BbTF Minutes 07-28-2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Provider Meeting Debrief—Greene/McKee • Comm Greene—pleased with number of vendors and interested what they had to say and timelines they gave; matrix doc was very popular YAY Kathy!; doesn't know next steps and not sure how to move forward with RFP • Jim—JN and Catharine reviewed the provider debrief doc; simplifying the RFP; looking at vendor meeting notes and using responses to refine RFP and scoring matrix to make sure we have good questions and a weighted scoring matrix • Catharine—did such a great job; great turnout; $5mil brought a good response to the table; educational; one of the benefits is that shows we can simplify RFP;figuring out what kind of weighting system and what priorities are; narrow down top 3; many providers suggested pumping the brakes on the RFP; State participation may or may not affect how county spends the money; 1) spend county's money and go ahead without knowing state plan or 2)wait for State's legislation before moving forward; possibly put out a simplified RFP now?; asks for how much participation the vendor wants from the county;Jim prefers to have RFP ready by the last week in August or first week in Sept (4-6 weeks start to finish); should be able to review all vendor info on spreadsheet then review RFP and remove all unnecessary language then have group review in mid-August; #1 priority for Jim is to get RFP finalized • Comm McKee—does what Jim proposes align what vendors were asking for? Vendors were suggesting 7 weeks from meeting last week; McKee encourages not to wait for state legislature because all other counties are pushing for money too so go ahead and get lined up to getstarted;Todd—many vendors asked for 90 days but waiting for the state to get it through their process would put us behind the curve • Victoria—vendors said if all counties are moving forward at the same time, might be supply chain issues ( • Terri—one of the things the vendors said was that they need support from OC; Durham and Alamance Tech for training/employment of students;work with Planning staff to work out permitting process in advance—start this work early, pre-planning; also how to handle County ownership of fiber? Ownership defined by#of strands or#of conduits? • Comm McKee- Makes sense to do as much concurrently as possible but would RFP amendment be problematic?Would permitting expediting be a BOCC thing? • Terri—amendment can be done; can say working with Community Colleges to build up the area workforce without defining a "workforce ready date" • Comm Greene—who paid for community college training? (Ask Comm Greene what training program we were talking about for Durham tech?) • Comm McKee—talk to Durham Tech about cost of training and how long it might take to get started; ACTION: Comm Greene/McKee—need to talk to BOCC about this • Jim—no conduit/fiber would be county owned???Confirm w/Jim that this is what he said;just the parts attached to buildings; need permits for towns that have jurisdiction of the right-of- ways; most of permitting slowdown will need to leverage relationships with DOT and towns/town Boards; where permitting comes into play is if they need to use any county facilities (like telecommunication huts for fiber comms); DOT and towns own every road but private roads; Piedmont Electric has easements on private property;they'll want fees for pole attachments; ISP's may ask County to help get favorable rate for pole attachments on Piedmont Electric poles; engineering will identify stream crossings, etc; work with jurisdictions and DOT to streamline permitting process