Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PRR26402 Responsive Documents
Notice Requesting Proposals for Preparation of Broadband Master Plan The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for services associated with the REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PREPARATION OF BROADBAND MASTER PLAN. All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be required to complete a free registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsvnc-app- web/vendor/register/Login.xhtml). All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of Finance at or before 9/15/2022 when they will be opened electronically via BidSync The preferred method for bid submission is electronic via BidSync. However, if you wish to submit a paper copy, please submit it in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obipso, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City's BidSync website at www.BidSvnc.com. Please contact Josh Erquiaga, jerquiag@slocity.org with any questions. For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339. ®The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. A. SCOPE OF WORK....................................................................................................................................... 2 B. PROJECT SCHEDULE.................................................................................................................................. 6 C. PROJECT BUDGET...................................................................................................................................... 6 D. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS......................................................................................................... 7 E. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................9 F. PROPOSAL CONTENT............................................................................................................................................11 G. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM............................................................................................................................15 EXHIBIT A - FORM OF AGREEMENT EXHIBIT B - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS A. SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Services is anticipated to complete in four (4) to six (6) months and includes the following tasks. Consultant's project manager shall conduct weekly telephone meetings with the City's project manager to review the status of action items and deliverables. 1. Each Task shall culminate in a separate Technical Memorandum, and those memoranda shall be combined to form the final deliverable (i.e., a comprehensive Master Plan). 2. Consultant shall facilitate a total of eight (8) workshops throughout the engagement to provide updates on major project milestones, enable discussion with the City's project team and stakeholders, and seek approval of Consultant's recommendations. Task 1: Kick -Off Meeting & Project Management Plan Consultant's Project Manager and core project staff shall meet with the City's project manager and staff to launch the project. The kick-off session will enable an understanding of the City's long-term vision and expected timeline. Consultant shall seek guidance on any potential hurdles or areas of concern, as well as insight into the City's knowledge of fiber and wireless service providers' plans for future expansion. The specific agenda items for the kick-off meeting includes: • Introduce team members and identify project stakeholders • Confirm project goals, objectives, and milestones • Transfer relevant maps, studies, and documents to the Consultant project team, including existing City GIS data (e.g., fiber assets, traffic signal poles, City buildings) and data related to permitted construction projects, upcoming capital projects, and wireless facility siting applications • Discuss Consultant's draft project management plan (PMP) and submit to the City's project manager prior to the meeting. The plan shall outline tasks, deliverables, schedules, and responsibilities within the team. The goal in this orientation is to hear from the City's project team and present an overview of the approach. Lessons learned from similar client projects will be discussed. Based on the project goals and priorities discussed at the meeting, as well as other feedback received, Consultant shall refine the initial PMP to reflect any updates or changes to the scope or timeline. Consultant shall submit a final PMP within seven (7) working days following the kick-off meeting. Task 2: Identify and Inventory Assets To the extent feasible given publicly available information, Consultant shall assess the City's existing broadband infrastructure assets (owned and leased), as well as fiber assets and related facilities within the City. Drawing on the City's GIS data, as -built drawings, and other data provided by the City's Information Technology Services Staff, as well as Consultant's independent information gathering, Consultant shall perform a desk inventory of: 1. City's fiber assets 2. City assets that could support fiber network deployment -2- 3. City assets that currently or could accommodate small cell antennas, including street light poles, traffic signal poles, water tanks, and City buildings 4. Private broadband infrastructure (e.g., dark fiber), to the extent public data exists Consultant shall first review the City's GIS layers, records of existing and planned wireless facility siting, and other related data to identify the scope of existing inventoried assets. Consultant shall then review the City's as-builts to identify City -owned assets that are not in the City's GIS maps. Any wooden utility poles that belong to the power or phone companies will not be included in the inventory. Through this task Consultant shall develop some of the key information required to develop a network design, cost estimates, and strategic guidance to the City. Consultant shall advise the City on its current map data and identify gaps (shortcomings) in the existing infrastructure as compared to a carrier -grade network. Consultant's deliverable for this task —which will inform Consultant designs in later tasks —shall be inventory data in a format suitable for future integration into the City's GIS layers. Deliverable: Technical memorandum outlining inventory Workshop: Discussion of inventory and implications for deployment costs and business model Task 3: Needs Assessment & Goal Setting Consultant shall seek to determine current internet use and where the gaps between demand and availability might be. Consultant shall aggregate and analyze a wide range of publicly available datasets (local, state, federal, and commercial datasets, to the extent they are available) and any data the City can provide to understand current internet utilization in the City's residential, commercial and institutional markets. Consultant will also rely on deep knowledge of the current providers and market environment in the region. In addition to this data analysis, Consultant shall conduct up to six (6) group meetings via videoconference or teleconference with representatives of the key potential user groups (e.g., government, schools, institutions, businesses, residential) to understand their needs. In terms of assessing the City government's needs for communications infrastructure in particular, Consultant shall facilitate in-depth discussions with representatives of the City's departments who have technical knowledge and operational responsibilities for departmental activities that include or could include communications infrastructure. Consultant shall consider this needs assessment effort broadly — seeking to gather input from City staff not just on governmental operations, but also on needs for public - facing Wi-Fi, commercial broadband services, residential broadband services, and communications support for emerging technologies. In this way, the outreach to City staff will provide inputs on needs in the other sectors, as well. Through this outreach Consultant shall seek to identify the City's fiber broadband needs, and to develop an anecdotal inventory of opportunities and functions that fiber connectivity might support. This outreach shall include, to the extent feasible, an attempt to identify the leased circuit costs that the City could reduce or eliminate through expanded City -owned fiber. -3- Through these discussions, too, Consultant shall also seek to identify current or necessary policies, procedures, regulations, engineering standards, budgets, and so on that would have a positive effect on the City's ability to implement the Master Plan (See Task 8). These discussions shall also enable Consultant to identify opportunities for efficient, cost-effective deployment options. Across the full range of City government departments, there may be many initiatives, such as street furniture replacement, that could become part of an overall strategic plan for wireless technology deployment (Kiosks, bus shelters, streetlights, and benches are all potential targets of opportunity for a coordinated wireless plan). Consultant anticipates conducting the needs assessment meetings over the course of up to two (2) days via videoconference; Consultant shall schedule the meetings in conjunction with Task 1 to gather this input as early in the project as possible. To develop a list of participants for this needs assessment task, Consultant shall work with the City to identify a comprehensive list of City departments to include in the assessment (e.g., Public Works, Economic Development, Public Safety, and other IoT-related project areas), as well as representatives of other stakeholder groups (e.g., the business community, schools, institutions). The outcome from these meetings shall include an identification of the City government's needs, concerns, and priorities related to fiber and wireless network communications infrastructure. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing the needs assessment (including data sources consulted, interviews facilitated, and significant findings) —and the implications of those needs on the City's fiber deployment plans Workshop: Discussion of needs assessment Task 4: Conceptual Network Routes and Infrastructure Requirements Based on the inventory Consultant develops in Task 2 and the insights and input we receive during the needs assessment process in Task 3, Consultant shall identify and recommend options for both using the City's existing fiber and cost-effectively expanding it. Consultant shall also evaluate aerial and underground construction options and shall seek to maximize the use of existing City -owned assets where feasible. Conceptual fiber network routes shall be designed to support government -facing operations and the City's technology projects, as well as being a resource for wireless providers, enabling economic development efforts and public -facing Wi-Fi, and potentially supporting residential and commercial broadband services. Consultant's analysis in this task shall also inform the analysis in Task 6 and Task 7, including the factors necessary to attract potential network customers and service providers. Consultant performed a similar task for the City of Santa Cruz as that client explored options for its I -Net; based on the city's identified needs, Consultant designed a fiber expansion that leveraged existing city infrastructure and made the best use of the rights -of -way to create a resilient network. Deliverable: Technical memorandum outlining conceptual network routes and infrastructure requirements Workshop: Discussion of recommended routes and construction options -4- Task 5: Technical Specifications and Cost Estimation In this task, Consultant shall help the City understand the available technology options for meeting its fiber needs. Consultant shall focus not just on technological capabilities (i.e., the ability of a solution to meet end users' needs), but also on operating costs, product lifecycles, and other issues related to the long-term financial sustainability of the City's efforts. Consultant shall recommend broadband infrastructure that can support service providers (if that is the City's chosen business model) as well as City government and public safety needs and requirements. (Consultant shall offer guidance on issues related to operations and management in Task 6.) Consultant's engineers shall prepare a system -level design and cost estimate for a fiber network to meet the City's stated goals and identified needs. The network design shall connect businesses/economic development target areas and City facilities. Consultant's design shall enable either City or third -party operations, and a multi -phase buildout. To be clear, Consultant will not create a system -level design or a detailed design. Rather, Consultant shall create a high-level network topology and architecture based on the needs identified and the other information Consultant develops through asset inventory and desk review of the City's GIS maps and as- builts. This architecture shall describe an expanded, City -operated fiber infrastructure that can support open network operations and the City's identified needs, likely including wireless deployment for IoT and other uses. Consultant shall also develop a high-level cost estimate (capital and operating) for the recommended network. The network Consultant recommends shall leverage the City's existing fiber and infrastructure, shall reflect best practices for security and resiliency, shall consider innovative approaches such as smart poles that can incorporate small cell antennas, and shall support both City and public -facing uses. Consultant shall prepare cost estimates and supporting documentation for fiber deployment, inclusive of anticipated construction labor, materials, engineering, permitting, pole attachment licensing, quality control, and testing. Supporting documentation shall include summary tables of key project metrics generated for cost estimation purposes, including estimated fiber plant mileage; number of homes and businesses; and anticipated percentages of aerial versus underground construction. Additionally, Consultant shall provide a narrative to explain key construction characteristics that impact the cost estimates. Consultant's intent is that the cost estimates shall allow the City to inform future cost estimates for detailed engineering of specific phases, as well as to properly scope construction phases according to particular budgetary constraints. As is typical in this phase of a fiber construction project, the cost estimates are not based on a detailed design, environmental assessment, or geotechnical analysis of soil composition. As a result, actual costs may vary due to unknown factors, including: 1) costs of private easements, 2) utility pole replacement and make ready costs, and 3) subsurface hard rock. Consultant shall incorporate suitable assumptions to address these items based on experience. Deliverable: Technical memorandum describing high-level technical specification and cost estimate -5- Workshop: Discussion of candidate network design and cost estimate Task 6: Capital Project Analysis and Grant Technical Materials Drawing on information provided by the City's Public Works and Community Development Departments, Consultant shall review the City's five-year Capital Improvement Project forecast and provide technical details including cost estimates, narratives, and other data to indicate that the project is shovel -ready for the City to pursue technical assistance grants that will provide funding for the next phase of implementation. Deliverable: Technical memorandum addressing projects which are shovel -ready Workshops: Discussion of five-year Capital Improvement Project forecast Task 7: Master Plan Compilation and Approval Process Support The final deliverable shall be a Fiber Optic Master Plan, incorporating the output of work in Tasks 1 through 6. Consultant shall compile the technical memoranda prepared for each of those tasks into a comprehensive Master Plan to include an executive summary, final recommendations, and an implementation roadmap. Consultant shall deliver a draft version of the report in Microsoft Word format for the City's review; Consultant shall prepare a final report based on one round of the City's consolidated feedback. As with all projects of this nature, Consultant shall deliver maps and location data developed in a format that the City can incorporate into its existing GIS data. Deliverable: Fiber Optic Master Plan Workshop: Discussion of plan and potential next steps C. PROJECT SCHEDULE SchedulePreliminary October 2022 • Kick -Off Meeting & Project Management Plan October — November 2022 • Identify and Inventory Assets Needs Assessment & Goal Setting November— December 2022 • Needs Assessment & Goal Setting December 2022—January 2023 • Conceptual Network Routes and Infrastructure Requirements December 2022 —January 2023 • Technical Specifications and Cost Estimation December 2022 —January 2023 • Capital Project Analysis and Grant Technical Materials January — March 2023 • Master Plan Compilation and Approval Process Support D. PROJECT BUDGET The total budget is $100,000. A billing schedule will be determined during contract negotiations with the selected consultant. -6- E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder) shall meet all the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) project package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be submitted electronically via BiclSync. However, if you can't submit electronic please send your bid copy in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. To guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, project number, name of bidder, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted. 3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing: a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating. b. Scope of coverage and limits. C. Deductibles and self -insured retention. The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the bidder's insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section E. 4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any bidder for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the bidder's intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price. 5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Bidders or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. 6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to be interested as the primary submitter in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub -proposal to a bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on -7- materials to such bidder, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub -proposal or from quoting prices to other bidders submitting proposals. 7. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 8. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non -substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. 9. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 10. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 11. The City's contract terms and conditions that [Contractor/Consultant] will be expected to execute and be bound by are attached hereto as Exhibit A -8- SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 2. Sales Tax Reimbursement. For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 3. Labor Actions. In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer. 4. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made. 5. Contract Term. The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City until the outlined scope of work is completed. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal. 6. Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional one-year, and annually thereafter, for a total of four years. 7. Supplemental Purchases Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis should be provided with the proposal submittal. 8. Contractor Invoices. The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail invoices as supporting detail, or in one lump -sum upon completion. 0 9 Non -Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term. 10. Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this determination. 11. Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to proceed by the City. 12. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract execution and shall be completed within 90 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated with City by mutual agreement. 13. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award. If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor. 14. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the RFP package. 15. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package. ®1 PROPOSAL CONTENT 1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information: Submittal Forms a. Proposal submittal summary. b. Certificate of insurance. C. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services. Qualifications d. Experience of your firm and those of sub -consultants in performing work and projects relevant to the Scope of Services outlined and described in the request. e. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub - consultants, with their corollary experience highlighted and specific roles in this project clearly described. f. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub -consultants. g. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm or sub -consultant has been removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project. Work Program h. Detailed description of your approach to completing the work. i. Detailed schedule by task and sub -task for completing the work. j. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each phase and task of the work, including sub -consultants, so we can clearly see who will be doing what work, and how much time it will take. k. Detailed budget by task and sub -task for completing the work. 1. Services or data to be provided by the City. M. Services and deliverables provided by the Consultant(s). n. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. o. Description of assumptions critical to development of the response which may impact cost or scope. Requested Changes to Terms and Conditions P. The City desires to begin work soon after selecting the preferred Consultant Team and expects the Consultant to execute the City-s contract and all of the terms therein, as set forth in Exhibit A. To expedite the contracting process, each submittal shall include requested redlined changes to terms and conditions, if necessary. Please be advised that Consultant's requested changes to the City's terms and conditions will be considered by City staff when scoring and determining the competency and responsibility of the bidder. Proposal Length Proposal length should only be as long as required to be responsive to the RFP, including attachments and supplemental materials. 2. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and evaluated on the following criteria: a. Understanding of the work required by the City. b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. d. Recent team experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Creativity of the proposed approach in completing the work. f. Value g. Writing skills. h. References. i. Background and experience of the specific individuals managing and assigned to this project. As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation. 3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: a. Issue RFP 8/17/2022 b. Receive proposals 9/15/2022 C. Complete proposal evaluations 9/22/2022 d. Execute contract 9/29/2022 e. Start work October 2022 4. Pre -Proposal Conference. There will be no pre -proposal 5. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 6. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of the City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 7. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 8. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide: -12- a. One electronic submission - digital -ready original .pdf of all final documents. If you wish to file a paper copy, please submit in sealed envelope to the address provided in the RFP. b. Corresponding computer files compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager: Word Processing: MS Word Spreadsheets: MS Excel Desktop Publishing: InDesign Virtual Models: Sketch Up Digital Maps: Geodatabase shape files in State Plan Coordinate System as specified by City GIS staff C. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS 9. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternative and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). 10. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is attendance by the Contractor at up to [number] public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing work -scope tasks. 11. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Bidders are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the bidder and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the bidder or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal. To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be -13- liable for costs incurred by the successful bidder to achieve the project's objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal. In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute. - l 4- SECTION I: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined the bid which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full: BID ITEM: Total Base Price Sales tax [] Other TOTAL $ Delivery of equipment to the City to be within calendar days after contract execution and written authorization to proceed. q Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company's A.M. Best rating: Firm Name and Address Contact Phone Authorized -15- REFERENCES Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications. Reference No. 1: Agency Name Contact Name Telephone & Email Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome Reference No. 2: Agency Name Contact Name Telephone & Email Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome M Reference No. 3 Agency Name Contact Name Telephone & Email Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount, when provided and project outcome -17- STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances. ■ Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes q No q ■ If yes, explain the circumstances. Executed on at under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative -18- EXHIBIT A: FORM OF AGREEMENT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [date], by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city (City) and [Consultant](Consultant) (collectively referred to as the "Parties"). and WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City wants to [generally describe the service we want performed] (the "Services"); WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to perform this type of Services and has submitted a written proposal to do so, which has been accepted by City; and WHEREAS [describe any other supporting rationale for this Agreement]. [There can be as many WHEREAS sentences as needed to fully describe how the City and Consultant entered into the Agreement. If no additional sentences are needed this can be erased.] NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until [date], or upon acceptance and completion of said Services, whichever occurs sooner. [If you plan to have an option to extend the agreement for some period after the term ends, insert that extension language here] 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. [Title of City's RFP/RFQ/IFB] and Consultant's proposal dated [date] are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit A. The City's insurance requirements are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit B. [Check with the City's Risk Manager as to the risk level of the Agreement and to verify Consultant has sufficient insurance coverage for that risk level BEFORE routing the Agreement to the Parties.] To the extent that there are any conflicts between the Consultant's fees and scope of work and the City's terms and conditions as stated herein, the City's terms and conditions shall prevail unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both Parties. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed $xx,xxx. 4. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements herein before mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement including that work as set forth in Exhibit A. 5. PAYMENT OF TAXES. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that Consultant is required to pay. 6. LICENSES AND PERMITS. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the Services described M in this Agreement. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary under this Agreement. 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes, which in any manner affect those employed by Consultant or in any way affect the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section. Failure to comply with local ordinances may result in monetary fines and cancellation of this Agreement. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARD. Consultant shall provide services acceptable to City in strict conformance with the Agreement. Consultant shall also provide in accordance with the standards customarily called for under this Agreement using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable providers of such services. Where approval bythe City, the City Manager, the Mayor, or other representative of City is required, it is understood to be general approval only and does not relieve Consultant of responsibility for complying with all applicable laws, codes, policies, regulations, and good business practices. 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatsoever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing the Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 10. PRESERVATION OF CITY PROPERTY. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at Consultant's expense. The City's facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began the work. 11. IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all subconsultants engaged for the performance of the Services that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the Services hereunder. 12. NON-DISCRIMINATION. In the performance of the Services, the Consultant agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subconsultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in -20- employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons. 13. WORK SCHEDULED/TIME OF COMPLETION. Note: This section is optional and should be included for time -sensitive projects City and Consultant agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement. City and Consultant further agree that Consultant's failure to perform on or at the times set forth in this Agreement will damage and injure City, but the extent of such damage and injury is difficult or speculative to ascertain. Consequently, City and Consultant agree that any failure to perform by Consultant at or within the times set forth herein shall result in liquidated damages for each and every day such performance is late or delayed. City and Consultant agree that such sum is reasonable and fair. Furthermore, City and Consultant agree that this Agreement is subject to Government Code Section 53069.85 and that each party hereto is familiar with and understands the obligations of said Section of the Government Code. 14. PAYMENT TERMS. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Consultant (Net 30). Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Any final payment under this Agreement shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice, therefore. 15. INSPECTION. City shall at all times have the right to inspect the work being done under this Agreement and Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity and assistance required for City to ascertain that the Services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this Agreement. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations under the Agreement. 16. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not, without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request ("Discovery'), court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement, unless the City is a party to any lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding connected to such Discovery, or unless Consultant is -21- prohibited by law from informing the City of such Discovery. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding as allowed by law. Unless City is a party to the lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding and is averse to Consultant in such proceeding, Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to Discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 17. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Note: The following section is only to be used when the City will be taking in a fee or deposit from an applicant and use that fund to retain the Consultant to prepare an E/R, Specific Plan, or some other specific document or where the City is funding a similar development - type study. Consultant covenants that neither they nor any officer or principal of their firm have any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by them as an officer, employee, agent, or subconsultant. Consultant further covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing any services, directly or indirectly, with any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its subconsultants shall provide no service or enter into any agreement or agreements with a/any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area prior to the completion of the work under this Agreement. 18. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts or copies therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, at the Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, copying and/or printing -22- computer files. Consultant hereby grants to City all right, title, and interest, including any copyright, in and to the documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared by Consultant in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement. 19. INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents ("City Indemnitees"), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels' fees and costs of litigation ("claims"), arising out of the Consultant's performance or Consultant's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, including the City's passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant's performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City's option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 20. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 14. 21. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. If, during the term of the Agreement, the City determines the Consultant is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a ten (10) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. a. If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten (10) days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the Agreement and the City may terminate the Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant to said effect ("Notice of Termination"). Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the Agreement except to comply with the obligations upon termination. b. In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods -23- or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work or services performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work -in -progress in completing the overall scope. c. The City reserves the right to delay such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the not to exceed amount shown in this Agreement. 22. INSURANCE. Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B attached to and made part of this Agreement. 23. BUSINESS LICENSE & TAX. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134. 24. SAFETY PROVISIONS. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 25. PUBLIC AND EMPLOYEE SAFETY. Whenever the Consultant operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 26. UNDUE INFLUENCE. Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City has or will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity. 27. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. a. NOTE: Use content below if applicable to the services rendered. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only [Insert name], an employee of Consultant, shall perform the services described in this Agreement. [Insert name] may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of [Insert name] from Consultant's employ. Should [Insert name] leave Consultant's employ, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of notice of [Insert name]'s departure. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City and the Consultant. -24- b. As required above, before retaining or contracting with any subconsultant for any services under this Agreement, City must consent to such assignment of performance in writing. For City to evaluate such proposed assignment, Consultant shall provide City with the identity of the proposed subconsultant, a copy of the proposed written contract between Consultant and such subconsultant, which shall include an indemnity provision similar to the one provided herein and identifying City as an indemnified party, or an incorporation of the indemnity provision provided herein, and proof that such proposed subconsultant carries insurance at least equal to that required by this Agreement or obtain a written waiver from City for such insurance. 28. AMENDMENT. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the appropriate review authority according to the City's Financial Management Manual. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized by the City in advance and in writing. 29. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete Agreement between the Parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral Agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the Parties hereto. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 30. NOTICE. All notices to the Parties hereto under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as, but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) United States Mail, certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. All such notices shall be delivered to the addressee or addressed as set forth below: To City: [DEPT] City of San Luis Obispo [ADDRESS] Attention: City Clerk [change or remove if notices are to be sent to specific department] To Consultant: Name Mailing Address 31. GOVERNING LAW. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement, and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the Parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law. -25- 32. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY CONSULTANT By: [Name] Its: [Title of City Manager or Department Head] By: [Name] Its: [Title] APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney -26- EXHIBIT A [Placeholder for RFP/RFQ/IFB and Consultant's Proposall -27- EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Without limiting CONSULTANT's indemnification of CITY, and prior to commencement of Work, CONSULTANT shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this AGREEMENT, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below, and in a form satisfactory to CITY. General liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language will not be accepted. Automobile liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this AGREEMENT, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this AGREEMENT, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this AGREEMENT and CONSULTANT agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this AGREEMENT. Workers' compensation insurance (if applicable). CONSULTANT shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000). CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. Umbrella or excess liability insurance. CONSULTANT may obtain and maintain an umbrella or excess liability insurance policy with limits that will provide bodily injury, personal injury and property damage liability coverage at least as broad as the primary coverages set forth above, including commercial general liability, automobile liability, and employer's liability. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions: • A drop -down feature requiring the policy to respond if any primary insurance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectible in whole or in part for any reason; • Pay on behalf of wording as opposed to reimbursement; • Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies; • Policies shall "follow form" to the underlying primary policies; and • Insureds under primary policies shall also be insureds under the umbrella or excess policies. Proof of insurance. CONSULTANT shall provide certificates of insurance to CITY as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by CITY's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with CITY at all times during the term of this contract. CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. -28- Duration of coverage. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by CONSULTANT, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by CONSULTANT shall be primary and any insurance or self- insurance procured or maintained by CITY shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of CITY before the CITY's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. CITY's rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this AGREEMENT does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, CITY has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by CITY will be promptly reimbursed by CONSULTANT or CITY will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from CONSULTANT payments. In the alternative, CITY may cancel this AGREEMENT. Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the CITY's Risk Manager. Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against CITY, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow CONSULTANT or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. CONSULTANT hereby waives its own right of recovery against CITY and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the CITY to inform CONSULTANT of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the CITY nor does it waive any rights hereunder. Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the CONSULTANT maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the CITY requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the CONSULTANT. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the CITY. Notice of cancellation. CONSULTANT agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to CITY with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that CITY and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. -29- Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to CITY and approved of in writing. Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross - liability exclusions. Pass through clause. CONSULTANT agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by CONSULTANT, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. CONSULTANT agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to CITY for review. CITY's right to revise specifications. The CITY reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the CONSULTANT ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the CONSULTANT, the CITY and CONSULTANT may renegotiate CONSULTANT's compensation. Self -insured retentions. Any self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by CITY. CITY reserves the right to require that self -insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by CITY. Timely notice of claims. CONSULTANT shall give CITY prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from CONSULTANT's performance under this AGREEMENT, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. Additional insurance. CONSULTANT shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. -30- PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5o5 VAN NEss AVENUE I SAN FRANCIS , CALIFORNIA 94102 aQ() CAPITOL MALL I :SACR'ALMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95614 Oct. 6, 2022 Joshua Erquiaga jerquiag@slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Broadband Strategic Plan Dear Joshua Erquiaga, Congratulations! The California Public Utilities Commission is pleased to inform you that the City of San Luis Obispo's application for Local Agency Technical Assistance grant funding for the City of San Luis Obispo Broadband Strategic Plan in the amount of up to $100,300.00 has been approved. Pursuant to Decision (D.) 22-02-026, Staff is authorized to approve applications that meet all the criteria for Ministerial Review. Your application was received on August 25, 2022, and was posted on the CPUC's Local Agency Technical Assistance webpage. Staff reviewed your application and determined that your application is eligible for a grant and meets eligibility criteria for Ministerial Review. The award is predicated on the City of San Luis Obispo's agreement to provide technical assistance as detailed in its application. In its application, the City of San Luis Obispo agreed to comply with the specified Ministerial Review criteria as well as to fulfill all requirements, guidelines, and conditions associated with a grant of Local Agency Technical Assistance funds as specified in D.22-02-026 including but not limited to execution and performance, payment, reporting and award acceptance requirements listed in Attachments 1 and 2 of this letter. The City of San Luis Obispo must also provide staff resumes from the contractor supporting the project once hired. Please sign and submit the following:1. A Consent Form binding your organization to the terms of the grant and 2. A State of California payee data record for tax reporting purposes. You must submit these documents within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you do not, this award is void. Thank you for your application and please direct any questions to Angela Beane (angela.beane@cpuc.ca.gov) and/or refer to the Grantee Administrative Manual available at hops:/ /bit.ly/CPUCLATA. We appreciate your efforts to provide service to our fellow Californians. Sincerely, �0 Robert Osborn Director, Communications Division California Public Utilities Commission CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 1 Requirements The grant award is predicated on the City of San Luis Obispo's agreementto provide technical assistance as detailed in its application. In its application, the City of San Luis Obispo ("Grantee") agreed and attested to comply with the specified Ministerial Review criteria as well as fulfilling all requirements guidelines, and conditions associated with a grant of Local Agency Technical Assistance funds as specified in D.22-02-026, including but not limited to execution and performance, payment, reporting and award acceptance requirements. Key requirements of Local Agency Technical grant include, among others: • All costs are related to the developmentof broadband network deployment projects to benefit unserved or underserved Californians. These projects may include, but are not limited to, the costs of joint powers authority formation, environmental studies, network design, and engineering study expenses. • Grant may not exceed $500,000 per local agency, per fiscal year • A signed affidavit agreeing to comply with the terms, conditions and requirements of the grant and submits to the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to the disbursement and administration of the grant as well as applicable state and federal rules concerning broadband services. • Grantee must sign a Consent Form agreeing to the terms stated in the award letter as well as all Local Agency Technical Assistance Rules and Requirements, Guidelines and Application Materials in D.22-06-026. Link to form: lata-cons ent-form-9-27-22.pdf (ca.gov) • Grantee must complete the reimbursable work product within 24 months. • Grantee must provide Staff a copy of the final reimbursable work product. Reporting The grant award is contingent upon fulfilling the reporting requirements per D.22-06-026, Attachment 1. SB 156 requires grantees to fulfill the monthly reporting requirements set forth in Public Utilities Code section 281(I)(1) if they are using a licensed contractor or subcontractor* to undertake a contract or subcontract in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). The Commission is required to post that information on its website. Specifically, SB 156 requires the following to be reported to the Commission on a monthly basis: • The name and contractor's license numberof each licensed contractor and subcontractor undertaking a contract or subcontract in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to perform work on a project funded or financed pursuant to this section. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION • The location where a contractor or subcontractor described in subparagraph (A) will be performing that work. • The anticipated dates when that work will be performed. * Licensed contractor or subcontractor means any contractor that holds a California state license through the contractor's state license board (https://www.cslb.ca.gov/). Post -completion Upon completion of the reimbursable work product and before final payment, Grantees must: • Provide a signed completion form stating the technical assistance work has been completed suitable to be posted on the Commission's webpage. The signed completion form must be provided prior to final payment and must include a short summary of the reimbursable work product(s) performed under the contract, including demonstration that the reimbursable work product(s) identify broadband infrastructure deployment projects that will help achieve the CASF deploymentgoal, and identification of the area(s) where the applicant intendsto deploy broadband based on the reimbursable work product(s). Provide a copy of each reimbursable work product's final report(s), plans, studies, etc. produced under the contract. Payment Paymentwill be made directly to the City of San Luis Obispo as the grant recipient. Local agency grantees may request partial reimbursement if they complete one or more of the approved reimbursable work products prior to completion of other reimbursable work products approved in the same grant authorization. Paymentwill be based upon receipt and approval of an invoice(s) submitted by the local agency showing the expenditures incurred for the reimbursable work product, along with the reimbursable work product final report/study/joint powers agreement, etc., and the completion reporting required above. The invoice(s) must be supported by documentation including but not limited to the actual cost of labor and any other expense thatwill be recovered by the grant. To the extentthat any portion of an award was used to reimburse a local agency for administrative costs associated with securing or completing a reimbursable work product, the local agency must submit an itemized accounting of such costs, demonstrating the total requested for reimbursement does not exceed 15 percentof the total authorized award. If any portion of reimbursement is found to be out of compliance, grantees will be responsible for refunding any disallowed amount along with appropriate interest rates determined in accordance with applicable Commission decisions. Grantees are required to maintain records such as files, invoices, and otherrelated documentation for five years after final payment. Grantees shall make these records and invoices available to the Commission upon CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION request and agree that these records are subject to a financial audit by the Commission at anytime within five years after the final payment made to a grantee. Execution and Performance The City of San Luis Obispo must complete the project within the 24-month timeframe in accordance with the terms of approval granted by the Commission. If the Grantee is unable to complete project within the 24-month timeframe, it must notify the Commission or Director of Communications Division as soon as it becomes aware of this prospect. The Commission may reduce or withhold payment for failure to satisfy this requirement. In the eventthat the Grantee or contractor fails to complete the work in accordance with the approval granted by the Commission, and as described in its application and contract, the Grantee must reimburse some or all of the funds it has received. City of San Luis Obispo must sign and submit the linked Consent Form agreeing to the terms of the award within 30 calendar days from the date of this letter. Failure to submit the Consent Form within the timeframe required, the CPUC will deem the grant or award null and void. City of San Luis Obispo must communicate in writing to the Communications Division's Director regarding any changes to the substantive terms and conditions underlying the Commission's approval of the grant (such as changes to a reimbursable work product contract, work plan or budget) at least 30 days before the anticipated. Substantive changes may require approval by either the Communications Division Director or by Commission Resolution before becoming effective. The Commission has the right to conduct any necessary audit, verification, and discovery for work proposed or completed underthe technical assistance to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with Commission rules and with the terms of approval by the Commission. