1. Cover and List of Task Force Members
  2. Introduction
  • Mission
  • Purpose
  • Past Report

(From Mike Reardon, Cindy Kevern, Peter Lindstrom)

Local Government

There is an ever growing demand for local government to have increasing bandwidth to support the sharing and backup of data, implementation of high bandwidth-intensive technologies, provide improved response to public needs and shared services among government agencies. In the 21st century, slow networks equate to slow government services. Cities, counties and townships require high-speed broadband to enable improved connectivity between public safety agencies; provide the transfer of GIS data between communities replacing large time delays and manual processes; allow community colleges to provide remote classes for distance learning; aid in communication for fire and police calls; and, to allow the video arraignment and electronic transmittal of evidence that reduces travel time and costs to the taxpayer. Local governments also see access to broadband as a means to provide economic enhancements to areas with lower incomes, high unemployment and high foreclosure rates by attracting business, retaining existing businesses and encouraging entrepreneurship.

In Minnesota, there are a variety of projects in operation or in process that involve local municipalities and counties. There are several wireless projects such as the City of Minneapolis (WiFi) operating in partnership with USI; the City of Chaska (WiFi) owned and operated by Chaska; the City of Buffalo (WiFi) owned and operated by Buffalo for institutional requirements; and the City of Austin owned by Austin Utilities Commission and operated by Southern MN Internet Group. In addition, there are several fiber projects including the City of Windom (triple-play) who operates and owns WindomNet; the City of Monticello (triple-play) operating and owned by Monticello with HBC as a private provider; the City of Red Wing (triple-play) which will be owned and operated by HBC; the City of Barnesville’s phone and cable services that are expanding outside of the city limits; and Scott County which owns and operates a fiber network for institutional needs.

There are also several projects that have recently received federal stimulus funding: the City of Windom received ARRA grant to expand to eight surrounding communities; Cook County for a fiber to the home project; Lake County for a fiber to the home project; Carver County for an institutional network; and Anoka County in partnership with Zayo Bandwidth for an institutional network. For a complete discussion of the stimulus grant projects, see section ______.

These projects listed above demonstrate varying ways of bringing connectivity to the community. They include municipal owned and operated projects (eg. Windom), private-public partnerships (eg.Minneapolis, Anoka, Cook), Middle Mile projects to build a broadband backbone connecting government anchor institutions (eg. Anoka, Carver) and last mile projects to build out entire communities (eg.Monticello, Lake, Cook).

Local government projects also include a variety of technologies. The technology used varies by area, in part, dependent on availability of local carriers (eg. DSL, T-1’s, Fiber, etc) and by the local geography. Many local governments are in process of building fiber networks to connect their anchor institutions and, in some cases, to their residential and business areas, including the use of cellular technology for mobile workers

There are also a variety of funding sources used for these project including local government bonding, revenue from the operations, NTIA stimulus grants, federal RUS loans, industry partnerships, and other grants.

Language to be included later in the Report.

Barriers to Broadband Adoption

The Task Force recognizes there are numerous “barriers” or difficult issues to resolve in order to ensure broadband adoption. The Task Force has determined that discussion on these issues requires more time than is allowed for inclusion in our first report. Instead, the Task Force will study the various perceived barriers to broadband adoption as it moves forward over the next several years.

(From Pete Royer assisted by Mary Mehsikomer and Dennis Fazio:)

K-12 Education

History

The Learning Network of Minnesota (LNM) was established in 1993 by the Minnesota Legislature to provide a statewide high-speed telecommunications highway for distance learning for higher education. In 1995, the higher education LNM was expanded to establish links to K-12 public education and public libraries. Using high-speed telecommunications transport, the LNM provides access and delivery of information resources to students and library patrons such as Internet access, distance learning opportunities through interactive television (ITV) and on-line learning, a transport system for the state to send and receive data electronically from K-12 schools and libraries, and access to MnLINK, the Minnesota Library Information Network. The Minnesota Education Telecommunications Council (METC) was an active advisory group for from 1996-2005, after which time METC expired in statute.

Telecommunications Access Regional Organization:

Critical to the operation of the LNM are the K-12 telecommunications access regions and the higher education telecommunications regions. Services provided by the K-12 telecommunications access regions and their coordinators include:

  • Aggregation and coordination of service demands and needs
  • Cooperative purchasing and procurement practices based on aggregated needs and cost effectiveness
  • Coordinated application for federal E-rate telecommunications services discounts
  • Wide area network operational support and maintenance
  • Coordination and scheduling of distance learning activities via ITV throughout the state
  • Advocacy for the telecommunications access needs of member school districts and libraries to the Legislature and other policy-making bodies
  • Coordination with telecommunications service providers on service issues
  • Links for schools to content resources for education and life-long learning
  • Guidance and professional development for effective integration of technology for schools

Due to the existence of telecommunications access regions, the technical and logistical burdens associated with delivery of telecommunications access and service for school districts are greatly reduced. For most districts and libraries the delivery of telecommunications access is a “given” and the complex technological logistics are completely transparent. Not only do the regions provide a wide range of technical expertise to their members which does not exist at the independent school district, but the organization of regions throughout the state directly results in an aggregation of need, network efficiencies, technical support and reduction in overall resource needs that would not exist if school districts sought an equivalent level of telecommunications service and support independently. For more information on Minnesota telecommunications access regions, visit

Telecommunications Funding for K-12 Education

Since 1996, the state has provided various levels of funding support for telecommunications costs for schools through three funding programs. A fourth program, the federal E-rate Telecommunications Discount Program supplements state and local funding to help school districts with the costs of telecommunications services and Internet access.

