors and disabled persons. III. Prompt Action by the Commission Crucially, the SWCTC demonstrated that local franchising is an expeditious process. The SWCTC moved rapidly to review the franchise application, hold a public hearing, and negotiate and approve the agreement. When an applicant is serious about serving a community, local franchising does not create any unnecessary delay. The Commission acted to approve the franchise just 59 days from the date they received Intrepid’s application. Franchise negotiations themselves were completed in less than three weeks. Bradley addressed critics of local regulation directly, stating: “Any suggestion that local government is a barrier to entry is not based in reality. This commission acted, and acted very timely.”  The SWCTC’s successful and prompt process ensures that a local body of government will be “looking out for our interests.” It protects residents’ rights and ensures all residents have equal access to broadband. Bradley Werner, LLC Michael Bradley and Nancy Werner are nationally recognized and respected local government attorneys. Our firm is dedicated to representing local governments on broadband, cable, telecommunications, utilities, and right-of- way management issues. We have decades of experience representing municipalities on communications and utilities matters. Previous: Assistance Available to Access Broadband and Phone Services Select Category ← Search Our Prior Blog Posts Type here...Search Search by Category Subscribe Subscribe to get our the latest blog posts in your inbox. Subscribemike@bradleywerner.com Minneapolis/St. Paul Office and Mailing Address 2145 Woodlane Drive, Suite 106 Woodbury, MN 55125 (651) 379-0900 Chicago Mailing Address 1101 Davis Street #1822 Evanston, IL 60204 (847) 510-5999 6 / Municipal Lawyer This is the Way: Equal Access to Broadband Through Municipal Franchising T he goal of equal access to broadband is not controversial or partisan. Most agree that citizens should have equal access to the same quality of service to broadband; that broadband net- works should be built out to serve all citizens over a reasonable time; that there should be reasonable customer service and consumer privacy protections; and price protections.1 The importance of ensuring equal access to broadband is particularly relevant today as federal and state governments are making historic public grants to improve broadband networks throughout the country.2 Surprisingly, despite historically high public investments, there remain no long-term guardrails to ensure resi- dents receive equal access to the same quality of service, pricing, and consum- er protections. While the FCC enacted digital discrimination regulations,3 the FCC likely lacks express authority to implement additional broadband rules.4 In an effort to presumptively assert additional regulatory authority over broadband, the FCC reclassified broadband earlier this year.5 While this reclassification would have arguably allowed the FCC to develop addition- al broadband rules, the Sixth Circuit stayed the reclassification, which fore- casts the reclassification will likely fail. Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, local governments are in the best position to ensure equal access to broadband through franchising. If available, local governments must use their existing home rule or statutory authority to franchise broadband.6 If necessary, state laws must be amend- ed to clarify municipal authority to franchise. Broadband is the future of municipal franchising. Local franchis- ing is the way to ensure equal access to broadband. A Valuable Special Privilege Generally, a city has the sovereign pow- er delegated by state law to grant a fran- chise to convey a highly valuable special privilege to corporations to use the scarce public right-of-way to deliver ser- vices to a city’s residents.7 A franchise is a special privilege that allows a franchi- see to profit from the use of the public right-of-way in a manner not generally available to the public as a common right.8 Without question, broadband providers must have this privilege in or- der to access the public right-of-way to cost effectively (and profitably) deliver services. Franchisees, in return for this valuable special privilege, pay franchise fees, which is essentially the rent for the use and occupation of the public prop- erty.9 While organizations like the Free State Foundation suggest that fees are the only policy benefit of franchising,10 they ignore the value of the privilege to use public rights-of-way11 or how local governments require franchisees to comply with requirements benefiting citizens, as discussed in detail below. Source of Municipal Franchise Authority The source of local franchising author- ity arises from a number of sources including, but not limited to, state law,12 state constitutions,13 municipal charters,14 and state common law, including state statutory and common law recognition of local authority to manage the public rights-of-way. Local franchising is a sovereign power that resides in the states and is not derived from federal law, including the Com- munications Act.15 To the extent the Communications Act does not lawfully restrict or address a particular service, a local government may regulate the service as state law provides.16 To that end, courts recognize that the Communications Act creates a dual federal-state regulatory structure.17 Today, broadband is classified under federal law as a Title I information service.18 Title I does not preempt local franchising of broadband,19 just as it did not preempt local franchising of cable service when cable service was an information service prior to the passage of the federal Cable Act.20 Earlier in the year, when attempting to reclassify broadband, the FCC once again recognized the dual federal-state regulatory system over communica- tions networks and made it clear that MICHAEL R. BRADLEY, Partner, Bradley Werner, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2024 / VOL. 65 NO. 6 / 7 Continued on page 8 Michael R. Bradley is a partner in the Municipal Telecommunications firm Bradley Werner, LLC. Mike has spent nearly his entire 30-plus year career representing local governments on a wide variety of telecommuni- cations and franchising issues. Mike successfully defended the right of cities to receive cable franchise fees in Oklahoma and also litigated in federal court whether revenues from the provision of internet service should be included in cable franchise fees. He is one of a handful of at- torneys in the country that has represented local government clients in the formal cable franchise renewal process. Mike and his firm represented municipal clients in all three FCC Section 621 cable franchising proceedings from 2006 to present, including the recent litigation before the Sixth Circuit. He has also filed in the FCC Digital Discrimination and Cable Pricing dockets. He has drafted and testified on communications legislation in multiple jurisdictions, including the Minnesota Equal Access to Broadband Act in 2024, and is a long-time officer, including past Chair, of the Minnesota State Bar Association’s Communications Law Section. Early in his career, he assisted the City of St. Paul in obtaining public funding for a new hockey arena and bringing the NHL back to the State of Hockey. Mike is a graduate of Hamline University School of Law (J.D.) and the University of Minnesota (B.A.) and is admitted to practice before multiple state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2025 / VOL. 66 NO. 1 / 7 it would not preempt franchising even if broadband was reclassified to a Title II telecommunications service.21 The order states: We decline requests to categorically preempt all state or local regulation affecting [broadband internet access service] in the absence of any specific determination that such regulation interferes with our exercise of federal regulatory authority. The [Com- munications] Act establishes a dual federal–state regulatory system in which the federal government and the states may exercise concurrent regula- tory authority over communications networks.22 Additionally, the FCC affirmed other roles typically included in franchises by local governments regardless of the federal reclassification of broadband, such as:23 • “[G]enerally policing such matters as fraud, taxation, and general commer- cial dealings.” • “[P]rotecting consumers from fraud, enforcing fair business practices, for example, in advertising and billing, and generally responding to consumer inquiries and complaints.” • State Consumer