Minutes - Council Work Session - 06/09/2026

Home

everything in the right-of-way, except items prohibited by state law, implying that if broadband were classified as cable, it would have to be franchised. City Attorney Johnson discussed the benefits of franchise agreements, including non-exclusive franchise terms, equal broadband access, and open-access service provider clauses. City Attorney Johnson cited Woodbury’s franchise agreement with Intrepid as an example. The agreement featured a 15-year term and requirements for citywide build-out. It included provisions for discounted rates for people with disabilities and seniors, as well as annual meetings to oversee services. She noted that franchise agreements establish citywide rules for broadband installation and can generate additional revenue through franchise fees. City Attorney Johnson acknowledged the heightened litigation risk associated with franchising broadband, citing Intrepid’s lawsuit against Woodbury as an example. She noted that the FCC is reviewing cases in which broadband providers have sought preemption of local franchise agreements, including Gateway Fiber’s case against Minnesota cities. She emphasized the need for the City Council to decide whether broadband is cable or telecom, as that decision will guide the City’s actions on franchise agreements. She noted that delaying the decision could limit the City’s options in the future, but it would not preclude the City from deciding later. Councilmember Riley inquired about other cities’ experiences with franchise agreements, including Prior Lake and Lakeville. City Attorney Johnson explained that although many cities were considering or discussing franchise agreements, only a few had executed them. Mayor Heineman and the Council discussed the definitions of telecom and cable, as well as the historical context of internet provision via landlines and cable. Councilmember Buscher expressed concern about the risk of unserved areas and litigation, suggesting a wait-and-see approach. The City Council debated the pros and cons of delaying a decision on whether to franchise broadband. City Attorney Johnson suggested that waiting would not limit the City’s future options and that the City could revisit the issue later, armed with more information. Councilmember Riley emphasized the importance of ensuring that the entire City was served, especially the less densely populated areas. The Council ultimately decided to wait and monitor the situation, with plans to revisit the issue if necessary. 3. TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION City Council Work Session / June 9, 2026 Page 5 of 6