The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPacket Special Council Oct 4 2022Whatcom County Council (Special) COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360) 778-5010 Meeting Agenda Tuesday, October 4, 2022 12:15 PM Council Chambers HYBRID MEETING (PARTICIPATE IN -PERSON, SEE REMOTE JOIN INSTRUCTIONS AT www.whatcomcounty.us/joinvirtualcouncil, OR CALL 360.778.5010); MAY BEGIN EARLY COUNCILMEMBERS Barry Buchanan Tyler Byrd Todd Donovan Ben Elenbaas Carol Frazey Kaylee Galloway Kathy Kershner CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C. Council (Special) Meeting Agenda October 4, 2022 Call To Order Roll Call Announcements Individuals who require special assistance to participate in the Council's meetings are asked to contact the Council Office at 360.778.5010 at least 96 hours in advance. Special Order of Business 1. AB2022-551 Discussion and possible action on proposed letter to the Department of Commerce regarding funding for broadband Items Added by Revision Other Business Adiournment Whatcom County Page 2 Printed on 211212024 File ID: AB2022-551 File Created: 09/28/2022 Department: Council Office Assigned to: Council (Special) Agenda Date: 10/04/2022 Whatcom County Agenda Bill Report File Number: AB2022-551 COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360)778-5010 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready Entered by: DBrown@co.whatcom.wa.us File Type: Special Order of Business Primary Contact Email: DBrown@co.whatcom.wa.us TITLE FOR AGENDA ITEM: Final Action: 10/04/2022 Enactment #: Discussion and possible action on proposed letter to the Department of Commerce regarding funding for broadband SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: See proposed letter for more information. HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE FILE Date: Acting Body: 10/04/2022 Council (Special) Action: DISCUSSED AND MOTION(S) APPROVED Sent To: Attachments: Proposed Letter - V1, Proposed Letter - V2, Proposed Letter - V3, PUD - Vasconi Letter, PUD Answers for Call for Comments, Final Signed Letter 10.4.2022 Whatcom County Page 1 Printed on 2/12/2024 CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C. COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360) 778-5010 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL October 4, 2022 Director Mark Vasconi Washington State Broadband Office Washington State Department of Commerce P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 wsbo@commerce.wa.gov Dear Director Vasconi: COUNCILMEMBERS Barry Buchanan Tyler Byrd Todd Donovan Ben Elenbaas Carol Frazey Kaylee Galloway Kathy Kershner Thank you for the opportunity to comment as the Washington State Broadband Office (WSBO) prepares for the final round of American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) funding. These funds have been incredibly important to the residents of Whatcom County as we work collaboratively with the Port of Bellingham and the Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (PUD) to deploy affordable high-speed internet to hundreds of end users including households, public buildings, schools, tribal facilities, and private businesses across Whatcom County. The Whatcom County Council remains committed to partnering on broadband issues and appreciates the opportunity weigh in on a few of these important issues. Open Access: The Whatcom County Council believes open access is key to any publicly funded broadband project. It should be a required threshold criterion for all segments of a broadband network, it should be open from the service date and in perpetuity, and it should be nondiscriminatory. We feel very strongly about this. Open access ensures fairness in pricing and gives consumers choice in services that best fit their needs. As we continue to appropriate local funds, we are committed to ensuring open access in all present and future broadband projects. Matching Contributions: Since 2019, Whatcom County has provided approximately $4,750,000 of matching funds from the Economic Development Investment (EDI) program, and has plans to allocate another $4 million from local ARPA funds for broadband projects. The Whatcom County Council wants to help our broadband partners be as competitive as possible and will continue to consider requests for matching funds; however, we think it is important that our availability of funds, or lack thereof, not impede our partners' ability to qualify for state funds. As such, we support matching contributions be a scoring criterion. Digital Equity: The COVID-19 pandemic intensified gaps in access as people were asked to stay home and rely on internet access for school, work, health care, groceries, safety information, and other essential needs. Many households throughout Whatcom County, often low-income and rural, remain under- or unserved with little or no access to affordable high-speed internet. The Whatcom County Council is committed to supporting, and prioritizing, broadband projects that incorporate