Protection Laws, such as the California Internet Consumer Protection and Network Neutrality Act of 2018. • Promoting Broadband Affordability Programs.24 Municipal Franchising Success Story Cities have a long history of pro- tecting citizens through franchising. Through cable franchising, for example, cities have ensured that their residents are served by the cable system over a reasonable period of time with the same quality of service and pricing.25 When necessary, municipal franchising authorities have required cable system upgrades, which resulted in superior broadband offerings compared to phone companies.26 Cable franchises also have customer service protections and provided for public benefits such as public, educational, and govern- mental (PEG) access channels. Local cable franchising has undeniably been effective in ensuring universal access, universal pricing, area-wide buildout, and upgrades.27 As local governments explained to the FCC recently:28 For decades, local governments have protected the public interest through franchises and other rights-of-way management tools.29 In the cable franchise context, local governments have required every cable operator to construct its cable system to serve everyone in the municipality, and, later, required system upgrades to ensure the cable system provided an appropriate level of service.30 Local governments have, as required in the 1984 Cable Act, prohibited cable operators from redlining lower in- come communities.31 They have also included important public benefits, such as public, educational and gov- ernment (PEG) access programming in local franchises to ensure access to local news, information, public meetings, high school sports and events, and more.32 National and regional organizations agree that municipalities should be a part of the solution to ensuring equal access to broadband. As the League of Minnesota Cities explained in its Digital Discrimination Comments: Local governments are in the best position to recognize and respond to the needs of their residents. It is simply not possible for the federal government to create a “one size fits all” plan that will ensure efficient ac- cess to broadband across the entire country or to prevent or eliminate digital discrimination.”33 The National League of Cities echoed those comments stating, “Local government, as the level of government closest to the consumer, is in the best position to identify potential or actual digital discrimination and should take a leading role in preventing and addressing it.”34 The effectiveness of franchising au- thority has been supported by the FCC in two recent orders. In its Digital Dis- crimination Order, the FCC adopted the recommendations of the Commu- nications Equity and Diversity Council (“CEDC”), which acknowledged the importance of local franchising. 35 The CEDC Recommendations and Best Practices recognized the long-standing efforts of local governments to promote nondiscriminatory access to communi- cations services through franchises and rights-of-way management.36 8 / Municipal Lawyer Broadband cont’d from page 7 Broadband Franchising Results in Equal Access to Broadband Plain and simple, local franchising has a history of success and should be used to ensure equal access to broadband. The following is a sampling of the issues that franchising can address. Long-Term Protection. Updating state laws to clearly autho- rize broadband franchising is particu- larly important now, as states across the country are about to distribute over $42 billion in federal grants to broadband companies over the next two years.37 Additionally, the broad- band industry is seeking additional public benefits, such as sales tax exemptions for purchasing broadband facilities and government subsidies to serve low-income families.38 Cur- rent federal and state programs do not address the long-term interests of residents, which is somewhat shocking considering the hundreds of millions of public dollars being given to the broadband industry. Franchising pro- vides long-term protection. Equitable Buildout. Broadband franchising will allow local governments to require reasonable build-out schedules to ensure all resi- dents are served with the same quality of services. The effectiveness of local cable franchising buildout is undeni- able. Compare the availability of a standard quality of service throughout the country and it will consistently show the local cable system outper- forms the local telephone company. Local governments have required every cable operator to construct its cable system to serve everyone in the mu- nicipality, and, later, required system upgrades to ensure the cable system provided an appropriate level of ser- vice.39 Additionally, local governments have, as required in the 1984 Cable Act, prohibited cable operators from redlining lower income communities.40 Minnesota cities saw this firsthand when granting cable franchises to the local ILEC (incumbent local exchange carrier) phone company. According to the ILEC, to provide cable service to a household, the ILEC needed to be ca- pable of providing a certain minimum broadband download speed. In re- viewing build-out data from the ILEC, it became immediately apparent that, unlike the traditional franchised cable operator, the ILEC had an inconsistent, non-universal, quality of broadband service when compared to the cable system. Since local franchising of phone companies was prohibited by state law in Minnesota, local govern- ments were never allowed to require the ILEC to provide universal service across its service territory. When franchising the ILEC’s cable service, it was the first time the phone company was required to equitably build out its network with significant investment throughout a city.41 These provisions resulted in deployment of fiber optic facilities and the availability of cable service and high speed broadband services in all areas of cities, including areas with low income households and historically underrepresented popula- tions.42 Franchising ensures broadband systems will be built in a way that serves all residents equally. Customer Service. When it comes to broadband service, residents want a local person they can call with service issues and questions about their bills. Cities do that today with cable providers, but not with other broadband providers. There are instances when a broadband provider’s service is down, but the customer and the city have no way of communicat- ing with the provider. For example, in one Minnesota city recently, an elderly resident was without service for over six weeks. In another in- stance, an administrative law judge found that customers of state’s largest phone provider, “experienced multiple services outages or disruptions caused by deficient outside plant or equipment over an approximately four-and-a- half-year period.”43 With broadband franchising, customers will have some- one advocating for them, there will be standards for response to customers, and there will be consequences for failing to comply. Through franchising, local gov- ernments protect their residents by negotiating and enforcing customer service requirements in cable franchise agreements.44 These customer service provisions include call response times, installation response times, late fee restrictions, access channels, electron- ic programming guide provisions, anti-redlining, and anti-discrimination requirements.45 Local governments have supported, and the state of Maine recently adopted, customer service re- quirements relating to access television and refunds.46 Contrast these efforts to the broadband customer in Wisconsin who was told that she could not termi- nate her service just because she called on a weekend. Franchising will protect these customers with reasonable cus- tomer service protections. In addition to negotiating and enforcing cable franchise customer ser- vice provisions, local governments are relied upon by the FCC to participate in consumer protection dockets. Just in the past year, local governments from across the country have supported consumer protection rules at the FCC, and they have also supported digital discrimination rules at the FCC.47 Local government Comments and reply Comments were cited favorably by the FCC numerous times in its final Report and Order that adopted digital discrimination rules.48 Local government franchising au- thorities supported All-In Cable Pric- ing rules to require the disclosure of all cable fees, including some referred to as junk fees.49 These fees include extra fees to receive local broadcast channels, sports programming, and even