1. Colorado Digital Government Summit Shared Services September 18, 2007 Clark Johnson President, Colorado Wireless Communities City Manager’s Office, City of Arvada

2. Colorado Wireless Communities Overview  Why am I here and why should you care? Shared Services and Multi-jurisdiction initiatives are the future of local government. It’s not about IT, but IT can lead the way It’s the model and structure, not the technology  Open Discussion and Debate

3. Colorado Wireless Communities Overview  Colorado Wireless Communities Lessons Learned (still learning!) Shared Infrastructure for a la carte services  Models for Success Creating Structure to Manage Shared Resources and Shared Services  Future of Shared Service

4. Colorado Wireless Communities Overview  Definition of Shared Services? Within a government/corporate structure Single service – Organization to Organization Multi-jurisdiction/Multi-Service

5. Colorado Wireless Communities Colorado Wireless Communities – What is it?  Regional Wireless Broadband Community Initiative  600K+ Population  240,000 HHs  137 Square miles of coverage area  Arvada  Boulder  Broomfield  Golden  Lakewood  Louisville  Northglenn  Superior  Thornton  Wheat Ridge

6. Colorado Wireless Communities

7. Colorado Wireless Communities – What is it?  History, Process, Structure Began as informal exploration Summer 2006 – 5 cities completed community feasibility studies Fall 2006 – Other communities joined, all signed a Memorandum of Understanding RFP process completed summer 2007 Intergovernmental Agreement signed by all cities spring/summer 2007 CWC now negotiating agreement

8. Colorado Wireless Communities What is Wi-Fi?

9. Colorado Wireless Communities Node Antenna and Backhaul

10. Colorado Wireless Communities Why are cities going Wireless?  Recognition of the connection between broadband infrastructure and community well-being Economic Development  Small, medium-sized businesses  Mobile workers Efficient and Effective Government  Field workers, public safety, remote data, phone/radio service Social Issues: Digital Inclusion Changing lifestyle and work style expectations

11. Colorado Wireless Communities Why are cities going Wireless?  Barriers to entry have lowered Unlicensed spectrum Maturation of technology (Mesh and 802.11a,b,g,n, etc. WiMax backhaul) Wi-Fi client devices are commonplace, reducing subscriber acquisition costs and streamlining the provisioning process

12. Colorado Wireless Communities Why are cities going Wireless?  Cities have ownership and/or access to assets  Attraction of increased competition, more consumer choices, and changing use patterns  Expectation of Technological Infrastructure Local Govt’s need to face this issue

13. Colorado Wireless Communities What Will the CWC Do?  Lead the negotiation, admin, and monitoring of an agreement with a private provider  Facilitate relationship between individual communities and provider (example – single permitting process)  Share resources and information to address issues, concerns, and common objectives (example – Digital Inclusion)

14. Colorado Wireless Communities CWC RFP Overview Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Model  Private provider funds, owns, and operates network enabled by CWC cooperation City partners to enable access to Right-of-Way, Mounting Assets (Traffic signals, buildings, other vertical assets) – a leasing relationship Creates parameters for policy issues based on community need and desire Competitive RFP process results in qualified service provider Within local government constraints from SB-152

15. Colorado Wireless Communities Benefits of a Multi-Jurisdiction Approach (City Perspective)  Critical mass for best proposals from best vendors (CWC: 600,000 pop., 137 sq. miles) Improves business case Increases likelihood for long-term relationship Increases likelihood for financially strong and stable provider or self-sustaining model Strengthens overall position of communities and users of network

16. Colorado Wireless Communities Benefits of a Multi-Jurisdiction Approach (Vendor Perspective)  One clear, consistent process for entering a regional market  Simplification of Process and Project Implementation (CWC: Single Right-of- way permitting process for all ten jurisdictions)  Facilitation and decrease of barriers to entry (CWC: Access to City Assets)  Potential for expansion and scaling Creates structure and framework moving forward

17. Colorado Wireless Communities CWC Shared Services  How is CWC applying a Shared Services Model? No Shared Services, yet. Shared Infrastructure A la carte services Everybody sees value for different reasons at different times  AMR, Mobile Phone, Field Worker Data, Device-Device, Video, Remote Data  CWC Structure: Intergovernmental Agreement

18. Colorado Wireless Communities Models for Shared Service  Creating Structure to Manage Shared Resources and Services  Where on the Spectrum do you want to be? Informal  “Handshake Deal” Non-binding/Limited Agreement  A hug, maybe a few dates Binding Agreement  Serious, taking it to the alter

19. Colorado Wireless Communities Models for Shared Service  Policy Considerations: The most important decisions may have nothing to do with the services to be shared. Informal Collaboration vs. Formal Authority  Whose authority are you playing with?  Do you really want authority?  Fears of “giving up power”  Be careful what you ask for.  Budget Impact?  Friends, Partners, Competitors, Size  Elected Officials, Politics, Public Perception

20. Colorado Wireless Communities Models for Shared Service  Informal Structure A few IT Directors meet for lunch, come up with idea:  Start Implementing Is it really cheaper, faster, easier?  Maybe – but at what cost?  Common for internal and two entity shared services  Flirting with collapse for the sake of time or comfort level

21. Colorado Wireless Communities Models for Shared Service  Non-binding or Limited Agreement A few IT Directors meet for lunch, come up with idea, invite rep from Mayor/CM/City Council office:  Slow down, everybody signs Agreement to “play nice” What’s the point? Is it really a commitment?  Political and policy “cover”  Legitimization – at least for a while  Signing on the dotted line

22. Colorado Wireless Communities Models for Shared Service  Intergovernmental Agreement A few IT Directors meet for lunch, come up with idea, invite attorney:  New governmental entity created! Do we really need to do all this (bylaws, board, public meetings, etc.)?  Yes – if you want a legally binding, long-sustained structure  Maybe not for every project (umbrella structure)  Can alleviate political suspicions  Can draw unnecessary attention  Much higher standard

23. Colorado Wireless Communities CWC Structure(s)  All of the above Informal evolved to non-binding which evolved to Intergovernmental Agreement  CWC IGA Creates single entity and framework for ten communities to manage the CWC Creates single entity and framework for private provider to deploy a regional network

24. Colorado Wireless Communities Intergovernmental Agreement  Similar to several existing IGA’s creating single purpose entities Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium and Rocky Flats Stewardship Council  10 voting member communities  Staff Driven Organization with dues and budget Don’t kid yourself – the minutia is hard work

25. Colorado Wireless Communities Future Growth of the CWC  The CWC is designed to allow additional communities Growth of the CWC can make network stronger for citizen and government users and provider  CWC is becoming a model around the country for a regional approach to competitive, ubiquitous, affordable wireless broadband

26. Colorado Wireless Communities Future of Shared Services  How does local government respond to a changing world? The world is mobile, but communities are not – how do we create sustainable models? 30,000 foot fallback  Excellent Personal Service  Allocating Resources to the “right stuff”  Partnerships

27. Colorado Wireless Communities Future of Shared Services What Does the Partnership Look Like?  Specialized Regional and/or Statewide efforts to share specific services Do we have to keep reinventing the wheel?  Overarching entities (already existing or created) to share multiple services How much is too much?  Random ad hoc model Just keep figuring it out as we go?

28. Colorado Wireless Communities Future of Shared Services  What other structural models are out there? CWC GMTC 311 CGAIT Shared Services Group Other?

29. Colorado Wireless Communities For More Information www.coloradowirelesscommunities.com More information available