BbTF Minutes 05-19-2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

profit third parties,to no avail. As I mentioned,we looked at similar workarounds in Lumberton wherein the city would connect its buildings and lease to a private third party. I'm not sure the extent(if any)this has been actually implemented by any jurisdiction. Discussion:JN: $600million for Broadband Infrastructure; link to webinar; H947—Rep Arp is one of the sponsors; Question for James—can he explain why county can't put fiber to home then lease to ISP;JB-we only have authority for what's explicitly granted to us; do not have authority for"utility service"—potential for public/private partnerships but doesn't currently exist;Todd—thought County could build fiber on streets and then down the road could lease it to ISPs who would then run fiber from street to house(that's the way Chapel Hill/Carrboro/Holly Springs are doing it); leasing out surplus; need to consider leasing space on towers as well;JB- League of Municipalities—clarification of authority;some gray area (not explicit authority);specifics would matter; Todd—does county have appetite for risk of pushing boundaries?; BOCC would have to weigh in on appetite for risk;Comm McKee-be innovative and take a little risk, need to push; how did Person Co do it?JN -had a legislative exception (Nash Co too);Todd—if issues with fiber,wouldn't have issues with towers as well? Does Task Force need to take this issue to BOCC? Comm McKee-no,still need the RFP. Comm Greene-under NC G.S. 153A counties have broad power; Comm McKee—if the law opens the door,then step through Discuss the"Proposal"RFP,RFCL RFl: JN:sent out 5/17,still needs tweaking; essence RFP to light up 5000 homes; doesn't say how much County would put into it;asks how much vendors thinks it would cost;solicit vendors to give a $$amount to take to BOCC—5000 homes, how much will it cost? TB-discussion about what to do differently than did with OpenBB; better performance milestones, price/household in a way that prevents cherry picking easy ones; PC-if move forward w/RFP;current working RFP is technology agnostic; Fed funds(ARP) require 100Mbps symmetrical (or minimum of 100/20-;Treasury Dept saying wants future-proof performance (100/20)or else funds can't be used (Todd sent Treasury doc to group—ask if Catharine can provide synopsis); Todd—get RFP responses then hire engineering firm to review for meeting Federal requirements; not sure included maps are detailed enough for vendors to respond in a way to be trusted/accurately—not clear if looking for technical solution or a proposal we could work with and build on; Paul—how is RFP shared?Jeff Sural has suggested time is of the essence;JN—need to get this out there,Todd agrees;JN to reply to suggestions;TB— county will not own the assets—do we want that?; if we're talking fiber-only solution then we need to use hybrid approach fiber/fixed wireless;Comm Greene—maybe need two RFP,one fixed wireless, one fiber; maybe leave out sentence"county will not own the assets";JN—current language does allow for short and long term solutions; Catharine—does rating system rank vendors higher if faster solution?;Todd—seen contracts where agency owns equip/assets until term of contract ends then it becomes providers equip;omni wireless aren't 100/100 but can get point-to-point that will achieve that speed;TB—what do we mean by"short term"? Need to specify. Thinks we can cover short and long term solutions in one RFP—be specific with benchmarks.;CR—wasn't there a short term RFP;JN—yes but wasn't very short term so pulled back; if vendor has more than one proposal can do separate submissions;Comm Greene—why not two different RFPs?What if we end up with only responses for short term solutions?;JN—eliminate short term option and just focus on long term;TB—how do we define requirements for long term?; Comm McKee—18 months—3 years for short term; long term 3 years—5 years (possibly longer);advocates for 2 different proposals—short term wireless and one for long term fiber;JN—can dust off short term RFP again and put it back out there(pretty quickly)then craft this RFP into more long term solution; PC—repurpose short term and get it out there quickly then work on long term—good solution;Terri—no value in sending RFP out again; call meeting w/OpenBB and RiverStreet and ask what it'll take to get everyone covered in 18 months-3 years;these two vendors know county the best so are best poised to provide solution—so don't do new short term (since last one is still able to be used); use them to help refine their previous solution; PH —likes idea of 2 RFPs at same time; Doug—wants vendor who can do both short and long term solutions;Victoria