high-definition television service. Once again, local government Com- Continued on page 10 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2025 / VOL. 66 NO. 1 / 9 ments and Reply Comments were cited throughout the FCC’s final Report and Order.50 Municipalities have also par- ticipated in the development of state Digital Equity Plans.51 These efforts show that municipalities will protect all residential consumers through broadband franchising. Municipalities have an undeniably successful record of using its franchising authority to protect consumers. Public benefits. Receipt of public benefits is anoth- er valuable function of franchising. Broadband franchising will allow cities to continue to fund access television and to address other digital adoption and equity programs.52 The CEDC rec- ognized this principle, finding that “the privilege of using public assets comes with an obligation to provide a benefit to the public, which includes ensuring that all members of the community have equal access to broadband… .”53 For cable franchises, important services, such as public, educational and government (PEG) access pro- gramming in local franchises to ensure access to local news, information, pub- lic meetings, high school sports and events, and more.54 Local broadband franchising will allow local govern- ments to negotiate public benefits to help promote equal access to broad- band and to eliminate digital dis- crimination. Some examples of these public benefits could include computer centers, training on the use of digital services, the next generation of access television, and consumer protections. The Minnesota Equal Access to Broadband Act In 2024, the state of Minnesota began exploring the role that franchising can play in ensuring equal access to broad- band for all Minnesotans. The Minne- sota Equal Access to Broadband Act, HF 418255/SF 4262,56 was introduced in the 2024 legislative session. The bill authorized cities to franchise broad- band providers, which would ensure that all their residents will receive the same broadband. It would also allow cities to receive other public benefits such as access TV and promote digital equity. Through an amendment during committee hearings, the bill capped fees to mirror cable fees. While the bill did not pass this year, it generated significant legislative support. The bill was heard multiple times in the House of Representatives and ultimately added to the House Commerce Policy Omnibus Bill,57 which passed out of committee to the House floor where it received its Sec- ond Reading on April 4, 2024. The bill was also heard by the State and Local Government Committee in the House and laid over for possible inclusion in the State and Local Government Omnibus Bill. The Equal Access to Broadband Act enjoyed widespread support from the League of Minnesota Cities, MACTA, NATOA, ACM, the League of Women’s Voters, and others, but was opposed by the cable and phone associations and the state Chamber of Commerce. While the Minnesota Equal Access to Broadband Act is fairly technical and Minnesota-centric, it could be a starting point for drafting model broadband franchising legisla- tion for use throughout the country. Challenges to Municipal Broadband Franchising The broadband industry raised several challenges to the Minnesota Equal Access to Broadband Act, most of which were self-serving with no factual or legal basis. Franchise Fees. Rather than recognizing the valu- able special privilege of enjoying access to the public rights-of-way to conduct their business, the broad- band industry opposed the Min- nesota Equal Access to Broadband Act claiming franchise fees were taxes amounting to a “slush fund” for cities. As shown above, fran- chise fees are the consideration for the special privilege to use the public right-of-way for private profit.58 It is a very valuable privilege that few companies enjoy. Without this privilege, communications companies could not operate their businesses in a cost-effective way. The fran- chise fees allowed by the Minnesota legislation mirrored the fees currently paid by cable operators. As the Texas Court of Appeals recently recognized, public property – the right-of-way – should not be given away below its fair market value.59 No government should give away public property for nominal or no consideration and it is fundamentally fair to require all users to pay franchise fees, not just some. Stacking. Opponents to the Equal Access to Broadband Act claimed fees on fran- chisees would be unfairly “stacked” on providers. One claim was that multiple governmental entities could require a broadband franchise, thus forcing a pro- vider to obtain multiple franchises for the same area. No reasonable reading of the Equal Access to Broadband Act could support that argument. Neverthe- less, the bill was amended to clarify that there is one local franchise authority in each city, so there would be no so-called stacking. Secondly, opponents claimed that fees would be stacked on multiple services provided by individual providers, such as cable and broadband. This stacking argument fails to recognize the valuable privilege of using the public right-of- way.60 In rejecting a similar stacking ar- gument, the Texas Court of Appeals held such an argument “would do violence to the concept of consideration, and we are directed to no authority that would compel such an anomalous result.”61 Impact on Low Income Residents. The broadband industry presented no solutions to lowering rates for low-in- come persons, even though the industry 10/ Municipal Lawyer Broadband cont’d from page 9 would be receiving $750 million in feder- al and state broadband grant funding and was requesting additional public benefits for the industry. Instead, the industry claimed that franchise fees will impact low-income residents with higher broad- band costs. No credible information was submitted in support of this claim. On the other hand, local governments testified in support of the Equal Access to Broadband Act that local franchising au- thorities stood up for subscribers in terms of digital discrimination and fair pricing. Impact on Buildout. The broadband industry testified that allowing franchising will slow down the build out of broadband and that they would not build to cities that chose to require a franchise. Given the pending billions of dollars of state and federal funding at stake, the argument lacked veracity. The expenditure of $42 billion of taxpayer dollars would be irrespon- sible without protecting the long-term interests of residents. Local franchising will encourage and promote more equi- table broadband deployment - not less. Only local governments through cable franchising have been able to demand buildout maps and ensure full build out to every neighborhood, home and apartment. In other words, franchising promotes equal access to broadband. Preemption. Industry opponents claimed that fed- eral law would preempt the proposed Minnesota Equal Access to Broadband Act. First, the industry claimed the bill would be preempted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA).62 The ITFA allows fees for the conveyance of privi- leges. A franchise grants the privilege of use of the public right-of-way. There is no preemption. Next, industry claimed the bill would be preempted by the FCC’s Small Cell Order.63 Since the bill excluded small cell wireless facilities, the Small Cell Order would have no preemptive effect on the bill. Finally, industry opponents claimed preemp- tion by the FCC’s Mixed-Use Rule.64 The Mixed-Use Rule has a somewhat tortured history. The original order preempted local governments from reg- ulating noncable services over a cable system.65 The legal reasoning behind the Mixed-Use Rule was largely rejected on appeal and the court ruled that regu- lation of non-cable services of a cable operator is allowed if it is consistent with the federal cable act.66 This was also addressed in the bill amendments. Conclusion The goal of equal access to broadband is not controversial. The way to obtain the goal is through franchising broadband service providers. Municipal franchis- ing is the best path forward to ensure buildout, quality of service, customer service, privacy protections, fair pricing, and public benefits to address digital adoption and education, all of which residents want and expect. Municipalities have a successful franchising history. Local governments without current statutory or home rule authority should seek legislative change to allow municipal broadband franchising or risk their com- munities being less competitive and un- derserved. Franchising is the future and the way to equal access to broadband. Notes 1. See, e.g., City of Minneapolis Dig- ital Opportunity Plan Comments and Qualitative Data to the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development (June 30, 2023). 