  1. Telecommunications Access Grant Program (TAG). In 1996-2000 the Legislature provided funding support for school and library telecommunications through the Telecommunications Access Grant Program (TAG). TAG was a noncompetitive grant program that provided funding for telecommunications through eight telecommunications access regions throughout the state.

2. Telecommunications Access Revenue Program (TARP). Under TARP, each school district received an additional $5 per adjusted marginal cost per pupil unit (AMCPU) in operating capital revenue to be reserved for ongoing telecommunications access costs associated with data, video, and Internet access. In addition to the increased AMCPU, a separate appropriation was provided to assist school districts whose ongoing telecommunications access costs that exceeded these additional operating capital revenue funds. This combination of a per pupil formula and a supplemental entitlement based on projected costs was designed to address the issues of disparity that arise when a school district’s enrollment does not generate sufficient funds to cover the cost of telecommunications through the per pupil formula approach. TARP was not funded again by the Legislature in FY2003 for the FY2004-05 biennium.

3. Telecommunications/Internet Access Equity Aid for Schools. For the FY2006-07 biennium, school districts and charter schools were reimbursed for the approved cost for the previous year that exceed $15 times the adjusted marginal cost per pupil units (AMCPU) for the previous year OR reimbursement of approved costs with no per pupil unit limit if the school district or charter school is a member of an organized telecommunications access cluster that was in operation by July 1 of the previous funding year. All reimbursement is based on the costs after the federal E-rate discount has been subtracted. The $3.75 million appropriated in FY2010 was prorated at 46.5% as there was $ 8.024 in requests. Please see the graph below for a complete funding history.

4. E-Rate. E-rate is a federal program that provides discounts on telecommunications services (Internet, WAN and telephone costs) of between 20-90 percent to schools and public libraries based on free and reduced price lunch eligibility for students in the school district or school. Nonpublic schools are also eligible for this program. Telecommunications/Internet Access Equity Aid programs require public school districts to apply for E-rate in order to receive state funds for telecommunications access. The E-rate program generates millions of dollars in support for Minnesota schools each year through fees collected by service providers on customer telephone bills.

K-12 Telecommunications Funding Synopsis

The appropriation level of the state telecommunications funding programs for schools is illustrated in the following table: Dollars are expressed in millions; therefore, 4.8 indicates an appropriaton of $4,800,000.

Program
MN / 1996-97 / 1998-99 / 2000-01 / 2002-03 / 2004-05 / 2006-07 / 2008-09 / 2010-11
TAG / 15.5 / 23 / 5/0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
AMCPU / 0 / 0 / 4.8/4.8 / 4.8/4.8 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
TARP / 0 / 0 / 0/18.5 / 15.3/ 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Equity Aid / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3.75/3.75 / 7.6/8.7 / 3.75.3.75
Federal
Erate / 0 / 0/24 / 31/18 / 22/22 / 26/22 / 22/21 / 26/22 / 23/NA

Conclusion

Access to high speed broadband connectivity is a necessity for all schools. Without broadband, school districts are severely disadvantaged in meeting the constitutional requirement providing a fair and equitable education for every student. Schools rely on telecommunications access to deliver education services, provide additional education opportunities for students, report required data to the state and federal government and conduct school business. The demand for increased bandwidth continues to grow as online education applications increase in sophistication and become more media-intensive. Rural communities in Minnesota continue to be particularly challenged when it comes to obtaining broadband access. Broadband access needs to be provided to in such a way that it is affordable and readily available to all districts regardless of location in order to provide equitable education to all Minnesotans.

Minnesota has no state level coordinated plan for broadband access for K-12 school districts. The Learning Network of Minnesota implies a central coordinated effort; in reality, the coordination has really been a result of the K-12 Telecommunications Region coordinators who collaborate to manage wide area networks and work to ensure that interoperability between regions and the state exists.

As can be deduced through the history provided, funding for K-12 has been inconsistent and unstable not only for broadband but for technology in general over the last decade. The Minnesota Department of Education does not provide coordination or guidance for broadband access. This is evident in the fact that there is no current E-rate liaison at MDE nor does MDE currently belong to State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA), a national organization which coordinates and advocates for technology initiatives for education.

