Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/22/2001W A WING T O N, U.� 5. A: ; 321 EAST STtWET" REGULAR ME TING '6*, Elms= A. CALL TO ORDER - Regular ROLL CALL b PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC «. CEREMONIAL MATTERS & PROCLAMATIONS B. WORK SESSION C. LATE ITEMS TO BE PLACED. ON T IS OIL FUTURE AGENDA5 (Y Cvnnctd :Sim ©r 1°ublar AND PUIIi1C COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOfi * AGENDA (?'his is the oppb>~tuntty fbr re ns of the public to speasi to the City CvtnefT tariut aatthg not ort the agenda, plase'ket .ccriis: I U -minutes.) D. . TRNANCE l; Contract award for Francis Street. Pa kA 1 Award 21 Contract award for Black n,, 6 Dial ,eservoir 3 Award Cover 3. Contract Change Order frr 8�' Street 5 Approve- Restoratioa Project 4., Contract with -'National Park Servlce:f+or Direct 7 Approve' y Costs Associated with Water Supply Mitigation Measures 5 Re scind Bids for Lauridsen Blvd/A►raotoadApprove k T�gnument Project Ew CONSENT AGENDA 1, CityCoin veil minutes of May 2, 2001, regular 11 Approve meetg 2. Cliekhst �. May 11,, 2f101 $1;426;34$, 98 19 V. CITY JC, 3 +CIL COMMITTEE I '; 1 " .s G. ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC TIIEAciINOS 1. Net Metering Program 59 Approve 2. Street Vacation Petition -Food Barak - 73 'Accept Portion of Fourth Street Withdrawal 3. Housekeeping Modifications to Ouu r 79 Burning Ordinance Approve n' NOT'E:-AR1G DIES A E10SE NEDIN'AXB'TA11Ii .' TIT OF ` A , May 22, 1001 Pmol Meeting' 1 ,' -- Jt ­ H. RESOL&ION'§x N; Resolution *► S4"or of Telecommunications 89 Approve competition , r I. OTHER CONSW�TIONS 1. Conservators tllsl�cy, 93 Approve w' 913 2. Cooperative< S 4� e� with US 97 Approve % 'Department of-96wd tut r>,: k, 3. Fiber Optic Business Plan Acceptance 101 Approve .. ` J. PUBLIC HgARINGS - QUASI-JUDICIAL (7:00 P.M. of soon theieaftef) No K. PUBLIC HEARINGS - OTHER "" ""' Noris L. INFORMATION 1. City Manager's Report &Projects Status (Page 193) A. Waterline Leak Detection Mort (Page 19, B. Pavement.Progtam : (Page 197),= C. Fuel Purchases (Page 199) D. Waterline,l tallation Cpptract ' (Page gal) E. Cancellation of Wireless. Contract with Ulypen & City of P.A. (Page 203) F. Update re: Telecommunications,Ordinances (Pag�205) 2. Hotel/Motel Grant Report - Parks Recreation - 1" Qtr. - 2001 (Page 209) 3. Humane Society Report - April 2000 (Page 2,11) 4. Parks & Recreation Beautification Commission Minutes - April 19x 2001 (Page' 213). 5. Department of Community Development Monthly Report -April 2001 (Page 216) 6. Police Department Mc itlily Report April 2p01 (Page 21g) 7. Public Works & Ut iitiies Department Monthly Report - April 2041 (Page 23p) 8. Parks &Recreation': lan*ly Report -April 2001 (Page X232) 9. Fire Department Moi�ily Report -April 2001 (Page 248) ..' M. EXECUTIVE SESSION (As needed and determined by CityA#grwy.) N. ADJOURNMENT '$ IRII•iC�fi Pubilc heacl[rps set th�frt}t Chi �s�# io Wrest pertirrili€►it�r�, psr �tiolisr arr pests tr, r .larrrc i � ! ons �ittl � �1 a pWbii l rC r�} r l r•�e p i inpc } prior to � des which is4th c�iz iasrtam �xsEinay be oonfr sra� y � 1 rnc�p et t plc op uii r:lhcot�6 : ., die palic proms pb P G:\CNCLPKT\AGENDA\01-0522.wpd v , NOTE:09ARINW,D- , - CESIANAILAI R FOP. T ON;'ASSISTANCE ,x May 22, 2001 Port T ales City` bunch 1Vleeting Page_. "2 CITY OF PORT ANGELES PQRTAgIGELES WASH I N G T O N, U.S.A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING: II. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Doyle Councilman Campbell Councilmember Erickson Councilman Hulett Councilmember McKeown Councilman Wiggins Councilman Williams Staff Present: Manager Quinn Attorney Knutson Clerk Upton B. Collins M. Connelly G. Cutler D. McKeen T. Riepe Y. Ziomkowski III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by: 6 a , (y4 L. "afftt May 22, 2001 Other Staff Present: CITY OF PORT ANGELES PQRTA CELE WASH ING TO N, U.S.A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Attendance Roster DATE OF MEETING: May 22.2001 LOCATION: City Council Chambers C] �IGELES DATE: May 22, 2001 To: MAYOR DOYLE,OPCOUNCIL FROM: Marc Connelly, Director of Parks and Recreation Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Award the Contract for Francis Street Park Improvements, Project No. 21-07 Summary: Bids were requested for the Francis Street Park Improvements, Project No. 21-07. Eight bids were received and opened on May 8, 2001. Primo Construction Inc., of Sequim submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $338,239.62, including the additive flag pavilion and taxes. The engineer's estimate for this project was $385,629.56. Recommendation: Award the contract for the Francis Street Park Improvements, Project No. 21-07, to Primo Construction Inc. of Sequim, Washington, in the total bid amount of $338,239.62 which includes the additive flag plaza ($28,640.94), approve added 2001 CFP project funding in the amount of $140,000, and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. Background / Analysis: This project will construct a park at the foot of Francis Street. The improvements will include paved parking and handicap access to the waterfront trail, lawn and landscaping, plaza, irrigation and lighting systems, and an additive flag pavilion. The flag pavilion was included as an additive item so as to provide an option to reduce the project costs in the event that the bids exceeded the engineers estimate. The low bid was below the engineer's estimate and it is recommended that the project be awarded with the flag pavilion included. Funding for the Francis Street Park comes from a combination of (1) a $250,000 IAC grant, (2) General Fund $50,000, (3) Soroptimist Jet -Set $18,000, and (4) proposed 2001 General Fund addition of $140,000 proposed by the CFP review committee for a total funding of $458,000.00. It is recommended that Council retain the added $140,000 for the project in the 2001 CFP to cover utility relocations and provide a contingency for unanticipated project costs. NAPROJECTS\21-07 Francis Park\ccaward5_22_01_2.wpd it City Council RE: Contract for Francis Street Park Improvements Page 2 The Department of Parks and Recreations' architect, TERMA Planners and Architects, completed the project design and the project was advertised. The bids were opened on May 8, 2001. The results shown below have been corrected as needed in accordance with the specifications: FIRM CITY BID , ncludin tax Primo Sequim $338,239.62 Bruch and Bruch Port Angeles $411,948.44 Horizon Excavating Port Angeles $425,208.04 Fischer Poulsbo $445,673.31 Rains Malott $479,253.96 Aldergrove Port Angeles $502,854.31 Hoch Port Angeles $539,122.73 Northern Con-Agg Mill Creek $638,093.43 Engineer's Estimate $382,816.36 Primo Construction Inc., submitted the lowest responsive bid. Their bid is appropriate considering the engineer's estimate. Review of their experience and references demonstrate that they are a responsible bidder and qualified to perform this work. The project bidding assistance and construction management is being provided by the Public Works & Utilities Engineering Division. Work should start by mid-June and is scheduled to be completed by mid-October 2001. 2 NAPROJECTS\21-07 Francis Park\ccaward5_22_01_2.wpd • • • WASH IN G T'O N, CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 22, 2001 To: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Award the Contract for Black Diamond Reservoir Improvements, Project No. 99-18 Summary: Bids were requested to accomplish the Black Diamond Reservoir Improvements. Five bids were received and opened on May 8, 2001. Snelson Companies, Inc. of Sedro-Woolley submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $963,967.94, including tax. The engineer's estimate for this project was $1,020,859.04. Recommendation: Award the contract for the Black Diamond Reservoir Improvements, Project No. 99-18, to Snelson Companies, Inc. of Sedro-Woolley, Washington, in the bid amount of $963,967.94, and authorize the Mayor to sign the Contract. Background / Analysis: The City is required to cover three water reservoirs to meet the requirements of a bilateral compliance agreement with the Washington State Department of Health. This project, which will provide a cover for the Black Diamond Reservoir, is the second phase of the three reservoirs to be covered. The first phase of the project, installing a cover for the Jones Street Reservoir, was completed in 1999. The final cover for Peabody Heights is scheduled for 2002. Funding for the reservoir covering project comes from a combination of (1) a $463,500 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan, (2) a $1,168,300 Public Works Trust Fund Loan, and (3) $80,700 from the Water/Wastewater Utility. The Department of Public Works & Utilities' engineering consultant, CH2M Hill, completed the design. The project consists of providing a metal dome cover for the reservoir and general site improvements. The site improvements include a new reservoir overflow structure and pipeline,an energy dissipation structure at the end of an existing drain adjacent to Tumwater Creek, a stormwater detention system, a new chlorination system and building, demolition of the existing chlorination building and other minor site work. In addition, the improvements will also include the installation of approximately 700 feet of 12 -inch combined drain/overflow pipeline, with an energy dissipation structure, from the City's Peabody Heights Reservoir site to Peabody Creek, replacing an existing pipeline. NAPROJECTS\99-18 Black Diamond Res. Cover\C0RR\ccaward5_22_0i_2.wpd 31 City Council RE: Contract for Black Diamond Reservoir Improvements Page 2 Bids were opened on May 8, 2001. The results shown below have been corrected as needed in accordance with the specifications: FIRM CITY --7 BID ncludin tax Snelson Companies, Inc. Sedro-Woolley, WA $963,967.94 Strider Construction Co., Inc. Bellingham, WA $992,741.49 TEK Construction, Inc. Ferndale, WA $994,755.89 IMCO General Construction, Inc. Bellingham, WA $1,045,463.72 David L. Sack Construction, Inc. Seattle, WA $1,070,579.49 Engineer's Estimate $1,020,859.04 Snelson Companies, Inc., submitted the lowest responsive bid. Their bid is appropriate considering the engineer's estimate and other bids received. Review of their experience and references demonstrate that they are a responsible bidder and qualified to perform this work. Work should start by mid-June and be completed by December 31 following fabrication and installation of the dome. N:\PROJECTS\99-18 Black Diamond Res. Cover\CORR\ccaward5_22_0l_2.wpd • • GELES WASH IN GTO N, CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 22, 2001 To: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Contract Change Order No, 4; 8 h Street Restoration, Project No. 99-08 Summary: The watermain in Laurel Street failed, damaging the street, and needs to be replaced as soon as possible. To save time, it is proposed to replace the waterline and repair the damaged street as part of the 8 h Street Restoration project through the change order process. Recommendation: Approve a written finding of the existence of an emergency, waive competitive bid requirements, and approve proceeding with Contract Change Order No. 4 to Lakeside Industries contract for 8"' Street Restoration, which will add waterline replacement and street repairs in the amount of $56,503.00 and 5 added working days. Background / Analysis: The six inch asbestos cement (AC) watermain in Laurel Street failed and damaged the paving between Whidby and Lopez Streets. We have experienced several failures with AC watermain and need to replace the AC watermain with C-900(PVC) watermain and repair the damaged pavement as soon as possible. Since the faulty watermain threatens the public health and safety and the City's ability to provide necessary fire flow and street access, this is an emergency situation that allows us to waive competitive bid requirements. To deal with this emergency situation promptly, we have requested our contractor for the 8' Street Restoration Project, Lakeside Industries, to prepare a cost estimate to include the watermain replacement and pavement repairs as a change order to the project. The cost for the change order is $56,503.00 and will add 5 days to the contract duration. In that this constitutes a change to the project scope, Council approval is required. The following is the current contract status: Original Contract Amount and Duration $1,684,518.60 90 Days Previous Change Orders No. 1-3 $ 84,044.31 2 Days Proposed Change Order No. 4 $ 56,503.00 55 DUs Totals $1,825,065.91 97 Days N`.\PROJECTS\99-08ST\consbvction\CO#4-1 ."d FINDING OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING THE WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES HEREBY FINDS that a faulty watermain in Laurel Street constitutes an unforeseen circumstance beyond the control of the City, which presents a real, immediate threat to the City's ability to provide fire flow and street access in the manner necessary to protect the public health and safety. Accordingly, the City is authorized to proceed with contracting for the necessary waterline replacement and street repair work without following competitive bidding requirements. DATED this day of May, 2001. ATTEST: Becky J. Upton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney F:\ORDINANCES&RESOLUTIONS\Council-finding a Be I UV".I ".I- Z61 • r -I L --A • u r� NGELES COUNCIL DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Contract with National Park Service for Direct Costs Associated With Water Supply Mitigation Measures Summary: The National Park Service has prepared a contract to reimburse the City for direct costs associated with dam removal that were incurred prior to October 31, 2000, in the sum of $218,953.50. Overhead costs for this period are being negotiated by the Park Staff and the City Staff. Expenses incurred after November 1, 2000 will be submitted after the contract has been Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with the National Park Service for direct costs associated with dam removal that were incurred prior to October 31, 2000, in the amount of $218,953.50; authorize the City Manager to sign future modifications to the contract; and authorize the Director of Public Works and Utilities to sign the appropriate representations and certifications, and invoice the Park Service for reimbursement of current and future costs. Background / Analysis: The United states Congress directed the National Park Service (NPS) to reimburse the City of Port Angeles (City) for current and future sunk costs reasonably incurred in studying and preparing water supply mitigation options associated with removing the Elwha dams up to $500,000. The National Park Service has prepared a contract to reimburse the City for direct costs, $218,953.50, incurred prior to October 31, 2000. It is anticipated the contract will be modified for additional reimbursement expenses. The NPS and City staffs are negotiating the general and administrative overhead costs associated with the direct costs. Expenses incurred between November 1, 2000 and April 30, 2001 will be submitted after the contract has been signed. It is recommended that the City Council authorize: 1) The Mayor to sign the contract, 2) The City Manager to sign modifications to the contract, 3) The Director of Public Works and Utilities to sign the appropriate representations and certifications, and invoice for the reimbursement of current and future costs. The City Attorney has reviewed the contract. NAGLENN\NPScont."d AWARDlCONTRACT 1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER Rating Page °f Pages X A SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM 1 UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 350) X B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS 2-3 1 27 2. CONTRACT (Pmc. Inst. Adam) NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE R r111.VR ISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST PROJECT NO. 0 ' � C950MI0245 05/04/2001 •' •' Sae lines 5. ISSUED BY CODE 95000 6. ADMINISTERED BY (Ifotharthan Item 5) CODE PWR - OLYM Olympic National Park 600 East Park Ave REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND Port Angeles, WA 98362-6798 7. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street city, county, State and ZIP Code) S. DELIVERY ❑ FOB Origin 0 Other (See below) 9. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT City of Port Angeles 321E 5th Street 10 days % P.O.Box 1150 20 days % Port Angeles, WA 98382- 30 days X G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 7 days % 10.suersr scuolcss ITEM 27 X H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 8 NcqPb@ WdM~- ft ooneSHwwN Mc A00REsS 12 CODE • FACILITY CODE 11. SHIP TOMARK FOR CODE 95000 12. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE 95000 Brian D. Winter PWR - OLYM Olympic National Park PWR - OLYM Olympic National Park 600 East Park Ave 600 East Park Ave to sign this document and return 2 copies to issuing office) Port Angeles, WA 98382-6798 Port Angeles, WA 98362-6798 13. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION: 14. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA ❑X 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) (5 ) El 41 U.S.C. 253(c) ( ) 2001 - - - 9500 - - 2522 - - 477 - - - 0071- - - - - - 15A. ITEM NO. 15B. SUPPLIES/SERVICES 15C. QUANTITY 15D. UNIT 15E UNIT PRICE 15F. AMOUNT SEE LINE ITEM DETAIL 19A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or p" 211k NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER Sandra A. Thomas 196. NAME OF CONTRACTOR 19C. DATE SIGNED 20B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 20C. DATE SIGNED By 150. TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT 218,853.5u 1r1 TART F nF CnNTFNTS ISECI DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) ISECI DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) X A SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM 1 X I I CONTRACT CLAUSES 9-21 X B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS 2-3 PART ill - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACH. X C DESCRIPTIONISPECSIWORK STATEMENT 5 J UST OF ATTACHMENTS D PACKAGING AND MARKING PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS X E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 6 REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND X K OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS 22-26 F DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE X G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 7 X L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS 27 X H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 8 M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 17 OR 18 AS APPLICABLE 17.[;;9 CONTRACTOR'S NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contrador is required 18. ❑ AWARD (Contractor Is not required to sign tfds document) Yaw to sign this document and return 2 copies to issuing office) offer on Solicitation Number Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all Items or perforin all the services set tucikWtug the additions or changes made by you which additions or charges are set forth fortis or otherwise identified above and on any continuation sheets for the in fug above, is hereby accepted as to the items listed above and an any conthloation consideration staled herein. The rights and obligations of the parties to this sheets. This awgrd consummates the contract which consists of the following conbacs shall be subject to and governed by the following documents: (a) this documents: (a) the Govemmerift solicitation and your offer, and (b) this awardlcontmeL award/contn4 (b) the solicitation, it any, and (c) such provisions, representations. No further contractual document is necessary. certifications, and specifications, as attached or incorporated by reference herein. (Attachments are listed herein.) 19A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or p" 211k NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER Sandra A. Thomas 196. NAME OF CONTRACTOR 19C. DATE SIGNED 20B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 20C. DATE SIGNED By By (Signature ofperson authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Olficeej 510-01-152-U0 STANDARD FORM 25 (REV 4 - 95) OUS EDITION UNUSABLE Pmsubw M ou FAR (15 CFR) 53214(N *," " .`a'i✓00�W Line Item Document Number Title „ Page purnmary 09500010245 R950001045 P.A. Contract Costs 2 of 27 „Total Funding: $218,953.50 FYs Fund Budget Org Sub Object Class Sub Program Cost Org Sub ProjlJob No. Sub Reporting Category 9500 252Z 477 0071 esion Closed FYs Cancelled Fund Line Item Delivery Date Unit of Total Cost Number Description (Start Date to End Date) Quantity Issue Unit Price (Includes Discounts) 0001 Dared Subcontractor Costs Associated 05/30/2001 1.00 lob $112,939.770 $112,939.77 With Elwha Dam Project (See Section C for Detail .f Req No: R9500010245 nding Information: 01 - - - 9500 - - 252Z - - 477 - - - 0071 - - - - - - 12,939.77 Direct Labor Costs Associated With the 05/30/2001 1.00 job $100,881.470 $100,881.47 Etwha Dam Project (See Section C for Detail) Req No: R9500010244 ling Information: I - - - 9500 - - 252Z - - 477 - - - 0071 - - - - - - ).881.47 Line Item Document Number Title Page Summafy C9500010245 89500010245 P.A. Contract Costs 3 of 27 Total Funding: $218,953.50 FYs Fund Budget Org Sub Object Class Sub Program Cost Org Sub Proj/Job No. Sub Reporting Category Division Closed FYs Cancelled Fund Line Item Delivery Date Unit of Total Cost Number Description (Start Date to End Date) Quantity Issue Unit Price (Indudes Discounts) Miscellanous Charges Associated With 05/30/2001 1.00 lot $5,132.260 3 5,132.26 the Elwha Dam Project (See Section C for Detail) Funding Information: 2001 - - 9500 - - 252Z - - 477 - - - 0071 - - - - - - $5,132.26 Total Cost: $21 • • • NGELES DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Rescind Award and Reject All Bids; Edgewood Drive/Airport Road Realignment Project 91-07 Summary: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has determined that, because of a bidding irregularity, Federal funding would not be available for the project if the City proceeds with the previous contract award. The City informally appealed this WSDOT determination without success. The only alternative short of losing the Federal funding is for Council to rescind its previous decision to award the contract and reject all bids for the project. Council rescind its previous decision to award the contract to Primo Construction and reject all bids for the Background/ Anal On April 10, 2001, bids were opened, and on May 2, Council awarded the Edgewood Drive/Airport Road Realignment Project 91-07 to Primo Construction. In the background for the award recommendation it was noted that there was a bidding irregularity and the irregularity was considered to be minor by the City Attorney and Public Works Staff. Subsequent to the award and prior to execution of the contract the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) determined that, because of the irregularity created by the lack of the DBE certification form in the bid documents, Federal funding would not be available for the project if the City proceeds with the contract award. The City Attorney and Public Works Staff discussed our basis for the award and appealed to WSDOT for reconsideration without success. WSDOT was firm in its decision that the only alternative, short of losing all Federal funding for the project, was for Council to rescind its previous decision to award the contract to Primo Construction and reject all bids for the project. In view of the WSDOT decision, Public Works re -advertised the project on May 15, and scheduled bid opening for May 29 and award on June 5, 2001. The project's new short duration bid advertisement, prior to Council's rescinding the earlier bid award and rejecting of bid, was determined by WSDOT to be in order and will allow us to get the project under way as soon as possible. The award on June 5, 2001 should allow construction to start by the end of June and be completed within the 90 working day construction period, weather permitting, in early November 2001. N:\PROJECTS\91-07AR\MEMOS\CCbiMct.wpd CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington May 2, 2001 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Doyle called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at REGULAR MEETING: 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Doyle, Councilmembers Campbell, Hulett, McKeown, Williams, and Wiggins. Members Absent: Councilmember Erickson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CEREMONIAL MATTERS & PROCLAMATIONS: Day of Prayer Proclamation National Maritime Day Proclamation Peace Officers Memorial Day & Police Officers Week Proclamation National Public Works Week Proclamation 0 Staff Present: Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, M. Connelly, G. Cutler, T. Riepe, Y. Ziomkowski, A. Broussard, P. Burrett, T. Smith, K. Ridout, G. Kenworthy, L. Dunbar, S. McLain and B. Raemer. Public Present: H. Schmidt, L. Bruch, L. Szczepczynski, A. Holzschuh, and L. Lee. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Campbell. 1. Day of Prayer, May 3, 2001. Mayor Doyle read the proclamation declaring May 3, 2001, as Day of Prayer. 2. National Maritime Day, May 22, 2001. Mayor Doyle read the proclamation declaring May 22, 2001, as National Maritime Day. The proclamation was accepted by Mr. Harold Schmidt, organizer for the Merchant Marine Veterans. Mr. Schmidt had distributed an information sheet to the Council earlier. 3. Police Officers Week, May 13-19, 2001. Peace Officers Memorial Day, May I5, 2001. Mayor Doyle read the proclamation declaring May 13-19, 2001, as Police Officers Week, and declaring May 15, 2001, as Peace Officers Memorial Day. The proclamation was accepted by Police Chief Riepe. Chief Riepe informed the Council of a Police Department open house this coming August or September. 4. National Public Works Week, May 20-26, 2001. Mayor Doyle read the proclamation declaring May 20-26, 2001, as National Public Works Week. Public Works & Utilites Director Cutler thanked Mayor Doyle for the proclamation and commended the hard working individuals in Public Works. CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 2, 2001 CEREMONIAL MATTERS & PROCLAMATIONS: (Cont'd) Partner Award Presentation by Port Angeles Downtown Association to Light Operations EXECUTIVE SESSION: RETURN TO OPEN SESSION: LATE ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THIS OR FUTURE AGENDA: FINANCE: S. Partner Award Presented to Light Operations. Arla Holzschuh, Executive Director of the Port Angeles Downtown Association, introduced PADA Board member Laurie Szczepczynski. She noted that Port Angeles is one of 345 cities recently designated as a Main Street City. On behalf of the PADA, she expressed appreciation to the Light Operations staff for their help with the many downtown projects that have been undertaken. The Port Angeles Downtown Association previously presented the Partner Award to Tim Smith and Dave Sawyer. The 2001 Partner Award was presented to the Light Operations crew and was accepted by Burt Raemer on their behalf. The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 6:20 p.m. to discuss real estate and potential litigation for approximately 25 minutes. The meeting returned to Open Session at 6:50 p.m. Lynn Bruch, 2446 E. Hidden Way, asked to address the Council on Agenda Item D.3. regarding the Airport Road Realignment Contract Award. Bid Award for Refuse Collection Truck. Bid Award for Refuse Mayor Doyle summarized the memorandum from Public Works & Utilites Director Collection Truck Cutler with regard to the proposed contract with Western Peterbilt, Inc. Equipment Superintendent Burrett answered questions and described the type of brakes used in the truck, as well as the cost effectiveness of the purchase. Councilman Wiggins moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Western Peterbilt, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, in the sum of $182,153.60 to purchase a Peterbilt Truck Model #320 with a Heil Rapid Body and additional options. The motion was seconded by Councilman Williams and carried unanimously. Contribution to Economic 2. Transfer of Funds to the Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Development Funds Revolving Fund for 2001 Mayor Doyle reviewed the memorandum from Public Works & Utilites Director Cutler on the matter of authorizing the transfer of $75,000 from the Light Fund to the Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund. After brief discussion, Councilman Campbell moved to authorize the transfer of $75,000 from the Light Fund to the Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund. The motion was seconded by Councilman Williams and carried unanimously. Airport Road Realignment 3. Award of Contract for Lauridsen Boulevard/Edgewood Drive Realignment Contract Award Project to Primo Construction. Mayor Doyle summarized the memorandum from Public Works & Utilites Director Cutler concerning an award of the Lauridsen Boulevard/Edgewood Drive Realignment Project to Primo Construction. Director Cutler explained that one of the bid requirements was that 5% of the contracted work was to be allocated to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). The bid requested the name, address, and amount of work each business would perform. Staff had inadvertently failed to include the appropriate form regarding the DBEs, yet the necessary information was made a part of the Primo bid which was the lowest responsible bidder. Another bidder, Bruch & Bruch, did include the proper certification form relative to the DBEs. After reviewing Primo 12-2- CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 2, 2001 FINANCE: Construction's bid, it was determined that all the vital information was present and was (Cont'd) only lacking the DBE form. Director Cutler recommended that Primo be awarded the bid. Airport Road Realignment Contract Award (Cont'd) Lynn Bruch, 2466 East Hidden Way, distributed a letter to Councilmembers from his legal counsel, Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker. Mr. Bruch was informed that the City had reconsidered the non-responsive status of the Primo Construction bid, and his attendance this evening was in protest of that consideration. Mr. Bruch referred to the DBE Utilization Certification he had included in his bid document, and he read from his attorney's letter certain citations of 49 Code of Federal Regulations and WASDOT, defining the needed material for a DBE contract goal to be established. The DBE utilization form would be necessary to fulfill the required information. In addition, Mr. Bruch indicated WASDOT regulations specify a bidder shall submit a complete disadvantaged, minority or women business enterprise certification. Lacking this certification, a proposal is considered irregular. Mr. Bruch felt it to be illegal for the City to accept Primo Construction's bid, as it did not use the correct form required by law. Attorney Knutson informed the Council that he had been advising Director Cutler on this issue when it was apparent there would be a conflict. When the documents were sent out -to bidders, the form that was supposed to be included in the packet was unknowingly left out. Bruch and Bruch and Primo Construction both had irregularities in their bids, which the opposing sides have pointed out. The key factor is if the 5% DBE requirement was met in both bids, which it was. One item not mentioned in the letter from the Bruch and Bruch attorney was that the list of subcontractors Primo submitted is considered legally binding. The City was not initially aware that two of the subcontractors listed in Primo's bid were DBE subcontractors, as the listing provided on the Department of Transportation web site was outdated. Attorney Knutson indicated this is a situation of form over substance, and he felt the issue is whether the goal regarding DBEs is being met. It was his opinion that the goal was, in fact, being met. Staff has consulted with the Department of Transportation and its Office of Equal Opportunity, and both are supportive of staff's decision on this issue. Mayor Doyle summarized the amounts bid on the project and the staff's recommendation to award the bid to Primo Construction. Councihnember McKeown asked for clarification from Attorney Knutson as to whether Primo Construction was obligated to follow DBE restrictions. Attorney Knutson confirmed that Primo does have to follow the DBE guidelines. After further discussion, Councilman Campbell moved to award and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for the Lauridsen Boulevard/Edgewood Drive Realignment Project to Primo Construction, Inc., of Sequim in the amount of $956,443.06. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McKeown and carried unanimously. Industrial Water Line 4. Industrial Water Line Repairs Contract with Western Waterproofing Repairs Contract Mayor Doyle summarized the information submitted by Public Works & Utilities on the proposed Industrial Water Line Repairs. Director Cutler noted that the only opportunity to repair leaks is when Daishowa is shut down for at least 72 consecutive hours. When the bid was advertised for the repairs, there were no responses. A current negotiation is in place with Western Waterproofing for the project. There are at least three visible leaks that are seen while walking the line. Discussion followed, after which Councilmember McKeown moved to authorize the City Manager and in his absence the Acting Manager to enter into a "time and materials" contract with Western Waterproofing, not to exceed $100,000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wiggins and carried unanimously. 13 CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 2, 2001 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Declare Equipment and Materials as Surplus OTHER: Mayor Doyle summarized the memorandum from Public Works & Utilites Director Declare Equipment and Cutler regarding the surplus equipment and materials. Mayor Doyle opened the public Materials as Surplus hearing at 7:40 p.m. There being no public testimony, the hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Director Cutler asked that a substation control center be added to the list of items for surplus. Councilman Wiggins moved to declare the transformers, substation control center, bentonite, and silica sand as surplus and authorize the Director of Public Works & Utilities to advertise and sell the items. The motion was seconded by Councilman Campbell and carried unanimously. Telecommunications 2. Telecommunications Mayor Doyle reviewed the information submitted by Directors Cutler and Collins with regard to the public hearing and the proposed Telecommunications ordinances. He then reopened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Power Resource Manager Dunbar advised the Council of a recent decision from the 9' Circuit Court of Appeals which addresses the relocation of telecommunication facilities and identifies who pays for relocation. The decision also addresses wireless ordinances and recognizes that state law controls the regulations and placement of towers, as well as new rules on franchising wireless facilities. Because of this decision, Mr. Dunbar indicated there would be some required changes to the ordinances being considered by the City. Attorney Knutson added that part of the decision by the 9'' Circuit was favorable to the City as it specifies that utilities located within the City's right-of-way are to be moved at the expense of the utility company. Councilman Campbell commended the staff for the wonderful job done in preparing the ordinance package. The companies that will be affected by this ordinance have had ample time to respond to the proposed ordinances. Councilman Campbell moved to direct staff to finalize the ordinances and return them to the City Council for action at the earliest convenience, possibly by the May 22, 2001, Council meeting. Councilman Williams seconded the motion which carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Williams moved to accept the Consent Agenda, to include the City Council Minutes of the April 17, 2001, regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Williams and carried 5 -1, with Councilman Hulett abstaining due to his absence from the meeting. CITY COUNCIL Councilman Campbell had no report. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Councilman Hulett reported that the Chamber of Commerce was closer to making the City's representative on the Chamber Board a voting member. The Chamber also plans to add a County Commissioner to the Board. Councilmember McKeown attended a Capital Facilities meeting. Councilman Wiggins attended a Forestry & Fish hearing with Tim Smith, who gave an excellent presentation. Councilman Williams took a walking tour of the Morse Creek pipeline. He clarified that the date of the Downtown Clean-up is May 5, 2001, 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. Mayor Doyle attended the Chamber mixer, as well as the Jazz in the Olympics Festival, which he was certain generated a substantial amount of revenue for the City. Mayor Doyle also attended the National Day of Prayer. On April 30, 2001, the Utility 14 -4- CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 2, 2001 CITY COUNCIL Advisory Committee and PA Works! conducted a joint meeting with MCC for an COMMITTEE update on fiber optics. REPORTS: (Cont'd) Break Mayor Doyle recessed the meeting for a break at 7:58 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m. ORDINANCES NOT None. REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS: RESOLUTIONS: Sole Source for Patch Truck: Mayor Doyle reviewed the information submitted by Public Works & Utilites Director Cutler on the matter of designating Valley Sole Source for Patch Freightliner, Inc./Northwest Manufacturing & Distribution, Inc., as the sole source for Truck acquiring the replacement asphalt patch truck. Director Cutler stated that, on April 23, Resolution 8-01 2001, the two bids received where determined to be non- responsive. Freightliner was then approached, and a quality patch truck that meets all specifications was located. Mayor Doyle read the Resolution by title, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 8-01 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, designating Valley Freightliner Inc./ Northwest Manufacturing & Distribution Inc. as the sole source for acquisition of an asphalt patch truck and declaring an exception to normal bidding requirements. Attorney Knutson asked that the Council add the following language after the second "Whereas" clause, "After a formal bidding process resulted in no responsive bids...". Councilmember McKeown moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Hulett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. OTHER 1. Appointment to Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission CONSIDERATIONS: Mayor Doyle summarized the memorandum from the Parks, Recreation & Park Board Appointment Beautification Commission with regard to filling one vacancy. The Commission interviewed Mr. Larry Little and recommended his appointment by the City Council. Therefore, Councilmember McKeown moved to appoint Larry Little to the Parks, Recreation & Beautification Commission for the unexpired term ending February 28, 2002. The motion was seconded by Councilman Williams and carried unanimously. PUD Utility Relocation 2. Contract with PUD to relocate poles for the Airport Realignment Project Agreement Mayor Doyle reviewed the information provided by Public Works & Utilites Director Cutler on the matter of relocating electrical facilities during the alignment of Lauridsen Boulevard, Edgewood Drive, and Airport Road. City Engineer Kenworthy stated that some roadway projects require that utilities be relocated, as they are in the City's right- of-way. This is a unique situation where the electrical easements were granted in 1914 as blanket easements, but they were not in the City's right-of-way at that time. The City cannot, therefore, require that the utilities be moved at PUD's expense. Brief discussion ensued on how this portion of the project will be funded, and Engineer Kenworthy explained how the City, County, and Port have jointly worked on funding this project. Councilman Campbell moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Utility 15 CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 2, 2001 OTHER Construction Agreement with the Clallam County PUD, in the estimated amount CONSIDERATIONS: of $193,442.82, to relocate electrical facilities to accommodate the realignment of (Cont'd) Lauridsen Boulevard, Edgewood Drive, and Airport Road. Councilman Wiggins seconded the motion. Clarification was sought and given on the completion date of PUD Utility Relocation the project, which should be done by early fall. A vote was taken on the motion and Agreement (Cont'd) carried unanimously. Equipment Purchases for 3. Equipment Purchases for 2001 Utilizing State Bid Contracts 2001 under State Bid Contracts Mayor Doyle summarized the memorandum from Public Works & Utilities concerning the purchase of equipment for 2001 utilizing State bid contracts. Director Cutler felt this was the most economical way to purchase quality equipment. There were clarifications made on the specifications of the dump truck being proposed for purchase. Councilman Wiggins moved to authorize the City Manager and in his absence the Acting City Manager to proceed with the ordering, purchase and/or rental of equipment from the State Bid and King County cooperative agreement, not to exceed the budgeted amounts, for purchasing one 5 -yard dump truck with plow, 2 one -ton trucks with utility bodies, and rent an asphalt grinder. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McKeown and carried unanimously. Olympic National Park 3. Approved Olympic National Park Franchise Agreement Franchise Permits Mayor Doyle summarized the information provided by Public Works & Utilites Director. Cutler pertaining to two right-of-way permits from the National Park Service for electrical services in the Park Headquarters, Visitors Center area and for road appurtenances along Park Street. Scott McLain explained to the Council that these are agreements that were previously in place, and very few changes have been made. Councilmember McKeown moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the right- of-way permits with the National Park Service to allow City facilities along Park Street and within Park Headquarters and the Visitor Center area. Councilman Campbell seconded the motion. After brief discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. Olympic Ambulance 5. Agreement with Olympic Ambulance Agreement Mayor Doyle summarized the memorandum from Fire Chief McKeen in regard to modifying the City's existing agreement with Olympic Ambulance. Fire Chief McKeen stated that this agreement was for Olympic Ambulance's use of City paramedics for out-of-town patient transport. The agreement successfully bypassed any possible conflicts of interest that might arise, and addressed the issue of benefits so the City will be reimbursed on any occasion when the paramedics are used. Brief discussion ensued in regard to overtime, the regulation of hours worked, and how retirement benefits will be addressed. Mayor Doyle suggested that the amount paid into retirement should be closely monitored. Councilman Williams moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Olympic Ambulance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hulett and carried unanimously. Conditional Park Use 6. Conditional Park Use Permit Permit for City Pier/Hollywood Beach Mayor Doyle summarized the information provided by the Parks, Recreation & Beautification Commission in recommending the granting of Conditional Park Use Permit at the City Pier and Hollywood Beach. Parks Director Connelly pointed out that the listed events have been held in the past. Councilman Wiggins emphasized the importance of the area staying clean and free from litter, as this location receives substantial exposure to the public. Mayor Doyle referenced the recommendation 16 -6- 11 CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 2, 2001 OTHER forwarded to the Council and suggested that "Port Angeles" be added to the language CONSIDERATIONS: preceding the Chamber of Commerce. (Cont'd) Councilmember McKeown moved to approve the recommendation of the Parks, Conditional Park Use Recreation & Beautification Commission to grant a Conditional Park Use Permit Permit for City allowing local food vending at the Concerts at the Pier program, 4" of July event Pier/Hollywood Beach and Jettin' the Straight special events at the City Pier and Hollywood Beach and (Cont'd) further, as a condition for granting the permit, the Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce be responsible for the clean-up of the litter and trash generated by these events. