Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Franchise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waverly pursues franchise leverage after Nuvera letter to resident; council to seek regional coordination
Summary
After a resident reported receiving a Nuvera letter that implied a $250 connection charge for an unwanted line, the Waverly City Council directed its attorney to explore retaining an outside franchise attorney and asked staff to reach out to neighboring cities about coordinated franchise talks.
Waverly City Administrator Carrie Krienke told the City Council on April 22 that a resident who inquired about service from Nuvera received a letter thanking him for signing up and warning of a $250 connection fee for a line run he had not authorized. Krienke said she had contacted Nuvera's marketing and customer-service staff and described the letter as a resident-protection concern that strengthened the city's interest in pursuing a franchise agreement.
City Attorney Rhonda Pagel told the council a municipal franchise agreement could give the city leverage over customer-service standards, service-area coverage, pedestal placement and other operational conditions. Pagel said specialized counsel—such as attorney Michael Bradley, who previously presented to the council—could be retained on a recoverable-fee basis, with the city potentially able to recoup attorney fees from the broadband companies if an agreement were reached. Pagel also noted recent case law, including a Woodbury precedent, that informs municipal franchise authority over broadband-only providers.
Council Member Ben Duske proposed the council explore forming a broadband commission with nearby cities to increase bargaining leverage and limit the ability of providers to bypass smaller municipalities. Krienke and Pagel agreed to draft a letter to neighboring communities to gauge interest.
On a motion (m/s/p Duske/Jacobson), the council directed Pagel to contact attorney Michael Bradley to inquire about fees and the process for formal retention and directed Pagel and Krienke to draft outreach letters to neighboring cities to explore a coordinated franchise effort.
Why it matters: franchise agreements can give local governments contractual leverage over installation practices, consumer protections and placement of equipment in the public right-of-way; a coordinated regional approach could increase bargaining power against providers that serve multiple small cities.
Next steps: Pagel will contact Bradley about fees and the retention process; Krienke and Pagel will draft letters to neighboring cities to assess interest in a joint approach.