E-rate has been a stable source of funding but the demand on the funding by eligible entities is growing as the need for broadband access for schools and libraries continues to increase. E-rate also causes some constraints, as program and procurement rules restrict the ability of community and business entities to partner with K-12 schools without jeopardizing funding for the schools.

As schools move to incorporate more technologies that require increased bandwidth (statewide testing, media rich classroom applications, videoconferencing, online classes), the need for additional bandwidth will continue to grow. A comprehensive statewide approach that leverages the cooperation and collaboration of the K-12 Telecommunications Access regions, the federal E-rate program, and state funding could help all districts achieve the level of bandwidth outlined in the SETDA recommendation of 10 Mbps per 1,000 students right now and at least 100 Mpbs per 1,000 students in the next three to four years.

(From Pete Royer:)

Higher Education

LEARNING NETWORK OF MINNESOTA

The Learning Network of Minnesota© (LNM) serves as core telecommunications network and services infrastructure that supports all aspects of Minnesota's public higher education system. The State's public higher education institutions are dependent upon the LNM for their digital access including a) administrative services, b) basic communications, and c) academic services and support. This shared infrastructure provides for significant cost-savings and economies of scale.

Organization

The services provided by the LNM are based upon six (6) geographically organized regional consortia. The goal of the regional consortia model is to benefit from economies of scale, access fairness and equity, and user participation in planning and operational outcomes. These consortia represent all University of Minnesota and MnSCU institutions. Collectively, approximately 60 campuses and higher education centers are linked across the State. Each consortium has a governing board representative of their member institutions. This innovative model facilitates the ability for the LNM to meet unique regional service needs.

A LNM Board of Directors exists to provide governance and accountability for the LNM program at the statewide level. This Board is representative of the six regions and the two public higher education systems--the University of Minnesota and MnSCU. The Board also enables coordination and cooperation among regions in order to ensure efficiencies and widespread access to LNM services.

The regions are interconnected through a telecommunications network infrastructure managed by the Office of Enterprise Technologies in cooperation with the two higher education systems and the six regional consortia. This network management approach supports full integration with the Internet, the State of Minnesota's MNET network, and networks that serve the health care sector, K-12 school districts and public libraries. Global networks such as Internet2 are also interconnected.

Fiscal Model

Funding to support the LNM comes from a Legislative appropriation to the six regions with an additional 10% match from the member institutions. Member institutions also contribute additional funding and/or staff support in their respective regions. The LNM appropriation is allocated to the regional consortia pursuant to guidance from the LNM Board. Funds are used by each regional consortium to support coordination activities, core network services, and application support.

  • Collaboration / Partnerships
    The Learning network is built on collaboration – between schools within a region, between regions, between primary partners (U of M, MNSCU, and OET).
  • Cost Savings
    Collaboration & a shared infrastructure leads to savings. Each dollar of Learning Network support generates approximately two dollars of service when compared to providing the same service at the individual schools.
  • Customer Service
    Regional organization maintains the ties to individual Colleges and Universities and allows the schools to retain substantial input into support levels, resource allocation and services provided.
  • Core Services
    The Learning Network delivers essential network connectivity, without which colleges could not operate. The Learning Network provides all schools with distance learning technologies, enabling those schools to expand the distance learning services provided to students

(From Lois Langer Thompson:)

Public libraries in Minnesota

Public libraries overview and governance

Under Minnesota law, counties are responsible for ensuring that residents have access to public library services. They do this by operating libraries themselves, contracting with cities that operate libraries, or obtaining library services through a regional entity. Counties and all cities that operate a public library must provide at least a minimum level of funding for library services. This amount varies widely among local governments and is based on either their tax capacity or population (whichever is less) or, for those counties and cities paying above this amount, what they spent for library operating expenses in previous years. (State Dept of Ed)

Minnesota uses a complex, multilayered approach to deliver public library services, with local governments primarily responsible for funding and administering public libraries. State government plays an important “behind-the-scenes” role by providing programs and financial assistance to regionally based library systems, not individual libraries.

Any city or county can establish and operate a public library, and three or more counties can band together to operate a regional library. In 2008, 138 counties, cities, and regional entities operated 135 public libraries with 359 buildings statewide at a cost of $202 million. Per capita costs average $38.12. Approximate 2.9 million residents have library cards and 28.6 million visits were made to public libraries in 2008.

State law requires counties and all cities choosing to operate a public library to maintain a minimum level of funding for library services, and most library revenue–84 percent in 2008–comes from local governments. Cities that choose to operate libraries were required to pay more than twice as much per resident for library services than counties in 2008. (OLA report on Public Libraries)

Current status (2008 data)

Statewide summaries- Internet Computers and Internet Users

Public Internet Computers / Internet Users
Quantity / 4,478 / 4,160,134
Libraries Reporting / 141/141 / 135/141

Regional Public Library Systems Summaries - Internet Computers and Internet Users