and demonstrate digital equity, and think it should be a consideration for state funding as well. State funds are critical to helping our broadband partners deploy affordable, high-speed internet throughout our county. We appreciate the WSBO's willingness to consider our perspective in these decisions. Sincerely, Todd Donovan, Chair Whatcom County Council c: Correspondence File AB2022-551 CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C. COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360) 778-5010 October X, 2022 1(0 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Director Mark Vasconi Washington State Broadband Office Washington State Department of Commerce P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 wsbo(a)-commerce.wa.gov Dear Director Vasconi: COUNCILMEMBERS Barry Buchanan Tyler Byrd Todd Donovan Ben Elenbaas Carol Frazey Kaylee Galloway Kathy Kershner Thank you for the opportunity to comment as the Washington State Broadband Office (WSBO) prepares for the final round of American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) funding. These funds have been incredibly important to the residents of Whatcom County as we work collaboratively with the Port of Bellingham and the Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (PUD) to deploy affordable high-speed internet to hundreds of end users including households, public buildings, schools, tribal facilities, and private businesses across Whatcom County. The Whatcom County Council remains committed to partnering on broadband issues and appreciates the opportunity weigh in on a few of these important issues. Open Access: The Whatcom County Council believes open access is key to any publicly funded broadband project. It should be a required threshold criterion for all segments of a broadband network, it should be open from the service date and in perpetuity, and it should be nondiscriminatory. We feel very strongly about this. Open access ensures fairness in pricing and gives consumers choice in services that best fit their needs. As we continue to appropriate local funds, we are committed to ensuring open access in all present and future broadband projects. Matching Contributions: Since 2019, Whatcom County has provided approximately $42,750,000 of matching funds from the Economic Development Investment (EDI) program, and has plans to alloGate another $n milli„n fr„m IoGal ARPA funds for broadband pro eGts. The Whatcom County Council wants to help our broadband partners be as competitive as possible and will continue to consider requests for matching funds; however, we think it is important that our availability of funds, or lack thereof, not impede our partners' ability to qualify for state funds. As such, we support matching contributions be a scoring criterion. Digital Equity: The COVID-19 pandemic intensified gaps in access as people were asked to stay home and rely on internet access for school, work, health care, groceries, safety information, and other essential needs. Many households throughout Whatcom County, often low-income and rural, remain under- or unserved with little or no access to affordable high-speed internet. The Whatcom County Council is committed to supporting, and prioritizing, broadband projects that incorporate and demonstrate digital equity, and think it should be a consideration for state funding as well. State funds are critical to helping our broadband partners deploy affordable, high-speed internet throughout our county. We appreciate the WSBO's willingness to consider our perspective in these decisions. Sincerely, Whatcom County Council CLERK OF THE CO INCI EXECUTIVE Dana Brown Davis C.M.C.Satpal S. Sidhu COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (36o)778-5010 October 4, 2022 Director Mark Vasconi Washington State Broadband Office Washington State Department of Commerce P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 wsbo(a-)-commerce.wa.gov Dear Director Vasconi: COUNCILMEMBERS Barry Buchanan Tyler Byrd Todd Donovan Ben Elenbaas CarolFrazey Kaylee Galloway Kathy Kershner Thank you for the opportunity to comment as the Washington State Broadband Office (WSBO) prepares for the final round of American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) funding. These funds have been incredibly important to the residents of Whatcom County as we work collaboratively with the Port of Bellingham and the Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (PUD) to deploy affordable high-speed internet to hundreds of end users including households, public buildings, schools, tribal facilities, and private businesses across Whatcom County. The Whatcom County Council remains committed to partnering on broadband issues and appreciates the opportunity to weigh in on a few of these important issues. Open Access: The Whatrem County CG IRGOhA hatcom County believes open access is key to any publicly funded broadband project. It should be a required threshold criterion for all segments of a broadband network, it