2. See Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program – Overview, https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/fund- ing-programs/broadband-equity-ac- cess-and-deployment-bead-program (last visited Oct. 30, 2024) (“The Broadband Equity, Access, and De- ployment (BEAD) Program, provides $42.45 billion to expand high-speed internet access by funding plan- ning, infrastructure deployment and adoption programs in all 50 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”). 3. See In re Implementing the Infra- structure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination, Report and Order, 89 Fed. Reg. 4128, GN Docket No. 22-69, 2023 WL 8614401 (rel. Nov. 20, 2023), appeal docketed, Minn. Telecom. Alliance v. FCC, No. 24- 1179 (8th Cir. 2024) (the “Digital Discrimination Order”). 4. See Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 80-81 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (“Not only is the Commis- sion lacking in its own statutory authority to preempt, but its effort to kick the States out of intrastate broadband regulation also overlooks the Communications Act’s vision of dual federal-state authority and cooperation in this area specifical- ly;" Ohio Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, Case No. 247000, Document: 51-2 (6th Cir. 2024) (FCC’s 2024 Title II broadband reclassification order Editor’s Note: On January 2, 2025, the Sixth Circuit released Ohio Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 2025 WL 16388, ___ F.4th ___ (6th Cir. 2025), setting aside the FCC's 2024 Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order that reclassi- fied broadband internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service subject to FCC common carrier regu- lations and net-neutrality restrictions. Citing Loper-Bright and the demise of agency deference, the court held that the FCC's reclassification order exceeded its statutory authority and that based on a plain reading of the statute broadband internet access service is a Title I informa- tion service. The Court similarly rejected the FCC's reclassification of mobile broadband. This development makes state initiatives regarding equal access and broadband franchising, neither of which are preempted by the Act or by the Sixth Circuit decision, even more significant. Continued on page 12 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2025 / VOL. 66 NO. 1 / 11 stayed, unlikely to succeed on the merits). 5. See In re Safeguarding and Secur- ing the Open Internet, Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order On Reconsideration, FCC 24-52, 89 Fed. Reg.45404 (Pub. May 22, 2024), appeal docketed, Ohio Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, Case No. 247000, Document: 51-2 (6th Cir. 2024) (Title II reclassification stayed, unlikely to succeed on this merits) (“2024 Open Internet Order”). 6. See, e.g., Lincoln Mun. Code Ch. 5.12 (2021). 7. See Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. 519, 595, 10 L. Ed. 274, 1839 WL 4294 (1839); State of Califor- nia v. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 41, 8 S. Ct. 1073, 32 L. Ed. 150 (1888); see also Village of Blaine v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 12, 265 Minn. 9, 121 N.W.2d 183 (1963); Northern States Power Co. v. City of Granite Falls, 186 Minn. 209, 242 N.W. 714 (1932); City of Saint Paul v. North- ern States Power Co., 462 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 1990); Burns, 164 P.3d at 483; 12 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 34:2 (3d ed.). 8. See, e.g., Burns, 164 P.3d at 483; 12 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 34:2 (3d ed.). 9. See City of St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 U.S. 465, 13 S. Ct. 990, 37 L. Ed. 810 (1893); Burns, 164 P.3d at 483; 12 McQuil- lin Mun. Corp. § 34:53 (3d ed.). 10. See, e.g., Daniel A. Lyons, Mu- nicipal Broadband Fees Are Bad Law and Bad Policy, 19 Free State Foun- dation, No. 39 (Oct. 18, 2024). 11. See City of McAllen v. Texas, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 4799325, *5 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2024) (for a wireless node, “no case holds that a $250 statutory fee constitutes sufficient consideration under the gift clause for a good potentially worth $2,500 if acquired in an arm’s-length transaction”). 12. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 222.37; Minn. Stat. Ch. 238. 13. See, e.g., Okla. Const. art. XV, § 5(a). 14. See, e.g., Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, available at https:// codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/phil- adelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0- 0-262986; Minneapolis, Minnesota, Charter, available at https://library. municode.com/mn/minneapolis/ codes/code_of_ordinances?no- deId=CH. 15. See 12 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 34:10 (3d ed.); Burns, 164 P.3d at 483. 16. See note 4 supra. 17. See, e.g., Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 81 (noting “the Communications Act’s vision of dual federal-state authori- ty and cooperation” on broadband regulation); ACA Connects America’s Commc’ns Ass’n v. Bonta, 24 F.4th 1233 (9th Cir. 2022); City of Eugene v. FCC, 998 F.3d 701, 711 (6th Cir. 2021) (noting that “Congress went out of its way not to suggest that federal law is the fountainhead of all franchisor regulatory authority”); City of Dallas v. FCC, 165 F.3d 341, 345 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that the 1984 Act “preserve[d] the role of municipalities in cable regulation”); Sprint Telephony Pcs, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571, 576 (9th Cir. 2008) (cert. den’d, Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. San Diego Cnty., 557 U.S. 935 (2009)) (noting that “Section 332(c)(7)(A) preserves the authority of local governments over zoning decisions regarding the placement and construction of wire- less service facilities...”); CNSP, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, (10th Cir. 2019) (after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, “local governments retain the authority ‘to manage the public rights-of-way’”). 18. Nat’l Cable &Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 993-96 (2005) (cable inter- net service is a Title I information service); In re Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable & Other Facilities, 17 FCC Rcd. 4798, 4824 ¶ 41 (2002) (cable internet service classified as Title I information service); In re Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order On Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601 (2015) (broadband reclassi- fied as a Title II telecommunications service); In re Restoring Internet Freedom, 33 FCC Rcd. 311 (2018) (broadband reclassified as Title I information service); Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 18-21 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (Title I reclassifi- cation upheld); 2024 Open Internet Order (order reclassified broadband as Title II telecommunication service, stayed on review). 19. See Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 75-6 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (FCC local preemption directive vacat- ed); N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass’n v. James, 101 F.4th 135, 140-41 (2nd Cir. 2024). 20. See 47 U.S.C. § 152(a); CATV and Community Antenna Systems, 2 F.C.C.2d 725, 6 R.R.2d 1717 (1966). 21. 2024 Open Internet Order, at ¶¶ 265-275. 22. Id., at ¶ 268. 23. 2024 Open Internet Order, at ¶¶ 268-275. 24. Id., at ¶ 275 (“We also clarify that the mere existence of a state affordability program is not rate regulation”)., 25. See e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 98–934 at 94, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4731 (From the 1984 Cable Act House Report, “A state may, for instance, exercise authority over the whole range of cable activities, such as negotiation with cable operators; consumer pro- tection; construction requirements; rate regulation or deregulation; the assessment of financial qualifications; the provision of technical assistance with respect to cable; and other franchise related issues—as long as the exercise of that authority is consistent with Title VI.”); see also Frederick E. 12/ Municipal Lawyer Broadband cont’d from page 11 subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.”) 