Loading...
INFORMATION #4 12-03-2007,/j City of Elk -~-, River MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM:. Tina Allard, City Clerk DATE: December 3, 2007 SUBJECT: Cable Department Update Information Following are some items currently happening with the cable department/commission. I plan to start providing quarterly reports to the Council regarding the cable department and commission activities. FCC Rulings Telephone companies petitioned the FCC for a change in cable regulations due to difficulty in working with many different local governments. The FCC agreed and released an order that will reduce local governments' authority to regulate cable franchises. The FCC stated local governments often have drawn out negotiations with no time limits, make unreasonable build-out requirements, requests for "in-kind" payments, and demands for public, educational, and government access. The FCC order states these actions violate the Communications Act of 1934 which prohibits "unreasonable" barriers to franchise applications. The FCC Order overrides any local laws and regulations but does not override state law. Cable Commission Attorney Bob Vose drafted a couple of detailed memos explaining the FCC Order. They are attached for your review. Webstreaming Webstreaming would allow us to playback Council meetings on our website. Elk River, Delano, and Buffalo are part of a pilot project to provide beta testing. The meetings would be played on the website beginning the day after the meeting air date. The City of Buffalo (www.ci.buffalo.mn.us) went live with Webstreaming and you can visit their website to view a sample of how this new feature will look. I am unsure whether our site will be live when you receive this memo as consultants are currently working on this program for us. You can check back at ww~v.ci.elk-river.mn.us under Government. In the future we are hoping an individual will be able to click on specific parts of the agenda for items they are interested in watching. S:\Clerk\Cable\Council\111907 CC Update.doc Audit The Cable Commission decided to move forward with having an audit of Commission finances. The Executive Committee will bring back Request for Proposals for Commission consideration in February. The Commission has not completed an audit in about five years. S:\Clerk\Cable\Council\111907 CC Update.doc i Robert J. V. Vose Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9275 Email: rvose@kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: Clients FROM: Bob Vose DATE: March 8, 2007 RE: FCC Cable Franchising Rules On December 20, 2006, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Order") regarding franchising of cable competitors. On March 5, 2007, the FCC finally released the text of the Order. The FCC concluded that local franchising authorities have unreasonably impeded franchising of cable competitors. The Order: • imposes time limits for processing a competitive franchise application; • prohibits imposition of unreasonable build-out requirements on competitors, and; • restricts franchise application fees, franchise fees, and PEG and I-Net support obligations on competitors. However, only the application timelines discussed below are embodied in actual rules/regulations. The remainder of the Order consists of declarations that certain franchise conditions are unreasonable and prohibited. Executive Summary The Order's impact in Minnesota is limited because the Order only preempts "local laws, regulations, practices, and requirements ... not specifically authorized by state law." In Minnesota, cable franchising is comprehensively governed by state law. Thus, Minnesota's cable franchising regime is not preempted by the Order. Minnesota law specifically mandates that local franchises put incumbents and competitors on a "level playing field" regarding franchise fees, build-out/service area, and PEG obligations. Accordingly, the imposition of these obligations on competitors is primarily the result of state law, not local requirements. Local governments simply implement the state requirements by adopting appropriate local franchises. However, certain issues addressed in the Order will apply in Minnesota. First, Minnesota law establishes a specific franchise application process including two weeks' published notice, certain application requirements, and a public hearing before final action. However, Minnesota law does not establish a timeline for final action. Thus, the FCC's new timelines for action on competitive franchise applications will apply. The Order also mandates that municipalities not impose "unreasonable build-out mandates." For example, the Order indicates that it would be unreasonable to require a competitor to build-out in a shorter time than the incumbent or to lower density areas than the incumbent is required to serve. This portion of the Order should not apply in Minnesota. A competitor's service area is subject to the state level playing field requirement and statutory provisions governing the speed of build- out to that service area. The Order does not preempt these state statutory requirements. The Order also purports to limit franchise fees in several respects. It is difficult to determine the extent to which this portion of the Order will apply in Minnesota. Most significantly, the Order suggests that competitors cannot be required to provide "in-kind" support. -- such