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Attachment 2 Local Agency Broadband Technical Assistance Reporting Requirements and Guidelines Version October 2022 The Local Agency Technical Assistance program provides grants for eligible pre -construction work which facilitates the construction of broadband network projects. When the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) established the technical assistance grant program, the program was funded with American Rescue Plan Act monies administered by the U.S. Treasury. The source of technical assistance funding has changed. This guidance outlines grantee reporting. The Commission issued Decision (D.) 22-02-026 establishing program requirements for the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program. Grantees must file quarterly progress reports to the Commission with the below information. Narrative Project Information 1.1 The counties, cities and census designated places where households, businesses, and community anchor institutions are planned to be served by the broadband project. 1.2 Confirmation that the technical assistance is designed to support projects that, upon completion, reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps download and upload speeds. 1.3 Statement of intention about the pricing plans for projects that the technical assistance will support, such as offering of affordable plan or low-income plan subsidized with other funding (ACP). 1.4 Information on broadband need in the project area. 1.5 Statement describing the community benefits of broadband technical assistance. Detailed Project Information 2.1 Individual work products granted by the program. o Dollars/hours expended per task/work product. 2.2 Estimated construction start date (month/year). 2.3 Estimated construction completion date (month/year). 2.4 Estimated initiation of operations date (month/year). CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 2.5 Planned project technology type(s): o Fiber o Coaxial Cable o Terrestrial Fixed Wireless o Other (specify) 2.6 Estimated total miles of fiber to be deployed. 2.7 Planned number of locations to be served, broken out by type: O Residential locations o Business connections o Community anchor institutions 2.8 Planned non -promotional prices including associated fees, speed tiers, and data allowance for each speed tier. 2.9 Other data on broadband need, by location. Submission To assist grantees with the filing of quarterly progress reports to the Commission, a sample of the reporting requirements is found in Attachment A of this document. Planned project information listed in Attachment A should be submitted on a quarterly basis to the Commission's email at StatewideBroadbandncl2ucca.gov. Grantees need to include in the email subject line: 1. Application Name 2. Project Name 3. The Reporting Quarter/Month Updated quarterly project submissions are required to be sent by the due dates shown below. Grantees are responsible for contacting the Commission at StatewideBroadband�"uc.ca.gov, if the information cannot be submitted on time. Reporting Period Project Information Due to CPUC October 1 — December 31, 2022 January 2, 2023 January 1 — March 31, 2023 April 1, 2023 April 1 —June 30, 2023 July 1, 2023 July 1 — September 30, 2023 October 1, 2023 6 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION October 1— December 31, 2023 January 2, 2024 January 1 — March 31, 2024 April 1, 2024 April 1 —June 30, 2024 July 1, 2024 July 1 — September 30, 2024 October 1, 2024 October 1— December 31, 2024 January 2, 2025 January 1 — March 31, 2025 April 1, 2025 April 1 —June 30, 2025 July 1, 2025 July 1 — September 30, 2025 October 1, 2025 October 1— December 31, 2025 January 2, 2026 January 1 — March 31, 2026 April 1, 2026 April 1 —June 30, 2026 July 1, 2026 July 1 — September 30, 2026 October 1, 2026 October 1— December 31, 2026 February 1, 2027 Additional Information Reporting requirements and guidelines are subject to change, and CPUC or the Commission may define additional requirements on CPUC's website. These requirements, in spreadsheet format, are available at: https:/ /www.cl2uc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc- website/ divisions / communications -division/ documents /bro adband-implementation-for- cahfornia / technical -as sis tance-reporting-requirements-oct-2022.pdf v 08202020 8/19/2026 PART 1. GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Instructions: To assist the CPUC Communications Division in verifying the completeness of your application, mark the box to the left of each item to indicate you provided the requested information and uploaded required additional materials with your application spreadsheet. For more details about these requirements, please review CPUC Decision D.22-02-026, Appendix 1. link to D.20-22-026 Technical Assistance Decision and Guidelines # Item Included? Item To Be Completed By Applicant (submit separately if indicated below) 1 � Applicant Name and Organization Joshua Erquiaga, City of San Luis Obispo Authorized Local Agency or Tribal Leader Name and Title Provide information below: Address Line 1 990 Palm St Address Line 2 City San Luis Obispo State CA ZIP Code 93401 Website Address www.slocity.org Phone Number (805) 781-7100 California Tribe? No Federal ri a Rprnnnitinn a No 2 0 Key Project Contact (i.e., staff contract manager) Provide information below: First Name Joshua Last Name Erquiaga Organization Position Network Services Supervisor Address Line 1 990 Palm St Address Line 2 City San Luis Obispo State CA ZIP Code 93401 Email Address jerguiag@slocity.org Phone Number (805) 781-7526 3 0 Grant Project Descronficin Provide information below: Project Title City of San Luis Obispo Broadband Strategic Plan Brief Description the City of San Luis Obispo to address broadband Project Location San Luis Obispo City Limits (1) Application Checklist Page 1 of 2 v 08202020 8/19/2026 0 Submit as separate attachment(s) and check box to 4 Letter of Support indicate included. Submit as a separate attachment(s) and check J Project Proposal (if box to indicate included. planning to use in-house staff) or Proposed Must include: (1) the project scope of work for a Contract (if planning to consultant and/or staff to carry out the Local Agency outsource work) Technical Assistance; (2) detailed cost estimate including hourly rates and estimated total hours for each person; and (3) proposed timeline for completion; (4) geographic basis for the proposed project area (such as by Census Block) sufficient to 5 demonstrate broadband need. If the applicant intends, as part of the project, to (a) complete multiple work products (i.e. joint powers agreement(s), feasibility studies, etc.) and (b) request partial payment for work product(s) completed before the project's completion, all potential work products must be outlined and supported in the contract or proposal, and listed separately in the Budget Summary. 6 Proposed Total Budget $100,300 7 0 Project Summary Provide information in Tab 2 (Project Summary) of this spreadsheet and check box to indicate included. 0 Provide information in Tab 3 (Budget Summary) of 8 Budget Summary this spreadsheet and check box to indicate included. Name of Organization to 9 Receive Payment (Local City of San Luis Obispo Agency or Tribal Entity) Address Line 1 990 Palm St Address Line 2 City San Luis Obispo State CA Zip Code 93401 Website Address www.slocity.org Phone Number (805) 781-7100 (1) Application Checklist Page 2 of 2 v 08202020 8/19/2026 PART 2: PROJECT SUMMARY Instructions: Please provide the following information about a broadband technical assistance project that supports a local agency or Tribe. Project types may include but are not limited to: needs assessments, market studies, broadband strategic plans, business plans; environmental, feasibility, engineering design studies or reports; forming a joint powers authority; consultant and community -based organization services. Broadband Strategic Plan for City of San Luis Obispo Name and Location of Proposed Grant Project This project will consist of a needs assessment and development of a broadband strategic plan specific to Type of Project and Scope the City of San Luis Obispo. 100,300 Total Budget ($) Project will begin October 2022 and run through April Project Timeline (include start and end dates, must 2023. be completed within 24 months) This funding will support the City of San Luis Obispo in completing a needs assessment (identifying areas of the City which do not meet 100 Mbps upload and download speeds) and strategic plan outlining the City's approach to broadening service for unserved and underserved households. According to Census data for the City, 19.2% of residents self -reported not having access to broadband (specifically cable, fiber optic, or DSL). Residents with lower household incomes (less than $75,000 annually) reported less How will the proposed technical assistance grant access to broadband than those with higher support broadband infrastructure deployment to household incomes. When residents do not have fast, unserved and/or underserved households and reliable access to the internet residents have businesses at speeds of at least 100 Mbps upload difficulty working, attending school, completing and download speeds? schoolwork, shopping, and conducting government business. The City Council is committed to improving broadband access for residents who are currently unserved or underserved. Once we have a clear understanding of the needs in our City, we will work with our partners to build out broadband for our community. The City will work with an outside consultant to complete the needs assessment and develop our strategic plan. (2) Project Summary Page 1 of 2 v 08202020 8/19/2026 The City has released an RFP ("City of San Luis Obispo Summary of consultant/staff/team experience - Broadband Master Plan RFP.docx") requesting Upload resume qualifications separately proposals. Short description of the project suitable for posting The proposed technical assistance grant will help on the Commission's web page. [see example fund a needs assessment to identify and map below] unserved and underserved areas of the City of San Luis Obispo and a Broadband Strategic Plan. This plan will outline a strategy to bring reliable 100 Mbps symmetrical speeds to all City residents. This project will be completed in 28 weeks. Other Information Example: Short Description of Local Agency Technical Assistance Study The proposed technical assistance grant will fund development of a Broadband Strategic Plan for City X. This plan will outline a strategy that is expected to result in broadband infrastructure projects designed to provide service to unserved or underserved households and businesses and that are designed to, upon completion, reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps download and upload speeds. This project will be completed within the 24-month timeline. (2) Project Summary Page 2 of 2 Local Agency Technical Assistance Application PART 3. BUDGET SUMMARY Instructions: Please provide the following budget summary information for your proposed grant project. Identify each reimburseable work product expected to result from the proposed contract (if outsourcing) or project proposal (if in-house staff). Add additional space if needed. Applicant (Local Agency or Tribe): City of San Luis Obispo Project Name: Broadband Master Plan Year 1 Budget Line Item Work Product Work Product Work Product Work Product Work Product Work Product Work Product Work Product Title (e.g, RFP Development, Needs Assessment, Strategic Broadband Plan) Kickoff and Project Plan Identify and Inventory Assets Needs Assessment and Goal Setting Conceptual Network Routes and Infrastructure Requirements Technical Specifications and Cost Estimation Capital Project Analysis and Grant Technical Materials Master Plan Compilation and Approval Support Timeline (weeks from project start) 0-4 2-8 4 - 12 8 - 16 8 - 16 8 - 16 12 -24 Work Product Costs (for consultants, subconsultants, organizations, and/or staff) Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Consultant $ 5,900.00 $ 10,325.00 $ 26,550.00 $ 22,125.00 $ 10,325.00 $ 16,225.00 $ 8,850.00 Total Work Product Costs (for consultants, subconsultants, organizations, and/or staff) $ 5,900.00 $ 10,325.00 $ 26,550.00 $ 22,125.00 $ 10,325.00 $ 16,225.00 $ 8,850.00 Total Administrative Costs (see Note) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTAL COSTS $ 5,900.00 $ 10,325.00 $ 26,550.00 $ 22,125.00 $ 10,325.00 $ 16,225.00 $ 8,850.00 Note Administrative costs are defined as indirect overhead costs attributable to a project, per generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and the direct cost o f complying with Commission administrative and regulatory requirements related to the grant itself. Up to 15%of administrative costs may be associated with the securing or completion of reimbursable work products, other than the cost of local agency staff hours. ( D.22-02-026, Attachment 1 at 2) Local Agency Technical Assistance Application PART 4: GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Instructions: Please provide a description of the geographic location(s) that the applicant intends for service to be provided as a result of the technical assitance project(s). The CPUC requests this information since local agencies with geographically overlapping jurisdictions are encouraged to collaborate. Applicant(s) should provide as much detail on the intended geographic location(s) as possible Information Requested Instructions Response Choose from drop down on right. city Type of Local Agency Describe type of Local Agency if not in dropdown. Provide a short description of the intended City limits of San Luis Obispo, CA. Describe Project Location geographic location(s) (e.g. city limits, county limits, utility service area) to assist in the review of this application. Submit as separate document and note the file SLOCensus_BlockLevel_2020.csv name in this field (if submitting via email). The 'Data Query Tool' on CPUC's California Interactive Broadband Map can be used to export census blocks into a CSV file by manually selecting regions on the map. (https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/) If Census Blocks are not currently known, the Data Query Tool can also be used to create CSV files of Census Block(s) other types of political boundaries (counties, Tribal Areas, etc.) and can be provided in a separate file. Additional information on the intended geographic location(s) can be listed in the relevant fields below. If Census Block(s) are not currently known, provide the following information on intended geographic location(s): County/Counties City/Cities Zip Codes Other Unique Geographic Data (describe and provide list) A shapefile and/or map of the intended geographic location(s) may be submitted as separate document(s) instead of Census Blocks. Shapefile and/or Map imap Indicate via the drop down whether a shapefile or is included in relevant fields below: Shapefile included? No Name of Shapefile (if included, "N/A" if not): N/A Map Included? No Name of Map file (if included, "N/A" if not): N/A C1JY � P. City Manager Report Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved City Administration DJJ 10/27/22 Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed City Attorney MK 10/27/22 Finance Nh 10/27/22 October 27, 2022 FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager gh 10/27/22 PREPARED BY: Rebecca Cox, Administrative Analyst Stephanie Lopez, Administrative Assistant II SUBJECT: Broadband Master Plan Selection RECOMMENDATION 1. Execute an agreement with Magellan Broadband for the preparation of the Broadband Master Plan. DISCUSSION The COVID-19 pandemic showed that broadband is a necessity for people to work, go to school, shop, and conduct government business. All levels of government (Federal, State and Local) have recognized the importance of broadband access and are in the process of updating the standards for what constitutes broadband access. Given the difficulties the City heard from the community in accessing electronic resources and the pending changes to broadband standards, City IT staff did an exercise to look at broadband accessibility based on publicly available information and presented to an ad -hoc committee of the Council that was looking at ways to utilize American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, now referenced as State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). Based on IT staff findings, the Council ad -hoc committee decided to recommend to the City Council that $100,000 be allocated to a study of broadband access in the community, and an additional $500,000 be set aside to implement recommendations that might come from the study. Staff were also successful in securing $100,300 in grant funding through the California Public Utilities Commission, Local Agency Technical Assistance grant (LATA), a grant program for eligible pre -construction work facilitating broadband network projects. To accomplish this project, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) (Attachment A) to engage with a third -party consultant that has experience preparing Broadband master plans. As part of the master plan process, the consultants will conduct a study of existing broadband coverage in the City, identify areas that are unserved or underserved, and make recommendations to the City about ways to remediate those areas over the long term. The scope of work includes: Selection of Consultant for Broadband Master Plan Page 2 1. Kick -Off Meeting and Project Management Plans 2. Identify and Inventory Assets 3. Needs Assessment and Goal Setting 4. Conceptual Network Routes and Infrastructure Requirements 5. Technical Specifications and Cost Estimation 6. Capital Project Analysis and Grant Technical Materials 7. Master Plan Compilation and Approval Process Support Solicitation and Recommendation On August 17, 2022, the Information Technology Division released an RFP for the preparation of a Broadband Master Plan, with a deadline to submit proposals by September 15, 2022. The city received two proposals: Magellan Broadband (Attachment B) and Televate. Proposals were reviewed and evaluated based on established criteria including qualifications and expertise and assessed by a selection team consisting of Josh Erquiaga, Network Services Supervisor, Hans Poschman, Assistant to the City Manager, and Rebecca Cox, Administrative Analyst. On September 30, 2022, the selection team met to discuss the proposals and select the most qualified firm. The table below outlines the scoring and ranking of the two proposals. Based on the consensus of the selection team, Magellan Broadband ranked first, and it is recommended that the city execute an agreement with Magellan Broadband (Attachment C) for preparation of the Broadband Master Plan. FISCAL IMPACT An ad -hoc committee of the City Council recommended $600,000 in State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) be allocated toward a broadband study and subsequent implementation of recommended actions. The recommendation was formalized at the June 7, 2022, City Council Meeting, with Resolution No. 11333, 2022 series (Attachment D). Additionally, staff applied for the Local Agency Technical Assistance grant (LATA); a grant program for eligible pre - construction work facilitating broadband network projects to areas in need and were awarded $100,300 by the California Public Utilities Commission on Friday, October 6 (Attachment E). The total cost to the City for the Broadband Master Plan and Policy is $99,730 and includes all work to be completed by Magellan as stated in the proposal. ALTERNATIVE Deny Recommendation. This option to deny execution of the agreement with Magellan Broadband is not recommended and would delay production of a Broadband Master Plan and potential grant funding opportunities. Selection of Consultant for Broadband Master Plan Page 3 ATTACHMENTS A. Preparation of Broadband Master Plan REP B. Magellan Broadband Proposal C. Magellan Broadband Agreement a. Exhibit A b. Exhibit B D. Resolution No 11333, 2022 Series E. LATA Grant Award Letter ACOR" CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 16-� DATE (MMIDDIYYYY) 1 10/13/2022 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Bruce Gendelman Co., Inc. 2404 Florida Avenue West Palm Beach FL 33401-7866 CONTACT NAME: Diane Larson PHONE FAX AIC No Ext : 414-409-7614 AIC No): 414-409-7614 ADDRESS: dlarson@gendelman.com INSURERS) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A: Phoenix Insurance Co 25623 INSURED MAGEADV-01 Magellan Advisors, LLC 999 18th Street, Suite 3000 INSURER B : Travelers Prop Cas Co of Amer 25674 INSURER C :Travelers Indemnity of America 25666 INSURER D : Lloyd's of London Denver CO 80202 INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 1861254094 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL INSD SUBR POLICY EFF WV POLICY NUMBER MM/DDIYYYY POLICY EXP MM/DDIYYYY LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y Y 4/12/2022 4/12/2023 EACH OCCURRENCE $2,000,000 F_V� CLAIMS -MADE OCCUR DAMAGE PREM SES� RENTEa o'cur ence $ 300,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000 POLICY jE LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 4,000,000 $ OTHER: A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 4/12/2022 4/12/2023 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT Ea accident $ 2,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ X PROPERTY DAMAGE Per accident $ HIRED LNON-OWNED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY B X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR Y Y 4/12/2022 4/12/2023 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 3,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000 EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE DED X RETENTION $, $ C WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N Y 4/12/2022 4/12/2023 X PER OTH- STATUTE ER ANYPROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ NIA E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 (Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 D PROFESSIONAL LIAB 4/12/2022 4/12/2023 EA CLAIM $2,000,000 $35,000 DEDUCTIBLE AGGREGATE $2,000,000 CLAIMS MADE FORM DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) As required by written contract: City of San Luis Obipso, it officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are additional insureds, coverage is primary and non-contributory, waiver of subrogation is applicable. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. City of San Luis Obipso 990 Palm Street AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE San Luis Obispo CA 93401 1 1 1 guttj�_ zzvj" ©1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD INSURED'S NAME: MAGELLAN ADVISORS, LLC CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE CYBER LIABILITY - COALITION INSURANCE SOLUTIONS Carriers: North American Capacity Insurance Company (51%) Arch Specialty Insurance Company (49%) Policy Number: Policy Term: 4/12/22 to 4/12/23 Limits of Liability: $2,000,000 Network and Information Security Liability $2,000,000 Regulatory Defense & Penalties $2,000,000 PCI Fines and Assessments $2,000,000 Multimedia Content Liability PAGE 2 MAGELLAN ADVISORS, LLC POLICY NO - COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED (Includes Products -Completed Operations If Required By Contract) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART PROVISIONS The following is added to SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED: Any person or organization that you agree in a written contract or agreement to include as an additional insured on this Coverage Part is an insured, but only: a. With respect to liability for "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurs, or for "personal injury" caused by an offense that is committed, subsequent to the signing of that contract or agreement and while that part of the contract or agreement is in effect; and b. If, and only to the extent that, such injury or damage is caused by acts or omissions of you or your subcontractor in the performance of "your work" to which the written contract or agreement applies. Such person or organization does not qualify as an additional insured with respect to the independent acts or omissions of such person or organization. The insurance provided to such additional insured is subject to the following provisions: a. If the Limits of Insurance of this Coverage Part shown in the Declarations exceed the minimum limits required by the written contract or agreement, the insurance provided to the additional insured will be limited to such minimum required limits. For the purposes of determining whether this limitation applies, the minimum limits required by the written contract or agreement will be considered to include the minimum limits of any Umbrella or Excess liability coverage required for the additional insured by that written contract or agreement. This provision will not increase the limits of insurance described in Section III — Limits Of Insurance. (1) Any "bodily injury", "property damage" or ..personal injury' arising out of the providing, or failure to provide, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services, including: (a) The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders or change orders, or the preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve, drawings and specifications; and (b) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. (2) Any "bodily injury" or "property damage" caused by "your work" and included in the "products -completed operations hazard" unless the written contract or agreement specifically requires you to provide such coverage for that additional insured during the policy period. c. The additional insured must comply with the following duties: (1) Give us written notice as soon as practicable of an "occurrence" or an offense which may result in a claim. To the extent possible, such notice should include: (a) How, when and where the "occurrence" or offense took place; (b) The names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses; and (c) The nature and location of any injury or damage arising out of the "occurrence" or offense. b. The insurance provided to such additional (2) If a claim is made or "suit" is brought against insured does not apply to: the additional insured: CG D2 46 04 19 © 2018 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved Page 1 of 2 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (a) Immediately record the specifics of the claim or "suit' and the date received; and (b) Notify us as soon as practicable and see to it that we receive written notice of the claim or "suit' as soon as practicable. (3) Immediately send us copies of all legal papers received in connection with the claim or "suit', cooperate with us in the investigation or settlement of the claim or defense against the "suit', and otherwise comply with all policy conditions. (4) Tender the defense and indemnity of any claim or "suit' to any provider of other insurance which would cover such additional insured for a loss we cover. However, this condition does not affect whether the insurance provided to such additional insured is primary to other insurance available to such additional insured which covers that person or organization as a named insured as described in Paragraph 4., Other Insurance, of Section IV — Commercial General Liability Conditions. Page 2 of 2 © 2018 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. CG D2 46 04 19 TRAVELERS J� WORKERS COMPENSATION AND ONE TOWER SQUARE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY HARTFORD CT 06183 ENDORSEMENT WC 99 03 76 ( A) - 001 POLICY NUMBER: NAMED INSURED: MAGELLAN ADVISORS, LLC WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT - CALIFORNIA (BLANKET WAIVER) We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2.00 % of the California workers' compensation pre- mium. Person or Organization ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THE INSURED HAS AGREED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED PRIOR TO LOSS TO FURNISH THIS WAIVER. Schedule Job Description INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective Insured Insurance Company Policy No. Countersigned by Endorsement No. Premium DATE OF ISSUE: 02-16-22 STASSIGN: Page 1 of 1 Magellan Advisors, LLC Policy COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. XTEND ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE — This endorsement broadens coverage. However, coverage for any injury, damage or medical expenses described in any of the provisions of this endorsement may be excluded or limited by another endorsement to this Coverage Part, and these coverage broadening provisions do not apply to the extent that coverage is excluded or limited by such an endorsement. The following listing is a general coverage description only. Read all the provisions of this endorsement and the rest of your policy carefully to determine rights, duties, and what is and is not covered. A. Who Is An Insured — Unnamed Subsidiaries B. Who Is An Insured — Employees And Volunteer Workers — Bodily Injury To Co -Employees And Co -Volunteer Workers C. Who Is An Insured — Newly Acquired Or Formed Limited Liability Companies D. Blanket Additional Insured — Persons Or Organizations For Your Ongoing Operations As Required By Written Contract Or Agreement E. Blanket Additional Insured — Broad Form Vendors F. Blanket Additional Insured — Controlling Interest PROVISIONS A. WHO IS AN INSURED — UNNAMED SUBSIDIARIES G. Blanket Additional Insured — Mortgagees, Assignees, Successors Or Receivers H. Blanket Additional Insured — Governmental Entities — Permits Or Authorizations Relating To Premises I. Blanket Additional Insured — Governmental Entities — Permits Or Authorizations Relating To Operations J. Blanket Additional Insured — Grantors Of Franchises K. Incidental Medical Malpractice L. Blanket Waiver Of Subrogation The following is added to SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED: Any of your subsidiaries, other than a partnership or joint venture, that is not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations is a Named Insured if: a. You are the sole owner of, or maintain an ownership interest of more than 50% in, such subsidiary on the first day of the policy period; B. and b. Such subsidiary is not an insured under similar other insurance. No such subsidiary is an insured for "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred, or "personal and advertising injury" caused by an offense committed: a. Before you maintained an ownership interest of more than 50% in such subsidiary; or b. After the date, if any, during the policy period that you no longer maintain an ownership interest of more than 50% in such subsidiary. For purposes of Paragraph 1. of Section II — Who Is An Insured, each such subsidiary will be deemed to be designated in the Declarations as: a. A limited liability company; b. An organization other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company; or c. A trust; as indicated in its name or the documents that govern its structure. WHO IS AN INSURED — EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEER WORKERS — BODILY INJURY TO CO -EMPLOYEES AND CO -VOLUNTEER WORKERS The following is added to Paragraph 2.a.(1) of SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED: Paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) above do not apply to "bodily injury' to a co -"employee" while in the course of the co -"employee's" employment by you or performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or to "bodily injury" to your other "volunteer workers" while performing duties related to the conduct of your business. CG D1 86 02 19 © 2017 The Travelers Indemnity Company All rights reserved Page 1 of 5 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. 5 6. The following is added to the DEFINITIONS Section: "Incidental medical services" means: a. Medical, surgical, dental, laboratory, x-ray or nursing service or treatment, advice or instruction, or the related furnishing of food or beverages; or b. The furnishing or dispensing of drugs or medical, dental, or surgical supplies or appliances. The following is added to Paragraph 4.b., Excess Insurance, of SECTION IV — COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: This insurance is excess over any valid and collectible other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to any of your "employees" for "bodily injury" that arises out of providing or failing to provide "incidental medical services" COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY to any person to the extent not subject to Paragraph 2.a.(1) of Section II — Who Is An Insured. L. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION The following is added to Paragraph 8., Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us, of SECTION IV — COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: If the insured has agreed in a contract or agreement to waive that insured's right of recovery against any person or organization, we waive our right of recovery against such person or organization, but only for payments we make because of: a. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurs; or b. "Personal and advertising injury" caused by an offense that is committed; subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement. CG D1 86 02 19 © 2017 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Page 5 of 5 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY c. Method Of Sharing If all of the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares, we will follow this method also. Under this approach each insurer contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limit of insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each insurer's share is based on the ratio of its applicable limit of insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all insurers. d. Primary And Non -Contributory Insurance If Required By Written Contract If you specifically agree in a written contract or agreement that the insurance afforded to an insured under this Coverage Part must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non- contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such insured which covers such insured as a named insured, and we will not share with that other insurance, provided that: (1) The "bodily injury' or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs; and (2) The "personal and advertising injury" for which coverage is sought is caused by an offense that is committed; subsequent to the signing of that contract or agreement by you. 5. Premium Audit a. We will compute all premiums for this Coverage Part in accordance with our rules and rates. b. Premium shown in this Coverage Part as advance premium is a deposit premium only. At the close of each audit period we will compute the earned premium for that period and send notice to the first Named Insured. The due date for audit and retrospective premiums is the date shown as the due date on the bill. If the sum of the advance and audit premiums paid for the policy period is greater than the earned premium, we will return the excess to the first Named Insured. Magellan Advisors LLC Policy No a. The statements in the Declarations are accurate and complete; b. Those statements are based upon representations you made to us; and c. We have issued this policy in reliance upon your representations. The unintentional omission of, or unintentional error in, any information provided by you which we relied upon in issuing this policy will not prejudice your rights under this insurance. However, this provision does not affect our right to collect additional premium or to exercise our rights of cancellation or nonrenewal in accordance with applicable insurance laws or regulations. 7. Separation Of Insureds Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this Coverage Part to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies: a. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and b. Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or "suit" is brought. 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, the insured will bring "suit" or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. 9. When We Do Not Renew If we decide not to renew this Coverage Part, we will mail or deliver to the first Named Insured shown in the Declarations written notice of the nonrenewal not less than 30 days before the expiration date. If notice is mailed, proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice. SECTION V — DEFINITIONS 1. "Advertisement" means a notice that is broadcast or published to the general public or specific market segments about your goods, products or services for the purpose of attracting customers or supporters. For the purposes of this definition: c. The first Named Insured must keep records of a. Notices that are published include material the information we need for premium placed on the Internet or on similar electronic computation, and send us copies at such times means of communication; and as we may request. b. Regarding websites, only that part of a website 6. Representations that is about your goods, products or services By accepting this policy, you agree: for the purposes of attracting customers or supporters is considered an advertisement. Page 16 of 21 © 2017 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. CIS T1 00 02 19 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [date], by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city (City) and MAGELLAN BROADBAND (Consultant) (collectively referred to as the "Parties"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City wants to prepare a Broadband Master Plan(the "Services"); and WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to perform this type of Services and has submitted a written proposal to do so, which has been accepted by City; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until May 31, 2023 or upon acceptance and completion of said Services, whichever occurs sooner. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PREPARATION OF BROADBAND MASTER PLAN and Consultant's proposal dated September 14, 2022, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit A. The City's insurance requirements are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit B. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the Consultant's fees and scope of work and the City's terms and conditions as stated herein, the City's terms and conditions shall prevail unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both Parties. 1. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed $99,730. 2. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements herein before mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement including that work as set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PAYMENT OF TAXES. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that Consultant is required to pay. 4. LICENSES AND PERMITS. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the Services described in this Agreement. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary under this Agreement. S. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes, which in any manner affect those employed by Consultant or in any way affect the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section. Failure to comply with local ordinances may result in monetary fines and cancellation of this Agreement. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARD. Consultant shall provide services acceptable to City in strict conformance with the Agreement. Consultant shall also provide in accordance with the standards customarily called for under this Agreement using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable providers of such services. Where approval by the City, the City Manager, the Mayor, or other representative of City is required, it is understood to be general approval only and does not relieve Consultant of responsibility for complying with all applicable laws, codes, policies, regulations, and good business practices. 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatsoever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing the Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 8. PRESERVATION OF CITY PROPERTY. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at Consultant's expense. The City's facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began the work. 9. IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all subconsultants engaged for the performance of the Services that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the Services hereunder. 10. NON-DISCRIMINATION. In the performance of the Services, the Consultant agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subconsultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons. 11. WORK SCHEDULED/TIME OF COMPLETION. City and Consultant agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement. City and Consultant further agree that Consultant's failure to perform on or at the times set forth in this Agreement will damage and injure City, but the extent of such damage and injury is difficult or speculative to ascertain. Consequently, City and Consultant agree that any failure to perform by Consultant at or within the times set forth herein shall result in liquidated damages for each and every day such performance is late or delayed. City and Consultant agree that such sum is reasonable and fair. Furthermore, City and Consultant agree that this Agreement is subject to Government Code Section 53069.85 and that each party hereto is familiar with and understands the obligations of said Section of the Government Code. 3. PAYMENT TERMS. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Consultant (Net 30). Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Any final payment under this Agreement shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice, therefore. 12. INSPECTION. City shall at all times have the right to inspect the work being done under this Agreement and Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity and assistance required for City to ascertain that the Services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this Agreement. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations under the Agreement. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not, without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request ("Discovery"), court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement, unless the City is a party to any lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding connected to such Discovery, or unless Consultant is prohibited by law from informing the City of such Discovery. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding as allowed by law. Unless City is a party to the lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding and is averse to Consultant in such proceeding, Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to Discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Consultant covenants that neither they nor any officer or principal of their firm have any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by them as an officer, employee, agent, or subconsultant. Consultant further covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing any services, directly or indirectly, with any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its subconsultants shall provide no service or enter into any agreement or agreements with a/any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area prior to the completion of the work under this Agreement. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts or copies therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, at the Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, copying and/or printing computer files. Consultant hereby grants to City all right, title, and interest, including any copyright, in and to the documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared by Consultant in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement. 16. INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents ("City Indemnitees"), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels' fees and costs of litigation ("claims"), arising out of the Consultant's performance or Consultant's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, including the City's passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant's performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City's option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 4. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 14. 5. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. If, during the term of the Agreement, the City determines the Consultant is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a ten (10) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. c. If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten (10) days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the Agreement and the City may terminate the Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant to said effect ("Notice of Termination"). Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the Agreement except to comply with the obligations upon termination. d. In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work or services performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work -in -progress in completing the overall scope. e. The City reserves the right to delay such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the not to exceed amount shown in this Agreement. 6. INSURANCE. Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B attached to and made part of this Agreement. 17. BUSINESS LICENSE & TAX. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134. 18. SAFETY PROVISIONS. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 19. PUBLIC AND EMPLOYEE SAFETY. Whenever the Consultant operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 7. UNDUE INFLUENCE. Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City has or will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity. 8. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. a. NOTE: Use content below if applicable to the services rendered. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only [Insert name], an employee of Consultant, shall perform the services described in this Agreement. [Insert name] may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of [Insert name] from Consultant's employ. Should [Insert name] leave Consultant's employ, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of notice of [Insert name]'s departure. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City and the Consultant. b. As required above, before retaining or contracting with any subconsultant for any services under this Agreement, City must consent to such assignment of performance in writing. For City to evaluate such proposed assignment, Consultant shall provide City with the identity of the proposed subconsultant, a copy of the proposed written contract between Consultant and such subconsultant, which shall include an indemnity provision similar to the one provided herein and identifying City as an indemnified party, or an incorporation of the indemnity provision provided herein, and proof that such proposed subconsultant carries insurance at least equal to that required by this Agreement or obtain a written waiver from City for such insurance. 9. AMENDMENT. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the appropriate review authority according to the City's Financial Management Manual. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized by the City in advance and in writing. 10. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete Agreement between the Parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral Agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the Parties hereto. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 11. NOTICE. All notices to the Parties hereto under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as, but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) United States Mail, certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. All such notices shall be delivered to the addressee or addressed as set forth below: To City: Information Technology City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To Consultant: Magellan Broadband 999 18th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 12. GOVERNING LAW. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement, and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the Parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law. 13. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY CONSULTANT By: Derek Johnson Its: City Manager By: John Honker Jhonker@magellanbroadband.com Its: CEO APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney PROPOSAL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA RFP for Preparation of Broadband Master Plan Josh Erquiaga Network Services Supervisor jerquiag@sIocity.org Prepared by: Jory Wolf Magellan Broadband jwolf@magel Ian broad band.com 818-312-7768 magel Ian broad band.com ,Macgelfan TABLE OF CONTENTS Letterof Transmittal.................................................................................................................. 3 Magellan Overview and Experience............................................................................................ 4 References................................................................................................................................ 9 ProjectTeam........................................................................................................................... 12 Scopeof Work......................................................................................................................... 15 Task 1: Kick -Off Meeting & Project Management Plan....................................................................... 15 Task 2: Identify & Inventory Assets.................................................................................................. 