The Committee’s discussion was heavily focused on the design criteria for the town’s high-speed internet system, emphasizing the importance of technology that could provide long-term benefits and accommodate future growth. A key point was the recommendation of using XGS PON technology, which offers symmetrical 10 gig bandwidth. The debate around the split ratios—whether to use a 1 by 32 split or a 1 by 16 split—was settled with a recommendation for the former, citing better future-proofing and cost efficiency.

The need for spare fiber in the design was also a significant topic. Spare fiber would allow for potential expansion of services and municipal needs without the requirement for new construction, which could be both disruptive and costly.

Furthermore, the Committee discussed financial aspects, including the potential costs of the high-speed internet project. Estimates suggested that the project could require $10 to $17 million, with the possibility of even higher expenses due to Make Ready work, which involves preparing existing poles for new cables.

The Committee considered forming a working group to analyze the financial model for the project. This group would take into account construction costs, borrowing costs, and the potential impacts on taxpayers. The financial deliberations included the review of a community compact grant application, which had been submitted with the support of local organizations and officials.

During the meeting, the Committee also reviewed a contract with G&G and a blue line draft, making minor changes and leaving comments for further review. The goal was to send the revised draft back to the select board for final execution. The contract’s details were scrutinized, including specifications insertions and expectations of sparing. The conversation extended to the impact of survey measurements on costs and the importance of accurate data for budgeting and establishing policies for resident payments.

The Committee members expressed the desire to include specific language in the agreement that would reference the survey report and its role in determining costs. This level of detail was deemed necessary to inform future budgeting and policy decisions. Additionally, the format of the agreement was discussed, including how to handle blank spaces in the document and clarifying the number of signatures required for execution.

Legal clarity was another focal point, with concerns raised about the exclusivity clause, termination terms, and the handling of proprietary and confidential information in the non-disclosure agreement with WG&WCF. It was deemed essential that the contract provide clear guidance on these issues to avoid future legal complications.

The financial discussions also touched on the increasing costs associated with the pole application processes, raising concerns about the financial sustainability of the project. There was acknowledgment of the need to carefully assess potential funding opportunities and the overall financial sustainability of the high-speed internet initiative.