as live feeds, free institutional services, or data connectivity -- over and above a 5% franchise fee. However, if the incumbent operator agreed to provide such support the state level playing field requirement may require that a competitor be subject to the same or similar obligation. These issues will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Disputes seem likely. Finally, the Order indicates that a competitor cannot be required to provide PEG operational support in addition to a 5% franchise fee. Federal law distinguishes PEG capital support, which is excluded from franchise fees, from operating support which must be funded from franchise fee payments. However, some incumbents have accepted franchises establishing a PEG fee to support both PEG capital and operational needs over and above franchise fees. The Order may encourage competitors to refuse comparable franchise provisions and demand that all operational support come from franchise fees. But, again, the state statutory level playing field requirement remains applicable. Impact of Order in Minnesota The Order's impact in Minnesota is limited because only local ordinances and policies are preempted, not state law. The FCC indicates that it does not have a sufficient record to find that state requirements impede competition, stating: At that [sic] outset of this discussion, it is important to note that we do not preempt state law or state level franchising decisions in this Order. Instead, we preempt onl. ly ocal laws, re ulations, practices, and requirements to the extent that: (1) provisions in those laws, regulations, practices, and agreements conflict with the rules or guidance adopted in this Order; and (2) such provisions are not specifically authorized by state law. As noted above, we conclude that the record before us does not provide sufficient information to make determinations with respect to franchising decisions where a state is involved, issuing franchises at the state level or enacting laws governing specific aspects of the franchising process. We expressly limit our findings and regulations in this Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not circumscribed the LFA's authority. Order, ¶ 126 (emphasis added). Cable franchising in Minnesota is comprehensively governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 238. Minnesota law circumscribes local authority by mandating that provisions governing a variety of issues be included in all franchises. Minn. Stat. § 238.084. Minnesota law further mandates that local franchises put incumbents and competitors on a "level playing field" regarding franchise fees, build-out/service area, and PEG obligations. Minn. Stat. § 238.08, Subd. 1(b). Accordingly, the franchise obligations imposed on competitors in Minnesota are largely the result of state statutory requirements. Municipalities implement the state statutory requirements via local franchises. The Order recognizes the existence of state-imposed franchising requirements including, specifically, Minnesota's level playing field requirement. Order, ¶ 47 and fn. 168 ("At least 10 states impose level-playing-field requirements upon LFAs, and those laws vary significantly in the subject matters they encompass. For example, compare Minnesota's requirement that a competitive entrant face similar build-out, franchise fee, and PEG requirements to Illinois's requirement....") The Order does not preempt these state requirements, stating instead: One specific example of the type of local laws that this Order preempts are so-called "level playing field" requirements that have been adopted by a number of local authorities. We find that these mandates unreasonably impede competitive entry into the multichannel video marketplace by requiring LFA's to grant franchises to competitors on substantially the same terms imposed in the incumbent cable operators.... Accordingly, to the extent alocally-mandated level-playing-field requirement is inconsistent with the rules, guidance, and findings adopted in this Order, such requirement is deemed preempted. Order, ¶ 13 8. Accordingly, the Order preempts conflicting local requirements that exceed Minnesota's statutory level playing field requirements. This would include any level playing field requirements included in an existing franchise agreement that exceed state statute. Application Process; Time Limits. The FCC's timelines for action on competitive franchise applications will apparently apply in Minnesota. The Order gives a local franchising authority ("LFA") 90 days to act on an application if "the applicant has existing authority to access public rights-of-way," and 180 days otherwise. The time can be extended by mutual agreement. 47 C.F.R § 76.41(d); Order ¶ 67, 70-73. If an application is not timely acted upon, it is deemed granted an interim basis on the terms proposed. The interim period ends when the LFA formally acts on the application. 