Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Administrative Services
Home ... > 2008 > June 26, 2008
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Public Notices
TWG Minutes - June 26, 2008




June 26, 2008

9:00 A.M.



CALL TO ORDER       Chair Burtner called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.


ROLL CALL                 Members Present

                                                Roger Burtner, Chair            Thad Sandford

                                                Fred Canfield                        Edward Smith

                                                Larry Iboshi                            Paul Stover, Vice Chair


                                                Mike Carter arrived after roll call.


                                                Members Absent

                                                Tony Anderson                      Harry Lamberth

                                                Steve Giano                           Madusha Palliyage

                                                Helen Hall                               Carl Samantello





Chair Burtner asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of June 5, 2008.  With no corrections, Thad Sandford moved approval of the minutes.  The motion was seconded by Larry Iboshi, and the minutes were unanimously approved.




1.   Creation of an educational/municipal (institutional) fiber/wireless network, FullertonNet


Feasibility & Evaluation Study


Prior to the meeting, Assistant to the City Manager Rob Ferrier had provided to Chair Burtner (who, in turn, provided copies to TWG members for discussion at this meeting) a proposed schedule for the RFP to select a consultant for the feasibility study and a timeline to completion.  Mr. Ferrier's timeline included the study results and TWG formal recommendation to take place in mid November.  Chair Burtner expressed concern with the timeline and noted that he would expect Carl Samantello (who was absent this date) to also have a problem with the timeline.  Paul Stover agreed, considering that Mr. Samantello had previously indicated that November was the first window of opportunity for E-rate filing.  Chair Burtner suggested the deadline should be a month earlier – mid October. 


Chair Burtner also pointed out there was a problem with Mr. Ferrier's timeline (or possibly an error), noting that it included a study completion by the end of October, but a presentation of the study results to the TWG mid October. 


Mr. Sandford suggested some 30 to 45 days might be cut from the timeline, noting that it should not take 30 days to put together an RFP, and the consultant selection timeline might also be reduced.  He suggested the initial focus should be on exactly what the TWG wants the study to do, which would expedite the writing of the RFP and result in a sharper focused study and a faster response.  Mr. Stover suggested that perhaps a more important element would be determining who the consultant might be, and that person could provide the best answer in terms of what the turn-around should be for the study.  Mr. Sandford agreed, noting that identifying potentially good, useful consultants needs to start immediately.


Larry Iboshi asked for clarification on why the RFP/study was needed.  Chair Burtner recapped the results of the meeting held in December 2007 between the school district representatives, City Manager Chris Meyer, Rob Ferrier, and TWG members.  In that meeting the school district superintendent expressed particular concern not about the upfront costs of the I-Net but the ongoing costs and what cost savings the school districts might achieve.  As a result of the cost concerns, the City Manager offered $25,000 to hire a consultant to prepare an RFP.  School District Superintendent Giokaris offered to add $15,000, for a total of $40,000 for the RFP.  City Manager Meyer then indicated that he wanted the RFP to consider all options, including AT&T.  Therefore, the RFP was to encompass not only a feasibility study in terms of cost and cost savings, but also an analysis of different options for getting significant bandwidth beyond what is currently available to the potential participants.


Paul Stover reminded the group of the roundtable discussion held in 2007 that focused on creating support for the I-Net.  The case made it very clear that we were all in this to build a very high bandwidth telecom system, which is considered essential to new collaborative forms of education, public safety, health care, and economic development.  In addition, the purpose was to create a gigabit Ethernet, customer-owned fiberoptic network that will serve the current and future telecom needs of the institutions in the City of Fullerton.  The network that was presented was modular, scalable, and easily expanded.  Other institutions such as health care facilities, private schools, etc., that want increased bandwidth and control of their telecom infrastructure could become partners at any time.  But there would be two sides to the equation:  funding support and technical requirements. 


Mr. Sandford agreed, and suggested that the consultant needed to review the work and projection of needs on the part of both the City and the school districts to either validate or update the projections and, secondly, to look at the options for serving those needs – provide the pros and cons, whether it's AT&T or another system, and to help both the City and the school districts to understand the costs for both installation and maintenance, compared to the projected cost for providing the service using current systems.