32. See, e.g., City of Philadelphia 621 Comments, at 9; National Associa- tion of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, et al. Comments, In re Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, at 10 (Nov. 14, 2018) (“NATOA 621 Comments”). 33. League of Minnesota Cities Digi- tal Discrimination Comments, at 2. 34. National League of Cities Digital Discrimination Comments, In re Im- plementing the Infrastructure Invest- ment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination, GN Docket No. 22-69, at 1 (Feb. 21, 2023). 35. See Digital Discrimination Order, at ¶¶ 175-178. 36. Recommendations and Best Prac- tices to Prevent Digital Discrimination and Promote Digital Equity Submit- ted to the Federal Communications Commission by the Working Groups of the Communications Equity and Diversity Council, at 31, https://www. fcc.gov/sites/default/files/cedc-digi- tal-discrimination-report-110722.pdf (Nov. 7, 2022). 37. See note 2 supra. 38. See e.g., Joe Supan, Could the Election Revive the Affordable Connectivity Program?, CNET, https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/ could-the-election-revive-the-afford- able-connectivity-program/ (last visited October 30, 2024). 39. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2); Northwest Suburbs Cable Communi- cations Commission Cable Franchise Ordinance with King Videocable Company - Minnesota, Section 5.4 (Upgrade of Home Subscriber Net- work) (November 20, 1997). 40. See 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3) (“In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential ca- ble subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.”) 41. An example of the equitable buildout language stated in part: The Parties agree that the following is a reasonable build-out schedule taking into consideration Grantee’s market success and the requirements of Minnesota state law. (i) Complete Equitable Build-Out. Grantee aspires to provide cable service to all households within the City by the end of the initial term of this Franchise. In addition, Grantee commits that a significant portion of its investment will be targeted to areas below the median income in the City. (ii) Initial Minimum Build-Out Commitment. Grantee agrees to be capable of serving a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the City’s households with cable ser- vice during the first two (2) years of the initial Franchise term, pro- vided, however that Grantee will make its best efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter period of time. This initial mini- mum build-out commitment shall include deployment to households in every Ward in the City and to a significant number of house- holds below the medium income in the City. Nothing in this Fran- chise shall restrict Grantee from serving additional households in the City with cable service; ... See A Cable Television Franchise Agreement Between City of Minne- apolis, Minnesota and Qwest Broad- band Services, Inc., D/B/A Centu- ryLink, City of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Appendix H, Chapter 2, Section 1.2 (2014) (emphasis added). 42. See City of Philadelphia Digital Discrimination Comments, at 8-9 (City of Minneapolis, the Northwest Ellrod III & Nicholas P. Miller, Prop- erty Rights, Federalism, and the Public Rights of Way, 26 Seattle U. L. Rev. 475 (2003). 26. See, e.g., Comments of the City of Philadelphia, et al., at 7, In re Imple- menting the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimi- nation of Digital Discrimination, GN Docket No. 22-69, https://www.fcc. gov/ecfs/document/1022165457449/1 (Feb. 21, 2023) (“City of Philadelphia Digital Discrimination Comments”). 27. See e.g., City of Philadelphia Digital Discrimination Comments at 7; Comments of the League of Minneso- ta Cities, at 2; In re Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination, GN Docket No. 22-69, at 2, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/docu- ment/10222116501122/1 (Feb. 21, 2023) (“League of Minnesota Cities Digital Discrimination Comments”). 28. Id. 29. See, e.g., City of St. Louis v. West- ern Union Tel. Co., 148 U.S. 92 (1893) (upholding regulations of telegraph company’s use of rights-of-way); Com- ments of the City of Philadelphia, et al., In re Implementation of Section 621(a) (1) of the Cable Communications Poli- cy Act of 1984, as amended by the Ca- ble Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, at 9-12, https://www.fcc. gov/ecfs/document/11141552701020/1 (November 14, 2018). (“City of Phila- delphia 621 Comments”). 30. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2); Northwest Suburbs Cable Communi- cations Commission Cable Franchise Ordinance with King Videocable Com- pany - Minnesota, Section 5.4 (Upgrade of Home Subscriber Network) (Novem- ber 20, 1997). 31. See 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3) (“In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2025 / VOL. 66 NO. 1 / 13 Suburban Cable Communications Commission, North Metro Telecom- munications Commission, and South Washington Telecommunications Commission all approved franchises with similar equitable buildout provi- sions with similar results). 43. See In re Formal Complaint Regarding the Services Provided by the Qwest Corporation d/b/a Centu- ryLink in Minnesota, on Behalf of the Communications Workers of Ameri- ca, MN-PUC Docket No. C-20-432, at 23 (Mar. 13, 2024). 44. See, e.g., NSCC Digital Discrimi- nation Reply Comments, at 2. 45. City of Philadelphia Digital Dis- crimination Comments, at 7, NSCC Digital Discrimination Reply Com- ments of the NSCC, at 2. 46. See An Act to Ensure Nondis- criminatory Treatment of Public, Ed- ucational and Governmental Access Channels by Cable System Operators, 2019 Me. Laws 469 (codified at Me. Stat. tit. 30-A, §§ 3008(5), (7), 3010(5A), (5B), (5C)); NCTA v. Frey, 7 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (Maine law upheld). 47. See, e.g., City of Philadelphia Digital Discrimination Comments, at 20-21. 48. See Digital Discrimination Order. 49. See, e.g., City of Oklahoma City et al. Comments, at 4-6, In re All-In Pricing for Cable and Satellite Televi- sion Service, FCC 24-29, MB Docket No. 23-203, https://www.fcc.gov/ ecfs/document/107312541918310/1 (July 31, 2023); City of Oklaho- ma City et al. Reply Comments, at 3-5, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/docu- ment/108291549807734/1 (Aug. 29, 2023). 50. See In re All-In Pricing for Cable and Satellite Television Service, FCC 24-29, MB Docket No. 23-203 (Rel. March 19, 2024). 51. See, e.g., City of Minneapolis Digital Opportunity Plan Comments to the Minnesota Office of Broad- band Development (June 30, 2023). 52. See City of Philadelphia Digital Discrimination Comments, at 7, NSCC Digital Discrimination Reply Comments, at 3. 53. Recommendations and Best Practices to Prevent Digital Discrim- ination and Promote Digital Equity Submitted to the Federal Communi- cations Commission by the Working Groups of the Communications Eq- uity and Diversity Council November 7, 2022, at 35 (https://www.fcc.gov/ sites/default/files/cedc-digital-discrim- ination-report-110722.pdf). 54. See, e.g., City of Philadelphia 621 Comments at 9; NATOA 621 Comments at 10. 55. Minn. H.F. No. 4182 (2024), https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ bills/bill.php?b=house&f=H- F4182&ssn=0&y=2024. 56. Minn. S.F. No. 4262 (2024), https://www.revisor. mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=S- F4262&y=2024&ssn=0&b=senate 57. Minn. H.F. No. 4077 (2024) (Article 4, Sections 1-11), https:// www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text. php?number=HF4077&type=- bill&version=1&session=ls93&- session_year=2024&session_num- ber=0&format=pdf. 58. See notes 9 and 11 supra. 59. See City of McAllen, at ___, 2024 WL 4799325, *5 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2024) (consideration must be sufficient). 60. See notes 9 and 11 supra. 61. See City of McAllen, at ___, 2024 WL 4799325, *8 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2024). 62. See 47 U.S.C. § 151, note. The “taxes” prohibited in the ITFA “do[] not include any franchise fee or similar fee imposed by a State or local franchising authority, pursuant to [the Cable Act], or any other fee related to obligations or telecommu- nications carriers under the Com- munications Act of 1934[,]” nor do “taxes” include “fee[s] imposed for a specific privilege, service, or benefit conferred” by a governmental entity, such as the privilege of using local assets. 63. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Re- moving Barriers to Infrastructure Deployment, Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018). 64. See In re: Section 621(A)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protec- tion and Competition Act of 1992, 34 FCC Rcd. 6844 (2019); 47 CFR § 76.43 (Mixed-Use rule). 65. Id. 66. City of Eugene v. FCC, 998 F.3d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 2021). 2025 Mid-Year Seminar April 25 – April 28, 2025 Washington, D.C. Bradley Werner, LLC 2145 Woodlane Drive Suite 106 Woodbury, MN 55125 (651) 379-0900 BradleyWerner.com MEMORANDUM To: Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission From: Michael R. Bradley Re: Broadband Franchising Date: October 30, 2025 Franchise Basics In simple terms, a franchise is an authorization from a local government entity to a company to use the public rights-of-way to provide services to area residents. Benefits of Franchising There are many proven benefits of franchising, such as build-out requirements, customer service standards, compliance with the City's right-of-way standards, the payment of franchise fees, and the provision of other public benefits. Franchising Authority in this Area The Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission has been delegated the authority to negotiate and manage the cable communications systems on behalf of its member cities. The Commission has administered the franchises for the area for 40+ years. Broadband is Not a Telecommunications Service Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in a Hobbs Act review of an FCC Order held that broadband is not a telecommunications service. Ohio Telecom Ass'n v. FCC (In re MCP No. 185), 124 F.4th 993 (6th Cir. 2025). This decision has caused cities in Minnesota to reevaluate where broadband-only providers fall under state law. Since broadband is not a telecommunications service under federal law, it is similarly not likely to be under state law. Instead, it is more likely that a broadband system is a “cable communications system.” A "cable communications system" is a system that provides "data, or communications content service." See Minn. Stat. § 238.02, Subd. 3 and 31. This definition is much broader than a cable television system or “cable system” as that term is defined in federal law. See, e.g. WH Link, LLC v. City of Otsego, 664 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (OVS provider using internet protocol is a cable communications system). If the City determines that a permit applicant is constructing a cable communications system, it could instruct the applicant to obtain a franchise from the Commission as a prerequisite to issuing permits. Minnesota’s First Broadband Franchise A similar commission just negotiated and executed the first broadband franchise in the state for the City of Woodbury area. Additional information and links can be found here. More information on the benefits of local franchising can be found here. We would be happy to review this further with any of the Commission’s Member Cities and their respective city attorneys. Lake Elmo City Council/ City Commissioner Training Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney Kennedy & Graven, Chartered January 13, 2026 Topics to be Covered Open Meeting Law Data Practices Gift Law Conflicts of Interest Meeting Procedures Social Media City Code Requirements Evaluating Applications Ordinance Enforcement Tips for Effective Participation Q &A Introduction Role of Commissions in City Government ▪Appointed by Council ▪Advise/recommend direction to City Council ▪Give guidance to City staff and other commissions and taskforces ▪Assist in setting City policy ▪Serve as ambassadors of the City Open Meeting Law Meeting must be open to public and notice provided Generally, must be held in city limits; accessible room Public must have access to agenda materials Open Meeting Law Applies to the City Council and all City Commissions What is a “meeting”? Two parts: ▪Gathering of quorum (majority) or more of members, and ▪Quorum receives, decides, or discusses information on issues related to official business ▪Not necessary that action be taken for it to be a meeting ▪Not chance or social gatherings ▪Usually not seminars/conferences Serial Meetings What is a serial meeting?  A gathering of less than a quorum for the purposes of avoiding a public meeting or fashioning an agreement on an issue done with the intent of avoiding Open Meeting Law requirements. Whether a serial meeting has occurred depends on two factual determinations :  1. What was the purpose of the meeting?  2. What was the intent of the officials participating in the meeting? Open Meeting Law:Email, Text and Social Media Basic Assumptions ▪Email and social media communications can violate OML where a quorum is involved, and the topic is City business ▪State statute allows use of social media for exchanges with the public (but be careful) ▪Avoid – “reply all” function ▪Like email, serial/group texting could violate the OML ▪One-way communication does not violate OML, but best practice is to use City staff Open Meeting Law Summary ❑Best Practice: Unless at a meeting, avoid discussions with other Council members/Commissioners on City matters outside of a public meeting ❑Consider whether the purpose of the communication is to evade public discussion on the issue ❑Questions? Ask City staff or the City Attorney Open Meeting Law: Penalties  Personal liability/$300 fine for intentional violations (City/League of Minnesota Cities can’t pay)  Forfeit office (if intentional violations found in 3 or more separate actions)  Court may award reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney fees (up to $13,000)  Mandatory attorney fees if the City didn’t comply with Data Practices Office ruling that involves the City Data Practices Data Practices statute applies to all data (in any form) maintained by City, including data in possession of City Council Members/Commissioners General Classifications: ▪Public (available to anyone) ▪Private/Non-public (personnel) ▪Confidential/protected non-public ▪Government Data on Personal Devices/Personal Accounts ▪Subject to data request ▪Where data is stored does not matter Data Practices Public Data on officials: ▪Name and home address ▪Phone number or email address ▪First and last dates of service on the public body City doesn’t necessarily collect all of this information, but must provide public data if available Inform City staff of any data requests you receive Gift Law Statute (Minnesota Statutes Section 471.895) Applies to both elected and appointed officials Prohibits local officials from accepting gifts from “interested persons” (persons having a financial interest in a decision) May accept donations for the City, must be approved by City Council Gift Law- No, you are not royalty. Exceptions ▪Services of insignificant monetary value ▪Plaques or mementos recognizing work ▪Trinket or memento costing $5.00 or less ▪Informational material of unexceptional value Conflicts of Interest State statute (Minnesota Statutes Section 471.87) and City Code (3.04.020) Rules apply to Council and Commission members General rule ▪Do not participate in matters in which you have a personal financial interest ▪Notify City staff of any possible conflict Meeting Procedures Robert’s Rules of Order ▪Will apply if disputes arise Typical Meeting Process: ▪Attendance ▪Review and approve agenda ▪Approve minutes ▪Regular business/public hearings ▪Other business/announcements ▪Future agenda items/upcoming meetings ▪Adjournment Use of Social Media:City City presence on Social Media ▪Facebook ▪Instagram ▪LinkedIn ▪YouTube ▪Nextdoor Purpose ▪Connecting with residents and sharing information City website Use of Social Media:City Issues for City ▪Compliance with laws (OML;data practices) ▪Content oversight ▪On-line etiquette City Policy ▪Websites monitored and controlled by City staff ▪Subject to review and deletion ▪Contact City staff for posting information Use of Social Media: Council Members/Commissioners ▪Use of Personal Sites/Expressing Personal Opinions ▪You represent the City ▪Avoid perception of favoritism and conflicts ▪Avoid posting on issues that will or may come before the Commission/Council ▪Save opinions and discussion for the Commission/Council meeting when you have all available information on the issue City Code Requirements  City Code contains requirements for Planning and Parks Commissioners (Sections 3.12-II and 3.12-IV): ▪Residency in the City ▪Terms (3-year terms) ▪Attendance ▪Removal (appointed & removed by Council). Planning