3 Minnesota law establishes a specific application process including application information that must be submitted. Minn. Stat. § 238.081. Minnesota's process does not establish a timeline for final action. Thus, the timelines established by the Order apply. The Minnesota application process, which requires two weeks' published notice and a public hearing before an application can be acted upon, must be completed within the FCC's tight timelines. The FCC's timelines run from the submission of an application containing certain information including contact information, and the proposed service area, PEG channel capacity and capital support, franchise fee amount, and franchise term. 47 C.F.R. § 76.41(b). Minnesota's application process requires submission of similar information. The Order makes clear that to trigger the "shot clock," an application must also include "any additional information required by applicable state or local laws." Thus, an applicant must comply with Minnesota's application requirements. Service AreaBuild-Out The Order mandates that an LFA cannot impose "unreasonable build-out mandates." Order ¶ 89. The FCC, however, merely provides examples that "seem unreasonable," including the following: ^ Absent other factors, requiring a new entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun serving anyone. ^ Requiring incumbent phone companies and other facilities-based entrants to build-out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable service. ^ Absent other factors, requiring more of a new entrant than an incumbent cable operator (e.g., requiring build-out in less time than originally afforded the incumbent, or requiring service to areas of lower density than the incumbent is required to serve). ^ Requiring a new entrant to build-out to where it cannot obtain access on reasonable terms. ^ Requiring a new entrant to build-out to areas or customers that it cannot reach using standard technical solutions. ^ Requiring a new entrant to build-out to areas where it cannot obtain reasonable access to and use of the public rights of way. However, Minnesota law. requires a competitor's service area obligation to be "no more favorable or less burdensome" than the incumbent's obligation. Minn. Stat. § 238.08, Subd. 1(b). In 2003, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted in WHLink v. City of Otsego: ... the state statute requires the city, when franchising [a phone company] to provide that service, to do so on terms similar to those included in pre-existing franchises.... [the phone company] points to no federal law regulating (or prohibiting) service-area or build- out requirements. Moreover, a competitor must build-out the service area at a rate specified by state law. Minn. Stat. § 238.084, Subd. 1(m). The Order should not significantly impact the establishment of competitive service areas because these state statutory requirements are not preempted. Franchise Fees The Order purports to limit franchise fees that a competitor can be obligated to pay, indicating that: (1) Revenues from non-cable services, including Internet access, are not included in the revenue base for purposes of calculating franchise fees. Order, ¶ 98. (2) "[A]pplication or processing fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the application" and franchise "acceptance fees" are deemed not to be "incidental" and therefore must be collected from or included in the calculation of franchise fees. This is intended to clarify the exclusion of "charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise" from franchise fees. 47 U.S.C. § 622(g)(2)(D). The FCC appears to limit such incidental charges to actual, internal costs of processing an application and exclude consultant's fees. Order, ¶¶ 103 and 104. (3) Any in-kind payments or "requests made by LFAs" that are "unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant" must be collected from or included in the calculation of franchise fees. However, under Minnesota law a competitor's franchise fee obligation must also be "no more favorable or less burdensome" than the incumbent's obligation. Minn. Stat. § 238.0$, Subd. 1(b). Because each franchise may address the incumbent's franchise fee obligation in a different way, it is difficult to determine the extent to which this portion of the Order will apply to a competitive application. For example, an incumbent operator may have agreed to provide certain in-kind support such as live feeds, data connectivity, or free services to certain institutions in addition to franchise fees. A competitor may argue that it is not required to provide similar support under the Order because such support is unrelated to the provision of cable service. However, the inclusion or exclusion of this in-kind support in the franchise fee calculation may be subject the state level playing field requirement. If so, a competitor must accept the same or similar obligation. These issues will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. PEG and I-Net Support The Order indicates that PEG capital costs "collected only for the cost of building PEG facilities" are not subject to the 5% franchise fee cap. Order, ¶ 109. The Order further indicates that "PEG support payments" do count as franchise fees. This apparently refers to funding for PEG operations which "may include, but are not limited to, salaries and training." Order, ¶ 109. Current federal law establishes a distinction between PEG support for capital/equipment, which is excluded from franchise fees, and operating support which must be funded from franchise fees. 47 U.S.C. § 542 (g)(2)(C). Notwithstanding, some incumbent cable operators have accepted franchises that, in addition to franchise fees, include PEG fee obligations to fund both PEG capital and operational needs. The Order suggests that competitors may