should be open from the service date and in perpetuity, and it should be nondiscriminatory. We feel very strongly about this. Open access ensures fairness in pricing and gives consumers choice in services that best fit their needs. As we continue to appropriate local funds, we are committed to ensuring open access in all present and future broadband projects. Matching Contributions: Since 2019, Whatcom County has provided approximately $42,750,000 of matching funds from the Economic Development Investment (EDI) program, and has plan to alIGGate ane+her $4 million from I, Gal ARPA fl RGIS fer hrea dbanrd preien+o The WhatGGM G0611RIty GeunGihAhatcom County wants to help our broadband partners be as competitive as possible and plans to W41 Gen+inl le to a lowallow for additional Ge�r requests for matching funds; however, we think it is important that our availability of funds, or lack thereof, not impede our partners' ability to qualify for state funds. This is even more important in rural counties like Whatcom, where the distances are large and population densities are thin, causing the capital outlays epAheto be expensive Wiper household served. As such, we support matching contributions be a scoring criterion, but not a requirement. Digital Equity: The COVID-19 pandemic intensified gaps in access as people were asked to stay home and rely on internet access for school, work, health care, groceries, safety information, and other essential needs. Many households throughout Whatcom County, often low-income and rural, remain under- or unserved with little or no access to affordable high-speed internet. The Whatnem County inty Gel inGilWhatcom County is committed to supporting, and prioritizing, broadband projects that incorporate and demonstrate digital equity, and think it should be a consideration for state funding as well. State funds are critical to helping our broadband partners deploy affordable, high-speed internet throughout our county. We appreciate the WSBO's willingness to consider our perspective in these decisions. Sincerely, Whatcom County Council Whatcom County Executive 0 1 TILITY DISTRICT No. I September 27, 2022 Mr. Mark Vasconi Director _Washington State Broadband Office 1011 Plum Street PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 RE: Call for Comments for Fall Funding Opportunity Dear Mr. Vasconi, P.O. Box 2308 • ]_ 705 Trigg Road Ferndale, WA 98248 P: (360) 384-4288 F: (360) 384-4849 email: info@pudwhatcom.org vvww. pudwhatcom. org Our Commission and staff appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on important issues that will inform the WSBO in crafting scoring requirements for the Fall Notice of Funding Opportunity. We look forward to engaging in the late October roundtable and hope to see changes that further accelerate community -driven broadband deployment in our community and across Washington State. Warm regards, Christine Grant, President, Whatcom County PUD Board of Commissioners Atul Deshmane, Vice -President, Whatcom County PUD Board of Commissioners Michael Murphy, Secretary, 140 ft go Whatcom County PUD Board of Commissioners Chris Heimgartner, Whatcom County PUD General Manager cc: Satpal Sidhu, Whatcom County Executive George Caan, Executive Director, Washington Public Utility Districts Association (WPUDA) Liz Anderson, Deputy Director, WPUDA G. Scott Richards, WPUDA Lobbyist Commissioner Michael Sheppard, Port of Bellingham Rob Fix, Executive Director, Port of Bellingham Gina Stark, Broadband Program Manager, Port of Bellingham Joe Poire, Manager, Petrichor Broadband, LLC Kara Riebold, Chief Operating Officer, Petrichor Broadband, LLC Michael Gan, Director, Technology Alliance Group (TAG) Northwest Commissioners: Atul Deshmane, Christine Grant, Mike Murphy •Chris Heimgartner, General Manager September 27, 2022 To: Washington State Broadband Office From: Whatcom County Public Utility District RE: Call for Comments Opportunity Open Access Question 1 In an evaluation process, should providing an open access network be a required threshold criteria (i.e. without provision of an open access network, the applicant is excluded from the process); or rather, a scoring criteria (i.e. the provision of an open access network results in specific points while the absence of an open network results in zero points for the specific consideration of open access; or finally, should the provision of open access be used as "tie breaker" such that it doesn't garner points but is used as a determining factor in the event that applicants have the same evaluation score? Please provide rationale for your answer. Answer WSBO should require applicants to build publicly owned non-discriminatory open access fiber optic networks. Without provision of an open access network, the applicant should be excluded from the process. Question 2 Public Works Board RCW 43.155.160 (9) (b) (iii), the term "open access" means: "...that during the useful life of the infrastructure, service providers may use network services and facilities