15 Task 3: Needs Assessment & Goal Setting......................................................................................... 16 Task 4: Conceptual Network Routes and Infrastructure Requirements ................................................ 17 Task 5 Technical Specifications & Cost Estimation............................................................................. 18 Task 6: Capital Project Analysis & Grant Technical Materials............................................................. 19 Task 7: Master Plan Compilation & Approval Process Support............................................................ 20 Timetable................................................................................................................................ 21 Pricing.................................................................................................................................... 22 RequiredForms....................................................................................................................... 23 WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 2 ,Macgelfan Letter of Transmittal September 14, 2022 Josh Erquiaga Network Services Supervisor City of San Luis Obispo Magellan Broadband is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of San Luis Obispo for the RFP for Preparation of a Broadband Master Plan. Magellan provides professional consulting services to local governments that want to develop effective digital inclusion/equity, broadband and Smart City strategies that are unique to their communities and are based on real -world and demonstrable success. Our team of advisors has worked with agencies throughout California and around the US to help them develop and execute broadband strategies for their communities. We understand the challenges and opportunities local governments face in gaining a competitive edge for economic development and bridging the digital divide. Magellan has worked with several communities to create actionable strategies that leverage existing infrastructure, develop strategic partnerships, create successful broadband policies and identify smart investments to enhance services and operations of government, businesses, education and healthcare institutions, including: County of Marin: Digital Marin County of Napa: Broadband Strategic Planning County of Sonoma: Broadband Feasibility County of Ventura: Broadband Master Planning County of Fresno: Broadband Master Plan City of Fremont: Broadband Master Planning City of South San Francisco: Broadband & Wireless Master Planning City of Concord: Broadband Master Planning City of San Leandro: Broadband Master Planning As every community is unique, our goal is to deliver individually tailored strategies and guidance to you. We strongly believe our experience makes us well suited to work extensively with your staff and departments as well as stakeholders in your communities to understand how the City of San Luis Obispo can best use its unique capabilities and strengths to enhance the availability of broadband throughout its community. If you have any questions or we can be of assistance in any way, please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. You can reach me directly at 818.312.7768 or jwolf@magellanbroadband.com. Sincerely, Jory Wolf, VP of Digital Innovation WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 3 ,Macgelfan Magellan Overview and Experience Magellan Broadband serves local governments nationally with offices in Texas, Colorado, Florida, California and Missouri. Our Colorado headquarters are located at 999 18th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202. Magellan's web address is www.magellanbroadband.com. Magellan Advisors, LLC was founded in January of 2004 and has been in operation as a Limited Liability Company since inception. Magellan's office number is 888-960-5299. Magellan's Federal Employee Identification number is 65-1218484. The contact for this contract is Vice President Jory Wolf. His email is iwolf@magellanbroadband.com and his phone number is 818-312-7768. Magellan is the leading turnkey broadband development firm for municipalities and utilities. We specialize in planning, designing and building fiber to the home networks for communities that need faster, more reliable high-speed internet. With over 18 years in business and over 400 municipal clients, Magellan is the most experienced firm for munis that want to enhance economic development, education, healthcare and the quality of life of their communities through world -class broadband. Our staff understands the goals of local governments that recognize broadband as a policy issue. In our feasibility studies, we help educate, inform and direct municipalities to the most feasible options for solving local broadband issues. We work with internal and external stakeholders to build a profile of your community to determine the current state of broadband and identify key issues. Based on real -world solutions, we help you determine the best opportunities to close gaps and position your community for the future. We believe that every community is unique and customized broadband strategies are essential in every project we undertake. In every case, we have helped municipalities find and implement the right solutions to enhance local broadband. We are the only firm that creates custom tailored broadband networks to achieve municipal objectives. Our networks deliver the fastest internet services at the lowest cost, while giving municipalities a platform to deploy smart city innovations that help them manage their communities. We've led the planning, funding, construction and management of over 50 fiber broadband networks passing over 1 million households and connecting more than 1,000 schools, hospitals, government offices and community organizations and totaling $1 billion in investments. Magellan has helped more communities successfully plan, implement and manage broadband networks than any other firm in the market. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 4 Magellan -* Magellan provides fiber engineering, consulting and network implementation to municipalities and utilities whose goal is to improve broadband in their communities. Over 400 municipalities, utilities and cooperatives have used Magellan to develop their fiber and broadband networks. Our mission is to connect every community, one at a time, to the digital economy so that no one is left behind. Our work ensures that communities can access every opportunity the internet has to offer so they can thrive in the connected world. Our turnkey broadband solutions allow our clients to maintain a single partner that fulfils every aspect of planning and deploying broadband networks, with seasoned experts guiding their deployments every step of the way. Our success is based on our clients' success and our fiber to the home solutions enable our clients to serve their citizens most pressing broadband needs in the digital age. We work for municipalities, utilities, co-ops and regional governments but serve any organization that is building fiber and broadband infrastructure. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 5 jMacgelfan Community Focused Fiber & Broadband Solutions Broadband Planning Feasibl Ilty studies. Fiber master plans. and business plans that give you real -world guidanceand results you can taunt an when deploying, Faber and broadband. r-)11 Grants & Funding rur ingstrategy,grantwritingand compliance for all major federal and state hber and broadband grant programs_ E Design Engineering Cutting edge fiber and broadband ergi neering to connect more sites, mare devices and more customers at the speed of light. E Turnkey Launch & Retail Implementation Startup Support ISF Services Asingle, trusted partnerto manage your From rimvrnrk integration, to billing, to LlghtSpeed, powered by Mage4lan Advisors enure nerruork lmpdementadon, with over customer service to tech support, we serves your community with fast, rz!iiabie SO fiber and broadband deployed networks provide you with the most experienced and affordable Internet services, built an a across the US. resources to manage your Fiber and culture of delivering superior service, broadband networks. 0 0 0 WWW.MAG E LLAN BROAD BAN D.com lei Magellan -* FIBER TO THE HOME - FIBER BACKBONES - METRO & LONG HAUL Fiber & Broadband Design Solutions c Aerial Thousands of mikes of aerial fiber installed for over million homes. Our experience includes A65S. strand and lash, make- ready and pole preparation in diverse environments. Network Architecture Turnkey layer 2 and 3 design, including IR MPLS, Carrier Ethem et, DN5 and 6HCP. Magellan IV - L Underground We manage the entire design, engineering and permitting process for direct bury and conduit installations to minimize cost and accelerate construction. Construction Packages Complete packages for competitive bidding that result in the lowest cost and best value. a GPON & Active Ethernet FTTX architecture and design based on end user customers' need for speed, reliability and redundancy. Construction Management We manage the entire construction project from start to finish, ensuring that the network is built to client specifications, T Data Center, Central Office & Shelters Inside plant design covering layouts, infrastructure, racking, power, cooling, fiber termination and equipment Project Management We manage large and complex construction projects, letting our clients focus on their most valuable asset— their customers. ww%v.MAGE LLAN-ADVISORS.com WWw.MAGELLANBROAD BAN D.COM 7 Magellan * Magellan ADVISORS IW Key West Coast Clients Alameda County_ ICA City of Carlsbad CA County a + _, • City • City of Chula Vista CA City City • • City of Concord CA • • City of Davis CA City of Fairfield CA City of Fremont ,CA Ferry County & Co_lvlle Tribes_ WA City of Glendale CA Grays HarborPUO 1WA city a • • _ Ci • • City • i • _ County City • Utility • City of Hayward CA City • • City of Hidden Hills CA City of Hillsboro OR City of Huntington Beach CA City of Inglewood CA Jefferson Public Utility District WA city City City + + • • • a city • • Utility a + • • • City of La Mesa CA City • • City of Lodi CA City of Manhattan Beach ,CA Mari nCounty CA Marion County OR City of Mission Viejo CA Napa County CA Navajo Nation_ NM _ Navajo County AZ 1County Northern AZ Council of Gvt AZ ! City of Oxnard CA City of Paso Robles CA Pierce County WA Pima Association of Gvts AZ _ City of Rancho Cucamonga CA City of Rancho Santa Fe CA City of Sacramento CA _City City of San Leandro CA City of Santa Ana CA City of Santa Clarita CA Town of Skykomish WA Sonoma County CA South Bay COG CA Utility a • • • City_ County • • a I• County • • • a • • City • • County a a • Organization Organization City • a • • • • a • _ a city • County a • • • • Organization City City City • • • • • • • • • • • • • City City Town (County Organization City + • a • 1 • • + + Or a a • • • • • • • • City of Stockton CA I• • City of Ventura CA city Ventura County CA County City of Walla Walla WA _ City City of West Hollywood CA City City of West Sacramento CA City Whitman County WA County City of Winters CA City Yofo County CA County • a a • • • • • • • • � • -- — - - - _ -- • • • • • • • • W W W . MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 8 Magellan -* References FIBER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA CONTACT Fred Lyn Utility Division Manager P: 909.477.2740 ext. 4035 E: fred.lyn@cityofrc.us "Today this infrastructure plays a crucial role in Rancho Cucamonga, not only in economic development, but will be pivotal in the long-term sustoinability and future planning of the City. Rancho Fiber has arrived." -Fred Lyn, Utilities Division Manager CHALLENGE City leadership recognizes that fiber-optic infrastructure is an important part of the Rancho Cucamonga community. They understand that in today's world, connectivity affects every aspect of the community - whether in municipal operations, public safety, education, healthcare, quality of life, entertainment and commerce. To realize leadership's vision, the City needed a partner that could develop and manage the expansion of fiber -based broadband across the City in a measured approach that achieved the City's financial constraints while expanding access in year -by -year deployments across the City. MAGELLAN'S SOLUTION In 2016, Magellan worked with the City to develop a fiber master plan and engineering assessment that laid out a multi -year plan for new aerial and underground fiber deployment throughout the City, totaling $12 million over 6 years. Since adopting the master plan in 2017, Magellan has designed and built the first three phases of the fiber to the premises network. In this work, we have provided full engineering, fielding, utility assessments, pole and make ready planning, construction prints and bid packages. We also manage construction as an owner's representative for the City in the fiber build, ensuring that the construction contractor meets our engineering specifications developed for the City, with tight quality control and within the budget. OUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS Today, the City has connected neighborhoods and business corridors, enabling gigabit broadband services to residents and businesses across the City. Residential customers receive gigabit service for $69.99 per month, giving them nearly 5 times the bandwidth for a lower cost than is available in the market today. Businesses have competitively priced internet on City fiber that has replaced slow and unreliable DSL, and cable internet services. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 9 ,Macgelfan FIBER MASTER PLAN AND PARTNERSHIP REFERENCE: CITY OF SANTA CL.ARITA, CA CONTACT Benny Ives Technology Services Manager P: 661-286-40 i Q E; Blve3(Ebsanta-clarita.com 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA.91355 "We have been very satisfied working with Mageifan Advisors. We have engaged with them twice, faffawirrg a very successful project in .our initial enrgagement on a Broadband Feasibility Study. Magellan is ioyal to its customer and has their best interest in mind," - Benny fives, Technology Services Manager - City of Santa Clarita CHALLENGE Magellan ,advisors was selected by the City of Santa Clarita to complete a Fiber Master Plan in 2017, The Plan was initiated by the City to reduce cost, drive innovation, enhance economic development, and improve the quality of life for citizens; examined community needs, policies; and benefits surrounding the Citysfiber and wireless infrastructure and assets. MAGELLAN'S SOLUTION Magellan advisors assisted the City in developing a Plan that provided Santa Clarita`s leadership with a blueprint for viable actions to enhance its broadband future. Among its recommendations was continued investment in City assets by expanding the current fiber-optic infrastructure to benefit local businesses and to generate revenue streams for the City of Santa Clarita, as well as selecting a partner to operate the network to limit the need for additional overhead and expanded organizational capacity. OUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS Following the Master Plan, Magellan developed and issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for selecting an experienced partner to provide services to key business parks and to eventually expand to residential areas of the City. Santa Clarita and Magellan are currently engaged in conversations with several interested partners, with a goal of increasing competitive service options to customers while providing additional revenue to the City for the use of the existing and planned fiber and conduit assets. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.coM 10 Magellan -* FIBER DESIGN ENGINEERING REFERNCE: CITY OF GLENDALE, CA CONTACT Craig Kuennen ,mow Deputy General Manager P: 818.548.3369 E: ckuennen@glendaleca.gov "Today this infrastructure plays a crucial role in Rancho Cucamonga, not only in economic development, but will be pivotal in the long-term sustainability and future planning of the City. Rancho Fiber has arrived. " -Fred Lvn, Utilities Division Manager CHALLENGE Glendale Water & Power currently owns and operates approximately 98 miles of dark fiber network within Glendale's city limits. The majority of connections are for municipal communication systems with limited commercial access. To meet increasing demand for fiber in the City, City Council authorized the development of a Fiber Optic Business Plan. This plan is currently under implementation to provide improved commercial network infrastructure and necessary business organization required to expand the City's operation as a provider. MAGELLAN'S SOLUTION In 2018, Magellan Advisors has been the City's partner for implementation of its fiber strategy, including design for electronics and connectivity, development of the construction documents and strategy for deployment of an expanded fiber backbone to bring connectivity to Glendale's electric substations and other field equipment to serve the utility. Magellan's strategy was to leverage the fiber backbone expansion for as many purposes as possible across the City, utility and broadband use cases. Magellan laid out fiber backbone routes to reach all electric substations, creating a new ring of connectivity to improve reliability in the electric plant. The design was dimensioned to support high -capacity broadband services as part of Glendale's strategic plan to deploy the network. OUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS Today, the City has connected neighborhoods and business corridors, enabling gigabit broadband services to residents and businesses across the City. Residential customers receive gigabit service for $69.99 per month, giving them nearly 5 times the bandwidth for a lower cost than is available in the market today. Businesses have competitively priced internet on City fiber that has replaced slow and unreliable DSL and cable internet services. WWW. MAGELLAN BROAD BAN D.CoM 11 ,Macgelfan Project Team JORY WOLF VP of Digital Innovation: Project Executive Joryjoined Magellan after 22 years as CIO of the City of Santa Monica, CA where he launched Santa Monica City Wi-Fi, which provides free internet services to the public through a network of 32 hot zones and wireless coverage in most major commercial and transit corridors throughout the city. He created Santa Monica City Net, a 100-gigabit broadband initiative to support an environment for local businesses to compete in the global economy with cutting edge network solutions. Jory has over 35 years of experience in Information Technology, including broadband, FTTH and Smart City initiatives. Jory and his teams have received over 50 awards for information technology projects during his career and in 2012 he received the CIO Lifetime Achievement Award from the Los Angeles Business Journal. Since joining Magellan Broadband in July 2016, Jory has led teams that have worked on 60+ government projects in broadband master planning, feasibility studies, wireless strategic planning, 5G small cell policies, dig once policies and smart city. WILL MORAT Senior Broadband Consultant: Project Manager Will has 15 years of experience leading complex projects in government, communications, and economic development. He has led public fiber optic network projects from the nascent stages all the way through launch. His focus is on leveraging public assets with private investment to realize community benefit: closing the Digital Divide, improving public services through technology, and enhancing the quality of life and economic environment. Will brings a background in public policy, local government administration, and cross -departmental experience in project management that complements the critical role of broadband in community growth and development. GREG WHELAN Senior Broadband Consultant Greg is a subject matter expert in broadband, fiber, digital infrastructure, mobile, 5G, cloud/edge, tele- communications, and IoT. He was a pioneer in broadband and created the project the led to the first broadband modem chipset in the industry. He was a co-founder and vice president of the original Broadband Forum and participated in early international broadband standards organizations. He was part of the team that architecture one of the first Open Access Broadband networks in the USA and a was early in connecting private funding and open fiber networks in the USA. Prior to joining Magellan Broadband, he was an independent broadband industry analyst and advisor. Before that he led broadband marketing and products at Cisco Systems, Cascade Communications, Analog Devices and a number of start-ups in greater Boston. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 12 I ,Macgelfan AL KAMUDA Design Team Lead Al Kamuda is a seasoned telecommunications and GIS professional with over 20 years' experience in telecommunications engineering, mapping, design and outside plant construction. Prior to joining Magellan, Al was the Senior Design Manager for the Central Florida region at Spectrum (Charter Communications), where he led the planning, project management and implementation of outside plant design for various company growth projects including residential, commercial, cellular backhaul and metro WIFI. His extensive experience with the telecommunications industry, CAD platforms and geospatial expertise along with his strategic forward thinking provides an extremely diverse skill set that allows him the valuable insight needed to understand the client's objectives in all aspects of telecommunications construction and design processes. WA F_riI:1ATM16l1jd:VA441 Associate Project Manager - Design Matthew Southwell has over 13 years in the telecommunications field. Matthew's career began as a U.S. Army Sergeant where he worked on tactical communication systems, Sat-Com radio systems, and deploying weekly COMSEC key changes OTAR (Over the Air Rekeying) with newly deployed radio systems during two Operation Enduring Freedom deployments. Matthew's private sector work includes work with a Motorola radio distributor and contractor where he supported many Federal, State, and local County entities to include: Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Drug Enforcement Administration, Florida Highway Patrol, Greater Orlando Airport Authority, Orange County Sheriffs Office, and the Lake County Sheriff's Office. Matthew joined Magellan Broadband in 2016 as a telecommunication analyst where he has contributed his knowledge and technical expertise to over 65 broadband projects. Matthew's current role within Magellan includes analysis of client GIS data and mapping, creating conceptual network designs and costing estimates for future fiber builds. Matthew is a Certified Fiber to the Home Professional (CFHP) and holds a Business Management Degree with High Honors from Keiser University in Orlando, FL. PRESTON YOUNG Senior Broadband Consultant Preston Young has many years of experience in the telecom industry, specializing in program management of large-scale fiber optic construction over builds. He has experience managing many projects of all sizes, working with major telecom and wireless providers in managing all aspects of the projects including contract management, budget analysis, high-level design, low-level design, construction, milestone reporting, and government and municipality management. Preston is a very detailed program manager with a tenacious quest for success and learning, results driven leadership and analytical thinking. He thrives on efficient on -time projects that meet or are under budget. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 13 I ,Macgelfan TAMARA MANN Project Management Analyst Tamara has several years of experience in the Information Technology industry. Her background is in data analytics, business intelligence, and project coordination in software automation and implementation. Tamara has a history of crafting customized reports based on the detailed analysis of complex data sets. She has played a critical role in tracking project milestones, timelines, budgets, and risks to ensure effective completion of project deliverables within target parameters. She has experience in leading and supporting multiple projects at a time, as well as program / portfolio management. Tamara is an enthusiastic Project Administrator dedicated to professional development and growth. She is currently pursuing a bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in business intelligence and analytic management from DeVry University. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 14 I ,Macgelfan Scope of Work TASK 1: KICK-OFF MEETING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Our team will begin the project by developing a Project Management Plan (PMP) for the project, including a schedule for all tasks, deliverable dates, progress reports, and other milestones. After submitting the draft PMP to the City, we will conduct a virtual or in -person kickoff meeting in coordination with the City. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss project goals, processes, and timelines, and to review and update the PMP to ensure alignment of our team with yours and that the final deliverables will meet your expectations. Based on the feedback received from the City, Magellan will revise the PMP and deliver a final version within seven (7) working days following the kickoff meeting. TASK 2: IDENTIFY & INVENTORY ASSETS We will conduct a comprehensive asset inventory of the current broadband assets in the public right-of- way including conduit, fiber, antennas, poles, towers, abandoned facilities, active facilities, and other infrastructure to determine their usefulness for expanding broadband within the region. This effort will provide a realistic assessment of assets available for expanding broadband connectivity. We believe that the following components should be analyzed: Underground conduit, innerduct, empty and available conduit Fiber cables, strand counts, splice points, terminations and utilized strands Vault and handhole locations Available and reserved capacity throughout the network Construction and placement method policies Current as-builts and documentation Terminating locations and public facilities GIS maps including publicly -owned property, right of way, easements Location of capital improvement projects and economic development zones Current and planned locations of public safety cameras and traffic signal interconnect Magellan will request GIS files, capital projects, planning and development data from the City itself, its cities, unincorporated communities, and anchor institutions to develop a broadband asset map. Using this data, we propose to first build a geo-correct layer of conduit and fiber, identifying placed conduit, type, size, status (occupied/vacant) and related information. A second layer will incorporate poles, traffic signal cabinets and other assets to be used for expanding broadband. A third layer may include General, Economic Development, Transportation and Capital Projects Plans to identify strategic and cost-effective methods of deploying and expanding broadband in a planned, organized and phased approach. We will also engage with private internet service providers to request information about the locations of their assets. Magellan's team will coordinate meetings with incumbents and new entrants to understand how their existing infrastructure serves the community, WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 15 1 ,Macgellan what their plans are for the future, and what implications those plans have for the City. We should expect that some of these companies may be reluctant to provide details about their assets and plans, but have found that developing relationships with these organizations is a key component of broadband planning. Task 2 Deliverable: Magellan will provide a technical memorandum assessing the inventory of assets, geo- data files mapping out City -owned assets, and facilitate a workshop to review asset inventory and assessing the implications for the City's financial and business modeling. TASK 3: NEEDS ASSESSMENT & GOAL SETTING Magellan Advisors will perform a local random sample countywide survey that will compare to market and census data showing demand and anticipated penetration rates. The survey will provide you with a graphical and visual representation of the current market, based on the survey and data collected for the market. This graphical representation will give you unique and valuable data on the actual broadband market in the City so you can understand the following: 1. Actual speeds that residents, anchors and businesses are receiving 2. Actual pricing that residents, anchors and businesses pay for services 3. Territories for providers operating in each community 4. Customer satisfaction levels with broadband providers 5. Key issues that impact customers across the City 6. Identify Underserved and Unserved areas We will also conduct the group meetings with representatives of key potential user groups to further understand the needs of the community. Magellan's formal needs assessment will include outreach with potential users of a City network including municipalities, businesses, large stakeholders and internet service providers. We will meet with these stakeholders one-on-one or in focus groups to document current and future needs as well as understanding on howjoint investments and partnerships could impact operations of expanding broadband in the City. This outreach may include: Public/Municipal Outreach: municipal leaders across the City including IT, public works, finance and leadership as well as other important department leaders throughout the City and its communities. Private Providers: Magellan will hold one-on-one interviews with private retail providers allowing them to share information on their current network, expansion and upgrade plans and willingness to partner with the City to better serve its communities. Anchors and Enterprise Businesses: We suggest scheduling one-on-one and group meetings with your large broadband users, including schools, hospitals, regional government organizations and large enterprise businesses. Businesses: Magellan recommends conducting focus groups with small and medium businesses that are WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 16 1 ,Macgellan representative of the greater business community. Magellan Broadband will utilize data from its survey, stakeholder outreach and census and demographic data to determine the economic and community impact that broadband issues are having on the City. This will include how the lack of broadband has impacted economic development, how businesses feel about relocating due to lack of reliable and affordable broadband, and the effect poor broadband and broadband gaps have created for residents with particular focus on ability to telecommute, utilize online education and provide economic opportunities through online small businesses. Task 3 Deliverable: Magellan will provide a technical memorandum summarizing the needs assessment, and facilitate a workshop to review the assessment and implications for the City's modeling. TASK 4: CONCEPTUAL NETWORK ROUTES AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS Magellan will develop a High -Level Design (Conceptual) for a network that utilizes available assets and addresses the needs of the region. We will provide engineering services to develop the design and specifications for construction of the new network and identify new opportunities to build that may enhance communications and support future broadband programs. As we develop the conceptual design, we will work with the City team to determine the best running lines, pole infrastructure and locations where fiber should be constructed. Magellan's engineering will identify and incorporate fiber alignments, placements, structures, cable sizes and splice points for the conceptual network. Magellan will work with the City to analyze the existing fiber backbone routes and determine the best strategy, accounting for optimal placement on existing pole lines or within existing conduit. Minor changes in the backbone routes may be preferred to avoid congestion or those planned for replacement in the next few years. Also, Magellan will look at opportunities to optimize the backbone for future services and broadband applications that may give the City advantages for expanding the network at minimal cost. The high-level design will include: Review of construction standards, policies and practices Placement of new backbone cable Right of way analysis Sites to connect on the backbone Laterals to targeted sites Interconnection with core data centers/utility sites The High -Level Design will use a core fiber backbone to connect communities to one another and to interconnect with internet points of presence, colocation centers and central offices. The core fiber backbone will consist of high -count fiber using redundant rings and/or mesh architectures to support a highly resilient backbone. It will include all outside plant fiber assets, but locations, facility locations and core network elements to light the network. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 17 ,Macgelfan As Magellan completes the high-level design, we will conduct a formal review with maps illustrating all components of the backbone overbuild. We will present the design, alignments, sites, laterals and connections to give City staff a first look at the preliminary design, provide feedback, and give Magellan a chance to make any adjustments to running lines and other outside plant aspects of the network. The information from Magellan's Market Analysis, Asset Inventory and High -Level Design will help the City evaluate various service models for deploying broadband services, as each has different funding requirements, rates of return and risk profiles. Magellan will work with the City to define the most optimal service models to evaluate for broadband deployment, which may include the following: Retail services to a range of customer segments, including residential and/or commercial; Retail services that leverage other utilities for outsourced content and services; Fiber leasing arrangements; Public -private partnerships with existing providers; Retail services to government, education, healthcare and anchor organizations; Dark fiber investment only, using private partners for operations and management; Others to be determined. We will work with the City to identify the optimal service models by analyzing the financial outcomes of each. This process will assess the funding requirements (upfront and ongoing), revenues, operating costs, debt service costs, renewal and replacement and related costs borne by each business model Task 4 Deliverable: Magellan will provide a technical memorandum outlining conceptual network designs and implications, and facilitate a workshop to discuss options. TASK 5 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS & COST ESTIMATION Our team will conduct a market analysis to gain an understanding of what service offerings are currently available to businesses and residents in the City. Magellan's market analysis will identify the services that are available, providers, service level, pricing, and access. We will document all privately -owned networks and research incumbent providers that currently serve the market as well as potential new entrants. This information will come from a variety of sources, including our comprehensive broadband database, third -party research, and information obtained from the providers themselves. We will then analyze the current market and delineate served, underserved and unserved areas that have a need for broadband but currently lack the necessary infrastructure. We will also work with the local providers to understand and document their current needs, as they too are stakeholders in the region. Magellan will utilize our Broadband Financial Sustainability Model to ensure that the City has a full understanding of the business and financial sustainability of the proposed project and future operations. Our financial models have been specifically developed for broadband utilities and are very similar to electric utility rate studies. Magellan's financial modeling tools have been utilized to plan and manage broadband network investments for over $500 million in broadband projects nationwide. Using our WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 18 ,Macgellan financial tools, we propose using a 20-year period to analyze the project and develop a Pro Forma projection that includes the following: Develop the cost model for the network, including one-time and ongoing capital expenditures to build the network. Develop the cost model for operations, including O&M, network operations, field services, staffing, billing and customer service applicable to the City and/or private partner. Adjust projections for the customer segmentation and growth on the network, across each type of customer (business, school, hospital, etc.). Conduct comprehensive financial analysis on the project to determine overall financial sustainability using key metrics such as free cash flow, debt service coverage, operating margin, and net income. Use scenario analysis to evaluate different business models and determine which are feasible for the City to consider. Recommend the most feasible business model based on the City's goals, overall business and financial sustainability, community benefit, and long-term value to the community. The information from Magellan's Model will help the City evaluate various business models for deploying broadband services, as each has different funding requirements, rates of return and risk profiles. Magellan will work with the City to define the most optimal business models to evaluate for broadband deployment, which may include the following: Retail services to a range of customer segments, including residential and/or commercial; Retail services that leverage other utilities for outsourced content and services; Fiber leasing arrangements; Public -private partnerships with existing providers; Retail services to government, education, healthcare and anchor organizations; Dark fiber investment only, using private partners for operations and management; Others to be determined. Task 5 Deliverable: Magellan will provide a technical memorandum assessing the technical specifications and cost estimates and facilitate a workshop to discuss the implications and options. TASK 6: CAPITAL PROJECT ANALYSIS & GRANT TECHNICAL MATERIALS Magellan's team will screen and identify feasible grant and loan programs for the City, including rural and non -rural opportunities. Our analysis will look at the federal FCC, USAC, EDA, HUD and USDA programs as well as State programs that fund such projects. We will identify the program size, details, qualifications, requirements and other key information for the City to determine the opportunity to fund some of its service area with federal or state funds. Based on the financial analysis, we will be able to provide the following information to the City to determine the best vehicles and organizational structures to be used for the project. Some of the areas we will analyze include: State and federal grant programs Joint build and joint contribution projects WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 19 1 ,Macgellan Organizational structures available, for profit, non-profit, economic development corporations, joint powers authorities and joint ventures Public/private contribution models Total amount of funding needed for the project Capital versus operational funding needed for the project Funding term, identifying short-term and long-term portions of funding Optimizing public and private funding sources Task 6 Deliverable: Magellan will provide a technical memorandum identifying shovel -ready projects and associated costs and facilitate a workshop to discuss the 5-year CIP forecast. TASK 7: MASTER PLAN COMPILATION & APPROVAL PROCESS SUPPORT Magellan will deliver a final comprehensive Broadband Master Plan to the City which will detail all tasks, goals, and recommended next steps for broadband enhancement. Magellan will take into account all feedback provided by City staff and key stakeholders. All previous deliverables will be compiled into this final Master Plan including technical memorandums and all recommendations from previous workshops. Task 7 Deliverable: Magellan will provide the Final Fiber Optic Master Plan and facilitate a workshop to discuss potential next steps, Magellan will provide support for presentations and meetings as required for plan approval. WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 20 Magellan -* Timetable Ongoing Task Final Deliverable Mageflan Task 1: Kick -Off Meeting & PMP . ♦ . Task 2: Identify & Inventory Assets Task 3: Needs Assessment & Goal Setting El ♦ ♦ ♦ ❑ Task 4: Conceptual Network Routes & Infrastructure Requirements Task 5: Technical Specifications & Cost Estimation Task 6: Capital Project Analysis & Grant Technical Materials Task 7: Master Plan Compilation & Approval Process Support Project Management & Meetings ♦ . . WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 21 I Magellan -* Pricing The total cost to the City of San Luis Obispo for the Broadband Master Plan and Policy is $99,730 and includes all work to be completed by Magellan as stated in this Proposal. Magellan will bill the City in six (6) equal monthly payments of $16,621.67. Magellan will bill on the first day of the month for the current month's services. Travel and incidental expenses are not anticipated for this project as all work will be performed remotely. Invoices are payable on net 30 terms from the date of invoice. Task/Description q, Task 1: Kick -Off Meeting & PMP $1,180 Task 2: Identify & Inventory Assets $5,900 Task 3: Needs Assessment & Goal Setting $17,700 Task 4: Conceptual Network Routes & Infrastructure Requirements $23,600 Task 5: Technical Specifications & Cost Estimation $14,750 Task 6: Capital Project Analysis & Grant Technical Materials $8,850 Task 7: Master Plan Compilation & Approval Process Support $14,750 Project Management & Meetings $13,000 Total for Magellan's Services $99,730 WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 22 ,Macgelfan Required Forms SECT10N I; PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM The unders7gned declares that she or he has carefully examined the bid which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thorough:lytamiiiar within contents; is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agFees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full: BID ITEM: Total Base Price Sales tax Other TOTAL S 99,730 De ivery of equipment to the City to he within calendar days after contract execution and written authorization to proceed- q Certificate of insurance attarhed, insurance com panys A_M_ Best rating: Firma Name aFrdAddness Maffe Ian Broadband 999 18th Street, Suite 3400, Denver, CO.80202 Contact JOFY Wolf Phone ;98-960-5299 Signat"re of Auiherired Repa•esent ative D,3re September 14, 2022 -15- WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 23 Magellan -* ,"QC-' L- CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE F ATE affY1'1I _ a 022 TIC S CERTIFICATE is IESUEp AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION GAILY AND CONF1=RS Ncp IRFUHTg UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. T141S CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFII MA T11V91Y OR NEGATIVELY AMEND. EXTEND OR ALrFR THE GQVFRA43E AFFURIDEQ BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE. DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT likT4VE:EN THE: I55UI146 INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER:, AND 704E CEIRMOATE HOLDER. 11IIPORTANT_ H Nha cArllRcpte holdor 16 art ADDITIONAL INSURED,. thq pall[yllRsj must have ADDITIONAL INSURED proyigior 5 ur ba andomed. R SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, 1311WCt to the terfnb and COrlditians of tha Panay, cmftaln Mlic-leii way require sr1 endortlerrleAI. A IstelDman7 an We C,!iflifltata 1&ees not rwIfar rl his f4 IhD rcerllf1cwte holdar id lieu of much andorsomo-ni(xl MCOUGEAL Nrar•1 hAML 151anr l.+7rSQll ®RICE r`endw fman Co., In0. 404E ;i4 f]9.d 14 PAX 500 Weal Brawn 0eerRoad, SLrte 101 " Nr.J•�I}' �$ wL,.t , 4.4 tc;!;. 1,1,1 C-MAIL I'Alwapukee 1N19321 r AeOaE�s. silr�rsart B""at!!!wn.E art wSVRzp!$I&FFQ NQ coy lReGfi 4AIC 1r AmwRA: PhogniK In5wpnGeCo _ 256Z3 weLweD rtr; 'cf "T1 IMPAERR: Travele,'sprcp Cas Co orAlrsar M74 Ndalbl5 Advisors, LLC 98 1$th Slraet, Sufte a[>p(1 RrlMoRc : Trav ler:Inde itypf Arnpm;a 2 DEmaer CO 83 202 INSURE D; UoMs of Londoo weiweRe: --- COYlERA41ES CERTIFICATE NUMBER-1982T97227 YEVISYTY aYJYM!!@- T-1,6 Ig TO CERTIFY TMaT its FI(iuLlFs ;}= Ir :;I.!Rxr,ea LIE,—O E+ELOrtM NA.L'E BEEN ISSUED TO TrIE INSURED rtauEn ,t,e4+.'E FOR THE POLICY PERIOD iNL••.:-:;ATEQ. NOTWITH$TANDt41: AKV IZI;tj Jll"==ra_yT fERM OH GIONINTION OF ANY QQNTFtNCT OR 0Tt1ER. DOCUMENT WITH RESPEUT TQ'/NIGH THIS vERTIFIChTE MAY OF. ISSUED MAY FFH-,AIR THE w5ijnwt1G€ JSFFORDEED BY THE POLICIES DESQRJEED Fl=RFIN Is iumcrr TO ALL T41E TERw, L=LLA5x5n18AND cx)NDmOpd50r F=j C.,1I':. _I[;It . UIMITS SHOO MAY HAVE SEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIN9 I1L311 Lrg Tf"0FIK'3WNPVC€ AE-ni s..lnrz PollcvWF - P - -- - - P ICY R YMDTIDvrw4t. W kIRTI X cDNI1W=IAL(i"GKALLIM8IL6TY _ I.i7�7022 drY2 O2T EACH CCCWidifNCE t2.131DD.DDD I !rL,4N2-MADE 1 I OCCUR P 1.ST ;i'+ x..T,:a•°wIr, 500.000 NED EXP lhr+p -Y!r w-x, .0J- a!OGREUkTE LIR§ I Al'I'LR'.5 PEW ! PaLICY T L17C Ri: ^, ..J L:'s-. _L;Nr,UI'A'sf.. s4�cr)CM GI rcet i 4MY20177 -—J,'102023 -ik+p.4:�H1!r.U. r,ffiIc up�eT I zom m r• AuroltnftLe UAWUTvr AAY our-2 812DLY NJURY 10. P-1 $ A11 9Ci'�LY AIIToe LIED ®[IpLY MURY IPar GU Mn11 2 x HIRED X NONIO NED PPKWn.RTA' DAWI69 1 ._. AUTOS Alrrasoo,Ly �' r_LNclrlJ S J •x u411REIL&VAN X 02CUM jwl?J=a' 4r12r2Ut5 EACHOCCURREW.:E }31cm, Do FYOES€LL+a c CLAMA3.YM$E ArlJRlGATe i3. DIED. Das I T #Ai Iil%.3 } 1r12.CL J4. " N 5 I.TUTE t AD cwpl rq!i-L'jAYIpM A4a CNPI r.+YrRm'Lif;pl�Lrt YAIr l _ t n N:,:'I-1-.1 I:•4LCARTNERLEyECLITI4E ,1,1 rcrt ErvLIENeEREECLUDEG? N{il EL EA,H+ ,r,.ortiNT 11,DDD. DOD IY�eDrk+lulNel Ec. D'S"SE - EA ErAPuTeEi e10331} 0 r JasTh..nds elOTlaL rlr aPrRA EL CIL%tAPE-Pr,LKYLIhKT 41X)OO "YU D " PR01E8e1014Al. LIMB 4rIN2022 #'1zj $2,T .Q00 �5fiJI &Ebucrie tLrJ1� LLM4'E F4RL IDACLA1N Ar,*W-CMTE 52.00DDIV Be=m1pnou Cur g1CAAnQNS I LMA-rh3w IVEHIDLES WDRO 141. AJWw.rl R-ha,SEll1,410P, 111ey rJeaMeGhod It man wKs le "I" MageMn Advisors, Lf_C 450 ANDn Road #1402 Mimi 11!6$5Ch FL 33139 USA $HCILJW ANY OF THE AIDOYC DEVRICIED POLICIES 9E CAtIG,E.LLE6 IMPURE. THE ELFIRA71ON DATE THERECIF NOTICE INIL6 UE DELFYEPtED IN ACGO1110AMM, VAM THE POLICY IaROVISIDNS. aurTlEelMrATNE 01SOlt-2015ACORD GGRPORATION. All rliphts rasarwad. AC06RD 25 (2016W) The ACCR D nd+r18 and logo are rapl slered marks or ACCRD WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 24 Magellan -* REFERENCES Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: 18 Deschbe ful y the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the ser:ir_es inc uded with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right tocontact each of the ref'erenceslisted for additional inform ataon regarding yourfirm's q u al ificati ons. Reference N.D. 1: Agency Name :bee References section for al I details Contact Ha me Tie ephone & Email Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services providec inc':uding contract arnount, when wo ided and project outcorne R-f�rence No. 2- Agency Name S ee References section for al l d eta . s Contact'Ila me Telephone & Email Street Address City, State, Zip Code Description of services providec irrduding contract arnourt, .kher provided) and project out COW e -1 6- www.MAGELLANBROADBAND.Com Magellan -* STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqu al ified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state., or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delaysr or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the arcumstances- ■ Do you have grey disqualification as described in the above Fvragruph to dedvre? Yes No g ■ if yes, explain [rho, rircunestances. Executed an 9114/2022 at 9:30AM perjury of the lays of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Signatureof Authorized F ropnser Representative -12- under penalty of WWW. MAGELLANBROADBAND.CoM 26 I From: Jory Wolf <JWolf@magellanbroadband.com> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:29 PM To: Erquiaga, Josh; Melanie Downing; Guardado, Miguel Cc: Cox, Rebecca Subject: RE: Broadband Master Plan RFP 'This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thanks Josh. We'll review and respond. Good to hear about LATA. Good luck. Jory Wolf VP Digital Innovation 11 iwolf(omagellanbroadband.com 818-312-7768 [ 888-960-5299 [ 999 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202 magellanbroadband.com x x x From: Erquiaga, Josh <jerquiag@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:13 AM To: Melanie Downing <MDowning@magellanbroadband.com>; Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@magellanbroadband.com> Cc: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Subject: Broadband Master Plan RFP Hi Jory and Melanie, Just wanted to make sure you were aware that we released our RFP for a Broadband Master Plan yesterday. You can find the details here: City of San Luis Obispo, #2208-001 - Notice Requesting Proposals for Preparation of Broadband Master Plan (bidsync.com) Also, thank you Jory for the heads up on the LATA grant, we're working with a grant consulting firm that the City retained on the application and are expecting to submit for that at the end of next week. Josh Erquiaga pronouns he/him/his Network Services Supervisor E jerquiaq(a�slocity.orq T 805.781.7526 Magellan Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. From: Erquiaga, Josh Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:13 AM To: Melanie Downing; Guardado, Miguel; Jory Wolf Cc: Cox, Rebecca Subject: Broadband Master Plan RFP Hi Jory and Melanie, Just wanted to make sure you were aware that we released our RFP for a Broadband Master Plan yesterday. You can find the details here: City of San Luis Obispo, #2208-001 - Notice Requesting Proposals for Preparation of Broadband Master Plan (bidsvnc.com) Also, thank you Jory for the heads up on the LATA grant, we're working with a grant consulting firm that the City retained on the application and are expecting to submit for that at the end of next week. Josh Erquiaga pronouns he/him/his Network Services Supervisor E jerquiaq(a�slocity.orq T 805.781.7526 From: Guardado, Miguel Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 12:25 PM To: Jory Wolf Cc: Erquiaga, Josh Subject: RE: LATA Grant Opening Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Jory — Thank you for reaching out. We are putting together and RFP and will be released real soon. Josh on my team will be heading this up. I will need to go in front of council if we are going to pursue these grants. Josh — Can you set up a call to see if we can get alignment with our RFP and the going after grant funding to pay for the work. Thanks, Miguel From: Jory Wolf <JWolf@magellanbroad band.