HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.A. Broadband Options-Study Costs
j
\4.A,
I
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Mayor, City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: John Peterson, Telecommunications Coordinator
SUBJECT: Broadband Options - Study Costs
DATE: October 4, 2005
Introduction:
The Telecommunications Commission is recommending that the city conduct a
broadband study to perform an analysis of existing telecommunications
infrastructure/services in the Scott County area and identify the current service demand
and broadband (wireline and wireless) options available to residents and businesses in the
Scott County area, with the primary focus on the City of Shakopee.
Background:
Several cities in Minnesota and others around the country have begun providing
broadband services (wireless and wire line) to their residents and local businesses. After
the Telecommunications Commission reviewed technical.and business models and the
general issues of supply and demand of the broadband market at its previous meetings
(attachments from June 15 and July 16 Commission meetings), the Telecommunications
Commission asked Tracy Schaefer of Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC to research options and
prepare a cost estimate to further study broadband options and evaluate the potential
"next steps" for Shakopee.
At the September Telecommunications Commission meeting, several options were
outlined as to which "steps" could be taken. After"ieviewing the entire proposal, the
Telecommunications Commission recommends moving ahead with the first two steps:
I. Perform an updated analysis of existing telecommunications
infrastructure/services in the Scott County area (Technical - $7,500); and
2. Identify current service demand and broadband options available to residents and
businesses in the Scott County area, including take rates for service and market
demand (Current Service Demand & Broadband Options $13,500 - $15,000). The
Commission chose not to recommend the citywide residentiallbusiness telephone
survey, until after the Commission collected more telecommunications provider
information and had an opportunity to hold an official city discussion
group/forum (City CouncillTelecommunications Commission/City Leadership).
The entire proposal submitted by Bradley & Guzzetta is attached for your information.
1
I
"
/~
, t
'I
Budget Impact:
The broadband study would cost $22,500, which would come from the $24,000 which
was included in the 2005 Telecom budget under Equipment for "Wi-Fi" and other new
technology projects.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve the recommendation of the Telecommunications
Commission to spend funds contained in the 2005 budget to conduct a study of
broadband/wireless options.
Action Required:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the appropriate City officials to
execute a contract for a feasibility study of wireless broadband services to Shakopee, to
be performed by Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC at a cost not to exceed $22,500 within a
timeframe of four to six months from City Council approval.
John Peterson
Telecommunications Coordinator
2
.
t
;
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Telecommunications Commission
Mayor, City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Tracy Schaefer, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
SUBJECT: Wireless Options - Study Costs
MEETING DATE: August 3, 2005
Introduction
The Telecommunications Commission should discuss how it would like to precede with
"City involvement" to study, offer or initiate more community broadband (wireless or
wired) options.
Background
After reviewing technical and business models and the general issues of supply and
demand of the broadband market, at its previous meetings, the Telecommunications
Commission requested cost information to study broadband options to help evaluate its
"next broadbandlwireless step."
The following five "steps" can be performed individually or in combination. Some
communities have performed all steps or some have only performed a few. The
Telecommunications Commission/City Council should identify the number of areas its
wishes to study and explore. Costs include reviewing the general Scott County area,
because broadband systems are not normally contained within City limits.
1) Perform an updated analysis of existing telecommunications
infrastructurelservices in the Scott County area (Technical).
. Review City (ROW, City Code) Documents;
. Review Public Utility Commission (PUC) Records and Pole Attachment
Agreements;
. Review Other Telecommunications Agreements;
. Conduct Broadband Physical Audit;
. Conduct Telecommunications Non-Scientific Provider Survey;
. Review Tariff Records; and
. Review Private Broadband Providers' Marketing Materials.
2) Identify current service demand and broadband options available to residents and
businesses in the Scott County area, including take rates for service and market
demand (public Demand/Opinion & Broadband Options).
. Hold City Official Discussion Group;
I
:-;'!\
t
.
. Conduct Written Scientific Community Wide ResidentiallBusiness Survey
(telephone optional);
. Review Public Utility Commission (pUC) Reports, Review FCC and Market
Reports;
. Request & Review Time Warner (Comcast) Records; and
. Request & Review Other Telecommunications Provider Records.
3) Analyze and forecast future trends for enhanced telecommunications services to
meet potential future demand for enhanced telecommunications services in the Scott
County area (Future Trends).
. Utilize Results from the Residential and Business Surveys; and
. Report on Local, State and National Trends.
4) Evaluate models to improve telecommunications technology and infrastructure in
the community, conduct cost benefit analysis of the models, and identify and evaluate
funding options (Best Broadband Model, Cost to Implement & Funding Mechanisms).
. Public/Private;
. Public Utility;
. PubliclNon-Profit;
. Regional Joint Powers Authority (JP A); and
. Conduct Cost Benefit Analysis and Identify Model Funding Options.
5) Recommend a model for implementation and assist in the identification and
development of a priority work plan that helps the community leverage available
resources and make investments in needed infrastructure improvements
(Implementation).
. Evaluate Models for Best Fit;
. CitizenlBusiness/Institutional Support ("Community");
. Political Willingness;
. Evaluate Fees to Develop Infrastructure;
. Evaluate all Services That Can Enable or Facilitate the Applications;
. Identify Community Assets;
. Identify Potential Partners that are A vailable/Capable;
. Evaluate Impact on City Resources, Financial Feasibility;
. Legal Impacts;
. Legislative/Regulatory Barriers/Enablement; and
. Long- Term Liability/SurvivabilityNiability.
2
t
,
ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE COST
a. Perform update of existing infrastructure $7,500
b. Identify current service demand and broadband options $13,500 - $15,000
in Scott County area
. ResidentiallBusiness Telephone Survey (optional) $18,720 - $20,000
c. Analyze and forecast future trends $6,000
d. Evaluate telecommunications models, conduct cost-benefit,
identify and evaluate funding options $12,000 - $15,000
e. Recommend model for implementation $5,000
Total $44,000 - $55,000
$55,000 (telephone survey)
If the Commission is interested in learning more about only the public's opinion on
broadband services, the following services could be performed:
I. Public Forum* (with both specially $5,000 - $6,000
invited attendees and the general community)
2. Economic Development-Oriented Focus Groups* $5,000 - $6,000
(business leaders, non-profits, educational leaders, institutional
agency directors, etc.)
3. ResidentialIBusiness Survey*
. Written $8,000 - $13,600
(plus cost of printing and mailing - $1,000 - $3,000)
. Telephone (residential & business) $18,720 - $20,000
. Internet - not recommended, since many of the potential customers may
not have access to the Internet.
* Price includes a written report of the findings/summary. Telephone survey prices can
vary more than written, since a consultant is needed to draft survey questions and
interpretthe results and a different company is used to conduct the survey. Although
more expensive, telephone surveys tend to have the best response rate.
Action Requested
Direct Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC and the appropriate City staff to follow-up on any
additional City broadband information/servicesfor the Telecommunications Commission.
3