at rates, terms, and conditions that are not discriminatory or preferential between providers, and employing accountable interconnection agreements published and publicly available." If "open access" is used in the selection process (i.e. as either a threshold requirement, a scoring requirement, or a balancing requirement) is this meaning generally acceptable or should it be augmented in any specific way? Should the meaning found above be specified to particular segments of a broadband network such as "middle mile" or "last mile"? Answer Open Access definition should include backbone dark fiber, colocation space and last mile connections • Open access colocation space should be available to competitive ISPs licensed under the WUTC Question 3 If open access is a threshold criteria, should it be provided from the service date on which the infrastructure is operational or should there be a period of time from the beginning of operational service to a future date when the operator of the network can have a "closed" system before it is "open"? How long should the "closed" period be before open access is required and how would it be determined? Answer There should not be a "closed" period for open access networks. 1IPage Matching Contributions Question 1 Should a matching contribution for Acceleration Grant funding be a threshold requirement; a scoring criteria; of a tie -breaker? If it should be a threshold requirement, what should the minimum percentage be relative to the total grant request? Answer No. There should be no match requirement for public entities. The goal of this funding is to bring much needed critical fiber optic broadband infrastructure deep into our most underserved communities. These buildouts require high capital investment and are often located in low population density areas. Question 2 If a matching contribution is a scoring element (as opposed to a threshold criteria), should the points available be tied to the size of the match relative to the dollars requested in the grant (i.e. if a match was 10% of the grant request, should the match component of the scoring criteria be given a "10", if the match was 25% should the match component be given a score of "25"); or should there be a fixed total number of points provided regardless of the size of the match; or some other scoring that increases with the size of the match but only up to a limit? How should applicants without the ability to provide a match be given consideration so that their inability to provide a match does not eliminate their proposal from consideration? Answer No. All applicants should have the ability to apply for 100% grant without a match requirement Digital Equity considerations and low Income support Question 1 How will applicants consider digital equity in developing projects for possible funding or selecting between various potential projects as you formulate a grant application? What tools for measuring digital equity will applicants use to insure that populations that are in greatest need are being served by grants? How can WSBO best integrate these efforts with our own digital equity planning to assist in targeting funding in this NoFO as well as future funding? Answer Whatcom PUD uses the following methodology for measuring digital equity in our community: h ttps.11storymaps. arcgis. comlstories/115fd245b2f8425ab25ee9ac636f8608 Applicants should receive additional points if they can show evidence of Digital Equity needs in their community. Question 2 Should ISP participation in the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), or an equivalent low income subsidy offering be considered as a threshold requirement for receiving a grant from WSBO? Answer Yes 2 1 P a g e Question 3 Should the ability to offer digital navigation or digital literacy programs to broadband subscribers be required in a narrative, or considered as a scoring criteria or a balancing criteria? Answer Digital Navigator or literacy programs offered by the applicant, private committed partner or other entity in the community should be called out in the application and information /details about those programs should be made available to broadband subscribers contingent on successful funding award. Question 4 As an alternative to a scoring criteria, should WSBO consider requiring applicants to provide a comprehensive narrative that would address how a funding application would advance digital equity concerns? Please comment on the use of a narrative and what data should applicants include in such a narrative. Answer Yes. Applicants using publicly available datasets (such as Microsoft Broadband Usage Data, Census 5 - Year Community Survey, State Broadband Data, etc..) in their narrative response should be sufficient to WSBO standards for what constitutes a "comprehensive narrative". Challenge Process Question 1 The following challenge process, slightly modified to reflect required speeds of 100/20, is a copy of that used by the Public Works Board. Should this be used by the