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wiggins and carried unanimously. INFORMATION: City Manager's Report: Manager Quinn reminded Council of the downtown clean-up event on Saturday, May 5, 2001. Downtown Forward will not be meeting on Memorial Day as stated in the calendar. The Gateway meeting was moved to May 11, 2001. Mayor Doyle stated he received a phone call concerning the free dump day, and he asked Director Cutler to contact the individual. Director Cutler stated that there will be a report on the free dump day at a later meeting; there were approximately 1200 participants in this year's event. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 9:00 p.m. to discuss potential litigation for approximately ten minutes. RETURN TO OPEN The meeting returned to Open Session at 9:20 p.m. SESSION: ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. L 'YDo le Mayor Becky J. Upton, Ci hClerk • �J • fE3 01/05/16-08:20 �JJ Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 001 63090 Hydrophonics 63186 Clallam Co Treasurer 63216 Insight Direct Inc. City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 08485 Portable PA system,speakers 1 2370000 03075 CVCA Remittance -March 1 2294000 09085 Epson printer 1 2370000 HP Laser jet memory 1 2370000 63232 New World Systems 14184 Install CAD software 03-07 1 2370000 63263 WA State Patrol - WASIS 23281 Criminal history-Steffenson 1 2295000 Bulletin board,clips,post-its 1 2370000 Screen wipes Criminal history -Green 1 2295000 63269 Washington State Treasurer 23120 District Court Revenues -March 1 2293000 Grafix Shoppe (Inc) 07116 Custom graphics V46,47,48 District Court Revenues -March 1 2291000 63280 Communication Briefings 03178 Subscription pe 02-01-02 1 2370000 63318 Oakstone Legai/Bus Publishing 04068 Renew 'Public Emp Law Report' 1 2370000 63426 Patricia Reifenstahl 18418 Swim belts 1 2370000 63434 Quill Corporation is63442 63443 63472 63484 63489 63504 63529 63535 63548 63570 63572 63586 Aerobic tapes,CD's 1 2370000 Fanny packs 1 2370000 17000 Formatted disks 1 2370000 Printer labels 1 2370000 Cassette tapes 1 2370000 Bulletin board,clips,post-its 1 2370000 Screen wipes 1 2370000 Office supplies 1 2370000 Office supplies 1 2370000 Refills 1 2370000 Rudolph, Donald R 18419 Refund services 1 2370000 Salsbury Industries 19533 Drop boxes 1 2370000 , AT&T Wireless Services 01404 #360-808-1351-trsfr deposit 1 2391000 CDW Government Inc. 03336 Exabyte internal tape drive 1 2370000 - Conflict Management Institute 03221 Renew 'Wa Public Employment' 1 2370000' Grafix Shoppe (Inc) 07116 Custom graphics V46,47,48 1 2370000 Northern Tool & Equipment Co. 14461 Engine,spray tank,winch 1 2370000 Advanced Travel 01090 Glycerine 1 2370000 Paymentech 16421 Use tax 1 2370000 Profit Systems Software 16046 Credit report -Tech support 1 2370000 Supplemental Services Inc. 19292 Tags,labels 1 2370000 TBW Industries Inc. 20098 City lapel pins 1 2370000 Washington (DOL), State of 04137 Concealed pistol licenses 1 2296000 Page 1 Amount 179.50- 245.35 21.73- 15.91- 61.50- 24.00 24.00 11,328.07 504.00 6.48- 13.04- 11.01- 13.52- 3.20- .87- 3.94- 9.44- 4.21- 4.50- 9.68- 24.39- .62- 6.15 59.45- 100.00 81.20- 6.15- 56.75- 38.85- 1.09- 128.61- 6.15- 7.94- 68.83- 228.00 Total for Department 11,621.01 0001 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 04-02 Billing 111 4210 31.26 04-02 Billing 113 4210 31.26 04-02 Billing 124 4210 15.63 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 Doyle to WA DC 03-09 112 4310 78.12 Campbell to WA DC 03-09 112 4310 25.00 Quinn to WA DC 03-09 111 4310 43.36 Coons to Issaquah 03-15 113 4310 96.40 Upton to Ocean Shores 03-17 124 4310 732.05 63084 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 OPS Luncheon 125 3101 300.00 Ops Luncheon 111 4155 63.50 63087 Hearing Advantage, The 08441 Evaluations-Denton,Buckmaster 113 4131 50.00 Tests-Abram,Carlson,Twitchell 113 4131 75.00 63111 Olympic Printers Inc. 15027 Proclamation paper 112 3101 lb 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE 04-02 Billing 201 4210 CHECK ;REGISTER 04-02 Billing 230 4210 Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code 01090 Number Name Number Number 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 Vertical file 111 3101 Asquith 230 File folders 111 3101 04052 Copy Center svcs-March 205 Letter opener 124 3101 03261 Wipes 240 Post card paper 111 3101 13203 Tax Audit Program -pe 03-30 230 Clasp envelopes 111 3101 63122 Paymentech 16421 Travel expense -WA DC 112 4310 Travel expense 111 4310 63127 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Civil Svc Board lunch 113 4150 63131 Portside Inn 16440 Corporal Interview Board 113 4150 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 Gift certificate 111 4155 63172 AWC Assn of Washington Cities 01080 Register Coons -Labor Relations 113 4310 63191 Collins, Brad 03083 Reimburse City Mgr Dinner mtg 111 3101 63214 Hurricane Ridge Winter Sports 08084 Transportation thru 03-24 114 4972 63222 Laurel Black Design 12082 City newsletters 111 4150 63268 Washington Audiology Svcs Inc. 23274 Annual Hearing Tests 113 4131 63277 Albertson's Inc. 01204 Council refreshments 112 3101 63318 Oakstone Legal/Bus Publishing 04068 Renew 'Public Emp Law Report' 113 4901 63324 Peninsula Daily News 16012 'Volunteer Appreciation' 112 3101 63333 Qwest 21001 04-14 Billing 111 4210 04-14 Billing 113 4210 04-14 Billing 124 4210 63342 Safeway Inc. 19045 Groceries-CCSC Luncheon 125 3101 63352 United Way of Clallam County 21048 Qtr 1 Human Svcs funds,Adm fee 114 4971 63379 Captain T's 03048 Shirt,embroidery 111 3101 63394 Gina's Bakery 07132 Council refreshments 112 3101 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 March Scan charges 111 4210 March Scan charges 113 4210 March Scan Charges 124 4210 63473 AT&T Business Service 01085 04-13 Billing 111 4210 63475 Advanced Travel 01090 Coons to SeaTac 04-17,ferry 113 4310 Coons to SeaTac 04-26,ferry 113 4310 63489 Conflict Management Institute 03221 Renew 'Wa Public Employment' 113 4901 63509 Hearing Advantage, The 08441 Evaluations-Hall,Reid,Wheeler 113 4131 63535 Paymentech 16421 Travel expense 111 4310 Travel expense 112 4310 63537 Peninsula College 16011 Motivation Workshop 03-08 125 4310 63572 TBW Industries Inc. 20098 City lapel pins 111 3101 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 04-15 Billing 111 3101 04-15 Bitting 111 4210 May 16 2001 Page 2 Total for Administration 0002 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 04-02 Billing 201 4210 04-02 Billing 230 4210 04-02 Billing 240 4210 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 Kheriaty,Asquith-Covington3-20 201 4310 Ziomkowski,Papendrew,Kheriaty 201 4310 Asquith 230 4310 63075 Diversified Resource Center 04052 Copy Center svcs-March 205 4150 63084 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 Wipes 240 3101 63099 Microflex Inc. 13203 Tax Audit Program -pe 03-30 230 4150 20 is Amount 101.08 52.29 3.66 14.85 11.47 2,877.48 1,105.66 35.00 49.59 25.00 150.00 63.24 1,922.86 2,580.57 935.15 17.27 172.04 705.00 93.85 93.85 46. 17 37,500. 98.46 128.25 243.23 12.91 2.72 66.37 10.40 10.40 81.15 75.00 716.45 643.50 1,000.00 908.23 16.59 16.59 54,485.90 31.26 39.07 93.77 50.00 68 22 0 1,271.00 7.12 147.54 01/05/16-08:20 0 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name City of Port Angeles MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date"From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63106 Olympic Delivery Service Inc. 15020 63110 Olympic Paper Company 15111 63111 Olympic Printers Inc. 15027 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 63122 Paymentech 16421 63157 US Netcom Corportation 21093 63240 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 0 63275 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 63325 Pitney Bowes Inc. 16018 63329 Postmaster 16028 63333 Qwest 21001 63337 United States Postal Service 21062 63338 Ricoh Business Systems 18398 63351 United Parcel Service 21005 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 63438 Ricoh Business Systems 18398 63443 Salsbury Industries 19533 63448 Washington (Auditor), State of 19270 63459 Viking Office Products 22054 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 0 63470 Xerox Corporation 24001 63474 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 March delivery svcs 240 4150 Paper 205 3101 Paper 205 3101 Deposit slips 240 3101 Paper 201 3101 Paper 205 3101 Paper,folders,index 240 3101 Paper,folders,index 230 3101 Paper,folders,index 230 3101 Paper 230 3101 Paper 205 3101 Binders 230 3101 3 -hole paper 205 3101 Labor,cut down panel 230 3101 Travel expense -Seattle 201 4310 Postage 201 4210 Toner cartridges 240 3101 Phonemaster software maintenan 240 4810 Chair mat 240 3101 Chair mat 230 3101 Gas WMTA Conference 230 4310 04-02 Bitting a/c 46031977 230 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 44889988 230 4210 04-02 Bitting a/c 45946522 240 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 44625127 230 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 45528387 230 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 47190061 230 4210 Service call -Folder Inserter 205 4810 Renew Bulk Imprint Permit #67 205 4210 04-14 Billing 201 4210 04-14 Bitting 230 4210 04-14 Billing 240 4210 Replenish Postage 205 4210 Copy charges pe 04-27 205 4530 04-07 Shipping charges 240 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 201 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 230 4210 Printer labels 230 3101 Copier rental -No late charges 205 4530 Drop boxes 240 3101 Statutory Audit Services 230 4150 Calculator 230 3101 Calculator 230 3101 March Scan charges 201 4210 March Scan charges 230 4210 March Scan charges 240 4210 5800 Duplicator lease -March 205 4530 DC230SLX Lease agreement -March 205 4530 DC214S Lease agreement -March 205 4530 04-02 CREDIT a/c -44704872 240 4210 04-02 CREDIT a/c -44704872 230 4210 May 16 2001 Page 3 Amount 99.75 361.60 116.86 292.44 37.87 265.09 11.65 16.51 8.64 37.87 113.61 22.17 220.78 43.16 75.08 15.20 225.03 235.00 14.06 14.06 35.00 22.32 9.10 37.91 8.11- 17.97 10.16 177.45 125.00 93.85 117.32 281.56 2,500.00 20.02 7.84 7.48 35.72 51.90 727.93 784.45 3,768.30 88.15 88.15 19.54 29.65 10.12 3,174.95 378.23 71.14 33.19- WEI 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 4 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 63475 Advanced Travel CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07!2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 01090 63493 Diversified Resource Center 04052 63507 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 63530 Olympic Delivery Service Inc. 15020 63540 Pitney Bowes Inc. 16018 63543 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63547 Postmaster 16028 63548 Profit Systems Software 16046 63560 Ricoh Business Systems 18398 0003 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 63067 CompuMaster 03512 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63122 Paymentech 16421 0004 22 63312 Matthew Bender & Co. Inc. 13106 63322 Ortloff Atty. at Law, Kimberly 15146 63333 Qwest 21001 63382 Clallam Jefferson Public Dfndr 03274 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 63465 West Group 63470 Xerox Corporation 63475 Advanced Travel 63036 AVAYA INC 63038 Advanced Travel 63111 Olympic Printers Inc. 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc 23111 23018 24001 01090 12215 01090 15027 15030 05-02 Billing a/c -45946522 240 4210 05-02 Billing a/c 46008926 240 4210 Bryant to Salem 04-14 230 4310 Karen,Becky,Cheryl-Lacey 05-02 230 4310 Ziomkowski to Chelan 04-10 201 4310 Ziomkowski-Friday Harbor 04-18 201 4310 Kheriaty to Everett 04-11 201 4310 Veldhouse to Chelan 04-10 230 4310 April copy center services 205 4150 Office supplies 201 3101 April delivery svcs 240 4150 Ink cartridges 205 3101 Ink cartridges 205 3101 Postage 201 4210 Reimburse Postage Due 205 4210 Credit report -Tech support 240 4810 Color copies 205 4530 Black and white copies 240 4810 Total for Finance 04-02 Billing 311 4210 Knutson to Seattle 03-28 311 4310 'MS Access' Training-Kathol 312 4310 Paper 311 3101 Travel expense -Seattle 311 4310 Books 311 3101 Appellate,Supreme Ct-pe 06-02 311 3101 March Legal services 312 4150 04-14 Billing 311 4210 Public Defender fees -May 312 4150 Bulletin board,clips,post-its 311 3101 Bulletin board,clips,post-its 312 3101 March Scan charges 311 4210 WA Supreme Reports vol 140 311 3101 WA Practice -Real Estate V17,18 311 3101 Rules of Practice V2-V4B 311 3101 Revised Code of WA -Motor Veh 311 3101 Family and Community Property 311 3101 WA Rules of Court supplements 311 3101 DC220SLX Lease agreement 312 4530 DC220SLX Lease agreement 311 4530 Dickson to Seattle 03-28 312 4310 Total for Attorney 04-02 Billing 411 4210 Barnes to Everett 03-30 411 4310 Collins to Seattle 03-24 411 4310 Business cards-Vess 420 4990 Overhead transfer 420 3101 is Amount 37.19 15.64- 73.50 123.00 316.00 226.00 20.90 303.50 1,271.00 51.93 102.55 223.82 212.23 5.63 100.00 81.15 1,203.36 90.18 21,801.67 5 386. 399.00 37.87 150.16 57.90 54.97 1,437.60 164.24 2,500.00 39.25 16.22 17.88 22.61 24.89 109.82 400.34 68.71 12.98 239.03 102.44 227.51 6,525.02 30 2 66.15 79.74 5.26 01/05/16-08:20 0 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name s . t City of Port Angeles !=MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date'From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 63124 Peninsula Daily News 16012 63275 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63333 Qwest 21001 63357 Watkins, Joyce 23572 63379 Captain T's 03048 63401 ICBG (Inti Conference of 09001 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 63474 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 63490 Cottam, Leonard 03610 63543 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 0005 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 63057 Blumenthal Uniforms & Equipmt 02047 63064 Camera Corner 03044 63072 Database Technologies Inc 04283 63079 Evergreen Collision Center Inc 03207 Paper 411 3101 Sheet protectors 420 3101 Toner 411 3101 Toner 411 3101 'Deny Parking Variance' -Darrow 411 4410 'Retail Stand' -Royal Vic Tours 411 4410 'Home Occupation'-Hefton 411 4410 'Wireless Telecomm Facilities' 411 4410 Wireless Telecomm Facilities 411 4410 Clearing and Grading 411 4410 Central Business District 411 4410 Wireless Telecomm Towers 411 4410 Decision -Shoreline Activities 411 4410 Retail Stand Activity 411 4410 Repair Drain Overflow 411 4410 Puget sound Pilots Facility 411 4410 Amend Muni code-Seutler/Nord 411 4410 Yard Setback 411 4410 04-02 Billing a/c 44324994 420 4210 Code Advisory Committee lunch 411 4150 Annexation mtg refreshments 411 3101 04-14 Billing 411 4210 Refund Conditional Use fee 411 32210011 Refund Conditional Use fee 411 34319000 Twill shirts,embroidery 411 3101 Annual Dues-Haehnlen 420 4901 March Scan charges 411 4210 05-02 Billing a/c -44324994 420 4210 Rfd Cert Occupancy App fee 420 32210017 Home Bldrs mtg 420 4310 04-15 Billing 420 4210 May 16 2001 Page 5 Total for Planning 04-02 Billing 511 4210 04-02 Bitting 534 4210 04-02 Billing 530 4210 Hall to Burlington 03-21 530 4310 Lowell to Vancouver WA 03-18 530 4310 Kuch to Gig Harbor 02-25 530 4310 Rainjackets 530 2080 Credit raincoat 530 2080 Badge -Coyle 530 3111 Name tag -Coyle 530 2080 Photos 530 4990 Photos 530 4990 Photos 530 4990 Processing,prints 530 4990 Photos 530 4990 March Service fee 530 4150 Tow 193 Ford Explorer 530 4150 Amount 37.87 19.44 112.53 127.68 19.68 49.20 41.00 42.64 42.64 63.14 55.76 34.44 27.88 50.02 49.20 50.84 34.44 70.52 39.62 45.50 46.35 93.85 175.00 75.00 245.94 195.00 13.39 58.03 23.50 20.00 11.32 2,175.43 54.70 39.07 7.81 67.40 824.72 165.00 96.65 114.03- 101.00 13.03 5.92 25.52 45.61 65.31 21.65 25.00 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/071?001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Number Name Number Number 63084 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 Scanner 534 3160 63098 Metrocall 20000 03-24 Billing 530 4210 63101 Middleton Auto and Truck Inc. 13117 Paint spray 530 3101 63111 Olympic Printers Inc. 15027 Business cards-Viada,Turton,Mc 534 4990 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 Covers for annual report 534 3101 Paper 534 3101 Dividers 511 3101 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 Toner 511 3101 Toner 530 3101 Black,color cartridges 534 3101 63116 Pacific Office Furniture 16518 New tock 530 4810 63123 Pen Print Inc. 16009 Note pads 534 4990 63141 Richmond 2 -Way Radio 18009 Repair cell phone 530 3114 Battery 530 3114 Battery,case,microphone,labor 530 3114 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 Duct tape 530 3101 Video tapes 530 3101 Rug cleaner,patio broom 584 4810 Keyblank 530 3101 Broom patio,carpet 530 3101 63164 Washington Fire & Safety Equip 23004 Extinguisher maint,chem powder 530 3101 Service extinguisher 530 3101 63171 WSPCA/WA St Police Canine Assn 23362 Spring Seminar -Miller 530 4980 Spring Seminar -Coyle 530 4310 63185 City of Forks 06075 March Board bill 512 5099 63216 Insight Direct Inc. 09085 Epson printer 534 3160 63240 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Task Force supplies 511 3101 63241 Port Angeles Police Department 16105 Supplies,projection screen 530 3101 Postage 530 4210 63248 Ruddell International 18032 M-26 Advanced Taser 530 3180 63264 WASPC North Sound 23177 Electronic Monitoring pe 01-31 512 5099 Electronic Monitoring pe 04-10 512 5099 63265 WSPCA/WA St Police Canine Assn 23362 2001 Dues-Miller,Coyle 530 4901 63280 Communication Briefings 03178 Subscription pe 02-01-02 511 4901 63283 Chris' Towing 03318 Tow 1979 Cadillac 530 4150 63285 Clallam Co Humane Society 03072 Contract svcs-April 530 4150 63286 Clallam Co Juvenile Services 03130 Safe Policy (COSEP) pe 2001 534 5080 63287 Clallam Co Sheriff's Dept 03074 Inmate care -February 2001 512 5099 63291 Evergreen Collision Center Inc 03207 Tow 1991 Chev Caprice 530 4150 Tow 1984 Toyota 530 4150 Tow 1993 Pontiac 530 4150 Tow 1986 Nissan 530 4150 63321 Olympic Medical Center 15028 Officer request testing -Max 512 5099 63333 Owest 21001 04-14 Billing 511 4210 04-14 Billing 534 4210 04-14 Billing 530 4210 63346 Second Chance Body Armor Inc 19759 Ballistic pads,armor pacs 530 3111 63351 United Parcel Service 21005 04-07 Shipping charges 534 4210 63358 West Group 23018 WA Court Rules -2001 Supplement 530 3101 63373 Blumenthal Uniforms & Equipmt 02047 Credit badge 530 3111 Badge 530 3111 24 May 16 2001 Page 6 Amount 205.58 61.57 12.96 181.07 49.63 151.48 19.26 63.84 96.30 80.07 37.87 168.79 21.64 77.58 324.06 7.94 22.62 13.46 3.46 17.79 25.97 1 100. 50.00 4,191.42 286.73 43.05 71.89 43.95 439.49 400.00 780.00 40.00 85.48 67.63 3,528.52 4,686.51 25,242.00 54.64 67.63 67.63 67.63 50.00 164.24 117.32 23.46 1,44 310 6.49 101.18- 225.19 01/05/16-08:20 Fnd Dpt Check Number :i City of Port Angeles MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Name Number Number May 16 2001 Page 7 Amount Cap badge-Kovatch 530 3111 92.16 Cap badge -new officer 530 3111 92.16 Shirt,emblems,buttons-Coyle 530 2080 130.07 Shoulder emblems 530 3111 1,083.74 Drug testing supplies 530 3101 214.48 Cuff accessories-Roggenbuck 530 2080 11.91 Glove pouch-Viada 530 2080 15.77 Gloves -Winfield 530 2080 26.06 Belt,belt keepers-Brusseau 530 2080 63.57 63399 Henry DDS, Robert F 08364 Dental extraction -Willman 512 5099 111.00 63403 Jim's Pharmacy (Inc) 10020 Bandages,pain relievers 530 3101 20.28 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Cassette tapes 511 3101 23.96 Cassette tapes 530 3101 86.35 Cassette tapes 534 3101 14.06 Pouch,tag,adding machine tape 534 3101 99.58 Binders,sheet protectors,notes 511 3101 41.55 pens,erasers,folders,envelopes 534 3101 182.34 Refills 534 3101 8.18 63435 Qwest 21001 04-20 Billing 534 4210 261.45 63440 Riepe, Tom 18081 Reimburse tuition expense 511 4310 995.42 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 MS Office Pro software 534 3160 478.01 March Scan charges 511 4210 26.58 March Scan charges 530 4210 32.49 March Scan charges 534 4210 7.20 63475 Advanced Travel 01090 Zenonian to Chelan 04-03 534 4310 52.50 Zappey to Renton 04-25 530 4310 62.70 Riepe to Renton 04-25 511 4310 62.70 Kovatch to Renton 04-25 530 4310 57.50 Swayze to Renton 04-25 530 4310 57.50 Knight to Yakima 04-22 530 4310 155.20 Zappey to Burlington 04-20 530 4310 10.40 63491 Database Technologies Inc 04283 April service fee 530 4150 25.00 63501 Gateway Companies Inc 07195 Two computers 530 3160 2,659.56 63535 Paymentech 16421 Travel expense 511 4310 106.78 Travel expense 530 4310 427.12 63536 Pen Print Inc. 16009 'Traffic Infractions' 2 -part 534 4990 248.86 Disposition sheets 534 4990 235.88 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 03-15,04-15 Bitting 530 4210 672.20 63593 Zappey, Erick C. 26002 Reimburse clothing allowance 530 2080 95.42 Total for Police 54,498.68 0006 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 04-02 Billing 611 4210 39.07 04-02 Bitting 642 4210 7.81 04-02 Bitting 643 4210 7.81 04-02 Billing 641 4210 23.44 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 Bogues to Seattle 03-27 645 4310 10.40 Chastain to Ocean Shores 02-22 643 4310 451.35 Bogues to Bellingham 02-21 645 4310 559.32 63057 Blumenthal Uniforms & Equipmt 02047 Chief badges 611 2080 97.04 63058 Board for Volunteer Fireftrs 02022 2001 Pension fees-Agar,Flores, 644 49010 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 8 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 63059 Bogues, Keith 63064 Camera Corner 63098 Metrocall 63101 Middleton Auto and Truck Inc. 63108 Olympic Laundry & Clnrs Inc. 63109 Olympic Medical Center 63110 Olympic Paper Company 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 63121 Patterson, Jake 63122 Paymentech 63128 Port Angeles Fire Department 63142 Rose, Patrick 63145 SeaWestern Inc. 63153 Sunset Do -It Best Hardware 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 63223 Lavey, Thomas J 63240 Port Angeles City Treasurer 63275 AT&T Wireless Services 63297 GE Medical Systems 63304 J.B.'s Upholstery 63321 Olympic Medical Center 63328 Port Angeles Fire Department 63333 owest CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Number 02165 03044 20000 13117 15026 15028 15111 15030 16004 16516 16421 16025 18088 19104 19035 19037 12343 03062 01404 01027 10001 15028 16025 21001 63351 United Parcel Service 21005 63367 American Guide Services Inc. 01374 63373 Blumenthal Uniforms & Equipmt 02047 Description GL Code Number 2001 Pension credit -Richmond 644 4901 Reimburse tuition expenses 645 4310 Photos 642 3101 03-24 Billing 644 4210 Lamp 641 3101 Carb cleaner 641 3101 Fan belt 641 3101 March laundry service 641 3101 Medical supplies -Fire Dept 643 3199 Paper towels,tissue,paper 611 3101 Paper towels,tissue,paper 684 3101 File box 643 3101 Dividers 642 3101 Binder 642 3101 Toner 642 3101 Reimburse tuition expense 641 4310 Refreshments 611 3101 Supplies,postage 611 3101 Tuition reimbursement-Psycholo 641 4310 Pants,gloves,hoods 641 3111 Pants,gloves,hoods 644 3111 Pants 641 3111 Pants 644 3111 Pants 641 3111 Pants 644 3111 Gauge 641 3501 Oxygen 643 3101 Spray graphite for couplings 641 3101 Soap 643 3101 Bulb 641 3101 Link snap 641 2080 Link snap 641 3101 Teach CPR class 04-17 643 3108 Reimburse clothing -Darling 641 2080 04-02 Billing a/c 46898102 611 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 43736255 644 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 47190061 645 4210 Biomed services 643 4810 Mask holders for trucks 641 3101 First aid supplies -Fire Dept 643 3199 Sew patches on jacket-Bogues 643 2080 Office supplies -dividers 611 3101 0 -Ring 641 3101 04-14 Billing 611 4210 04-14 Billing 642 4210 04-14 Billing 643 4210 04-14 Billing 641 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 611 4210 Hydrant Guides 642 3101 Shirt,emblems-Wheeler 641 2080 Pants -Wheeler 641 2080 0 Amount 60.00- 368.59 6.57 14.66 9.31 20.43 3.65 51.24 174.26 30.00 94.87 10.55 12.23 8.55 58.43 228.57 30.42 74.22 321.06 520.16 318.80 2349 144. 236.00 144.64 247.23 51.61 5.35 3.83 4.70 12.50 2.05 15.00 14.03 24.94 9.12 9.44 279.16 188.75 40.41 22.72 8.21 11.88 117.32 23.46 23.46 7 130 195.52 87.34 251.45 01/05/16-08:20 qb Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name City of Port Angeles E MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 63381 Clallam Co EMS/ 63409 Larry's Janitor Service 63437 Reid, Terry 63444 Sanderson Safety Supply Co 63445 SeaWestern Inc. 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 63466 West Region EMS and Trauma 63470 Xerox Corporation 63474 AT&T Wireless Services 63475 Advanced Travel 63490 Cottam, Leonard 63507 Costco Credit Card Pmts 63535 Paymentech Vendor Number 03068 12040 18007 19048 19104 23111 23235 24001 01404 01090 03610 03261 16421 63562 SeaWestern Inc. 19104 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 Description GL Code Number Pants 643 2080 Medic 1 Advisory for May 643 4150 April Janitorial svcs 684 4150 Reimburse clothing allowance 641 2080 Sensors -1% Disc 641 3101 Sensors -1% Disc 641 3101 Commando coats 644 3111 Boots 644 3111 Commando pants 644 3111 Boots 644 3111 March Scan charges 611 4210 March Scan charges 641 4210 March Scan charges 643 4210 2001 Conference -Chastain 643 4310 DC220SS Lease agreement -March 611 4530 05-02 Billing a/c -43736255 644 4210 05-02 Billing a/c -47190061 645 4210 Bogues to Edmonds 04-19,ferry 645 4310 McKeen to Bellevue 04-16 611 4310 Rfd Cert Occupancy App fee 600 34220015 Office supplies 645 3101 Office supplies 641 3501 Office supplies 684 3101 Office supplies 611 3101 Office supplies 642 3101 Office supplies 684 3120 Office supplies 642 3101 Office supplies 611 3101 Digital camera 1/2 642 3101 Digital camera 1/2,software 645 3101 Bunker coats,pants,trim 641 3111 04-15 Billing 643 4210 04-15 Billing 643 4210 04-15 Billing 641 4210 04-15 Billing 641 4210 0007 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 04-02 Billing 711 4210 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 Mahlum to Olympia 03-27 711 4310 Dunbar to SeaTac 03-26 711 4310 McLain to Fife 03-16 711 4310 63041 All Flags Travel Inc. 01015 Cutler to WA DC 05-06 711 4310 63047 Angeles Millwork 01073 Tray liner,roller cover 711 3101 63062 CH2M Hill Inc 03005 Morse Creek IFIM Review 711 4150 East UGA Annexation Assistance 711 4150 63065 Clallam Co Auditor 03018 Map copies 711 4990 63081 Federal Express Corp. 06022 03-23 Shipping charges 711 4210 63084 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 PC Monitor,RAM memory 711 3160 63110 Olympic Paper Company 15111 Paper towels 711 3101 63111 Olympic Printers Inc. 15027 Writing paper -second sheets 711 3101 May 16 2001 Page 9 Amount Total for Fire 22,931.30 211.05 19.00 201.26 57.50 571.50 8.71 2,032.25 13,152.36 21.75 5.25 357.04 47.61 :97 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 10 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 63118 Paint Store, The 16064 63122 Paymentech 16421 63163 Washington (OMWBE), State of 23115 63190 Clearing Up: Newsdata Service 03126 63216 Insight Direct Inc. 09085 63290 EES Consulting Inc. 05140 63311 Marsh Mundorf Pratt & Sullivan 13287 63324 Peninsula Daily News 16012 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63333 Qwest 21001 63353 Utilities Underground Loc Ctr 21010 63356 Washington (DOT), State of 23339 63379 Captain T's 03048 63419 NWPPA 14013 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 63459 Viking Office Products 22054 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 63470 Xerox Corporation 24001 63475 Advanced Travel 01090 63488 Complete Line, The 03087 63535 Paymentech 16421 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 63588 Western Micro Services Inc 23576 Correction tape,Stak-a-file 711 3101 Paper,folders,index 711 3101 3 -hole paper 711 3101 Paper,shears,dictionary,staple 711 3101 Laser printer 711 3160 Paint -Public Works Banner 711 3101 Paint -PW Banner 711 3101 Nice Computer,camera 711 4210 Books 711 3101 Share for OMWBE operating cost 711 4901 Service 05-01 to 07-31-01 711 4901 HP Laser jet memory 711 3160 2001 Scope svcs pe March 2001 711 4901 WPAG 2001 pe 03-31-01 711 4901 'Cable TV Survey' 02-25 711 4410 'Cable TV Survey' 02-25 711 4410 'Cable TV' ads -March 711 4410 Filing fees 711 4990 Light bulbs for display 711 3101 04-05 Billing 711 4210 04-14 Billing 711 4210 March locates 711 4150 'ESA & Bio Assessments'-Mahlum 711 4310 Polo shirt,embroidery 711 3101 Eng & Ops Conf-Harper-00-4908 711 4310 Formatted disks 711 3101 Folders,rolodex,cards,combs 711 3101 Side tab index set 711 3101 HP Designjet plotter 711 6410 HP Designjet memory 711 3160 HP Disk drive storage 711 3160 MS Office Pro software 711 3160 March Scan charges 711 4210 DC265 Copier lease agree -March 711 4530 DC420SX lease agreement -March 711 4530 DC214S Lease agreement -March 711 4530 McLain to Tacoma 04-23 711 4310 Sperr to SeaTac 04-24 711 4310 Harper to Boise 04-09 711 4310 Kenworthy to Pt Hadlock 04-27 711 4310 Displays,stands 711 3101 Partition frames 711 3101 Room Deposit 711 4310 04-15 Billing 711 4210 04-15 Billing 711 4210 04-15 Billing 711 4210 04-15 Billing 711 4210 04-15 Billing 711 4210 Microfilming supplies 711 4150 Amo 42.97 189.35 63.08 95.14 756.32 92.67 26.20 561.92 46.00 25.00 1,103.23 209.90 810.89 723.98 105.75 31.73 586.04 16.00 1.72 43.12 656.99 AMIL3 35 9 33.81 515.00 11.48 161.49 162.36 6,942.26 547.98 462.31 239.01 142.54 885.15 341.47 71.14 10.00 66.90 756.57 28.50 138.53 36.80 150.00 9.76 19.98 9.76 0 682.62 Total for Public Works 35,474.49 28 01/05/16-08:20 is Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 0008 63036 AVAYA INC • 63040 Albertson's Inc. 63044 Angeles Concrete Products 63047 Angeles Millwork 63048 Angeles Plumbing Inc Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 12215 04-02 Billing 811 4210 May 16 2001 Page 11 Amount 23.44 7.81 7.81 15.63 7.81 23.44 34.41 248.86 288.08 34.83 41.87 22.81 27.15 9.74 4.33 27.71 11.73 40.98 8.72 1.22 176.31 5.13 5.43 4.92 8.65 22.51 10.26 14.63 8.67 19.42 2.82 5.13 16.04 6.95 14.27 25.84 19.18 10.14 15.86 13.35 2.47 1.74 24.81 3.25 95.36 18.48 9.81 2.56 6.06 95.36 04-02 Billing 866 4210 04-02 Billing 865 4210 04-02 Billing 861 4210 04-02 Billing 862 4210 04-02 Billing 863 4210 01204 Staff meeting refreshments 861 3101 01070 Ecology blocks 866 3120 Concrete mix 830 3120 01073 Lumber 830 6310 Lumber,wallboard,bracket 865 3120 Hose hanger,bracket,lumber 865 3120 CTD sink,lumber,insert bit 830 6310 Screws,laminate 830 6310 Screws 865 3120 Rivet,riveter,angle 865 3120 Anchor,super glue 865 3120 Hardware,lumber,nutsetter 865 3140 Plier slip joint 865 3120 Rivet 865 3120 Outswing door,split-drive cask 865 3120 Bucket tray 865 3120 Modular cord,wall plate 866 3120 Joint tape 830 6310 Rope 865 3120 Roofing supplies 865 3120 Hose nozzles 865 3140 Lumber 830 6310 PVC slip caps,glue,wire brush 830 3120 Galvanized brad 865 3120 Hardware 865 3120 Nylon cord 865 3120 Enamel,starting fluid 866 3120 Lumber 865 3140 Lumber 830 6310 Garden hose,hose hanger 865 3120 Flameseal caulk 830 6310 Lumber 865 3120 Marker,bit,screwdriver,nails 865 3120 Flameseal caulk 830 6310 Anchor 865 3120 Hacksaw blade 865 3120 Slidelock tape,lumber 865 3120 Anchors 865 3120 Plywood 865 3120 Wrench set 865 3501 Lubricant,power bit 865 3120 Gloves 865 3120 Padlock 865 3120 Plywood 865 3120 01039 Plumbing materials 863 3120 May 16 2001 Page 11 Amount 23.44 7.81 7.81 15.63 7.81 23.44 34.41 248.86 288.08 34.83 41.87 22.81 27.15 9.74 4.33 27.71 11.73 40.98 8.72 1.22 176.31 5.13 5.43 4.92 8.65 22.51 10.26 14.63 8.67 19.42 2.82 5.13 16.04 6.95 14.27 25.84 19.18 10.14 15.86 13.35 2.47 1.74 24.81 3.25 95.36 18.48 9.81 2.56 6.06 95.36 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 12 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 63054 Bentley Company, The 63055 Blake Sand & Gravel Inc. 63066 CliniCare of PA Inc 63069 Cornell Auto Parts 63078 Eclipse C Corp. CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Number 02585 02045 03080 03092 19019 63086 Hartnagel Building Supply Inc. 08052 63090 Hydrophonics 08485 63092 L & L Toot Specialties 12035 63096 Lincoln Industrial Corp. 12047 63097 Maintenance Warehouse 13469 63107 Olympic Drywall Supplies Inc. 15023 63108 Olympic Laundry & Clnrs Inc. 15026 63110 Olympic Paper Company 15111 63111 Olympic Printers Inc. 15027 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 63116 Pacific Office Furniture 16518 63118 Paint Store, The 16064 63120 Parker Paint Mfg Co. Inc. 16201 63124 Peninsula Daily News 16012 63134 Quiring Monuments Inc. 17001 63135 Qwest 21001 30 Description GL Code Number Repair kits -faucets 863 3120 Trimmer parts 865 3120 Trimmer catcher 865 3120 Sand 865 3140 Sand 865 3140 Crushed rock 865 3140 Top soil 865 3140 Round concrete post 865 3120 DOT Physical -Leonard 865 4990 Plug,wire 865 3120 Washed sand 865 3140 Reject mix 865 3140 Washed sand 865 3140 Infield mix 865 3140 Flooring 830 6310 Door knobs,epoxy 865 3140 Masonry bit 865 3120 Masonry bit 865 3120 All purpose mud 830 6310 Portable PA system,speakers 862 3120 Wire wheel 865 3120 Repair aluminum ramp 865 3120 D-Rings,cool roll,pipe 865 3120 Sheet metal,reflectors,rod 865 3120 Cable cutter 862 3120 Wallboard stripper -1! Discount 830 6310 March laundry svcs-a/c# 1003 830 3101 Trash liners 862 3120 Paper towels,tissue,trash line 865 3120 Plush mat 862 3120 Floor sweeper 862 3120 Liquid bacteria 862 3120 Plastic bottle,sprayers 862 3120 Trash bags 830 3120 Window cleaning tablet 830 3120 Wet mop 830 3101 Deposit slips 861 3101 Folders,dividers,page holder 861 3101 Toner 861 3101 Ink cartridge 861 3120 Toner 861 3101 Chair mats 863 3120 Paint -Civic field 865 3120 Paint,chip brush 865 3120 Paint,thinner 865 3120 Prearrangement Makes Sense Ads 866 4410 Marker inscription-Sether less 866 3401 Marker,foundation,liner-Davis 866 3401 Marker,foundation-Thompsen les 866 3401 Marker,foundation Delaney -5% 866 3401 04-02 billing 830 4710 Amo 385.50 137.58 117.18 29.00 29.00 141.03 10.18 119.02 72.00 37.61 681.66 140.66 340.83 22.73 195.18 8.21 1.74 2.62 7.56 2,368.50 70.31 7 75. 491.87 34.70 47.56 48.66 85.28 10,816.35 114.72 61.09 69.05 14.67 127.92 8.33 23.59 97.46 25.91 191.51 68.71 11.90 43.28 2,439.91 21.23 31.72 320.00 5 43 498.75 279.30 33.61 01/05/16-08:20 0 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63136 R & R Marine Supply 18119 63146 Seattle Times, The 19012 63149 Skagit Gardens Inc 19077 63153 Sunset Do -It Best Hardware 19035 0 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63156 Thurman Supply • 20005 04-02 billing 863 4210 04-02 billing 863 4210 Winch strap,winch,jack 865 3120 Recreation Svcs Manager ad 811 4410 Plants,flowers less 2% disc 865 3140 Credit Penny Candy violets 865 3140 Cylinder rentals 865 3101 Cylinder rentals 866 3101 CO2,cutting wheel 865 3120 Bolt,nut,washer 865 3120 Parts for toilet 865 3120 Lifting strap 865 3120 Acetylene,oxygen 866 3120 Bevel,load binder,chain,gloves 865 3120 Lever,ballcock,bulb 830 3101 Knob 865 3120 Burn barrel 865 3120 Burn barrel 865 3120 PVC elbow,plug 865 3120 Flute,hex nuts 865 3120 Hacksaw 865 3120 Weatherproof cover 861 3120 Cleanser,0 ring,eye screw 865 3120 Office supplies,cleaner 862 3101 Winged weeder 865 3140 Tarp 865 3120 Gloves 865 3120 Sink traps 865 3120 Rake bow fiber 865 3120 Cable ties 865 3120 Paint,tape,valve ball,plugs 862 3120 Twine,keyblank,cordwheel 865 3120 Spraypaint,sandpaper,tape 830 3101 Roof patch,scraper,hook tool 861 3120 Supplies for planter bowls 865 3140 Brush,socket,hex screw,washer 865 3120 Wire brush,strainer 865 3120 Gas can 865 3120 Hex screw,hex nut 865 3120 Storage hanger,hose end spraye 865 3140 Halogen bulbs 862 3120 Tape,license plate frame 865 3120 Rubbing alcohol,tote 865 3140 Pliers,hammer claw,knife holde 830 3101 Lamps 830 3101 Light fixtures 830 6310 Light tube 861 3120 Nipples 862 3120 Drain opener,plug,wrench,putty 862 3120 Receptacle,switch,light fixtur 862 3120 Elbows,nipple,galvanized union 862 3120 May 16 2001 Page 13 Amount 40.17 64.92 94.57 308.65 304.37 138.97- 16.23 10.82 37.30 20.67 8.75 24.66 55.89 97.48 42.28 16.22 89.98 89.98 4.73 19.55 9.84 3.54 5.86 50.09 22.15 68.97 11.05 18.98 42.78 10.25 142.94 54.46 37.73 25.12 23.23 5.75 12.20 16.74 1.08 16.60 15.08 13.69 13.63 27.32 88.07 248.84 11.36 46.19 68.76 112.52 91 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 14 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 32 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63169 York Bronze Co 12289 63176 Best Locking Systems 01079 63224 Lincoln Industrial Corp. 12047 63240 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63275 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 63281 Chemsearch 14004 63292 Evergro Sales Inc. 05141 63308 Kaman Industrial Technologies 11082 63324 Peninsula Daily News 16012 63333 Owest 21001 63344 Schmitt's Sheet Metal Inc. 19007 63361 York Bronze Co 12289 63366 All Phase Electric Supply Co. 01061 63368 American Red Cross 01032 63369 Automatic Wilbert Vault Co Inc 01089 63404 Jobs Available Inc 10022 63407 Johnstone Supply Inc. 10026 63420 Northwest Fence Co. 14071 63426 Patricia Reifenstahl 18418 63433 Puget Safety Equipment Inc 16248 63435 Owest 21001 63442 Rudolph, Donald R 18419 63447 Skagit Gardens Inc 19077 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 Marker -Guilt 866 3401 Marker-Durboraw 866 3401 Locks,key blanks 865 3120 Padlocks 865 3120 Ediz Hook floats 865 3101 Trailer parts 865 3120 Trailer parts 865 3120 Trailer parts 865 3120 Pool Refunds-Roblan,Napiontek 862 34760013 04-02 Billing a/c 44889988 861 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 44704773 865 4210 Dr 2yme cleaner 865 3120 Fertilizer,grass,clay bricks 865 3140 Seals 865 3120 'Recreation Svcs Manager' 811 4410 'Kids Club' 03-26,03-28 862 4210 04-14 Billing 811 4210 04-14 Billing 866 4210 04-14 Billing 865 4210 04-14 Billing 861 4210 04-14 Billing 862 4210 04-14 Billing 863 4210 04-14 Billing 865 4210 04-14 Billing 863 4210 04-14 Billing 862 4210 Fix roof teak 861 3120 Plaque-Sigmar Penin. College 866 3401 Phone wire,jack-2% 866 3120 Light bulbs 830 3120 Ballast for light -2% disc 830 3120 Light bulbs -2% disc 863 3120 Light bulbs -2% disc 863 3120 Shane Field lighting -2% 865 6510 Adult training materials 862 3101 CPR,PR Challenge 862 3101 Rough boxes 866 3401 Recreation Svcs Mgr -job ad 811 4410 Heat sequencers,couplers 862 3120 Faucet hole covers,ballast 862 3120 Lincoln Park Fence Components 865 6510 Film,paints,candy 862 3101 Swim belts 862 3101 Aerobic tapes,CD's 862 3101 Fanny packs 862 3101 Reflective vests -2% Disc 865 3140 04-14 Billing 862 4210 Refund services 866 34360014 Refund services 866 34360011 Refund services 866 34360016 Refund flower credit used 2X 865 3140 March Scan charges 811 4210 0 Amount 249.10 156.98 666.32 170.36 337.62 261.10 134.90 27.98 42.00 17.57 15.62 471.35 10,775.55 17.05 232.91 50.00 70.39 23.46 23.46 46.93 23. 7 3. 41.08 47.44 5.41 147.02 114.46 133.10- 82.19 157.07 220.78 73.59 950.00 60.00 1,343.25 165.60 300.84 97.56 3,205.97 39.98 145.26 178.40 42.20 114.39 42.24 21& 75.00 138.97 14.73 01/05/16-08:20 40 Fnd Dpt Check Number City of Port Angeles" MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05!11/2001 Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Name Number Number 63470 Xerox Corporation 24001 63471 York Bronze Co 12289 63474 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 63498 Farwest Equipment 06267 63529 Northern Tool & Equipment Co. 14461 63550 Puget Safety Equipment Inc 63552 Quiring Monuments Inc. 63553 Qwest 63554 Qwest Communications 63558 Reifenstahl, Patricia 63568 Steuber Distributing Inc 63578 US Flag Etiquette Advisory 63580 United Rentals Inc 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 63596 Zumar Industries Inc 16248 17001 21001 21087 18418 19033 21068 16034 01105 26001 March Scan charges 861 4210 March Scan charges 862 4210 March Scan charges 863 4210 March Scan charges 865 4210 March Scan charges _ 866 4210 DC220SS Lease agreement -March 863 4530 DC220SS Lease agreement -March 861 4530 Aluminum letters 866 3401 05-02 Billing a/c -44889988 861 4210 05-02 Billing a/c -44704773 865 4210 05-02 Billing a/c 46008926 865 4210 Conveyor belt-topdresser 865 3120 Engine,spray tank,winch 865 3120 Glycerine 865 3120 Safety vest 865 3140 12 Donor/Patron plaques -5% 866 3401 Granite foundation-Durboraw-5% 866 3401 3 Donor/Patron plaques -5% 866 3401 05-02 Billing 830 4710 05-02 Billing 863 4210 04-20 Billing 863 4210 Advertising 3604570411 866 4410 Slide,portable stereo rack 862 3101 Sunshine mix bales 865 3140 Blower,shut-offs,nozzles 865 3140 One year Notification service 865 4990 Rent trencher 865 4990 Lincoln Pk fencing -Loader 865 6510 04-15 Billing 861 4210 03-15 Billing 861 4210 Women's Restroom signs 865 3120 May 16 2001 Page 15 Amount 26.37 1.88 2.22 .17 6.70 471.98 197.97 292.50 11.02 34.39 19.42 765.04 512.54 14.31 40.36 513.00 108.30 128.25 33.60 40.15 60.50 292.46 221.79 3,310.92 136.19 60.00 371.99 385.38 9.76 12.04 20.59 Total for Parks & Recreation 55,834.04 Total for General Fund 265,347.54 101 0001 63140 Ravenhurst Development Inc 18362 Prof svcs-PA Conference Center 122 4150 1,173.18 63326 Port Angeles Chamber Of Comm. 16023 'Jazz in the Olympics' funding 115 5083 2,500.00 Reimburse Visitor Ctr expenses 115 5083 8,062.77 63348 Soroptimist International 19577 Valley Crk Estuary planting 115 5083 29,999.00 63376 Brewer, David 02055 Contract Services -May 115 4990 100.00 63542 Port Angeles Chamber Of Comm. 16023 Reimburse expenses 122 4150 22,493.08 Total for Convention Center Fund 64,328.03 102 63035 APWA/Amer. Public Works Assn 01359 Handbooks 102 2370000 .50- 63207 Hall Signs Inc. 08125 Sign support hardware 102 2370000 55.60- 63316 Newman Traffic Signs 14163 Anti -theft nuts 102 2370000 24.60- 63354 VanTech Safety Line 22115 Safety jacket 102 2370000 4.93- 63457 Universal Die -Cut Corporation 21066 Die -cut letters 102 2370000 17.64- 33 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 16 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description Number 0007 63035 APWA/Amer. Public Works Assn 01359 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 A;nLL AnaPIPe cnncrete Products 01070 63047 Angeles Millwork 01073 63049 Anjo Soils 01057 63055 Blake Sand & Gravel Inc. 02045 63056 Blue Mountain Tree Service Inc 02021 63075 Diversified Resource Center 04052 63086 Hartnagel Building Supply Inc. 08052 63094 Lakeside Industries Inc. 12036 63101 Middleton Auto and Truck Inc. 13117 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 63141 Richmond 2 -Way Radio 18009 63153 Sunset Do -It Best Hardware 19035 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63156 Thurman Supply 20005 63207 Hall Signs Inc. 08125 63247 Ridout, Ken 18011 63274 Zumar Industries Inc. 26001 63275 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 63294 Flint Trading Inc. 06156 63316 Newman Traffic Signs 14163 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63333 Qwest 21001 63351 United Parcel Service 21005 63354 VanTech Safety Line 22115 63383 Coral Sales Company 03036 63427 Points Sharp Steel Inc. 16092 63436 RadioShack Accounts Receivable 18003 63457 Universal Die -Cut Corporation 21066 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 63474 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 GL Code Number Total for Department Handbooks 752 3101 04-02 Billing 752 4210 Kaufman to Bellingham 03-26 752 4310 Concrete mix 752 3120 Concrete mix 752 3120 Concrete mix 752 3120 Crushed rock 752 3120 Tape,insert bits 752 3101 Enamel,poly brush 752 3101 Hex key set 752 3120 Hex cap 752 3125 Lumber 752 3101 Soil mix 752 3120 Expansion joint 752 3120 Tree removal -13th St 752 4150 March janitorial svcs 752 4150 Toggler 752 3125 Keyed lock 752 3101 Asphalt 752 3120 Grease gun 752 3120 Grease gun 752 3120 Paper,folders,index 752 3101 Cable 752 4810 Repair radio 752 4210 Hex nuts,flat washer,bolts 752 3125 Clamp 752 3120 Pipe,culvert bands 752 3120 Flat washers,bolts 752 3125 Battery 752 4210 Hacksaw frame,sprinkler,tee 752 3120 Grounded switch,handy box 752 3120 Sign support hardware 752 3125 Reimburse mileage 752 4310 Rivet fastener 752 3125 04-02 Billing a/c 44580470 752 4210 04-02 Billing a/c 43487438 752 4210 Pre -mark traffic arrows 752 3125 Anti -theft nuts 752 3125 Banner 752 3125 04-14 Billing 752 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 752 3120 Safety jacket 752 3120 Washers,bolts,nuts,posts 752 3120 Points,chisel,asphalt cutters 752 3120 Cleaning kit for traffic count 752 3101 Traffic counter batteries 752 3101 Die -cut letters 752 3125 March Scan charges 752 4210 05-02 Billing a/c -43487438 752 4210 Amot 103.27- 6.50 23.44 191.70 261.30 366.82 68.17 5,682.69 4.70 3.79 3.90 1.02 11.23 378.70 25.97 541.00 77.83 10.71 6.99 144.22 2 2. 