Commissioners can be removed for exhibiting behavior disruptive to the good order and efficiency of the Planning Commission. Evaluating Applications/Quasi - Judicial Acts ❑When evaluating a land use application, you are undertaking a “quasi -judicial” act. A “quasi judicial act or decision” involves examining facts, applying a legal standard to the facts, and rendering a decision ❑Examples of “quasi judicial decisions” include whether to approve a conditional use permit application, whether to grant a variance, and whether to approve a preliminary plat/subdivision ❑Before making a “quasi-judicial decision,” the City must provide the public with notice of the proposed action along with an opportunity for the public to be heard (public hearing). ❑A quasi-judicial decision must be made by an impartial decision-maker Impartial Decision-Makers ❑Continental Property v. City of Minneapolis (2011): •Developer proposed a mixed use tower near Loring Park in Minneapolis •Conditional use permit and variances are needed •City staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial •City Council denies the applications on 13-0 vote •The developer sues the City, claiming that its due process rights were violated. This was primarily relying on the conduct of a Council Member who was clearly involved an effort not only to assist to organize and mobilize neighborhood opposition to the project but also to sway the opinions of her fellow Council members •The Court found that the City Council’s decision was arbitrary because this particular Council Member took a position in opposition and exhibited a “closed mind” before the Council heard the matter. She also adopted an advocacy role in opposition to the proposed project What to do? ❑As much as possible, avoid advocating a position until all information is presented at the Council or Commission meeting where the matter will be decided. ❑Be cautious of “ex parte” communications, either with the applicant or supporters/opponents ❑Disclose, disclose, disclose Ordinance Enforcement ▪City Council members/commissioners do not have any authority to enforce the City’s ordinances. ▪If you encounter an ordinance violation, you should report it to the appropriate City staff person. They will determine whether there has been a violation and whether any enforcement action should be taken by the City. If enforcement action is to be taken, they will ensure that it is taken. ▪If you take it upon yourself to try to enforce a City ordinance, you could subject the City to liability if it is found that there is not a violation of the ordinance and the violator suffers damages. Tips for Effective Participation Come to the meeting with a positive attitude Be on time Read your packet in advance Think about what is best for the entire City Visit locations in advance Allow group participation Be a good listener Contact City staff if you have questions or concerns before the meeting Contact City staff if you cannot attend QUESTIONS? May contact City staff or the City Attorney at any time! Your Contribution is Important! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO! Staff Report DATE: 1/13/2026 DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM: City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Shop SUBMITTED BY: Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner SUMMARY: The intent of the Planning Commission and City Council joint workshop is to review the 2026 Planning Commission work plan discuss proposed changes and provide guidance for City Staff. 2026 WORKPLAN DETAILS: City Staff has updated the Planning Commission work plan for 2026 using the same formatting and priority ranking as the 2025 plan. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed plan at their December 8th 2025 meeting as presented by staff (Vote 6-0). The work plan will receive final approval at the February 3rd 2026, City Council meeting as a consent item. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2025 Planning Commission Work Plan 2. Proposed 2026 Planning Commission Work Plan Joint Planning Commission and City Council Workshop City Council Workshop| January 13th, 2026 2025 Work Plan = Completed in 2025 2026 Draft Work Plan = New Item for 2026 Discussion & Next Steps Are there any comments/changes to the 2026 plan? Any other discussion items the Council or Commission would like to mention? The work plan will be brought to the 2/3/26 City Council meeting for final adoption. STAFF REPORT DATE: 01/13/2026 Discussion TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Interim Public Works Director – Adam Swanepoel AGENDA ITEM: City Council and Parks Commission Joint Work Session CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐ Balanced Finances now and future ☐ Managed Growth ☐ Resilient Infrastructure SUMMARY: The intent of the Parks Commission and City Council Joint Workshop is to address the following items; 1.Review of the 2026 Parks Commission Work Plan 2.Discuss any additional Parks Commission goals for 2026 2026 Parks Commission Work Plan The Public Works Department has updated the Parks Commission Work Plan for 2026. This was presented to the Parks Commission on 11/17/2025. -Review the upcoming neighborhood playground replacements and prioritize those based off city councils’ recommendation to reduce playgrounds in neighborhood parks. -Staff will work with city engineers in preparation and design for the reconstruction of the parking lot and trails in Elmo’s Dog Park. -Work with Flagship Recreation on the replacement of the Lions Park Playground. -Obtain and select bids for the resurfacing of the hard surface courts in Demontreville, Carriage and Tablyn Park. -Make a priority list for future park pavilions and their location. -Provide concepts and a plan for the Ridge Park Playground Replacement - Review Tablyn Park Playground with priority list and identify need or removal. -Provide options and implement a sound barrier for pickleball noise at Pebble Park -Develop a master plan for the future of Lions Park. ATTACHMENT: 2026 Parks Commission Work Plan 1 2026 Parks Commission Strategic Work Plan The City of Lake Elmo Park Commission has affirmed their overall goals to be: 1) Ensure that our parks and trail system are constructed / maintained. 2) Provide recreational amenities that will attract more users of public lands as well as property taxpayers to the City. 3) Create a safe environment in all our parks. 4) Serve as a reviewing body to make sure the “open space” character development is preserved in new developments. With the broader priorities defined, the 2026 Park Commission Strategic Work Plan has been broken down into three segments: Project and Description; Maintenance & Refurbishing and other Park Initiatives. Status and Timeline (projected months in which project will be brought to Parks Commission meeting) are also indicated in order to better manage goals and objectives. Priority Levels are determined on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the highest priority and 5 being the lowest. This will serve as a guide to what tasks serve as a higher priority to staff and work allocation. Key Status C – Complete IP – In Progress PL Priority Level (1-5 with 1 being the highest priority) Planning / Project and Development PL Status Planning and Policy Review Washington County Central Greenway Trail Plan and other County CIP projects near Lake Elmo 1 Feb Review future Neighborhood playground replacement and schedule priority 1 IP Pave dog park parking lot and trails 2 IP Lions Park Playground Equipment Replacement 2 IP Court resurfacing in Demontreville, Carriage and Tablyn 2 IP Select location and installation for Park Pavillion 2 IP Ridge Park playground replacement 2 IP 2 Tablyn Park Playground Equipment replacement 3 IP Review and mitigate Pickleball Noise at Pebble Park 2 IP Develop a Lions Park Master Plan 2 IP Review Park Use Policy -2 A Maintenance & Refurbishing Parks Needs Assessment 3 Annual Asphalt trail Maintenance - Inspections, crack filling and inspections 3 IP Playground and Park Inspections 3 IP Park Trail -Winter Maint Additional Park Initiatives Hold a joint Parks Commission / City Council work session 2 IP Plan for Multisport complex and park land use 1 IP Park Tree Planting 2 IP Oversee efforts of buckthorn removal and Sally Manzara Nature Center 2 IP Add Schiltgen’s Park to Ski Grant Application 3 IP Park Invasive Species identification and plan 3 Finance Update Capital Improvement Plan 1 IP Provide Budget Updates as needed 4 IP STAFF REPORT DATE:January 13, 2026 DISCUSSION TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Nicole Miller, City Administrator AGENDA ITEM: 2026 Draft Legislative Priorities for Lake Elmo CORE STRATEGIES: ☒ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☒ Balanced Finances now and future ☒ Managed Growth ☒ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: As we prepare for the upcoming state legislative session, council requested staff work on drafting legislative priorities that are aligned with the City Council’s priorities. Staff requested council’s guidance on any specific legislative issues, bills or policy areas to include. During discussion with the City Council on December 9th direction was given to staff to focus on Lake Elmo specific priorities. These priorities are included in the attached draft legislative priorities. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Does the City Council have guidance on any modifications to the draft 2026 legislative priorities document? ATTACHMENTS: 2026 Draft Legislative Priorities 2026 Legislative PrioritiesThe City of Lake Elmo County Highway 10,17 & 17B Intersection Improvements Washington County, in partnership with the City of Lake Elmo, is planning an improvement project for the intersection of Highway 10 (10th Street North), County Highway 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue North), and County Road 17B (Lake Elmo Avenue North). Construction of the new Lake Elmo Elementary School is scheduled to open in the fall of 2026. This will generate additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic at this intersection. A temporary traffic signal will be operational by the time school starts, but further investment is needed for a long-term solution. Currently, there are no sidewalks or trails. Proper infrastructure is key to ensuring pedestrian safety, including that of children walking or biking to school. Washington County is requesting $2 million in state funds. Washington County has planned to contribute $1.75 million, and the City of Lake Elmo has planned to contribute $400,000 to this project. The City of Lake Elmo requests the state’s support in funding this project. State Highway 36 Lake Elmo Avenue Project - Additional Frontage Road The purpose of the project is to improve vehicle safety, mobility, and bikeability/walkability in the area around the TH 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) intersection, covering about 1.1 miles. TH 36 is a National Highway System (NHS) route and a four-lane expressway. It serves as a vital transportation link between the Twin Cities urban core, the east metro, and the Wisconsin border at Stillwater. Since the opening of the St. Croix Crossing bridge in 2017, traffic volumes on TH 36 have increased by 20 percent, and traffic demand is forecast to exceed the capacity of the at-grade intersection. In the project area, TH 36 serves as the border between two cities: Grant on the north and Lake Elmo on the south. Lake Elmo Avenue is a two-lane County State-Aid Highway (CSAH 17) that provides access to commercial and residential areas within Lake Elmo and Grant. The study intersection has a high crash rate for a high-volume, high-speed intersection, with a critical crash index of 1.37. An index above 1.0 indicates a safety need. The percentage of rear-end crashes is almost three times the statewide average. Pedestrian/bicycle movements across TH 36 are not allowed, but when people do cross at the intersection or walk along TH 36, they are using a facility rated at a failing level of service (LOS F). 2026 Legislative PrioritiesThe City of Lake Elmo This project has been awarded $10M in federal funding, $20M through state legislators via state bonding, and $6M from MnDOT. This $36M in external funding will be applied to all three agencies (MnDOT, County, and City) to reduce the anticipated costs for all three. However, even with these secured funding sources, the local cost contribution from Lake Elmo may exceed the city’s ability to afford its estimated $4.5M to $5.0M cost share. The project is expected to begin construction in 2026 and finish in the fall of 2027. The City of Lake Elmo requests additional state support should a funding gap arise. Water Quality and Sustainability It is imperative for Lake Elmo’s future that the negative impacts of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permitting practices related to the White Bear Lake lawsuit be addressed. Left unaddressed, the restrictions, ambiguity, and uncertainty surrounding judicial decisions on permitting may harm Lake Elmo, with negligible effects on White Bear Lake's water quantity. The City of Lake Elmo requests that the Legislature change the word “May” to “Shall” in bill HF2304/SF2047 in 2023, addressing water use permits from the DNR in section 1 (a) “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the commissioner of natural resources SHALL; (1) issue permits necessary for the city of Lake Elmo to construct and operate a new municipal water supply well.” Water treatment O&M long-term funding Lake Elmo has detected PFAS/PFOS in all three of our wells. The city recently constructed a temporary water treatment plant and estimates annual operations and maintenance costs of $400,000. The 3M settlement funds are expected to run out in 2027-2028, and there is no guarantee the city will be reimbursed for operations and maintenance. The city plans to construct two additional water treatment facilities and estimates annual operations and maintenance costs of $690,000 per facility. The City of Lake Elmo requests state support if the 3M settlement funds are fully allocated and no other reimbursement solution is in place. 2026 Legislative PrioritiesThe City of Lake Elmo Organizational Advocacy Support Lake Elmo supports legislative activity of the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities. Our membership with these organizations enables Lake Elmo to benefit from advocacy on broad issues affecting many cities. Opportunities may arise during the session for Lake Elmo to help advocate for those that align with the City’s strategic plans and priorities. The City of Lake Elmo is situated halfway between the downtown urban core of Saint Paul and the pristine St. Croix River Valley, offering an idyllic blend of rural amenities, natural scenery, outdoor recreation, and suburban convenience. The City’s location and accessibility have made it one of the most desirable and fastest-growing communities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area over the past decade. The City of Lake Elmo covers approximately 24 square miles of land. It borders other suburban and rural communities, including Oakdale to the west, Grant to the north, Oak Park Heights, Baytown, and West Lakeland Townships to the east, and Woodbury to the south. Lake Elmo City Council The mission of the City of Lake Elmo is to provide planned, quality public services consistent with the City’s character in a fiscally responsible manner in partnership with our community. Nicole Miller, City Administrator | 3880 Laverne Ave. N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 About Lake Elmo Lake Elmo City Council Council Member Nick Kragness Council Member Nick Dragisich Mayor Charles Cadenhead Council Member Jeff Holtz Council Member Matt Hirn 2026 Legislative Priorities Date Type Due date for packet Order Agenda Section Agenda item 1/20/2026 CC Meeting 1/13/2026 Consent Agenda 4th Quarter Dashboards and Financials Consent Agenda Lake ELmo Strategic Communications Plan-Hold Consent Agenda Approve Lions Park Playground Contract Amendment Consent Agenda Approve Massage Therapy License Renewals Regular Agenda 4th Quarter Goals Update Regular Agenda Approve Cooperative Cost Share and Cooperative Maintenance agreements for Hwy 36/LE Ave 2/3/2026 CC Meeting 1/27/26 Consent Agenda 2026 Planning Commission Work Plan Consent Agenda 2026 Parks Commission Work Plan Presentation Green Step/Gold Leaf - Kristin Mroz 2/10/2026 CC Workshop 2/3/26 Discussion Sidewalk/Trail snow removal ordinance-continued from 5/6 Discussion Lake Elmo-No wake Discussion (tentative) Highpointe Crossing concept/Rural Road Section 2/17/2026 CC Meeting 2/10/26 Regular Agenda 2026 Street & Utility - Accept Bids and Award Contract Regular Agenda RLS #132 - Minor Subdivision (pending) Consent Agenda Zoning Text Amendment Public Hearing Notice Distances Consent Agenda Zoning Text Amendment 2026 Housekeeping 3/3/2026 CC Meeting 2/24/26 Regular Agenda Lake Elmo Firehouse Addition (Minor Subdivision) 3/10/2026 CC Workshop 3/3/26 Obstructions in ROW 3/17/2025 CC Meeting 3/10/26 Future Council Agenda Items *Please note: This list is subject to change*