Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee backs advertising for multi‑year internet and phone contract capped at $180,000 a year
Summary
The finance committee unanimously recommended the council authorize advertising for bids for a five‑year internet/telephone services contract (voice over IP) with an annual cap of $180,000; the committee noted the bid should reflect incumbency or new infrastructure costs and that the item covers wired facility connections, not cellular service or public downtown Wi‑Fi.
Todd Sever, chairman of the finance committee, said the panel unanimously recommended that city council be asked to authorize the director of public service and safety to advertise for bids and enter into a multi‑year contract for internet and telephone services at a cost not to exceed $180,000 per year.
Mr. Titterington, the presenter, said the current contract with Metronet is expiring after a three‑year term with subsequent one‑year extensions and that the administration is proposing a five‑year contract with the option to agree to one‑year renewals thereafter. He emphasized lead time is important because if a competing provider is awarded the contract, that vendor may need to install its own infrastructure.
Committee members pressed for clarity on scope and costs. A member asked whether the contract would cover cellular phone service; Titterington replied the item covers wired facility connections (voice over internet protocol) and not carrier cellular plans. On pricing, backup paperwork listed $135,000 but another committee speaker said the current annual bill is about $161,000; Titterington said the budget request would split costs across existing funds and asked the committee to cap the advertised annual amount at $180,000.
Members discussed evaluation criteria. Titterington said the city follows a "lowest and best" standard; the committee noted that a new provider likely would reflect any upfront infrastructure installation in its bid, so price comparisons should account for incumbency and installation costs. An audience member, Miss Hickman (identifying herself as Ford City Council), observed that local market ownership is shifting — noting Metronet/T‑Mobile and other carriers' activity — as relevant background for bidders.
The committee signaled unanimous support to move the matter forward to council with a recommendation to advertise for bids. The recommendation covers wired internet and phone service for city facilities; it does not authorize changes to cellular plans or a separate downtown public Wi‑Fi project, which the presenter described as a distinct and more complex initiative.
The committee made no formal contract award at this meeting; next steps are advertisement for bids and then a return to council with a recommended award once bids are evaluated.