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 11:48 AM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Subject: FW: LATA Grant Opening 'This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Miguel, I hope all is going well. Checking in in case you missed my last email. Jory Wolf VP Digital Innovation E3 iwolf(a�magelIan broad band. com 0 818-312-7768 JP 888-960-5299 Q 999 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202 magellanbroadband .com Magellan - 0 in From: Jory Wolf Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 4:28 PM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Subject: LATA Grant Opening Hi Miguel, 4 In case you are not aware, the LATA Grant application window opened last week and the State is accepting applications on a rolling basis. I am checking in to see if we can assist in any way with your application process and to see if you have made a decision on broadband planning and consulting efforts. Please let me know how we can help. Best Regards, Jory Wolf VP Digital Innovation iwolf(@magelIanbroadband.com 818-312-7768 cF 888-960-5299 e 999 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202 magellanbroadband.com Magellan* 0, in V Magellan Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. From: Jory Wolf <JWolf@magellanbroadband.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 11:48 AM To: Guardado, Miguel Subject: FW: LATA Grant Opening 'This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Miguel, I hope all is going well. Checking in in case you missed my last email. Jory Wolf VP Digital Innovation 1:1 Iwolf(o-)magellanbroadband.com [a 818-312-7768 [ 888-960-5299 [ 999 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202 magellanbroadband.com From: Jory Wolf Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 4:28 PM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Subject: LATA Grant Opening Hi Miguel, In case you are not aware, the LATA Grant application window opened last week and the State is accepting applications on a rolling basis. I am checking in to see if we can assist in any way with your application process and to see if you have made a decision on broadband planning and consulting efforts. Please let me know how we can help. Best Regards, Jory Wolf VP Digital Innovation Iwolf(cDmagellanbroadband. com [ 818-312-7768 [ 888-960-5299 999 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202 magellanbroadband.com 6 Magellan Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. From: Jory Wolf <JWolf@magellanbroadband.com> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 4:28 PM To: Guardado, Miguel Subject: LATA Grant Opening 'This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Miguel, In case you are not aware, the LATA Grant application window opened last week and the State is accepting applications on a rolling basis. I am checking in to see if we can assist in any way with your application process and to see if you have made a decision on broadband planning and consulting efforts. Please let me know how we can help. Best Regards, Jory Wolf VP Digital Innovation [ iwolf(c�magelIan broad band. com [ 818-312-7768 [ 888-960-5299 [ 999 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202 magellanbroadband.com EL", . .. . ............ - I J Magellan Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. From: Melanie Downing <MDowning @Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 1:52 PM To: Guardado, Miguel; Jory Wolf Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Attachments: MISAC CA Funding Overview.pdf Apologies, here is the attachment. Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C: 321-544-5022 E: MDownine(@maLyellan-advisors.com W: httD://www.maeellan-advisors.com Mage//an ADVISORS From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 4:51 PM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Miguel, Attached is a presentation that Jory gave at MISAC that includes details about funding opportunities. It incorporates upcoming programs from both federal and state sources. Please note that most of the funding opportunities that are available are targeted at communities that are severely underserved, rural, or both. Based on the mapping data below, there are some areas, particularly in the northwest part of town (see CPUC map) that may qualify for funding. Other areas at the city's core that are already considered well served would be more difficult to make a case for some of these funding sources, although there may be opportunities through EDA if they are tied to job creation. I hope you find this helpful. Please let us know if you have any other questions. b , (l)- melaniqjdowning@» x CalifomialnteracfiveBroadbanc x + broadband m tip. agov Cons.Lwner FixedDownstream om ment 2Gbps , Gbps<2o&s >= @DM%s<,ebF — 100M#s<50-D Ap �>=2p<,mMBp >=3 Mbps.<KMbg >--Erbm<sMb@ >=e,Mbps<gu,ps >=3Mbps <6Mbp >=,Mbps <3Mb9 -,-- &s<, Mbps <2@ Gp QEA on map ., � C,zib6li'Li a& 10 SddDEek 11 M Inbox (1)-me1aniejdowning@g-- X S Indicators of Broadband Need X + broadb;3ndus;3.maps.arcgis.com/apps/vebappviewer/indexhtmI?id=e2b4907376b548f892672ef6;3fbc( Indicators of Need Layers i San Luis Obisl Show search resR Q :—V Usage - 75 r% or More of Devices Conn=- -7 Microsoft Updates/Services via Fixed Broadband Download Speeds below 25 ME.— (County Level), Speed Tests - M-Lab Median Speeds Fixek--: Lee - Speed Tests - Ookla Median Speeds Fixed Broadband Below 25/3 M b ps (Census Tract Level) American Community Survey - 25% or More o' Households Report No Internet Access (Census Additional Layers Layers Minority Searing Institutions (NTIA MSls) American Community Survey - High Poverty Communities 20To or More of Households Below Poverty Level (Census Tract Level) Tribal Lands (Census AIAN NH) 0 0 County Boundaries Voom Ow! 0*41 12 Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C: 321-544-5022 E: MDowning@magellan-advisors.com W: http://www.magellan-advisors.com Ma9rellan ADVISORS �* From: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 4:27 PM To: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Subject: RE: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Melanie — Our City Manager is making a presentation tonight to our Council meeting and will be talking about Broadband funding. Can you point me in the right direction for a resource where I can see what is available from the state and feds for broadband grants? Also, Josh and I are working on the proposal and looking at how we can sole -source. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. Miguel From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 4:51 AM To: Erquiaga, Josh <jerquiag@slocity.org>; Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan- Advisors.com> Cc: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Thank you Josh. Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C:321-544-5022 E: MDowning@magellan-advisors.com W: http://www.magellan-advisors.com Mac,�►e//9n ADVISORS From: Erquiaga, Josh <jerquiag@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 12:54 PM To: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com>; Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Cc: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Melanie, 13 I'll be reviewing with Miguel next week when he's back from vacation. Josh Erquiaga pronouns he/him/his Network Services Supervisor E jerquiaq a(�slocity.orq T 805.781.7526 From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 11:56 To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Cc: Erquiaga, Josh <jerquiag@slocity.org>; Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Miguel, Hope all is well. Checking in on the status of the proposal and next steps. Please let us know if you'd like to jump on another call to review it. Thanks, Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C: 321-544-5022 E: MDown ing@mage llan-advisors.corn W: http://www.magellan-advisors.com Mag►ella# ADVISORS From: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 11:35 PM To: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Cc: Erquiaga, Josh <ierquiag@slocity.org>; Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Melanie — Thank you so much for the updated quote. We will review and get back to you with any questions. On a good note, our Council is supportive and are placing money aside to assist with this. Have a wonderful weekend! Miguel Guardado Information Technology Manager E mguardado(a)_slocity.org T 805.781.7017 C 805.431.4381 14 From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 12:04 PM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Cc: Erquiaga, Josh <ierquiag@slocity.org>; Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Miguel, Josh, and Rebecca, Hope you all had a great week. Per our conversation last week, we've edited our proposal to streamline the planning process in order to make San Luis Obispo shovel ready for upcoming grant opportunities. In the attached revised proposal, all non -critical tasks are listed as optional. Please review the proposal and let us know if you have any questions or would like to jump on a another call to discuss further. Have a nice weekend, Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C:321-544-5022 E: MDowning@magellan-advisors.com W: http://www.magellan-advisors.com Mag►e//an ADVISORS From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 10:45 AM To: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org>; Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Cc: Erquiaga, Josh <ierquiag@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Thanks Rebecca. I sent a Teams invitation. Talk soon, Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C:321-544-5022 E: MDown ingObmagellan-advisors.com W: http://www.magellan-advisors.com Mael/an AD VISORS �* From: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 10:28 AM To: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com>; Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> 15 Cc: Erquiaga, Josh <ierquiag@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Melanie, April 191h at 1 PM works great on our end. Thank you! Rebecca Cox pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Analyst CITYOF i.SfIRLUISOBISPO Information Technology 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcox .slocity.org T 805.781.7003 slocity.org [Noo Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 5:57 AM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Cc: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org>; Erquiaga, Josh <jerquiag@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Miguel and Team, Here are some times we are available the week of April 18. Please let us know if any of these work on your end. April 18 at 9:00 or 1:00 April 19 between 10:00 and 1:00 April 21 at 8:00 or 9:00 April 22 at 8:00 or 9:00 Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C:321-544-5022 E: MDowning@magellan-advisors.com W: http://www.magellan-advisors.com Mag►e//an ADVISORS From: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 6:16 AM To: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> 16 Cc: Cox, Rebecca <rcox@slocity.org>; Erquiaga, Josh <ierguiag@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Magellan Advisors Proposal Melanie, Good morning. Thank you for the proposal. I want to set up a time to discuss this and make sure I understand it. Josh and I are in Maryland this week attending FEMA training. Josh will be out next week on vacation. Can we shoot for the week of April 18th? I have cc'd Rebecca, who will be able to place something on the calendars based on what you send us for availability. Thanks again, Miguel Guardado Information Technology Manager E mquardado(a)slocity.org T 805.781.7017 C 805.431.4381 From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:15 AM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Subject: Re: Magellan Advisors Proposal Hi Miguel, Thank you for jumping on a call with us last week. Per our conversation, attached is an updated proposal from Magellan for the project. Please let us know if you'd like to schedule a time to discuss this or feel free to reach out with any questions. We look forward to working with you, Melanie Downing Broadband Consultant Magellan Advisors, LLC C: 321-544-5022 E: MDown ingObmage[La n-advisors.com W: http://www.magellan-advisors.com Magellan ADVISORS From: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 5:51 PM To: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com>; Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Subject: RE: Magellan Advisors Proposal Melanie and Jory — Good afternoon. I wanted to reach -out and let you know that we are now at a point where funding is available and we can try a get this work/project scheduled. Can you please review your last quote and let me know if the numbers are still good? Thank you for your patience as we got ourselves ready to take this on. Miguel Guardado Information Technology Manager E mguardado(a)slocity.org 17 T 805.781.7017 C 805.431.4381 From: Melanie Downing <MDowning@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 1:24 PM To: Guardado, Miguel <mguardad@slocity.org> Cc: Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Subject: Magellan Advisors Proposal 'This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Miguel, Attached is Magellan Advisors' proposal to assist the City with Broadband Planning and Policy. We asked our policy expert to review the documents you sent over last week and he determined that formalizing the Standards & Guidelines and updating the ordinance would be the best option for the City, so we have included those items in our scope. Please review the proposal and let us know if you have any questions. We'd be happy to schedule another call to discuss details. Thanks, Melanie Downing Project Management Analyst Magellan Advisors, LLC C: 321-544-5022 E: MDowning@ma.geltan-.adv_isors..com.. W: http_//WWW._maiie_ttan-advisors.com /Magellan ADVISORS JW Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of 18 any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. 19 Municipal Information Systems Association of California California Broadband Funding Overview Presented By: Jory Wolf VP, Digital Innovations April 19, 2022 Magellan FUNDING SOURCES - STATE & FEDERAL • State Funding — 98% by end of 2032 • 2021 SB156 Middle Mile — 2022 Planning and Design • 2021 SB156 Last Mile — County Allocations— Summer 2022 • 2021 SB4/AB14 CASF Grants $150,000,000/year for infrastructure — Summer/Fall 2022 • 2021 SB156Loan Loss Reserve Fund — Summer/Fall 2022 • 2022 Technical Assistance Grants — Sprint 2022 • Federal Funding —Federally administered • NTIA Digital Equity IV Competitive Grant Funds - Fall/Winter 2023 - Targeting adoption + literacy • Federal Funding —State administered • NTIA Digital Equity II — State Digital Equity Planning - Fall/Winter 2022 • NTIA Digital Equity III —State Digital Equity Plan Implementation - end of 2022/early 2023 • Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD) (end of 2023/early 2024) 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs ? Magellan FUNDING PREFERENCES • Publicly -led public/private) projects • Unserved and underserved areas less than 100/20 Mbps • Last mile preferred, but can fund backbone to achieve last mile • Can build in served areas to get to unserved and underserved households • Fiber based wired infrastructure to the premise • Wireless acceptable in rural and where it's too costly to build fiber • Fast 100 Gbps symmetrical networks • Rural services funded to achieve 100/20 Gbps networks • Encumbered by 12/2024 • Built by 12/2026 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS Bottom line (public pricing) other than profit and shareholder value (private pricing) Critical infrastructure for your city's operations Focus investment on community priorities for local impact Network infrastructure is key to your community's digital destiny . Own a valuable real asset embedded in your city Reduce capital outflow in the form of Internet service fees Revenue from broadband to support digital inclusion 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan CA MIDDLE MILE Details I ®o Basemap About [;] Content ,= Legend i Legend Unserved Census Designated Places (100 Mbps Downstream) Unserved Households O>s,000 0 1,001 - 5,000 0 501 - 1,000 o 101 -500 1-100 Proposed Open Access Middle Mile Network Segments County Boundaries 10 Trust Center Legal Contact Esri 0 so loomi Repon Abuse 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs 99 Share 0 Print Measure I Find address or place 3 AJSGS I California Pubic Ud litres Comirl IC PUQ - 5 Magellan CA MIDDLE MILE F -j C Y experience.arcgis.com/experience/2bO589eeflb44c62b24/ded7Oa6d8ot8/page/Page-1/ L {r 0 * • t Updare C-i.—I, links Free Hotmail Q Suggested 5,1 © Web Slice Gallery * Bookmarks Qj Vmotemp 155-3otB.., y\ Avallon AWC241TD.., yy EdgeStar Wme Cool... y\ EdgeStar Wine Cool.., y\ Avallon AWC241TD... y\ Avallon AWC241TD... r> Cther boakmadcs Q Reading list e � • State Highway Network�L J., . `4 �� ° ° ° Mb '••~ °� • RIPOS� • ° M v kes i cS fAN SPA • • '- I ' i ._ O ° • • TKO •k _ • • . • ° l • • • • ° 9 Preliminary Middle -Mile Map :� ° °S, • ° ° • -il% ° ° O 'SANTA AOOo ® MADE kA O o ° 01 k,T vhe °a p Unserved Locations O , • , ° ° ° ° ° ° • v BENITO ° a ° �° ° • , - , \ ��/. -� •d. ;° lee ° o ° ° • Caltrans Scheduled Projects O > ° ° a o • •' 1 Anchor Bulld ° - C Al I, OI : R ° -_d Hag erd ° Anchor Build ° Pm�.P� ,° •, T ,u ARe • ?°9a ' • • • • • Unserved Locations JPublic Comments Non Residential © • • 9 / 3® / Unserved Non- -L.�` Residential its ° 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan ELIGIBILITY FCC r Ventura County, CA Numner or Faaa Resioennal sroaooano Providers 0 1 2 3 "1 6 12 or more Broadband Technology AOSL, Cable, Fiber, Fixed Wireless, Satellite, Other Speed 225/3 Mbps Da", lure 2020 (latest publK release) 1011 2513 1oo1lo Speed (Mbps dmmStroaMuDstream) • 00 Federal Communications Commission Website Policies & Notices CATEGORIES BUREAUS & OFFICES 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs - 9 Magellan ELIGIBILITY - NTIA F 4 a G broadbandusa.map—mgis.com/appsJwebappviewerrindexhtml7id=e2b4907376b548f892672ef6afbcOda5 LA * Q * O( Update Casty i-Links Emy Free Hotmail © Suggested SR,, © Web Slke Gallery * Bookmarks Q) Vmotemp 155-Bottl... \\Avallon AWC241TD... \V EdgeSter Wine Cool... }\ EdgeStar Wire Cool... \\ Avallon AWC241TD... \\ Avallon AWC241TE1 » Cther b-k—k, Q Reading list 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs - 10 Magellan ELIGIBILITY - CPUC L" i brcadla-drnap—g- ® Customim Links mm. Free Hotmall © Suggested Sites © %Veb Sl- Gallery * Bookmarks 0 Vinotemp 155-8o11... {\ Avallon AWC241TD... {{EdgeStar Wine Cool... {{' EdgeStar Wine Cool.. {{' Avallon AWC241TD... {{` Avalbn AVOC241TD... Broadband Adoption P '■ �, Broadband Deployment ■Led—• 1 ■ J c Deployment.16 1 ❑Broadband Grams , ■ a ' �kl r F Cal SPEED Cnowdsounced Results + >+■• - �' O❑ Counties (100%) OEICensus Tracts (100%) % 07census slack Groups (100%) % L I QO Census Blocks (100%) %` H1 ♦ J ®Q PIaceS (100%) % .fir' '!i+ Q Urban Areas (50%) % 01 I Tnbal Lanas 50%) %` , ■ 1 OE] Assembly % Assembly Dls cls 2021 DRAFT (100%) O❑ Senate Distncts 2021 DRAFT (100%) 4b r - CJn Congressional Distrids 2021 DRAFT (100%) 1 M a . r taJpllaRan � c e'2Zd a�oy , �� ■� ■ �>_iGbMs2Geps m � 1 � ■ � � ■>=50Mbpse,OpMbps V � � ' _• �I ■x Mbpsc to bnbps 1 �Mb��nMbp, Pa� r ■xgMbpss 1p Mbps , 111, ■>= 3 Mbps � e Nbps > 1Mbps <3 Aaaps lua >= 2W Imps e 1 Mops 12— amadbarM Mapes Program urugram a � -' Is■ , Po 2019 Map Privacy Pdicy ` r, 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs El ar e , R#j - u.ktans Ic oe � ■r 1..:IfGS - ,> 5 Other—l:i^.a F1 ., st Magellan LATA FUNDING Local Agency Technical Assistance (LATA) • Local governments authorized by law to provide broadband internet access service are eligible for LATA grant funding • Reimbursement for work products that support planning for the provision of service to unserved and underserved communities • Up to $500K, per local agency, per fiscal year • Environmental, feasibility, and engineering design studies or reports • Needs assessments, market studies, broadband strategic plans, or business plans • Costs incurred in pursuit of forming a Joint Powers Authority for the purposes of the provision of broadband service to unserved and underserved communities • Consultant and community -based organization services secured to complete reimbursable work product 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan CA SUMMARY OF LAST MILE RULES • Proposed Final Rules for the Federal Funding Account (FFA) created by Senate Bill (SB) 156 and funded through the federal American Rescue Plan Ac. The FFA is a new $213 grant program focused on building broadband Internet infrastructure to communities without access to Internet service at sufficient and reliable speeds throughout California 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS • Entities with a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that qualify as a "telephone corporation" as defined under Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code section 234 • Non -telephone corporations that are facilities -based broadband service providers • Local governmental agencies • Electric utilities • Tribes • Non-profits/cooperatives 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - ELIGIBLE AREAS • Broadband infrastructure that is "designed to provide service to households and businesses with an identified need, as determined by the recipient, for such infrastructure" • Prioritizes projects that are designed to provide service to locations not currently served by a wireline connection that reliably delivers at least 100/20 M bps • Specifically, areas with internet service provided only by legacy technologies are eligible for funding • Applicants may provide data that contests the reliability of non -legacy wireline providers that claim to provide served speeds. Applications contesting the reliability of an area identified as being served will be reviewed by CD Staff and considered by the Commission 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - ELIGIBLE COSTS • Costs directly related to the deployment of infrastructure • Costs to lease access to property or for Internet backhaul • Services for a period not to exceed five years • Costs incurred by an existing facility -based broadband provider to upgrade its existing facilities to provide for interconnection 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - FUNDING AMOUNTS • Based on the number of unserved residents and are allocated per County • Matching funds, while not required, are encouraged and will result in higher point awards • Grant applications that propose to combine FFA funds with funds from a separate broadband infrastructure grant program will be permitted • Applicants must detail how these funds address an identified need for additional broadband investment that is not met by existing federal or state funding commitments 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE FUNDING - URBAN COUNTIES 4/19/2022 11,898Alameda $24,517,148.20 46,512San Diego $81,296,990.84 8,657Butte $19,200,701.96 3,288San Francisco $10,393,543.73 6,772Contra Costa $16,108,600.40 14,896San Joaquin $29,434,983.99 34,236Fresno $61,159,781.95 10,575San Luis Obispo $22,346,935.80 5,4581mperia1 $13,953,151.36 3,307San Mateo $10,424,710.80 16,038 Kern $31,308,289.02 6,627Santa Barbara $15,870,746.44 60,752 Los Angeles $104,655,890.68 18,907Santa Clara $36,014,516.81 3,987 Marin $11,540,163.88 3,245Santa Cruz $10,323,007.72 13,571 Merced $27,261,490.85 7,484 Monterey $17,276,545.40 16,729 Shasta $32,441,786.20 3,478 Napa $10,705,214.44 7,320Solano $17,007,524.36 53,039 Orange $92,003,700.06 8,677 Sonoma $19,233,509.41 15,397 Placer $30,256,810.46 12,407Stanislaus $25,352,097.64 27,820 Riverside $50,635,154.05 24,463 Tu la re $45,128,424.64 20,552Sacramento $38,712,929.04 9,365Ventura $20,362,085.47 33,335San Bernardino $59,681,806.62 6,335Yolo $15,391,757.76 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE FUNDING - RURAL COUNTIES 4/19/2022 367AIpine $6,989,053.95 9,674Mendocino $57,430,811.83 9,632Amador $57,203,181.68 3,493 Modoc $23,931,241.03 4,761Calaveras $30,803,503.74 1,033Mono $10,598,617.80 4,419 Colusa $28,949,943.92 12,891 Nevada $74,866,197.58 976Del Norte $10,289,691.17 6,879Plumas $42,282,567.15 19,716 EI Dorado $111,856,097.39 1,003San Benito $10,436,024.84 3,704GIenn $25,074,811.56 1,385Sierra $12,506,375.27 10,063 Humboldt $59,539,100.63 7,526Siskiyou $45,789,155.45 1,5171 nyo $13, 221,784.32 2,841 Sutter $20,397,553.90 6,031 Kings $37,686,605.97 12,879Tehama $74,801,160.39 4,324 Lake $28,435,066.19 3,673 Lassen $24,906,798.83 4,551Trinity $29,665,352.97 11,362 Madera $66,579,376.07 1,946Tuolumne $15,546,863.74 6,613 Mariposa $40,840,909.52 6,342Yuba $39,372,153.05 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - PROJECT REQUIREMENTS • All projects exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be completed within 18 months, and all other projects shall be completed within 24 months after receiving authorization to construct • FFA grant recipients may request an extension of time as needed, though grantees must be aware of the deadlines in federal statute • Middle mile infrastructure must be open -access including providing dark fiber services • The Commission will award FFA funding to last -mile applications that also propose to include middle -mile infrastructure that is necessary, and not near the statewide middle - mile network. Proposed middle -mile infrastructure will be coordinated with the California Department of Technology (CDT) and the Third -Party Administrator to ensure it complements the statewide open -access middle mile network • All applicants must commit to serve customers in the project area at the prices provided in the application for a minimum of 10 years 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - PROJECT REQUIREMENTS • All households in the proposed project areas must be offered a broadband Internet service plan with speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload, or speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload if applicable • All projects must provide service at no higher than 100 ms of latency • Data caps are disfavored • If including a data cap an applicant must include a justification about how the cap does not limit reliability of the connection to the users • In any event, data caps shall provide a minimum of 1000 GBs per month • All projects must provide an affordable broadband plan, as defined in the Definitions, for low-income customers, California Lifeline, federal Lifeline service and the Emergency Broadband Benefit, or its successor • Prevailing wage requirements apply 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - LOW-COST REQUIREMENTS • Must not include data usage caps • Must offer speeds that are sufficient for a household with multiple users to simultaneously telework and engage in remote learning, which is defined as 50/50 Mbps • Must be no more than $40 per month • The grantee must not charge for installation or setup • The grantee must provide a free modem or router • The service does not require a minimum term 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - EVALUATION CRITERIA • Up to 10 points for applications with matching funds • Up to 10 points for applications proposing fiber optic infrastructure • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to build a broadband network owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non- profits, Tribe, and cooperatives • Up to 10 points for applications that integrate the California Lifeline or federal Lifeline program; • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to serve an area identified by the Commission's Communications Division • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate the financial, technical, and operational capacity to execute the project successfully and complete it on time • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate a well -planned project with a reasonable budget that shows it will deliver speeds and service proposed and be sufficiently robust to meet increasing demand for bandwidth • Up to 10 points for applications that propose to leverage the statewide open -access middle mile network, unless not in reasonable proximity to the network 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan OTHER CA LEGISLATION • SB 4 This bill would provide that the goal of the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account is to approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98% of California households by no later than December 31, 2032, rather than December 31, 2026. The bill would authorize the commission, through imposition of a surcharge, to collect up to $150,000,000 per year. • SB 28 This bill would repeal the requirement that franchise holders annually report regarding the availability of and subscriptions to broadband and video service. The bill would instead require the commission to collect granular data on the actual locations served by franchise holders, adopt customer service requirements for franchise holders, and adjudicate any customer complaints. The bill would prohibit the commission from publicly disclosing any personally identifiable information collected pursuant to these requirements. • SB 378 This bill would require a local agency to allow, except as provided, microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber. The bill would also require, to the extent necessary, a local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations to adopt or amend existing policies, ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching. • AB 14 This bill would authorize the commission to impose the surcharge to fund the CASF until December 31, 2032. This bill would require the commission to report remaining unnerved areas in the state, the status of the CASF balance, and the projected amount to be collected in each year in perpetuity. • AB 41 This bill would require the Department of Transportation, as part of those projects that are funded by a specified item of the Budget Act of 2021 and that are located in priority areas, to ensure that construction includes the installation of conduits capable of supporting fiber optic communication cables. This bill would require the commission, in collaboration with other relevant state agencies and stakeholders, to maintain and update a statewide, publicly accessible, and interactive map showing the accessibility of broadband service in the state, as provided. 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs QUESTIONS?* From: Jory Wolf <JWolf@Magellan-Advisors.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 3:18 PM To: Conn, Scott; Roger.Jensen@mountainview.gov; jjohnson@yorbaIindaca.gov; Jason.underwood@palmspringsca.gov; mmartinez@cityofsacramento.org; jravera@roseville.ca.us; Roger.Jensen@mountainview.gov; dehester@livermoreca.gov; nsands@cityofpetal uma.org; rica.guidry@cityofvacaville.com; tyu@pacifica.gov; ggarg@santaclaraca.goc; josh.marquis@chicoca.gov; Cox, Rebecca; hemery@ci.lathrop.ca.us; tfernandes@ci.lath rop.ca.us; kornblau_ro@sbcity.org; September Singh; Jeff@GovTechGroup.net Cc: Melanie Downing Subject: MISAC CA Broadband Funding Overview Attachments: MISAC CA Funding Overview.pdf, 222 cpuc TECNICAL ASSISTANCE RULES AND APPLICATION.pdf, 455004656 (1).PDF; CA Last Mile One Pager (003).pdf 'This message is from an External Source. Use caution when decidingto open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Scott and MISAC Members, Thank you for attending the webinar on CA Broadband Funding yesterday and for your insightful questions on the topic. Along with the attached presentation, I have included the rules on the Technical Assistance and Last Mile grant programs as well as a summary of the last mile rules. We will be reaching out to you to see if you have any questions or if you need any assistance with these valuable grant resources or anything else related to broadband for your community. Scott, please feel free to distribute these documents to other MISAC members who did and did not attend the session. Thanks again. Jory Wolf VP Digital Innovation Magellan Advisors 0:818.312.7768 F: 888.330.0391 E: jwolf(amagellan-advisors.com W: www.magellan-advisors.com A: 999 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202 Magellan Advisors Disclaimer The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from Magellan Advisors, LLC. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to Magellan Advisors, LLC or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Magellan Advisors, LLC by e- mail immediately. 20 R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu (ATTACHMENT 1) FILED Guidance to Staff on Local Agency Technical Assistance Rules and Application o1:52 P2 g Y pp 01:52 PM 1. Purpose To advance the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) goal of Public Utilities Code section 281 to encourage deployment of broadband to all Californians, these Guidelines provide rules under which technical assistance grants are available to local governments and tribal governments to reimburse such entities for costs related to the development of broadband network deployment projects to benefit unserved Californians, including the costs of joint powers authority formation, 1 environmental studies, network design, and engineering study expenses. Because funding for the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program stems from federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, projects authorized through this program will be subject to federal rules in addition to the Guidelines adopted herein. Under the federal rules, funds may be used for broadband infrastructure projects that are designed to provide service to unserved or underserved households and businesses2 and that are designed to, upon completion, reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps download speed and upload speeds.3 Federal guidance clarifies that pre -project costs are also eligible for funding and should be tied to an eligible project as described above, or should be reasonably expected to lead to such a project.4 2. Amount Available for Grants 1 A "joint powers agency' or "joint powers authority' means an agency or entity formed pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1) that is formed for the local performance of governmental functions that includes the provision of municipal services. Cal. Gov. Code § 56057.7. 2 "Unserved and underserved households or businesses" means one or more households or businesses that are not currently served by a wireline connection that reliably delivers at least 25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps of upload speed." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, 86 Fed. Reg. 26,786, 26,823 (May 17, 2021) (to be codified at 31 C.F.R. pt. 35). The unserved or underserved locations need not be the only locations served by the proposed project. Dept. of the Treasury, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Frequently Asked Questions at 30 (as of July 19, 2021), available at https:/ /home.treasury gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf. 3 The federal rules further state that, in cases where it is not practicable, because of the excessive cost of the project or geography or topography of the area to be served by the project, to provide service meeting those symmetrical standards, the infrastructure should be designed to reliably meet or exceed 100 Mbps download speed and between at least 20 Mbps and 100 Mbps upload speed; and be scalable to a minimum of 100 Mbps download speed and 100 Mbps upload speed. Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, 86 Fed. Reg. 26,786, 26,823 (May 17, 2021) (to be codified at 31 C.F.R. pt. 35). 4 Dept. of the Treasury, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Frequently Asked Questions at 31 (as of July 19, 2021), available at https://home.treasurygov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf. - 1 - R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu To support local agencies and tribal governments in these pursuits, the Commission allocates $50 million in Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery funds (pursuant to AB 164) to be made available for technical assistance grants. The Commission directs staff to disburse grants to qualifying local agencies and tribal governments in amounts not to exceed $500,000 per local agency or tribal government, per fiscal year. Ten percent of the funding allocated for this program will be set aside for tribal grantees. In the event that all funds set aside for tribal applicants are encumbered for specific tribal grantees, Commission staff may set aside up to ten percent of then -remaining funds for tribal grantees. The Commissions Tribal Technical Assistance Program remains an alternative program through which tribes may apply for technical assistance, allowing flexibility for tribes to decide which programs' requirements and benefits best suit their needs. These rules do not modify the rules for the Tribal Technical Assistance Grant Program, adopted in D.20-08-005. 3. Definitions: A. Technical assistance: For the purpose of the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program, "technical assistance" means reimbursement for work product resulting from activities such as the preparation of environmental, feasibility, and engineering design studies or reports, and/or assistance in the development of needs assessments, market studies, broadband strategic plans, or business plans that support local agencies in their pursuit of the provision of service to unserved and underserved communities. Assistance may also include, but is not limited to, costs incurred in pursuit of forming a Joint Powers Authority for the purposes of the provision of broadband service to unserved and underserved communities, and consultant and community -based organization services secured to complete reimbursable work product. "Technical Assistance" includes reimbursement for local agency or tribal staff hours that are expended on reimbursable activities and are incremental to the grant recipient's pre -grant award scope of work, i.e., the specific task performed during the hours for which reimbursement is requested would not be performed by the staff person absent the grant award. Separately, up to 15 percent of the total requested for reimbursement may be used to reimburse the local agency or tribal government for administrative costs associated with the securing or completion of reimbursable work products, other than the cost of local agency staff hours.5 B. Local agency: For the purposes of the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program, local agencies are eligible applicants; "local agency" has the same 5 We define administrative costs as "indirect overhead costs attributable to a project, per generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and the direct cost of complying with Commission administrative and regulatory requirements related to the grant itself." Applicants seeking additional funds will require Commission approval via draft resolution. -2- R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu meaning as that provided in Government Code section 53167 (e), as amended by SB 156, wherein "local agency" means any agency of local government authorized by law to provide broadband internet access service, including the following: i. A city ii. A county, including a county service area iii. A community services district iv. A public utility district V. A municipal utility district vi. A joint powers authority vii. A local educational agency, as defined in section 47640 of the Education Code viii. A sovereign tribal government ix. An electrical cooperative, as defined in section 2776 of the Public Utilities Code C. Reimbursable work product: For the purpose of the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program, a "reimbursable work product" is the final report, study, or agreement resulting from any one of the eligible activities listed as reimbursable "Technical Assistance," above (see Section 3. A). Applicants may propose multiple reimbursable work products per application, with a total requested reimbursement not to exceed $500,000 per local agency, per fiscal year. For final payment, grantees must submit a copy of the reimbursable work product authorized for funding, as further described in Section 11. Before payment, grantees must also submit the invoice(s) and supporting documentation described in Section 11, showing the costs of each individual reimbursable work product authorized for funding. Grantees may request reimbursement for a reimbursable work product when that reimbursable work product is completed, and need not wait for all reimbursable work products authorized under one grant to be completed before requesting reimbursement for completed reimbursable work product. Staff may authorize only one Local Agency Technical Assistance grant per reimbursable work product; that is, if Local Agency Technical Assistance funding has already been authorized for completion of a reimbursable work product, that reimbursable work product is not eligible for additional funding under the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program. D. Sovereign Tribal Government: For the purpose of the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program, a "sovereign tribal government" means a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004, (see Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21073). For purposes of the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program, "sovereign tribal government" also -3- R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu includes wholly -owned tribal corporations, tribal nonprofits, and tribal utility companies with proof of authorization to apply by the Tribe's Council or other governing body. 4. Eligibility Criteria Local agencies, as defined in 3(B) and 3(D), above, are deemed eligible for Local Agency Technical Assistance Grants. The Commission may approve applications for technical assistance from separate local agencies operating in the same geographic jurisdiction through the resolution process, unless otherwise stated below; eligible agencies that have overlapping jurisdictions with other eligible agencies are encouraged to collaborate for the efficient use of resources. For the purposes of this program, sovereign tribal governments do not have overlapping jurisdictions with other eligible local agencies. In addition, for the purposes of this program, cities do not have overlapping jurisdictions with the county or counties in which the city is located. As further described in Section 6, below, these Guidelinesrequire agencies to include with their applications a support letter from the county or other relevant political subdivision (such as a city council) that details the efforts made towards this collaboration, if applicable. Applicants representing tribes are required to submit a letter of support from the tribal chair, administrator, or council, though these letters need not detail coordination efforts. Proposals for reimbursable work products that are reasonably expected to result in broadband infrastructure projects that will be designed to provide service to unserved or underserved households and businesses and that are designed to, upon completion, reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps download speed and upload speeds are eligible for Local Agency Technical Assistance Grants.6 5. Technical Assistance Grant Amounts For applications that meet Ministerial Review criteria (Section 8), Commission staff may authorize grants to fund 100 percent of the cost of technical assistance, not to exceed $500,000 per local agency, per fiscal year.? Grant requests that would cause an applicant to exceed $500,000 in technical assistance, if authorized, may be approved by Commission resolution, up to $1 million, per local agency, per fiscal year. As noted above, only 15 percent of the total requested for reimbursement may be used to reimburse local agencies for their administrative costs, other than the costs of local agency staff hours, which are reimbursable to the extent that they are incremental to the staff's pre -grant award scope of work. 6 See notes 3 and 4, above. 7 This limitation is based on the date of grant authorization. Z� R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu Applications that satisfy general Application Requirements (Section 6) but do not meet the Ministerial Review funding criteria may only be approved by the Commission via resolution; the Commission will conduct a reasonableness review and may adjust budgets via the Resolution Review process (Section 9 below). All applications shall be approved or denied through the Ministerial Review process or marked for further review with potential award by the Commission through a resolution. 6. Application Requirements: To be considered, applicants must submit a completed Commission staff -provided application form (to be made available on the Commissions website) and required supporting documents. Each applicant is required to provide the following information as part of its application for technical assistance: • a project summary. • confirmation that the technical assistance will advance the CASF program goal "to encourage deployment of high -quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies[.]"8 • confirmation that the technical assistance is tied to (or that it could reasonably be expected to lead to) a broadband infrastructure project designed to provide service to unserved or underserved households and businesses and that are designed to, upon completion, reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps download speed and upload speeds.9 • affirmation, under penalty of perjury, that any staff hours expended on reimbursable activities, and for which reimbursement will be requested, are incremental to the applicant's pre -grant award scope of work, i.e., the specific task performed during the hours for which reimbursement is requested would not be performed by the staff person absent the grant award. • agreement that the scope of work contemplated by the local agency contract(s) included in the application will be concluded within 24 months of the date of Commission approval. • affirmation, under penalty of perjury, that to the best of their knowledge all statements and representations made in the application are true and correct with the accompanying appropriate signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the local agency or tribe. Applications that do not include each item listed above will not be approved. As supporting documents, the local agency applicant must provide a proposed contract(s) from the local agency's contractor(s) with a scope of the work that will be performed for the purpose of the technical assistance. If the reimbursable work product 8 Pub. Util. Code § 281(a). 9 See notes 2 and 3, above. -5- R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu stemming from the technical assistance is to be developed in-house, a written project proposal will suffice. This contract or project proposal must provide details of the proposed reimbursable work product(s) resulting from the contract or project proposal, including scope of work, a detailed cost estimate (including hourly rate(s) of each individual performing the technical assistance and estimated total hours for each individual), and a proposed timeline for completion of the work performed under the scope of the contract or project proposal. The application should identify each reimbursable work product expected to result from the contract(s) or project proposal. While more than one reimbursable work product may result from a contract or project proposal, every reimbursable work product proposed in the application must be supported by a contract or project proposal. Applications must also include a letter of support from the local agency's relevant political subdivision (city, county, or tribe). This letter must include information relating to coordination performed with other eligible local agencies with geographic jurisdiction that overlaps with the local agency applicant's geographic jurisdiction, if the applicant is not a sovereign tribal government. Since tribal jurisdictions are not overlapping jurisdictions for the purposes of this program, applicants representing tribes are not required to demonstrate coordination performed with other eligible local agencies, though a letter of support from the Tribal administrator, chair, council or other applicable governing body is required. In addition to the application, supporting documents and letter of support noted above, applicants must also submit a notarized affidavit containing, at minimum, the following attestations, the final form of which will be made available on the Commission's website: • An applicant must attest that the individual completing the application has the authority to do so on behalf of the local agency applicant and personal knowledge of the facts contained in the application. • An applicant must further agree to abide by the CASF program rules the Commission establishes, as well as all other applicable state and federal rules and regulations concerning broadband services. • An applicant agrees that by receiving a Technical Assistance grant, the grantee agrees to comply with the terms, conditions, and requirements of the grant and thus submits to the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to the disbursement and administration of the grant. • An applicant agrees to comply with the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, in particular Rules 1,1.11, and 2.2, and to be subject to Public Utilities Code sections 2108, 2110 and 2111 for failure to meet the program and project compliance requirements as the Commission determines. M R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu 7. Submission Requirements and Timelines: As noted above, applicants must submit a Commission staff -provided application form. Applicants may electronically submit their completed application form, along with required supporting documents and attestation, using an email address to be provided by Commission staff via notice to the service list of Rulemaking 20-08-021. Larger files can be submitted via secure file transfer (url: https://cpucftp.cpuc.ca.gov/). Applications may be submitted at any time. However, staff will consider applications submitted on a monthly basis, ending on the last day of each calendar month, until the funding is exhausted. If the last day of the calendar month falls on a weekend or state holiday, the monthly application period will be extended to the close of the next business day. Staff shall notify an applicant by letter or email specifying reasons for rejection/denial should an application fail to meet the Local Agency Technical Assistance eligibility criteria. Notice of applications received will be published on the Commissions web page on a monthly basis. 8. Criteria for Ministerial Review The Commission assigns to Communications Division staff the task of reviewing and approving applications that meet all of the following criteria: A. Applicant requests a grant not exceeding $500,000 per local agency per fiscal year. B. The Commission has not received a separate application for Local Agency Technical Assistance from an agency with a jurisdiction overlapping that of the subject application during the current application period or within the prior year, unless such application(s) was denied. This limitation does not apply to: 1) applications from sovereign tribal governments, which may be reviewed ministerially if they satisfy items A and C in this subsection. 2) applications from cities located in counties that have pending applications or applicable grant awards, or to applications from counties that include cities with pending applications or applicable grant awards, which may be reviewed and approved ministerially if they satisfy items A and C in this subsection and provided that such applicants' support letters describe the coordination that occurred between the city and county to prevent duplication of efforts. C. The application meets all the other requirements of a Local Agency Technical Assistance grant included in Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of these Rules. -7- R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu When an application meets all of the criteria for Ministerial Review, staff is authorized to approve via ministerial approval. The Commission may also consider such applications for approval via resolution. 