WSBO? Should additional considerations not reflected below be incorporated into the challenge process? Answer There should be some form of upfront accountability. Our recommendation is that any entity challenging an application should be required to bond the project at the time of their challenge submission. Last Mile Definition Question 1 The Acceleration Grant is intended to build "last mile" connections. In this context, last mile connections are defined to be those facilities over which broadband is provided to the end user's building at which service is required. Is there any other definition that should be considered? Answer We encourage the WSBO to require applicants to provide the street name, full address and distance from road center line for every connection in the proposed project area. 3 1 P a g e Checklist Considerations Question 1 WSBO is considering requesting that applicants fill out a checklist of additional items to consider to submit with their applications. While not a scoring consideration, the checklist would provide applicants the ability to inform WSBO that they have considered items such as possible tax liability, pole attachment costs, a survey of poles along the proposed project, make ready considerations, dig once opportunities and right of way and/or franchise fees in their projects. What other items should be included in a checklist? Answer Any entity applying for WSBO broadband dollars should have experience building, maintaining and operating publicly -owned open -access networks or partner with an entity who does. 4 1 P a g e CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C. COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360)778-5010 October 4, 2022 BOO M Co P, � reap G 3� A J �9s IN 10 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Director Mark Vasconi Washington State Broadband Office Washington State Department of Commerce P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 wsbo(a)-commerce.wa.gov Dear Director Vasconi: COUNCILMEMBERS Barry Buchanan Tyler Byrd Todd Donovan Ben Elenbaas Carol Frazey Kaylee Galloway Kathy Kershner Thank you for the opportunity to comment as the Washington State Broadband Office (WSBO) prepares for the final round of American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) funding. These funds have been incredibly important to the residents of Whatcom County as we work collaboratively with the Port of Bellingham and the Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (PUD) to deploy affordable high- speed internet to hundreds of end users including households, public buildings, schools, tribal facilities, and private businesses across Whatcom County. The Whatcom County Council remains committed to partnering on broadband issues and appreciates the opportunity to weigh in on a few of these important issues. Open Access: Whatcom County believes open access is key to any publicly funded broadband project. It should be a required threshold criterion for all segments of a broadband network, it should be open from the service date and in perpetuity, and it should be nondiscriminatory. We feel very strongly about this. Open access ensures fairness in pricing and gives consumers choice in services that best fit their needs. As we continue to appropriate local funds, we are committed to ensuring open access in all present and future broadband projects. Matching Contributions: Since 2019, Whatcom County has provided approximately $2,750,000 of matching funds from the Economic Development Investment (EDI) program. Whatcom County wants to help our broadband partners be as competitive as possible and plans to I allow for additional requests for matching funds; however, we think it is important that our availability of funds, or lack thereof, not impede our partners' ability to qualify for state funds. This is even more important in rural counties like Whatcom, where the distances are large and population densities are thin, causing the capital outlays to be expensive per household served. As such, we support matching contributions be a scoring criterion, but not a requirement. Digital Equity: The COVID-19 pandemic intensified gaps in access as people were asked to stay home and rely on internet access for school, work, health care, groceries, safety information, and other essential needs. Many households throughout Whatcom County, often low-income and rural, remain under- or unserved with little or no access to affordable high-speed internet. Whatcom County is committed to supporting, and prioritizing, broadband projects that incorporate and demonstrate digital equity, and think it should be a consideration for state funding as well. State funds are critical to helping our broadband partners deploy affordable, high-speed internet throughout our county. We appreciate the WSBO's willingness to consider our perspective in these decisions. Sincerely, Todd Donovan, Chair Whatcom County Council C: 2022 Council Correspondence Satpal Sid u Whatcom County Executive