37.87 34.62 16.23 2.46 2.85 272.76 5.32 29.73 22.20 4.25 733.60 70.25 770.35 13.22 13.26 15,471.49 324.60 3.25 70.39 12.12 65.02 1,446.89 30.92 10 6 232.76 5.88 14.94 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - 4;iIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 17 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number 63493 Diversified Resource Center 04052 April janitorial svcs 752 4150 77.83 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 04-15 Billing 752 4210 3.64 04-15 Billing 752 4210 11.62 63596 Zumar Industries Inc. 26001 Metal sign posts 752 3125 4,946.69 Street signs 752 3125 2,494.52 Street signs 752 3125 419.19 'End of Road' markers 752 3125 205.07 Credit 'End of Road' markers 752 3125 205.07 - Total for Public Works 35,607.17 Total for Street Fund 35,503.90 103 0001 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 04-02 Billing 123 4210 7.81 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 Book 123 3101 20.50 63240 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Chamber meeting lunch 123 3101 17.00 63284 Clallam Co EDC 03067 1st Qtr 2001 123 4150 8,750.00 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Chamber lunches,parking 123 3101 52.45 63333 Qwest 21001 04-14 Billing 123 4210 23.46 63345 Science Technology & 19569 Annual Membership dues -Smith 123 4901 65.00 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 March Scan charges 123 4210 39.94 63486 Clallam Co EDC 03067 Reimburse 2001 Visitor Guide 123 4150 166.67 63505 Greater Seattle Chamber of 07278 Annual dues pe 02-28-2002 123 4901 350.00 Total for Economic Development 9,492.83 107 0005 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 04-02 Billing 532 4210 132.84 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 Wu to SeaTac 03-21 532 4310 46.00 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 Paper 532 3101 37.87 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 Color cartridge 532 3101 58.43 Toner 532 3101 157.97 Toner 532 3101 138.50 63122 Paymentech 16421 Travel expense 532 4310 111.28 63141 Richmond 2 -Way Radio 18009 Connect old Dictaphone 9000 532 4810 227.22 Test APSAP,clean console 532 4810 519.36 Test voltage on consoles 532 4810 32.46 Worked on equipment 532 4810 1,249.71 Reinstall Zetron model 25 532 4810 64.92 63196 Dictaphone Corporation 04047 Software maintenance 532 4810 7,038.28 63221 Language line Services 12345 Interpretation by phone svcs 532 4150 4.33 63232 New World Systems 14184 Install CAD software 03-07 532 6510 811.50 63300 Gouin Inc, Daniel L 07304 Computer svcs-New World System 532 6510 3,555.63 63333 owest 21001 04-14 Billing 532 4210 398.88 63379 Captain T's 03048 Shirts,custom embroidery 532 2080 139.04 Vest,shirts,embroidery 532 2080 159.05 Vest,embroidery 532 2080 96.30 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Screen wipes 532 3101 59.40 3 -Pocket set 532 3101 28.11 Stamp pad,indexes,binders,tape 532 3101 97.85 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 March Scan charges 532 4210 60.07 63475 Advanced Travel 01090 Wu to Mt Vernon 04-18 532 4310 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description Number Name Number 63501 Gateway Companies Inc 07195 Computer,support 63535 Paymentech 16421 New World-Sunpro Travel expense 63541 Plantronics/Santa Cruz 16089 Headset 63553 Qwest 21001 04-23 Billing 109 0005 63487 Clallam Co YMCA 03076 172 0002 63278 Angeles Plumbing Inc. 01039 63320 Olympic Community Action Frogs 03022 63431 Preston Gates & Ellis LLP 16175 174 0008 63040 Albertson's Inc. 01204 63071 Custom Computer Sales & Serv. 03381 63082 Frantz, Robert and Jennifer 06287 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63127 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63139 Radio Pacific Inc. 11019 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63277 Albertson's Inc. 01204 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63371 Bigbie, Kris 02602 63374 Boyd Coffee Company 02603 63379 Captain T's 03048 63386 District 13 04050 63481 Boyd, Jacquie 02604 63543 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 178 0005 63241 Port Angeles Police Department 16105 186 0008 63055 Blake Sand & Gravel Inc. 36 63169 York Bronze Co May 16 2001 Page 18 GL Code Number 532 3160 532 6510 532 4310 532 3501 532 4210 Total for PenCom Trsfr 'Path' Teen Grant funds 541 4150 Total for P. A. Teen Help Final #RPA02E-Beauvais 214 4150 Admin fee #RPA02E-Beauvais 214 4150 Lee Hotel pe 03-31 214 4150 Total for PA Housing Rehab Project Refreshments 888 3101 Refreshments 888 3101 Refreshments 888 3101 Socket 880 3101 Refund Soccer fees 889 34760020 Envelopes,paper clips,folders 880 3101 Paper 880 3101 Spring Break supplies 888 3101 Country Dance ad 885 3101 Hex screws,turpentine,foam 888 3101 Gift Certificates -Fish Derby 888 3101 Soccer balls 889 3101 Fishing Derby refreshments 888 3101 Fishing Derby 888 1002 Staff mtg refreshments 888 3101 Reimburse damaged clothes 888 3101 Coffee filters 889 3101 Custom embroidery 888 3101 Umpires -Adult Softball 881 4150 Adult Co-ed Soccer Officials 889 4150 Softball Kick-off Umpires 881 4150 Soccer fee refund 889 34760020 After school supplies 888 3101 Total for Recreational Activities Fund Coffee pot 537 3101 Total for Law Enforcement Firearms Range 02045 Blended soil 873 3401 Blended soil 873 3401 12289 Plaque -West 873 3401 r 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles- r4;IVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 19 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 310 0007 63361 York Bronze Co 63592 York Bronze Co 63124 Peninsula Daily News 63170 Zenovic & Associates 63188 Clark Land Office Vendor Number 12289 12289 16012 26216 03337 63194 Washington (DOT), State of 23119 63384 Washington (DOT), State of 23358 63533 Parametrix Inc. 16155 63571 Swenson Say Faget 19764 63595 Zenovic & Associates 26216 633132 Lakeside Industries Inc. 12036 0008 63068 Copies Plus 03091 63446 Seattle Daily Journal of Comm. 19058 314 0007 63186 Clallam Co Treasurer 03075 316 0008 63078 Eclipse C Corp. 63156 Thurman Supply 63546 Port Angeles Rotary Club 401 63033 Case, Charles D 63053 Baxter & Co., J. H. 0 63147 Sensorswitch Inc 63148 Sherman & Reilly Inc. 19019 20005 16533 Description GL Code Number Plaque -faros 873 3401 Plaque -Reynolds 873 3401 Credit Byrd,Neal duplicate pay 873 3401 Plaque -Pat 873 3401 Plaque -White 873 3401 Plaque -Hutchinson 873 3401 Total for Waterfront Trail Fund Lauridsen-Edgewood Realignment 774 4410 Prof svcs-Centennial Trail pro 792 4150 Eastern Corridor Entryway 792 4150 Ennis St Slide Repair 792 4150 Tumwater St Slide Repair 792 4150 5th & Race Hazard Elimination 792 4150 General Project Management 774 4410 8th St,Test Signal Controllers 792 4150 LF Engineering 2001 783 4150 Engineering svcs pe 04-22 796 4150 Centennial Trail pe 04-25-2% 792 4150 8th St Project pmt #3 792 4150 Amount 52.40 68.38 116.75- 52.17 55.46 57.81 290.89 259.12 2,170.05 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 83.17 1,564.78 4,387.81 4,180.00 88.20 192,257.50 Total for Public Works 206,190.63 Copies 890 3101 19.91 'Francis St Park Improvements' 890 4410 257.40 Total for Parks & Recreation 277.31 Total for Capital Improvement Fund 206,467.94 2001 Assessments 715 4950 2001 Assessments 911.46+18.68 715 4950 2001 Assessments 911.46+18.68 715 4950 Total for Property Management Fund Cover sand 860 3101 Nipple,bushing,cap,boiler drai 860 3101 Damage deposit refund -clean-up 860 36240012 Total for Lincoln Park Improvement Fund 03603 Utility deposit rfd-028690002 401 2391200 Utility overpmt rfd-028690002 401 1222200 02008 Western cedar poles 401 1414000 Western cedar poles 401 1411000 Western cedar poles 401 1414000 Western cedar poles 401 1411000 19758 Wall switches 401 2370000 19074 T -handle wrench 401 2370000 8.08 911.46 18.68 938.22 10.82 17.36 148.67 176.85 244.01 5.99 13,966.00 1,145.21 12,699.00 1,041.32 21.34- 11 01/05/16-08:20 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description Number 63161 WESCO Distribution Inc. 23150 63167 Western States Electric Inc. 23025 63168 Wilson, Andrew 63173 Acme Taxi 63174 At-Robia, Kym 63175 Anderson, Jessica 63178 Boyd, Steven 63179 Brockmeire, Albert 63180 Burcham, Margaret 63182 Caryl, Ryan 63183 Schwarzrock, Bob or Charles 63184 Charles, Philip 63189 Clark, Deborah 63192 Costello, Barry 63195 Dickerson, Vanika A 63197 Direct Safety Company 63198 Dollar -Rogan, Barbara 63199 Dowling, Vivian 63202 Evans, Eric 63205 Gutierrez, Jose 63206 Hahn, Herman 63208 Hansel, Raymond 63209 Hansen, Ronald 63211 Hawks, Lenette 63212 Horton, Della 63213 Hughes, Brian 63218 Johnson, Margaret 63219 Korotkin, Terry 63220 Kruse, Karl R 63225 Manes, James 63227 McClure, Kurt 63228 McDougall, Mickey 63229 Meisenheimer, Amber 63230 Miller, Avrill 63237 Parisian, Jacqueline 63238 Patterson, Ky 63239 Pauly, Samuel E 63243 Quaintance, Camille 23568 01493 01445 01494 02597 02598 02599 03605 19193 03606 03607 03394 04367 04279 04368 04369 05232 07348 08486 08487 08488 08489 08490 08491 10221 11242 11243 13613 13614 13615 13616 13617 16528 16529 16232 17025 Luminaires Luminaires Guy wire Guy wire Wire,conductor Wire,conductor Ampact shells Meters Meters Ampact shells Clamps,epoxy Clamps,epoxy Arrestors Arrestors Washers,pins,strandvise Utility overpmt rfd-102105005 Utility deposit rfd-074683009 Utility deposit rfd-034263002 Utility deposit rfd-031798011 Utility deposit rfd-034256003 Utility overpmt rfd-047821004 Utility deposit rfd-031828007 Utility deposit rfd-022659014 Utility overpmt rfd-022942010 Utility deposit rfd-124643004 Utility deposit rfd-032581036 Utility overpmt rfd-005851022 Utility deposit rfd-054160021 Gloves Utility overpmt rfd-113034004 Utility deposit rfd-094803026 Utility deposit rfd-023906027 Utility overpmt rfd-054054011 Utility deposit rfd-004243023 Utility deposit rfd-099147033 Utility deposit rfd-034285002 Utility overpmt rfd-033332040 Utility deposit rfd-054453014 Utility deposit rfd-035823002 Utility overpmt rfd-090484003 Utility deposit rfd-028843024 Utility deposit rfd-034264002 Utility deposit rfd-039233005 Utility overpmt rfd-034665015 Utility deposit rfd-024309005 Utility deposit rfd-040215020 Utility deposit rfd-033294032 Utility overpmt rfd-004461018 Utility deposit rfd-036234019 Utility deposit rfd-020702022 Utility overpmt rfd-006475008 May 16 2001 Page 20 GL Code Amot Number 401 1414000 1,480.68 401 1411000 125.86 401 1414000 380.48 401 1411000 254.77 401 1414000 5,690.61 401 1411000 483.70 401 1411000 828.46 401 1414000 2,683.20 401 1411000 228.07 401 1411000 299.39 401 1414000 1,025.50 401 1411000 84.09 401 1414000 382.50 401 1411000 31.36 401 1411000 920.15 401 1222200 501.05 401 2391200 25.81 401 2391200 125.00 401 2391200 250.00 401 2391200 88.65 401 1222200 237.04 401 2391200 25 J& 401 2391200 9 401 1222200 83.26 401 2391200 69.85 401 2391200 98.17 401 1222200 63.27 401 2391200 25.96 401 2370000 8.15- 401 1222200 74.47 401 2391200 94.04 401 2391200 250.00 401 1222200 80.58 401 2391200 67.45 401 2391200 67.77 401 2391200 125.00 401 1222200 79.05 401 2391200 133.44 401 2391200 250.00 401 1222200 526.93 401 2391200 28.49 401 2391200 104.96 401 2391200 160.00 401 1222200 69.07 401 2391200 125.00 401 2391200 125.00 401 2391200 401 1222200 1 401 2391200 250.00 401 2391200 126.17 401 1222200 62.24 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles AYE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 21 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number 63245 Reyes, Cesar 18414 Utility deposit rfd-033421018 401 2391200 125.00 63251 Shea, Christopher 19760 Utility deposit rfd-028894033 401 2391200 125.00 63252 Smith, Donald W 19761 Utility deposit rfd-024082005 401 2391200 250.00 63254 Stern, Cindy 19762 Utility deposit rfd-035874010 401 2391200 250.00 63255 Tachell, Kevin 20309 Utility deposit rfd-030716009 401 2391200 250.00 63266 Waldvogel, Lisa Marie 23569 Utility deposit rfd-035424035 401 2391200 125.00 63271 West, Steven 23570 Utility deposit rfd-034287002 401 2391200 125.00 63272 Whidden, Terry 23571 Utility deposit rfd-035416033 401 2391200 125.00 63279 Bender, Patricia 02600 Utility deposit rfd-102016011 401 2391200 125.00 63298 General Pacific Inc. 07034 Electrical tape 401 1411000 168.79 63306 Johnston, Earl 10222 Utility overpmt rfd-051560001 401 1222200 1,000.00 63314 McFarland Cascade 13534 Doug fir crossarms 401 1414000 1,384.00 Doug fir crossarms 401 1411000 116.26 63323 Pacific Metering Inc. 16494 U -Bolt hasps,padtock links 401 2370000 13.54- 63340 Ross, Lisa 18415 Utility overpmt rfd-094893011 401 1222200 76.66 63341 Safety-Kleen (Aragonite) Inc 19763 Drum liquids,reclaim bushings 401 2370000 92.42- 63359 Western States Electric Inc. 23025 Insulators,bolts 401 1411000 871.03 Rigid Clevis Chance,bolts 401 1411000 421.98 Transformer 3-phase pad 401 1414000 4,978.00 Transformer 3-phase pad 401 1411000 408.20 63360 63366 Westlake, Laurie All Phase Electric Supply Co. 23573 01061 Utility overpmt rfd-034711007 Bracket,copper wire -2% 401 401 1222200 1411000 400.00 222.06 63380 Caudill, Lisa 03609 Utility deposit rfd-034248002 401 2391200 125.00 63393 General Pacific Inc. 07034 Grips,wrenches 401 1411000 142.82 Secondary pedestals 401 1411000 1,000.09 Guy grips,guy guards 401 1411000 619.01 63402 Jackson -Hirsh Inc. 10213 Adhesive letters 401 2370000 3.23- 63413 Messenger, Terasa 13619 Utility deposit rfd-026018019 401 2391200 250.00 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Computer paper 401 2370000 5.99 - Petty cash receipt book 401 2370000 .73- Markers,pens 401 2370000 2.17- Film,packing lists,wrap 401 2370000 8.85- 63441 Rogers, Rebecca 18417 Utility deposit rfd-061476024 401 2391200 125.00 63467 Western States Electric Inc. 23025 Insulators,anchors,clamps 401 1414000 1,475.00 Insulators,anchors,clamps 401 1411000 1,430.18 Insulators 401 1414000 228.00 Insulators 401 1411000 18.70 Clamps 401 1414000 220.00 Clamps 401 1411000 829.54 Posts 401 1411000 486.90 Crossarm brace 401 1411000 311.62 Credit posts 401 1411000 486.90- 63494 Ebert, Jasmin 05185 Utility deposit rfd-065854031 401 2391200 77.74 63496 Fairchild Apartments 06170 Util overpmt-2301 W 18th #C-9 401 1222200 29.44 63497 Familian NW 06020 Price adj tapping sleeve 401 1411000 23.57- 63500 Fowler Company, H. D. 06110 Water meter materials 401 1411000 140.22 63502 General Pacific Inc. 07034 3 Transformers 401 1414000 3,997.95 3 Transformers 401 1411000 327.83 3 Transformers 401 1414000 6,955.08 3 Transformers 401 1411000 570.32 63510 Higbee, Walter and Judith 08493 Utility deposit rfd-059056021 401 2391200 3 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 22 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number 63511 Huntsicker, Iris 08494 Utility deposit rfd-101508012 401 2391200 98.77 63513 Jackson -Hirsh Inc. 10213 Aluminum sign,easel 401 2370000 4.75- 63516 Klotz, Alvin 11244 Utility overpmt rfd-030449007 401 1222200 38.08 63517 Knopp Inc. 11046 Meter test and repair charges 401 2370000 115.27- 63520 Lipe, Brenda 12262 Utility overpmt rfd-029297019 401 1222200 40.06 63522 Mackey, Richard 13620 Utility deposit rfd-034247003 401 2391200 125.00 63524 Meske, Matthew 13621 Utility deposit rfd-119015007 401 2391200 95.89 63526 Meter Devices Company Inc. 13050 Test switches 401 2370000 2.36- 63531 Orr, Debbie 15087 Utility deposit rfd-053538019 401 2391200 65.42 63532 Palacious, Justin 16530 Utility deposit rfd-019488009 401 2391200 29.99 63534 Patten, Patrick 16531 Utility deposit rfd-034252004 401 2391200 125.00 63539 Perry, Kimberly 16532 Utility deposit rfd-042480017 401 2391200 250.00 63543 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Hot water tank rebate 401 1343300 25.00 63545 Port Angeles Marine Supply 16103 Hex caps,washers 401 1411000 255.35 63549 Public Utility Dist Clallam Co 16038 Transformer 401 1414000 10,945.59 Transformer 401 1411000 897.54 63565 Smith Gary 19765 Utility deposit rfd-034262002 401 2391200 125.00 63569 Stevens, Arthur 19766 Utility deposit rfd-034100003 401 2391200 250.00 63584 WESCO Distribution Inc. 23150 Transformer bracket 401 1411000 422.24 AIT Meters 401 1414000 3,480.00 AIT Meters 401 1411000 295.8 Shipping charges 401 1411000 2 Wire 401 1414000 3,228. Wire 401 1411000 1,243.35 63587 Waugaman, James 23575 Utility deposit rfd-026000003 401 2391200 250.00 63589 Wildwood Terrace 23159 Utility overpmt rfd-087050022 401 1222200 33.86 63590 Woodruff, Doris 23577 Utility deposit rfd-034261002 401 2391200 60.47 Total for Department 101,363.87 0009 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 04-02 Billing 911 4210 109.40 63037 Ace Equipment Company 01055 Trigger,labor 911 4810 18.49 Spark plugs,cut-off saw parts 911 4810 24.24 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 Shay,Marks to Wenatchee 03-28 911 4310 519.40 63061 Business Answerphone Service 02166 April service 911 4810 130.00 63064 Camera Corner 03044 Photos,film 911 3101 19.11 Film,processing 911 3120 23.18 63069 Cornell Auto Parts 03092 Super clean,detail brushes 911 4810 14.48 Pipe tap 911 4810 4.15 63075 Diversified Resource Center 04052 March janitorial svcs 911 4150 175.10 63084 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 Inkjet cartridges 911 3120 114.67 63086 Hartnagel Building Supply Inc. 08052 Gloves,roof nails 911 4810 7.65 Lumber 911 4810 9.55 63088 Panasonic Communications 16329 Repair estimate 911 4810 141.81 63110 Olympic Paper Company 15111 Paper towels 911 3120 80.26 Air freshener 911 3120 16.42 Cups 911 3120 1 0 Liners 911 3120 8 Mat,silver cobblestone 911 3101 86.73 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 Stamper 911 3101 43.23 Stamper 911 3101 4.30- 40 01/05/16-08:20 $ City of Port Angeles - ,4 VE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 23 CHECK REGISTER IDate From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 Ribbon 911 3101 16.71 63124 Peninsula Daily News 16012 Overhead Power Line -10' St 930 4410 52.48 63130 Port Angeles Power Equipment 16122 Stihl saw 911 3501 364.04 63141 Richmond 2 -Way Radio 18009 Alkaline battery, remote mic 911 4210 251.02 63147 Sensorswitch Inc -19758 Wall switches 911 3120 281.62 63148 Sherman & Reilly Inc. 19074 T -handle wrench 911 3501 4,466.35 63150 Sound Analytical Services Inc 19025 PCB testing 911 4810 125.00 63153 Sunset Do -It Best Hardware 19035 Socket adapters 911 4810 4.74 Gloves 911 3501 15.13 Brass hex nut 911 4810 2.73 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 Bark 911 4810 9.64 Small bark 911 4810 5.35 Staple,rule tape,hammer 911 3501 61.36 Eye bolts,chain 911 3120 14.07 63159 VF Workwear 22116 Jackets 911 3501 2,962.32 Overalls 911 3501 1,092.57 Overalls 911 3501 116.59 63167 Western States Electric Inc. 23025 Vise clamps 911 3402 513.95 Vise clamps 911 3402 513.95 Capacitor assemblies 911 3402 1,107.96 Capacitor assemblies 911 3402 1,107.97 Capacitor assemblies 911 3402 1,107.97 Capacitor assemblies 911 3402 1,107.97 Capacitor banks 911 3402 2,215.94 Capacitor banks 911 3402 1,457.46 63186 Clallam Co Treasurer 03075 2001 Assessment 911 4950 1.63 63197 Direct Safety Company 04279 Gloves 911 4810 107.53 63201 Equifax - Credit Information -'05160 March fees 911 4150 32.12 63242 Public Utility Dist Clallam Co 16038 03-28 Billing 2110 Glass Rd 911 3350 79.34 70' Pole 911 3402 1,335.40 63267 Washington (DRS), State of 23141 Statewide Pensioners March 911 2030 200.16 63273 Zee Medical Service Co. 26005 Gloves,antacids 911 3120 206.98 63275 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 04-02 Billing a/c 44625127 911 4210 11.91 04-02 Billing a/c 44690139 911 4210 95.94 04-02 Billing a/c 45528387 911 4210 19.78 04-02 Billing a/c 45570652 911 4210 44.16 63293 Filtrex Inc 06276 Filters 911 4810 528.25 63298 General Pacific Inc. 07034 Reflective numbers 911 3402 29.76 Reflective numbers 911 3402 446.33 Connector taps 911 3402 796.35 63310 M & P Garage Doors 13100 Repair broken spring on door 911 4810 353.81 63313 McCrorie Interiors 13038 Re -carpet Light OPS building 911 4810 4,321.49 63323 Pacific Metering Inc. 16494 U -Bolt hasps,padlock links 911 3501 178.64 63324 Peninsula Daily News 16012 'Power Line Const' 03-14,03-18 930 4410 205.62 'OPS Award' 03-25,03-28 911 4410 235.00 63331 Public Utility Dist Clallam Co 16038 04-11 Billing SR101 and Euclid 911 3350 15.31 04-19 Billing Lauridsen Blvd 911 3350 19.69 04-12 Billing Golf Course Road 911 3350 14.94 63333 owest 21001 04-14 Billing 911 4210 328.49 04-14 Billing 911 4210 42.24 63339 Rohlinger Enterprises Inc. 18087 Bundy dies 911 3501 8 257 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Number Name Number Number 42 63341 Safety-Kleen (Aragonite) Inc 19763 63343 Sanderson Safety Supply Co. 19048 63347 Smith & Associates Inc.,David 19122 63349 Thermo Westronics Inc 20310 63351 United Parcel Service 21005 63359 Western States Electric Inc. 23025 63366 All Phase Electric Supply Co. 01061 63393 General Pacific Inc. 07034 63402 Jackson -Hirsh Inc. 10213 63414 Metropolitan Communications 13568 63419 NWPPA 14013 63421 DEC Corporation 15018 63425 Parsinen Landscape Maintenance 16258 63429 Port Angeles Downtown Assn. 16024 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 63444 Sanderson Safety Supply Co. 19048 63451 Transfac Funding Corporation 20059 63452 TriAxis Engineering Inc 20274 63458 Vallen Safety Supply Co 22117 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 63470 Xerox Corporation 24001 63474 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 Drum liquids,reclaim bushings 911 3101 4 -Part Cal gas 911 3120 Photogramoetric svcs pe 03-31 930 4150 Repair Loadlogger 911 4810 04-07 Shipping charges 911 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 911 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 911 4810 04-07 Shipping charges 911 4210 Cievis 'Y' balls,straps 911 3402 Clevis 'Y' balls,straps 911 3402 Moister wipes correction 911 3501 Moisture wipes 911 3402 Moisture wipes 911 3501 Silicone wipes 911 3501 Wasp spray 911 3120 Shorting caps 911 4810 Heater,wall cans,parts 911 4810 Heater,walL can 911 4810 Heater 911 4810 Bare copper 911 4810 Flex conduit -2Y 911 4810 Wall cans,heaters 911 4810 Breakers,bushings,struts-2% 911 3402 PVC clamp on caps 911 3402 Wire,circuit breakers 911 3402 Anchor kit,parts-2% 911 4810 Grips,wrenches 911 3501 Crescent wrenches 911 3501 Wrenches,cable cutters 911 3501 Bolt cutter 911 3501 Bolt cutters 911 3501 Wrenches,screwdrivers 911 3501 Adhesive letters 911 3101 Community Telecom Planning #6 911 4150 E & 0 Conference -Ireland #4310 911 4310 Cutting oil 911 3120 April services 911 4810 Parking -5 City Light cars 1 Yr 911 4150 Computer paper 911 3101 Petty cash receipt book 911 3101 Markers,pens 911 3101 Film,packing lists,wrap 911 3120 Sensors -1Y Disc 911 4810 Shipping charges-IFCO 911 4810 Shipping charges-IFCO 911 4810 'I' St Rebuild pe 03-20 930 6510 Stabiticers boots 911 3120 Stabilicers boots 911 3120 March Scan charges 911 4210 DC220SS Lease agreement -March 911 4530 05-02 Billing a/c -44625127 911 4210 May 16 2001 Page 24 Amount 1,219.42 268.34 20,486.50 397.33 9.83 12.29 39.77 4.92 165.00 324.60 11,144.39- 344.08 11,371.82 262.93 197.36 58.43 118.01 104.08 53.56 103.16 74. 20 152. 11.69 188.89 43.10 93.27 188.87 188.20 69.70 209.11 280.11 42.60 11,781.25 515.00 62.30 2,239.74 750.00 78.98 9.54 28.62 116.76 416.43 51.32 51.31 841.29 46 0 48 42.31 351.88 16.27 01/05/16-08:20 0 Fnd Dpt Check Number • 63475 63477 63483 63493 63495 63503 63512 63513 63517 63526 63538 63543 63553 63556 63563 63570 63576 63582 63584 63594 a City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 25 GL Code Number 911 4210 911 4210 911 4210 911 4310 911 4310 911 4210 911 4210 911 4150 911 4150 911 4810 911 4310 911 3120 911 4810 911 4810 911 4810 911 4810 911 4310 911 4210 911 4310 930 6510 911 3101 911 4810 911 4810 911 4810 911 4210 911 4210 911 3501 911 3501 911 3120 Total for Light Total for Light Fund Amount 12.32 30.53 32.37 778.86 335.78 59.51 130.00 175.10 31.63 838.80 52.65 62.64 1,520.97 709.46 850.89 1,166.43 20.00 64,92 34,30 462.00 104,74 461.80 260.31 152.29 12.63 35.82 324.81 22.57 76.39 83,779.72 185,143.59 402 63162 CHECK REGISTER 23567 Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Vendor Description Name Number Wireless Outdoor Base Station 05-02 Billing a/c -44690139 2370000 102.36 - 05-02 Silting a/c -45528387 05-02 Billing a/c -45570652 Advanced Travel 01090 Ireland to Boise 04-08 100.10- Rowley to Moses Lake 04-18 Angeles Communications Inc 01069 - Check extension phones Business Answerphone Service '`02166 2370000 May service Diversified Resource Center 04052 April janitorial svcs Equifax - Credit Information 05160 User fees pe 04-19 Girard Wood Products Inc 07329 Pallets -1% disc Ireland, David H 09133 Reimburse mileage Jackson -Hirsh Inc. 10213 Aluminum sign,easel Knopp Inc. 11046 Meter test and repair charges Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Test and repair meter Meter Devices Company Inc. 13050 - Test switches Peninsula Lubricants 16474 Transformer oil,Bbl deposits Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 CDL endorsement Qwest 21001 05-02 Billing Red Lion Hotel -Port Angeles 18112 Port job meals Seattle Daily Journal of Comm. 19058 Southwood Underground Rebuild Supplemental Services Inc. 19292 Tags,labels Transfac Funding Corporation 20059 Shipping chgs-Knopp Inc 402 2370000 Shipping charges -Knopp Inc 63460 Shipping charges -Knopp Inc Verizon Wireless, Bellevue <01105 04-15 Billing 2370000 6.71- 04-15 Billing WESCO Distribution Inc. 23150 Ratcheting nut runner Manual,books 402 Shipping charges Zee Medical Service Co. 26005 First Aid supplies May 16 2001 Page 25 GL Code Number 911 4210 911 4210 911 4210 911 4310 911 4310 911 4210 911 4210 911 4150 911 4150 911 4810 911 4310 911 3120 911 4810 911 4810 911 4810 911 4810 911 4310 911 4210 911 4310 930 6510 911 3101 911 4810 911 4810 911 4810 911 4210 911 4210 911 3501 911 3501 911 3120 Total for Light Total for Light Fund Amount 12.32 30.53 32.37 778.86 335.78 59.51 130.00 175.10 31.63 838.80 52.65 62.64 1,520.97 709.46 850.89 1,166.43 20.00 64,92 34,30 462.00 104,74 461.80 260.31 152.29 12.63 35.82 324.81 22.57 76.39 83,779.72 185,143.59 402 63162 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Antenna 402 2370000 15.60 - Wireless Outdoor Base Station 402 2370000 102.36 - Wireless Outdoor Remote Client 402 2370000 100.10- 63259 USA BlueBook 21060 Marking paint 402 2370000 12.66 - Training manuals for Tractor,l 402 2370000 6.73- 63317 OPS Systems Inc. 15099 OPS 32 Tech Support 1 yr 402 2370000 57.40- 63355 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Cable for Corp Yard project 402 2370000 7.80- 63397 Graphic Controls Corporation 07016 Charts,chart pens 12/28/00 402 2370000 5.07- 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Formatted disks 402 237000D .87- 63455 USA BlueBook 21060 Retrieving tool,waterstop 402 2370000 41.04- 63460 WEF 23166 WW Biology -Life Proc 402 2370000 6.71- Manual,books 402 2370000 16.34- 63461 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Micro Mount 402 2370000 1.14- 63480 Bavco Backflow Apparatus & 02346 Backflow device,drain funnel 402 2370000 19.01- 63497 Familian NW 06020 Tapping sleeve 402 1414000 265.66 Tapping sleeve 402 1411000 51.84 63500 Fowler Company, H. D. 06110 Water meter materials 402 1414000 14 �Q 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 26 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63551 Quality Control Services Inc. 17005 63575 Town Square Apartments 20313 0007 63036 AVAYA INC MIA 12215 63038 Advanced Travel 01090 63042 AmTest Inc. 01034 63044 Angeles Concrete Products 01070 63047 Angeles Millwork 01073 63055 Blake Sand & Gravel Inc. 02045 63060 Brown and Caldwell 02057 63062 CH2M Hill Inc 03005 63064 Camera Corner 03044 63068 Copies Plus 03091 63071 Custom Computer Sales & Serv. 03381 63074 Dept of Community Development 03066 63075 Diversified Resource Center 04052 63076 Dobson's 04054 63081 Federal Express Corp. 06022 63094 Lakeside Industries Inc. 12036 63095 Law Seminars International 12188 63096 Lincoln Industrial Corp. 12047 63098 Metrocall 20000 63108 Olympic Laundry & Clnrs Inc. 15026 63110 Olympic Paper Company 15111 63112 Olympic Springs Inc. 15029 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 Water utility materials 402 1414000 Water utility materials 402 1411000 Calibrate,recertify weights 402 2370000 Utility overpmt rfd-070378006 402 1222200 Total for Department 04-02 Billing 754 4210 04-02 Billing 753 4210 Divelbiss to Bellingham 03-26 754 4310 Young to Seattle 03-19 754 4310 Silver testing 754 4810 Sample testing 754 4810 Sample testing 754 4810 Crushed rock 753 3402 Agregate 753 3402 Screen,plywood 754 3120 Lightbulbs 753 3120 Square edge 753 3402 Trimmer line 754 3120 Concrete blocks 753 3402 PA 200 Wastewater projects 794 4150 Black Diamond Improvements 793 4150 Elwha Dam Removal 793 4150 Water System Plan Update 793 4150 GWI Compliance Assistance 793 4150 Battery 753 3120 Desktop publishing,copies 754 3101 Surge protector 754 3101 Printer cable 754 3120 Water tests 753 4810 March janitorial svcs 753 4150 Gates belts 754 3120 03-23 Shipping charges 793 4210 03-23 Shipping charges 754 4210 Asphalt 753 3402 Water Law Conference -Knutson 753 4310 Sheet metal 754 4810 03-24 Billing 754 4210 Used rags -a/c# 6275 754 3120 Towels,toilet bowl rim hanger 754 3120 Liquid chlorine 753 3105 Water 754 3120 Cooler rentals 754 3120 Insertable indexes 753 3101 Copy paper,correction tape,cli 754 3101 Paper,folders,index 753 3101 Paper,folders,index 754 3101 Pens,binder clips 754 3101 Metal black copy holder 754 3101 Laser label,cartridge 754 3101 0 Amount 1,648.70 135.20 11.65- 44.39 3,451.31 15.63 7.81 205.80 147.32 17.00 109.65 12.75 6,038.85 151.48 34.91 1.84 33.65 13.35 14. 25,7 23,999. 1,145.62 2,388.05 3,470.08 4.54 112.53 32.46 13.53 801.00 77.83 278.55 16.85 9.70 150.40 515.00 244.53 33.24 14.07 171.91 169.87 11.36 21.53 11.56 56.20 3* 43.41 10.28 82.88 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Number Name Number Number 63125 Pettit Oil Company 16302 63127 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63130 Port Angeles Power Equipment 16122 63132 Puget Safety Equipment Inc 16248 63133 Quality Control Services Inc. 17005 63135 Qwest 21001 63151 Steam Supply 19290 63153 Sunset Do -It Best Hardware 19035 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63156 Thurman Supply 20005 63162 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 63166 Western Fluid Components 23321 63177 Bavco Backflow Apparatus & 02346 63197 Direct Safety Company 04279 Printer cartridge 754 3120 Zip disk 754 3101 Diesel fuel 754 3211 Tape for lab 754 3501 Cut blades,spool cross 753 3120 AirTemp Advantage 753 3402 Self-Stirrer,On-site service 754 4810 04-02 billing 754 4210 04-02 billing 754 4210 Valve repair set 753 3402 Elbow,bushing 754 3120 Screwdriver 753 3402 Hardware 754 3120 Ball valve,hex nipple,adapter 753 3402 Hex nipple,ball valve 754 3402 Receptical,extension spring 754 3120 Cover,tens pin 754 3120 Bolt,hexnuts,lockwash,wedge 753 3402 Stud anchor wedge 753 3402 Nut,eyebolts 753 4810 Blue paint 753 3120 PVC union 753 3402 Saw chains 754 3120 Wastebasket,truck rope 754 3120 Stuff bag 753 4210 Compact multi -tools 754 3501 Fence post 754 3120 Weed-B-Gon,soap dish,nozzle 754 3120 Windshield wash,rule tape 754 3120 Flare elbow,refrigerator tube 753 4810 Meter box pump 753 3402 Tie down ratching 753 3402 Alkaline battery 753 3120 First-aid supplies 754 3120 Halogen bulb,swivel 753 3120 Hydrant 753 3402 Drill bits 754 3501 Copper pipe,adapter,flare nut 753 3402 PVC junction box 754 3120 Pressure reducing valve 753 3402 Polytarp 753 3120 Antenna 753 4210 Antenna 754 4210 Wireless Outdoor Base Station 753 4210 Wireless Outdoor Base Station 754 4210 Wireless Outdoor Remote Client 753 4210 Wireless Outdoor Remote Client 754 4210 Pipe 754 3501 Rubber repair kits 753 3402 Check valves 753 3120 Wipes,rubbing alcohol,bandages 753 3120 May 16 2001 Page 27 Amount 32.46 108.20 577.41 2.67 24.33 45.48 1,218.34 42.58 42.58 262.47 5.37 10.80 5.19 27.92 17.81 52.22 18.74 12.83 9.74 30.82 18.57 3.45 17.27 16.20 8.52 151.32 80.34 14.19 94.32 10.02 40.98 27.56 21.36 16.00 30.25 45.43 17.58 8.89 33.76 51.72 9.25 102.93 102.94 675.30 675.29 660.35 660.35 128.56 73.56 379.96 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 28 m CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number 63210 Harrington Industrial Plastics 08444 Fiberglass grating 754 4810 2,433.75 63217 JCI Jones Chemicals Inc. 10027 Sodium hypochlorite 754 3120 2,945.46 63224 Lincoln Industrial Corp. 12047 Consulting svcs-Crane Certific 753 4810 768.11 63231 National Groundwater Assn 14488 Annual Dues -Young #3087162 754 4310 105.00 63233 Newark Electronics 14114 Time delay, 8 -pin base 754 3120 164.43 63259 USA BlueBook 21060 Marking paint 753 3120 167.06 Training manuals for Tractor,l 753 3101 88.77 63260 United Rentals Inc 16034 Die head for pipe threader 753 6410 482.10 63270 Water Environment Federation 23031 Membership Renewal -Cutler 754 4901 98.00 63275 AT&T Wireless Services 01404 04-02 Billing a/c 46031977 753 4210 22.16 04-02 Billing a/c 43263680 754 4210 13.79 63276 Airport Quarry 01428 Grass seed 753 3402 29.20 63295 Frontier Bank 14177 Escrow 751404468 -Primo Const. 793 4150 3,576.92 63296 GC Systems Inc. 07001 Yearly,rebuild valves,0-ring 753 4810 2,398.79 63301 Hach Company 08124 Retro -fit kit,interface 754 3501 2,540.16 63305 JCI Jones Chemicals Inc. 10027 Chlorine,container deposits 753 3105 2,491.33 Credit container deposits 753 3105 1,450.00- 63307 K & L Supply Inc. 11010 Hand sanitizer,paint 754 3120 175.28 63315 Newark Electronics 14114 Delay timers,bases 754 3120 164.58 63317 OPS Systems Inc. 15099 OPS 32 Tech Support 1 yr 754 3160 757.40 63319 Olympic Chemical Corporation 15117 Sodium bisulfite 754 3120 1,321.4 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Safety mtg refreshments 754 4310 2 63330 Primo Construction Inc. 16033 Downtown contract pmt 5 -final 793 4150 73,827. 63331 Public Utility Dist Clallam Co 16038 04-09 Billing 203 Reservoir Rd 753 4710 108.76 63333 Qwest 21001 04-14 Billing 754 4210 46.93 04-14 Billing 753 4210 23.46 04-08 Billing 754 4210 39.54 63334 R J Services Inc. 18108 Fix sewer clog 754 4810 1,574.31 63350 Trenchless Technology Inc 20312 'Trenchless' seminar -McGinley 753 4310 162.50 'Trenchless' seminar -McGinley 754 4310 162.50 63353 Utilities Underground Loc Ctr 21010 March locates 753 4150 19.53 March locates 754 4150 19.53 63355 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Cable for Corp Yard project 753 4210 51.38 Cable for Corp Yard project 754 4210 51.38 63366 All Phase Electric Supply Co. 01061 Cord,clearglide,receptacle 754 3501 134.76 Raised covers,receptacles 753 3120 5.10 Conduit,covers,parts 754 3120 60.74 63396 Grainger Inc. 07015 Vacuum bags,interval timer 754 3120 132.84 Truck drum 754 3120 295.50 Flange 754 3120 51.41 63397 Graphic Controls Corporation 07016 Charts,chart pens 12/28/00 753 3101 66.90 63408 Lab/Cor Inc. 12207 Analysis,water setup fee 753 4810 200.00 63424 Olympic Springs Inc. 15029 Water deliveries 754 3120 23.43 Cooler rentals 754 3120 21.53 63427 Points Sharp Steel Inc. 16092 Shanks into points 753 3402 65.10 63430 Power Quality Engineering Inc 16510 'Press to Test' buttons 754 3120 567.08 63432 Public Utility Dist Clallam Co 16038 04-24 Billing Crown Z Water Rd 753 4710 1 10 63433 Puget Safety Equipment Inc 16248 First Aid kit 754 3120 2 Reflective vest 753 3402 41.19 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Formatted disks 753 3101 11.49 63435 Qwest 21001 04-16 Billing 754 4210 57.42 m 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles c k 'tea zs 649 MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 29 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number 04-20 Billing 754 4210 57.42 04-20 Billing 754 4210 57.42 04-20 Billing 754 4210 57.42 04-20 Bitting 754 4210 57.42 04-20 Billing 754 4210 57.42 04-20 Billing 754 4210 57.42 04-23 Bitting 753 4210 64.15 04-20 Bitting 754 4210 40.75 63436 RadioShack Accounts Receivable 18003 Telephone battery 754 4210 10.81 63446 Seattle Daily Journal of Comm. 19058 'Reservoir Improvements' 793 4410 295.20 63455 USA BlueBook 21060 Retrieving tool,waterstop 754 3101 541.51 63460 WEF 23166 WW Biology-Life Proc 754 4310 88.46 Manual,books 754 3101 215.59 63461 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Micro Mount 753 4210 7.49 Micro Mount 754 4210 7.49 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 MS Office Pro software 754 3160 239.01 March Scan charges 753 4210 14.74 March Scan charges 754 4210 40.06 63464 Washington (DOH), State of 23108 Water Plan Review 793 4150 671.00 63475 Advanced Travel 01090 Cutter to Everett 04-18 793 4310 142.32 Waldron,Williams-OR City 03-26 754 4310 766.32 63476 AmTest Inc. 01034 Silver testing 754 4810 14.45 63477 Angeles Communications Inc 01069 Wireless installation 753 4210 44.63 Wireless installation 754 4210 44.63 Install phone,extension 754 4210 361.17 63478 Angeles Machine Works Inc. 01072 Pipe 753 3402 9.27 Push pipe 753 3402 7.74 63480 Bavco Backflow Apparatus & 02346 Backflow device,drain funnel 753 3402 250.81 63482 Brown and Caldwell 02057 WW Projects pe 04-27 794 4150 .11 WW Projects pe 04-27 794 4150 6,293.79 63485 CH Diagnostic & Consulting 03576 Ground and surface analysis 793 4150 1,157.00 63493 Diversified Resource Center 04052 April janitorial svcs 753 4150 77.83 63499 Foster Pepper & Sheffelman 06063 Elwha Dam Removal pe 04-16 793 4150 795.00 63515 Julian & Son Inc., John 10015 Seat kits 754 3120 127.29 63527 Nalco Chemical Company 14170 Flocculant 754 3120 3,554.37 63535 Paymentech 16421 Training publication 754 4310 42.75 63543 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Camera case 753 3101 21.63 Postage 754 4210 18.95 63551 Quality Control Services Inc. 17005 Calibrate,recertify weights 754 4810 153.65 63553 Qwest 21001 05-02 Billing 754 4210 42.57 05-02 Bitting 754 4210 42.57 04-23 Billing 754 4210 57.42 04-23 Bitting 754 4210 57.42 04-23 Billing 754 4210 57.42 63555 RadioShack Accounts Receivable 18003 Battery 793 3101 32.45 63561 Ryan Herco Products Corp. 18216 Outer tube,outer body,nuts 753 3402 205.80 Check valves 753 3402 326.56 63581 Utility Services Associates 21021 Check water leaks 753 4150 4,950.00 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 04-15 Billing 753 4210 17.29 04-15 Billing 754 4210 9.92 63583 APWA - WA State Chapter 23361 Award Luncheon-Seattle 793 4310 44 7 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 30 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Number Name Number 404 63035 APWA/Artier. Public Works Assn 01359 63162 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 0007 63181 Carolina Software 03258 63355 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 63461 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 63034 TaylorSparks Refrigeration Inc 20290 63035 APWA/Amer. Public Works Assn 01359 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 63039 Airport quarry 01428 63044 Angeles Concrete Products 01070 63045 Angeles Electric Inc. 01071 63051 Automotive Environmental Svcs 01041 63075 Diversified Resource Center 04052 63108 Olympic Laundry & Clnrs Inc. 15026 63110 Olympic Paper Company 15111 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 63119 Parametrix Inc. 16155 63130 Port Angeles Power Equipment 16122 63139 Radio Pacific Inc. 11019 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63158 Unitec Corporation 21006 63162 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 63164 Washington Fire & Safety Equip 23004 63165 Waste Management - Northwest 23060 63181 Carolina Software 03258 63215 Idaho Tire Recovery Inc 09136 63240 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 63249 SWANA 19101 63289 Design One Inc. 04164 63324 Peninsula Daily News 16012 Description GL Code Amfout Number Total for Public Works 192,896.18 Total for Water/Wastewater Fund 196,347.49 Handbooks 404 2370000 Antenna 404 2370000 Wireless Outdoor Base Station 404 2370000 Wireless Outdoor Remote Client 404 2370000 WasteWorks maintenance pe 6-30 404 2370000 Cable for Corp Yard project 404 2370000 Formatted disks 404 2370000 Micro Mount 404 2370000 Total for Department Remove freon,compressors 755 4810 Handbooks 755 3101 04-02 Billing 755 4210 Rock 755 3120 Ecology blocks 755 4810 Ecology blocks 755 4810 Check motor on blower #2 755 4810 Antifreeze processing 755 4150 March janitorial svcs 755 4150 March laundry svcs-a/c# 353 755 4990 Trash liner 755 3120 Cleaner,paper towels 755 3120 Calculator ribbon 755 3101 LF Engineering pe 02-28-01 755 4150 LF Engineering pe 02-28-01 795 4150 LF Engineering pe 02-28-01 795 4150 Bar 755 3120 KIKN Commercials for March 755 4410 KONP Commercials for March 755 4410 Bird control supplies 755 3120 Cutting wheel,notebook,gloves 755 3120 Gloves 755 3120 Scale Inspection service agree 755 4810 Antenna 755 4210 Wireless Outdoor Base Station 755 4210 Wireless Outdoor Remote Client 755 4210 Service extinguisher 755 3120 March recycling 755 4150 WasteWorks maintenance pe 6-30 755 4810 Recycle tires 755 4810 Recycle tires 755 4810 Teen Scene food 755 3101 Safety mtg food 755 3120 Registration -McCabe 755 4310 Bag clips 755 4410 Landfill ads-March,Recycling 755 4410 10.13- 7.80- 51.18- 50.05- 16.40- 3.89- .88- .57- 140.90- 1,199.91 133.63 39.07 1,904.32 465.26 162.30 6* 5 194.54 155.45 2,223.51 48.51 81.15 9,110.26 147.87 105.90 23.79 41.00 37.50 21.51 18.17 31.40 270.50 102.94 675.29 660.35 59.51 45,173.94 216.40 800.00 800.00 0 270.00 1,216.09 969.03 01/05/16-08:20 0 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name City of Port Angeles MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number May 16 2001 Page 31 Amount 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Keys 755 3120 15.50 CDL Permit 755 4310 5.00 63333 Qwest 21001 04-05 Billing 755 4210 85.18 04-14 Billing 755 4210 117.32 63355 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Cable for Corp Yard project 755 4210 51.38 63365 Airgas-Norpac Inc. 01411 Hazardous waste 755 3120 12.58 63379 Captain T's 03048 Embroidery 755 3120 5.95 63389 Evans, Steve 05009 Reimburse for printer/copier 