9. Criteria for Resolution Review When an application does not meet the Ministerial Review criteria, staff may refer the application to the Commission for review and approval via the resolution process. The Commission will issue approval of qualifying applications, together with the grant amount per application, through a Commission resolution(s). The Commission assigns staff to propose administrative changes to the CASF LATA via resolution for Commission review and approval of those changes. 10. Guidelines for Award Notification, Monthly and Completion Reporting, and Public Posting The Communications Division Director or his/her/their designee will notify grantees of awards made via ministerial review by letter. Award letters will be regularly posted to the Commissions website. Staff will create a mechanism for the monthly reporting required by SB 156. SB 156 requires each entity that receives CASF funding to report the following information to the Commission monthly: A. The name and contractor's license number of each licensed contractor and subcontractor undertaking a contract or subcontract in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to perform work on a project funded or financed pursuant to this section. B. The location where a contractor or subcontractor described in subparagraph (A) will be performing that work. C. The anticipated dates when that work will be performed. Upon completion of the technical assistance and before final payment, the applicant must provide a signed completion form stating that the technical assistance work has been completed. This form includes a request for a short summary of the reimbursable work product(s) performed under the contract, including demonstration that the reimbursable work product(s) identify broadband infrastructure deployment projects that will help achieve the CASF deployment goal, and identification of the area(s) where the applicant intends to deploy broadband based on the reimbursable work product(s), suitable for posting on the Commission's web page. A short summary of the work/activities completed pursuant to the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant will be posted on the Commission's web page. R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu Upon completion of the reimbursable work product and before final payment, local agency grantees must provide staff a copy of each reimbursable work product's final report(s), plan(s), studies, etc., produced under the scope of the contract. In addition to the reporting required above, local agency grantees must also comply with reporting requirements found in the American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds "Compliance and Reporting Guidance," detailed in Section 13, below.10 11. Guidelines for Payment Payment will be made directly to the local agency as the grant recipient. Local agency grantees may request partial reimbursement if they complete one or more of the approved reimbursable work products prior to completion of other reimbursable work products approved in the same grant authorization. Payment will be based upon receipt and approval of an invoice(s) submitted by the local agency showing the expenditures incurred for the reimbursable work product, along with the reimbursable work product final report/study/joint powers agreement, etc., and the completion reporting required in Section 10, above. The invoice(s) must be supported by documentation including but not limited to the actual cost of labor and any other expense that will be recovered by the grant. To the extent that any portion of an award was used to reimburse a local agency for administrative costs associated with securing or completing a reimbursable work product, the local agency must submit an itemized accounting of such costs, demonstrating the total requested for reimbursement does not exceed 15 percent of the total authorized award. If the grantee cannot complete the project within the 24-month timeline, the grantee must notify the Commission or Director of Communications Division as soon as they become aware that they may not meet the project deadline. In the event the grantee fails to notify the Commission or Director of Communications Division, the Commission may withhold or reduce payment. If any portion of reimbursement is found to be out of compliance, grantees will be responsible for refunding any disallowed amount along with appropriate interest rates determined in accordance with applicable Commission decisions. Grantees are required to maintain records such as files, invoices, and other related documentation for five years after final payment. Grantees shall make these records and invoices available to the Commission upon request and agree that these records are 10 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/"assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal- governments / state -and -local -fiscal -recovery -funds / recipient -compliance -and -reporting -responsibilities M R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu subject to a financial audit by the Commission at any time within five years after the final payment made to a grantee. 12. Guidelines for Execution and Performance The Commission has the right to conduct any necessary audit, verification, and discovery for work proposed or completed under the technical assistance for local agencies to ensure that CASF funds are spent in accordance with Commission rules and with the terms of approval granted by the Commission. The grantee must complete the project with the 24-month timeframe. If the grantee is unable to complete the proposed project within the required 24-month timeframe, it must notify the Commission or Director of Communications Division as soon as it becomes aware of this prospect. The Commission reserves the right to reduce or withhold payment for failure to satisfy this requirement. Invoices from the local agency or its approved contractor will be subject to financial audit by the Commission at any time within five years of completion of the work. The grantee must complete all performance on the project before the termination date in accordance with the terms of approval granted by the Commission. In the event that the applicant or contractor fails to complete the work in accordance with the approval granted by the Commission, and as described in the contract, the local agency must reimburse some or all of the funds that it has received. All grantees must sign and submit a Consent Form within 30 calendar days from the date of the award agreeing to the terms stated in the resolution or award letter authorizing the CASF award. Should the grantee not accept the award through failure to submit the Consent Form within 30 calendar days from the date of this letter's adoption, the CPUC will deem the grant null and void. The agreement will provide the name of the person who is managing the contract and must be signed by an authorized agent of the grantee. The grantee must communicate in writing to the Communications Division Director any changes to the substantive terms and conditions underlying Commission approval of the grant (such as changes to a reimbursable work product contract, work plan, or budget) at least 30 days before the anticipated change is to be effected. Substantive changes may require approval by either the Communications Division Director or by Commission resolution before becoming effective. -10- R.20-08-021 COM/ DH7/ sgu 13. Reporting consistent with the American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds "Compliance and Reporting Guidance."" Reporting is required. The following is guidance to staff on reporting guidelines and completion report templates to publish in order to collect information necessary to comply with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLRF) reporting. Staff is directed to use information already within its possession to the extent practicable to report on authorized projects. For specific reporting, staff is directed to ensure the required information in the Compliance and Reporting Guidance for broadband infrastructure projects is available for each Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant. A summary of the type of required information may include the following: • Projected/actual construction start date (month/year) • Projected/actual initiation of operations date (month/year) • Location (for broadband, geospatial location data) • Speeds/pricing tiers to be offered, including the speed/pricing of its affordability offering • Technology to be deployed • Miles of fiber • Cost per mile • Cost per passing • Number of previously unserved households (broken out by households on Tribal lands and those not on Tribal lands) projected to have increased access to broadband meeting the minimum speed standards • Number of previously unserved institutions and businesses (broken out by institutions on Tribal lands and those not on Tribal lands) projected to have increased access to broadband meeting the minimum speed standards, in each of the following categories: business, small business, elementary school, secondary school, higher education institution, library, healthcare facility, and public safety organization Specify the number of each type of institution with access to the minimum speed standard of reliable 100 Mbps symmetrical upload and download; and Specify the number of each type of institution with access to the minimum speed standard of reliable 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload (END OF ATTACHMENT 1) 11 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/`assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal- governments / state -and -local -fiscal -recovery -funds / recipient -compliance -and -reporting -responsibilities -11- STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FILED 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA94102-3298 03/02/22 10:27 AM R2009001 March 2, 2022 Agenda ID #20416 Quasi -Legislative TO PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 20-09-001: This is the proposed decision of Commissioner Alice Reynolds. Until and unless the Commission hears the item and votes to approve it, the proposed decision has no legal effect. This item may be heard, at the earliest, at the Commission's April 7, 2022 Business Meeting. To confirm when the item will be heard, please see the Business Meeting agenda, which is posted on the Commissions website 10 days before each Business Meeting. Parties of record may file comments on the proposed decision as provided in Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. / s/ ANNE E. SIMON Anne E. Simon Chief Administrative Law Judge AES: mph Attachment COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID #20416 Quasi -Legislative Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER ALICE REYNOLDS (Mailed 3/2/2022) BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and to Support Service Rulemaking 20-09-001 Providers in the State of California. DECISION ADOPTING FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT RULES 454878485 - 1 - R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page DECISION ADOPTING FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT RULES ......................1 Summary....................................................................................................................... 2 1. Factual and Procedural Background.................................................................... 2 1.1. Procedural Background................................................................................... 2 1.2. Factual Background......................................................................................... 6 2. Jurisdiction..............................................................................................................6 3. Issues Before the Commission.............................................................................. 7 4. Eligible Areas........................................................................................................12 4.1. Party Positions...............................................................................................13 4.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................19 5. Project Identification and Prioritization............................................................. 21 5.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 22 5.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................25 6. IOU Fiber Pilots.................................................................................................... 25 6.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 26 6.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................28 7. Apportionment of Funds..................................................................................... 28 7.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 29 7.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................32 8. Application Evaluation Criteria.......................................................................... 35 8.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 36 8.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................39 9. Leveraging Other Funds...................................................................................... 40 9.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 40 9.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................42 10. Eligible Entities..................................................................................................... 43 10.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 44 10.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................46 11. Funding of Middle Mile Infrastructure.............................................................. 47 11.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 47 11.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................49 12. Open Access.......................................................................................................... 50 12.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 51 12.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................52 13. Minimum Performance Criteria.......................................................................... 52 13.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 53 - 1 - R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 13.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................56 14. Affordability......................................................................................................... 57 14.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 57 14.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................63 15. Reimbursable Expenses....................................................................................... 66 15.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 66 15.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................67 16. Information Required from Applicants............................................................. 67 16.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 68 16.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................69 17. Application Submission Timelines..................................................................... 70 17.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 70 17.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................71 18. Posting of Applications........................................................................................ 71 18.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 72 18.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................72 19. Application Objections........................................................................................ 72 19.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 74 19.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................76 20. Ministerial Review............................................................................................... 77 20.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 77 20.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................78 21. Reporting Requirements...................................................................................... 79 21.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 80 21.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................82 22. Payment................................................................................................................ 82 22.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 84 22.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................84 23. CEQA Payments................................................................................................... 84 23.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 85 23.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................85 24. Execution, Performance and Grant Termination .............................................. 85 24.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 86 24.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................86 25. Transfer of Grant and/or Assets Built Using Grant Funding .......................... 86 25.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 87 25.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................88 26. Audit Compliance................................................................................................ 89 26.1. Party Positions............................................................................................... 89 R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 26.2. Discussion.......................................................................................................89 27. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 89 28. Comments on Proposed Decision....................................................................... 89 29. Assignment of Proceeding.................................................................................. 89 Findingsof Fact........................................................................................................... 89 Conclusionsof Law.................................................................................................... 92 ORDER......................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A - Revised Federal Funding Account Grant Program Rules R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION DECISION ADOPTING FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT RULES Summary This decision adopts rules for the Federal Funding Account (FFA) created by Senate Bill (SB) 156 and funded through the federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2), and the rules issued by the U.S. Treasury Department. The FFA is a new two -billion -dollar grant program focused on building broadband Internet infrastructure to communities without access to Internet service at sufficient and reliable speeds. The rules adopted in this decision include, among other items, the following subjects: project eligibility, application objections, allocating FFA funding between rural and urban counties, reimbursing grantees, a ministerial review process whereby Communications Division Staff may approve certain projects, and minimum performance standards for grantees. This proceeding remains open. 1. Factual and Procedural Background The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) initiated the Broadband for All proceeding to set the strategic direction and changes necessary to expeditiously deploy reliable, fast, and affordable broadband Internet access services that connect all Californians. 1.1. Procedural Background Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-73-20 on August 14, 2020, directing state agencies to accomplish 15 specific actions to help bridge the digital divide, including ordering state agencies to pursue a minimum broadband speed goal of 100 Mbps download to guide infrastructure investments and program implementation to benefit all Californians. -2- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION On September 10, 2020, this Commission opened this Rulemaking to set the strategic direction and make the changes necessary to expeditiously deploy reliable, fast, and affordable broadband Internet access services that connect all Californians. As stated above, this proceeding will explore near -term and medium -term actions to achieve this goal. A prehearing conference (PHC) was held on November 10, 2020, to discuss the issues of law and fact, determine the need for hearing, set the schedule for resolving the matter, and address other matters, as necessary. On December 28, 2020, the assigned Commissioner issued a Scoping Memorandum and Ruling (Scoping Memo) that divided this proceeding into three phases. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA),1 also called the COVID-19 Stimulus Package or American Rescue Plan, which appropriated funds for states to deploy last -mile broadband Internet networks. This law requires funds be expended by the end of 2024 and projects to be completed by the end of 2026. On July 20, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 156 into law, creating the Federal Funding Account,2 with this Commission being responsible for implementing the new grant program. The Second Amended Scoping Memorandum and Ruling, (Second Amended Scoping Memo) in the instant proceeding, issued on August 2, 2021, adds certain issues associated with the 1 Public Law No. 117-2. 2 SB 156, An act to amend Sections 6547.7 and 53167 of, to add Section 26231 to, and to add Chapter 5.8 (commencing with Section 11549.50) to Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the Government Code, to add Section 21080.51 to the Public Resources Code, and to amend Sections 281, 912.2, and 914.7 of, and to add Section 281.2 to, the Public Utilities Code. sm R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION implementation of SB 156 to the scope of this proceeding, including implementation of the Federal Funding Account in Phase III. On September 23, 2021, the Assigned Commissioner issued a ruling requesting comment on a Staff Proposal for the rules that would implement the Federal Funding Account grant program (ACR). On October 29, 2021, the following parties filed and served comments on this proposal: AARP California (AARP); Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (AT&T); Borrego Springs Revitalization Committee; Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC); California Cable and Telecommunications Association (CCTA); Corporation for Education Network Initiatives In California (CENIC); California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF); Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT); City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco); Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG); Comcast Phone of California, LLC (Comcast); County of Los Angeles; County of Santa Clara (Santa Clara); Communications Workers of America, District 9 (CWA); Frederick L. Pilot; Frontier Communications of the Southwest Inc., Frontier California Inc., and Citizens Telecommunications Company of California Inc. (Frontier); Geolinks; Greenlining Institute; Joint Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs);3 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC); Next Century Cities (NCC); National Diversity Coalition (NDC); The Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates); Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC); San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA); Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); Southern California Edison Company (SCE); San Diego 3 DigitalPath, Inc. (U 1151 C), Cal.net, Inc. (U 7309 C), ShastaBeam, Etheric Communications, LLC , Velocity Communications, Inc. (U 1653 C) and Jefferson State Broadband d/b/ a Com-Pair M R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E); Small Local Exchange Carriers (LECs);4 LCB Communications LLC and South Valley Internet (LCB Communications and South Valley Internet); The Utility Reform Network (TURN); UNITE -LA; and Cellco Partnership (U 3001 C) and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC (U 5253 C) (collectively, "Verizon"). On November 15, 2021, the following parties filed and served reply comments to this proposal: AARP; AT&T; CCTA; CENIC; CETF; CforAT; Frederick L Pilot; Frontier; Geolinks; Mono County; NDC; Cal Advocates; SBUA; SCE; Small LECs; TURN; Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN); and Verizon. On November 10, 2021, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling requesting comment on the proposed apportionment of funds for the Federal Funding Account grant program. The following parties filed and served comments on November 30, 2021: County of Los Angeles; RCRC; Small LECs; CCTA; SANDAG; County of Santa Clara; TURN; UNITE -LA, Inc; CETF; SBUA; LAEDC; County of Mendocino; NDC; UCAN; North Bay North Coast Broadband Consortium; The #OaklandUndivided Coalition; SCAG; and Frederick L. Pilot. On December 10, 2021, the following parties filed and served reply comments: UCAN; San Francisco; Cal Advocates; NDC; SBUA; TURN; North Bay North Coast Broadband Consortium; CCTA; Central Coast Broadband Consortium; and CETF. 4 The Siskiyou Telephone Company, Volcano Telephone Company, Foresthill Telephone Co. The Ponderosa Telephone Co., Winterhaven Telephone Company, Calaveras Telephone Company, Happy Valley Telephone Company, Ducor Telephone Company, Pinnacles Telephone Co., Cal -Ore Telephone Co., Sierra Telephone Company, Inc., Hornitos Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Co. -5- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 1.2. Factual Background Communities across California face a multitude of barriers for the deployment of resilient and accessible broadband networks. Broadband Internet access and service in urban communities varies by neighborhood. Rural areas of the state often lack the infrastructure for sufficient wireline and wireless broadband Internet access service. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extent to which broadband access is essential for public safety, public health and welfare, education, and economic resilience, adding greater urgency to developing new strategies and expand on existing successful measures to deploy reliable networks with affordable service. 2. Jurisdiction Among other items, SB 156 requires the Commission to implement a program (Program) using federal funds to connect unserved and underserved communities by applicable federal deadlines. The Program must be consistent with Part 35 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and any conditions or guidelines applicable to this one-time federal infrastructure funds. The enacted California 2021-2022 Budget allocates two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to the Program to fund the deployment of last -mile broadband infrastructure.5 By June 30, 2023, the Commission must allocate one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in urban counties and one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in rural counties.6 The Commission must initially allocate five million dollars ($5,000,000) in each county.? The Commission must allocate the remaining funds 5 See California 2021-2022 Enacted Budget Summary at page 27, available at http:/ /ebudget.ca.gov/2021-22/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf 6 See Public Utilities Code Section 281(n)(3). 7 Id. M R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION based on each county's proportionate share of households without access to broadband Internet access service with at least 100 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds.8 The Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury) issued an Interim Final Rule (Interim Final Rule), effective May 17, 2021, to implement the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) established under the American Rescue Plan Act.9 Treasury also issued a SLFRF Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document to provide additional guidance on how funds should be utilized.10 Treasury issued its Final Rule (Final Rule) on January 6, 2022,11 adopting many of the provisions in the Interim Final Rule, with some amendments. The Final Rule is effective April 1, 2022. 3. Issues Before the Commission The Second Amended Scoping Memo adds a new Phase III to this proceeding. Phase III includes two separate tasks: 1) the collection of public comments that will assist with the development of the locations for the statewide open -access middle mile network; and 2) the adoption of rules for the Federal Funding Account. The scope of this decision is the development of the rules governing the Federal Funding Account (FFA), focused on last -mile Internet connections, including whether the Commission should adopt the Staff Proposal or refine it. Additionally, the September 23, 2021 ACR asked for comment on the questions and issues discussed below: 8 See Public Utilities Code Section 281(n)(3)(B)(ii) ("as identified and validated by the Commission, pursuant to the most recent broadband data collection, as of July 1, 2021..."). 9 The Interim Rule is available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05- 17/ pdf/ 2021-10283.pdf. 10 The FAQ is available here: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf. 11 See 87 Fed. Reg. 4338-4454 (January 27. 2022). 7- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 1. Compliance with Federal Guidance: SB 156 requires the Commission to adopt program rules that are consistent with Part 35 of Title 31 of the CFRs. • Are the rules in the Staff Proposal consistent with Part 35 of Title 31 of the CFRs? • What modifications should be made to the Staff Proposal to improve consistency with Part 35 of Title 31 of the CFRs? Please provide an explanation of any suggestions, as well as edits in redline as an attachment to your comments. 2. Priority Project Areas: The Staff Proposal envisions that Communications Division (CD) Staff will publish proposed priority project areas that are coordinated with the Commission's obligation to assist in preparing definitive plans for deploying necessary infrastructure in each county, including coordination across contiguous counties. FFA Applicants will apply for grants to offer broadband Internet service to these defined areas. • What information should the CD Staff take into consideration in developing these priority areas? Do the criteria in "Section 12. Application Objections" balance the need to ensure a fair process for an Internet service provider asserting it already serves a proposed priority project area, with the need to award grants in an expeditious manner? Do parties propose additional or different criteria? 3. Coordination with other Grant Programs: There is significant funding available and being considered at the state and federal levels for broadband infrastructure. • How can the FFA best coordinate and leverage these other broadband infrastructure funds? 4. Affordability: The Interim Rule encourages recipients to consider ways to integrate affordability options into their program design. 0 How should the Commission define affordability? R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION • How should the Commission consider a preference or requirement for affordable offers that are not income -qualified? • Should the Commission consider other low-income preferences or requirements as a percentage of the Federal Poverty Level? Or categorical eligibility such as any service connection in a Qualified Census Tract? • How should the Commission consider low-income or affordable offers that allow for enrollment based on participation in any California public assistance program? • What should be the term for which an affordable or low-income offer is provided and what is the rationale for the term? • Is it reasonable to require applicants provide Lifeline12 services, as well as the Emergency Broadband Benefit, or its successor? 5. Eligible Areas: The Staff Proposal directs the focus of last mile projects to be in unserved areas that lack access to a wireline connection capable of reliably delivering at least minimum speeds of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. • How should the Commission consider eligible areas? • How should underserved areas be defined and considered? • What criteria should the Commission use to determine if an area has reliable service? • How should the Commission measure what constitutes a significant number of unserved and underserved households? 12 Note we refer to the "California Lifeline Program' either as the California LifeLine Program or as "LifeLine," while the federal program is referred to as Lifeline. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 6. Eligible Entities: The Staff Proposal lists eligible entities (see related questions under the IOU Broadband Pilots section of the ruling). • What information should the Commission consider in the rules to allow flexibility to enable partnerships between entities and providers? For example, a public entity and one or more broadband service providers. 7. Coordination with Statewide Middle Mile Network: SB 156 also creates a statewide middle mile network that must enable last mile connections. • How can the Commission ensure the FFA grants coordinate and take advantage of the statewide middle mile network that is being built? 8. IOU Broadband Pilots: Phase II in this proceeding seeks to identify a role for the electric Investor -Owned Utilities (IOUs) in deploying broadband Internet access service. • How can the FFA be utilized to achieve this objective? • Should the IOU Fiber Pilots in Phase II be moved into Phase III? • How should the Commission consider changes to add flexibility to the rules to facilitate applicants from multiple entities such as partnerships between multiple last mile providers or a middle mile applicant such as an IOU and a last mile provider? • How should the Commission consider or identify IOU rights -of -way that would enable last mile connections and work to fund or effectuate deployment in those IOU rights of way even without an IOU and last mile provider partnership? 9. Performance Criteria: Federal SLFRF funds must be obligated between March 3, 2021 and December 31, 2024 and expended to cover such obligations by December 31, 2026. • What changes should the Commission consider to the performance criteria to meet the December 31, 2024 -10- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION obligation or encumbrance and December 31, 2026 expenditure deadlines? • How should the Commission measure the serviceable life of the infrastructure? (Section 6.6 of the Staff Proposal) 10. Information Required from Applicants: Treasury published guidance13 on federal SURF subaward (grantee) reporting. • What changes should the Commission consider to the Information Required from Applicants or Semi -Annual and Completion Reporting to better capture and provide information pursuant to the Treasury guidance? 11. Provision of voice and other services: The Interim Final Rule considers a connection that can "originate and receive high -quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications."14 • How should the Commission consider Applicants which propose to provide voice service or other services? • What is the industry standard approach to providing this service in a safe and reliable manner? 12. Government and Community Support: Applicants must provide letters indicating government or community support. • How should the Commission consider the requirement for applicants to address how a proposed application furthers the purpose of a Local Government or Tribal 13 Treasury, Compliance and Reporting Guidance State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (June 24, 2021 Version 1.1), available at https://home. treasury. gov /system/ files/ 136/ SLFRF-Com]21iance-and-Re]2orting_ Guidance.pdf 14 Department of the Treasury, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Interim Final Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 26805 (May 17, 2021), https://www. ovg info.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-17/ pdf/ 2021-10283.pdf -11- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION technical assistance grant in project areas for which a grant has been awarded? 13. Ministerial review criteria and cutoff: Section 13 outlines criteria for a project to be eligible for ministerial review. • What other criteria or range of funding should the Commission consider? For example, should the project amount for ministerial review be some amount between $10-30 million? How should the per location cost criteria be modified and how should this per location cost be considered? 14. Post -Construction Phase: For what time period should after construction requirements remain in place? • How should the Commission consider post -construction requirements and/or reporting for a period of time? What should they be? How long should the Commission require these requirements and why? For example, the current draft includes notification requirements about potential transfers of control for three years. 4. Eligible Areas Consistent with federal rules, the ACR proposes to define eligible areas as locations (households and businesses)15 that lack access to a wireline Internet service connection capable of reliably16 delivering minimum speeds of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. 15 The term "business" includes non-residential users of broadband, such as private businesses and institutions that serve the public, such as schools, libraries, healthcare facilities, and public safety organizations. 16 The use of "reliably" in the Interim Final Rule provides significant discretion to assess whether the households and businesses in the area to be served by a project have access to wireline broadband service that can consistently meet the specified thresholds of at least 25Mbps/ 3Mbps — i.e., to consider the actual experience of current wireline broadband customers that subscribe to services at or above the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps threshold. Whether there is a provider serving the area that advertises or otherwise claims to offer speeds that meet the 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speed thresholds is not dispositive. -12- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION When making these assessments, applicants may choose to consider any available data, including but not limited to documentation of existing service performance, federal and/or state -collected broadband data, user speed test results, interviews with residents and business owners, and any other information they deem relevant. In evaluating such data, applicants may take into account a variety of factors, including whether users receive service at or above the speed thresholds at all hours of the day, whether factors other than speed such as latency or jitter, or deterioration of the existing connections make the user experience unreliable, and whether the existing service is being delivered by legacy technologies, such as copper telephone lines (typically using Digital Subscriber Line technology) or early versions of cable system technology (DOCSIS 2.0 or earlier). The ACR asks: • How should the Commission consider eligible areas? • How should underserved areas be defined and considered? • What criteria should the Commission use to determine if an area has reliable service? • How should the Commission measure what constitutes a significant number of unserved and underserved households? 4.1. Party Positions There is a lack of consensus among parties regarding how the Commission should determine if an area is eligible for FFA grants and how the Commission should interpret federal rules that give it broad discretion. Some parties support the proposed rules in the ACR. Others oppose the proposed rules, or even disagree with federal rules, either the Interim rule or the Final Rule. Many parties recommend revisions to the proposed rules. -13- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION Parties propose several alternative methods by which the Commission should determine if an area is eligible for a FFA grant. AARP, LAEDC, RCRC, and Comcast support relying on the 25/3 Mbps speed threshold. Cal Advocates recommends defining unserved areas as areas without reliable access to Internet service at 25/3 Mbps. TURN, RCRC, and CCTA specifically support a blanket determination that wireline Internet service is reliable. Frederick L. Pilot suggests that all areas lacking last -mile fiber Internet service should be eligible for FFA grants, with the Commission adopting a rebuttable presumption that most areas outside heavily urban locations do not have last -mile fiber. Joint WISPS support relying on the 25/3 Mbps speed threshold to determine eligibility, but also note that the proposal ignores locations with existing fixed wireless service, including Commission -approved CASF projects. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) asserts that eligible areas should be defined as those without access to 100 Mbps and that "underserved" areas should be defined as those areas that have less than three service providers that do not provide wireline service at speeds of 100 Mbps. NDC proposes defining "unserved" areas as not having any 25/3 Mbps minimum service available and "underserved" areas as not having affordable 25/3 Mbps minimum service available. SANDAG recommends using a 100/20 Mbps threshold to determine unserved versus underserved areas. UNITE -LA recommends considering underserved areas as areas where a large portion of households that do not have broadband Internet service. In determining eligibility, CforAT asserts the Commission should avoid defining "unserved or underserved" as a specific percentage threshold and should instead evaluate specific areas on a case -by -case basis and consider any available information about delivered speeds that are lower than advertised speeds, -14- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION without setting a statistical mandate on what must be provided. RCRC opposes using separate definitions for unserved and underserved. Joint WISPS recommend defining an area as underserved or unserved only if more than half, and preferably 75 percent or more of the households in the area do not have access to the minimum speeds associated with the definitions of unserved or underserved. NDC recommends the Commission distinguish between "unserved" and "underserved" areas and to not use the terms interchangeably, as done in the IFR. AT&T and CETF support prohibiting FFA grants in areas where an ISP (fixed or mobile) must deploy broadband as part of a merger commitment.17 Cal Advocates, CCTA and Joint WISPs assert that in instances where an application proposes to deploy infrastructure in mostly served areas, the Commission should pro -rate funding so that the FFA grant is mostly funding unserved households. South Valley Internet urges the Commission to allow projects that surround wider area than unserved if it is necessary to make a project more economic. Parties also disagree on how the Commission should determine if existing service is reliable. Borrego Springs Revitalization Committee asserts the Commission must account for reliability when determining if an area is unserved. CforAT argues the Commission should not take ISPs' claims of service at face value, as some state terms of service in a manner that does not guarantee that service (e.g., speeds delivered up to a specific amount), and instead adopt an expansive definition of what areas are eligible for FFA grants, since the proposed rules allow for parties to object to specific applications. TURN proposes 17 Per Pub. Util. Code §§ 851 and 854, the Commission approves transfers of control of public utilities, including many licensed telecommunications service providers in California. -15- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION reviewing an ISP's ability to meet service quality standards in GO 133-D to determine reliability. NDC supports using the factors set out in FAQ 6.11, but also advise using customer complaints about outages, slower speeds than advertised, billing and related complaints. Santa Clara County recommends the Commission use retail service reports made by a "primary wireline provider" and exclude all reports by wholesale/ secondary wireline providers, including middle mile providers. Joint WISPs oppose measuring reliable service using Ca1SPEED, asserts the application measures what speed a customer subscribes to, not what is available. LAEDC suggests the Commission establish a forum to collect first-hand experience from residents, as there often is a disconnect between what providers say and customers experience and collect granular data as lack of publicly available data is limiting and prevents decision -making. SBUA proposes monitoring performance metrics, such as System Average Interruption Frequency Index, System Average Interruption Duration Index, and the Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index, as well as customer -centric indices such Customers Experiencing Long Interruption Durations, Customers Experiencing Multiple Interruptions, Customers Experiencing Multiple Momentary interruptions, and the Customers Experiencing Multiple Sustained Interruptions and Momentary Interruptions Events index provides an overall performance indicator. Comcast, Joint WISPs, Geolinks, and CCTA argue the proposed rules would allocate funds to served areas, at odds with FFA and CASF program goals of building infrastructure to connect households that are truly unserved. San Francisco asserts the proposed eligibility requirements are contrary to Treasury's guidance and could exclude prematurely areas that deserve support. Comcast also argues that SB 156 does not empower or require the Commission to -16- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION determine reliability of service in specific areas, and the FFA can meet federal guidelines by focusing on whether areas have speeds of 25/3. Comcast also contends that the CASF program does not include staff's subjective determination of whether an area has "reliable" service and that if this determination is warranted, the Commission should examine RDOF tiers of service for guidance. Comcast asserts SB 156 does not call for a measurement of what constitutes a significant number of unserved and underserved households, but instead requires a proportional distribution of funds based on share of households without broadband access to at least 100 Mbps, and that the definition of "Eligible Project" should be modified to remove the "a significant number of" modifier because SB 156 has no such qualifier for FFA eligibility. CETF strongly disagrees with CCTA's claims that the Staff Proposal is "biased toward funding 'served' households" and constitutes "overbuilding," noting "as set forth below, that the Staff Proposal definition of an "eligible project" does require "significant" unserved and underserved households to be served in an eligible project. Frontier urges the Commission to not adopt expansive rules addressing eligible areas, and instead focus on applications that will serve either unserved or underserved locations. CVAG recommends determining reliable service using a map of existing infrastructure and the capabilities of it complemented by speed test data and use data on service quality, such as complaints. San Francisco also argues that the Commission should not rely solely on the Broadband Map to determine eligibility, that the Commission should not place the burden on applicants to dispute the Broadband Map, and that applicants should be allowed to 17- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION demonstrate that any areas they are proposing to serve are eligible and to supply any available supporting data. Parties also do not agree on how the Commission should define or measure what constitutes a "significant" number of unserved and underserved households. CVAG recommends determining a "significant" number of unserved and underserved households by measuring the number of households lacking 100 Mbps in relation to a defined geographic area and then choosing a percentage threshold of households in that region that would constitute a "significant" number of unserved and underserved households. Santa Clara County recommends that the Commission consider 10 percent of households in a census tract being unserved as the threshold for significant unserved, as that is slightly lower than the statewide average, and would direct funds to the areas most in need of assistance without unduly restricting the ability of any region to obtain funding. LAEDC opines the Commission should give equal consideration to the percentage of unserved/underserved and total number of households unserved/underserved, which is especially relevant for urban areas where multiple generations of family living in one household, and utilize both a macro and micro analysis of communities to take into account the economic demographics of different populations, including employment levels and median income, to determine the financial challenges contributing to low broadband adoption rates. CETF recommends that a single unserved household is "significant" if that resident or business desires broadband service. RCRC cautions the Commission regarding the effort to define a "significant number" of unserved and underserved households, noting that some areas are unserved because of low population density making cost of service infeasible, and that adding other qualifiers will enable entities to ignore these areas and residents. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Parties offer additional proposals for Commission consideration. Beyond the 25/3 Mbps speed threshold, SANDAG urges the Commission to consider areas impacted by affordability, age, and people with disabilities, and to be flexible, in defining the speed threshold for served status, as 25/3 Mbps rapidly is becoming obsolete. NCC asserts the eligibility criteria should also include digital equity and economic development, and that FFA funds should support local digital equity efforts and economic development to further broadband goals. The Small LECs ask that prior to awarding a FFA grant within a service area of a Small LECs, that the Commission to reach out to the specific Small LEC company regarding its capital improvement plans to make sure FFA projects will not be overbuilt on soon to be deployed network upgrades by Small LECs. AT&T urges this Commission to utilize the forthcoming FCC broadband map for FFA funding as soon as it is available. CETF suggests the Commission delete the "Low Income Areas" definition, as it is not used anywhere in the Staff Proposal. 