demand that all PEG operational support come exclusively from franchise fees. However, under Minnesota law a competitor's PEG support obligation must be "no more favorable or less burdensome" than the incumbent's obligation. Minn. Stat. § 238.08, Subd. 1(b). Because the Order does not preempt this statutory requirement, a competitor should still be obligated to match an incumbent's support for PEG operations over and above franchise fees. Whether I-Net support also falls within Minnesota's level playing field requirement is an open question. The Order also concludes that "it is unreasonable for an LFA to require a new entrant to provide PEG support that is in excess of the incumbent cable operator's obligations." Order, ¶ 114 and ¶ 120. Minnesota law, however, provides to the contrary. Minn. Stat. § 238.08, Subds. 1(b) and 2. This state statutory authority is not preempted. Finally, the FCC recommends (but does not require) that new entrants assume a pro rata share of the incumbent's PEG support based on a calculation of the "per subscriber payment at the time the competitive applicant applies for a franchise..." Order, ¶ 120 n. 396. It will be difficult or impossible to make such calculation unless the incumbent is providing PEG support in a continuing per-subscriber payment; i.e. a PEG fee. Local Authority Over "Mixed-Use Networks" The Order indicates that LFAs cannot refuse a franchise based on issues unrelated to "the provision of cable services over cable systems." Order, ¶ 121. The FCC recognizes, however, that LFAs have authority over right-of--way issues that arise from the deployment of video- related equipment. Order, ¶ 70 n. 264. Nothing in existing Minnesota law suggests that municipalities may use cable franchising authority to obtain commitments for non-cable services. The Order does not appear to interfere with other municipal authority such as right-of--way management authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and .163, associated PUC rules, and local ordinances. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The FCC proposes to apply the Order to incumbent cable operators at franchise renewal. Order, ¶ 140. Because Minnesota's level playing field statute is intended to protect incumbents and applies specifically to "an additional franchise," state law would not insulate franchise renewal negotiations from the Order's impact. If the issues described above are applied to existing 6 operators, the renewal process will change dramatically. Most significantly, Minnesota municipalities would be subject to significant new restrictions on service area/build-out, franchise fees, PEG and I-Net support, and in-kind commitments. The FCC intends to issue a further order within six months. Order, ¶ 140. There is a very short thirty (30) day period for initial comments, and fifteen (15) days for reply comments, regarding the proposed extension of the Order. Kennedy 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 Graven (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven. com (HAR`l'ERED MEMORANDUM TO: Clients FROM: Bob Vose DATE: November 7, 2007 RE: FCC's Second Order; MB Docket No. OS-311 On October 31, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted a Second Report and Order ("Second Order") providing "further guidance" on the local franchising process. The Second Order extends certain regulatory relief to incumbent cable operators. On November 6, 2007, the FCC released the text of the Second Order. Background In December, 2006, the FCC issued an order ("First Order") concluding that local governments have unreasonably impeded franchising of cable competitors. You have previously received memoranda detailing the findings and restrictions imposed in the First Order. In sum, the FCC: ^ imposed 90 or 180 day time limits for processing a competitive franchise application; ^ prohibited imposition of unreasonable build-out requirements on competitors; ^ interpreted the 5% franchise fee cap by defining the fee revenue base and identifying certain fees/charges, payments, support, or contributions that are subject to the franchise fee cap; ^ restricted certain PEG and I-Net support obligations. The First Order was challenged by various parties and is pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was not stayed pending completion of this litigation. Second Order--- Summary The First Order did not significantly impact Minnesota's cable franchising regime. The First Order only preempted "local laws, regulations, practices, and requirements ... not specifically authorized by state law." Minnesota law comprehensively governs and authorizes nearly all aspects of local cable franchising. Particularly, the First Order did not preempt Minnesota's "level playing field" provision which generally requires parity between an incumbent and new entrant regarding franchise fees, build-out/service area, and PEG obligations. The Second Order may have more significant impacts. In the Second Order, the FCC found that: ^ its findings that certain compensation required by local authorities must be counted toward the federal 5% franchise fee cap should be extended to incumbents; ^ many of its determinations relating to PEG and institutional networks ("I-Nets") should be extended to incumbents; and ^ its findings regarding mixed-use networks also apply equally to incumbents. The FCC also found that: ^ its conclusions regarding build-out and time limits for processing a franchise application only apply to new entrants, not incumbents; and ^ local or state cable customer service requirements cannot be preempted, and local franchising authorities and cable operators cannot be prevented from agreeing to customer service standards that are more stringent than the FCC's rules. The Second Order will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The most serious concerns are addressed below. PEG Support Since 1984, federal cable law has distinguished PEG capital support from operational support. The term "franchise fee" excludes any "capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities." 