755 3160 627.50 63418 NW Electric Apparartus Inc 14459 Repair electric motor 755 4810 486.90 63425 Parsinen Landscape Maintenance 16258 Pond clean-up,maintenance 755 4150 1,244.30 63431 Preston Gates & Ellis LLP 16175 Svcs pe 03-31 755 4150 60.00 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Formatted disks 755 3101 11.49 63461 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Micro Mount 755 4210 7.50 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 March Scan charges 755 4210 32.89 63475 Advanced Travel 01090 Knutson to Seattle 04-12 755 4310 61.00 Hart to Tacoma 04-10 755 4310 470.22 McCabe to Tacoma 04-08 755 4310 213.06 63476 AmTest Inc. 01034 Sample testing 755 4150 728.45 63477 Angeles Communications Inc 01069 Wireless installation 755 4210 44.63 63479 Automotive Environmental Svcs 01041 Antifreeze processing 755 4150 40.00 63493 63533 Diversified Resource Center Parametrix Inc. 04052 16155 April janitorial svcs LF Engineering 2001 755 755 4150 4150 194.54 14,423.41 LF Engineering 2001 795 4150 6,326.41 LF Engineering 2001 795 4150 2,057.08 63543 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Fitm,boots,cookies 755 3120 90.58 63573 TaylorSparks Refrigeration Inc 20290 Remove refrigerant,compressors 755 4150 1,590.54 63579 Unitec Corporation 21006 Supply,install scale equipment 755 4810 1,476.93 Total for Public Works 97,972.29 Total for Solid Waste Fund 97,831.39 421 0009 63085 Hart, Jack 08351 Energy rebate -Windows 913 4986 250.00 63193 Deleon, Dan 04366 Energy rebate -Insulation 913 4986 500.00 63234 Newstead, Alice 14508 Energy rebate -Insulation 913 4986 250.00 Total for Conservation Fund 1,000.00 501 63035 APWA/Amer. Public Works Assn 01359 Handbooks 501 2370000 5.20- 63125 Pettit Oil Company 16302 Gas,diesel 501 1412000 10,154.50 Diesel 501 1412000 318.00 Diesel 501 1412000 1,354.22 Diesel 501 1412000 1,469.55 63162 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Antenna 501 2370000 7.80 - Wireless Outdoor Base Station 501 2370000 51.18 - Wireless Outdoor Remote Client 501 2370000 50.05- 63204 Gait's Inc. 07027 2 Organizers -1 each #46,#47 501 2370000 26.08- 63355 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Cable for Corp Yard project 501 2370000 3.89- 63412 MC Products A Div of ESH Inc 13618 Water tank sending unit 501 2370000 10.16- 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Formatted disks 501 2370000 .87- 63461 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Micro Mount 501 2370000 4*6 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 32 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Number Name Number 0007 63035 APWA/Amer. Public Works Assn 01359 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 63043 Angeles Auto Alectric 01067 63051 Automotive Environmental Svcs 01041 63052 Barnett Implement Company 02357 63063 Schuck's 19008 63069 Cornell Auto Parts 03092 63070 Cornwell Tools 03604 63073 Denver's Tire Co. Inc. 04044 63075 Diversified Resource Center 04052 63076 Dobson's 04054 5 0 63080 Evergreen Collision -Body Shop 05000 Description GL Code Number Total for Department Handbooks 760 3101 04-02 Billing 760 4210 Repair starter,parts 760 3402 Repair starter,parts 760 4810 Antifreeze processing 760 3402 Clutch repair kit 760 3402 Windshield washing fluid 760 3402 Rotors,turn rotors 760 3402 Rotors,turn rotors 760 3402 Shop tools,wrenches 760 3501 Heater hose elbow 760 3402 Heater hose elbow 760 3402 Pads,rotors,turn rotors 760 3402 Box wrench set 760 3501 Service call,flat repair 760 4810 Flat repair,wheel change 760 4810 Remove snow tires 760 4810 Remove snow tires 760 4810 Mount,demount,remove snow tire 760 4810 Safety check,labor,lubra kleen 760 3402 Safety check,labor,lubra kleen 760 4810 Mount,demount,snow tires 760 4810 Tires,mount,demount,balance 760 3110 Tires,mount,demount,balance 760 4810 Tire,mount,demount,balance 760 3110 Tire,mount,demount,balance 760 4810 Flat repair 760 4810 Remove snow tires 760 4810 Rebuild transmission,converter 760 3402 Rebuild transmission,converter 760 4810 Fuel pump,fuel filter,labor 760 3402 Fuel pump,fuel filter,labor 760 4810 Wheel alignment,wheel balance 760 4810 Wiper refills 760 3402 Headlight,labor 760 3402 Headlight,labor 760 4810 Labor,lubra kleen,air filter 760 3402 Labor,lubra kleen,air filter 760 4810 Signal flasher,labor 760 3402 Signal flasher,labor 760 4810 Plugs,air filter,distributor 760 3402 PLugs,air filter,distributor 760 4810 Air filter,remove snow tires 760 3402 Air filter,remove snow tires 760 4810 Flat repair 760 4810 March janitorial svcs 760 4150 Cap 760 3402 Octane boost 760 3402 Balance of repair work 11-29 760 3402 Amount 13,140.47 68.70 7.81 117.01 73.57 384.89 89.49 46.22 32.46 16.23 99.20 3.98 7.97 31.41 129.19 40.58 22.18 17.31 17.31 17.31 2 34.62 153.21 22.72 57.89 22.72 10.82 21.64 1,193.88 258.16 114.70 29.21 35.65 8.12 12.99 7.30 11.63 28.13 2.44 7.30 74.39 58.43 21.37 34.62 1 lie 20.73 392.78 01/05/16-08:20 W Y City of Port Angel V rc i es MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 33 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number Boil out,pressure check 760 4810 97.38 63083 H & R Parts & Equipment Inc. 08045 Credit core 760 3402 108.20 - Brake shoes,core 760 3402 213.11 Bushings,seals,pin kit 760 3402 63.65 Washer 760 3402 1.35 63089 Hearttine, The 08054 Batteries 760 3402 188.11 Batteries 760 3402 125.40 63091 Jenning's Equipment 10151 Mower blades 760 3402 69.99 Mower blades 760 3402 69.98 63096 Lincoln Industrial Corp. 12047 Weld step 760 4810 31.38 Brake shoes 760 3402 80.07 63101 Middleton Auto and Truck Inc. 13117 Credit warranty,rags 760 3402 80.97 - Credit alarm 760 3402 18.39 - Credit core deposit 760 3402 20.56 - Cap screw,pri wire,heater valv 760 3402 100.59- V -Belts 760 3402 40.11 Credit core deposit 760 3402 38.95 - Brake lining 760 3402 3.72 Wiper refills 760 3402 8.63 Cleaner 760 3402 9.02 - Wiper blades 760 3402 10.80 Sender 760 3402 30.39 Gauge 760 3402 36.66 Heater part 760 3402 22.59 - Wheel seal 760 3402 43.22 Graphite 760 3402 15.86 Warranty part 760 3402 12.29- Bulbs,fuel,oil filters 760 3402 149.11 Terminals,switch 760 3402 29.71 Parts 760 3402 10.43 Condenser,air filter,breaker 760 3402 22.04 Flexible tubing 760 3402 15.65 Bolt 760 3402 10.57 Wiper blades,wiper refills 760 3402 86.45 Flexible tubing 760 3402 14.46 Brake disc 760 3402 27.04 Flex hose 760 3402 24.49 Condenser,filters,breaker 760 3402 25.91 - Battery 760 3402 7.24 Filter 760 3402 7.52 Fuel filters 760 3402 8.09 Tools 760 3501 8.63 Hose 760 3402 5.83 Oil filters,relay,switch 760 3402 88.04 Heater hose 760 3402 6.48 Cap screws,alarm 760 3402 79.78 Flex hose 760 3402 8.24 Belt 760 3402 33.17 Wrench,socket,ratchet 760 3501 27.22 Sockets 760 3501 19.67 Belt 760 3402 566 01/05/16-08:20 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name 52 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63102 Motor Trucks Inc. 13128 63103 Murray Motors Inc. 13129 63105 North American Crane & Equip 14196 63108 Olympic Laundry & Clnrs Inc. 15026 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63117 Pacific Utility Equipment Inc. 21011 63124 Peninsula Daily News 16012 63125 Pettit Oil Company 16302 Oil filter 760 3402 Primer bulb for fuel line 760 3402 Air,oil filters,switch,bulb 760 3402 Filter,tee 760 3402 Parts 760 3402 Tractor/trailer air valve 760 3402 Ignition switch 760 3402 Ignition part 760 3402 Credit cylinder,frt chg 760 3101 Cylinder 760 3101 Filter elements 760 3101 March laundry svcs-a/c #241 760 4990 Paper,folders,index 760 3101 Stop light switch,turn signal 760 3402 2001 Refuse Packer Sid 760 4410 Oil,drum 760 3220 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3211 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 May 16 2001 Page 34 4.06 6.85 168.07 15.52 6.36 199.49 30.08 56.48 1,586.05- 1,586.05 275.80 314.01 37.87 155.22 131.20 276.98 18.44 32.64 72.29 54.28 33.22 3 106. 100.16 87.66 57.76 43.23 14.88 28.22 68.03 47.27 112.37 75.49 127.81 74.61 60.86 83.29 20.34 116.60 81.29 98.35 47.40 85.04 61.10 15.32 63.57 0 58.24 66.97 133.73 01/05/16-08;20 0 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name City of Port Angeles k1 MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Number Number 63126 Port Angeles Auto Glass 16021 63129 Port Angeles Ford Lincoln 16158 63130 Port Angeles Power Equipment 16122 63137 R & R Products Company 18002 63138 Race Street Auto Parts 18048 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63160 WCIA 23204 63162 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 63204 Gall's Inc. 07027 63260 United Rentals Inc 16034 63282 Chevron USA (Credit Card pmts) 03060 63303 Inti Belt & Rubber Supply Inc 09049 63332 Quality 4x4 Truck Supply 17006 63333 Qwest 21001 63351 United Parcel Service 21005 March cardlock 63141 Richmond 2 -Way Radio 18009 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 63143 Ruddell Auto Mall 18019 March cardlock 63144 SeaTac Ford Truck Sales Inc 19261 760 63153 Sunset Do -It Best Hardware 19035 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63160 WCIA 23204 63162 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 63204 Gall's Inc. 07027 63260 United Rentals Inc 16034 63282 Chevron USA (Credit Card pmts) 03060 63303 Inti Belt & Rubber Supply Inc 09049 63332 Quality 4x4 Truck Supply 17006 63333 Qwest 21001 63351 United Parcel Service 21005 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 March cardlock 760 3210 Rock chip repair 760 4810 Parts 760 3402 oil guard module,magneto arm 760 3402 Plugs,couplers 760 3402 Rotary blade 760 3402 Disc pad 760 3402 Disc pad 760 3402 Repair microphone jack 760 4810 Repair radio 760 4810 Handle 760 3402 Socket 760 3402 Tube,nozzles 760 3101 Cylinder rent for February 760 3402 Bolt,cleanser 760 3402 Air filter 760 3402 Spiral wrap 760 3402 Hook,sleeve,cables 760 3402 Work gloves,drill bits 760 3101 Extension spring,duct tape 760 3402 Steel 760 3402 Welding rod,flat bar 760 3402 Air fitter 760 3402 Switch 760 3402 Water pump 760 3402 Underground Storage Tank cover 760 4901 Antenna 760 4210 Wireless Outdoor Base Station 760 4210 Wireless Outdoor Remote Client 760 4210 2 Organizers -1 each #46,#47 760 6410 Plate compactor 760 6410 Credit card gas 760 3210 Credit card gas 760 3210 Credit card gas 760 3210 3 -Pty used belt 760 3402 Cast iron,steel plow shoes 760 3402 04-14 Billing 760 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 760 4210 04-07 Shipping charges 760 3402 May 16 2001 Page 35 Amount 24.41 150.47 29.10 127.42 75.99 9.58 22.15 63.24 18.44 90.57 159.44 35.51 32.86 37.87 81.27 111.42 27.66 170.72 49.88 49.88 37.87 149.98 22.64 174.82 80.87 27.05 9.07 29.53 20.50 26.26 62.27 23.75 16.50 25.63 29.53 15.59 75.60 745.00 102.94 675.29 660.35 344.05 2,218.10 25.76 15.35 11.29 108.60 326.48 23.46 7.35 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE 23.44 PRO Adrenalin V3.3 250 CHECK REGISTER 260.21 Used monitor 250 Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Number Name Number March maintenance,services Number 63355 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Cable for Corp Yard project 760 4210 63412 MC Products A Div of ESH Inc 13618 Water tank sending unit 760 3402 63434 Quill Corporation 17000 Formatted disks 760 3101 63461 Wireless Prof. Comm. Svcs. 23567 Micro Mount 760 4210 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 March Scan charges 760 4210 63469 Wurth West Inc. 23062 Shrink tube 760 3402 Handcleaner,dispenser 760 3402 63477 Angeles Communications Inc 01069 Wireless installation 760 4210 63493 Diversified Resource Center 04052 April janitorial Svcs 760 4150 63504 Grafix Shoppe (Inc) 07116 Custom graphics V46,47,48 760 6410 63514 Jenning's Equipment 10151 Kubota mower #1854 760 6410 Grasshopper tractor #1888 760 6410 Tractor #1888 parts 760 6410 Tractor #1888 freight chgs 760 6410 63518 Les Schwab Tire Center (City) 19459 Dismount,mount,balance tires 760 4810 Tires,wheel spin balance 760 3110 Tires,wheel spin balance 760 4810 Tires,wheel switch 760 3110 Tires,wheel switch 760 4810 Flat repair,wheel switch 760 4810 63519 Les Schwab TireCtr-Solid Waste 19755 Flat repair 760 4810 Wastehauler lug,mount,valves 760 4810 Wastehauler lug,mount,valves 760 3110 Flat repairs 760 4810 63523 Mark's Mobile Tune 13289 Sweeper drums 760 4810 63528 Norstar Industries Inc. 14108 Deicer nozzle set 11/28/00 760 3402 63543 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Replacement license 760 3101 63564 Simpson's Used Auto Parts 19199 Towing services 760 4810 Tow van to City garage 760 4810 63566 Smith Tractor & Equip. Co.Inc 19023 Repair Reverser,switch 760 4810 Repair Reverser,switch 760 3402 Credit tractor parts 760 3402 Bucket teeth,pins 760 3402 63567 Snap -on Tools - Chugger Deane 19108 Pry bar,wrenches,Upgrade 760 3501 63574 Territorial Supplies Inc. 20001 Flashers,sirens,lower panel 760 6410 3 Impala rear seats 760 6410 2 Sirens 760 6410 3 SlickStiks 760 6410 63591 Wurth West Inc. 23062 Cutting wheel,shrink 760 3402 502 0002 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 63050 Archive Index Systems Inc. 01298 63071 Custom Computer Sales & Serv. 03381 63077 Dungeness Communications & 04210 63084 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 1 May 16 2001 Page 36 An40 51.39 134.01 11.49 7.50 10.81 35.29 116.37 44.64 116.70 748.75 12,665.06 11,436.98 276.05 813.75 108.74 503.25 63.31 895.46 34.63 28.40 2813 415! 64.54 43.28 47.22 6.00 108.20 54.10 2,632.33 4,931.07 425.88- 277.16 653.48 4,064.65 1,350.75 252.19 1,397.51 91.47 Total for Public Works 60,932.95 Total for Equipment Services Fund 74,073.42 04-02 Billing 250 4210 23.44 PRO Adrenalin V3.3 250 4800 260.21 Used monitor 250 3160 Credit used monitors 250 4810 Pci netcard 250 3101 16.19 March maintenance,services 250 4150 1,218.75 Office supplies,wipes,mice 250 3101 237.52 01/05/16-08:20 0 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name J. City of Port Angeles ►E MACHINE CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description Number May 16 2001 Page 37 GL Code Amount Number 63115 Pacific Office Equipment Inc. 16004 Touch tape 250 3101 117.68 63240 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Scissors 250 3101 9.72 63327 Port Angeles City Treasurer 03062 Wrench 250 3501 5.16 63333 Owest 21001 04-14 Billing 250 4210 70.39 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 March Scan charges 250 4210 8.05 63484 CDW Government Inc. 03336 Exabyte internal tape drive 250 4810 1,071.38 63488 Complete Line, The 03087 Displays,stands 250 3101 225.46 Partition frames 250 3101 36.80 63507 Costco Credit Card Pmts 03261 Office supplies 250 3101 319.21 63535 Paymentech 16421 Internet svcs 250 4150 212.72 Computer parts 250 4810 211.84 63582 Verizon Wireless, Bellevue 01105 04-15 Billing 250 4210 17.03 Total for Information Technology Fund 4,002.50 503 0001 63104 Nielsen, Tony 14120 Reimburse medical services 121 4630 613.62 63109 Olympic Medical Center 15028 Medical svcs-Doyle 118 4994 65.00 63132 Puget Safety Equipment Inc 16248 Premium drivers 118 4909 106.83 63187 Clallam Co YMCA 03076 Membership Broussard -#37744 121 4150 449.00 63200 Drake, George 04025 Reimburse medical svcs 121 4630 215.77 63226 Marks, Arthur G. 13002 Reimburse medical Svcs 121 4630 75.74 63246 Sistek, Rick and Karen 19576 Settlement of Claim #04-01 119 4999 1,107.92 63250 Sequim Aquatic Recreation Ctr. 19015 Membership -White pe 04- 03-02 121 4150 225.50 63256 Tutton, Daniel and Valerie 20311 Settlement of Claim #27-99 119 4999 8,677.29 63257 UNUM Life Ins Co of America 21000 Admin group 121 4631 1,218.32 Police/IBEW 121 4631 962.49 63288 Clallam Co YMCA 03076 Renew member 01 -3574901 -Ray 121 4150 308.00 63299 Gordy's Pizza & Pasta 07272 Safety meeting Lunch 118 4909 77.86 63302 Horton, Michael 08044 Reimburse dental expenses 117 4601 261.00 63335 Rainier EAP Inc. 18057 April services 121 4150 330.00 63336 Ray, Jimmie D 18416 Claim Settlement #06-01 119 4999 567.51 63364 AWC Employee Benefit Trust 01231 Medical 121 4630 67,861.05 Life Insurance 121 4632 1,448.82 Retirees 121 4634 4,637.60 63370 Balser, Fred 02243 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 45.50 63372 Bishop, Virgil 02019 Reimburse Medciare premium -May 121 4635 94.00 63375 Braun, Gary 02173 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 50.00 63377 Cameron, Kenneth 03252 Disability Board claims -April 121 4635 265.15 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 75.00 63378 Camporini, Richard 03273 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 50.00 63379 Captain T's 03048 Shirts,embroidery 118 4909 339.75 63392 GeLlor Insurance Inc. 07030 Workers Comp -Premium audit 118 4950 785.00 63395 Gordy's Pizza & Pasta 07272 Special Safety mtg food 118 4909 81.11 63405 Johnson, Donald G 10052 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 50.00 63406 Johnson, Harry 10047 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 50.00 63410 Lindley, James K. 12019 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 45.50 63411 Loucks, Jasper 12186 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 85.00 63415 Miesel, Phil 13261 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 46.10 63416 Morgan, Roy 13145 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 46.10 63417 NW Admin Transfer Acct 14169 Non -sworn group 121 4633 12,631.30 Sworn officers 121 4633 14�� 01/05/16-08:20 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Number Name City of Port Angeles - LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 38 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Vendor Description GL Code Amo Number Number 63440 Riepe, Tom 18081 63449 Sweatt, Johnnie 19146 63453 Turton, F. Gale 20041 63492 Dept of Labor & Ind (Qrtr rpt) 04046 63506 Gunn, Robert J. 07134 63508 Healthcare Mgt Administraotrs 08492 63521 Loghry, Kenneth 12301 63525 Messinger, Larry 13047 63557 Regence Blue Shield -Dental 18234 63559 Richmond, Gary 18380 63577 UNUM Life Ins Co of America 21000 63585 Waldron, Larry 23578 602 0002 63364 AWC Employee Benefit Trust 01231 63375 Braun, Gary 02173 63388 Evans, Sid 05103 63398 Hansen, George D. 08048 650 63544 Port Angeles Downtown Assn. 16024 652 0008 63036 AVAYA INC 12215 63113 Olympic Stationers Inc. 15030 63155 Swain's General Store Inc. 19037 63333 Qwest 21001 63435 Qwest 21001 63463 Washington (DIS), State of 23111 697 63468 White, Phillip 23574 698 63093 LEOFF 12043 63114 PERS 16016 63203 Flex -Plan Services (Payroll) 06062 63235 Office of Support Enforcement 15072 63236 Office of Support Enforcement 15166 63253 States West Life Insurance Co. 19313 Retirees 121 4634 Disability Board claims -April 121 4635 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 121 4635 Disability Board claims -April 121 4635 Workers' Comp -1st Qtr 2001 118 4950 Reimburse medical expense 121 4630 Set-up fee 117 4601 Reimburse medical services 121 4630 Reimburse medical services 121 4630 May Admin fee 117 4601 Reimburse medical services 121 4630 Admin group 121 4631 POlice,IBEW 121 4631 Reimburse medical services 121 4630 Total for Self - Insurance Fund Firemen's Pension 225 4635 Disability Board claims -April 225 4635 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 225 4635 Reimburse Medicare premium -May 225 4635 Total for Firemen's Pension Fund Decal sales 650 2319100 Duparr tot lease 650 2290000 Total for Off - Street Parking Fund 04-02 Billing 868 4210 Matboards-Fine Arts paid 868 3101 Gloves,scraper,spackle 868 3120 Paper towels,first-aid supplie 868 3120 Link snap 868 3120 04-14 Bitting 868 4210 04-14 Billing 868 4210 04-23 Billing 868 4210 March Scan charges 868 4210 Total for Esther Webster Trust Fund Refund Medic Overpmt 697 2391000 Total for Accts.Receivable Clearing Fund Payroll deductions pe 03-31 698 2315120 Payroll deductions pe 03-31 698 2315130 Payroll deductions pe 04-15 698 2315210 Payroll deductions pe 04-15 698 2315210 Payroll deductions pe 04-15 698 2315210 May premium 698 2315160 01/05/16-08:20 City of Port Angeles LIVE MACHINE May 16 2001 Page 39 Total for Accounts Payable Clearing Fund 89,584.00 0 Grand Total 1,426,308.98 • 57 CHECK REGISTER Date From 04/07/2001 To 05/11/2001 Fnd Dpt Check Vendor Vendor Description GL Code Amount Number Name Number Number 63258 US Department of Education 21075 Payroll deductions pe 04-15 698 2315210 69.41 63261 United Way (payroll) 21028 Payroll deductions pe 04-15 698 2315240 350.07 63262 Volunteer Fire Association 22060 Payroll deuctions pe 04-15 698 2315210 44.00 63362 AFSCME Local #1619 01152 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315200 83.00 63363 AFSCME Local #1619 Scholarship 01153 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315200 166.00 63385 DiMartino/WSCFF Disability 06052 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315190 788.22 63387 Employees Association 05041 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315210 320.00 63390 Firefighter's Local #656 06076 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315200 1,060.00 63391 Flex -Plan Services (Payroll) 06062 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315210 1,000.94 63400 IBEW Local #997 09034 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315200 580.00 63422 office of Support Enforcement 15072 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315210 1,471.78 63423 Office of Support Enforcement 15166 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315210 89.08 63428 Police Association 16156 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315210 250.00 63450 Teamsters Local #589 20056 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315200 1,723.00 63454 US Department of Education 21075 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315210 69.41 63456 United Way (payroll) 21028 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315240 350.07 63462 WSCCCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO 23167 Payroll deductions pe 04-29 698 2315200 2,949.60 Total for Accounts Payable Clearing Fund 89,584.00 0 Grand Total 1,426,308.98 • 57 • • ICITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FRom: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Net Metering Program Summary: The State Legislature approved RCW 80.60 in 1998 mandating net metering by all electric utilities. Net metering allows customers with qualifying generation to be billed only for the "net" amount of electrical energy delivered by the City. The attached ordinance provides for the safe interconnection and metering of these customers. Recommendation: Approve the Ordinance authorizing implementation of Net Metering, and authorize the Manager of Electric Engineering to sign net metering agreements. Background / Analysis: To encourage private investment in renewable energy resources the State Legislature adopted RCW 80.60 in 1998. This RCW mandates that electric utilities have a net metering program available to its customers. This program requires the electric utility accept generation in excess of a customer's electric demand and store that power for later use by that customer. A net metering customer is one which has an approved net metering agreement with the City for customer generation fueled by fuel cell, solar, wind or hydro power and is 25 kW or less in size. Net metering agreements will be administered on a first come, first served basis up to a maximum capacity of 0.1% of the 1996 system peak load (119 kW). The customers generation equipment is required to automatically synchronize with the City's distribution system. If the power generated exceeds that being used by the customer, the excess will flow into the City's system turning the meter backwards and deducting that power from the power previously registered by the meter. If the monthly generation exceeds the customer's usage the customer will be billed only the monthly customer service charge and the bill will show a net power usage credit. At the end of the calendar year any remaining unused kilowatt-hour credit accumulated by the customer during the previous year shall be granted to the City without compensation. The first serious inquiry was received for a 3 kW photovoltaic installation proposed at 1322 East 8`' Street in early March of this year. Since that time three additional calls have been received regarding the possible installation of net metering. This procedure will provide the interested customers and City employees involved with the net metering information necessary to assure the 59 customer installation is safe and the agreement is properly administered. The attached ordinance authorizing the Manager of Electrical Engineering to sign the Net Energy Metering Agreements will expedite the processing of agreements. This individual will be responsible for determining if the proposed installation meets the technical and safety requirements. The UAC recommends the City Council approve the ordinance authorizing implementation of Net Metering and authorizing the Electrical Engineering Manager sign Net Energy Metering Connection Agreements on behalf of the City. • • 60 N:\PWKS\LIGHTTNGR\PROJECTS\NETBILLJ\NTBILCC.wPd ORDINANCE NO. 13.10 -0—L02 --tight Electric Utility Begartment Established. For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter and for the purpose of operating and regulating the light and power system utility of the City of Port Angeles, there is created and established an 1 ctric Utili v to be operated by the Ci 's -Department of Public Works and Utilities Dcpwtin :rrtknow"s the City hightBepaitment and -to-bc which, for the purposes of this Chapter, shall also be referred to as the "Department (Ord. 2341 §1, 5/28/85) 13 10 020 Lizht Director of Public Works and Utilities Department. A. The City Manager shall appoint a suitable and qualified person as Director of the City -Light Department. -1- 61 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, establishing policies and procedures for customers of the City's electric utility to operate electric generated facilities of not more than 25 kilowatts and amending Ordinance 2341 as amended and Chapter 13.10 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Ordinance 2341 as amended and Chapter 13.10 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Chanter 13.10 T ELECTRIC UTILITY D£ Sections: 13.10.111 Light Electric Utilily Dcpartmcnt Established. _ 13.10.020 Light- Hepartn=tDirector of Public Works and Utilities Department. 13.10.030 Access to Facilities. 13.10.040 Connections. 13.10.050 Prohibitions and Requirements. 13.10.060 Meters. 13.10.065 Net Energy Metering 13.10.070 Department Employees and Agents. 13.10.080 Duties and Liabilities. 13.10.090 Penalties. 13.10 -0—L02 --tight Electric Utility Begartment Established. For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter and for the purpose of operating and regulating the light and power system utility of the City of Port Angeles, there is created and established an 1 ctric Utili v to be operated by the Ci 's -Department of Public Works and Utilities Dcpwtin :rrtknow"s the City hightBepaitment and -to-bc which, for the purposes of this Chapter, shall also be referred to as the "Department (Ord. 2341 §1, 5/28/85) 13 10 020 Lizht Director of Public Works and Utilities Department. A. The City Manager shall appoint a suitable and qualified person as Director of the City -Light Department. -1- 61 B. The word "Director", as used in this Chapter, shall mean the Director of the City Eight Public Works and Utilities Department, or his designated agent or employee. C. The Director shall have full charge and control of all work provided for and contemplated by this Chapter subject to the ultimate control and authority of the City Manager and the City Council. D. The Director shall have authority to adopt and file, as appropriate, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures relating to the Department's performance of the provisions of this Chapter and to the operation of the City's light and power system. E. The Director shall have the authority to restrict the use of loads, generation, and/or services during an emergency when the Director determines that the continued use of the loads would jeopardize the City's generation, transmission, substation, or distribution system. F. During periods of power shortage, the Director may limit the use of electric space heating in any manner that may be deemed necessary. At any time, the Director may refuse to supply electricity to any customer whose demand therefor may seriously impair service to any other customer. (Ord. 2341 §1, 5/28/85) 13.10.030 -Access to Facilities. A. The Director shall have free access at any reasonable time to any and all premises furnished with electric current by the City for the purpose of inspection of any wires or electric devices on such premises, reading or installing meters, and removing or repairing any property of the City, or for any other reasonable purpose connected with the light and power system of the City. For the Department's systems in underground areas, 24-hour personnel access shall be provided to all vaults, switchgear rooms, or other facilities on customer property. B. All lamps, meters, wires and other electrical equipment or appliances supplied hall be and remain the property of the City and may be removed, replaced or repaired by the City s whenever the Director may so elect. C. Upon request, the customer shall correct any condition that limits or restricts free and safe access to the Department's meters or service. Failure of the customer to comply within a reasonable time specified, as determined by the Director, shall subject the customer to disconnection of service. (Ord. 2341 §1, 5/28/85) 13.10.040 -Connections. A. ' All purchased electricity, other than emergency, standby service, or customer generation, used on the premises of the customer shall be supplied exclusively by the Eight Electric Utili F�� within the City. No person, firm, company, or utility shall directly or indirectly sell, sublet, assign or otherwise dispose of to another, electrical power received by him/her/them from the City. No person, firm, company or utility shall buy, lease or otherwise receive electrical power from any person, firm, company or utility other than the City except as authorized by the Director. Nothing herein shall be taken as forbidding landlords or marinas who pay for electricity used by their tenants from providing such electric service and charging a mutually agreed figure therefor. Purchases of electricity for resale are prohibited, except between electric utilities as authorized by the Director. B. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be construed as requiring the City or the Director to enter into any contract or to furnish electric current to any person applying therefor. The Director is hereby authorized and empowered to refuse to enter into any such contract or to furnish such electric current. 62 M C. The Director may, before connecting any premises with the City's circuits or furnishing electric current therefrom, cause the wiring, appliances and fixtures to be carefully inspected, and until such wiring, appliances and fixtures are put in proper condition satisfactory to the Director, decline to connect the service wires with the City's circuits and shall have the power at any time to disconnect the service from the premises when the wiring, appliances or fixtures shall become or are found to be defective or dangerous, until the same are repaired to the satisfaction of the Director. D. It shall be unlawful for any person other than the Director to connect any house, premise, wire, or other appliances with the City's electric current for the purpose of securing electric current therefrom, or for any other purpose whatsoever. E. No customer shall connect his service with that of any other customer, or in any way supply any other person or premises with electricity through his service, except as approved by the Department after the filing of a written application with the Department for the connection and receipt of a permit from the Department for connection. In the absence of a signed agreement or application for service, the delivery of electric service and the acceptance thereof by the customer shall be deemed to constitute an agreement that incorporates this Chapter. F. The customer shall provide a suitable service entrance to the premises at the point of easiest access to the distribution line that the Department proposes to connect to the customer's system. Such entrance shall be continuous and so arranged that the possibility of improper tampering or interference is minimized. G. The Department may require customers to provide on their premises, at their own expense, additional protective devices deemed necessary by the Department to protect the Department's property or personnel, or the property or personnel of the Department's other customers. H. The Department shall not supply electricity for any new or larger service to multiple dwelling buildings for the purpose of master metering the energy usage of the dwelling units except for master metered services approved prior to December 1, 1984. I. The Department has the responsibility of providing electrical equipment of a suitable capacity to deliver power in accordance with the customer's load requirements. In the event that the customer changes his load materially, exceeding that initially provided, he shall notify the Department sufficiently in advance so that the Department may revise its facilities accordingly. In the event that the customer fails to notify the Department and, as a result, the City's equipment is damaged, the customer shall be liable for the costs of such damage. (Ord. 2341 §1, 5/28/85) 13 10 050 - Prohibitions and Requirements. A. Unless authorized by the Department, no person shall commit the following acts or cause others to commit the following acts: In any manner damage, mutilate, destroy, remove, connect, disconnect, or in any way interfere or tamper with any machinery, poles, wires, meters, seals, or other equipment belonging to, or in any manner connected with, the light and power system of the City. Whenever it becomes necessary to disconnect, remove, or relocate any poles, wires, underground facilities, or other equipment belonging to the City, the work shall be done by or under the direction of the Department. Prior notice shall be given to the Department by the person desiring the work done, stating when and where the work is required. The person desiring the work may be required to pay the cost of labor, equipment rental, material and overhead charges required to do the work. -3- 63 B. The customer shall at all times keep his wiring and appliances in such condition that they can be used without causing damage, delay, or cost to the City. C. The City shall use reasonable diligence in providing adequate electrical service to the customer. However, should the nature of the customer's equipment require protection, reversal of phase rotation, voltage control, unbalance, single phasing, safety, reliability or other requirements which exceed the levels provided by the City, it shall be the responsibility of the customer to provide such protection at his own expense. The City shall not be liable for damages caused to the customer's equipment when the customer's equipment requirements exceed those provided for by the City. The customer shall have the responsibility to provide suitable devices adequate to protect his three-phase motors and other equipment against reversal of phase rotation and single phasing. D. Customers shall not cause unusual fluctuations or disturbances in the City's electrical system. Customers may be required, at their own expense to install suitable apparatus which will reasonably limit such disturbances. Where the customer's use of electrical equipment results in an interference with the quality of the customer's own service or that of neighboring customers, or where the customer, requires voltage control within unusually close limits, the Department may require to provide, at the customer's own expense, such special or additional equipment as is required. This may apply to cases of extreme unbalance of single and three-phase loads. E. The Department shall be notified in case of defective service by the customer, owner, or person in control of the premises. (Ord. 2341 § 1, 5/28/85) 13.10.060 Meters. A. When any customer desires to use electricity for purposes classified under different rates as established by Chapter 13.12 PAMC, separate meters must be installed to measure the current supplied at each rate, and the electricity passing through each meter must be charged for at the price specified in the rate schedule for such separate uses. B. Eity-Ei& The Department will make periodic tests and inspections of meters and will make additional tests or inspections of meters at the request of any customer. No charge shall be made for any such additional test if there is a meter error of more than two percent. If the meter error is two percent or less, the fee for a meter test shall be charged to and collected from the customer. If any test shows a meter error of more than two percent, a pro rata adjustment shall be made in the customer's billing for a period of not more than ninety days prior to the date of the test; provided, that in no event shall any adjustment be made for any period prior to the date of any previous meter test. C. Eiq-+i& The Department may install sealable locking devices on certain enclosures containing unmetered conductors, including but not limited to meter sockets, meter enclosures, current transformer enclosures, test switch enclosures, wire troughs, bus gutters, and terminal boxes. D. New or enlarged services to a duplex or a multiple dwelling building shall have common areas and common equipment supplied through a separate house meter. E. The customer shall not install or use equipment or devices to submeter electricity for the purpose of reselling or otherwise apportioning the costs of electric energy usage; except that Eitp-fight the Department shall permit the apportionment of electricity for boat mooring establishments and recreational vehicle (RV) parks under the following circumstances: 1. Electrical service to boat mooring establishments and recreational vehicle 64-4- t parks may be master metered. EityL gh The Department will not provide meters for individual spaces nor directly bill individual tenants at a boat moorage establishment or recreational vehicle park for which a master metering arrangement has been established. 2. Apportionment of electricity by customer -operator shall be considered a service provided by a boat mooring establishment or recreational vehicle park. The charge for such service shall be reasonable and nondiscriminatory and shall not exceed the operator's average cost per KWH as billed by the City plus the operator's reasonable cost of providing such service, and shall not exceed the proportion of the costs for which the boat moorage or recreational vehicle park tenant is responsible. F. Depending on the particular installation, C—ity-Eigh the Department may provide a portion of the customer's service entrance equipment. The type of metering equipment (which may include meter, current transformer and enclosures, meter bases and junction boxes) shall be determined by City Ligh the Department. Meter sockets shall be placed only at those locations authorized by City Light the Department and shall afford proper protection to meters. In order that the meter can be easily read, the center of the meter socket shall be located not less than five feet or more than seven feet above finish grade. If, as determined by Eity Eight the Department, the meter is inaccessible or improperly located for reading, the customer shall be required to relocate his service entrance to a suitable location or City- Light the Department may install a remote metering device and all costs incurred shall be borne by the customer. G. Should the customer request additional metering equipment, Cite -Light the Department may install such equipment as agreed upon. The cost of such additional equipment, including necessary spares if any, shall be borne by the customer, including labor, equipment rental, material and overhead charges: The Cost of maintenance of such additional equipment shall be borne by the customer. The charge for maintenance of such equipment shall be sufficient to cover City Light the Department's costs as determined by the Public Works Director. City Eight the Department may provide metering pulses from existing metering equipment at the customer's cost. (Ord. 2969, 10/17/97; Ord. 2369 §1, 1/3/86; Ord. 2341 §1, 5/28/85) 13 10 065 - Net Energy Metering A. In accordance with Chapter 80.60 RCW, it shall be the policy of the City to encourage private investment and renewable energy resources by offering to make net metering available and allowing net metering systems to be interconnected provided that the requirements of Chapter 80.60 RCW and the Department's policies and procedures are met. B. Definitions. 1. "Customer -generator" means a user of a net metering system. 2. "Net metering"means measuring the difference between the electricity supplied by an electric utility and the electricity generated by a customer -generator that is fed back to the electric utility over the applicable billingperiod. 3. "Net metering, system" means a fuel cell or a facility for the production of electrical energy that: (a) uses as its fuel either solar, wind, or hydropower; (b) has a generating capaciiy of not more than 25 kilowatts; (c) is located on the customer -generator's premises: 65 (d) operates in parallel with the electric utility's transmission and distribution facilities; and (e) is intended primarily to offset part or all of the customer - generator's requirements for electricity. C. The Dg artment's Electrical Engineering manager is authorized to enter into Connection Aareements with customer -generators for the purpose of setting forth the specific duties responsibilities terms, and conditions. including the method of payment by the City for net energy. 13 10 070 - Department Employees and Agents. A. It shall be unlawful for any inspector, agent or employee of the City to ask, demand, receive or accept any personal compensation for any service rendered to a consumer of electric current or to any other persons or customers in connection with supplying, connecting or furnishing electric current by the City. B. No promises, agreements or representations of any employee or agent of the City with reference to the furnishing of services by the Department or its employees shall be binding on the City unless the same shall be in writing, signed by the Director. (Ord. 2341 § 1, 5/28/85) 13.10.080 - Duties and Liabilities. A. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as placing upon the City any responsibility for the condition, maintenance or safety of customers' electrical wiring or current consuming devices or other equipment; and the City shall not be responsible for any loss or damage resulting from defects, failures, malfunctions, or electrical faults in or originating in any electrical wiring, current consuming devices, or other equipment which they may own or operate, install or maintain. The City shall not be responsible for damage to persons or property arising from the use of the electric service on the premises of the customer. B. It is the responsibility of customers to protect themselves, life and property from the use, misuse, and/or availability of electrical current on their premises and from the consequences of the use, misuse and/or availability of electrical current on their premises. C. It is the responsibility of customers to provide, install, use, inspect, and maintain suitable protection and protective devices to protect themselves, life, and property from any defect, failure, malfunction and/or electrical fault in or originating in any electrical wiring, current consuming devices, or other equipment which they may own, operate, install, or maintain; and to protect themselves, life, and property from the consequences of any defect, failure, malfunction and/or electrical fault in or originating in any electrical wiring, current consuming devices, or other equipment which they may own, operate, install, or maintain. D. The City shall not be liable for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from the interruption, restoration, or reduction of electric service from any cause, including but not limited to failure of generation, transmission, substation, and distribution systems, inadequacy of energy supply, implementation of emergency plans, or temporary disconnections for repairs and maintenance or failure to pay for service rendered. (Ord. 2341 § 1, 5/28/85) 13.10.090 - Penalties. A. Any person, firm or corporation who shall fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a Class II misdemeanor. B. In addition to any other penalty for the violation of the provisions of this 66 Chapter, the electric service of any person determined to have violated the provisions of this Chapter may be discontinued and such violator shall be civilly and criminally liable for all damages and for all extra current used by reason of such violation. (Ord. 2341 § 1, 5/28/85) Section 2 - Severability. If any provisions of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application of the provisions of the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected. Section 3 Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days after the date of publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of , 2001. MAYOR ATTEST: Becky J. Upton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney PUBLISHED: By Summary F:\ORDINANCES&RFSOLUTIONS\2001-I O.ord.wpd 7 67 NET ENERGY METERING CONNECTION AGREEMENT for CUSTOMER FUEL CELL, SOLAR, WIND, or HYDROPOWER ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES of NOT MORE THAN 25 KILOWATTS This Net Energy Metering Connection Agreement is executed in duplicate this day of 200_ between (hereinafter referred to as it the State of Customer"), and the City of Port Angeles, Electric Utility, a Municipal Corporation of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the City). Both parties, who may be herein further referred to collectively as "Parties" and individually as "Party", agree as follows: 1. CUSTOMER ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY 1.1 Customer has elected, in accordance with RCW 80.60 et seq., to operate either a net energy metering fuel cell, solar, wind or hydropower electric generating facility, with a generating capacity of not more than twenty-five kilowatts, in parallel with the City's transmission and distribution facilities. This generating facility is intended to offset either part or all of the Customer's electrical requirements. 1.2 Customer's Application for Net Metered Electrical Generation, including the location of the electrical generating installation and details on the electrical generating unit(s) is hereby incorporated into this agreement as Appendix A. 1.3 The installation is identified by the City with the following designators: Transformer No. (feeder and phase) , Customer Utility Account No. 1.4 A separate agreement shall be entered into for each Customer's electrical service location(s). 1.5 The electrical generating system used by the Customer shall be located on the Customer's premises. It shall include all equipment necessary to meet applicable safety, power quality, and connection requirements established by the National Electrical Code (Articles 690 and 705), National Electrical Safety Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Underwriters Laboratories, and the City's Connection Standards, as set forth in Appendix B, which is attached hereto. 1.6 The City shall have the sole authority to determine which connection requirements set forth herein are applicable to Customer's proposed installation. 2. PAYMENT FOR NET ENERGY 2.1 The City shall measure the net electricity produced or consumed by the Customer during each billing period, in accordance with normal metering practices. 2.2 If the electricity supplied by the City exceeds the electricity generated by the Customer and fed back to the City during the billing period, or any portion thereof, then the Customer shall be billed for the net electricity supplied by the City together with the appropriate customer charge paid by other customers of the City in the same rate class. 68 1201-o1.wPD{5/3/01} Page 1 of 5 • NET ENERGY METERING CONNECTION AGREEMENT 2.3 If the electricity generated by the Customer and distributed back to the City during the i billing period, or any portion thereof, exceeds the electricity supplied by the City, then the Customer shall be: a) billed for the appropriate customer service charge as other customers of the City in the same rate class; and b) credited for the net excess kilowatt-hours generated during the billing period, with this kilowatt-hour credit appearing on Customer's bill for the following billing period. 2.4 At the beginning of each calendar year, any remaining unused kilowatt-hour credit accumulated by the Customer during the previous year shall be granted to the City without any compensation to the Customer. 2.5 Customer shall pay any amount owing for electric service provided by the City in accordance with applicable rates and policies. Nothing in this Section 2 shall limit City's rights under applicable Rate Schedules, Customer Service Policies, and General Provisions. 3. INTERRUPTION OR REDUCTION OF DELIVERIES 3.1 The City may require Customer to interrupt or reduce deliveries as follows: a) when necessary in order to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace, remove, investigate, or inspect any of its equipment or part of its system; or b) if it determines that curtailment, interruption, or reduction is necessary because of emergencies, force or compliance with prudent electrical practices. 3.2 Whenever possible, the City shall give Customer reasonable notice of the possibility that interruption or reduction of deliveries may be required. 3.3 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, if at any time the City determines that either: a) the facility may endanger City personnel, or b) the continued operation of Customer's facility may endanger the integrity of the City's electric system, The City shall have the right to disconnect Customer's facility from the City's electric system. Customer's facility shall remain disconnected until such time as the City is satisfied that the condition(s) referenced in (a) or (b) of this section 3.3 have been corrected. 4. CONNECTION 4.1 Customer shall deliver the excess energy to the City at the City's meter. 4.2 Customer shall pay for designing, installing, inspecting, operating, and maintaining the electric generating facility in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and shall comply with the City's Connection Standards set forth in Appendix B, which is attached hereto. 4.3 Customer shall pay for the City's standard watt-hour meter electrical hook-up, if not 4.4 already present. Customer shall not commence parallel operation of the generating facility until written approval of the connection facilities has been given by the City. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall have the right to have representatives present at the initial testing of Customer's protective apparatus. 1201-01.WPD{5/3/01 } Page 2 of 5 69 NET ENERGY METERING CONNECTION AGREEMENT 5. MAINTENANCE AND PERMITS 5.1 Customer shall: a) maintain the electric generating facility and connection facilities in a safe and prudent manner and in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the City's Connection Standards, Appendix B, and b) have the system inspected by a qualified technician after 5, 8, 10 years of operation and every two years thereafter, the latest inspection and test report to be available for review by the City on request. c) obtain any governmental authorizations and permits required for the construction and operation of the electric generating facility and connection facilities. Permit requirements, for this project, include: ❑ Electrical permit ❑ Building permit ❑ Clearing and grading permit ❑ SEPA ❑ Joint Aquatic Resources Permit. 5.2 Customer shall reimburse the City for any and all losses, damages, claims, penalties, or liability it incurs as a result of Customer's failure to obtain or maintain any governmental authorizations and permits required for construction and operation of Customer's generating facility or failure to maintain Customer's facility as required in (a) of this Section 5. 6. ACCESS TO PREMISES The City may enter Customer's premises or property to: a) inspect, with prior notice, at all reasonable hours, Customer's protective devices; read meter; and b) disconnect at the City's meter or transformer, without notice, the connection facilities if, in the City's opinion, a hazardous condition exists and such immediate action is necessary to protect persons, or the City's facilities, or property of others from damage or interference caused by Customer's electric generating facilities, or lack of properly operating protective devices or inability to inspect the same. 7. INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY 7.1 The Customer assumes the risk of all damages, loss, cost and expense and agrees to indemnify the City, its successors and assigns, and its respective directors, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, costs, liabilities, damages and expenses including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney fees, resulting from or in connection with performance of the agreement or which may occur or be sustained by the City on account of any claim or action brought against the City for any reason including but not limited to loss to the electrical system of the Customer, caused by or arising out of an electrical disturbance. 7.2 Such indemnity, protection, and hold harmless includes any demand, claim, suit or judgement for damages, death or bodily injury to all persons, including officers, employees or agents, and subcontractors of either Party hereto including payment made under or in connection with any Worker's Compensation Law or under any plan for employees' disability and death benefits or property loss which may be caused or 70 1201-o1.wPD{5/3/01} Page 3 of 5 • • NET ENERGY METERING CONNECTION AGREEMENT contributed to by the. connection, maintenance, operation, use, presence, or removal of Customer's equipment. The only exception will .be liability occasioned by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its employees acting within the scope of their employment and liability occasioned by a partial negligence of the City or its employees acting within the scope of their employment to the extent that such partial liability is fixed by a court of competent jurisdiction. 7.3 The provisions of Section 7 shall not be construed to relieve any insurer of its obligations to pay any insurance claims in accordance with the provisions of any insurance policy. 7.4 The City shall have no liability, ownership interest, control or responsibility for the Customer's Electric Generating Facility or its connection with the City's electric system, regardless of what the City knows or should know about the Customer's Electric Generating Facility or its connection. 7.5 Customer recognizes that it is waiving immunity under Washington Industrial Insurance law, Title 51 RCW, and further agrees that this indemnification clause has been mutually negotiated. This indemnification shall extend to and include attorney's fees and the costs of establishing the right of indemnification hereunder in favor of the City. 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS The Parties hereto are independent contractors and shall not be deemed to be partners, joint venturers, employees, franchisees or franchisers, servants or agents of each other for any purpose whatsoever under or in connection with this Agreement. 9. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be interpreted, governed, and constructed under the laws of the State of Washington as if executed and to be performed wholly within the State of Washington. Venue of any action arising hereunder or related to this agreement shall lie in Clallam County, Washington. 10. AMENDMENTS, MODIFICATIONS OR WAIVER Any amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing and agreed to by both Parties. The failure of any Party at any time or times to require performance of any provision hereof shall in no manner affect the right at a later time to enforce the same. No waiver by any Party of the breach of any term or covenant contained in this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise, shall be deemed to be construed as a further or continuing waiver of any such breach or waiver of the breach of any other term or covenant unless such waiver is in writing. 11. APPENDICES The Agreement includes the following appendices attached and incorporated by reference: Appendix A: Customer's Application for Net Metered Electrical Generation to City of Port Angeles. Appendix B: City's Connection Standards for Customer Electric Generating Facilities of 25 Kilowatts or Less. 1201-O1.WPD15/3/011 Page 4 of 5 71 NET ENERGY METERING CONNECTION AGREEMENT 12. NOTICES All written notices shall be directed as follows: City of Port Angeles: Electrical Engineering Manager 321 East 5h Street P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Customer: Name Address City, State & Zip Customer notices to the City, pursuant to this Section 13, shall refer to the Service Address set forth in Appendix A. 14. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be in effect when signed by the Customer and the City and shall remain in effect thereafter month to month unless terminated by either Party on thirty (30) days' prior written notice in accordance with Section 13. 15. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused two originals of this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. This Agreement is effective as of the last date set forth below. CUSTOMER: CITY OF PORT ANGELES: Signature Signature Print name Print name Title Title Date Date 72 1201-01.wPD{5/3/01 } Page 5 of 5 • • r�O COUNCIL DATE: MAY 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD COLLINS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR/ SUBJECT: STREET VACATION PETITION - STV 01-01 PORT ANGELES FOOD BANK ETAL - PORTION OF FOURTH STREET WEST OF VALLEY Summary: A valid petition was received by the Department of Community Development on February 7, 2001 requesting vacation of that portion of West Fourth Street abutting Lots 1-3, Block 85, and Lots 18-20, Block 73, located west of Valley Street. As the initiating party to the proposed street vacation, the City has decided to withdraw its petition for STV 01-01, because there is still a public interest in the right-of-way for access to Lot 18, Block 73. Recommendation: Following review by the City Council Real Estate Committee, the Department of Community Development recommends that the City Council accept the withdrawal of STV 01-01 as requested by the City of Port Angeles and the Port Angeles Food Bank and not act to vacate Fourth Street west of Valley Street as originally proposed. Background / Analysis: Following the close of the public hearing on April 17, 2001, STV 01-01 was referred back to the Real Estate Committee because of City Council concerns that public interest in the 4' Street right-of-way required preservation of the right-of-way. City staff reviewed the City Council's concerns with the interests of the abutting property owners and similarly concluded that public interest in the 4`' Street right-of-way had not been extinguished. Therefore, the City of Port Angeles as an abutting property owner has withdrawn its request for the proposed street vacation. The City's withdrawal is supported by the Port Angeles Food Bank with the understanding that its parking requirements can be met on the site that it occupies (see attached parking analysis). The abutting property owners Mr. Brown and Ms. Clark have been informed of the City's withdrawal from the street vacation petition. This is a reversal of an earlier Department of Community Development recommendation which supported the Planning Commission recommended approval of STV 01-01. The Planning Commission has also been informed of the revised recommendation to withdraw the proposed street vacation, and they did not voice any objections to accepting the withdrawal of STV 01-01. Attachments: Staff Parking Analysis 5/8/01 VGvia" LES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: May 8, 2001 To: City Council Real Estate Committee From: Brad Collins, Community Development Director Subject: Food Bank Parking Analysis ExistingParking Spaces and Uses Since the warehouse expansion approved last July, the Food Bank has provided temporary parking around the building. The main parking spaces are located directly in front of the building perpendicular to Valley St. These parking spaces in front of the building are not improved but are demarked by wheel blocks protecting the sidewalk adjacent to the front of the building. There is room for approximately 10 improved parking spaces including 1 handicapped stall in front of the building. However, there is only 12 feet from the building to Valley Street. The Food Bank was granted a variance in the required 25 -foot front yard setback to 12 feet. There is also a 5 -foot sidewalk between the parking area and the front of the building, leaving only 7 feet of off-street parking area along Valley St. The approved site plan for the building expansion identified 14 parking spaces on the north and south sides of the Food Bank building but requires the vacation of 4' St. Parkin��Requirements The Parking Code requires 1 parking space for each two employees with a minimum of 10 for warehouse uses. Since the building was previously a warehouse and the number of employees is not greater than twenty at any one time, the required number of parking spaces for the Food Bank warehouse/wholesale use is 10 parking spaces. Before the addition was made, those 10 parking spaces were provided off Valley St. in front of the building. Through oversight, the building addition was approved such that it has eliminated those 10 off-street parking spaces, which now need to be replaced on the remaining site. Initially, the parking analysis determined that the incidental offices in the new building addition required an additional 4 parking spaces (1 parking space for each four hundred square feet of office use) as a separate new use of the property, bringing the total number of parking spaces required for the Food Bank to 14 spaces. This second analysis does not see the Food Bank offices and warehouse uses as separate uses and, therefore, finds that only the minimum 10 parking spaces for warehouse/wholesale use are required. Since the 10 parking spaces were there before the building addition, 10 off-street parking spaces must still be provided. 74 0 • Food Bank Parking Analysis May 8, 2001 Page 2 {ti. Parking Provisions The proposed site plan placed 14 parking spaces, north and south of the Food Bank building; 9 of cn However, these proposed parking spaces are in the 4 St. right-of-way, necessitating a street vacation.. , concern has been raised that public use of the 4' St. right-of-way is potentially needed for Lot 18, Block 73. The Community Development Department is withdrawing its recommendation to vacate 4`n St. for this reason. Given the site configuration, the relocation of the 10 required off-street parking spaces around the building appears possible. Seethe attached site plan for parking space locations. One problem with parking plan is that the driveway aisle widths cannot be provided on the north side of the building without improvements in the 4`n St. right-of-way. The City Engineer and the Fire Marshal must approve the aisle widths and emergency vehicle access on the north side 75 76 P ORT NGELES A� - W A S H I N G T O N, U. S. A. CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 22, 2001 To: Mayor Doyle and City Council Members FRoM: Sue Roberds, Planning Specia 's SUBJECT: Department of Community Development Planning Division Monthly Report - April, 2001 CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIO Bed and Breakfast Permit 0 Boundary Line Adjustments 0 Conditional Use Permits 0 Environmentally Sens. Areas 0 Home Occupation Permit 0 Minor Deviations 0 Municipal Code Amendment 0 Parking Variance 0 Retail Stand Permit 0 Rezone 1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits 0 Shoreline Exemptions 0 Short Plat 0 Street Vacation 0 Subdivisions 0 Variance 1 Wetland Permits 0 Code Enforcement 1 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: Determinations of NonSignificance 2 Determinations of Significance 0 Mitigated Determinations of NonSignificance 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Building Permits 2 Clearing and Grading Permits 0 • • Applied 54 Issued 50 71Z b GOMI"Ke • • wom • • WASH ING"TON, CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 16, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Dan McKeen, Fire Chief Ott _ SUBJECT: City Open Burning Ordinance Summary: Beginning January 1, 2001, outdoor burning provisions of the Washington Clean Air Act took affect, prohibiting all outdoor burning of yard debris and land clearing debris in Port Angeles. This permanent burn ban necessitates rescinding the City's current ordinance which provides guidelines and fees relating to outdoor burning which is no longer allowed by state law. A new ordinance consistent with the Washington Clean Air Act is submitted for the Council's consideration. Recommendation: Adopt the attached ordinance pertaining to outdoor burning which is consistent with the Washington State Clean Air Acta Background/Analysis: Starting on January 1, 2001, the state imposed a permanent outdoor burning ban prohibiting the burning of all yard debris and land clearing debris in Port Angeles and its adjacent urban growth areas. This burn ban is the result of the Washington Clean Air Act (WAC 173-425), which in part, limits outdoor burning in an effort to protect public health. With the state's adoption and implementation of the outdoor burning ban, the City's existing ordinance PAMC 14.21.060 pertaining to outdoor burning is no longer applicable. The Fire Department recommends rescinding the existing ordinance 14.21.060, and adopting a revised ordinance that complies with the 1990 Washington Clean Air Act and its related burning regulations. The Fire Department's role regarding the burn ban will continue to focus on education along with exploring alternatives to outdoor burning. In the event an individual repeatedly fails to comply with the burn ban, the proposed ordinance will allow the issuance of a citation to assist the City in recovering a portion of the costs associated with responding to and controlling the situation. DM/cw Attachment 79 • • • 80 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, prohibiting outdoor residential and land clearing burning, amending Ordinance 2552 as amended and Chapter 14.21 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code by repealing Section 14.21.060 and adding Section 14.21.061, and amending Ordinance 2932 and Chapter 3.70 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Ordinance 2552 as amended and Chapter 14.21 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code are hereby amended by repealing PAMC 14.21.060 and adding PANIC 14.21.061 to read as follows: 0 -1- .::. _ ...■.�.�ir..■i�.rnn�i■i.aya. - - - il�rii\Ian: hili t♦li'10l•.�•Cl9ir a7 ilii Rt'P r1�1.71�1�1!\\l�li t♦aii Oli'�ili'lit�P suggest �aaa�ta•�/aa/1/1/:�rrls/1//a/�/i/I�ar�/l�1•aK�\�.��ialei'/�/lleaR�/r11�.1�/l NUIaPl�1//1. N1�IR•lFeS�l.lailsii.SS It/INSs.lilitin\r leiiiia�i lil/liilil�l tifl0l\i l�lil�laii/IM • 6. The fire shall be extinguished if the smoke or ash tirtreasorrabliy _2- 82 • r _ Jill i _ !MJ- �aaa�ta•�/aa/1/1/:�rrls/1//a/�/i/I�ar�/l�1•aK�\�.��ialei'/�/lleaR�/r11�.1�/l NUIaPl�1//1. N1�IR•lFeS�l.lailsii.SS It/INSs.lilitin\r leiiiia�i lil/liilil�l tifl0l\i l�lil�laii/IM • 6. The fire shall be extinguished if the smoke or ash tirtreasorrabliy _2- 82 • LI Eity-off€reial', 7. Before be required to dry to the being btimed, minimum levei neeessary the nata-al -vegetation from a land-dearing site to fkilitate dean burrAng as determined by the Fire Chief or other desig=ted eity offieial; �iiy�wa:�i:�►ii���iiiii•��iw»wl•��•r:����aiu�ar��iai�ci��ii�itrs���t �l�irl•��i�iw vow •1PIWA IL• i - • • IF 1 • - • prohibited. 14 21 061 Outdoor Burning Prohibited. A Residential burning and land clearing buming, as defined in this Section, are B "Residential buming" means the outdoor burning of leaves, clippings. pruning and other yard and gardening refuse originating on lands immediately adjacent and in close proximity to a human dwelling and burned on such lands bythe._property owner or his or her designee. C "Land clearingbuming" means outdoor burning of trees, stumps. shrubbery. or other natural vegetation from land clearing_ projects (i.e. projects that clear the land surface so it can be developed used for a different purpose, or left unused). D If the Fire Doartment is called to respond to, control, or extinguish an illegal or out of control fire that is prohibited by this Section, the City may charge, and recover from the • 83 person res onsible for the fire the costs of the Fire Department's res onse and control action. Section 2. Ordinance 2932 as amended and Chapter 3.70 of the Port Angeles 0 Municipal Code are hereby amended by amending PAMC 3.70.090 to read as follows: 3 70 090 - Fire Department Fees A. Inspection Fees. When the following inspections are required to be performed pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code, the fees for such inspections shall be as set forth below: 1. Welding and cutting inspections for activities of the following duration: a. Up to 5 days $ 50.00 b. 6 to 30 days 100.00 C. 31 to 90 days 200.00 d. 91 to 180 days 300.00 e. 181 to 365 days 500.00. Welding gand cutting activities extending beyond one year shall be required to renew any* required permits and pay inspection fees in accordance with the above schedule. 2. Marine fueling operations inspections $25.00 - reinspections 15.00 3. Place of assembly inspections 25.00 4. Liquid petroleum gas tank and piping installation and inspection 35.00. The following fees shall be a one (1) -time fee for initial installation plan review and inspection: a 5. Underground storage tank removal and installation inspection: commercial 100.00 -4- Is residential -15.00 6. Automatic fire sprinkler installation inspection and testing: multi -family 50.00 commercial 100.00 7. Fire alarm plan review 50.00 8. Fire alarm installation inspection and testing: 100.00 plus $10 for each additional zone 9. Hood/duct system plan review 15.00 10. Hood/duct system inspection and test 25.00 The following fees shall be in addition to other required fees: 11. Inspections outside normalbusiness hours $35.00 per hour conducted by non -uniformed personnel (minimum charge 1 hour) outside of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday - Friday and on holidays 12. Reinspection for non-compliance $35.00 per hour with Uniform Fire Code (after first (minimum charge I hour) two inspections to ensure reasonable shall, be as fbHows progress is being made toward compliance) . -diameter fire No charge 25.66 —j,Lffitir feet in fire _ , t neter Fi v e-day,-tw -5- 85 EB_. Medical records. Duplicating and/or searching. In accordance with RCW 7.02.010(12), the charges for duplicating and/or searching for medical records shall be as follows: 1. Duplication charges 0.74/page for first 30 pages .57/page all other pages 2. Clerical Fee for searching and handling 17.00 (Ord. 3034 §1 (part), 11/26/99; Ord. 2993 6/12/98, Ord. 2932 §7, 10/11/96) Section 3 - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days after the date of publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of 52001. ATTEST: Becky J. Upton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney PUBLISHED: By Summary F:\ORDINANCES&RESOLUnONS\2001-17.ord.wpd E3j uA • • • • RT A-TNGELES WASHINGTON, U.S.A. CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: MAY 16, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Mike Quinn, City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution in support of telecommunications competition Summary: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that Qwest may offer long distance services upon meeting a 14 point checklist. The 14 points require Qwest to make available all interconnection elements and services necessary for a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier to successfully compete with Qwest for local telephone services. Qwest believes they are in compliance with the 14 point checklist and will apply to the FCC to re-enter the long distance business. Since their ability to provide such service can lead to increased competition, improved quantity and quality of service choices, the deployment of advanced infrastructure and opportunities for more competitive prices, a resolution has been prepared to encourage the FCC to consider Qwest's request. Recommendation: City Council pass the attached resolution in support of telecommunications Background / Analysis: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (96 Act) sets out specific guidelines that Qwest must follow to get into the long-distance business. The 96 Act provides that a Bell Operating Company may offer in -region interLATA (long distance service) services upon meeting certain requirements. In general, the 96 Act requires that Qwest must provide or make available all interconnection elements and services necessary for a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier to successfully compete with Qwest for local telephone services. The requirements must be met for each state in which Qwest plans to provide interLATA service. The requirements are contained in a 14 point checklist contained in the 96 Act. Qwest believes they are in compliance with the 14 points and will apply to the FCC to re-enter the long distance business later this year. The 96 Act gives the FCC authority to approve the application by Qwest. While the 96 Act gives approval authority to the FCC the FCC, must consult with the commission of the state for which approval is requested in order to determine whether full compliance with the 14 -point checklist has been achieved. Because increased competition for telecommunications services can lead to (1) improving the quantity and quality if service choices in Port Angeles, (2) the deployment of advanced telecom infrastructure and services, and (3) opportunities for more competitive prices, a resolution has been prepared to encourage consideration of the Qwest application to resume long distance service. • �J • �' 1 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, in support of telecommunications competition. WHEREAS, telecommunications is a vital element of our economy and is critical to the progressive delivery of services to our community; and WHEREAS, increased competition for telecommunications services will improve both the quantity and quality of telecommunications choices for our community, encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications services, and result in more competitive prices; and WHEREAS, Qwest Communications, a maj or provider of telecommunications services in our state, has been prohibited from providing interlocal access and transport area (interLATA) long-distance service since 1984• and WHEREAS, competitors for local telephone service are present in the State of Washington, but many of the consumer and economic benefits of greater competition are lagging other parts of the country, because Qwest has not formally demonstrated that it has opened its local market to competition nor does it have approval to fully compete in the long distance market; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Port Angeles supports the entry of Qwest into the interlocal access and transport area long-distance business, which we believe will better serve the public interest of our community and the State of Washington by increasing not only the level of long-distance competition but also the amount of competition for and investment in other telecommunications services, resulting in positive impacts -1- 91 1 on our economy and our education, health care and transportation systems; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Port Angeles strongly encourages Qwest to demonstrate that it has put in place the processes and procedures to comply with the 14 -point competitive checklist contained in Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and required for entry into the interlocal access and transport area long-distance business; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Port Angeles strongly encourages the Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission and the FCC to act quickly and judiciously in examining and approving Qwest's compliance with said regulations. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 22nd day of May, 2001. MAYOR ATTEST: 0 Becky J. Upton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney F:\ORDINANCES&RESOLUTIONS\R2001-07 92 -2- • CITY COUNCIL is Is DATE: May 22, 2001 To: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FRoM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Conservation Plans and Publicity Summary: On April 17, 2001, the City Council authorized the Director of Public Works to implement a conservation program that qualifies for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Conservation and Renewables Credit Discount (C&RD). Conservation has increased in importance due to a regional energy shortage and drought conditions that are anticipated to Recommendation: City Council approve a budget adjustment and authorize the Director of Public Works and Utilities, or his designee, the authority to enter into City Authorized Contractor Agreements. Background/Analysis: Staff is developing programs that qualify for the BPA C&RD. As part of the program development effort, Staff has prepared a program plan, a City Authorized Contractor Agreement, an implementation and marketing plan, and program budget. A significant part of the program development effort includes preparation of customer, contractor and retailer brochures and information. Staff anticipates that conservation programs will be available to customers by June 1, 2001. Conservation Program Plan Summary Staff has developed five conservation programs that qualify for the BPA C&RD. The five efforts include: conservation awareness, energy/water conservation, compact fluorescent lamps, building improvements, and a city facilities programs. A brief description of each program is included in Attachment 1. City Authorized Contractor Agreement The building improvements conservation program requires the City to form a business relationship with independent contractors. Under the C&RD, the City is required to meet BPA program requirements and materials and installation specifications. Staff has prepared a City Authorized Contractor Agreement that will be used to recruit independent contractors to participate in the program. The Agreement includes provisions to comply with BPA program requirements, procedures, and other standard terms and conditions. 93 May 22, 2001 City Council Memo Page 2 Implementation and Marketing Plan An implementation and marketing plan has been prepared for the remainder of 2001 for each program activity. The implementation and marketing plan is subject to change based on customer participation in each program. A summary of the implementation and marketing activities needed to carry out each program is included in Attachment 2. Budget Summary The City's C&RD is based on BPA power purchases at the rate of %2 mill per kWh which represents about $315,000 per year over the next five-year period. A summary of the anticipated program expenses for the remainder of this year is provided below. Due to the anticipated BPA wholesale power increase and water shortage, high customer participation in the conservation program is expected. A budget adjustment from the City's conservation fund will support the program prior to the C&RD that will be applied against the City's power purchases beginning October 2001. Descr tion of program expense 2001 Budget Rebates for energy conservation measures (heat pumps, insulation, etc...) $315,000 Low-income weatherization assistance through the Community Action Council $30,000 Ener /water saving devices (shower heads, faucet aerators, etc...) $10,000 Advertising (print, radio, television, expert services, etc...) $20,000 Small tools and equipment (ladders, tape measures, meters) $5,000 Total $380,000 On May 7, 2001, the Utility Advisory Committee recommended that City Council approve a budget adjustment and authorize the Director of Public Works and Utilities, or his designee, the authority to enter into City Authorized Contractor Agreements. N:\PWKS\LIGHnCONS\conservation2.doc 1 i4 7 • • 0 Attachment 1 Conservation program summary Pro ns Brief Description 1. Conservation Awareness Customer communications and advice on energyand water conservation. 2. Energy/Water Free energy/water saving devices and appliance rebates. City to purchase Conservation energy/water saving devices and participating retailers to stock qualifying appliances and lighting roducts. 3. Compact Information and rebate coupons will be provided to customers to purchase Fluorescent Lams qualifying lamps. A total of three offerings are anticipated. 4. Building Includes rebates for building improvements including heat pumps, Improvements windows, insulation, and lighting. Customers obtain bids from City Authorized Contractors on qualifying improvements. 5. City Facilities Reports on energy usage in City buildings, identifies and prioritizes conservation opportunities. Attachment 2 Implementation and Marketing Plan (subject to change) 1. Conservation Awareness Pro am 2001 Timeline Implementation/MarketingImplementationlMarketing Activity 4 15 6 7 8 19 10 11 12 Program development -V ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Complementary advertising -V Community presentations Quarterly energy use reporting 1f ti' ✓ -✓ Purchase energy/water saving devices Free devices brochure bill insert School poster contest development -V ✓ �� Retailer recruitment - School poster contest V Project identification/evaluation Appliance rebate brochure bill insert Energy Conservation Workshop Point-of-purchase promotional materials Complementary advertising Supplemental program offerings -V vV V Complementary advertising v J/ V 2. Energy/Water Conservation Program Implementation/MarketingImplementationlMarketing Activity 4 5 6 2001 Timeline 7 8 9 10 111 12 Program development -V -V V/ Contractor recruitment/training Complementary advertising No cost, wost brochure bill insert Quarterly energy use reporting 1f ti' ✓ -✓ Purchase energy/water saving devices Free devices brochure bill insert -V -V ✓ �� Retailer recruitment - V Project identification/evaluation Appliance rebate brochure bill insert V Point-of-purchase promotional materials Complementary advertising Supplemental program offerings -V vV V -V v 3. Compact Fluorescent Lamp Program 2001 Timeline Implementation/Marketing Activity 4 5 6 7 8 19 110 11 12 Program development Brochure/coupons bill insert v' Program development V/ Contractor recruitment/training Complementary advertising Quarterly energy use reporting 4. Building Improvements Program 2001 Timeline Implementation/Marketin Activity 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 Program development V/ Contractor recruitment/training -✓ Quarterly energy use reporting Brochure bill insert ✓ -✓ -V v� Complementary advertising ✓ V Project identification/evaluation Energy audit program offering Supplemental program offerings 5. City Facilities Program Implementation Activity. 2001 Timeline 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Energy use benchmarking -✓ Quarterly energy use reporting ✓ -✓ -V Building/facility priorities -V Project identification/evaluation Capital improvement planning 1* • • C7 • JORT NGELES WASHINGTON, CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 23, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Cooperative Service Agreement with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Summary: The City entered into a Cooperative Service Agreement with the USDA in 1996 to provide wildlife management services in the area of the City landfill. Fees for the service are negotiated annually and the Work Plan/Financial Plan has been approved for renewal by the Council each year. The USDA has requested a new Cooperative Service Agreement to change the reference on the Agreement from Animal Damage Control to Wildlife Services. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) to provide wildlife control operations in the area of the Background / Analysis: The wildlife management services provided by the USDA alleviate wildlife strike hazards to aircraft in the vicinity of the City Landfill. The work involved is consistent with the Wildlife Hazard Assessment and Management Plan developed by USDA which is the foundation of the City's demonstration of no increase in bird/aircraft strikes as a result of the operation of the Landfill. This demonstration is essential for the issuance of the City's landfill permit by the County. The Cooperative Service Agreement with the USDA was signed in 1996 for an indefinite term. The fees for the services are negotiated annually and documented in a Work Plan/Financial Plan document, which is a part of the Agreement. The USDA has requested a new Cooperative Service Agreement to change the reference on the Agreement from Animal Damage Control to Wildlife Services. The City Attorney has reviewed the contract. N:\PWKS\SWASTE\LANDFILL\FAA\WL_PLAN\CC-CSAOI.wpd 97 Agreement No.: 01 -73 -53 -5211 -RA COOPERATIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PORT ANGELES AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS) ARTICLE 1 City of Port Angeles desires to participate with Wildlife Services (WS) in a program to conduct wildlife control operations to reduce health risks, safety and maintenance problems associated with birds or other species. All operations provided for in this Agreement shall be under the direct supervision of Wildlife Services in order that the work may be conducted in accordance with the latest improved practices and correlated with bird and mammal control programs carried on in adjacent areas. ARTICLE 2 A* Authority exists under the Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426-426b and 426c, as amended) for Wildlife Services to cooperate with States, Territories, individuals, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions in the control of wild animals and birds injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wildlife, property; public health and safety; and protection of wildlife from environmental contaminants. 0 ARTICLE 3 City of Port Angeles and Wildlife Services agree: a. To jointly develop the Work and Financial Plans which will be incorporated into this Agreement. b. That the cooperating parties will carry out program activities in accordance with the Annual Work and Financial Plans developed for this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 City of Port Angeles Agrees: a. To designate to Wildlife Services by signature that City of Port Angeles's authorized representative is Glenn Cutler who shall administer activities pursuant to this Agreement. b. To develop with Wildlife Services the Annual Work and Financial Plans as referenced in Article 3.a. of this Agreement. c. To reimburse Wildlife Services the amount mutually agreed to as indicated in the Annual Work and Financial Plans. The cost will include salaries and benefits, supplies, and miscellaneous expenses necessary to perform animal damage control activities. d. That upon termination of this Agreement City of Port Angeles shall reimburse Wildlife Services for its proportionate share of all obligations created by Wildlife Services as a result of this Agreement and not previously reimbursed. 