4.2. Discussion The Final Rule broadens FFA funding eligibility to broadband Internet infrastructure that is "designed to provide service to households and businesses with an identified need, as determined by the recipient, for such infrastructure[.]"18 This change provides the Commission with significant discretion for developing program eligibility requirements. The Final Rule also encourages recipients "to prioritize projects that are designed to provide service to locations not currently served by a wireline connection that reliably delivers at least 100 Mbps of download speed and 20 Mbps of upload speed, as [... ] those 18 87 Fed. Reg. 4452 (January 27, 2022). -19- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION without such service constitute hard -to -reach areas in need of subsidized broadband deployment."19 We adopt the definition of unserved area in the Staff Proposal and add other modifications and guidance that are consistent with the Final Rule. We adopt the presumption that locations lacking access to reliable wireline broadband Internet service are in need of this service. While we do not adopt the proposal that only Internet service offered with fiber infrastructure be deemed reliable, the Commission adopts a rebuttable presumption that legacy networks cannot provide reliable Internet service at speeds of 25Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Specifically, areas with Internet service provided only by legacy technologies such as copper telephone lines (typically using Digital Subscriber Line technology) or older versions of cable system technology (DOCSIS 2.0 or earlier) are eligible for funding. ISPs and other interested individuals wishing to rebut this presumption must demonstrate that all locations have access to speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Speed tests from terminals, cabinets and at other locations that are not end users are not sufficient. Our determination of what wireline technologies offer reliable service is consistent with the Final Rule, which found that these legacy technologies typically lag on speeds, latency, and other factors, as compared to more modern technologies like fiber. We also adopt the proposed rule that applicants may provide data that contests the reliability of non -legacy wireline providers that claim to provide served speeds. Applications contesting the reliability of an area identified as 19 87 Fed. Reg. 4420 (January 27, 2022). -20- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION being served will be reviewed by CD Staff and considered by the Commission's Resolution process. In response to CETF's recommendation, we remove "low-income areas" from the definitions section of the proposed rules since we are not using that term as part of our rules. The Final Rule departs significantly from the Interim Rule. The Final Rule focuses on "need" in determining whether an area is not served, instead of solely determining speed served status by relying of speed thresholds; it also encourages a different speed threshold, as well introducing the concept of gap networks, among other items. In the interest of adopting FFA rules expeditiously, and thereby accepting grant applications sooner, the Commission adopts these rules on an interim basis. We anticipate developing the record further, so as to address the new concepts and higher speed thresholds adopted in the Final Rule. 5. Project Identification and Prioritization The ACR proposes a process where the Commission identifies priority proposed project areas and initiates a round of grant -making through public announcements. Under the proposal, CD Staff will publish proposed project areas that are coordinated with the Commission's obligation to assist in preparing definitive plans for deploying necessary infrastructure in each county, including coordination across contiguous counties. The proposed project areas will be developed on a county -by -county basis while accounting for projects that may not fall strictly within county lines. Proposed projects will endeavor to ensure that all unserved communities are served. Potential applicants will have an opportunity to propose adding or -21- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION subtracting from the proposed project area consistent with the eligible area requirements. The ACR also requests comment on what information CD Staff should take into consideration in developing these priority areas; whether the proposed Application Objection process balances the need to ensure a fair process for an Internet service provider asserting it already serves a proposed priority project area, with the need to award grants in an expeditious manner; and whether parties propose additional or different criteria. 5.1. Party Positions Parties disagree both over whether the Commission should adopt the proposed prioritization process, or even if it should adopt priorities. AT&T in general supports the proposed process for identifying priority project areas, though both it and CETF recommend the Commission identify projects on a countywide basis and prioritize the counties with the most unserved and underserved locations by issuing Requests for Partnerships or Requests for Proposals for specific unserved locations. AT&T and CCBC support the Commission publicly releasing the data used to determine priority areas. TURN contends the Commission should not solely rely on the proposed Ministerial Review to develop priority projects and instead use information received in this proceeding and related proceedings to narrow locations to priority areas. CCTA and Comcast oppose the proposed prioritization process, arguing it would create an eligibility standard that differs from the 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload unserved standard adopted for the separate Broadband -22- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Infrastructure Grant Account.20 Comcast argues that if CD Staff will be determining priority areas, the Commission should clarify that unserved and underserved will be prioritized. Frontier also does not support the Commission identifying priority areas, arguing that there is not enough time to undertake the task. Instead, Frontier asserts the Commission should evaluate every proposal addressing if the areas are unserved or underserved for consistency with federal requirements. AARP, CforAT, SBUA, SCAG, UNITE -LA, Cal Advocates, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, and Coachella Valley Association of Governments all offer different metrics and terminologies that lead to prioritization of historically unserved or underserved communities,21 with the focus on characteristics or demographics like lower -income census tracts, racial indicators, rural and Tribal lands, areas prone to natural disasters, communities with high concentration of at -risk youth/ students or seniors, where residents have higher risks of poor health. Cal Advocates recommends prioritizing "marginalized communities," a specific term that includes tribal areas, Environmental and Social Justice (ESJ) communities based on Cal Enviroscreen scores, areas classified as "C - Definitely Declining or "D - Hazardous" according to Homeowner's Loan Corporation maps, and low-income areas, as defined in the 20 For clarity, Pub. Util. Code § 281 (b)(1)(13)(ii) reads, in part "For purposes of the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account, both of the following definitions apply:... 'unserved area' means an area for which there is no facility -based broadband provider offering at least one tier of broadband service at speeds of at least 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream, and a latency that is sufficiently low to allow real-time interactive applications, considering updated federal and state broadband mapping data." 21 For clarification, we use the term "historically unserved or underserved" in this context to distinguish from the definitions of unserved and underserved that define FFA grant eligibility (or CASF Infrastructure grant eligibility). -23- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION FFA Staff Proposal. Cal Advocates also recommends prioritizing projects in areas without access to Internet service at speeds of 10/ 1 Mbps. AT&T does not support these proposals, asserting that a formula that requires analyses of income, demographics, or environmental characteristics will add complexity and uncertainty to the grant -making process. Frederick L. Pilot recommends prioritizing areas lacking 25/3 Mbps and those that rely primarily on wireless service. LCB Communications and South Valley Internet encourage prioritizing counties with unserved areas before underserved areas. NDC and AT&T contend the prioritization should focus first on connecting residential households, then anchor institutions over retail or commercial businesses. SBUA suggests the Commission consider the needs of small businesses, diverse businesses, tribal areas, and underserved populations in counties with high unserved households. CVAG recommends prioritizing areas based on access to middle mile projects that can facilitate last mile and by reduce costs, unserved/underserved areas that have secured funds for last mile connections, areas with shovel ready projects can help meet strict federal spending guidelines. SBUA supports including counties where 33 percent or more have insufficient access to middle mile. San Francisco, LAEDC, and SANDAG ask the Commission to work closely with communities to identify priority areas, including working with local governments, as well as other groups like and CASF Consortia. SCAG recommends the Commission work with Caltrans, CTCs, MPOs, local agencies and ISPs for additional data and input, due to lack of granular data. AARP suggests including adoption data into the determination of whether an area if served. LAEDC recommends using the most recent and granular broadband -24- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION availability data for counties, as well as user speed tests, and interviews with residents and businesses. 5.2. Discussion The Commission adopts the Staff Proposal with clarifications of how priority areas are defined and identified. "Priority Area" means an area with a high density of unserved locations, analyzed on a county basis, that makes a substantial contribution to meeting the state's broadband deployment objectives, as identified by CD Staff. A grant applicant may add or subtract to priority areas, which will be verified by the CD Staff. The priority areas will be coordinated with the Commission's obligation to assist in preparing definitive plans for deploying necessary infrastructure in each county, including coordination across contiguous counties. CD Staff will publish the priority areas, which is a subset of the eligible unserved areas, on the Commission website. CD Staff will provide notice that the priority areas have been published, at a minimum, on the service list for this proceeding, the service list for the CASF proceeding,22 and the CASF Distribution List that CD Staff maintains. CD Staff may update the priority areas as other broadband data becomes available. 6. IOU Fiber Pilots A key portion of this proceeding prior to the enactment of SB 156 involved examining whether there is a role for the electric Investor -Owned Utilities (IOUs) in deploying broadband Internet access service. This included the IOUs organizing a workshop and presenting project ideas. The ACR request comments on the following questions: • How can the FFA be utilized to achieve this objective? 22 R. 20-08-021. -25- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION • Should the IOU Fiber Pilots in Phase II be moved into Phase III? • How should the Commission consider changes to add flexibility to the rules to facilitate applicants from multiple entities such as partnerships between multiple last mile providers or a middle mile applicant such as an IOU and a last mile provider? • How should the Commission consider or identify IOU rights -of -way that would enable last mile connections and work to fund or effectuate deployment in those IOU rights of way even without an IOU and last mile provider partnership? 6.1. Party Positions Parties offer a number of competing positions on the IOU Fiber Pilots. Frederick L Pilot recommends that if IOUs wish to be wholesale network operators, then the Commission should adopt rules to facilitate that, while also encouraging the IOUs to partner with public entities. SBUA supports using FFA funding to leverage the electric IOUs' in-depth expertise in developing "reliable and cost-effective network grids which connect last -mile circuits to the backbone network" their "extensive rights -of -way and experience working within regulatory requirements and local permitting and related requirements, and their expertise in marketing, provisioning, delivering, billing, and offering customer support to their ratepayers." CforAT, SDG&E, and RCRC support moving the IOU Fiber Pilots to a separate phase of this proceeding, to allow more time to create viable projects. AT&T notes that the voluntary sharing of assets could be facilitated by revising the Commissions processes related to Pub. Util. Code § 851. CWA asserts that telecommunications service providers are best equipped and experienced to build and maintain broadband networks, not IOUs, as the -26- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION IOUs must focus on preventing wildfires and have little interest in deploying broadband. SANDAG proposes that the Commission become a clearinghouse to help collect and share data that could inform broadband investments and facilitate partnerships between last mile, middle mile, and IOU partners. CETF notes that, at a workshop during Phase I of this proceeding, the IOUs presented some information about areas where they have available dark fiber and recommends that this information be made accessible to potential middle -mile providers and CENIC. CETF also suggests that Staff should contact a designated IOU contact that serves a specific community to discuss whether the IOU may have facilities to help bring middle mile facilities to the community. SCE asserts that ISPs should only be permitted access to IOU rights -of -way after the Commission makes a determination on eligibility under the Commission's ROW rules, as ISPs are not currently eligible, arguing that it would be unfair to allow them nondiscriminatory access without first vetting them. If the Commission determines ISPs should have nondiscriminatory access, they should request access via Pole License Agreements, similar to how CLECs, CMRS, and similar telecommunications services providers currently operate. SDG&E supports using FFA funds to enable ISPs to partner with utilities to address service gaps, though SDG&E asserts that telecommunications providers wanting to use SDG&E facilities for last -mile broadband Internet service, via joint trenching or pole attachment, would be required to obtain their own land rights and the Commission cannot authorize a utility to do more than what their land rights allow under the law and cannot grant land rights to third parties to IOU electric infrastructure. Verizon recommends the Commission require the IOUs to provide access to their streetlight poles at regulated approved rates, 27 - R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION which will ensure that last mile projects are built without substantial delays at a reasonable cost. 6.2. Discussion At this time, we decline to adopt specific requirements regarding the IOU Fiber Pilots. As discussed in the Eligible Entities section, we adopt rules making the IOUs eligible for FFA grants.23 It is possible that some of the proposals the IOUs have worked on as part of this proceeding may be eligible for FFA funds. We encourage the IOUs to enter into partnerships to deploy broadband infrastructure and assist applicants with the deployment of broadband networks using utility support structures. We may still examine other ways to leverage IOU fiber as part of another decision or phase of this proceeding. 7. Apportionment of Funds On November 10, 2021, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling requiring comments on the apportionment of funds for the FFA. Pub. Util. Code §§281(n) (3) (A) and 281(n) (3) (B) respectively direct this Commission to spend $2 billion on broadband Internet infrastructure projects, with $1 billion allocated to projects urban counties and $1 billion allocated to projects in rural counties. The Commission initially must allocate $5 million for projects in each county and then allocate the remaining funds in the respective urban or rural allocation, based on each county's proportionate share of households without access to broadband Internet access service speeds of at least 100 megabits per second download. Because the Legislature largely left this determination to the Commission, and various federal and state agencies use different definitions and/or 23 Although IOUs are eligible for FFA grants, this decision does not change other rules outside the scope of this proceeding that may impact an IOU's ability to participate. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION methodologies to determine whether a county or another geographic area is "rural" or "urban," the November 10, 2021 assigned ALJ ruling includes three different options for parties to comment on, as well as a request to propose alternatives. The ruling proposed to define rural and urban in a manner similar to how the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with "urban' counties being the same as "metropolitan" counties and "rural" counties the same as "nonmetropolitan" counties. Two additional options include relying on the U.S. Census Bureau's determinations and one where individual counties self -identify as rural, as is the case with the membership of the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), an association representing California's small, rural counties that includes 37 member counties. 7.1. Party Positions Parties disagree on whether the Commission should adopt the three methods contained in the assigned ALJ ruling. Several parties offered alternative proposals. Additionally, some parties modified their positions during reply comments. In their opening comments the following four parties express support for using the OMB method: County of Mendocino, NDC, North Bay/North Coast Broadband Consortia (NBNCBC), and UCAN. CCTA and the Small LECs support using U.S. Census Bureau designations. Nine parties support designating rural counties as those that have self -identified through their membership in RCRC: County of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Frederick L. Pilot, LAEDC, #OaklandUndivided Coalition, SANDAG, SBUA, SCAG, and UNITE -LA. Five parties propose alternatives: CETF, Santa Clara, Frederick L. Pilot, RCRC, and TURN. -29- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION CETF discusses the defects of relying on each of the alternatives in the ruling. CETF asserts that while government programs typically choose to utilize the OMB or U.S. Census Bureau definitions, those definitions do not address the actual issues that result in lack of broadband, such as geographic challenges (terrain, geography), lack of middle -mile or Internet Point of Presence facilities, lack of electricity, extreme poverty, a large percentage of low-income households on the outlying county. Relying on RCRC membership reduces the amount of money available to the most rural and remote counties, with sparse populations and little middle -mile facilities, or with persistent poverty and economic challenges. CETF recommends that counties with the highest number of unserved and underserved households at speeds of 100 Mbps download, with significant socioeconomic factors indicating high poverty and unemployment, or a stagnant economy, with a high average cost of construction to reach unserved households, should be deemed "rural" and thus be apportioned additional funding. RCRC identifies flaws with each method contained in the ruling, including arguments that the U.S. Census methodology is based on outdated population data to determine areas that meet "rural" and "urban" definitions, that relying on RCRC membership results in vastly disparate funding allocations across the rural counties, disadvantaging the 21 most rural and least populated jurisdictions, and that the OMB method creates a similarly inequitable outcome for those 16 more populated rural counties that would need to compete with exponentially larger and more resourced urban counties. RCRC proposes a hybrid method that uses the definition of "rural" as set forth in the OMB model, which allocates $1 billion to those 21 described "rural" counties, and then divides the 37 remaining counties in the "urban" category into 16 "small urban counties" -30- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION and 21 "large urban counties." The "small urban' and "large urban' categories would receive pro-rata allocations of the $1 billion in funding based on the number of counties in the group. The "small urban" group would receive 16/ 37th of the total, $432,432,432, and the "large urban" group would receive 21/37th of the total, $567,567,567. TURN recommends against using any of the three methods contained in the ruling, arguing that all three rely on a single metric and, as such, are flawed. Instead, TURN recommends using those methods in conjunction with other methodologies to foster equity in dividing FFA funds. TURN reviewed seven different methodologies to create its proposed method of classification, concluding: Six of these methodologies had complete consensus regarding 41 of the 58 California county designations. TURN recommends the Commission adopted the consensus designation for these counties as urban or rural, which leaves 17 counties that did not have complete consensus. However, of these 17 remaining counties, eleven counties would have had complete consensus across the six methodologies but for the Rural Counties Representatives of California Membership Methodology. TURN recommends the Commission adopt the near complete consensus designations for these eleven counties, leaving only six counties left to be designated. For each of these six counties, their unserved residents primarily reside in rural areas of each county. Therefore, TURN recommends these last six counties be considered rural for the purposes of the Federal Funding Account.24 24 The seven methodologies come from the United States Census Bureau, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United -31- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION NBNCBC urges the Commission to use a methodology that prioritizes serving unserved and underserved areas with the least access, that reflects the use of a tiered system based on current broadband availability in each county and the number of households required to reach 98 percent served. A tiered system could be used. In addition, NBNCBC suggests the Commission base the analysis or methodology on data that is more accurate, by measuring broadband availability at a granular level, such as by household or similar metrics. NBNCBC further suggests the Commission should consider the alignment of the state's open access middle -mile network deployment plans with the Federal Funding apportionment to ensure both initiatives are successful and supplement each other. In their reply comments, San Francisco and Cal Advocates also express support for using the method where counties have self -identified. SBUA supports CETF's proposed alternative. CCBC and RCRC support the RCRC hybrid alternative. NDC, TURN, and UCAN support TURN's proposal. AT&T urges the Commission to refrain from imposing caps on the size of grants on a county basis. 7.2. Discussion Instead of adopting any of the options for determining which counties are rural and which are urban put forward in the assigned ALJ ruling, we adopt TURN's proposal, as it is the most rigorous, and attempts to arrive at a consensus by relying on seven different approaches, instead of one. The TURN proposal appropriately balances the two most significant competing realities of broadband States Department of Health and Human Services, the Pew Research Center, the California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California. -32- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Internet infrastructure: rural areas typically have higher constructions costs -- due to more rugged terrain, poles with greater failure rates, and lower population density -- while urban areas have the highest number of unserved households.25 Table 1. Rural County Allocations Rural Counties (27) Population Unserved County Allocation = $5 million + $5,419.76554 per unserved resident26 1 367 Alpine $6,989,053.95 2 9,632 Amador $57,203,181.68 3 4,761 Calaveras $30,803,503.74 41 4,419 Colusa $28,949,943.92 5 976 Del Norte $10,289,691.17 6 19,716 El Dorado $111,856,097.39 7 3,704 Glenn $25,074,811.56 8 10,063 Humboldt $59,539,100.63 9 1,517 Inyo $13,221,784.32 10 6,031 Kings $37,686,605.97 11 4,324 Lake $28,435,066.19 12 3,673 Lassen $24,906,798.83 13 11,362 Madera $66,579,376.07 14 6,613 Mariposa $40,840,909.52 15 9,674 Mendocino $57,430,811.83 16 3,493 Modoc $23,931,241.03 17 1,033 Mono $10,598,617.80 18 12,891 Nevada $74,866,197.58 19 6,879 Plumas $42,282,567.15 20 1,003 San Benito 1 $10,436,024.84 21 1,385 Sierra $12,506,375.27 25 According to data as of December 31, 2019, Los Angeles County and Orange County have 60,752 and 53,039 unserved households without access to speeds of 100 Mbps respectively. 26 Allocation per unserved resident = ($1B - [($5M/county)x(27 counties)])/(159,601 unserved residents). -33- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 22 7,526 Siskiyou $45,789,155.45 23 2,841 Sutter $20,397,553.90 24 12,879 Tehama $74,801,160.39 251 4,551 Trinity $29,665,352.97 26 1,946 Tuolumne $15,546,863.74 27 6,342 Yuba $39,372,153.05 TOTAL 159,6011 1 $999,999,999.95 Table 2. Urban County Allocations Urban Counties (31) Population Unserved County Allocation = $5 million + $1,640.37218 per unserved resident27 1 11,898 Alameda $24,517,148.20 2 8,657 Butte $19,200,701.96 3 6,772 Contra Costa $16,108,600.40 4 34,236 Fresno $61,159,781.95 5 5,458 Imperial $13,953,151.36 6 16,038 Kern $31,308,289.02 7 60,752 Los Angeles $104,655,890.68 8 3,987 Marin $11,540,163.88 9 13,571 Merced $27,261,490.85 10 7,484 Monterey $17,276,545.40 11 3,478 Napa $10,705,214.44 12 53,039 Orange $92,003,700.06 13 15,397 Placer $30,256,810.46 14 27,820 Riverside $50,635,154.05 15 20,552 Sacramento $38,712,929.04 16 33,335 San Bernardino $59,681,806.62 17 46,512 San Diego $81,296,990.84 18 3,288 San Francisco $10,393,543.73 19 14,896 San Joaquin $29,434,983.99 20 10,575 San Luis Obispo $22,346,935.80 211 3,3071 San Mateo $10,424,710.80 27 Allocation per unserved resident = ($1B - [($5M/county)x(31 counties)])/ (515,127 unserved residents). -34- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 22 6,627 Santa Barbara $15,870,746.44 23 18,907 Santa Clara $36,014,516.81 24 3,245 Santa Cruz $10,323,007.72 25 16,729 Shasta $32,441,786.20 26 7,320 Solano $17,007,524.36 27 8,677 Sonoma $19,233,509.41 28 12,407 Stanislaus $25,352,097.64 29 24,463 Tulare $45,128,424.64 30 9,365 Ventura $20,362,085.47 31 6,335 Yolo 1 $15,391,757.76 TOTAL 1 515,127 1 1 $999,999,999.97 8. Application Evaluation Criteria Consistent with federal rules, the ACR proposed that approved projects must deliver, upon project completion, service that reliably meets or exceeds symmetrical upload and download speeds of 100 Mbps.28 The ACR also proposes the following evaluation criteria for project applications: • 10 points for applications with matching funds; • 10 points for applications proposing fiber optic infrastructure; • 10 points for an application proposing to build a broadband network owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non- profits, Tribe, and cooperatives; • 10 points for applications that integrate two or more affordability options (e.g., affordable offer, low-income 28 There may be instances in which it would not be practicable for a project to deliver such service speeds because of the geography, topography, or excessive costs associated with such a project. In these instances, the affected project would be expected to deliver, upon project completion, service that reliably meets or exceeds 100 Mbps download and between at least 20 Mbps and 100 Mbps upload speeds and be scalable to a minimum of 100 Mbps symmetrical for download and upload speeds. -35- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION plan, California LifeLine, federal Lifeline, and/or the Emergency Broadband Benefit or its successor);29 • 40 points for an application proposing to serve an area identified by the Commission's Communications Division;30 • 10 points for applications that demonstrates the financial, technical, and operational capacity to execute the project successfully and complete on time; and • 10 points for applications that demonstrate a well -planned project with a reasonable budget that shows it will deliver speeds and service proposed and be sufficiently robust to meet increasing demand for bandwidth will receive credit. The Commission reserves the right to reject any application as filed, and determine the terms of a grant award, including the award amount, with the selected applicant prior to offering the grant. If negotiations cannot be concluded successfully with an applicant, as determined solely by the Commission, the Commission may withdraw its award offer. 8.1. Party Positions Parties propose a number of changes to the evaluation criteria. CENIC notes the proposed evaluation criteria do not indicate how point values will be awarded to applicants and appear to award points on an all or nothing basis. GeoLink, Joint WISPs, and Verizon support eliminating the 10-point preference for fiber. Verizon supports reducing or eliminating the 10-point preference provided to partnerships with local government, Tribes, nonprofit entities, and cooperatives, asserting that the Commission should grant preference 29 Interim Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 26786, 26806. 30 Pub. Util. Code § 281 (b)(5)(C). See also, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Federal Register Volume 86, No. 93, Page 26804 (May 17, 2021). -36- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION or credits based on a track record of successful broadband deployment, on entities proven ability to construct and manage broadband infrastructure. While TURN supports providing funding criteria for these partnerships, TURN urges the Commission be cautious about expending significant time or resources to try to incentivize private providers to participate in this realm and should closely review the proposed partnership to ensure that the public agency is a true partner in the project. LAEDC and TURN oppose requiring applicants find matching or additional funds for FFA projects, as these may preclude smaller, but nonetheless vital projects. Cal Advocates and RCRC support awarding additional points to proposed projects in areas without access to broadband Internet service at speeds of 10/1 Mbps, and to applications proposing to serve marginalized communities. RCRC further suggests prioritizing areas lacking sufficient mobile wireless coverage as these areas typically prone to natural disasters. GeoLinks proposes making additional points available for applicants that leverage federal funding from other grant programs. Greenlining Institute recommends increasing the number of points offered for affordability from up to ten points to up to 15. SANDAG suggests the Commission add additional credit or weight for the affordability requirement to ensure affordable options are thoughtfully integrated. Until such time as the Commission revises LifeLine to include broadband Internet service plans, Cal Advocates proposes that the Commission award FFA applicants for participation in LifeLine and up to ten points for offering two or more affordable options including Lifeline and EBB. San Francisco proposes the Commission award additional points to projects owned or operated by local government or non- profits, as these entities have a longer -term perspective than private companies, -37- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION with more points for local governments over non -profits. CWA asserts the Commission should not give municipal broadband Internet networks preferential treatment. Rather, CWA argues that, with greater oversight and accountability, private companies are best for network deployment, having economies of scale and skilled workforces, while municipal and nonprofit broadband Internet network builds are not scalable, and often work best in small localities that own and operate an electric utility. CWA concedes, however, that public -private partnerships are a fast and efficient manner to deploy fiber to the home. CCTA asserts that, as drafted, the Staff Proposal does not indicate how the proposed point system would be used and that some of the proposed criteria are basic application requirements. CCTA proposes an evaluation process that is only used when either: 1) there are competing applications for the same proposed project area, or 2) the total amount of funds requested in applications exceeds available funds. CCTA contends its proposed process would prioritize proposed projects that will connect the greater number of unserved households in a consortia region that has not met the 98 percent goal; proposed projects that will connect the greater number of unserved households that have no service or very slow service; proposed projects that are located in an urban county or rural county with a greater proportion, compared to other urban or rural counties respectively, of households without access to broadband internet access service with at least 100 Mbps download speed; and proposed projects that will provide the greater percentage of matching funds. CCBC recommends the Commission focus more explicitly on reviewing applications in six months. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Frederick L Pilot and SANDAG propose that the Commission prioritize last mile projects that leverage the state-owned middle mile infrastructure or give those applications additional credit. 8.2. Discussion We adopt the evaluation criteria in the Staff Proposal with modifications. To begin, we revise the point totals to reflect that applicants may receive up to the amount specified. We decline to eliminate the proposal to award up to 10 points for applicants that propose to offer Internet service using fiber. The Final Rule explicitly encourages fiber projects. Awarding 10 points to fiber projects aligns with that goal. We modify the 10 points provided for offering affordable plans or participating in low-income subsidy programs to reflect updated guidance from the Treasury in the Final Rule. In an effort to incent local governments to participate in this program, we also increase the amount of points available for broadband networks operated by municipalities, Tribes, non -profits and cooperatives and reduce the amount for priority projects identified by the Commission's Communications Division by 10 points. The evaluation criteria for project applications, as modified, are: • Up to 10 points for applications with matching funds; • Up to 10 points for applications proposing fiber optic infrastructure; • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to build a broadband network owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non- profits, Tribe, and cooperatives; -39- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION • Up to 10 points for applications that integrate the California LifeLine or federal Lifeline program;31 • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to serve an area identified by the Commission's Communications Division;32 • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate the financial, technical, and operational capacity to execute the project successfully and complete it on time; • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate a well - planned project with a reasonable budget that shows it will deliver speeds and service proposed and be sufficiently robust to meet increasing demand for bandwidth; and • Up to 10 points for applications that propose to leverage the statewide open -access middle mile network, unless not in reasonable proximity to the network. 9. Leveraging Other Funds The ACR requests comments on how the FFA can best coordinate and leverage other broadband infrastructure funds. 9.1. Party Positions Parties do not agree on how, or necessarily even if, FFA rules should leverage other broadband infrastructure funds. CforAT, SANDAG and CVAG support leveraging state and federal funds to connect the largest number of households possible. CVAG recommends the Commission prioritize projects that have secured funds for last mile connections. AT&T supports allowing matching funds for FFA grants provided an ISP is not able to "double dip" and receive funding from two programs to deploy the same service in the same area. SSUA supports leveraging grant programs that target 31 Interim Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 26786, 26806. 32 Public Utilities Code § 281 (b)(5)(C). See also, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Federal Register Volume 86, No. 93, Page 26804 (May 17, 2021). R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION digital equity and economic benefits for low-income, unserved, underserved, disadvantaged customers, including small and diversified businesses, such as the federal Small Business Administration and California's and Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development programs, though FFA applicants should use these programs before FFA when applicable. SCAG encourages coordination with the California Department of Housing (HCD) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). LAEDC recommends coordination between local and state agencies, as well as CASF regional consortia. SCAG recommends partnerships with other agencies, private sector, and non -profits that can assist in the application process, including metropolitan planning organizations like SCAG. NCC and TURN support the Commission facilitating information sharing on FFA and other programs. SDG&E encourages the leveraging of existing infrastructure, including through joint trenching agreements. The Small LECs assert that projects awarded under FFA should not compete with projects granted from other Commission -related programs, or other new grant programs contemplated by SB 156, and that projects under the FFA program should be prioritized because the funding is available for a short period of time. CCTA, Comcast, and Frontier recommend that FFA rules should align, to the extent possible, with the existing CASF Infrastructure Grant rules, to encourage program participation and increase efficiency, though Frontier asks the Commission to not prioritize applications based on percentage of matched funding the applicant proposes. Instead of leveraging federal and state funds, Comcast also appears to suggest the Commission devise program rules for line -41- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION extension to unserved areas that are consistent with the FFA program and the CASF program. 9.2. Discussion The Final Rule provides additional guidance for the Commission on how to address instances in which existing funds from other broadband infrastructure programs have been allocated to improve service in a proposed project area: to the extent recipients are considering deploying broadband to locations where there are existing enforceable federal or state funding commitments for reliable service at speeds of at least 100 Mbps download speed and 20 Mbps upload speed, recipients must ensure that SURF funds are designed to address an identified need for additional broadband investment that is not met by existing federal or state funding commitments. Recipients must also ensure that SURF funds will not be used for costs that will be reimbursed by the other federal or state funding streams.33 Consistent with the Final Rule, grant applications that propose to combine FFA funds with funds from a separate broadband infrastructure grant program will be permitted. Applicants must detail how these funds address an identified need for additional broadband investment that is not met by existing federal or state funding commitments. Applicants must itemize project costs, detail how funds will not be used for costs that will be reimbursed by the other federal or state funding streams and explain the public benefit that additional funds will provide. This will help prevent duplication of funding and help meet the requirement in the Final Rule that SURF funds are being used to address a need in the area and will not cover the same costs reimbursed by other grants. 33 87 Fed. Reg. 4422 (January 27, 2022). -42- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Applications seeking to leverage additional funds are not eligible for ministerial review and must be approved by the Commission by resolution. Locations with existing enforceable federal or state funding commitments to deploy reliable wireline service at speeds of at least 100 Mbps download speed and 20 Mbps upload speed will not be included in the locations Communications Division identifies as being eligible for funding. These commitments must be public and demonstrable. If a grant application proposes to serve locations with an enforceable commitment, the grant must be approved by Commission Resolution. 10. Eligible Entities grant: The ACR proposes the following entities as eligible recipients of a FFA • Entities with a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that qualify as a "telephone corporation' as defined under Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code section 234; or • Non -telephone corporations that are facilities -based broadband service providers; or • Local governmental agencies; or • Electric utilities; or • Tribes.34 The ACR also asks for recommendations regarding what information the Commission should consider in the rules to allow flexibility to enable 34 On April 6, 2018, a Tribal Consultation Policy was formally adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission). The Commission's Tribal Consultation Policy defines "California Native American tribe" as a Native American Tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004. (See Public Resources Code Section 21073.) California Native American Tribes include both federally recognized and non -federally recognized Tribes. -43- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION partnerships between entities and providers, including public entities and one or more broadband Internet service providers. 10.1. Party Positions AT&T supports enabling partnerships between entities and providers as an effective mechanism to achieve the program goals. NCC recommends defining eligible entities in broad terms to include a range of innovative approaches that communities may use to improve connectivity. CCTA urges the Commission to adopt the same approach as the existing CASF Infrastructure Grant Account, which allow any entity, including a public agency, to apply for a grant upon a showing of being technically, economically, and operationally qualified and otherwise complying with program requirements, and permits partnerships as long as one member of the partnership is the designated lead party that meets application requirements and signs the consent form agreeing to be accountable for compliance with all terms of the grant. RCRC supports creating alternative rules for municipalities and tribal governments creating open access last mile networks. SBUA also supports encouraging public -private partnerships, though the organization cautions that public -private partnerships can lead to challenges when the private entity is granted public right of way (ROW). To avoid this, the CPUC should not grant public ROW to other last mile providers which are not also provided to utilities with the same ROW and special conditions. SANDAG urges the Commission to expand eligibility to metropolitan planning organizations (like SANDAG and SCAG), regional transportation planning agencies, broadband consortia, as well as educational institutions, community -based organizations or cooperatives that may want funding to partner with an ISP. CETF and UNITE -LA propose expanding eligibility to anchor institutions, such as school districts, library R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION systems and rural telehealth providers or their consortiums, as well as nonprofit organizations dedicated to providing broadband Internet access service to an unserved or underserved community. SDG&E supports the proposal to include utilities as eligible entities for FFA grants, especially so the companies may partner with other stakeholders to leverage existing and future utility infrastructure. SDG&E also recommends the Commission expand eligibility to allow for multiple grant recipients to partner with last -mile providers. Frederick L. Pilot proposes the Commission adopt rules that facilitate IOUs wishing to be wholesale network operators offering dark fiber services to retail service providers. Several parties, including Geolinks, Joint WISPs, CETF, Santa Clara County, CETF, and Verizon urge the Commission to consider wireless service providers that use new spectrum to deliver Internet access through Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) and satellite, asserting that the Interim Final Rule does not limit FFA projects to fiber. Joint WISPs also recommend that the proposed rules be updated prior to the Commission adopting them in the event the interim SLFRF rule is updated, or that the rules only apply to funds made available through SB 156 and ARPA, as future funding from the State or Federal government may have different requirements. Frederick L Pilot supports the Commission adopting rules that encourage public entities as wholesale network operators, given the traditional role of public entities as owners and operators of critical infrastructure and the 30-50- year life of fiber infrastructure that supports ownership stable public entities can provide. NCC suggests the Commission could defer to municipalities and provide local leaders with policy mechanisms and educational tools needed to hold providers accountable for commitments made during the funding -45- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION application process, including model contracts, peer -to -peer collaboration, and enforcement from the Commission could provide important balance that also maintains ample room for innovation. RCRC opposes requiring entities that do not hold CPCNs provide a letter of credit, asserting that it will add costs and discourage public entities from building networks, and that municipalities can demonstrate fiscal responsibility by other means, as it is rare for them to go bankrupt but private entities do so regularly. 10.2. Discussion We revise the list of eligible entities to include non -profits and cooperatives in response to parties' comments. This enables flexibility in the type of partnerships and is consistent with the "Type of Partnership" criterion under Evaluation of Applications section of the Staff Proposal. The Commission encourages partnerships between various organizations to build out capacity for broadband infrastructure deployment, though the Commission also must balance that with the need to ensure accountability for program funds. Designating the member of a partnership that will be deploying the broadband infrastructure as the lead party for the grant facilitates accountability and compliance with all grant requirements. If public entities or Tribal governments seek exemptions from specific program rules to accommodate the creation of open access last mile networks, these entities must detail the exemptions they seek in their applications. Given that these applications seek to deviate from Commission rules, they will not be eligible for ministerial review. With these revisions, the Commission adopts this rule. R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 11. Funding of Middle Mile Infrastructure Consistent with federal rules, the ACR proposes to allow "middle -mile projects," though recipients are encouraged to focus on projects that will achieve last -mile connections —whether by focusing on last -mile projects or by ensuring that funded middle -mile projects have potential or partnered last -mile networks that could or would leverage the middle -mile network. For projects that include funding for middle -mile infrastructure, Staff will evaluate and verify that the proposed middle -mile infrastructure is needed to achieve the last -mile connections. Staff will verify if existing middle -mile infrastructure in a proposed project area is sufficient, reasonably affordable, and open -access prior to granting or making a recommendation to the Commission to grant a proposed project. Additionally, the Commission will evaluate whether the proposed middle mile infrastructure can be provided by or incorporated into the statewide middle mile network. The ACR asks parties to recommend ways the Commission can ensure that FFA grants coordinate and take advantage of the statewide middle mile network authorized in SB 156. 11.1. Party Positions CCTA recommends the Commission require that FFA projects requesting funds for middle mile infrastructure demonstrate that the infrastructure is "indispensable" to be consistent with the CASF Infrastructure Grant Account rules. As part of its review, CD Staff would examine if existing middle -mile facilities are available. If there are none, CD Staff could also consider whether the new state middle- mile network could be utilized to connect the last -mile households in that proposed project. -47- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION TURN asserts that the existence of a FFA last -mile applicant that indicates middle -mile facilities are indispensable serves two purposes: (1) it would highlight where middle -mile either does not exist or is not accessible with sufficient capacity; and (2) it would demonstrate that state-wide middle -mile is necessary for last -mile providers to interconnect. If the state-owned middle -mile can provide service to the proposed FFA last -mile project, the FFA funds would not need to expend funds on middle -mile service to serve that project and therefore save FFA funds for additional last -mile projects. Thus, TURN proposes that Staff use information obtained from CASF Infrastructure Grant Account projects and FFA projects that requests funding for indispensable middle mile as an indication that affordable middle mile, with sufficient capacity, does not exist. SANDAG suggests the Commission allow last mile deployments to also fund complementary middle mile infrastructure to fill in gaps overlooked by statewide middle mile. Frederick L Pilot and SANDAG propose that the Commission prioritize last mile projects that leverage the state-owned middle mile infrastructure or give those applications additional credit. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and San Francisco urge the Commission to not require FFA grantees to use the State's middle -mile network, so grantees may consider other options that may be more economical or operationally feasible and expedite the completion of the project more expeditiously. CETF, South Valley Internet, and CVAG recommend that the Commission closely coordinate middle -mile connectivity with the California Department of Technology (CDT) and CENIC. Joint WISPs and SANDAG suggest the Commission create a central clearinghouse or database to track permit applications and store public construction locations and scheduling plans, as IMM R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION well as other data on middle- and last -mile investments. Joint WISPs urge the Commission to direct middle -mile and last -mile developers to cooperate in using conduit and trenching to minimize total expenditures and community disruption. 