Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waverly reviews broadband-franchising option to secure citywide service, discounts and fee revenue
Summary
Attorney Michael Bradley told the Waverly City Council franchising can require providers to build out service across the entire city, guarantee customer‑service protections and senior/disabled discounts of at least 10 percent, and create a 5 percent franchise fee; the council agreed to continue the discussion when all members are present.
Attorney Michael Bradley joined the Waverly City Council by Zoom on April 14 to explain the advantages and legal framework for municipal broadband franchising. Bradley told the council that a franchise can obligate a provider to build service to all areas of the city within a defined timeframe, require customer‑service protections that broadband‑only providers do not otherwise offer, and include discounts for seniors and people with disabilities of at least 10 percent.
Bradley said a franchise typically includes a municipal fee — he described a 5 percent franchise fee on broadband service revenue as a common provision — and that franchising can help the city secure reasonable build‑out and consumer protections. He identified the Ohio Telecom v. FCC decision as part of the legal background and explained that under Minnesota law certain broadband services are likely treated as “cable communication systems” and therefore may be subject to franchise requirements.
City Attorney Rhonda Pagel told the council that if Waverly chooses to pursue franchising it would likely need to hire outside counsel to draft and negotiate franchise agreements. Mayor Connie Holmes expressed particular interest in the requirement that franchises cover the entire city, noting that neither Nuvera nor a potential second provider — Kinetics/Windstream — had indicated willingness to serve all areas. Council Member Ben Duske asked whether Waverly could collaborate with neighboring cities for leverage; Pagel supported that approach.
Bradley outlined implementation considerations, including the risks of legal fees and the possibility that a company might decline to serve the city; he characterized those risks as relatively low given market demand for broadband. The council did not take immediate action and agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting when all council members can participate.
The council also directed staff to include franchising as an item for further study and to return with additional information on legal costs and steps required to implement a franchise ordinance.