Mr. Canfield pointed out that an I-Net feasibility study had already been completed and questioned the need for yet another feasibility study.  Mr. Stover agreed.  Chair Burtner noted that perhaps "feasibility" may be the wrong term at this point.  Mr. Stover suggested that the "feasibility" language be removed – that it's not an issue of feasibility anymore, it's an issue of how to get it done.  Mr. Stover questioned why money should be spent on yet another "feasibility" study, and suggested that the TWG go directly to a contractor who does this type of work to get the cost information needed.


Edward Smith agreed, but noted that you cannot go to a contractor for cost information without a set of specifications, and it appears that, at this point, the TWG still does not have a firm set of requirements that the parties have agreed to.


Chair Burtner suggested that the first step should be to determine what the different groups want to see in the RFP, and that TWG representatives should meet with the school districts, and possibly Helen Hall and Rob Ferrier, and work out the details as soon as possible.  Mike Carter agreed, noting that the focus should be on what the study needs to produce in order to convince the appropriate people to move forward. 


Paul Stover suggested that it would be very helpful to look at the technology plans of the different institutions to see where commonalities and differences exist, but noted that to his knowledge the City's CIO has never created the technology master plan for the City, even though it was part of the formal recommendations the TWG made to Council in 2002.  He further noted that the Council had approved and adopted those recommendations in July 2002, yet there is still no technology master plan in place for the City of Fullerton.




Chair Burtner asked Mr. Sandford for an update on the I-Net RFP for the school district.  Mr. Sandford indicated that Mr. Samantello was out of town until July 7th but had related in an email that he thought the I-Net RFP that Mr. Sandford had prepared for the City was adequate, but lacked the technical specifications needed for his specific activity.  Mr. Sandford noted that Mr. Lamberth was planning on working with Mr. Samantello with respect to the technical specifications.  They will plan to move forward with that after July 7th, but Mr. Sandford suggested that he would prepare an outline of projected needs in advance for their discussion.



2.   Citywide Wireless


Wireless Options for City Council:  Council Study Session


Nothing to report.



3.    Future Directions for TWG


For the TWG's consideration, Mr. Stover offered three suggestions regarding future directions for the TWG:


1.         Look at the existing technology plans of potential partners or anyone willing to share that kind of information.  It would be extraordinarily helpful in terms of decision making.


2.         The telecom master plan recommended by the Technology Infrastructure Task Force and accepted by Council in 2002 should be in place before the TWG ever sunsets.  We need to determine how that project should be approached and completed. 


3.         Survey segments of Fullerton's population regarding their technology needs:  are their needs being met, are they aware of Fullerton's downtown wireless system, etc.  Feedback from the community would be helpful to those making technology decisions.



To be determined.






Chair Burtner announced that several members of the TWG would be attending the Orange County Business Council meeting June 27.  He noted that the focus of the meeting is to see if there's anything that could or should be done working with municipalities countywide in terms of having a wireless solution for all different types of applications.  He pointed out that one of the speakers at the event would be the City of Riverside CIO, and that Riverside and the City of Minneapolis are two cities that are being held up nationwide as models for citywide WiFi.  In both cases, the cities are serving as major anchor tenants.  The cities do not own the systems, but they guarantee to purchase a certain amount of services per year (from $1 million to $1.25 million worth of services from AT&T for Riverside, and another provider for Minneapolis).


Paul Stover suggested that Chair Burtner forward the OCBC agenda to City Manager Chris Meyer and City Council so they are aware that members of the TWG are attending, and also to be aware that Tropos, which is a part of the presentation segment, and the same vendor for the City's wireless radios, is still engaged in this market.



With no further business, Chair Burtner asked for a motion to adjourn.  The motion to adjourn was made by Larry Iboshi and seconded by Thad Sandford.  The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.   The next meeting date is set for July 17.


RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2015 City of Fullerton. Administrative Services, 303 W. Commonwealth, Fullerton, CA 92832. (714) 738-6520