11.2. Discussion The Commission will award FFA funding to last -mile applications that also propose to include middle -mile infrastructure that is necessary, and not near the statewide middle -mile network. For projects that include funding for middle - mile infrastructure, CD Staff will evaluate and verify that the proposed middle -mile infrastructure is needed to achieve the last -mile connections. CD Staff will verify if existing middle -mile infrastructure in a proposed project area has sufficient capacity, is reasonably affordable, and is open -access prior to granting or making a recommendation to the Commission to grant a proposed project. CD Staff will post guidance regarding specifications for middle -mile infrastructure funded through FFA on its website. Additionally, the Commission will evaluate whether the proposed middle - mile infrastructure can be provided by the statewide middle -mile network. Proposed middle -mile infrastructure will be coordinated with the California Department of Technology (CDT) and the Third -Party Administrator to ensure it complements the statewide open -access middle mile network. As suggested by Frederick L Pilot and SANDAG, the Commission will include whether last -mile projects propose to leverage the state-owned middle mile infrastructure as part of the application evaluation. Applicants will receive up to 10 points. However, if a proposed project is not in a geographic location that will benefit from the statewide open -access middle -mile network, an applicant may still receive credit. R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 12. Open Access The ACR proposes several open access requirements for FFA grants. First, middle -mile segments built using an FFA grant must be open access for the lifetime of that infrastructure, meaning that the grantee owning the infrastructure must offer nondiscriminatory interconnection and Internet access at reasonable and equal terms to any telecommunications service provider that wishes to interconnect with that infrastructure, wherever technically feasible. Additionally, the ACR proposes that pricing, terms, and conditions for other providers to interconnect shall be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. FFA grant recipients must offer tiered pricing and a range of options to fit different business models, including similarly situated entities, such as s wholesale ISP, a government, and public anchor institutions (e.g., a university or hospital). Pricing, tariffs, and the framework identifying standard terms and conditions must be provided to the Commission's Communications Division as part of the FFA application for middle -mile funding and may be updated by the grantee. Terms and conditions should address essential elements of network operations such as cybersecurity, circuit provisioning, network outages, future capital investment costs, and operations and maintenance costs. The ACR also proposes that the Commission require FFA grant recipients to negotiate in good faith with all requesting parties (i.e., public, private, non-profit, or other parties) making a bona fide request for interconnection or wholesale services.35 In the event that the FFA grant recipient fails to comply with the open access requirement in accordance with the terms of approval 35 Reasonable prices, terms, and conditions for last -mile provider access to middle -mile infrastructure may vary depending on local circumstances such as physical and network conditions, or the types of services and service levels requested by the last -mile provider. -50- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION granted by the Commission, or in the event that the FFA grant recipient does not negotiate in good faith with a requesting party, the requesting party may file a complaint with the Commission. Finally, the ACR proposes to require FFA grant recipients to submit a confidential annual report for the life of the middle -mile infrastructure, detailing of the number of interconnection requests and executed service agreements. The report must include: date of request, requesting party, location of requested interconnection, service requested, outcome of request, pricing, tariffs (if applicable), and terms and conditions. 12.1. Party Positions Los Angeles County asserts that all middle -mile funding should support publicly owned and open -access fiber and be available to low-income areas where many either do not have broadband or pay too much for it, given the County's goal to connect as many people as possible utilizing county -owned infrastructure to extend service to unconnected households. SCAG asserts open - access middle mile can decrease costs and combined open -access middle mile and last mile can promote competition and private investments, with cost savings that can be directed towards lowering subscription fees. Frederick L. Pilot opines that Commission should favor a wholesale network operator model with open -access last mile fiber. RCRC supports creating alternative rules for municipalities and tribal governments creating open access last mile networks." CETF supports the proposal for including the open access information in an annual report. -51- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 12.2. Discussion We adopt the proposed open -access requirements, with the clarification that our open access requirement for FFA grantees includes the requirement to provide dark fiber services. 13. Minimum Performance Criteria The ACR proposes that all FFA projects meet the following minimum performance criteria: • All projects exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be completed within 12 months, and all other projects shall be completed within 24 months after receiving authorization to construct. • All applicants must commit to serve customers in the project area at the prices provided in the application for the life of the infrastructure. • All households in the proposed project areas must be offered a broadband Internet service plan with speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload, or speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload if applicable. • All projects must provide service at no higher than 100 ms of latency. • Data caps are disfavored. If including a data cap an applicant must include a justification about how the cap does not limit reliability of the connection to the users. In any event, data caps shall provide a minimum of 1000 GBs per month. • All projects must provide an affordable broadband plan, as defined in the Definitions, for low-income customers, California LifeLine, federal Lifeline service and the Emergency Broadband Benefit, or its successor. -52- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION The ACR also asks, if the Commission should consider applicants that propose to provide voice service or other services and what industry standards for safe and reliable service should the Commission adopt. 13.1. Party Positions Parties propose several changes to the proposed minimum performance standards. AT&T and CETF assert a 12-month construction timeline, even for CEQA-exempt projects, is too short and is inconsistent with federal guidance, and instead recommends a minimum construction timeframe of two years. San Francisco recommends at least 36 months for CEQA exempt projects and 48 months for non-exempt projects. Verizon contends the Commission should recognize that 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload is sufficient for projects that are using technologies other than fiber. CforAT opposes creating a blanket exception for projects using wireless technology, arguing that it would set a lower standard for one technology, especially in light of arguments raised by various wireless Internet service providers that there is wireless technology capable of symmetrical 100 Mpbs speeds. The Small LECs support requiring that any infrastructure funded by FFA grants include voice service offerings using that infrastructure. CCTA supports the proposed rule requiring an FFA grantee to offer voice service that meets federal 911 and backup battery standards. AT&T and Comcast argue the Commission should not require an FFA applicant to provide voice service or score an applicant that specifies it will provide voice any higher than any other applicant. Frontier favors the requirement of offering voice service, including VoIP, but does not support requiring battery backup. Joint WISPs note that fixed -53- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION wireless service can provide voice service. TURN supports the Staff Proposal, though it suggests the Commission require applicants to describe existing obligations or legal requirements to offer voice, and that applicants distinguish between minimum service standards for performance facility, compared with services that will be offered over those facilities. TURN does not favor a blanket requirement that all applicants offer a voice service to qualify for funding, unless the applicant has preexisting obligations or a regulatory requirement to offer voice service. TURN proposes the Commission award extra points or additional funding for applicants that agree to participate in state and federal LifeLine programs or CTF discounts or commit to offering an affordable voice service the same or better than existing state and federal communications PPP. Cal Advocates recommends the Commission set minimum annual low-income enrollment targets for FFA grantees and increase the target on an annual basis (for example, the Commission could set a target of 20 percent enrollment of low-income households in year one and then increase it by 20 percent each consecutive year). CWA supports adopting appropriate labor standards that ensure both applicants and any of their subcontractors commit to high -road employment practices.36 CWA also urges the Commission to require recipients to provide a 36 See CWA's Opening Comments on ACR at 10. CWA urges the Commission to give preference to applicants who can demonstrate that the workforce performing the contract will meet the following criteria: • High standards of safety training, certification, and/or licensure for all relevant workers, for example, OSHA 10, OSHA 30, confined space, traffic control, or other training, as relevant depending on title and work, and exemplary workplace safety practices; • Professional certifications and/or in-house training to ensure that deployment is done at a high standard; • In-house training programs with established requirements tied to certifications, titles, and/or uniform wage scales; -54- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION project workforce continuity plan as contemplated in the Treasury guidance. CWA also recommends the Commission lower the threshold for providing prevailing wage certification or a project employment and local impact report from $10 million to $2 million for infrastructure projects. CCTA and Comcast object to the proposed requirement that an FFA grantee commit to serve customers in the project area at the prices provided in the application for the life of the infrastructure, and instead suggest making the requirement for two years. CETF recommends making the requirement for three of four years. CforAT urges the Commission to ensure that any measurement of the serviceable life of the infrastructure include the expectation that providers are regularly and effectively maintaining their networks. Santa Clara County recommends measuring serviceable life for wireline connections by the pole, conduit or other structure hosting the wire, or using the estimates provided by the FCC (projected life for conduit systems is 50-60 years), an audit of AT&T Nevada (50-year financial life of conduit) or the American Wood Protection Association (estimates wood poles useful life of 44.5 years). SBUA recommends measuring an infrastructure's serviceable life against its ability to offer 100 Mbps symmetrical speeds -- if the infrastructure is not technically capable of delivering those speeds or meet reliability criteria, it should no longer be considered serviceable. * Locally -based workforce that supports job pipelines for traditionally marginalized communities; • Relevant work will be performed by a directly employed workforce or employer has policies and/or practices to ensure that any employees of contractors used meet the criteria as described above; • No recent violations of Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and state labor and employment laws. -55- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Frederick L. Pilot encourages the Commission to reduce the latency standard to reflect the low latency fiber networks offer. 13.2. Discussion Given the concerns various ISPs raise, we shorten the pricing commitment from the life of the infrastructure for services to 10 years. Prices provided in the application can be lowered, but cannot be increased, without Commission approval. We also revise this requirement to provide grant recipients with the ability to file a request to waive this requirement with the Communications Division, should the need to adjust their prices in the future arise. In response to concerns raised by AT&T, CETF, and San Francisco, we extend the construction deadline for CEQA-exempt projects from 12 months to 18 months. In addition, FFA grant recipients may request an extension of time as needed, though grantees must be aware of the deadlines in federal statute. Additionally, as part of the annual resolution process, providers may receive an extension of time. The shorter deadlines reflect the Commission's obligation to ensure these funds are expended in the time allotted by the federal government. There is an urgency with which these funds must - and can - be expended. If an applicant demonstrates an inability to perform, the Commission must identify this with sufficient time to allocate funds to other projects or applicants before the funds are rescinded by the federal government. Statute requires FFA projects to pay prevailing wages.37 In response to CWA's request, we add that to the list of minimum performance requirements. 37 California Labor Code, § 1720. -56- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 14. Affordability The Interim Federal Rule encourages integrating affordability into the design of this program. With that in mind, the ACR requests comment on the following questions. • How should the Commission define affordability? • How should the Commission consider a preference or requirement for affordable offers that are not income - qualified? • Should the Commission consider other low-income preferences or requirements as a percentage of the Federal Poverty Level? Or categorical eligibility such as any service connection in a Qualified Census Tract? • How should the Commission consider low-income or affordable offers that allow for enrollment based on participation in any California public assistance program? • What should be the term for which an affordable or low- income offer is provided and what is the rationale for the term? • Is it reasonable to require applicants provide Lifeline services, as well as the Emergency Broadband Benefit, or its successor? 14.1. Party Positions Parties offer different options for defining affordability. AARP recommends the Commission calculate an "acceptable broadband burden" that considers the cost of equipment and any monthly fees, as well as decreases in the price of Internet service, and supports prioritizing non-commercial providers as a way to lower prices and to encourage adoption. AARP also notes that affordability is affected by time spent on applying for subsidized broadband. San Francisco recommends the Commission consider offering free or low-cost options for qualifying low-income consumers, and also ensuring long-term -57- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION commitments from ISPs to making affordable services available. CVAG proposes the Commission define affordability as a percentage of household income, and should reflect an area's Median Income, similar to how affordable housing is defined (not more than 30 percent of gross income towards housing costs). CforAT recommends including an affordability factor in the Commission's evaluation of applications and using the definition and metrics of affordability adopted in the Commission's affordability docket.38 SCAG contends that open - access to middle mile infrastructure can decrease costs and, when combined with open -access to last mile, can promote competition and private investments, allowing cost savings to be directed towards lowering subscription prices. LAEDC advocates for an affordability threshold that is "no higher than the FCC's 2 percent threshold "and preferably lower to lessen the likelihood of low- income households having to cut other essential expenses to be able to afford Internet access. SBUA supports using the definition adopted in D.20-07-032, which defines affordability "as the degree to which a representative household is able to pay for an essential utility service charge, given its socioeconomic status." SBUA recommends applying the three metrics specified in that decision: 1) the affordability ratio, 2) the hours at minimum wage, and 3) the socioeconomic vulnerability index, with goals also set for small businesses and diverse businesses. NCC encourages the Commission to adopt a broad definition of affordability to overcome barriers to access and adoption issues and also asserts that supporting community -backed initiatives like publicly owned networks will improve both the availability and the affordability of Internet service. 38 R.18-07-006. R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION TURN proposes that the Commission identify needs of low-income communities where the lack of affordable voice and broadband communications services created a barrier to access, establish minimum standards for services offered over these facilities, and create benchmarks and ranges of affordable rates for services offered over the infrastructure built with this funding. Some parties propose specific monthly rates for affordable service. TURN supports using the current CASF rates and terms as a useful benchmark, though TURN also asserts that the Commission should not look strictly at market rates of existing middle -mile services as a benchmark or definition of affordability. Cal Advocates supports requiring grantees to offer a low-income plan for $15 per month, which offers speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload, and 100 Mbps symmetrical if the project will offer plans at those speeds. NCC contends that free and low-cost options, as well as adoption support, are necessary to ensure that all Californians can get online and that even $10-$15 per month may be too expensive for some individuals. Greenlining Institute proposes to define an affordable Internet service plan as one that provides service at $10 per month at speeds sufficient for an entire household to connect to telehealth, teleworking, and remote learning. Currently, Greenlining Institute asserts this should be set at a minimum 50 Mbps, with speeds increasing as societal usage needs increase over time (Greenlining Institute estimates that an average internet user will need 150-500 Mbps download/100 Mbps upload speeds by 2025) and that the offer must be stand alone, without bundles. AT&T and Frontier oppose the proposal to require FFA grantees provide Internet service at an agreed -upon price for the life of the infrastructure. AT&T supports a two-year service agreement term in the Staff Proposal, or a term commensurate with FFA oversight. The Small LECs request an exemption for rate -of -return -59- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION regulated utilities that specify they do not have to offer a particular rate for retail broadband to access FFA funding, arguing these companies should not be required to offer Internet access service at a loss. AARP argues the Commission needs to regulate price and service subsidization; otherwise, AARP asserts that prices will continue to increase in non-competitive markets. CCTA opposes the proposal to require FFA grantees to offer a low-income Internet service plan for $15 a month, asserting it will allow flexibility and not exclude low-income offers, such as the EBB program, with a different existing structure. CETF and CforAT support the proposal. CforAT and San Francisco recommend the Commission award more points to applications that offer to charge less. CETF also recommends that we require providers not to levy additional charges for the modem or for installation. Comcast recommends the Commission adopt a requirement similar to the CASF Infrastructure Grant Account rules, which require all projects to "provide an affordable broadband plan," but which do not define an "affordable broadband plan." Instead, the rules require "low-income plans" that cost no more than $15 per month. Cal Advocates proposes that, to support enrollment to affordable plans, the Commission require all providers to partner with community -based organizations, local schools, and local governments administering low-income plans. SCAG recommends an affordable rate of $20 per month or free service for individuals residing in government -subsidized housing, and to waive the cost of installation and any fees. R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION CCTA contends there is no need to define "affordability" in this proceeding, given that this issue is being addressed in R.18-07-006. RCRC supports making broadband Internet services affordable but asserts the proposal's affordability requirements aren't achievable for networks operated by municipal agencies, and requests that the Commission consider a separate affordability metric for those types of networks. The Small LECs recommend the Commission prioritize deploying broadband Internet infrastructure now, and grapple with affordability issues later. Several parties recommend using criteria besides income to determine affordability. AARP supports criteria such as for households with long-term health monitoring and health care requirements. SCAG recommends using criteria such as household poverty rates, neighborhood median income, concentration of public housing, social service recipients, or a "predefined income hierarchy." Greenlining Institute proposes that the alternative to income - qualified offers should be qualification via enrollment in a public benefits program, as well as using census tract qualification based on the affordability and social economic vulnerability of a census tract. In this same vein, the Commission should mirror the program eligibility from the California LifeLine program to provide the most options for California consumers. Santa Clara County recommends that, if the Commission limits eligibility, it should use criteria that do not require additional documentation to be submitted or complex verification processes, as these are barriers for low-income households. Comcast opposes giving preference to affordable offers that are not income -qualified, asserting this can lead providers to market -based pricing aimed at consumers otherwise unwilling to subscribe. Comcast also asserts that giving such a -61- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION preference would be outside the Commission's authority and would be preempted by federal law. AARP supports categorical eligibility for households in a qualified census tract and could even extend that to ESJ and Tribal communities. San Francisco asserts there is too much variance among the residents within a census tract (both very low-income individuals and individuals with very high income can be located within the same tract) for that geographic span to be used accurately. Regarding how to consider low-income offers based on participation in low-income programs, AARP, Cal Advocates, CVAG, LAEDC, SANDAG, SCAG, and CforAT support making customers that participate in any California public assistance program automatically eligible for affordable offers. These programs can include, among others, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Cash Aid, Medi-Cal, and Cal-Fresh/SNAP, CalWORKs, and individuals receiving Section 8 vouchers and or other public housing benefits. Regarding the term length of affordable offerings, AARP and SANDAG support an indefinite term, while CVAG recommends at least two years, and LAEDC contends the affordable plans should be for as long as practically possible. Several parties support requiring FFA grantees to participate in some low- income program. AARP, CETF, NCC, SBUA, and CforAT support requiring FFA grantees to offer a low-income plan, like LifeLine providers or EBB recipients must. Comcast opposes the requirement to offer LifeLine service, but not EBB, and recommends including other qualifying programs targeting low-income customers, such as Comcast's Internet Essentials. Cal Advocates suggests the Commission not require FFA grant recipients to offer LifeLine until after the Commission revises the California LifeLine program to include standalone -62- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION broadband plans. AT&T asserts that if a provider participates in the EBB, it should not also be required to participate in the federal Lifeline or state LifeLine programs. In addition, participation in the federal Lifeline program under current rules would require a provider to become an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, which Treasury's Final Rule does not require, and which would likely deter many providers from participating in the FFA. 14.2. Discussion The Final Rule finds that "a project cannot be considered a necessary investment in broadband infrastructure if it is not affordable to the population the project would serve," and requires: 39 1) grantees to participate, for the life of the infrastructure, in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), or otherwise provide access to a broad -based affordability program to low-income consumers in the proposed service area of the broadband infrastructure that provides benefits to households commensurate with those provided under the ACP; 40 2) that services include at least one low-cost option offered without data usage caps, and at speeds that are sufficient for a household with multiple users to simultaneously telework and engage in remote learning;41 and 3) that recipients report speed, pricing, and any data allowance information as part of mandatory reporting to Treasury.42 We require FFA grantees to participate in the federal ACP or otherwise provide access to a broad -based affordability program to low-income consumers. We revise the application evaluation criteria to reflect that this is no longer 39 87 Fed. Reg. 4418 (January 27, 2022). 40 Id. at 4418, 4421. 4187 Fed. Reg. 4408 (January 27, 2022). 42 Id. -63- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION optional. We also revise the application evaluation criteria to provide grantees that participate or commit to participating in the federal Lifeline program or the California LifeLine program 10 points. This is in recognition that these public programs provide access to vital telecommunications services, in addition to the ACP. Consistent with the Final Rule, we require FFA grantees to offer a generally available low-cost broadband plan for the life of the infrastructure that includes the following minimum standards: • Must not include data usage caps; • Must offer speeds that are sufficient for a household with multiple users to simultaneously telework and engage in remote learning, which is defined as 50/50 Mbps; • Must be no more than $40 per month; • The grantee must not charge for installation or setup; • The grantee must provide a free modem or router; and • The service does not require a minimum term. Applicants that demonstrate that a 100/ 100 Mbps build out is not feasible may offer plans that offer low-cost broadband plans at speeds of 50/20 Mbps to fulfill this requirement. Grant recipients also may submit a request to the Communications Division to waive or modify these requirements in the future, should the need to adjust these requirements arise. The Commission will update these requirements as needed. Qualifying low-income households may apply the ACP to a grantee's low- cost offer. The Infrastructure Act includes the requirement that a provider participating in the ACP "shall allow an eligible household to apply the affordable connectivity benefit to any internet service offering of the R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Participating provider, at the same terms available to households that are not eligible households."43 The FCC ACP rules implementing this requirement specify that a household qualifying for the ACP may apply the benefit to "any broadband internet plan that a provider currently offers to new customers."44 For a qualifying household applying the ACP $30 non -Tribal benefit to a low-cost broadband plan the resulting price would be around $10 —consistent with commenters noting plans with a price in the range of $5-15 would make broadband that meets "an adequate minimum level of service"45 more accessible to low-income households. We decline to adopt a definition for "affordability" in this decision that is different from the Commission proceeding dedicated to this matter. D.20-07-032 defines affordability as "the impact of essential utility service charges on a household's ability to pay for non -discretionary expenses."46 We decline to adopt specific requirements about whether the low-cost $40 amount includes other provider -imposed charges such as administrative fees or regulatory cost recovery charges, though the Commission will continue to watch for anti - consumer behavior in the implementation of low-cost broadband plans, and track federal and state dockets including the FCC broadband label docket47 and 43 47 U.S.C. § 1752(b)(7). 44 Affordable Connectivity Program Emergency Broadband Benefit, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 21, 2022), para. 94, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-2A1.pdf (accessed Jan. 28, 2022). 45 87 Fed. Reg. 4408 (January 27, 2022). 46 See Appendix A at 6. 47 See Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency, CG Docket No. 22-2, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 27, 2022), httgs://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-7A1.pdf (access Jan. 28, 2022). -65- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Commission surcharge proceeding48 for relevant consumer protections and other requirements. 15. Reimbursable Expenses The ACR proposes that the Commission reimburse the following costs: • Costs directly related to the deployment of infrastructure; • Costs to lease access to property or for Internet backhaul services for a period not to exceed five years; and • Costs incurred by an existing facility -based broadband provider to upgrade its existing facilities to provide for interconnection. Per federal rules, the Commission will reimburse costs incurred during the period beginning March 3, 2021, and ending December 31, 2024. Additionally, administrative expenses directly related to the project shall be capped at two percent of the grant amount and a maximum of 15 percent contingency on direct infrastructure costs.49 15.1. Party Positions Several parties suggest revisions to the proposed rules regarding what expenses FFA funds will reimburse. CENIC recommends the Commission reimburse approved grantees for Costs associated with the development of their grants. CETF urges the Commission to increases the cap on administrative expenses in the range of eight to twelve percent, asserting that limiting administrative expenses to two percent is too low. CETF does not support the 48 See Order Instituting Rulemaking to Update Surcharge Mechanisms to Ensure Equity and Transparency of Fees, Taxes and Surcharges Assessed on Customers of Telecommunications Services in California, Rulemaking 21-03-002 (Mar. 4, 2021). 49 We define administrative costs as "indirect overhead costs attributable to a project, per generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and the direct cost of complying with Commission administrative and regulatory requirements related to the grant itself." Applicants seeking additional funds will require a Commission exemption included in a draft resolution. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 15 percent contingency on direct infrastructure costs, given the materials and supply costs for broadband is going up. SANDAG, CETF, Santa Clara County and Frederick L. Pilot encourage the Commission to allow technical support to eligible applicants. 15.2. Discussion We adopt the Staff Proposal without modification. It is imprudent to reimburse applicants for the cost of developing their application, particularly if the applications are not viable or successful. Further, the Commission envisions providing assistance directly to potential applicants, as well as making funds available for technical assistance grants to eligible local agencies and sovereign Tribal governments. 16. Information Required from Applicants In summary, the ACR proposes requiring applicants to submit separate applications for any eligible project. Non-contiguous project areas may be considered as a single project. In order to be reviewed, all applications must include: • A public project summary; • Specific information Applicant Entity Information; • A description of the provider's current broadband infrastructure and service within five miles of the proposed project and a description of other providers' infrastructure within the project area; • The geographic location of all households and housing units and project related key network equipment; • The median household income for each Census Block Group (CBG) that intersects the project area; • An assertion that the applicant reviewed the wireline served status on the Broadband Map and determined that the broadband project area proposed is eligible, or the -67- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION applicant will provide evidence to dispute that the area is served; • A detailed deployment schedule; • A detailed budget showing proposed project expenditures; • A listing of all the equipment to be funded and the estimated useful life; • A Letter of Credit if the applicant does not hold a CPCN; • A pricing commitment; • Marketing/ Outreach plans; • Government and community support; • Funding sources for expenses not covered by the grant; • Financial qualifications; • A project viability forecast; and • The following information: o Availability of voice service that meets California and FCC requirements for 9-1-1 service battery back- up; o Deployment plans for applicable Federal and state requirements; o A CEQA Attestation; o The Program Application Checklist Form; and o An affidavit. Full details on each of the items listed above are in Attachment A of the ACR on pages 14-22. 16.1. Party Positions AT&T asserts that providing major equipment expenses in an application are unnecessary details that is redundant with the general description of major infrastructure requirement. Further, the illustrative equipment listed are not "major equipment," but customer premises equipment selected by the .: R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION subscriber. Additionally, AT&T argues that Item 9.9 "Economic Life of All Assets to be Funded" should be deleted as irrelevant and unnecessary. TURN urges the Commission to require applicants to include a "roadmap" or detailed explanation of how the applicant will use funding related to project expenses and associated timelines that are currently required, as well as an explanation for why CASF Infrastructure Grant account funds would not be more appropriate source of funds for upgrades. Verizon supports requiring a FFA applicant to disclose other grants or public funds it has already received or expects to receive. CETF recommends that the required Marketing/Outreach Plan be "in - language" when serving a population that is limited -English speaking, where applicable, and that the Marketing/Outreach Plan include a requirement to advertise affirmatively in a prominent fashion, affordable broadband offers. Regarding the requirement for evidence of community support, AT&T and CCTA caution the Commission against weighing that support more heavily than the various technical deployment requirements. RCRC recommends requiring community support. San Francisco suggest requiring applications to include a letter of support from the executive of the jurisdiction (local or county) that would be served by project, with the letter containing sufficient details to ensure community leaders understand the scope of the proposed project. CETF counters that the proposal is not a requirement. 16.2. Discussion The final adopted requirements, including all details regarding the information applicants must provide, are contained in Appendix A. We make the following refinements: R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION • As identified by AT&T, we correct the examples of major equipment expenses; • We clarify the process by which an applicant would propose revising the area for which they are requesting funding; • We revise the pricing commitment requirement to be consistent with the affordability requirements adopted in this decision; • We revise the funding sources application item so that it is consistent with the requirements on leveraging other funds adopted in this decision; • We clarify that newly formed organizations applying for funding should submit financial statements of the parent or sponsoring organizations, including an explanation of the relationship between those organizations; and • We remove the requirement that an application include the checklist, as applications will be filed online. 17. Application Submission Timelines The ACR proposes that the Commission accept FFA applications on a quarterly basis (i.e., January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1). Applicants should electronically file complete applications at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/pucL and mail a separate hard copy to the Communications Division, Attn: California Advanced Services Program, and mail another hard copy to the Public Advocates Office at the Commission. Since applications are not filed with the Commission's Docket Office, they will not be assigned proceeding number(s). 17.1. Party Positions Frontier and AT&T support quarterly application windows. SANDAG urges the Commission to allow applicants enough time to find appropriate ISP partners to avoid precluding public entities from participating. CCTA recommends two application cycles each year to allow enough time to review -70- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION and act on all pending applications and eliminate confusion for potential applicants as to which areas remain eligible for a FFA grant. 17.2. Discussion We revise the proposed rules to no longer require mailed hard -copy applications. At the beginning of each application cycle, CD Staff will serve instructions regarding how to file electronic applications on the service list for this proceeding, the service list for the CASF proceeding, and the CASF Distribution List. CD Staff will announce application submission and other deadlines. Applications should be due every six months and staff will target to review applications in no more than six months. Organizations will have 14 days, inclusive of holidays and weekends, to file objections to applications. 18. Posting of Applications The ACR proposes that CD Staff post a list of all pending FFA applications, objection deadlines, and notices of amendments to pending applications on the FFA webpage. CD Staff also will serve notice of the applications, deadlines and amendments on the existing CASF Distribution List, given the number of interested individuals and entities that already are part of that list. CD Staff will post Application Summaries and Maps to the Commission website and notify CASF Distribution List within 10 days after the application submission deadline. The deadline to submit objections to any applications will be 10 days after the notice is served. In the event any date falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is the next business day. The Commission will endeavor to serve notice of applications and any amendments to an application for project funding to those on the service list for this proceeding, the service list for the CASF proceeding, and the CASF -71- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Distribution List, and post on the FFA webpage at least 30 days before publishing the corresponding draft resolution. 18.1. Party Positions No parties filed comments on this proposal. 18.2. Discussion The Commission adopts this proposal. 19. Application Objections The ACR proposes to provide a period during which interested persons may review FFA grant applications and file written comments objecting to an application under review. The Commission will consider these comments in reviewing the application. Any party that objects to a proposed area as already served must provide definitive evidence that the area is in fact already served. An objection must identify and discuss an error of fact, or policy or statutory requirement that the application has contravened. Comments must be submitted no later than 21 calendar days from when the entity serves notice of the application on the CASF Distribution List, or a different date set by CD Staff. Comments filed after the deadline will be deemed denied. Comments must be filed with the Commission and served on the CASF Distribution List. Consistent with the Interim Final Rule, grant recipients should avoid investing in locations that have existing agreements to build reliable wireline service with minimum speeds of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload by December 31, 2024, in order to avoid duplication of efforts and resources. An objection asserting an existing agreement to build such a wireline service should provide evidence of the existing agreement, and plans indicating the construction route, service area boundaries, and other pertinent construction details. Consistent with the Interim Final Rule, it "suffices that an objective of a -72- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION project is to provide service to unserved or underserved households or businesses. Doing so may involve a holistic approach that provides service to a wider area in order, for example, to make the ongoing service of unserved or underserved households or businesses within the service area economical. Unserved or underserved households or businesses need not be the only households or businesses in the service area receiving funds."50 As such, a project is not disqualified by proposing to provide service to served households. An objection asserting existing wireline communications infrastructure meets or exceeds the 25/3 Mbps unserved definition may still be provided. These objections must include the following information to be considered: • An attestation that all information provided is true and accurate in accordance with Rule 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure; • An attestation that the households identified are offered service and have the capability to reliably receive minimum speeds of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload; • The geographic location of all households it serves in the area(s) for which the objection is filed. This information must be provided in a plaintext, comma -separated values (CSV) file, that contains geo-located street address information, including latitude and longitude coordinates; • The number of subscribers and the level of service subscribed to in the area being disputed. Additionally, Commission staff may request billing statement information to verify subscribership. This information shall be submitted unredacted to the Commission under seal; • Permits, easements, or pole attachment applications submit and approved when infrastructure was built; and 50See, FAQ Question 6.9. -73- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION • Pictures of provider infrastructure in the area (i.e., wires, huts, vaults, etc.). The ACR proposed that comments that do not meet these requirements be deemed denied, that the Commission will only accept public comments and that objections based upon confidential and other non-public service data not be given weight in the evaluation process. An applicant may respond to any objection filed by an interested party within 14 days. A response to an objection must provide a public notice on the CASF Distribution List. CD Staff will review this information, along with the applicant's documentation, as it develops its recommendations to the Commission for the disposition of each application. 19.1. Party Positions TURN asserts that the Broadband Map does not necessarily demonstrate minimum speeds at any given time, and that both applicants and objectors should be required to submit evidence (speed, jitter, and latency tests) to determine if the broadband availability provides 25/3 Mbps at all times. CCTA contends the Commission should require that both applicants and objectors submit "credible and verifiable" evidence about served status of a proposed project area with a comparable attestation of the accuracy of all submitted information. CCTA argues the Staff Proposal includes disparate evidentiary standards heavily biased toward determining an area to be unserved, which it declares is unfair, unjustified, and contrary to statute. SANDAG contends that if an entity wants to contest an application, it should be that entity's responsibility to show the project area is served and has widespread adoption by providing households subscribed, service quality and service costs. -74- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Regarding objector deadlines, Comcast and CCTA note the inconsistency in the Staff Proposal (Section 10 allows 10 days and Section 12 allows 21 days), and assert that neither of 10 days nor 21 days is sufficient time for ISPs to prepare objections, given the expected high volume of applications, and instead ask that the deadline for submitting objections be at least 30 days. CforAT generally supports the proposal to allow objections, though it asserts that a 21-day objection period may allow some ISPs to upgrade service and block applications. To avoid this, CforAT recommends the Commission require the objecting ISP to show served households at the time the application is filed and have a high-ranking executive attest to that fact. CCTA and Comcast support eliminating the requirements that objections must include permits, easements, or pole attachment applications and pictures as evidence for disputing unserved status, arguing these requirements are unnecessary and would disadvantage objectors due to the time involved in collecting that information. Comcast requests the Commission allow objectors to submit competing speed tests to challenge Ca1SPEED as well as qualitative information (e.g., community interviews and testimony re served speeds). CforAT supports the proposal to use only information that is available to the public. CCTA and Comcast argue the Commission should ensure the confidentiality of customers' personally identifying information and critical infrastructure information that is included in an objection. Joint WISPs contend the information provided by an objector should remain confidential or released information should be redacted. Comcast opposes the requirement to include a Rule 1 attestation in an objection, asserting it is unnecessary. -75- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION SBUA recommends the Commission prohibit formal objections to wireless broadband applications in locations where geography, topography, or cost prohibitive implementation may render wireline broadband impractical. CETF notes that a weblink to the CASF Distribution List should be provided at the end of the second paragraph where it is referenced. 19.2. Discussion The Commission adopts the proposed rules on application objections with revisions updating the language to reflect the Final Rule. We decline at this time to make any further revisions to the objection process but may consider further revisions in a later decision. We note that federal rules grant the Commission broad discretion to implement these rules. We disagree with CCTA's argument that the proposed rules for application objections are heavily biased towards determining an area to be unserved. That contention ignores the fact that the initial determination of whether an area is served or not is based entirely on the data an ISP submits to the Commission as part of its annual broadband data collection. If an area is eligible, at least initially, it means either that an ISP did not indicate that it served the area in question at served speeds, or CD Staff was unable to validate the data the ISP submitted. In response to comments from Comcast, noting the inconsistencies with the amount of time provided to submit objections, we revise program rules to allow objectors 14 days to file their objections. In the event the fourteenth day falls on a weekend day or holiday, objections are due the next business day. While some parties suggest 30 days would be more reasonable, we find that the accelerated timeline to expend ARPA funds necessitates a shorter timeframe. -76- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 20. Ministerial Review The ACR proposes that the Commission delegate to CD Staff the authority to approve applications, including determinations of funding, that meet all of the following criteria: 1. The applicant meets the program eligibility requirements. 2. The application has not received objections or Staff has determined that the project area is unserved. 3. The total grant does not exceed $25,000,000. 4. The project is exempt from CEQA, or approval letter must state that authorization to construct and release funds will be provided in a forthcoming resolution. 5. There are no competing applications for the same project area in the same application period. 6. The proposed project costs $9,300 per household or less. Applications not meeting these criteria may only be approved by the Commission via resolution. 20.1. Party Positions Parties disagree on the overall grant limit for ministerial review. AT&T suggests the Commission increase the monetary eligibility per household and maximum grant amount thresholds to $75 million dollars. CETF recommends increasing the cap to $100 million. CCTA and Comcast urge the Commission to reduce the overall grant amount threshold to $10 million. CCTA also supports reducing the per -household cost to not exceed $9,300, to align with CASF Infrastructure Grant Account criteria. CETF and Santa Clara County support increasing the per household cap to $15,000 per household, to account for the increase in the cost for materials and labor. South Valley Internet and LCB Communications suggest increasing the cap to $13,000 per household. -77- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION CCTA also claims Section 3 of the Staff Proposal would potentially give CD Staff unfettered discretion to reject any application, determine all funding amounts, and negotiate all grant terms with each applicant and raises serious questions of unlawful delegation of authority to CD Staff. RCRC asks the Commission to not require a per -household cost projection as an evaluation point for application review or approval, arguing it will disadvantage low - density rural areas that have historically lacked adequate service, given that the least served areas will have a very high per -household costs and need FFA subsidization. RCRC asserts these areas will require ministerial review as the projects will likely take the longest to build AT&T recommends the Commission augment the ministerial program to establish a process whereby an applicant, who commits to bring broadband at a per -household cost at or below the threshold and provides a general project time and material estimates, would be relieved of specific application and reporting requirements and instead paid upon completion. 