College Place council briefed on Ziply-to-BCE Holdings franchise transfer; no vote taken

Interim City Attorney Eric Ferguson told the College Place City Council on March 11 that Ziply has submitted a request for the city’s consent to transfer its local franchise to BCE Holdings, with Northwest Fiber shown in related corporate materials.

Ferguson said the city’s franchise agreement and municipal code require prior written consent for transfers and that consent “shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.” He said Ziply has submitted corporate structure materials and that the city has received an application and a $5,000 transfer fee that must be processed before staff can move forward.

Why it matters: a transfer of a telecommunications franchise changes which corporate entity ultimately controls local assets even if, as Ziply asserts in its correspondence, the local service and local company would remain the same. Council members pressed for clarity about what the transaction would mean for customers and for the status of outstanding local permits tied to ongoing work.

Scott Mahalik, who worked with the city’s review, said he had no current timeline for state or federal approval of the parent-company merger and added the materials submitted to the city indicated Ziply would continue to be responsible for franchise obligations. “I don’t have any current understanding of the timeline for the approval of the merger,” Mahalik said.

Council member Espinosa asked directly what “seamlessly maintain the relevant services” would mean for residents’ day-to-day service and customer support. “Are they going to not have any disruptions in the system? Are they going to have the same contact information?” Espinosa asked.

Ferguson and Mahalik told council members the documents Ziply provided state that contact information and local operations would remain unchanged in theory, but added the corporate materials were dense and staff would request a Ziply representative attend the council meeting at which any ordinance or transfer was considered.

Public Works staff member Robert raised a separate operational concern: unfinished local permits Ziply has open with the city. He asked whether transfers should be conditioned on permit closeout. Ferguson said compliance with franchise provisions and outstanding permits would be a reasonable point to explore and that the city could require resolution of violations or incomplete work before consenting to any transfer.

No formal council vote or ordinance was taken. Council direction and next steps recorded during the meeting were: staff will confirm receipt and processing instructions for Ziply’s application fee, follow up with Ziply (Ms. Eppley was referenced in the materials) to request a city-level presence at a future meeting, and evaluate whether outstanding permits should be closed before consenting to any transfer.

The presentation noted the transfer is also under review by federal and state regulatory authorities; Ferguson said that if those outside approvals occur and Ziply meets the local code requirements, the city would have limited grounds to deny a transfer because the code requires consent not be unreasonably withheld.

Council members who spoke on the item included Council members Espinosa, Peterson and Williams; none moved a motion. Staff and counsel said they would return with a draft ordinance and any further clarifications needed for council action.

Looking ahead: if Ziply’s parent-company merger is approved by state and federal bodies and Ziply completes the city’s application process, the city will consider a formal ordinance to record consent or conditions tied to outstanding permits and to any additional required documentation.