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(C). Thus, PEG capital support is not subject to the 5% franchise fee cap, while support for PEG operations is subject to the cap. The First Order addressed this distinction between PEG capital and operating support, stating: Accordingly, payments of this type, if collected only for the cost of building PEG facilities, are not subject to the 5 percent limit. Capital costs refer to those costs incurred in or associated with the construction of PEG access facilities. These costs are distinct from payments in support of the use of PEG access facilities. PEG support payments may include, but are not limited to, salaries and training. First Order, ¶ 109. This language appeared to suggest that PEG capital support is limited to only the cost to build or construct facilities. Many parties filed comments with the FCC noting that this interpretation of "capital costs" is too narrow. In the Second Order, the FCC indicates that its conclusion regarding PEG capital support applies to incumbents. The FCC further clarified that in the First Order it found: .... payments made to support the operation of PEG access facilities are considered franchise fees and are subject to the 5 percent cap, unless they are capital costs, which are excluded from franchise fees under Section 622(g)(2)(C). Second Order, ¶ 11. This language appears to be intended to correct the First Order's overly narrow characterization of PEG capital support that is exempt from the franchise fee cap. The Second Order also indicates that the prior finding "that the non-capital costs of PEG requirements must be offset from the cable operator's franchise fee payments is applicable to incumbents because it was based upon our statutory interpretation of Section 622 of the Act." Second Order, ¶ 13. Unfortunately, the Second Order provides no clarity regarding how non- capital PEG costs are to be identified or how an "offset" would be implemented. More importantly, it is unclear whether an incumbent could seek offsets prior to franchise expiration if the franchise does not provide for such mechanism. The timeline for implementation of the Second Order is discussed below. Franchise Fee Issues The Second Order also concludes that the following findings from the First Order apply to incumbents: (1) a cable operator is not required to pay cable franchise fees on revenues from non- cable services; (2) the term "incidental" in 47 U.S.C. § 622(g)(2)(D), which excludes from franchise fees "charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise," is limited to the list of incidentals in the statutory provision and other minor expenses. Other fees including "processing fees, consultant fees, and attorney fees," and "application or processing fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the application ... and in-kind payments" are not "incidental" and are subject to the 5% franchise fee cap; (3) any "municipal projects" requested by local authorities that are unrelated to the provision of cable services are subject to the 5% franchise fee cap unless they fall within the exempted categories in Section 622(g)(2). It appears that the FCC defines "municipal projects" to be any requests for in-kind services or support that is "unrelated to the provision of cable services." It is unclear whether in-kind support in the form of, for example, live feeds to municipal buildings, institutional data connectivity, or free services to institutions are "municipal projects." Timeline for Implementation In the First Order, the FCC tentatively concluded that the regulatory relief should only be extended to incumbents at the time of franchise renewal. Local governments agreed that the FCC cannot alter existing agreements or violate contractual rights. Thus, local governments commented that if the First Order were extended at all, such extension could only happen at renewal. Conversely, incumbents argued that findings in the First Order regarding franchise fees and PEG/I-Net requirements were made pursuant to sections of the federal Cable Act that are applicable to all operators, not just new entrants, and should apply immediately. Second Order, ¶ 18. The FCC claims to have found middle ground in the Second Order. The FCC indicates that its interpretations of statute are valid immediately, nationwide. However, the FCC recognizes that: ... franchise agreements involve contractual obligations and ... some terms may have been implemented as part of a settlement agreement regarding rate disputes or past performance by the franchisee. As a result, we believe that the facts and circumstances of each situation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis under applicable law to determine whether our statutory interpretation should alter the incumbent's existing franchise agreement. This Order should in no way be interpreted as giving incumbents a unilateral right to breach their existing contractual obligations. (FN: Additionally, nothing in this Order can be used as an independent basis for obtaining retrospective relief.) Instead, if an incumbent asserts that the terms of its franchise should be amended as a result of this Order, we encourage LFAs and incumbents to work cooperatively to address those issues. Second Order, ¶ 19. The FCC goes on to note that if cooperative efforts fail, disputes may be resolved pursuant to dispute resolution provisions, most favored nation clauses, statutory franchise modification processes, or litigation. As an initial matter, it appears that a local government should evaluate whether the Second Order is at odds with the incumbent's franchise or related agreements. This evaluation should also include Minn. Stat. § 238.084, Subd. 1(b) which provides that a franchise must contain a provision "requiring the franchisee and the franchising authority to... conform to federal laws and regulations regarding cable as they become effective." In turn, this evaluation may result in an effort to work cooperatively with the incumbent. Conclusion As with the First Order, the FCC approved the Second Order on 3-2 vote. Commissioners voting in favor issued statements generally arguing that the Second Order will create a level playing field and allow incumbents and new entrants to compete more fairly. The dissenting commissioners argued that the Second Order will limit local government's ability to effectively maintain necessary local regulatory control. Specifically, Commissioner Adelstein stated that the FCC "has converted the entire cable franchise fees and PEG/I-Net's support regime into a regulatory minefield for local governments that will likely impact the ability of local government to provide critical, state of the art services when it matters most." Commissioner Copps stated "the genie is out of the bottle for now, I hope that at some point my colleagues and I will consider removing the Commission from the field of local franchise regulation -where we are not welcome and have no reason to be." An appeal from the Second Order is inevitable. It is impossible to determine whether a stay pending appeal will be issued. FCC order applies 5 percent cap on franchise fees to incumbent cable companies Page 1 of 2 ~- ~1,~~ ~ ~". ~.CiU J c~~ i 11~tC~~~C~TA ~1"r1~5 c~~f~~ ~~aza FCC order applies 5 percent cap. on franchise fees to incumbent cable companies Issue 32 Published: November 15, Ann Higgins On Nov. 6, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its Second Report and Order on implementation of federal cable laws for competitive franchising. The cap on franchise fees that the FCC previously only applied to competitive franchisees was extended. to incumbent cable systems operating i~ compliance with existing local franchises. Though the new FCC order is not yet in effect, some cable attorneys have raised concerns that the effecti date for provisions related to payment of PEG fees and costs for installation and operation of institutiona networks (I Nets) is ambiguous and may be subject to claims that such restrictions would become effecti immediately. In general, however, FCC orders are not effective unti130 days after they are published in ~ Federal Register, which would likely mean that the effective'date would occur at the close of 2007. The order leaves cities and local franchising authorities with many unanswered questions about the implications of the new ruling. In circumstances where local franchise agreements contain provisions foi incumbent to pay additional fees or make in-kind contributions to support local programming for public, educational, and government (PEG) channels and/or maintain I Nets, local officials are uncertain what tr order may mean for future payments or other contributions for support of PEG services. The order does not set aside existing franchises, but raises question about whether cities may anticipate requests by current cable system operators to modify current franchise agreements or to offset such PEG support from the total of the current amount of franchise fee revenues paid to cities. At the national level, the National League of Cities as well as-other groups representing the interests of 1~ franchising authorities, counties, PEG programmers and facilities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors h~ joined in challenging the latest FCC order. The League will be monitoring the situation and conferring with attorneys who practice cable law in Minnesota as well as with the National League of Cities. We will make cities aware of developments regarding this issue as well as when the FCC findings regarding offsets from franchise fee payments for fee and I-Net obligations may, in some circumstances, be effective sooner. LMC Board Editor: Designer: Executive Director: of Directors Eri..ca.Norris._Perlman. Jason Little Jim_Miller Copyright ©2007 League of~Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave. West, St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 651-281-1200 ~ Toll Free: 1-800-925-1122 http://www.lmnc.org/bulletin/story.cfm?id=1637&title_id=1 11/16/2007