20.2. Discussion The Commission adopts the ministerial review rules with the following additions: • Applications that propose to leverage funding from other state or federal programs may not be approved by ministerial review; • Applications with proposed project areas that overlap areas with existing commitments to provide broadband Internet service that is reliable and offer speeds of 100/20 Mbps may not be approved by ministerial review; • Applications that propose project areas that include areas that have been identified by CD Staff as having an existing provider that offers 25/3 Mbps wireline service (e.g., projects designed to improve economies of scale of existing R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION projects, or areas in which the existing provider does not provide reliable service) may not be approved by ministerial review; and • Applications that request a waiver of any program requirement may not be approved by ministerial review. With these revisions, the Commission delegates to CD Staff the authority to approve applications that meet the requirements of the Ministerial Review section in the adopted rules. We firmly dismiss CCTA's opinion that the proposed or adopted rules represent an unlawful delegation of authority to CD Staff. The Commission has previously found that industry division staff may approve applications and other filings after the Commission adopts a specific standard for approval,51 including other public purpose programs, such as the CASF Infrastructure Account. Further, we note the area of significant concern to providers, including the cable companies that are members of CCTA, is the initial determination of project area eligibility, which has been ministerial in CASF for many years. This process will help meet the short deadlines set by federal law. 21. Reporting Requirements The ACR proposes to require grantees to file progress reports on a bi- annual basis. These reports will be publicly posted by the Commission. Progress reports are due on March 1 and September 1 of each year. In the event either date falls on a weekend or holiday, the reports are due the following business day. Details on the information the progress reports shall include are found in Appendix A. Grantees also must submit completion reports prior to receiving the final 51 See D.09-05-020 at 2-3; D.07-09-018 at 18, n.34; D.18-12-018 at 25-26, Conclusion of Law 2. -79- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION payment. Details on the information to include in project completion reports are in Appendix A. Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 281(1), grantees must report monthly to the Commission all of the following information throughout the construction phase: (A) The name and contractor's license number of each licensed contractor and subcontractor undertaking a contract or subcontract in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to perform work on a project funded or financed pursuant to this section; (B) The location where a contractor or subcontractor described in subparagraph (A) will be performing that work; and (C) The anticipated dates when that work will be performed. The Commission will, on a monthly basis, post the information reported pursuant to this subdivision on the commissions FFA internet website. 21.1. Party Positions Parties disagree on the frequency of reporting requirements. Frederick L. Pilot supports the semiannual reporting requirement. AT&T recommends the reporting frequency either be quarterly, annually, or only on upon completion for projects approved via the ministerial review process. Cal Advocates urges the Commission to require progress reports, not just completion reports. Verizon and Frontier urges the Commission to avoid onerous reporting requirements and instead adopt minimal requirements that comply with federal laws on FFA. Verizon recommends the Commission delete proposed categories of information such as the number of paying subscribers enrolled in the service, number of low- income or affordable plan customers enrolled. Verizon also suggests the Commission provide flexibility in the speed measurements for the speed tests, similar to what the FCC has recognized that the range of speed thresholds may be met for speed tests in the Connect America Fund program and allow :1 R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 80 percent of speed tests. Verizon also asserts that some of the information contained in the reports are "competitively sensitive," such as the number of paying subscribers, and therefore the reports should not be made public on the Commission's website. Cal Advocates recommends the Commission require FFA grant recipients to file a Tier 2 Advice Letter on an annual basis to report on the following items: • the number of customers that have been notified of the low-income plans and the form of notifications used; • the number of customers that have signed up for the plans; and • the number of customers that have cancelled their plans, until four years after the recipients have met the enrollment targets. If a grant recipient cannot meet its enrollment target, Cal Advocates recommends the Commission require it to meet with the California LifeLine Administrator to discuss how to meet the target. If the grant recipient still fails to meet them, it should be penalized via resolution. Also, Cal Advocates supports requiring FFA grant recipients to provide to the Commission a web link with information on the affordable plan. The web link should provide all information on the plan, ways to sign up, and necessary forms. CETF suggests that for items such as commitments on rates, affordable broadband plan, open access, and marketing/ outreach a brief annual report could be filed where the grantee reports on its compliance with its commitments and signs it under penalty of perjury. Santa Clara County recommend continuing reporting requirements for affordability and price commitments should last for the life of the longest commitment attached to a project. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION SBUA asserts post -construction requirements should not have an end date and reporting should be maintained, arguing this will encourage broadband providers to maintain quality of service. 21.2. Discussion Treasury's Final Rule requires that grant recipients report speed, pricing, and any data allowance information. 52As such, FFA grantees will be required to report annually to the Commission's Communications Division the speed, pricing, and any data allowance information on all of their plans. In addition, to address concerns raised by parties regarding the need for information on the subscribership and availability of affordable and income - qualified plans, we require recipients to report on the number of customers subscribed to income -qualified and low-cost plans. We also require grant recipients to include in their report a web link with information on their income - qualified and affordable plans. The web link should provide all information on the plan, ways to sign up, and necessary forms. 22. Payment The ACR proposes to allow FFA grantees to make requests for payment as the project is progressively deployed. The prerequisite for first payment is the submittal of a progress report to the Commission showing that at least 10 percent of the project has been completed. Subsequent payments are made at the following milestones: 35 percent completion, 60 percent completion, 85 percent completion, and 100 percent completion. The final 15 percent payment request (from 85 to 100 percent) will not be paid without an approved completion report. Payments must be based on submitted receipts, invoices and other supporting 52 87 FR 4418. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION documentation showing expenditures incurred for the project in accordance with the approved FFA funding budget included in the FFA grantee's application. If an application also meets the ministerial review criteria, a provider with a CPCN that wishes to front the full costs of a project in exchange for reduced reporting burdens may request an alternative payment structure. The one-time payment request must include a project completion report and receipts/invoices of major equipment and materials purchased, with labor costs and other items being line items reflecting the remaining total amounts charged to FFA. Staff must conduct a site visit to confirm project completion prior to authorizing payment and these reimbursements are still subject to audit. Grantees shall submit the final request for payment within 90 days after completion of the project. If the grantee cannot complete the project within the 24-month timeline, the grantee shall notify the Commission as soon as they become aware that they may not be able to meet the timeline and provide a new project completion date. If the recipient fails to notify CD Staff of any delays in the project completion and the project fails to meet the approved completion date, the Commission may impose penalties by resolution. This may include rescinding the grant. Invoices submitted will be subject to a financial audit by the Commission at any time within three years of completion of project. If portions of reimbursements are found to be out of compliance, grantees will be responsible for refunding any disallowed amounts along with appropriate interest at rates determined in accordance with applicable Commission decisions. R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Per federal rules, all funds must be obligated within the statutory period between March 3, 2021 and December 31, 2024, and expended to cover such obligations by December 31, 2026.53 In the event approved FFA projects have not made substantial progress in constructing the proposed infrastructure, the ACR proposes that on an annual basis, CD Staff draft a resolution for Commission approval that recommends modifications, revisions, and rescissions of grants not demonstrating substantial progress. 22.1. Party Positions AT&T asserts it is burdensome for grantees to produce project -specific receipts and urges the Commission to accept cost information from bulk purchase orders. 22.2. Discussion The Commission adopts the proposed rules with the clarification that CD Staff will provide a template for payments that is consistent with the Treasury's Final Rule and this Decision. The Commission believes it is important to have project specific expenses, though it will endeavor to be flexible, in reviewing project expenditures, depending on the project and circumstances. 23. CEQA Payments The ACR proposes that the Commission directly pay CEQA consultant costs. Following award of a grant the Energy Division CEQA Section Staff will obtain a contractor to review the CEQA documents for the project. The FFA will pay directly the project's CEQA PEA preparation costs, but those costs will be identified as costs associated with the grant and will have no effect on the applicable shares of grantee assigned and program supported total project costs. 53 See, FAQ Question 6.11. :m R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION The applicant may file with the Energy Division's CEQA Section a completed CEQA review conducted by another agency acting as the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA. Should this occur, grantees may request funds to pay for preparation of a PEA. 23.1. Party Positions No party filed comments. 23.2. Discussion The Commission adopts this proposal. 24. Execution, Performance and Grant Termination The ACR proposes that CD Staff and the grantee shall determine the project start date after the grant recipient has obtained all approvals. Should the recipient or its contractor fail to commence work at the agreed upon time, the Commission, upon five days written notice to the FFA recipient, reserves the right to terminate the award. If the FFA recipient fails to complete the project, in accordance with the terms of approval granted by the Commission, the FFA recipient must reimburse some or all of the funds that it has received. The FFA grantee must complete all performance under the award on or before the termination date of the award. Failure of a grantee to comply with the terms of the grant, provided in this decision, and the US Treasury Final Rule, in the Commission's Order approving the grant, or in the grant Agreement included as part of projects approved by CD Staff using its ministerial review authority, may result in cancellation of the award. The Commission or the Recipient may terminate a grant award, at any time by delivering 10 days written notice to the applicant/ grant award recipient. If the applicant terminates the grant award, for any reason, it will refund to the Commission within 30 days of the termination, all payments made by the R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION Commission to the applicant for work not completed or not accepted by the Commission. No less than 10 days before the termination, the applicant must notify the Commission in writing. Grant recipients shall comply with the ARPA and all other applicable federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders. 24.1. Party Positions Frontier argues the Commission should not adopt the proposal to allow the de -funding of approved projects, as some projects may encounter permitting and other delays not under an applicant's control and makes applying less attractive. 24.2. Discussion We revise the proposed rule to reflect that CD Staff will notify a grant recipient of its intent to prepare for Commission approval a draft resolution that would rescind a FFA grant due to nonperformance. We decline to adopt Frontier's recommendation for practical reasons. Given federal time limits, the Commission must be aware of delays FFA grantees encounter. In some instances, Commission staff may be able to assist the recipient in moving the project forward. However, a logical consequence of projects that are not moving forward is that the Commission must repurpose those funds before they are rescinded by the Treasury. The Commission does not have the luxury of being overly patient with FFA grantees, since that may mean losing federal funds - and not being able to reimburse FFA grantees. 25. Transfer of Grant and/or Assets Built Using Grant Funding The ACR proposes that prior to construction under the grant, and for up to three years after project completion, a grantee must notify the Commission within five days of determining that the grantee is planning to sell or transfer its R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION assets. The grantee shall notify the Director of the Commission's Communications Division in writing of its intent to sell or transfer company assets within five days of becoming aware of these plans. Both the grantee and the new entity shall file an affidavit, stating that the new entity will comply with the requirements of the FFA award the Treasury Department, as well as other appropriate documentation, if any, requested by CD Staff. The grantee shall provide the Commission with any necessary documents requested in its review of the transfer. This will include all documents that are generally required of all entities applying for the FFA grants. The grantee shall not transfer FFA funds or the built portion of the project to the new entity prior to Commission approval. If the Commission does not provide approval, it will rescind the grant. 25.1. Party Positions CETF recommends the Commission require reporting only on transfer or sale of the assets for three years. To CETF, the issue is whether the applicant built the system with the intent to "flip it" for a profit. On commitments such as rates, affordable broadband plan, open access commitment, marketing/ outreach commitment, a brief annual report could be filed where the grantee reports on its compliance with its commitments and signs it under penalty of perjury. Cal Advocates proposes that the Commission require FFA grantees to obtain a waiver to sell FFA-funded infrastructure, and any sale should be subject to gain -on -sale requirements. Cal Advocates asserts that to ensure public interest when FFA funded infrastructure is sold, a waiver should hinge on the three requirements that were adopted for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program: the transaction is for adequate consideration; the purchaser or lessee agrees to fulfill the terms and conditions relating to the project after such sale or lease; and the transaction would be in the best interests of those served by the R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION project. Cal Advocates also argues that, in the case of depreciable assets, the Commission should receive 100 percent of the gains -on -sale, consistent with gain -on -sale regulations established in D.06-05-041. In the case of non - depreciable assets, Cal Advocates proposes that the Commission receive a percentage of the total gains -on -sale equal to the percentage of the grant's contribution relative to the total project cost. Cal Advocates also supports any proceeds from asset sales that revert to the Commission through this gain -on -sale rule should be deposited in the CASF Infrastructure Grant Account. AT&T recommends that because the SURF program requires all funds to be expended by December 31, 2026, that any post -construction requirements associated with receiving a FFA grant, including notification of transfers of control, should extend for no longer than four years, or, at the latest, until December 31, 2030. 25.2. Discussion Provisions ensuring a sale or transfer is in the public interest are reasonable and make clear the Commissions expectations for grant recipients in such instances. In addition to these provisions, the Commission will require any grant recipients to file a Tier 2 Advice Letter with the following information: purchase price; copy of the agreement; binding agreement from the purchaser or lessee to fulfill the terms and conditions relating to the project after such sale or lease; and explanation as to how the transaction would be in the best interests of those served by the project. These provisions are in addition to - and do not supersede - existing laws, including but not limited to Pub. Util. Code §§ 851 and 854, that direct how the Commission addresses transfers of control. IM R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 26. Audit Compliance The ACR proposes to require all applicants to sign a consent form agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Federal Funding Account. These will be stated either in the Resolution approving the project, or in a letter sent by Staff to the successful applicant. 26.1. Party Positions No party filed comments. 26.2. Discussion The Commission adopts this proposal with a revision clarifying that all recipients of federally funded grants exceeding $750,000 will need to include a budget for a federal audit, consistent with the Final Rule. 27. Conclusion The Commission adopts the revised rules contained in Appendix A. The revised rules exclude the application template and some application guidance from FFA Program Rules. The Commission delegates to CD Staff that authority to prepare and revise those documents as needed. 28. Comments on Proposed Decision The proposed decision of Commission President Alice Reynolds in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on , and reply comments were filed on 29. Assignment of Proceeding by Commission President Alice Reynolds is the assigned Commissioner and Thomas J. Glegola is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding. Findings of Fact 1. On August 14, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION N-73-20, directing state agencies to accomplish 15 specific actions to help bridge the digital divide, including ordering state agencies to pursue a minimum broadband speed goal of 100 Mbps download to guide infrastructure investments and program implementation to benefit all Californians. 2. On September 10, 2020, this Commission opened this Rulemaking to set the strategic direction and changes necessary to expeditiously deploy reliable, fast, and affordable broadband Internet access services that connect all Californians. 3. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2), also called the COVID-19 Stimulus Package or American Rescue Plan, which established the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF), which appropriated funds for states to deploy last -mile broadband Internet networks. 4. The Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury) issued an Interim Final Rule effective May 17, 2021, to implement SLFRF. Treasury also issued a SLFRF Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document to provide additional guidance on how funds should be utilized. Treasury issued its Final Rule on January 6, 2022, which was published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2022. The Final Rule is effective April 1, 2022. 5. On July 20, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 156 into law, creating the Federal Funding Account, with this Commission being responsible for implementing the new grant program. 6. SB 156 appropriates two billion dollars in SLFRF funds into the new Federal Funding Account (FFA). 7. SB 156 and the Final Rule permit the construction of a new state-owned and operated statewide middle -mile network. R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 8. The Second Amended Scoping Memorandum and Ruling in the instant proceeding, issued on August 2, 2021, adds implementation of the FFA to Phase III of this proceeding. 9. On September 23, 2021, the Assigned Commissioner issued a ruling requesting comment on a Staff Proposal for the rules that would implement the Federal Funding Account grant program (ACR). 10. The Final Rule grants this Commission broad discretion to determine what areas are eligible, how to define reliable service, and what information to require from entities objecting to an application, among other items. 11. The Final Rule identifies that legacy network technologies, such as copper telephone lines and early versions of cable system technology, may not provide reliable service because they typically lag on speeds, latency, and other factors, as compared to more modern technologies like fiber-optic networks. 12. The Final Rule requires grant recipients to build broadband infrastructure that reliably delivers or exceeds symmetrical upload and download speeds of 100 Mbps unless it is not practicable because of the geography, topography, or excessive costs associated with such a project. In these instances, the Final Rule require projects to deliver 100 Mbps download and at least 20 Mbps and be scalable to provide higher upload speeds. 13. The Final Rule encourages recipients to prioritize support for broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, nonprofits, and cooperatives, finding that these networks have less pressure to generate profits and a commitment to serve entire communities. 14. The Final Rule requires grant recipients to participate in the Federal Communications Commission's Affordable Connectivity Program or offer an equivalent program, as well as offer a low-cost broadband plan. -91- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 15. All SURF funds must be awarded within the statutory period between March 3, 2021 and December 31, 2024 and expended to cover such obligations by December 31, 2026. 16. ISPs have two opportunities to demonstrate whether a specific geographic area is served, based on data submitted by ISPs to the Commission, which Communications Division Staff validates, and the application objection process adopted herein. Conclusions of Law 1. The rules, application requirements and guidelines for the Federal Funding Account, as set forth in Appendix A, are consistent with federal statute, the Treasury Final Rule and state statute and should be approved. 2. Initially limiting funds to areas of the state that do not have access to reliable 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload connection is reasonable, given the significant need for high-speed, reliable and affordable wireline broadband service in the state. 3. It is reasonable to allow lower build out requirements for grant recipients proposing projects in which delivering symmetrical speeds of 100 Mbps is impracticable because of the geography, topography, or excessive costs associated with such a project. 4. The Final Rule encourages program eligibility determinations as well as program funding to be limited to reliable wireline broadband infrastructure. 5. The Final Rule encourages recipients to prioritize investments in fiber optic infrastructure, finding that such advanced technology enables the next generation of application solutions for all communities, can deliver superior, reliable performance, and is generally most scalable to meet future needs. -92- R.20-09-001 COM/ARD/mph PROPOSED DECISION 6. This decision complies with directives of Pub. Util. Code §§ 281(n)(3)(A) and §§ 281(n) (3) (B) respectively which direct the Commission to spend $2 billion on broadband Internet infrastructure projects, with $1 billion allocated to projects in urban counties and $1 billion allocated to projects in rural counties, requiring the Commission to allocate initially $5 million for projects in each county and then allocate the remaining funds in the respective urban or rural allocation, based on each county's proportionate share of households without access to broadband Internet access service speeds of at least 100 megabits per second download. 7. The application objection rules adopted in this decision, including the 21-day submission deadline and the information requirements of applicants and application objectors, balance the need to award grants expeditiously against the potential for committing funds to unnecessary projects and should be approved. 8. This Commission has the authority to delegate to Staff the ministerial review of Federal Funding Account applications meeting the criteria specified in the Ministerial Review Section of this Decision and in Appendix A, and it is reasonable that it do so in the context of this proceeding. 9. The new state owned and operated statewide middle -mile network authorized by SB 156 will not reach all parts of the state, making it necessary to use some Federal Funding Account grant funds on middle -mile infrastructure. 10. The Commission should adopt the Federal Funding Account rules, as revised in this decision. O R D E R IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The revised Federal Funding Account rules contained in Appendix A are adopted. -93- R.20-09-001 COM/ ARD/ mph PROPOSED DECISION 2. The Commission delegates to Communications Division Staff the authority to develop application submission guidance and templates for applicants and interested individuals that are consistent with this Decision and with the U.S. Treasury Department's Final Rule. 3. The Commission delegates to Communications Division Staff the authority to approve applications meeting the ministerial review requirements contained in Appendix A and consistent with this decision. Applications that do not meet the ministerial review requirements may only be approved by Commission resolution. 4. The Commission delegates to Communications Division Staff the authority to establish application deadlines for the Federal Funding Account approved by this decision. 5. Rulemaking 20-09-001 remains open. This order is effective today. Dated , at San Francisco, California. R.20-09-001 ALJ/ TJG/ mph PROPOSED DECISION APPENDIX A California SB 156 Funding Final Rule Summary Below is a summary of proposed Final Rules for the Federal Funding Account (FFA) created by Senate Bill (SB) 156 and funded through the federal American Rescue Plan Ac. The FFA is a new $213 grant program focused on building broadband Internet infrastructure to communities without access to Internet service at sufficient and reliable speeds throughout California. ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS • Entities with a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that qualify as a "telephone corporation" as defined under Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code section 234; or • Non -telephone corporations that are facilities -based broadband service providers; or • Local governmental agencies; or • Electric utilities; or • Tribes; or • Non-profits/cooperatives ELIGIBLE AREAS • Broadband infrastructure that is "designed to provide service to households and businesses with an identified need, as determined by the recipient, for such infrastructure." • Prioritizes projects that are designed to provide service to locations not currently served by a wireline connection that reliably delivers at least 100/20 Mbps. Specifically, areas with internet service provided only by legacy technologies are eligible for funding. • Applicants may provide data that contests the reliability of non -legacy wireline providers that claim to provide served speeds. Applications contesting the reliability of an area identified as being served will be reviewed by CD Staff and considered by the Commission. ELIGIBLE COSTS The following costs are eligible: www.MAGELLAN-ADVIS0RS.com • Costs directly related to the deployment of infrastructure; • Costs to lease access to property or for Internet backhaul; • Services for a period not to exceed five years; • Costs incurred by an existing facility -based broadband; and • Provider to upgrade its existing facilities to provide for interconnection. Per federal rules, the Commission will reimburse costs incurred during the period beginning March 3, 2021, and ending December 31, 2024. Additionally, administrative expenses directly related to the project shall be capped at two percent of the grant amount and a maximum of 15 percent contingency on direct infrastructure costs. FUNDING AMOUNTS Funding amounts are based on the number of unserved residents and are allocated per County, as defined in the interim final rule document. Matching funds, while not required, are encouraged and will result in higher point awards during the evaluation of the application (see Evaluation Criteria). Grant applications that propose to combine FFA funds with funds from a separate broadband infrastructure grant program will be permitted. Applicants must detail how these funds address an identified need for additional broadband investment that is not met by existing federal or state funding commitments. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS • All projects exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be completed within 18 months, and all other projects shall be completed within 24 months after receiving authorization to construct. FFA grant recipients may request an extension of time as needed, though grantees must be aware of the deadlines in federal statute. • Middle mile infrastructure must be open -access including providing dark fiber services. • The Commission will award FFA funding to last -mile applications that also propose to include middle -mile infrastructure that is necessary, and not near the statewide middle -mile network. Proposed middle -mile infrastructure will be coordinated with the California Department of Technology (CDT) and the Third -Party Administrator to ensure it complements the statewide open -access middle mile network. • All applicants must commit to serve customers in the project area at the prices provided in the application for a minimum of 10 years. www.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.com • All households in the proposed project areas must be offered a broadband Internet service plan with speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload, or speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload if applicable. • All projects must provide service at no higher than 100 ms of latency. • Data caps are disfavored. If including a data cap an applicant must include a justification about how the cap does not limit reliability of the connection to the users. In any event, data caps shall provide a minimum of 1000 GBs per month. • All projects must provide an affordable broadband plan, as defined in the Definitions, for low-income customers, California Lifeline, federal Lifeline service and the Emergency Broadband Benefit, or its successor. • Prevailing wage requirements apply. LOW-COST PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Consistent with the Final Rule, we require FFA grantees to offer a generally available low- cost broadband plan for the life of the infrastructure that includes the following minimum standards: • Must not include data usage caps; • Must offer speeds that are sufficient for a household with multiple users to simultaneously telework and engage in remote learning, which is defined as 50/50 Mbps; • Must be no more than $40 per month; • The grantee must not charge for installation or setup; • The grantee must provide a free modem or router; and • The service does not require a minimum term. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS In order to be reviewed, all applications must include: • A public project summary; • Specific information Applicant Entity Information; • A description of the provider's current broadband infrastructure and service within five miles of the proposed project and a description of other providers' infrastructure within the project area; • The geographic location of all households and housing units and project related key network equipment; www.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.com • The median household income for each Census Block Group (CBG) that intersects the project area; • An assertion that the applicant reviewed the wireline served status on the Broadband Map and determined that the broadband project area proposed is eligible, or the applicant will provide evidence to dispute that the area is served; • A detailed deployment schedule; • A detailed budget showing proposed project expenditures; • A listing of all the equipment to be funded and the estimated useful life; • A Letter of Credit if the applicant does not hold a CPCN; • A pricing commitment; • Marketing/Outreach plans; • Government and community support; • Funding sources for expenses not covered by the grant; • Financial qualifications; • A project viability forecast; and • The following information: o Availability of voice service that meets California and FCC requirements for 9-1-1 service battery backup; o Deployment plans for applicable Federal and state requirements; o A CEQA Attestation; o The Program Application Checklist Form; and o An affidavit EVALUATION CRITERIA • Up to 10 points for applications with matching funds; • Up to 10 points for applications proposing fiber optic • infrastructure; • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to build a broadband network owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non- profits, Tribe, and cooperatives; • Up to 10 points for applications that integrate the California Lifeline or federal Lifeline program; • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to serve an area identified by the Commission's Communications Division; • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate the financial, technical, and operational capacity to execute the project successfully and complete it on time; www.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.com • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate a well -planned project with a reasonable budget that shows it will deliver speeds and service proposed and be sufficiently robust to meet increasing demand for bandwidth; and • Up to 10 points for applications that propose to leverage the statewide open -access middle mile network, unless not in reasonable proximity to the network. www.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.com Municipal Information Systems Association of California California Broadband Funding Overview Presented By: Jory Wolf VP, Digital Innovations April 19, 2022 Magellan FUNDING SOURCES - STATE & FEDERAL • State Funding — 98% by end of 2032 • 2021 SB156 Middle Mile — 2022 Planning and Design • 2021 SB156 Last Mile — County Allocations— Summer 2022 • 2021 SB4/AB14 CASF Grants $150,000,000/year for infrastructure — Summer/Fall 2022 • 2021 SB156Loan Loss Reserve Fund — Summer/Fall 2022 • 2022 Technical Assistance Grants — Sprint 2022 • Federal Funding —Federally administered • NTIA Digital Equity IV Competitive Grant Funds - Fall/Winter 2023 - Targeting adoption + literacy • Federal Funding —State administered • NTIA Digital Equity II — State Digital Equity Planning - Fall/Winter 2022 • NTIA Digital Equity III —State Digital Equity Plan Implementation - end of 2022/early 2023 • Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD) (end of 2023/early 2024) 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs ? Magellan FUNDING PREFERENCES • Publicly -led public/private) projects • Unserved and underserved areas less than 100/20 Mbps • Last mile preferred, but can fund backbone to achieve last mile • Can build in served areas to get to unserved and underserved households • Fiber based wired infrastructure to the premise • Wireless acceptable in rural and where it's too costly to build fiber • Fast 100 Gbps symmetrical networks • Rural services funded to achieve 100/20 Gbps networks • Encumbered by 12/2024 • Built by 12/2026 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS Bottom line (public pricing) other than profit and shareholder value (private pricing) Critical infrastructure for your city's operations Focus investment on community priorities for local impact Network infrastructure is key to your community's digital destiny . Own a valuable real asset embedded in your city Reduce capital outflow in the form of Internet service fees Revenue from broadband to support digital inclusion 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan CA MIDDLE MILE Details I ®o Basemap About [;] Content ,= Legend i Legend Unserved Census Designated Places (100 Mbps Downstream) Unserved Households O>s,000 0 1,001 - 5,000 0 501 - 1,000 o 101 -500 1-100 Proposed Open Access Middle Mile Network Segments County Boundaries 10 Trust Center Legal Contact Esri 0 so loomi Repon Abuse 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs 99 Share 0 Print Measure I Find address or place 3 AJSGS I California Pubic Ud litres Comirl IC PUQ - 5 Magellan CA MIDDLE MILE F -j C Y experience.arcgis.com/experience/2bO589eeflb44c62b24/ded7Oa6d8ot8/page/Page-1/ L {r 0 * • t Updare C-i.—I, links Free Hotmail Q Suggested 5,1 © Web Slice Gallery * Bookmarks Qj Vmotemp 155-3otB.., y\ Avallon AWC241TD.., yy EdgeStar Wme Cool... y\ EdgeStar Wine Cool.., y\ Avallon AWC241TD... y\ Avallon AWC241TD... r> Cther boakmadcs Q Reading list e � • State Highway Network�L J., . `4 �� ° ° ° Mb '••~ °� • RIPOS� • ° M v kes i cS fAN SPA • • '- I ' i ._ O ° • • TKO •k _ • • . • ° l • • • • ° 9 Preliminary Middle -Mile Map :� ° °S, • ° ° • -il% ° ° O 'SANTA AOOo ® MADE kA O o ° 01 k,T vhe °a p Unserved Locations O , • , ° ° ° ° ° ° • v BENITO ° a ° �° ° • , - , \ ��/. -� •d. ;° lee ° o ° ° • Caltrans Scheduled Projects O > ° ° a o • •' 1 Anchor Bulld ° - C Al I, OI : R ° -_d Hag erd ° Anchor Build ° Pm�.P� ,° •, T ,u ARe • ?°9a ' • • • • • Unserved Locations JPublic Comments Non Residential © • • 9 / 3® / Unserved Non- -L.�` Residential its ° 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan ELIGIBILITY FCC r Ventura County, CA Numner or Faaa Resioennal sroaooano Providers 0 1 2 3 "1 6 12 or more Broadband Technology AOSL, Cable, Fiber, Fixed Wireless, Satellite, Other Speed 225/3 Mbps Da", lure 2020 (latest publK release) 1011 2513 1oo1lo Speed (Mbps dmmStroaMuDstream) • 00 Federal Communications Commission Website Policies & Notices CATEGORIES BUREAUS & OFFICES 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs - 9 Magellan ELIGIBILITY - NTIA F 4 a G broadbandusa.map—mgis.com/appsJwebappviewerrindexhtml7id=e2b4907376b548f892672ef6afbcOda5 LA * Q * O( Update Casty i-Links Emy Free Hotmail © Suggested SR,, © Web Slke Gallery * Bookmarks Q) Vmotemp 155-Bottl... \\Avallon AWC241TD... \V EdgeSter Wine Cool... }\ EdgeStar Wire Cool... \\ Avallon AWC241TD... \\ Avallon AWC241TE1 » Cther b-k—k, Q Reading list 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs - 10 Magellan ELIGIBILITY - CPUC L" i brcadla-drnap—g- ® Customim Links mm. Free Hotmall © Suggested Sites © %Veb Sl- Gallery * Bookmarks 0 Vinotemp 155-8o11... {\ Avallon AWC241TD... {{EdgeStar Wine Cool... {{' EdgeStar Wine Cool.. {{' Avallon AWC241TD... {{` Avalbn AVOC241TD... Broadband Adoption P '■ �, Broadband Deployment ■Led—• 1 ■ J c Deployment.16 1 ❑Broadband Grams , ■ a ' �kl r F Cal SPEED Cnowdsounced Results + >+■• - �' O❑ Counties (100%) OEICensus Tracts (100%) % 07census slack Groups (100%) % L I QO Census Blocks (100%) %` H1 ♦ J ®Q PIaceS (100%) % .fir' '!i+ Q Urban Areas (50%) % 01 I Tnbal Lanas 50%) %` , ■ 1 OE] Assembly % Assembly Dls cls 2021 DRAFT (100%) O❑ Senate Distncts 2021 DRAFT (100%) 4b r - CJn Congressional Distrids 2021 DRAFT (100%) 1 M a . r taJpllaRan � c e'2Zd a�oy , �� ■� ■ �>_iGbMs2Geps m � 1 � ■ � � ■>=50Mbpse,OpMbps V � � ' _• �I ■x Mbpsc to bnbps 1 �Mb��nMbp, Pa� r ■xgMbpss 1p Mbps , 111, ■>= 3 Mbps � e Nbps > 1Mbps <3 Aaaps lua >= 2W Imps e 1 Mops 12— amadbarM Mapes Program urugram a � -' Is■ , Po 2019 Map Privacy Pdicy ` r, 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs El ar e , R#j - u.ktans Ic oe � ■r 1..:IfGS - ,> 5 Other—l:i^.a F1 ., st Magellan LATA FUNDING Local Agency Technical Assistance (LATA) • Local governments authorized by law to provide broadband internet access service are eligible for LATA grant funding • Reimbursement for work products that support planning for the provision of service to unserved and underserved communities • Up to $500K, per local agency, per fiscal year • Environmental, feasibility, and engineering design studies or reports • Needs assessments, market studies, broadband strategic plans, or business plans • Costs incurred in pursuit of forming a Joint Powers Authority for the purposes of the provision of broadband service to unserved and underserved communities • Consultant and community -based organization services secured to complete reimbursable work product 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan CA SUMMARY OF LAST MILE RULES • Proposed Final Rules for the Federal Funding Account (FFA) created by Senate Bill (SB) 156 and funded through the federal American Rescue Plan Ac. The FFA is a new $213 grant program focused on building broadband Internet infrastructure to communities without access to Internet service at sufficient and reliable speeds throughout California 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS • Entities with a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that qualify as a "telephone corporation" as defined under Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code section 234 • Non -telephone corporations that are facilities -based broadband service providers • Local governmental agencies • Electric utilities • Tribes • Non-profits/cooperatives 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - ELIGIBLE AREAS • Broadband infrastructure that is "designed to provide service to households and businesses with an identified need, as determined by the recipient, for such infrastructure" • Prioritizes projects that are designed to provide service to locations not currently served by a wireline connection that reliably delivers at least 100/20 M bps • Specifically, areas with internet service provided only by legacy technologies are eligible for funding • Applicants may provide data that contests the reliability of non -legacy wireline providers that claim to provide served speeds. Applications contesting the reliability of an area identified as being served will be reviewed by CD Staff and considered by the Commission 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - ELIGIBLE COSTS • Costs directly related to the deployment of infrastructure • Costs to lease access to property or for Internet backhaul • Services for a period not to exceed five years • Costs incurred by an existing facility -based broadband provider to upgrade its existing facilities to provide for interconnection 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - FUNDING AMOUNTS • Based on the number of unserved residents and are allocated per County • Matching funds, while not required, are encouraged and will result in higher point awards • Grant applications that propose to combine FFA funds with funds from a separate broadband infrastructure grant program will be permitted • Applicants must detail how these funds address an identified need for additional broadband investment that is not met by existing federal or state funding commitments 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE FUNDING - URBAN COUNTIES 4/19/2022 11,898Alameda $24,517,148.20 46,512San Diego $81,296,990.84 8,657Butte $19,200,701.96 3,288San Francisco $10,393,543.73 6,772Contra Costa $16,108,600.40 14,896San Joaquin $29,434,983.99 34,236Fresno $61,159,781.95 10,575San Luis Obispo $22,346,935.80 5,4581mperia1 $13,953,151.36 3,307San Mateo $10,424,710.80 16,038 Kern $31,308,289.02 6,627Santa Barbara $15,870,746.44 60,752 Los Angeles $104,655,890.68 18,907Santa Clara $36,014,516.81 3,987 Marin $11,540,163.88 3,245Santa Cruz $10,323,007.72 13,571 Merced $27,261,490.85 7,484 Monterey $17,276,545.40 16,729 Shasta $32,441,786.20 3,478 Napa $10,705,214.44 7,320Solano $17,007,524.36 53,039 Orange $92,003,700.06 8,677 Sonoma $19,233,509.41 15,397 Placer $30,256,810.46 12,407Stanislaus $25,352,097.64 27,820 Riverside $50,635,154.05 24,463 Tu la re $45,128,424.64 20,552Sacramento $38,712,929.04 9,365Ventura $20,362,085.47 33,335San Bernardino $59,681,806.62 6,335Yolo $15,391,757.76 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE FUNDING - RURAL COUNTIES 4/19/2022 367AIpine $6,989,053.95 9,674Mendocino $57,430,811.83 9,632Amador $57,203,181.68 3,493 Modoc $23,931,241.03 4,761Calaveras $30,803,503.74 1,033Mono $10,598,617.80 4,419 Colusa $28,949,943.92 12,891 Nevada $74,866,197.58 976Del Norte $10,289,691.17 6,879Plumas $42,282,567.15 19,716 EI Dorado $111,856,097.39 1,003San Benito $10,436,024.84 3,704GIenn $25,074,811.56 1,385Sierra $12,506,375.27 10,063 Humboldt $59,539,100.63 7,526Siskiyou $45,789,155.45 1,5171 nyo $13, 221,784.32 2,841 Sutter $20,397,553.90 6,031 Kings $37,686,605.97 12,879Tehama $74,801,160.39 4,324 Lake $28,435,066.19 3,673 Lassen $24,906,798.83 4,551Trinity $29,665,352.97 11,362 Madera $66,579,376.07 1,946Tuolumne $15,546,863.74 6,613 Mariposa $40,840,909.52 6,342Yuba $39,372,153.05 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - PROJECT REQUIREMENTS • All projects exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be completed within 18 months, and all other projects shall be completed within 24 months after receiving authorization to construct • FFA grant recipients may request an extension of time as needed, though grantees must be aware of the deadlines in federal statute • Middle mile infrastructure must be open -access including providing dark fiber services • The Commission will award FFA funding to last -mile applications that also propose to include middle -mile infrastructure that is necessary, and not near the statewide middle - mile network. Proposed middle -mile infrastructure will be coordinated with the California Department of Technology (CDT) and the Third -Party Administrator to ensure it complements the statewide open -access middle mile network • All applicants must commit to serve customers in the project area at the prices provided in the application for a minimum of 10 years 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - PROJECT REQUIREMENTS • All households in the proposed project areas must be offered a broadband Internet service plan with speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload, or speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload if applicable • All projects must provide service at no higher than 100 ms of latency • Data caps are disfavored • If including a data cap an applicant must include a justification about how the cap does not limit reliability of the connection to the users • In any event, data caps shall provide a minimum of 1000 GBs per month • All projects must provide an affordable broadband plan, as defined in the Definitions, for low-income customers, California Lifeline, federal Lifeline service and the Emergency Broadband Benefit, or its successor • Prevailing wage requirements apply 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - LOW-COST REQUIREMENTS • Must not include data usage caps • Must offer speeds that are sufficient for a household with multiple users to simultaneously telework and engage in remote learning, which is defined as 50/50 Mbps • Must be no more than $40 per month • The grantee must not charge for installation or setup • The grantee must provide a free modem or router • The service does not require a minimum term 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan LAST MILE - EVALUATION CRITERIA • Up to 10 points for applications with matching funds • Up to 10 points for applications proposing fiber optic infrastructure • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to build a broadband network owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non- profits, Tribe, and cooperatives • Up to 10 points for applications that integrate the California Lifeline or federal Lifeline program; • Up to 20 points for an application proposing to serve an area identified by the Commission's Communications Division • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate the financial, technical, and operational capacity to execute the project successfully and complete it on time • Up to 10 points for applications that demonstrate a well -planned project with a reasonable budget that shows it will deliver speeds and service proposed and be sufficiently robust to meet increasing demand for bandwidth • Up to 10 points for applications that propose to leverage the statewide open -access middle mile network, unless not in reasonable proximity to the network 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs Magellan OTHER CA LEGISLATION • SB 4 This bill would provide that the goal of the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account is to approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98% of California households by no later than December 31, 2032, rather than December 31, 2026. The bill would authorize the commission, through imposition of a surcharge, to collect up to $150,000,000 per year. • SB 28 This bill would repeal the requirement that franchise holders annually report regarding the availability of and subscriptions to broadband and video service. The bill would instead require the commission to collect granular data on the actual locations served by franchise holders, adopt customer service requirements for franchise holders, and adjudicate any customer complaints. The bill would prohibit the commission from publicly disclosing any personally identifiable information collected pursuant to these requirements. • SB 378 This bill would require a local agency to allow, except as provided, microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber. The bill would also require, to the extent necessary, a local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations to adopt or amend existing policies, ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching. • AB 14 This bill would authorize the commission to impose the surcharge to fund the CASF until December 31, 2032. This bill would require the commission to report remaining unnerved areas in the state, the status of the CASF balance, and the projected amount to be collected in each year in perpetuity. • AB 41 This bill would require the Department of Transportation, as part of those projects that are funded by a specified item of the Budget Act of 2021 and that are located in priority areas, to ensure that construction includes the installation of conduits capable of supporting fiber optic communication cables. This bill would require the commission, in collaboration with other relevant state agencies and stakeholders, to maintain and update a statewide, publicly accessible, and interactive map showing the accessibility of broadband service in the state, as provided. 4/19/2022 MISAC - CA Broadband Funding Programs QUESTIONS?*