1. Creation of an educational/municipal (institutional) fiber/wireless network, FullertonNet
I-Net Proposal for City Council
Chair Burtner distributed an updated copy of the proposal to the City Council for creating a telecom institutional network. He noted that it included a few rewrites and modifications based on previous discussions. He also noted that the TWG had been working on the report for more than a year and he hoped that at this meeting the TWG would approve the report for presentation to the City Council.
Chair Burtner reviewed the changes to the progress report with the committee members. Mr. Iboshi suggested that a paragraph or statement be included in the executive summary that discussed return on investment. Mr. Sandford agreed. Chair Burtner asked Mr. Sandford to work with Chair Burtner on the addition of such a statement.
Tony Anderson pointed out that the report includes a recommendation that the I-Net be completed during the current E-rate funding cycle. Mr. Anderson noted that in a meeting held December 18 with the City Manager and school superintendents, it had been agreed that they would look at the E-rate cycle two years out. Mr. Anderson questioned the report's recommendation regarding the current E-rate cycle.
Chair Burtner noted that the TWG has been working on the report for over a year, and that the discussion with the City Manager and superintendents on December 18 had taken a different direction (see Additional Comments, page 3), but as far as he (Chair Burtner) was concerned, the TWG had completed its work, and the proposed report is the best document that can be produced based on all of the work and research that the TWG had undertaken and completed over the last two years. Chair Burtner suggested that if the school districts wanted to go in another direction, that was up to them, but Council had appointed the TWG to come up with recommendations for an I-Net, and the proposed report, in Chair Burtner's opinion, represents the TWG's best work.
Chair Burtner further noted that the TWG had been trying to bring this report to conclusion since February 2007 when a forum was held to communicate with the responsible parties of the school districts and other interested parties as to the best way to bring in high bandwidth capabilities.
Chair Burtner reiterated that he believed the proposed report to Council was the best case analysis, and hoped the rest of the TWG members agreed.
Mr. Port motioned that the report be accepted and presented to City Council. Mr. Canfield seconded the motion. Chair Burtner asked if there was any further discussion.
Mr. Sandford suggested that the presentation of the report to Council be accompanied with a brief summary of the work and recommendations and a chart identifying a timetable and other constraints that members might have.
Mr. Anderson expressed concern that Council might dismiss the report because of its unrealistic recommendation to complete the I-Net within the current E-rate cycle. Mr. Anderson suggested that the report be changed to "next feasible E-rate cycle." Chair Burtner questioned why it was unrealistic for the current E-rate cycle if there was a successful vendor bid, such as Sunesys. Mr. Anderson noted that the school district had not taken all of the legal steps that should have been taken to support that, e.g., having a formal bid in place and considering the financial situation of the school district, i.e., looming budget cuts. Mr. Anderson further noted that the proposed recommendations would triple or quadruple the school district's costs, and he stated that the current administration would not support any cost increase, no matter what the benefits. (Information obtained from Mr. Anderson for the I-Net report shows that the annual increase to the FSD is likely to be only about $10,500 while much greater savings would be realized in IT department operations.)
Mr. Smith questioned the report's recommendation that the I-Net be operational by late spring of 2008, considering the report might not even be presented to Council until January 15. Chair Burtner agreed to remove that recommendation from the report.
With no further discussion, Chair Burtner asked for a vote on the motion to approve.
Ayes: Canfield, Carter, Iboshi, Port, Sandford, Smith
Mr. Ferrier asked Chair Burtner to send him a copy of the final report after the necessary revisions, as approved by the TWG, had been made, so that he could distribute to council members. Chair Burtner agreed.
Chair Burtner provided a brief presentation of the information learned about Sunesys in a meeting held between Chair Burtner, Thad Sandford, and Gene Espinoza (Sunesys Regional Account Manager). He noted that Sunesys was owned and operated by Quanta Services, a publicly traded company with approximately $3.1 billion in annual revenue. They have been creating fiber networks since the Telecom Act of 1996 and the beginning of E-rate. Sunesys West Coast headquarters are located in Corona, with offices also in Newport Beach. Chair Burtner provided TWG members with a list of Sunesys' California references. Sunesys' proposed schedule included a nine- to twelve-month installation timeline:
December 1-29 Form 470 is filed
January 2 Present to Board
January 16 Seek Board approval
January 17 File Form 471
October-December 2008 Service turn-up
Chair Burtner added that he and Mr. Sandford might go ahead with an RFP to support the progress report, noting that Mr. Sandford had been very generous with his time in working with the Chair and meeting with various groups. He also noted Mr. Sandford's considerable background – a Ph.D. in engineering, a former colonel assigned to the Pentagon overseeing R&D projects for the Air Force, and more recently retired as vice president of engineering from Boeing, and someone who is quite familiar with government contracts.
In follow-up to the earlier comments regarding the December 18 meeting between the City Manager and school superintendents, Mr. Sandford noted that during the meeting the superintendents had expressed that they would probably need an RFP. The other option would have been for the City to select a vendor with whom to negotiate. Mr. Sandford noted that it could be done either way when looking for a service contract, but the school superintendents wanted the RFP and offered to provide a consultant to assist. Mr. Sandford noted that quite a bit of work had already been done, and there was nothing wrong with bringing on a consultant to assist, but the objective should be to update or improve what had already been accomplished, rather than putting the consultant in the business of creating work that's already been done.
Chair Burtner reminded the TWG members that in a previous meeting with City Manager Chris Meyer, which Mr. Ferrier attended, Mr. Meyer had expressly stated that he would rather not go through an RFP, but instead negotiate directly with the best vendor the TWG could come up with. Mr. Meyer further stated that he wanted to have the school districts sign memorandums of understanding with regards to the I-Net, but at the December 18 meeting there had been a complete turnaround.
2. Citywide wireless
Wireless options for City Council
Mr. Ferrier noted that the TWG would be making their presentation to the City Council on January 15th. Chair Burtner indicated that he had prepared 11 slides which could be transferred into a PowerPoint presentation format, which he would distribute to TWG members for their review. He explained that the presentation basically asks the City Council to give the TWG direction with regards to what type of system (technology) and use they may want for a wireless network. The type of wireless network would depend heavily on who the City wants to have use it, whether it's public safety/public works or a combination of public safety/public works and the public. The TWG's recommendation is that it be for public safety/public works with mobility.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
To be determined.
With no further business, Chair Burtner asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn was made by Fred Canfield and seconded by Robb Port. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m. with unanimous approval.
The next meeting date was set for January 10.