0 ARTICLE 5 Wildlife Services Agrees: a. That the State Director or authorized representative will supervise all control activities pursuant to this Agreement. b. To provide personnel to perform the assessment activities in the areas designated by the Work Plan. Field personnel employed under this Agreement shall be Federal employees or cooperator employees under direct supervision of Wildlife Services. c. To submit to City of Port Angeles an Accomplishment Report upon request. d. To supervise the program, as set forth in the Annual Work and Financial Plans. ARTICLE 6 This Agreement is contingent upon the passage of Congress of an appropriation from which expenditures may be legally met and shall not obligate the requisitioning agency upon failure of Congress to so appropriate. This Agreement also may be reduced or terminated if Congress only provides the Agency funds for a finite period under a Continuing Resolution. ARTICLE 7 Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent any other State, organization, or individual from entering into separate Agreements with Wildlife Services for the purpose of controlling damaging animals. ARTICLE 8 Pursuant to Section 22, Title 41, United States Code, no member of or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit to arise therefrom. ARTICLE 9 Wildlife Services will hold City of Port Angeles harmless from any liability arising from the negligent act or omission of a Government officer or employee acting within the scope of his or her employment to the extent compensation is available pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 USC 2671 et. seq., except to the extent that aforesaid liability arises from the negligent acts or omissions of City of Port Angeles, their employees, agents, or subcontractor(s). Such relief shall be provided pursuant to the procedures set forth in the FTCA and applicable regulations. ARTICLE 10 All animal damage control activities will be conducted in accordance with the applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations ARTICLE 11 This Agreement shall become effective upon date of final signature and shall continue indefinitely. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties in writing. It may be terminated by either party upon 60 days' written notice to the other party. Further, that in the event City of Port Angeles does not for any reason reimburse expended funds, Wildlife Services is relieved of the obligation to continue any operations under this Cooperative Service Agreement. • a CITY OF PORT ANGELES P.O. BOX 1150 321 EAST FIFTH STREET PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 City Manager UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL & PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES Sfite Directo , WA/AK Director, Western Region 100 Date .l/�/©/ Da et Date • • The Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Business Planning Analyses Report Summary May 22, 2001 Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager Executive Summary Project Background • Community Needs and Strong Demand ■ Telecommunications Infrastructure is Capital Intensive • Last Mile Connections the Greatest Expense ■ Telecommunications Providers Cannot Justify Infrastructure Capital Investment Project Mission • Ensure broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles in 2002 by enabling the necessary infrastructure • Commitment tied to Action Plan approved by Council 10/17/2000 5/22/01 Executive Summary Economic Development Goals • Enable a Feasible Infrastructure Project With the Greatest Potential for Economic Development Success ■ Respond to Needs of Business Community • Foster Telecommunications Competition • Prevent Development of Excessive Redundant Infrastructure Proj ects Analyzed • Scenario 1, City Project Scenario 2, City/Cable Partner • Scenario 3, City/Telco Partner • Scenario 4, City/Cable/Telco Partners 5/22/01 Executive Summary Analyses Backbone Concept Plan I Ql;zm; I j 2 Feasibility - Debt Coverage 7 8 Project Year 9 10 11 i-MW4. City/Both ($5.7m 10% 10 yr) Mh' 3. City/Telco ($4.9m 1011. 10 yr) 2. City/Cable ($5.0m 10% 10 yr) 1. City ($10.3m 8% 10 yr) 5/22/01 Executive Summary Feasibility - Ending Cash Balance 6 ' Project Year 8 910 11 Feasibility — Economic Development Success 5/22/01 Executive Summary 5/22/01 Executive Summary Strategic Direction - Consortium Strategic Direction — Pilot Project Pilot Design Design Review Build Pilot Test Pilot Integrate Pilot Into Network 5/22/01 Consortium Partner Consortium peYelo� t Solicitation Building Consortium Consortium Consortium Proposals Agreements Planning Evaluate Responses Negotiations Structure and Organization Determine Strategic Execute Agreements Policy and Relationships Planning Begin Consortium Recommend Partners Operations Functional Operations Strategic Direction — Pilot Project Pilot Design Design Review Build Pilot Test Pilot Integrate Pilot Into Network 5/22/01 Executive Summary Recommendations ➢ Approve the business plan ➢ Rescind fiber optic backbone design engineering services agreement ➢ Approve agreements to proceed with CATV franchise negotiations, consortium partner development, and pilot project ➢ Additional scope of work anticipated June 18th 5/22/01 ' The Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Business Planning Analyses May 1, 2001 ' Prepared for T TA,y ti. City of Port Angeles ' P.O. Box 1150 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS ' — = CONSULTANTS Seattle: 5847 McKinley Pl. N., Seattle, Washington 98103 Tel: 206.522.6778 Fax: 206.522.6777 ' Tacoma: 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1702, Tacoma, Washington 98402 Tel: 253.272.1636 Fax: 253.272.1482 www.mcco.com tTHE CITY OF PORT ANGELES 321 East Fifth Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 CITY COUNCIL Larry Doyle, Mayor Cathleen McKeown, Deputy Mayor Orville Campbell Lauren Erickson Jim Hulett Glenn Wiggins Larry Williams Michael Quinn, City Manager PROJECT TEAM Glen Cutler, Director, Public Works and Utilities Scott McLain, Deputy Director of Power Systems Timothy Smith, Economic Development Director Tanya O'Neill, Information Technology Manager Project Manager Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager Project Consultant Metropolitan Communications Consultants, LLC Seattle and Tacoma, Washington PA TELECOM �����► THE PORT ANGELES TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK BUSINESS PLANNING ANALYSES May 1, 2001 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................... s-1 A. Introduction Background........................................................................................................................... 1 Authorization........................................................................................................................ 1 RelatedActivity.................................................................................................................... 2 Missionand Goals................................................................................................................ 4 Competitive Environment................................................................................................. 4 B. Project Definition Telecommunications Products and Services Value Chain .............................................. 6 Surveys and Interviews....................................................................................................... 8 Infrastructure Development Alternatives..................................................................... 10 Business Proposition.......................................................................................................... 12 ValueProposition............................................................................................................... 12 C. Project Analyses Criteriaand Assumptions................................................................................................. 13 ProjectsAnalyzed............................................................................................................... 13 Infrastructure General Plan............................................................................................... 13 Usersand Growth............................................................................................................... 14 ProjectCost Estimates........................................................................................................ 21 RevenueEstimates............................................................................................................ 22 FeasibilityAnalyses............................................................................................................ 24 ' D. Findings and Discussion AnalysisFindings............................................................................................................... 26 Discussion............................................................................................................................ 27 E. Recommendations Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 31 IMETROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 List of Tables and Figures Tables 1. Service Providers and Users Contacted..................................................................... 9 2. Basis of User Projections............................................................................................. 14 3. City Network Projected User Growth...................................................................... 17 4. City/ Cable Network, Projected User Growth......................................................... 18 5. City/Telco Network, Projected User Growth......................................................... 19 6. City/Cable/Telephone Network, Projected User Growth .................................... 20 7. Summary of Annual Costs for Alternative Project Scenarios ............................... 21 8. Summary of Annual Revenues for Alternative Project Scenarios ........................ 22 9. Summary of Project Feasibility.................................................................................. 25 10. PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework .................................................. 29 Figures 1. Telecommunications Value Chain............................................................................ 7 2. Backbone Concept Plan.............................................................................................. 15 3. Ring, Distribution and Fiber Connection Schematic .............................................. 16 4. Recommended Strategic Direction............................................................................ 28 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 1 Executive Summary page s-1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS City Mission, Goals and Commitment to Enable Broadband Telecommunications • Facing a decline in core natural resource industries such as fishing and logging, the City of Port Angeles has recognized that broadband telecommunications can play a role in stimulating and sustaining community and economic development. • The City of Port Angeles has established an economic development goal that includes evaluation of the cost, benefits, and feasibility of enabling broadband telecommunications in the city. ■ The City of Port Angeles has therefore undertaken a vigorous telecommunications initiative, the proposed mission of which is: To ensure delivery of broadband telecommunications products and services to Port Angeles in 2002, by enabling the development of the necessary telecommunications infrastructure. • The City's commitment to enable broadband telecommunications is tied to a Community Telecommunications Action Plan and schedule approved by Council on October 17, 2000. Existing Hindrances to Broadband Telecommunications in Port Angeles The capital expenditures necessary to develop telecommunications infrastructure are the greatest limiting factor hindering providers from deploying broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles. The cost of last -mile connections to each individual home and business is the largest expense in the deployment of broadband telecommunications infrastructure. Development Options for Enabling Broadband Telecommunications • Four infrastructure development scenarios, the original Power Engineers City Backbone project and three additional consortium scenarios, have been investigated for consideration by the City: Original City Backbone Project - Scenario 1: City developed and owned project Additional Consortium Projects - Scenario 2: City/ Cable provider partnership - Scenario 3: City/Telephone provider partnership - Scenario 4: City/Cable/Telephone consortium Since the primary measure of economic development success is the number of ultimate end-users that can be most quickly benefited, partnering with owners of existing infrastructure to reach the ' greatest number of Port Angeles residents and businesses is the best means of achieving economic development success. Financial Analyses and Findings • The financial analyses of the options show that all four scenarios are feasible. • All three consortium projects (Scenarios 2-4) however, are superior to the original City stand-alone project (Scenario 1) in meeting the City's economic development goals, as well as providing cost ' savings, greater returns and mitigation of risk. Conclusions The findings indicate that any of the consortium projects will meet the City's goals, be superior and easier to implement than a standalone City developed and owned infrastructure project. The findings also indicate the City has a good existing opportunity to develop broadband infrastructure through the ' current cable franchising renewal. At the minimum, the opportunity can yield a limited non- commercial institutional network. A City developed network, although feasible, is therefore the last choice that the City should consider. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 Executive Summary page s-2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Policy and Strategic Direction • The City should proceed with a telecommunications network consortium project. • The City of Port Angeles should take a strong, pro -active leadership role in developing and managing the consortium. • The infrastructure project should plan to connect the majority of end users through private partner last -mile infrastructure but concurrently offer the option of direct fiber drops to larger customers needing more bandwidth and willing to pay for the required fiber drop. • The City should stimulate the demand for direct fiber drops by providing incentives such as a low cost financing program to cover the incremental difference between the copper and fiber drops. This should rapidly increase the number of high bandwidth end-users. • The City should focus on attracting Qwest, Olypen, other owners of infrastructure, and telecommunication service providers to a City led infrastructure development consortium. • In dealing with prospective partners, the City should provide incentives and determine how it might build their markets to make their participation in a consortium more attractive and justifiable. • The City should undertake development of a project on its own project only as a last choice, in the event no others will step forward or join it in the project development. • At a minimum, should difficulties arise with development of the broadband infrastructure, the City should strive to obtain an institutional network for non-commercial public use. Broadband Infrastructure through Cable Television Franchise Renewal • The City should capitalize on the opportunity provided by the current cable franchise renewal proceedings and aggressively negotiate with Northland Cable to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. Consortium Implementation • The City should keep developing all available options by concurrently proceeding with work on Scenarios 3 and 4. • The concurrent negotiations will maintain a competitive atmosphere that will be an incentive to Northland as well as other prospective partners. ■ The City should formalize the process of building the consortium to maintain implementation time frame goals. • The City should prepare and distribute a Request for Consortium Partner Proposals to private telecommunications companies. The solicitation process should run in parallel and in close coordination with the Cable Franchise renewal process currently underway. • The City should delay the engineering design phase of the City Backbone project awarded to MCC until the consortium is finalized. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 1 A. Introduction BACKGROUND page 1 Shifts in the U.S. and global economies have historically changed areas of the country that receive the benefits of economic growth. Municipalities need to respond to these shifts to remain competitive in the pursuit of economic health and development. As shown in areas that have been left behind, inaction can be a harmful response when faced with changing economic conditions. The latest economic shift has revolved extensively around technological advancements in computing and telecommunications. The convergence of these industries has led to the rise of the Internet and changed the way we live and work. It is a feature of these technologies that people and businesses can now more effectively communicate over longer physical distances. This levels the playing field and creates a solid opportunity for smaller municipalities to compete for economic development opportunities previously beyond their reach. A good example is the trend of larger firms to locate call centers and hundreds of jobs in rural communities with desirable quality of life advantages. Attractive smaller cities such as Port Angeles now can compete but must prepare if they wish to benefit from this new opportunity. Enabling broadband telecommunications in the community is a crucial preparatory step. Conversely, there is a barrier to this opportunity becoming a reality. Infrastructure required for broadband telecommunications is capital intensive, and smaller markets do not provide the return on ' investment required by private companies. Municipal governments, however, can play a unique role in enabling the market by providing leadership, regulatory oversight and capital for telecommunications infrastructure development. By taking a pro -active leadership position, municipal governments can ' overcome the limiting factor of infrastructure, and greatly accelerate the development of broadband telecommunications in their communities. 1 AUTHORIZATION The City of Port Angeles recognizes the telecommunications opportunity and the role it can play in sustaining community and economic development. Facing a decline in core natural resource industries such as fishing and logging, the City of Port Angeles has set goals and objectivesi and undertaken a vigorous telecommunications initiative. The various components of this initiative include City sponsored technical studies2, community -wide ' education and discussions3, and participation in service provider programs4$ to develop a vision for integrating the community through technology. Summary findings from these programs are given in the section entitled "Related Activity" on the next page, and findings have been incorporated into this report where applicable. On August 10, 2000 the City engaged Metropolitan Communications Consultants (MCC) of Tacoma and Seattle, Washington to prepare a plan of action6 to guide the City in its telecommunications planning ' and development efforts. The report summarized the City's work to date, identified additional planning ' 'City Council Goals and Objectives 2001 Community Development Objectives: "Review and evaluate the feasibility and cost/benefits of fiber optic expansion, or other technological source, to provide broadband services, other advanced technology services, and advanced communication and information services to the community." Economic Development Objectives: "Explore opportunities to support and promote the economic diversification of the community, especially in areas of advanced technology, marine industrial, telecommunications, and other potential businesses that can expand our local economy." ' 2power Engineers, Inc., "Communications Systems Evaluation for Public Utility District No.1 of Clallam County and the City of Port Angeles", February 10 2000. 3DenRee Productions, "E-nable Visions Tour", February 2000. "Fairpoint Communications, "BridgeWorks,m Program", in process 5Unisys Corp., "E -@action Community Helper Solution", Community Portal Study, November 2000. . 6Metropolitan Communications Consultants, "Community Telecommunications Action Plan", September 29 2000. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 A. Introduction page 2 needs and telecommunications opportunities and recommended specific action for the City to take over the next three-year period. On October 17, 2000, the City authorized MCC to implement the recommendations of the September 2000 Action Plan. The authorization covers three tasks, the third of which is this report, as described below: • Telecommunications Ordinance. Assist the City in finalizing its draft telecommunications ordinance and modification of related ordinances for consistency. This task brings the City into compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, provides for management of public rights-of-way and levels the playing field for prospective service providers. The final draft was delivered on March 27, and adoption is anticipated in May 2001. ■ Community Telecommunications Needs and Interests. This task is to assist the City in its formal proceedings for renewal of the current cable television franchise held by Northland Cable. A procedural requirement of the renewal is an ascertainment of cable related community needs and interests. Making best use of the opportunity, the City has expanded this task to include community telecommunications needs and interests. The work is currently in the public proceedings and data gathering stage and the needs and interest assessment is scheduled for completion in May. PA Telecom Network Business Planning Analyses (authorization for this report). This report was authorized to analyze the infrastructure development options available to the City, and to make recommendations on the best course of action. Because of the commitment to its telecommunications goals and the current industry shortage of optical fiber7, the City implemented a fast track schedule for proceeding with the backbone infrastructure proposed in the Power Engineerings report. A design contract was awarded to MCC on February 13, 2001, conditioned however, on notice to proceed being withheld until verification of overall feasibility by the business planning analyses. Action on this item is discussed in the recommendations of this report. RELATED ACTIVITY The recognition of the importance of broadband telecommunications has led to various efforts and studies of the current telecommunications environment in Port Angeles. The following activities have been reviewed and their findings are summarized below: Power Engineers, Inc9 On March 22, 2000 the City of Port Angeles and Clallam County Public Utility District No 1 received an engineering report from Power Engineers, Inc. for a fiber optic backbone communications system in Clallam County. Local businesses were surveyed with 56% stating they would definitely use the proposed system and an additional 20% stating they would possibly use the proposed system. This more detailed business planning study carries forward one of the recommendations of the Power study. E-nable Visions Tourlo In February 2001 the results of a survey entitled "E-nable Visions Tour' sponsored by the City and conducted by a local Port Angeles consultant were released. In contrast with the Unisys study described later, survey methods, data, and finding were released in the E-nable report. The survey contacted 2,600 area residents and queried them on subjects such as computer ownership, Internet usage, and interest in telecommunications services. 7http:/ /www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2646159,00.htn-d BSee footnote 2 9fbid 10See footnote 3. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 A. Introduction page 3 The study found high levels of Internet usage across demographic groups in the community, In addition, 77%,:of the survey'respondents indicated interest in improved bandwidth. and: advanced telecommunications services. These findings led to the first recommendation of the E-nable report: "The City of Port Angeles should promote and pursue the immediate and rapid deployment of widespread, affordable, and proven broadband technology such as DSL or cable modems in order to promote economic growth..." FairPoint Communications BridgeWorks—k Programs= In July 2000, FairPoint Communications; a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), gave a presentation of their Bridgeworks— program to a group of interested parties, including members of PA WORKS! The programs goal is to assist communities in using advanced telecommunications services to stimulate economic growth. The program has four phases; starting with a needs assessment and proceeding through collaboration, implementation to the final stage of economicacceleration Fairpoint with the support of PA WORKS! has been continuing this program with periodic workshops for key. community, business and governmental leaders. Unisys CorporatiomZ In May 2000, the Unisys Corporation announced that it had selected Port Angeles as the site for a feasibility study fora community portal to access the Internet. The project however, was dropped in November after Unisys announced the decision related to their study. The companycited a dispersed population base, lack, of infrastructure, and low levels of ;Internet use as the obstacles to the project, It is important to.note, however, that details on the study methods; data, and findings have not been released. Sappho 'Gap Project13 The Cities of Port Angeles and Forks have worked together- since.April of 2000 attempting to create a fiber loop through all of Clallam County.,7he Sappho Gap is the name assigned to .a missing section of infrastructure which would connect existing systems being installed by.CenturyTel on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula, with the Qwest infrastructure on the east side.'The project entails linking the CenturyTel and Qwest systems at a meet point between Joyce and Sappho. In September 2000, the Clallam County Economic Development Council submitted an application to the Washington State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) for Qwest Settlement Telecommunications Project Assistance grant funds for the Sappho Gap project. On April 19, 2001, the CERB Board -awarded grants to 5 projects, among which the top award of $1.7 million was made to the Sappho Gap Project. Wireless Communication Planning in Clallam Countyi4 In April 2001, the Clallam County Economic Development Council and Clallam County' PUD,: No. 1, authorized a study entitled "Wireless Communication Planning in Clallam County", a project to evaluate and design an optimum wireless voice and high-speed data communications infrastructure plan for'Clallam County: The study entails identification of existing service and of technology limits for various wireless providers and design of -'a plan for an "open access" platform for wireless communications facilities. "See footnote 4. 12See footnote 5. _ 13See footnote 5. 14Clallam-County Economic Development Council and Clallam County PUD -No. 1. "Wireless Communication Planning in Clallam County", study in progress by Hatfield and Dawson, April 12, 2001. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001. A. Introduction NoaNetts page 4 The Northwest Open Access Network (NoaNet) is a nonprofit corporation that has licensed fiber optic cables from the Bonneville Power Administration to build and operate a broadband network that serves public power electric utilities and their customers in the state of Washington and parts of Oregon. NoaNet is envisioned to be a broadband communications backbone between public utility districts (PUD's) and other entities, allowing access to network services by the PUD's and their customers as well as establishing a common broadband link to the Internet for use within their respective Districts. NoaNet's initial Washington network was put into operation in January 2001. Service providers are now being solicited. BPA began installing approximately 107 miles of fiber optic cable between its Olympia substation and its Port Angeles substation in March 2001 and is expected to complete most of its work by July 2001. NoaNet has indicated that its schedule follows closely thereafter, probably in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2001. NoaNet's Port Angeles area member is the Clallam County PUD No. 1. NoaNet represents an alternate way (to Qwest) off the peninsula for any Port Angeles telecommunications infrastructure. A map of the NoaNet Olympia to Port Angeles network route map is shown in Appendix 15. MISSION AND GOALS Based on the foregoing economic development background, the proposed mission of the City of Port Angeles Telecommunications Initiative is: To ensure delivery of broadband telecommunications products and services to Port Angeles in 2002, by enabling the development of the necessary telecommunications infrastructure. Broadband telecommunications services consist of the following: • High-speed transmission of data, voice, and video traffic, including broadband Internet access via DSL modems, cable modems, direct fiber connections, or wireless technologies. • Local area networking (LAN), and wide area networking (WAN) • Digital cable television City Goals The goals of the initiative are in support of the above mission statement. These goals include: • Plan, develop and enable an economically feasible infrastructure project. • Enable the largest number of homes and businesses to obtain broadband telecommunications in as rapid a time frame as feasible. • Foster competition in the delivery of products and services. • Prevent the development of excessive redundant infrastructure. COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT Any project that changes the telecommunications landscape will have impacts on the competitive dynamics of the industry. As a result, it is crucial to understand the current competitive situation of telecommunications infrastructure in the area prior to undertaking a project. In this way, the City of Port Angeles can better understand potential partners and competitors to any network developed. Off the Peninsula Any telecommunications network within Port Angeles and the surrounding area must connect to a line traveling off the Olympic Peninsula that connects on the other end to the major nationwide trunk lines crossing the country. At the current time, the only provider with a high capacity fiber optic line off the peninsula is Qwest, with a line that connects to a trunk line in Seattle. Access to this line can be provided from Qwest's central office in downtown Port Angeles. A competitive line is currently under '5htW://www.noanet.net/about.html. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 A. Introduction page 5 ' construction by BPA/Northwest Open Access Network (NoaNet) of which the Clallam County PUD is a member. BPA reports this line will be completed in late summer 2001 with a Point of Presence at the Port i' Angeles BPA substation. A third project is the previously described Sappho Gap project that provides the currently missing link to connect Port Angeles to Forks and on to major trunk lines near Olympia. All traffic carried by any future Port Angeles backbone will have to utilize one of these methods to carry ' traffic to and from the community. In addition, users requiring high levels of uninterrupted service may require redundancy beyond the existing Qwest trunk prior to locating their businesses in the area. Port Angeles Backbone . A backbone aggregates, carries, and distributes traffic coming into and leaving the city. The backbone connects to the trunk line off the peninsula and contains last -mile distribution cross connections. At the present time an integrated, open -access fiber optic backbone does not exist in Port Angeles. The current ' infrastructure is a patchwork of copper, coaxial cable, fiber-optic and wireless connections built by separate users in an attempt to provide bandwidth for their needs. The most substantial backbone section is a high capacity fiber optic ring between the Qwest central office and their largest customer, Olympic Medical Center. Northland Cable has a smaller amount of backbone fiber to carry their cable television traffic. It would be advantageous to design an integrated, open -access backbone that builds upon and connects to current available infrastructure, but execution would depend on partnerships between the builder and current owners of private infrastructure. Last Mile Beyond the new backbone, the last mile connection to the end-user presents the greatest challenge of all ' the segments of any new telecommunications infrastructure. Costly connections must be provided, one by one, to each home or business. The cost and the delayed time frames associated with providing fiber drops directly to the end-user has become the limiting factor in attempts elsewhere to provide community -wide fiber connections. As a result, the vast majority of other network projects have utilized DSL and cable modem technology to provide broadband data communications. These technologies utilize copper and coaxial connections already connected into the majority of homes and businesses. In Port Angeles, Qwest is the primary owner of the copper connections to the end-user that have traditionally carried only voice traffic. Northland Cable has coaxial connections providing cable television to approximately 60% of the homes in the City. Connecting a new fiber backbone to either of ' these last -mile infrastructure layouts will dramatically accelerate the adoption of broadband telecommunications to the community. Fiber optic connections can still be made available to users willing to pay a higher price for the increased bandwidth the fiber connection will allow. Olypen, a local Internet Service Provider, is currently providing wireless last mile connectivity to homes and businesses on a limited basis. The company has installed various antennas at key high points in the community. Olypen then provides a wireless data connection at broadband speeds up to 1 Mbps. A significant limitation of this service is the requirement for uninterrupted line -of -sight between the antenna and the home or business. 11 n METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 i1 B. Project Definition TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES VALUE CHAIN page 6 ' A representation of the telecommunications products and services value chain is presented in Figure 1 This figure provides an overview of the flow of products and services to the end-user and shows representative companies operating in each segment of the chain. An important aspect of the value chain is the distinction between providers of infrastructure, labeled in green, and the providers of products and services, shown in blue. Many private companies operate in only one distinct area of the chain. Others, such as Qwest operate across multiple areas. Products and Services Telecommunications products and services include software, content, and the ability to connect to the Internet using an Internet Service Provider (ISP). Specialized marketing and technology expertise is required to successfully compete in these marketplaces. Numerous private companies provide these products and services over installed telecommunications infrastructure. Infrastructure To reach the end-user, companies offering telecommunications products and services rely on owners of infrastructure to provide a pathway to the customer. These infrastructure companies can be split into two sub -groups: Infrastructure product companies that manufacture and provide fiber, copper and network equipment. • Organizations that ultimately provide and "light up' the copper or fiber wires that connect homes and businesses. These pathway providers operate in three segments: - Trunk carriers that carry telecommunications traffic between communities, regions, and nations; - Backbone carriers that carry traffic aggregated on a community or metropolitan level, and - "Last mile" providers that carry traffic in and out of individual homes and businesses. Municipal governments such as the City of Port Angeles have core competencies in enabling or providing infrastructure to the community, and have the ability to operate in the select regions of the value chain that exist within their jurisdiction. This opportunity includes the backbone and last mile infrastructure connections to the community. Role of the City The City should be open to any course of action that can meet the above mission and goals. As such it can play any role that will accomplish its goal, from being just a regulator and facilitator to infrastructure developer and builder. There are compelling reasons however, for the City to take an authoritative leadership role. As previously mentioned, the limiting factor in deploying broadband telecommunications is the capital expenditure necessary to build the infrastructure required as a first step. Due to the smaller market size of the Port Angeles area, private companies have been unwilling to spend the capital. On the other hand, private companies are also wary of municipalities building networks for fear of perceived "unfair" competition. The resulting situation is a stalemate with demand unsatisfied and "new age" economic development stalled. The City for the following reasons however, can effectively address both difficulties: • The backbone infrastructure falls within the city limits and the City has the authority to build it. • The City should be willing to bring capital, rights-of-way, poles and other assets to any development proposal. • The City has experience in providing infrastructure to the community and will do so if necessary. • The City however, should be committed to be an infrastructure enabler, not necessarily a builder, and not a service provider competitor. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 ' B. Project Definition C N 4) V N C A N V 7 'G O r CL E O as as Content Application Providers (e.g. Starwave, ESPN, Disney) Application Service Providers (e.g. Napster, Yahoo, MSN) Internet Service Providers (e.g. Qwest, Olypen, TenForward, Olympus.net) Voice Data Video Software Operating Systems Providers (e.g. Hewlett Packard) Telecommunications Network Equipment (e. g. Cisco, Nortel, Marconi, Alcatel) Transmission Media, Fiber/Copper Providers (e. g. Corning, Lucent, Fujikura) Trunk Carrier Backbone Provider "fast mile" Provider (e.g. AT&T, Sprint) (Partial/Limited only) (e.g. Qwest, Northland) Figure 1: Telecommunications Value Chain End User page 7 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 B. Project Definition page 8 The City should not provide telecom products and service. • The City should support, however, competition in the market and should be willing to be the service provider of last resort in the event competition does not evolve. • The City is in the planning stage and has not made any decisions but should be committed to enabling broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles in 2002. ■ The City should be open to any and all possible solutions for solving the limiting factor of broadband access. • Concurrent Cable Franchise Renewal and Institutional Network negotiations provide the City with excellent opportunities to form partnerships with private telecommunications providers to begin working toward a solution. Once the capital -intensive backbone infrastructure is in place, telecommunications service providers are typically eager to deliver their products and services over the network. Instead of having to make large capital investments, service providers can instead pay the infrastructure providers as they receive revenues from their customers (the end-users). Thus the limiting factor of the value chain can be overcome. In this typical scenario, the end-user becomes a customer of the product and service provider, and the product and service provider becomes the customer of the infrastructure provider. SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS As part of the business planning process, the City of Port Angeles and MCC collaborated on a web -based survey, conducted interviews with select organizations within the community and on March 30, 2001 held a Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop. Organizations were segmented into three groups: • End-users of products and services • Providers of products and services • Providers of infrastructure The results of the surveys and interviews were utilized in the analysis of the competitive dynamics of the telecommunications market in Port Angeles, and helped form the basis for assumptions in the business analysis of options available to the City. A copy of the Workshop report is given in Appendix 16. A list of the service providers and major users contacted as part of this analysis is given in Table 1. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 B. Project Definition page 9 Nu Wave Communications Ten Forward Communications Olypen Olympus.net Angeles Communications, Inc. Excel Utility Construction Clallam Co PUD No. 1 Northwest Open Access Network PA Prospective Large Users Clallam County Port of Port Angeles Port Angeles School District 121 ` Peninsula College Olympic Medical Center Heidi Dunfield Company Name Title Telephone Owner Manager 360-457-9023 360-457-9023 sheldon@tenforward.com Mike Breen Jared Emory Terry Kennedy Owner Broadband Design Engineer 800-962-8714' 800-962-8714 800-962-8714 - e-mail Ned Shenann Dave Meyer Service Providers 360-452-9277 ned@olympus.net davemeyer@olympus.net Boblensen 360-457-4375 emmaj@pcadmin.ctc:edu Northland Cable Television Pete Grigorieff Manager 360-452-8466 Pete@northlandtv.com Assistant General Manager 360-452-9771 x235 Northland Communications Corp. Michael W. Roberge Western Division Ops Mgr 206-621-1351 mroberge@northlandco.com Gary Smith Richard J. (lack) Dyste VP Technical Services 206-621-1351 Jack@northlandco.com ' Qwest Communications Jane Nishita Regional Manager 206-345-2316 jnishi@gwest.com Fairpoint Communications Daniel P. Fine Regional VP of Sales 704-414-2527 dfine@fairpoint.com Lynn Scherencel 360-417-9757 Ischerencel@fairpoint.com` John Utley jutley@fairpoint.com CenturyTel Tim Grigor Wa. General Manager 253-851-1345 Jill Comsa Account Manager jill.comsa@centurytel.com Ross Shenner Area Manager ' Tony Nicholson Area Manager tony.nicholson@centurytel.com Avista Communications Greg Greene President < 509-444-4900 Karen Moses General Manager, Yakima 509-853-4010 kmoses@avistacom.net New Edge Networks Sal Cinquegrani Exec. Dir. Community Relations 360-693-9009 Nu Wave Communications Ten Forward Communications Olypen Olympus.net Angeles Communications, Inc. Excel Utility Construction Clallam Co PUD No. 1 Northwest Open Access Network PA Prospective Large Users Clallam County Port of Port Angeles Port Angeles School District 121 ` Peninsula College Olympic Medical Center Heidi Dunfield SVP, Business Development 541-386-5000 daveh@portofpa.com Sheldon Koehler Darren Atkins Owner Manager 360-457-9023 360-457-9023 sheldon@tenforward.com Mike Breen Jared Emory Terry Kennedy Owner Broadband Design Engineer 800-962-8714' 800-962-8714 800-962-8714 - billing@olypen.com terry@olypencom Ned Shenann Dave Meyer Director of IS 360-452-9277 ned@olympus.net davemeyer@olympus.net Boblensen 360-457-4375 emmaj@pcadmin.ctc:edu Bill Roberds Sr. Network Administrator ' 360-452-1110 billwash@olypen.com Fred Mitchell Assistant General Manager 360-452-9771 x235 fredm@ciallampud,net Dave Spencer Chief Operating Officer 208-343-6477 dspencer@noanet.net Gary Smith grsmith@olympicmedical.org Daniel Gouin Central Services Department 360-417-2000 x2406 dgouin@co.dallam.wa us David H. Hagiwara Deputy Executive Director 360-417-3422 daveh@portofpa.com Bill lames bjames@potofpa.com Steve Baxter Supervisor of IS & Technology 360-457-8575 x33 steve_baxter@pasd.wednet.edu Ken Jacobson Director of IS 360-452-9277 kjacobso@ctc.edu Emma Janssen emmaj@pcadmin.ctc:edu Evan Boyd Sr. Network Administrator ' 360-417-7192 eboyd@olympicmedical.org Crag Haught Eric Jacobson Gary Smith grsmith@olympicmedical.org Virginia Mason Port Angeles Ida Brooks 360-457-2156 First Federal Savings & Loan Paula Johnson 360-457-0461 paula@ffpa.com Daishowa America Kathy Prince IS Supervisor 360-457-4474 kathy.prince@daishowaamerica.com Jason Mangano jason.mangano@daishowaamerica.com Table 1: Service Providers and Users Contacted METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1. B. Project Definition page 10 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES General The Power Engineers study presented a preliminary engineering evaluation of a City developed and City owned backbone project. The scope of work did not include a thorough consideration of other ownership or governance alternatives or financial feasibility analyses. The report16 did conclude that the City should implement only a transport network and that the City should: ... contract with one or more service providers, such as Olypen or Century Telephone, to provide services across the network. In considering the relative merits of any alternative the primary criteria is economic development potential. The major index of economic development potential is the number of ultimate end-users that can be immediately benefited. Other related criteria are network geographic coverage and capability. In summary, the best alternative is the network that will serve the most users, have the widest coverage, and offer the quickest and most capable service. In addition to the alternatives that will be discussed, the City is involved in three ongoing telecommunications initiatives. These are: • Cable Franchise renewal proceedings requested by Northland Cable. • Deployment of DSL service by Qwest and resellers. • The Sappho Gap project The City's involvement in these initiatives should continue actively and aggressively, concurrent with evaluation of the broadband network alternatives in this analysis. All avenues should be explored to develop the most favorable business proposition for the City to implement. Status Quo, Private Network Alternative Under this alternative, the City would not initiate any development, and provision of broadband telecommunications would be left to private companies to develop in accordance with their individual market strategies. Private companies, however, consider Port Angeles a smaller market that does not justify the capital expenditures necessary. This has been Qwest's position until February 19, 2001 when Qwest in an unexpected turn -around indicated to the City that it would furnish DSL service in Port Angeles, a move that may in part have been prompted by the City's active consideration of other alternatives to jointly provide broadband services. We view this to be a positive development. Under this alternative the City's activities would be limited to: • City accepts status quo, remains a customer of incumbent providers and is dependent on their plans. • City updating of its policies and regulations to comply with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, to level the playing field, and to ensure a competitive market in the area under its jurisdiction. This work has already been implemented17 by the City and is scheduled for completion in May 2001. • City makes available and manages its rights-of-way and telecommunications assets to providers on a non-discriminatory basis. In doing so, the City must be prepared for separate and duplicate systems, heavy use, damage, and repeated repair of its streets, poles and other assets. Under this alternative, the City has no leverage to determine the extent or timing of broadband telecommunications and significant, competitive services could be delayed for many years. This alternative will not meet the City's economic development goals and is a default approach, one already considered in related studies and found to be unacceptable. City Network Alternative A second alternative is City development of a broadband transport network. By developing such a network and making it available to all qualified service providers, the City integrates provider needs, 16Power Engineers, Inc., page 1. 17City of Port Angeles, "Telecommunications and Related Ordinances' Adoption Draft, March 26, 2001. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 1 J B. Project Definition page 11 eliminates duplicate networks and optimizes management of s limited rights-of-way and other ' telecommunications assets. This alternative also provides maximum protection for the public interest in contrast to a privately developed network where the owners would be inclined to "cherry pick" the most profitable customers and not provides citywide service. On the other hand, this alternative carries great risk, related to competition, competencies, and financing. If the network is to be wholly owned by the City, the City will also have to construct the distribution and last mile system to reach the ultimate end-users. Also, even though the City may only intend to provide the transport pathway, the project may be perceived as inappropriate use of public monies in ' competition for the customers of the incumbent private companies. If the City can assure the private providers that they, not their end-users, are the City's target customers, competencies and system standards then become an issue. Required system redundancy, dependability, ' network management, operation and maintenance will be at levels far beyond existing in-house City competencies. These challenges are not technically insurmountable but may well be financially unachievable. Public/Private Network Alternative The most attractive alternative available to the City of Port Angeles is for the City to take a leadership role in a public/private consortium network alternative. Ideally this consortium would have as ' members, one or both of the incumbent providers of existing last -mile infrastructure. By developing a backbone that connects to the last -mile infrastructure of these incumbent partners, the number of ultimate end-users immediately benefited increases dramatically beyond that in other alternatives. There are other advantages for considering such an alternative: • Close coupling of public/private partners allows the best matching of needed competencies with the proper resources and market focus. • The public interest is protected while risk is spread among a larger group of participants. • Financing risk can be balanced using both public and private, available financing opportunities. Making use of partners' last mile infrastructure through DSL and/or cable modems is a less capital - intensive first step that allows network costs to be managed incrementally and to grow with demand. Using a private partner's existing last mile infrastructure immediately enables widespread broadband service which may be adequate to meet demand, particularly among residential users for a long time. • At the same time, fiber drops can be offered concurrently to users needing higher bandwidths and willing to pay the cost of early deployment of new fiber optic last mile infrastructure. ■ Quick deployment of widespread broadband service will also enable the City to implement broadband utility applications much sooner, an imperative in the current electric utility market. Cable Television Infrastructure Upgrading ' The City of Port Angeles is currently in the formal franchise renewal process with Northland Cable for the Cable Television Franchise in Port Angeles. These negotiations provide the City with the opportunity to work together with Northland to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. Institutional Network ' At a minimum, should the City not proceed with a City owned network or if no partnerships can be achieved, the City still has the opportunity to obtain a governmental and educational institutional network through the cable franchise renewal. An institutional network will limit broadband service to non-commercial public, educational and governmental users but will allow dramatic cost -savings and ' efficiencies in their operation. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 B. Project Definition BUSINESS PROPOSITION Port Angeles Telecom page 12 The business proposition is the creation of a new business to provide broadband telecommunications products and services in the city of Port Angeles. The new business, for convenience hereafter referred to as Port Angeles Telecom (PA Telecom), would be developed, owned, and operated either by the City or a City led consortium as previously described. Physical Infrastructure The physical infrastructure itself will be a high speed, high capacity, citywide network, serving the proprietary communications needs of the City of Port Angeles and institutional, commercial and residential customers in the City. The initial phase of the infrastructure would consist of a fiber optic backbone and a hybrid fiber/copper distribution system. Later phases of the infrastructure development could bring upgrades of the distribution system to the ultimate state of an all -fiber network with fiber to the user. VALUE PROPOSITION The City's Competitive Advantages With the business proposition it is crucial for the City to clearly understand the value proposition it brings to any negotiation or business arrangement to enable broadband telecommunications. The City has a strong value proposition based upon the following competitive advantages: • The City's willingness to bring substantive capital to any project deemed feasible by business analyses. This is a crucial item that private companies have identified as the limiting factor to accelerated private build out of infrastructure. • Access to long term municipal financing, which is more favorable than private commercial financing. ■ Control of public rights of way, poles, and other telecommunications assets. ■ Experienced project management and prior experience in providing and managing utility infrastructure in Port Angeles. • Valuable competitive advantage in the City's solid customer relationships. • The ability to facilitate the navigation of governmental and regulatory issues relating to a project. • Skilled management and leadership ability in consortium building and partnerships. ■ Willingness to sell its share of any developed network once the project is complete and operations are stable. This is consistent with the City goal of enabling broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles and not becoming a competitor with private industry. Its strong value proposition should make the City an attractive partner in the eyes of private companies in an infrastructure development consortium. The City's Crucial Leadership Role The above advantages give the City a strong position to negotiate and to take the leadership role in any project for development of telecommunication infrastructure. It is crucial that the City take the lead if it is to achieve its goals, as private companies have understandably different goals based on profitability, not necessarily consistent with the City's economic development and public service goals. The City can further enhance its advantages by leveling the playing field to attract competition, by creating a favorable telecommunications environment, by preparing itself, and by developing community readiness. The City leadership is essential for these inter -related telecommunications and economic development activities to be successfully accomplished. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 1 i� C. Project Analyses page 13 CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS The criteria and assumptions used in the project analyses are listed below. The criteria are based on project materials gathered, design and cost data from MCC records and current industry and vendor sources. Conservative planning assumptions have been used, and where appropriate remain consistent across all analyses. The primary criteria and assumptions, based on a ten-year analysis period, are shown below: PROJECTS ANALYZED Project analyses were performed on four potential PA Telecom network projects. The first is an analysis of a City developed project, the other three are City led consortium projects. The four projects are: ' City Developed ■ Scenario 1, City Developed and Owned PA Telecom Network (also called City Backbone Project). This is a feasibility analysis of the Power Engineers proposal. The infrastructure layout is modified from the Power preliminary design to reflect changes based on a field inspection of the route and an ' immediate build -out of the backbone rather than a 4 phase build -out as proposed. City Led Consortium Developed • Scenario 2, Partnership with a Cable Provider, desirably Northland Cable, the incumbent cable TV provider and owner of coaxial last -mile infrastructure. ■ Scenario 3, Partnership with a Telco Provider, desirably Qwest, the incumbent local exchange carrier and owner of copper last -mile infrastructure. Century Telephone is another potential partner, having extensive operations on the Olympic Peninsula and infrastructure near but not in Port Angeles. • Scenario 4, Partnership with both a Cable and Telephony Provider. INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL PLAN The physical infrastructure itself will be a high speed, high capacity, citywide network, serving the ' proprietary communications needs of the City and institutional, commercial and residential customers throughout the city. The infrastructure will have a ring topology and will consist of a fiber backbone and hybrid fiber/ copper distribution system spreading out to reach all potential users. Backbone Layout • At this point, without specific information regarding the existing last mile infrastructures of the incumbent providers, a backbone layout based on the Power Engineers preliminary design, modified per a field survey by MCC/LMSI, has been prepared and is shown in Figure 2. • The backbone consists of 17 miles of 96 -strand fiber in a figure-eight ring configuration, with associated voice, data, and video, transport and customer interface equipment, located in 10 network nodes. ■ All network nodes are assumed to be located in existing City owned buildings or other properties. ■ A partnership with the cable and/or telephone provider will determine the customized layout to best incorporate the specific provider's last mile distribution infrastructure. It is expected that such a custom layout should result in a less extensive backbone. ■ To be conservative and for purposes of analysis, the more extensive backbone in Figure 2 has been assumed to be applicable for all scenarios. • A schematic of the backbone between 2 nodes is shown in Figure 3. Distribution Cabling • A city owned distribution system would ultimately consist of approximately 50 miles of last mile fiber and copper cabling reaching an estimated 3,535 customers in the 10 -year analysis period. The analyses assume that approximately 242 will be direct fiber and the balance copper connections. 1 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 D. Project Analyses page 14 1 • A single partner distribution system would consist of the last mile partner infrastructure integrated into the backbone through approximately 20 miles of distribution fiber connections and direct fiber drops. For analysis purposes, a single over -designed distribution system has been assumed without regard to type of potential partner. • A multiple partner distribution system would consist of all last mile partner infrastructures integrated into the backbone through approximately 36 miles of fiber connections and direct fiber drops. USERS AND GROWTH Basis of User Projections • User growth projections over the 10 -year analysis period were estimated for both a City developed network (Scenario 1) and a Consortium developed network (Scenarios 24). ■ For either City or Consortium development, user projections were made for home and business users by the categories of voice, data or cable television customers. • The projections incorporate the findings of the Enable Visions Tour community survey and reports, dated February 2001, but are deliberately set low to achieve conservative analyses. • In the Port Angeles exchange, Qwest's last mile telephone infrastructure and DMS100 switch18 in its Laurel Street Central Office, currently serve 15,463 residential and 6,454 business access lines. • Since the Port Angeles exchange extends beyond the city and since exact data from Qwest is proprietary and unavailable, the project market in the city for local telephone service has been conservatively estimated at only 60% of the total access lines served by Qwest's Laurel Street Switch. • At 60%, the 2001 available market for voice and data services is 9,278 residential lines (7,732 residences) and 3,873 business lines (1,107 business establishments). The difference between access lines and establishments is noted because construction costs are based on cabling drops (1 per establishment) whereas revenues are based on access lines. • The cable television market currently served by Northland Cable's19 last mile infrastructure is 10,653 homes passed. Since the 10,653 homes passed include areas outside the city, the telephone data have been extrapolated to get homes passed in the city. The cable television market in the city is therefore made up of 7,732 homes and 1,107 businesses, a total of 8,839 available connections. • Direct fiber customers are assumed to be equal across all scenarios, approximately 4% of the home/SOHO (small office, home office) connections and 30% of business connections. Table 2 summarizes the market opportunities and basis of user projections for each scenario. Development Scenario Home Users Business Users Total Users Voice Data Catv Voice Data Catv Voice Data CatV Descriptions lines connects connects lines connects connects lines connects I connects 2001 Market 9,278 7,732 7,732 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 Market penetration at yr 11, in % of yr 2001 market 1. City Project 17.0% 40.7% n/a 9.9% 34.8% n/a 14.9% 40.0% n/a 2. City/Cable 17.0% 43.4% 71.1% 9.9% 43.4% 54.7% 14.9% 43.4% 69.0% 3. City/Telco 100.0% 86.9% n/a 100.0% 86.9% n/a 100.0% 86.9% n/a 4. City/Both 100.0% 86.9% 71.1% 100.0% 86.9% 54.7% 100.0% 86.9% 69.0% Table 2: Basis of User Projections 18Qwest Communications interconnection Database, see Appendix 15. 19Data furnished by Mr. Pete Grigorieff, Manager, Northland Cable, 2/8/01. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 1 V F L C. Project Analyses page 16 Backbone Node A NoaNet or Other Backbone Node B Um Drop Fibers, typ. X Neiahboftod Dist. Backbone Node A Coverage Area X Neighborhood Dist. Fibers, typ. X -User Drop Fibers, typ. Backbone Node B Coverage Area Figure 3: Ring, Distribution and Fiber Connection Schematic METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 C. Project Analyses page 17 Scenario 1 City Network (City Backbone Project), User Projections • The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 1 City developed network is shown in Table 3 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual product categories. Scenario 1 Home Users Business Users Total Users City Voice Data Catv Voice Data Catv Voice Data Catv Infrastructure lines connects connects lines connects connects lines connects connects 2001 Market 9,278 7,732 7,732 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 Year 1 Year 150 300 0 100 100 0 250 400 0 Year 400 800 0 150 150 0 550 950 0 Year 4 650 1,300 0 195 195 0 845 1,495 0 Year 5 850 1,700 0 235 235 0 1,085 1,935 0 Year 6 1,050 2,100 0 270 270 0 1,320 2,370 0 Year 7 1,200 2,400 0 300 300 0 1,500 2,700 0 Year 1,350 2,700 0 325 325 0 1,675 3,025 0 Year 1,450 2,900 0 345 345 0 1,795 3,245 0 Year 10 1,525 1,575 3,050 3,150 0 0 365 385 365 385 0 0 1,890 3,415 0 Year 11 1,960 3,535 0 161000 8,839 127000 8,839 a $1000 O' 4000 l 4W Voice lines 1,960 0 all 4040 f Data Users 3,535 1 2 3 4 5 6 �'�► CATV Users 0 Projed Year $ 9 10 11 Table 3: City Network, Projected User Growth • Although the backbone can be built quickly, the 10 year build out of a City distribution infrastructure to reach all end-users limits the rate of user growth. This is a hindrance for providers, such as cable television companies, who want to immediately furnish citywide service. • In the City alternative, it has been assumed that cable television will be furnished by the incumbent provider using its own separate network and that the City network will not have any cable television users. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 C. Project Analyses page 18 ' • It is possible that another cable television company may be attracted to use the City network and be willing to invest in the required distribution and last mile system. This possibility however, is covered by and is a variation of Scenario 2, the City/ Cable Partner consortium scenario. • The network's voice customers will be competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC) to whom citywide coverage by infrastructure will not necessarily be a critical factor. This is because CLEC's primarily target businesses, which will be reached in the early build -out stages of the distribution system. • Qwest has a competitive advantage as the incumbent and it has been assumed that a CLEC using the City network to compete against Qwest will gain only 15% of the total voice market and 40% of the total data market by year 11. The voice market assumptions are deliberately conservative in view of the fact that this scenario has the highest risk for the City, as described on page 11. Scenario 2 City/Cable Consortium Network, Projected User Growth • The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 2 City/ Cable developed network is shown in Table 4 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual product categories. Scenario 2 Home Users Business Users Total Users Consortium Voice Data Catv Voice Data Catv Voice Data Caty City/Cable lines connects connects lines connects connects lines connects connects 2001 Market 9,278 7,732 7,732 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 Year 1 Year 2 150 2,165 5,026 100 310 554 250 2,475 5,579 Year 3 400 2,273 5,076 150 325 559 550 2,599 5,635 Year 4 650 2,387 5,127 195 342 565 845 2,729 5,691 Year 5 850 2,506 5,178 235 359 570 1,085 2,865 5,748 Year 6 1,050 2,632 5,230 270 377 576 1,320 3,008 5,806 Year 7 1,200 2,763 5,282 300 396 582 1,500 3,159 5,864 Year 8 1,350 2,901 5,335 325 415 588 1,675 3,317 5,923 Year 9 1,450 3,046 5,388 345 436 593 1,795 3,482 5,982 Year 10 1,525 1,575 3,199 3,359 5,442 5,497 365 385 458 481 599 605 1,890 3,657 1 6,042 Year 11 1,960 3,839 1 6,102 161000 r 8,839 12,000 I 8,838 C 8,000 O' 4,000 0 77 Voice Lines 1,960 IData Users 3,839 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 CATV Users 6,102 Project Year 7 8 9 1011 Table 4: City/Cable Network, Projected User Growth METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 1 C. Project Analyses page 19 ■ For Scenario 2, the incumbent's 5,579 cable television customers will be brought on board immediately. • Using only a 1 % annual increase, the cable television customers will grow to 6,102 users by year 11, a 69% penetration of the 2001 available market of 8,839 homes and businesses passed in the city. • Qwest will still be the incumbent competitor for voice and data services. The market penetration for voice has therefore been assumed to be the same as for Scenario 1, approximately 15%. • Because the network will have access to all the cable television customers, and because of the immediate availability of cable modem service, it has been assumed that the data market opportunity would be open to the most aggressive competitor. It has been conservatively assumed however, that the Scenario 2 network will get a little under half, or approximately 44% of the available customers. Scenario 3 City/Cable Consortium Network, Projected User Growth • The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 3 City/Telco developed network is shown in Table 5 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual product categories. Scenario 3 Home Users Business Users Total Users Consortium Voice Data Catv Voice Data Catv Voice Data Catv City/Telco lines connects connects lines connects connects lines connects connects 2001 Market 9,278 7,732 7,732 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 Year 1 Year 2 9,278 4,330 0 3,873 620 0 13,151 4,950 0 Year 3 9,324 4,546 0 3,892 651 0 13,217 5,197 0 Year 4 9,418 4,774 0 3,931 683 0 13,349 5,457 0 Year 5 9,512 5,012 0 3,971 718 0 13,482 5,730 0 Year 6 9,607 5,263 0 4,010 754 0 13,617 6,017 0 Year 7 9,703 5,526 0 4,050 791 0 13,753 6,317 0 Year 8 9,800 5,803 0 4,091 831 0 13,891 6,633 0 Year 9,898 6,093 0 4,132 872 0 14,030 6,965 0 Year 10 9,997 10,097 6,397 6,717 0 0 4,173 4,215 916 962 0 0 14,170 7,313 0 Year 11 14,312 7,679 0 51 16,000 co 'r 8,839839 8,39 12,000 Z I+ e 8'000 Voice lines 14,312p4,000 Data Users 7,679 0 w +Mw 1 2 .3 4 CAN Users 0 5 6 7 Project Year $ 9 10 11 Table 5: City/Telco Network, Projected User Growth METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 C. Project Analyses page 20 • In Scenario 3, it has been assumed as in Scenario 1 that cable television will be furnished by the incumbent provider using its own separate network and that the network will not have any cable television users. Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco Consortium Network, Projected User Growth • The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco developed network is shown in Table 6 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual product categories. Scenario 4 Home Users Business Users Total Users Consortium Voice DataCatv Voice Data Catv Voice Data Catv City/Both lines connects connects lines connects connects lines connects connects 2001 Market 9,278 7,732 7,732 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 Year 1 Year 2 9,278 4,330 5,026 3,873 620 554 13,151 4,950 5,579 Year 3 9,324 4,546 5,076 3,892 651 559 13,217 5,197 5,635 Year 9,418 4,774 5,127 3,931 683 565 13,349 5,457 5,691 Year 5 9,512 5,012 5,178 3,971 718 570 13,482 5,730 5,748 Year 6 9,607 5,263 5,230 4,010 754 576 13,617 6,017 5,806 Year 7 9,703 5,526 5,282 4,050 791 582 13,753 6,317 5,864 Year 8 9,800 5,803 5,335 4,091 831 588 13,891 6,633 5,923 Year 9 9,898 6,093 5,388 4,132 872 593 14,030 6,965 5,982 Year 10 9,997 10,097 6,397 6,717 5,442 5,497 4,173 4,215 916 962 599 605 14,170 7,313 6,042 Year 11 14,312 7,679 6,102 16,000 12,000 8,000 R 3 a 4,000 0 1 2 34 5 6 Project Year $ 9 loll ` ' I Voice Lines 14,312 Data Users 7,679 .. I7 CATV Users 6,102 Table 6: City/Cable/Telephone Network, Projected User Growth • In this scenario, the network serves both incumbents and their existing customers and the current market penetrations for all product categories have therefore been assumed. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS $/1/2001 C. Project Analyses PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Summary of Cost Estimates A summary of the annual costs for each of the four scenarios is presented below in Table 7 and its accompanying chart. Detailed cost estimates for each Scenario are given in Appendices 2-5. page 21 Alternative Project Scenario Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Annual Cost, $million Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Total $m 1. City project 3.63 1.42 1.38 0.91 0.85 0.70 0.63 0.48 0.36 0.26 0.06 10.70 2. City/cable partner 4.98 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 5.32 3. City/telco partner 4.84 0.25 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.01 5.83 4. City/both partners 5.62 0.31 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.01 6.84 6 0 5, of 4 N vz "4'W 4,R *'' 4. City/both partners 4r 1 4s 3. City/telco partner a 0 Z. City/cable partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 t. City project Project Year $ g 10 11 Table 7: Summary of Annual Costs for Alternative Project Scenarios Project Capital Costs • Total project construction costs (TPCC) are broken down into backbone infrastructure, distribution system costs. And indirect costs. • Backbone Infrastructure is further categorized into backbone fiber and backbone electronics. It has been assumed that the entire fiber backbone including all 10 nodes will be constructed in year 1, and that node electronics will be staged to match customer demand and requests for service. • Backbone costs differ between the scenarios, the most expensive being Scenario 1, because of the greater quantity of node electronics needed to interface with end users than in the other scenarios. • The Scenario 1 distribution system will be staged to meet demand over the 10 year analysis period and will consist of direct fiber drops to approximately 250 business and SOHO users, the balance of the distribution system will be copper. I METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 C. Project Analyses page 22 • Again, the Scenario 1 distribution system cost is the highest reflecting the construction of a new distribution system versus the integration of one or more existing distribution systems. • Indirect costs are assumed to be 25% of total project costs and cover legal and administrative, engineering, fieldwork, and financing costs. Annual Operation and Maintenance Expenses • Annual operation and maintenance expenses have been grouped into the following categories: - General operating expenses covering staff salaries, office space, equipment, etc., estimated at 12% of gross revenues. - System upgrades/ replacements at 5% of cumulative backbone costs beginning in year 4, at which point all of the original warranties for equipment are assumed to have expired. - Network management at 10% of gross revenues. - Network maintenance at 3% of cumulative capital costs. REVENUE ESTIMATES Summary of Revenue Estimates A summary of the revenue estimates for each of the four scenarios is presented below in Table 8 and its accompanying chart. Detailed revenue estimates for each scenario are given in Appendices 6-9. Alternative Project Scenario Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Annual Revenue, $million Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Total $m 1. City project 0.41 0.65 0.84 0.96 1.11 1.19 1.31 1.35 1.40 1.43 10.65 2. City/cable partner 1.08 0.95 1.07 1.17 1.26 1.34 1.42 1.49 1.55 1.61 12.94 3. City/telco partner 4.07 3.64 3.70 3.76 3.83 3.90 3.97 4.05 4.13 4.21 39.26 4. City/both partners 4.84 4.41 4.48 4.55 4.63 4.71 4.78 4.87 4.95 5.04 47.26 a 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Projed Year 7 8 g 10 tt City/both partners elco partner tner Table 8: Summary of Annual Revenues for Alternative Project Scenarios METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 C. Project Analyses Basis for Revenue Estimates page 23 • A fundamental basis is that PA Telecom, regardless of scenario, will be a transport network, whose customers will not be individual end users in the city, but rather the service providers such as telephone or cable television companies serving the ultimate end users. • All four scenarios represent a basic initial network consisting of a core fiber backbone and a first stage, upgradeable distribution system. • The first stage distribution system will support digital service line (DSL) transport over copper at up to 12 megabits per second (mbps) and cable modem transport over coaxial cable at up to 30 mbps. • Such transport capabilities over the copper and/or coaxial cable distribution system sections may prove to be adequate for residences and even smaller businesses for many years and are an economical step to begin broadband connectivity in the community. ■ The direct fiber connections (4% of residential and 30% of business) are an example of what an ultimate all -fiber network would be like. Transport capacities are no longer limited by transmission media but by the capability of system electronics, currently capable of multiple gigabit per second (1000 mbps) transport. • Revenue estimates for direct fiber connections are based on individual and multiple T-1 (1.5 mbps) transport. This is deliberately conservative as large direct fiber users will be paying for T-3 (45 mbps), OC -3 (155 mbps) and even faster transport, the revenue for which is not included in the analyses. Revenue Sources • PA Telecom will offer service providers access to end users via the network, and charge the providers a "transport fee" based on gross revenue generated. • Reports filed by service providers at the WUTC, indicate their costs to provide service fall into the following three general categories: - Network operations (customer service, billing, engineering, equipment, etc.) - Content or programming, and - The transport system (the network) ■ The records show that the last category, transport costs, range from 38¢ to 45C per revenue dollar. PA Telecom's transport fee to providers has been set at 30% of the provider's retail charge to the end-user. Using cable television as an example, the cable company will charge the individual home user $39 per month (Ultra Basic Package 5) and PA Telecoms revenue would in turn, be $11.70 per month. • Where a partner's last mile infrastructure is used (Scenarios 2-4) PA Telecom's transport revenue is shared equally with the partner. In the cable television example, PA Telecom and the cable partner each receives $7.50, half of the transport fee collected. • Service providers will be asked to pay a one-time connection charge for all new drops, whether fiber or copper, constructed by PA Telecom. It is assumed the providers will pass this charge on to their end user customers affected. • The one time connection charge will cover the cost of the drop and is: - $1,450 per direct fiber drop - $322 per copper drop • The City should stimulate the demand for direct fiber drops by providing incentives such as a low cost financing program to cover the incremental difference between the copper and fiber drops. This will rapidly increase the number of high bandwidth end-users. • Unit prices used for revenue calculations are based on available records of tariffs and provider charges for delivering voice, data, cable television services and expectations of future market prices. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 C. Project Analyses FEASIBILITY ANALYSES Financing Options page 24 For feasibility analysis purposes, and consistent with City participation in the project scenarios, the yardstick of municipal financing, that is, the ability to meet bond issuance requirements, has been used to measure feasibility. Financing options available depend on the alternative chosen for development of the proposed project. Besides participant cash contributions, various means of public and/or private financing are available. The analyses assume the latter option, that the project will be 100% financed. • A City sponsored project would have recourse to public funding sources such as municipal bond issues, supported by revenue (revenue bonds) or taxes (general obligation bonds). Revenue bonds would be the preferred financing method for a City sponsored project. • A City/private partnership alternative can combine features of both public and private financing sources. Care must be observed regarding lending of credit by the City and other legal constraints, but at this time preliminary investigations20 indicate funding can be arranged. The City's participation in any of the PA Telecom development scenarios will be through its Public Works and Utilities Department. For simplicity, the analyses herein assume the issuance of electric utility revenue bonds, even though the eventual financing may take another form21, especially in Scenarios 2-4, where private partners are involved. Basis of Feasibility Analyses The feasibility analysis of the PA Telecom project is based on the following items: • Electric utility revenue bonds backed by strong financial commitments could reasonably be expected to receive an investment grade rating and an average interest rate for these bonds would be in the range of 8.0% to 10% depending on the strength of the contracts with key customers. • An 8% rate is used for Scenario 1 and 10% for Scenarios 2-4. • The State of Washington recognizes a 7 -year life cycle for equipment, a much shorter period than the life cycle of optical fiber. The equipment life cycle is shorter, not because of physical deterioration but because of obsolescence and improved new technology. The term of the financing therefore has been set at 10 years, a reasonable overall assumption. • City electric utility revenue bonds will require coverage of net user revenue to annual debt requirements of at least 1.3 times the debt service requirements. • Revenue bonds will require a debt service reserve fund (DSRF). The required amount in the DSRF is generally the lesser of: - 10% of the par amount of the bonds - 100% of maximum annual debt service, or - 125% of average annual debt service. • The DSRF is used to pay for debt service in the event that net revenues in any one year are insufficient to pay debt service. • The par value of the revenue bonds required, calculated in the feasibility analyses for each scenario (Appendices 10-13), are: - Scenario 1 City project, $10.26m - Scenario 2 City/cable partner project, $5.Om - Scenario 3 City/telco partner project, $4.9m - Scenario 4 City/cable/telco partners project, $5.7m 20MCC private communication with City Financial Consultant, Steve Gaidos, Gaidos Consulting, 4/3/01 21ibid METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 1 C. Project Analyses page 25 Project Feasibility Project Feasibility, expressed as debt coverage (net revenue/ annual debt service) and annual cash balances, is summarized in Table 9, shown with its accompanying charts on the next page. Detailed feasibility calculations for each scenario are given in Appendices 10-13. Alternative Project Scenario $m Financing Int % Yrs Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Debt Coverage Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 1. City 10.26 8.0% 10 n/a 3.61 2.91 2.49 2.02 1.71 1.45 1.33 1.30 1.34 1.54 2. City/Cable 5.00 10.0% 10 n/a 1.32 1.42 2.01 2.52 3.11 3.77 4.51 5.30 6.14 7.05 3. City/Telco 4.90 10.0% 10 n/a 3.75 6.56 8.91 10.85 12.61 14.22 15.69 17.05 18.30 19.60 4. City/Both 5.70 10.0% 10 n/a 3.83 6.78 9.26 11.32 13.18 14.87 16.42 17.83 19.13 20.47 Ending Cash Balance, Sm 1. City 10.26 8.0% 10 6.63 4.00 2.93 2.28 1.56 1.08 0.69 0.51 0.46 0.53 0.82 2. City/Cable 5.00 10.0% 10 0.02 0.16 0.36 0.87 1.32 1.83 2.41 3.04 3.73 4.46 - 5.26 3. City/Telco 4.90 10.0% 10 0.06 2.19 4.44 6.31 7.86 9.26 10.54 11.72 12.80 13.80 14.83 4. City/Both 5.70 10.0% 10 0.08 2.62 5.36 7.66 9.57 11.30 12.87 14.30 15.61 16.82 18.06 25 k I � 20 3.13 A 15 3.75 v 10 4 4. City/Both (S5.71n 10916 10 yr) 3.61 "�` �" �y +�. C 5 , I I ` +I 3. City/Telco ($4.9m 1076 10 yr) 0 l 1 2. City/Cable ($5.Om 10916 10 yr) 2�. 3 4 5 6 0 1. City ($10.3m 8% 10 yr) 7 Project Year $ 9 10 11 1 25 14.83 20 R o 15 4. City/Both ($5.7m 10% 10 yr) o4 '£ 10 • s * 5.26 3. City/Telco ($4.9m 10% 10 yr) :y V5.5 1 77 au 0 2. City/Cable ($5.0m 10% 10 yr) 9 Z o.82 3 4 56 1. City ($10.3m 8% 10 yr) � Project Year 8 910 11 Table 9: Summary of Project Feasibility METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 D. Findings and Discussion ANALYSIS FINDINGS Existing Hindrances to Broadband Telecommunications in Port Angeles page 26 1 ■ The capital expenditures necessary to develop telecommunications infrastructure are the largest limiting factor hindering broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles. • Private providers of telecommunications infrastructure are currently unwilling to make the capital expenditures necessary to provide broadband telecommunications infrastructure to the whole city. • The cost of last -mile connections to each individual home and business is the largest expense in the deployment of broadband telecommunications infrastructure. City Commitment and Opportunities to Enable Broadband Telecommunications • The City of Port Angeles has established an economic development goal that includes evaluation of the feasibility and cost/benefits of enabling broadband telecommunications in the city. ■ The City's commitment to enable broadband telecommunications is tied to a Community Telecommunications Action Plan and schedule approved by Council on October 17, 2000. • The primary measure of economic development success is the number of ultimate end-users that can be immediately benefited. • Economic development success is the most compelling reason to partner with owners of existing infrastructure to reach the greatest number of Port Angeles residents and businesses. • Concurrent cable franchise renewal and institutional network negotiations provide the City with an excellent immediate opportunity to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. • Infrastructure development opportunities, however, are not limited to the immediate opportunity, and four project scenarios, the original Power Engineers City Backbone project and three additional consortium scenarios, have been investigated for consideration by the City: Original City Backbone Project - Scenario 1: City developed and owned project Additional Consortium Projects - Scenario 2: City/ Cable provider partnership (immediate) - Scenario 3: City/Telephone provider partnership - Scenario 4: City/Cable/Telephone consortium • All four scenarios are based on construction of a new fiber optic backbone ring. Scenario 1 includes a new fiber/ copper distribution system. In Scenarios 2-4, the fiber backbone is connected to existing distribution networks of last -mile infrastructure to reach the homes and businesses in Port Angeles. Financial Analyses and Findings • The financial analyses of the options show that all four scenarios are feasible. ■ All three consortium projects (Scenarios 2-4) however, are superior to the original City stand-alone project (Scenario 1) in meeting the City's economic development goals, as well as providing cost savings, greater returns and mitigation of risk. • Over the analysis period of 10 years, the total capital cost of the City project (Scenario 1) is the highest at $10.70 million. • For the consortium projects, total capital costs range from a low of $5.32m for Scenario 2, $5.83m for Scenario 3 to a high of $6.84m for Scenario 4. These costs are detailed in Table 7. • All four scenarios would require financing to bridge an initial shortfall in available funds during project construction. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 D. Findings and Discussion page 27 • The financing required, based on a 10 year repayment period and interest as shown is: - Scenario 1: City developed and owned project $10.26 million (8% interest) - Scenario 2: City/Cable provider partnership $5.0 million (10%) - Scenario 3: City/Telephone provider partnership $4.9 million (10%) - Scenario 4: City/Cable/Telephone consortium $5.7 million (10%) • Revenues from the project consist of one-time connection charges, and a transport charge calculated as a percentage of provider product and service revenues. ■ Over the analysis period of 10 years, the total revenues of the City project (Scenario 1) are the lowest at $10.65 million. • For the consortium projects, total revenues range from a low of $12.94m for Scenario 2, $39.26m for Scenario 3 to a high of $47.26m for Scenario 4. These revenues are detailed in Table 8. ■ Feasibility for the projects is measured by the requirements for municipal revenue bond financing, that is by debt coverage and annual ending cash balances. • Debt coverage for the City project (Scenario 1) is the weakest, not exceeding 1.3 until year 9. Debt coverage in the initial 8 years is artificially maintained above 1.3 by the large front end financing required in year 1 to supplement the inadequate revenues. ■ Debt coverages for the consortium projects are very strong, ranging from 1.32 to 7.05 for Scenario 2, from 3.75 to 19.6 for Scenario 3 and from 3.83 to 20.47 for Scenario 4. These figures are detailed in Table 9. • Ending balances for the City project (Scenario 1) are the weakest, not showing profitability until year 9. Positive ending balances in the initial 8 years are artificially maintained by the large front end financing required in year 1 to supplement the inadequate revenues. ■ Ending balances for the consortium projects are very strong, showing profitability immediately and increasing annually to $5.26m for Scenario 2, to $14.83m for Scenario 3 and $18.06m for Scenario 4 in year 10. Conclusions The findings above indicate that any of the consortium projects will meet the City's goals, be superior and easier to implement than a standalone City developed and owned infrastructure project. The findings also indicate the City has a good existing opportunity to develop broadband infrastructure through the current cable franchising renewal. At the minimum, the opportunity can yield a limited non- commercial institutional network. A City developed network, although feasible, is therefore the last choice that the City should consider. DISCUSSION Strategic Direction Based on the findings of this report, a strategic direction is recommended, and is shown graphically in Figure 4. The chart indicates that the City should proceed with Scenario 2 (City/ Cable partner) and aggressively negotiate with Northland Cable to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. Concurrently, the City should also proceed with work on Scenarios 3 and 4 for the following reasons: • The City should keep developing all available options. The concurrent negotiations will also maintain a competitive atmosphere that will be an incentive to Northland as well as other prospective partners. ■ Although the parties are currently very cooperative, there is no guarantee that the Scenario 2 negotiations with Northland will achieve the schedule or all the results desired by the City. Proceeding concurrently with other consortium negotiations will provide the City with ready alternate options and protect the critical schedule. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 D. Findings and Discussion page 28 • One example of the need to keep developing all the City's options is the City's ongoing discussions with CenturyTel, a stakeholder in the Sappho Gap project, previously described on page 3 of this report. The project received state grant funding on April 19 2001, as a result of which, CenturyTel has become an even more significant potential partner for the City. The opportunity to develop the City's relationship with CenturyTel should be grasped now and should not be delayed. • Lining up a potential CLEC partner such as CenturyTel is consistent with the "quick strike' strategy embedded in all scenarios. The strategy is to build high bandwidth fiber drops to City, educational and other public institutional users as well as major commercial users in the first years of any scenario. This enhances the ability for a CLEC such as CenturyTel to offer competitive services early on to public and business users, their targeted market. Recommended Strategic Direction Pilot Project Pilot Definition Design Specs Pilot Design Design Review Build Pilot Test Pilot Integrate Pilot Into Network CATV Franchise Renewal Public Proceeding Future Needs & Interests Report city Negotiations Draft CATV Franchise Scenario 2 Negotiations Cable Operator Proposal Informal/Formal Negotiations Needs &Interests Request for Broadband Capability yes Adoption of Proposal Reasonably Met? Franchise Ordinance No Stop Other Negotiations Other Scenario (3 and 4) Negotiations Consortium Partner Development Consortium Partner Solicitation Consortium Consortium Building Consortium Consortium Proposals Agreements Planning Structure and Evaluate Responses Negotiations Organization Polity and Determine Strategic Execute Agreements Planning Relationships Begin Consortium.. Functional Operations Recommend Partners Operations No City Development (Scenario 1) Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Implementation Figure 4: Recommended Strategic Direction Should the negotiations with Northland under Scenario 2 be successful, the concurrent other consortium negotiations could be terminated, although as a practical matter, they will probably continue, transitioning Scenario 2 into Scenario 4. If none of the partner or consortium scenarios is successful, the City still has the option of proceeding by itself under Scenario 1. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 D. Findings and Discussion page 29 Work and Operations Planning Framework The framework for a work plan for negotiation of the cable television franchise and development of a consortium project, covering four major task areas, arranged by type of work and anticipated timing is given in Table 10. Table 10: PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS $/11/2001 A. Strategic Direction 1. Accept Business Plan Analyses Council UAC, City Council 2. Approve Recommendations Council UAC, City Council 3. Continue Negotiations w/Northland 9/30 PW&U outsource as req'd 4. Continue Developing Provider Relationships City staff outsource as req'd B. Consortium Planning j 1. Structure and Organization I City staff outsource as req'd 2. Policy and Planning City staff outsource as req'd 3. Functional Operations I City staff outsource as req'd a. Management & Administration City staff outsource as req'd b. Financial and Accounting City staff outsource as req'd c. Legal and Regulatory City staff outsource as req'd d. Technical Services City staff outsource as req'd e. Construction and Maintenance I City staff outsource as req'd f. Product Development City staff outsource as req'd g. Marketing City staff outsource as req'd h. Customer Relations City staff outsource as req'd A. Consortium Partner Solicitation 1. Prepare Consortium RFP PW&U outsource as req'd 2. Issue Consortium RFP PW&U outsource as req'd 3. Evaluate RFP Responses City staff outsource as req'd 4. Determine Strategic Relationships City staff outsource as req'd 5. Select Partners for Consortium Negotiations City staff outsource as req'd B. Consortium Building 1. Develop Consortium Agreements City staff outsource as req'd a. Define Member Roles City staff outsource as req'd b. Specify Product/Services Areas City staff outsource as req'd c Set Pricing Schedules City staff outsource as req'd d. Financing Commitments i City staff outsource as req'd e. Timeline Agreements I I City staff outsource as req'd 2. Negotiate Agreements City staff outsource as req'd 3. Conclude Agreements City staff outsource as req'd 4. Establish Consortium City staff outsource as req'd 5. Begin Operations ' i City staff outsource as req'd Notes: CMgr -- Consortium Manager (City of Port Angeles) PW&U Public Works and Utilities CM ---- Consortium Member UAC -- Utility Advisory Committee Table 10: PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS $/11/2001 D. Findings and Discussion page 30 Task Item Timeline Suggested Resouftes A. Consortium Operations 1 1. Operations Setup 1 X , CMgr outsource as req'd 2. Network Planning X I CMgr CM or outsource a. System Standards and Specs X CMgr CM or outsource b. Comprehensive Plan i X ! CMgr CM or outsource c Prepare Capital Construction Programi X CMgr CM or outsource d. Prepare Operating Budget X CMgr CM or outsource 3. Project Design l X X : CMgr CM or outsource A. Transmission Infrastructure i X f CMgr CM or outsource b. Network Equipment X ! CMgr CM or outsource . 4. Project Financing X CMgr CM or outsource a. Review for Financing Constraints CMgr CM or outsource b. Opinion on Proposed Financing CMgr CM or outsource c. Complete Project Financing CMgr CM or outsource d. Sources &Amounts of Owner Capital CMgr CM or outsource 5. Customer Development CMgr CM or outsource a. Solicit Prospective Customers CMgr CM or outsource b. Sign-up Key Customers I CMgr c. Execute Service Contracts CMgr 6. Project Construction CMgr a: Solicit Bids CMgr outsource as req'd; b. Construction Contract Awards CMgr outsource as req'd c. Construct Backbone Facilities > CMgr Contractor, CM d. Construct Network Operating Center X > i CMgr Contractor, CM e. Construct Backbone Nodes X > CMgr Contractor; CM f. Construct Distribution Facilities > > CMgr Contractor, CM g. Procure and Install Equipment {Mgr Contractor, CM h. End to End System Tests ( CMgr Contractor, CM (.Operator Training CMgr Contractor, CM j. Project Acceptance CMgr 7. Begin Network Operations CMgr Notes: CMgr -- Consortium Manager (City of Port Angeles) PW&U Public Works and Utilities CM ---- Consortium Member UAC -- Utility Advisory Committee Table 10: PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework (continued) Ongoing City Telecommunications Initiatives Beyond initial development of the project and on an ongoing basis, the City can make Port Angeles attractive to both telecommunications users and providers. This should be done regardless of what decisions the City might make regarding infrastructure development. City action, such as leveling the playing field to attract competition, creating a favorable telecommunications environment and developing community readiness, will enable the City and the Port Angeles community to take full advantage of whatever infrastructure is eventually realized. The City has already taken action on several of these items and may consider collaborating with interested community and economic development organizations and groups to pool resources and efforts in pursuing these objectives. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 ' METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 E. Recommendations page 31 RECOMMENDATIONS ' The following recommendations are made for consideration and action by the City of Port Angeles: Administrative and Procedural • The City should review this report and analyses and satisfy itself that it concurs with the findings and recommendations proposed. ■ The City should invite selected community representatives to assist it in reviewing the report. • The City should request the City Utility Advisory Committee to review and recommend City Council acceptance of this study. Y . ■ The City should assign responsibility for implementing individual work plan tasks to qualified and ' appropriate parties. Preliminary assignment suggestions are shown in Table 10. Policy and Strategic Direction ' • Proceed with a telecommunications network consortium project. ■ The City of Port Angeles should take a strong, pro-active leadership role in developing and managing the consortium. • The infrastructure project should plan to connect the majority of end users through private partner last-mile infrastructure but concurrently offer the option of direct fiber drops to larger customers needing more bandwidth and willing to pay for the required fiber drop. tcost ■ The City should stimulate the demand for direct fiber drops by providing incentives such as a low financing program to cover the incremental difference between the copper and fiber drops. This should rapidly increase the number of high bandwidth end-users. • The City should focus on attracting Qwest, Olypen, other owners of infrastructure, and telecommunication service providers to a City led infrastructure development consortium. • In dealing with prospective partners, the City should provide incentives and determine how it might build their markets to make their participation in a consortium more attractive and justifiable. ■ The City should undertake development of a project on its own project only as a last choice, in the event no others will step forward or loin it in the project development. ' ■ At a minimum, should unforeseen difficulties arise with development of the broadband infrastructure, the City should strive to obtain an institutional network for non-commercial public use. Broadband Infrastructure through Cable Television Franchise Renewal • The City should use the opportunity provided by the current cable franchise renewal proceedings and aggressively negotiate with Northland Cable to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. ' Consortium Implementation ■ The City should keep developing all available options by concurrently proceeding with work on Scenarios 3 and 4. • The concurrent negotiations will maintain a competitive atmosphere that will be an incentive to Northland as well as other prospective partners. I • The City should formalize the consortium building process to implement time frame goals. • Prepare and distribute a Request for Partners (RFP) document to private telecommunications companies. A sample table of contents for an RFP is given in Appendix 15. ■ The RFP process should run in parallel and in close coordination with the Cable Franchise renewal ' process currently underway. • Delay the engineering design phase of the project, awarded to MCC, until the consortium is finalized. • Begin planning for the capital budgeting process. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 The Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Business Planning Analyses Appendices May 1, 2001 This document contains proprietary materials furnished by MCC to the City for internal use and is not intended for distribution Prepared for �l City of Port Angeles P.O. Box 1150 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 _ METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS — CONSULTANTS Seattle: 5847 McKinley Pl. N., Seattle, Washington 98103 Tel: 206.522.6778 Fax: 206.522.6777 Tacoma: 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1702, Tacoma, Washington 98402 Tel: 253.272.1636 Fax: 253.272.1482 www.mcco.com Appendices PA TELECOM THE PORT ANGELES TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK BUSINESS PLANNING ANALYSES APPENDICES May 1, 2001 Appendices page 34 1. Project Feasibility Summary............................................................................... 35 2. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 1 City Project ................................................... 36 3. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 2 City/ Cable Partner ................................... 37 4. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 3 City/Telco Partner ...................................... 38 5. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco Partners ...................... 39 6. Annual Revenues - City Project......................................................................... 40 7. Annual Revenues - City/ Cable Partner........................................................... 41 8. Annual Revenues - City/Telco Partner............................................................ 42 9. Annual Revenues - City/Cable/Telco Partners .............................................. 43 10. Project Feasibility - City Project......................................................................... 44 11. Project Feasibility - City/Cable Partner............................................................ 45 12. Project Feasibility - City/Telco Partner............................................................ 46 13. Project Feasibility - City/Cable/Telco Partners .............................................. 47 14. Qwest Port Angeles Laurel Street Central Office Switch Data ...................... 48 15. NoaNet Route Map................................................................................................ 49 16. Sample Outline Request for Consortium Partner Proposals ............................ 50 17. Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop ..................................... 51 I METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices 35 Afternadw Stage 1 Stage 2 Financing Amount Financing Amount Stage 3 Buildout 10.0% 10 yrs Project Scenario Yr 1 Yr t 1 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Scenario 1 - City Project Cash 0 0 0 Financing Amount 10,260,000 8.07. 10 yrs Beginning Balance 10,260,000 6,628,267 5,524,897 4,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2,218,339 2,034,499 1,985,898 2,056,377 Cash n/a 1,548,047 1,605,650 Annual Funds Available 5,000,000 1,103,412 1,612,839 2,297,625 2,909,456 3,446,331 4,043,222 Gross Revenues n/a 406,216 649,089 840,530 962,536 1,113,476 1,194,982 1,305,423 1,346,429 1,396,590 1,434,260 Annual Funds Available 10,260,000 7,034,483 6,173,986 5,295,628 4,767,175 4,207,042 3,804,957 3,523,762 3,380,928 3,382,488 3,490,637 Annual Costs 3,631,733 1,509,587 1,718,887 1,490,989 1,673,609 1,597,068 1,586,617 1,489,263 1,395,030 1,326,111 1,139,117 Annual Net Revenue 6,628,267 5,524,897 4,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2,218,339 2,034,499 1,985,898 2,056,377 2,351,520 Debt Service 0 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 Ending Balance 6,628,267 3,995,854 2,926,056 2,275,597 1,564,524 1,080,932 689,297 505,456 456,855 527,334 822,478 Debt Coverage 3.61 2.91 2.49 2.02 1.71 1.45 1.33 1.30 1.34 1.54 Scenario 2 - City/table Partner Financing Amount Financing Amount 5,000,000 10.0% 10 yrs 9 yrs Beginning Balance 5,000,000 20,629 659,733 1,230,788 1,742,438 2,183,644 2,698,333 3,275,989 3,913,150 4,599,371 5,331,969 Cash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gross Revenues 0 1,082,783 953,106 1,066,838 1,167,018 1,262,687 1,344,889 1,422,668 1,487,071 1,548,047 1,605,650 Annual Funds Available 5,000,000 1,103,412 1,612,839 2,297,625 2,909,456 3,446,331 4,043,222 4,698,656 5,400,220 6,147,418 6,937,619 Annual Costs 4,979,371 443,679 382,051 555,187 725,812 747,999 767,233 785,507 800,849 815,449 812,888 Annual Net Revenue 20,629 659,733 1,230,788 1,742,438 2,183,644 2,698,333 3,275,989 3,913,150 4,599,371 5,331,969 6,124,731 Debt Service 0 500,000 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 Ending Balance 20,629 159,733 362,585 874,235 1,315,441 1,830,130 2,407,786 3,044,947 3,731,168 4,463,766 5,256,528 Debt Coverage 3.75 1.32 1.42 2.01 2.52 3.11 3.77 4.51 5.30 6.14 7.05 Scenario 3 - Pty/Telco Partner Financing Amount Fmanclng Amount 4,900,000 10.0010 10 yrs Beginning Balance 4,900,000 63,906 2,987,146 5,232,704 7,107,193 8,654,322 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 14,595,435 Cash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gross Revenues 0 4,069,917 3,635,555 3,699,105 3,764,649 3,832,277 3,902,080 3,974,156 4,048,605 4,125,533 4,205,053 Annual Funds Available 4,900,000 4,133,824 6,622,701 8,931,809 10,871,842 12,486,599 13,961,562 15,315,107 16,563,475 17,721,030 18,800,489 Annual Costs 4,836,094 1,146,678 1,389,997 1,824,616 2,217,520 2,427,118 2,620,611 2,800,236 2,967,978 3,125,595 3,170,230 Annual Net Revenue 63,906 2,987,146 5,232,704 7,107,193 8,654,322 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 14,595,435 15,630,259 Debt Service 0 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 Ending Balance 63,906 2,189,693 4,435,252 6,309,740 7,856,869 9,262,029 10,543,499 11,717,418 12,798,045 13,797,983 14,832,806 Debt Coverage 3.83 3.75 6.568.91 11.32 10.85 12.61 14.22 15.69 17.05 18.30 19.60 Scenario 4 - City/both partners consortium Financing Amount 5,700,000 10.070 10 yrs Beginning Balance 5,700,000 84,778 3,550,749 6,289,434 8,588,302 10,498,937 12,227,819 13,797,952 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 Cash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gross Revenues 0 4,837,629 4,410,319 4,480,960 4,553,634 4,628,429 4,705,434 4,784,745 4,866,463 4,950,691 5,037,539 Annual Funds Available 5,700,000 4,922,407 7,961,068 10,770,394 13,141,936 15,127,366 16,933,253 18,582,697 20,096,091 21,491,449 22,784,691 Annual Costs 5,615,222 1,371,658 1,671,634 2,182,093 2,642,999 2,899,547 3,135,301 3,353,068 3,555,333 3,744,297 3,792,159 Annual Net Revenue 84,778 3,550,749 6,289,434 8,588,302 10,498,937 12,227,819 13,797,952 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 18,992,532 Debt Service 0 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 Ending Balance 1 84,778 2,623,101 1 5,361,785 7,660,653 9,571,289 11,300,170 12,870,303 14,301,980 15,613,110 16,819,504 18,064,883 Debt Coverage 1 3.83 1 6.78 9.26 11.32 13.18 14.87 16.42 17.83 19.13 20.47 Appendix 1: Project Feasibility Summary METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices page 36 Scenario 1 - City Project Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout Connection Description Connections Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Home/SOHO 3,150 0 300 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 150 100 Business 385 0 100 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 20 20 Totals, annual 3,535 0 400 550 545 440 435 330 325 220 170 120 Totals cumulative 3,535 1 0 400 1 950 1,495 1,935 2,370 2,700 3,025 3,245 3,415 3,535 Cost Estimate Total Amt Year t Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11. 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 44,900 44,900 96 fiber 517,248 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist CrossConnect 720,000 720,000 Splicing, backbone 124,800 124,800 Subtotal 1a, Fiber Backbone $1,871,248 $1,871,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node 850,000 255,000 340,000 255,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BB Node Expansion 1,472,917 0 166,667 229,167 227,083 183,333 181,250 137,500 135,417 91,667 70,833 50,000 Dist CrossConnect 480,000 54,314 74,682 74,003 59,745 59,066 44,809 44,130 29,873 23,083 16,294 0 Equip Accessories 54,670 7,360 8,300 8,130 6,640 6,470 4,980 4,810 3,320 2,660 2,000 0 Network Management 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spares, HQ Equip 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1b, Backbone Equip. $3,157,587 $616,674 $589,648 $566,299 $293,469 $248,870 $231,039 $186,440 $168,609 $117,410 $89,128 $50,000 Total 1 Backbone Infrastructure $5,028,835 $2,487,922 $589,648 $566,299 $293,469 $248,870 $231,039 $186,440 $168,609 $117,410 $89,128 $50,000 2. Distribution System Route preparation 265,125 30,000, 41,250 40,875 33,000 32,625 24,750 24,375 16,500 12,750 9,000 0 6fiber drop 43,470 7,560 6,300 6,030 5,040 4,770 3,780 3,510 2,520 2,160 1,800 0 Fiber Installation 253,575 44,100 36,750 35,175 29,400 27,825 22,050 20,475 14,700 12,600 10,500 0 Fiber splicing 31,395 5,460 4,550 4,355 3,640 3,445 2,730 2,535 1,820 1,560 1,300 0 Copper drop 104,733 11,384 16,377 16,266 13,102 12,990 9,826 9,715 6,551 5,024 3,498 0 Copper Installation 691,635 75,180 108,150 107,415 86,520 85,785 64,890 64,155 43,260 33,180 23,100 0 Equip Accessories 21,735 3,780 3,150 3,015 2,520 2,385 1,890 1,755 1,260 1,080 900 0 Premise equipment 2,121,000 240,000 330,000 327,000 264,000 261,000 198,000 195,000 132,000 102,000 72,000 0 Total 2 Distribution System $3,532,668 $417,464 $546,527 $540,131 $437,222 $430,825 $327,916 $321,520 $218,611 $170,354 $122,098 $0 3. Total, Project Const. Costs (TPCC) $8,561,503 $2,905,386 $1,136,175 $1,106,430 $730,690 $679,695 $558,955 $507,960 $387,220 $287,765 $211,226 $50,000 Indirect Costs $2,140,376 $726,347 $284,044 $276,608 $182,673 $169,924 $139,739 $126,990 $96,805 $71,941 $52,806 $12,500 4. Total Project Costs TPC) $10,701,879 $3,631,733 $1,420,219 $1,383,038 $913,363 $849,619 $698,694 $634,950 $484,025 $359,706 $264,032 $62,500 Appendix 2: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 1 City Project METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices page 37 Scenario 2 - City/cable partner Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage $ Buildout Connection Descri tion Connections Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Home/SOHO 5,497 0 5,026 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 Business 605 0 554 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Totals, annual 6,102 0 5,579 56 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 Totals cumulative 6,102 0 5,579 5,635 5,691 1 5,748 5,806 5,864 5,923 5,982 6,042 6,102 Cost Estimate Total Amt Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year t 1 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 44,900 44,900 96 fiber 517,248 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist CrossConnect 540,000 540,000 Splicing, backbone 124,800 124,800 Subtotal 1a, Fiber Backbone $1,691,248 $1,691,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node 850,000 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BB Node Expansion 167,280 0 152,951 1,530 1,545 1,560 1,576 1,592 1,608 1,624 1,640 1,656 Dist CrossConnect 360,000 329,162 3,292 3,325 3,358 3,391 3,425 3,460 3,494 3,529 3,564 0 Equip Accessories 36,132 33,037 330 334 337 340 344 347 351 354 358 0 Network Management 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spares, HQ Equip 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1b, Backbone Equip. $1,713,413 $1,512,200 $156,573 $5,188 $5,240 $5,292 $5,345 $5,398 $5,452 $5,507 $5,562 $1,656 Total t Backbone Infrastructure $3,404,661 $3,203,448 $156,573 $5,188 $5,240 $5,292 $5,345 $5,398 $5,452 $5,507 $5,562 $1,656 2. Distribution System Route preparation 30,110 27,531 275 278 281 284 286 289 292 295 298 0 6 fiber drop 72,265 66,075 661 667 674 681 688 694 701 708 715 0 Fiber Installation 421,546 385,436 3,854 3,893 3,932 3,971 4,011 4,051 4,091 4,132 4,174 0 Fiber splicing 52,191 47,721 477 482 487 492 497 502 507 512 517 0 Copper drop Copper Installation Equip Accessories 36,132 33,037 330 334 337 340 344 347 351 354 358 0 Premise equipment 240,883 220,249 2,202 2,225 2,247 2,269 2,292 2,315 2,338 2,361 2,385 0 Total 2 Distribution System $853,128 $780,049 $7,800 $7,878 $7,957 $8,037 $8,117 $8,198 $8,280 $8,363 $8,447 $0 3. Total, Project Const. Costs (TPCC) $4,257,789 $3,983,497 $164,373 $13,066 $13,197 $13,329 $13,462 $13,597 $13,733 $13,870 $14,009 $1,656 Indirect Costs $1,064,447 $995,874 $41,093 $3,267 $3,299 $3,332 $3,366 $3,399 $3,433 $3,468 $3,502 $414 4. Total Project Costs (TPC) $5,322,236 $4,979,371 $205,467 $16,333 $16,496 $16,661 $16,828 $16,996 $17,166 $17,338 $17,511 $2,070 Appendix 3: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 2 City/Cable Partner METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices page 38 Scenario 3 - City/ telco partner Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout Connection Description Connections Year i Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Home/SOHO 6,717 0 4,330 216 227 239 251 263 276 290 305 320 Business 962 0 620 31 33 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Totals, annual 7,679 0 4,950 247 260 273 287 301 316 332 348 366 Totals cumulative 1 7,679 1 0 4,950 1 5,197 5,457 5,730 .6,017 6,317 6,633 6,965 7,313 7,679 Cost Estimate Total Amt Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 44,900 44,900 96 fiber 517,248 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist CrossConnect 540,000 540,000 Splicing, backbone 124,800 124,800 Subtotal 1a, Fiber Backbone $1,691,248 $1,691,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node 850,000 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BB Node Expansion 232,165 0 149,655 7,483 7,857 8,250 8,662 9,095 9,550 10,028 10,529 11,055 Dist CrossConnect 360,000 232,059 11,603 12,183 12,792 13,432 14,103 14,809 15,549 16,327 17,143 0 Equip Accessories 50,148 32,326 1,616 1,697 1,782 1,871 1,965 2,063 2,166 2,274 2,388 0 Network Management 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spares, HQ Equip 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal ib, Backbone Equip. $1,792,312 $1,414,385 $162,875 $21,363 $22,431 $23,553 $24,730 $25,967 $27,265 $28,628 $30,060 $11,055 Total 1 Backbone Infrastructure $3,483,560 $3,105,633 $162,875 $21,363 $22,431 $23,553 $24,730 $25,967 $27,265 $28,628 $30,060 $11,055 2. Distribution System Route preparation 41,790 26,938 1,347 1,414 1,485 1,559 1,637 1,719 1,805 1,895 1,990 0 6 fiber drop 100,295 64,651 3,233 3,394 3,564 3,742 3,929 4,126 4,332 4,549 4,776 0 Fiber Installation 585,055 377,131 18,857 19,799 20,789 21,829 22,920 24,066 25,270 26,533 27,860 0 Fiber splicing 72,435 46,692 2,335 2,451 2,574 2,703 2,838 2,980 3,129 3,285 3,449 0 Copper drop Copper Installation Equip Accessories 50,148 32,326 1,616 1,697 1,782 1,871 1,965 2,063 2,166 2,274 2,388 0 Premise equipment 334,317 215,504 10,775 11,314 11,880 12,474 13,097 13,752 14,440 15,162 15,920 0 Total 2 Distribution System $1,184,039 $763,242 $38,162 $40,070 $42,074 $44,177 $46,386 $48,706 $51,141 $53,698 $56,383 $0 3. Total, Project Const. Costs (TPCC) $4,667,599 $3,868,875 $201,037 $61,433 $64,505 $67,730 $71,117 $74,672 $78,406 $82,326 $86,443 $11,055 Indirect Costs $1,166,900 $967,219 $50,259 $15,358 $16,126 $16,933 $17,779 $18,668 $19,602 $20,582 $21,611 $2,764 4. Total Project Costs (TPC) $5,834,499 $4,836,094 $251,296 $76,791 $80,631 $84,663 $88,896 $93,341 $98,008 $102,908 $108,053 $13;819 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Appendix 4: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 3 City/Telco Partner Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 M M = M = = M M Appendices page 39 Scenario 4 - City/cable/telco Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout Connection Description Connections Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year f 1 Home/SOHO 7,314 0 4,833 227 237 249 261 274 287 301 315 331 Business 1,163 0 804 33 34 36 38 40 41 43 46 48 Totals, annual 8,477 0 5,637 259 272 285 299 313 328 344 361 379 Totals cumulative 8,477 1 0 5,637 1 5,896 6,168 1 6,453 6,752 7,065 7,394 7,738 8,099 8,477 Cost Estimate Total Amt Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 4 Year f O Year f 1 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 44,900 44,900 96 fiber 517,248 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist CrossConnect 720,000 720,000 Splicing, backbone 124,800 124,800 Subtotal 1a, Fiber Backbone $1,871,248 $1,871,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node 850,000 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BB Node Expansion 267,333 0 181,094 7,881 8,259 8,656 9,072 9,510 9,969 10,450 10,956 11,487 Dist CrossConnect 480,000 319,170 14,687 15,394 16,137 16,916 17,734 18,593 19,494 20,440 21,434 0 Equip Accessories 57,744 39,116 1,702 1,784 1,870 1,960 2,054 2,153 2,257 2,366 2,481 0 Network Management 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spares, HQ Equip 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1b, Backbone Equip. $1,955,077 $1,508,287 $197,483 $25,059 $26,266 $27,532 $28,861 $30,256 $31,720 $33,257 $34,870 $11,487 Total i Backbone Infrastructure $3,826,325 $3,379,535 $197,483 1 $25,059 $26,266 $27,532 $28,861 $30,256 $31,720 $33,257 $34,870 $11,487 Z. Distribution System Route preparation 64,160 43,463 1,891 1,982 2,077 2,177 2,282 2,392 2,508 2,629 2,757 0 6 fiber drop 153,984 104,310 4,539 4,757 4,986 5,226 5,478 5,742 6,019 6,311 6,616 0 Fiber Installation 898,240 608,476 26,480 27,750 29,084 30,483 31,952 33,494 35,113 36,812 38,595 0 Fiber splicing 83,408 56,501 2,459 2,577 2,701 2,831 2,967 3,110 3,260 3,418 3,584 0 Copper drop Copper Installation Equip Accessories 57,744 39,116 1,702 1,784 1,870 1,960 2,054 2,153 2,257 2,366 2,481 0 Premise equipment 384,960 260,776 11,349 11,893 12,465 13,064 13,694 14,355 15,048 15,776 16,541 0 Total 2 Distribution System $1,642,497 $1,112,643 $48,420 $50,744 $53,182 $55,741 $58,427 $61,247 $64,206 $67,313 $70,574 $0 3. Total, Project Const. Costs (TPCC) $5,468,822 $4,492,177 $245,904 $75,803 $79,447 $83,273 $87,288 $91,503 $95,927 $100,570 $105,444 $11,487 Indirect Costs $1,367,206 $1,123,044 $61,476 $18,951 $19,862 $20,818 $21,822 $22,876 $23,982 $25,143 $26,361 $2,872 4. Total Project Costs (TPC) $618361028 $5,615,222 $307,380 $94,753 $99,309 $104,091 $109,110 $114,378 $119,908 $125,713 $131,805 $14,358 Appendix 5: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco Partners METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices Scenario 1 - City Project Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout End -User Description Total Users Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year t 1 Voice - Home/SOHO Users 1,575 150 400 650 850 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,450 1,525 1,575 Voice - Business Users 385 100 150 195 235 270 300 325 345 365 385 Data - Home/SOHO Users 3,150 300 800 1,300 1,700 2,100 2,400 2,700 2,900 3,050 3,150 Data - Business Users 385 100 150 195 235 270 300 325 345 365 385 Catv - Home Users n/a Catv - Business Users n/a Project Revenue Total S Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO, 4% fiber 182,700 17,400 29,000 29,000 23,200 23,200 17,400 17,400 11,600 8,700 5,800 Nome/SOHO, 96% copper 973,123 92,678 154,464 154,464 123,571 123,571 92,678 92,678 61,786 46,339 30,893 Business, 30% fiber 167,475 43,500 21,750 19,575 17,400 15,225 13,050 10,875 8,700 8,700 8,700 Business, 70% copper 86,725 22,526 11,263 10,137 9,010 7,884 6,758 5,632 4,505 4,505 4,505 Total 1 Connection Charges $1,410,023 $176,104 $216,477 $213,176 $173,182 $169,880 $129,886 $126,585 $86,591 $68,244 $49,898 2. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 734,400 10,800 28,800 46,800 61,200 75,600 86,400 97,200 104,400 109,800 113,400 Business 961,200 36,000 54,000 70,200 84,600 97,200 108,000 117,000 124,200 131,400 138,600 Subtotal 2a, Local Voice $1,695,600 $46,800 $82,800 $117,000 $145,800 $172,800 $194,400 $214,200 $228,600 $241,200 $252,000 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 1,101,600 16,200 43,200 70,200 91,800 113,400 129,600 145,800 156,600 164,700 170,100 Business 1,922,400 72,000 108,000 140,400 169,200 194,400 216,000 234,000 248,400 262,800 277,200 Subtotal 2b, Long Distance $3,024,000 $88,200 $151,200 $210,600 $261,000 $307,800 $345,600 $379,800 $405,000 $427,500 $447,300 Total 2, Voice $4,719,600 $135,000 1 $234,000 $327,600 $406,800 $480,600 $540,000 $594,000 $633,600 $668,700 $699,300 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity Home/SOHO, 4% 440,640 6,480 17,280 28,080 36,720 45,360 51,840 58,320 62,640 65,880 68,040 Business, 30% 720,900 27,000 40,500 52,650 63,450 72,900 81,000 87,750 93,150 98,550 103,950 Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $1,161,540 $33,480 $57,780 $80,730 $100,170 $118,260 $132,840 $146,070 $155,790 $164,430 $171,990 b. DSL Home/SOHO, 96% 2,820,096 41,472 110,592 179,712 235,008 290,304 331,776 373,248 400,896 421,632 435,456 Business, 70% 538,272 20,160 30,240 39,312 47,376 54,432 60,480 65,520 69,552 73,584 77,616 Subtotal 3b, DSL $3,358,368 $61,632 $140,832 $219,024 $282,384 $344,736 $392,256 $438,768 $470,448 $495,216 $513,072 Total 3, Data $4,519,908 $95,112 $198,612 $299,754 $382,554 $462,996 $525,096 $584,838 $626,238 $659,646 $685,062 4. Total Project Revenue TPR $10,649,531 $406,216 $649,089 $840,530 $962,536 $1,113,476 $1,194,982 $1,305,423 $1,346,429 $1,396,590 $1,434,260 Appendix 6: Annual Revenues - City Project METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS page 40 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 ■i M== i= M M M r M M== M r M M M Appendices page 41 Scenario 2 - City/cable partner Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout End -User Description Total User Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Voice - Home/SOHO Users 1,575 150 400 650 850 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,450 1,525 1,575 Voice - Business Users 385 100 150 195 235 270 300 325 345 365 385 Data - Home/SOHO Users 3,359 2,165 2,273 2,387 2,506 2,632 2,763 2,901 3,046 3,199 3,359 Data - Business User 481 310 1 325 342 359 377 396 415 436 458 481 Catv - Home Users 5,497 5026 5076 5127 5178 5230 5282 5335 5388 5442 5497 Catv- Business Users 605 554 1 559 565 570 576 582 588 593 599 605 Project Revenue Total $ Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO, 4% fiber 194,797 125,568 6,278 6,592 6,922 7,268 7,631 8,013 8,414 8,834 9,276 Business, 30% fiber 209,170 134,833 6,742 7,079 7,433 7,804 8,194 8,604 9,034 9,486 9,960 Total 1 Connection Charges $403,966 $260,400 $13,020 $13,671 1 $14,355 $15,072 $15,826 $16,617 $17,448 $18,320 $19,236 2. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 734,400 10,800 28,800 46,800 61,200 75,600 86,400 97,200 104,400 109,800 113,400 Business 961,200 36,000 54,000 70,200 84,600 97,200 108,000 117,000 124,200 131,400 138,600 Subtotal 2a, Local Voice $1,695,600 $46,800 $82,800 $117,000 $145,800 $172,800 $194,400 $214,200 $228,600 $241,200 $252,000 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 1,101,600 16,200 43,200 70,200 91,800 113,400 129,600 145,800 156,600 164,700 170,100 Business 1,922,400 72,000 108,000 140,400 169,200 194,400 216,000 234,000 248,400 262,800 277,200 Subtotal 2b, Long Distance $3,024,000 $88,200 $151,200 $210,600 $261,000 $307,800 $345,600 $379,800 $405,000 $427,500 $447,300 Total 2, Voice $4,719,600 $135,000 $234,000 $327,600 $406,800 $480,600 $540,000 $594,000 $633,600 $668,700 $699,300 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity Home/SOHO, 4% 588,182 46,763 49,101 51,556 54,134 56,841 59,683 62,667 65,800 69,090 72,545 Business, 30% 1,052,634 83,689 87,874 92,267 96,881 101,725 106,811 112,152 117,759 123,647 129,829 Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $1,640,815 $130,452 $136,975 $143,824 $151,015 $158,566 $166,494 $174,819 $183,560 $192,738 $202,374 b. Cable Modem Home/SOHO, 96% 1,882,181 149,642 157,124 164,980 173,229 181,891 190,985 200,535 210,561 221,089 232,144 Business, 70% 196,492 15,622 16,403 17,223 18,084 18,989 19,938 20,935 21,982 23,081 24,235 Subtotal 3b, Cable Modem $2,078,673 $165,264 $173,527 $182,204 $191,314 $200,879 $210,923 $221,470 $232,543 $244,170 $256,379 Total 3, Data $3,719,489 $295,716 $310,502 $326,027 $342,329 $359,445 $377,417 $396,288 $416,103 $436,908 $458,753 4. Video a. Cable TV Home/SOHO 3,691,185 352,811 356,339 359,903 363,502 367,137 370,808 374,516 378,261 382,044 385,864 Business 406,517 38,856 39,244 39,637 40,033 40,433 40,838 41,246 41,659 42,075 42,496 Total 4 Cable TV $4,097,702 $391,667 $395,584 $399,539 $403,535 $407,570 $411,646 $415,762 $419,920 $424,119 $428,360 S. Total Project Revenue (TPR) $12,940,757 $1,082,783 $953,106 $1,066,838 $1,167,018 $1,262,687 $1,344,889 $1,422,668 $1,487,071 $1,548,047 $1,605,650 Appendix 7: Annual Revenues - City/Cable Partner METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices page 42 Scenario 3 - City/telco partner Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout End -User Description Total Users Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year t t Voice - Home/SOHO Users 10,147 9,278 9,371 9,464 9,559 9,655 9,751 9,849 9,947 10,047 10,147 Voice - Business Users 4,236 3,873 3,912 3,951 3,990 4,030 4,071 4,111 4,152 4,194 4,236 Data - Home/SOHO Users 6,717 4,330 4,546 4,774 5,012 5,263 5,526 5,803 6,093 6,397 6,717 Data- Business Users 962 620 651 683 718 754 791 831 872 916 962 Catv - Home Users n/a Catv - Business Users n/a Project Revenue Total $ Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO, 4% fiber 389,593 251,135 12,557 13,185 13,844 14,536 15,263 16,026 16,827 17,669 18,552 Business, 30% fiber 418,339 269,665 13,483 14,157 14,865 15,609 16,389 17,208 18,069 18,972 19,921 Total 1 Connection Charges $807,933 $520,801 $26,040 $27,342 $28,709 $30,145 $31,652 $33,234 $34,896 $36,641 $38,473 2. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 3,494,463 334,008 337,348 340,722 344,129 347,570 351,046 354,556 358,102 361,683 365,300 Business 7,293,627 697,140 704,111 711,153 718,264 725,447 732,701 740,028 747,428 754,903 762,452 Subtotal 2a, Local Voice $10,788,090 $1,031,148 $1,041,459 $1,051,874 $1,062,393 $1,073,017 $1,083,747 $1,094,584 $1,105,530 $1,116,586 $1,127,751 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 5,241,694 501,012 506,022 511,082 516,193 521,355 526,569 531,834 537,153 542,524 547,949 Business 14,587,254 1,394,280 1,408,223 1,422,305 1,436,528 1,450,893 1,465,402 1,480,056 1,494,857 1,509,805 1,524,904 Subtotal 2b, Long Distance $19,828,948 $1,895,292 $1,914,245 $1,933,387 $1,952,721 $1,972,248 $1,991,971 $2,011,891 $2,032,010 $2,052,330 $2,072,853 Total 2, Voice $30,617,037 $2,926,440 $2,955,704 $2,985,261 $3,015,114 $3,045,265 $3,075,718 $3,106,475 $3,137,540 $3,168,915 $3,200,604 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity Home/SOHO, 4% 1,176,363 93,526 98,203 103,113 108,268 113,682 119,366 125,334 131,601 138,181 145,090 Business, 30% 2,105,268 167,378 175,747 184,535 193,761 203,449 213,622 224,303 235,518 247,294 259,659 Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $3,281,631 $260,905 $273,950 $287,647 $302,030 $317,131 $332,988 $349,637 $367,119 $385,475 $404,749 b. DSL Home/SOHO, 96% 3,764,363 299,284 314,248 329,961 346,459 363,782 381,971 401,069 421,123 442,179 464,288 Business, 70% 785,967 62,488 65,612 68,893 72,338 75,954 79,752 83,740 87,927 92,323 96,939 Subtotal 3b, DSL $4,550,329 $361,772 $379,861 $398,854 $418,796 $439,736 $461,723 $484,809 $509,050 $534,502 $561,227 Total 3, Data $7,831,960 $622,677 $653,811 $686,501 $720,826 $756,867 $794,711 $834,446 $876,169 $919,977 $965,976 4. Total Project Revenue (TPR) $39,256,930 $4,069,917 $3,635,555 $3,699,105 $3,764,649 $3,832,277 $3,902,080 $3,974,156 $4,048,605 $4,125,533 $4,205,053 Appendix 8: Annual Revenues - City/Telco Partner METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential $/1/2001 Appendices page 43 Scenario 4 . City/both partners Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout End -User Description Total Users Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Voice - Home/SOHO Users 10,147 9,278 9,371 9,464 9,559 9,655 9,751 9,849 9,947 10,047 10,147 Voice - Business Users 4,236 3,873 3,912 3,951 3,990 4,030 4,071 4,111 4,152 4,194 4,236 Data - Home/SOHO Users 6,717 4,330 4,546 4,774 5,012 5,263 5,526 5,803 6,093 6,397 6,717 Data - Business Users 962 620 651 683 718 754 791 831 872 916 962 Catv - Home Users 5,497 5026 5076 5127 5178 5230 5282 5335 5388 5442 5497 Catv- Business Users 605 554 559 565 570 576 582 588 593 599 605 Project Revenue Total $ Year Z Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 1 t 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO, 4% fiber 389,593 251,135 12,557 13,185 13,844 14,536 15,263 16,026 16,827 17,669 18,552 Business, 30% fiber 418,339 269,665 13,483 14,157 14,865 15,609 16,389 17,208 18,069 18,972 19,921 Total 1 Connection Char es $807,933 $520,801 $26,040 $27,342 $28,709 $30,145 $31,652 $33,234 $34,896 $36,641 $38,473 2. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 3,494,463 334,008 337,348 340,722 344,129 347,570 351,046 354,556 358,102 361,683 365,300 Business _ _7,293,627 697,140 704,111 718,264 725,447_ 732,701 740,0_28 747,428 754,903 762,452 $1,041,459 _711,1_53 $1,051,874 Subtotal Za, Local Voice $10,788,090 $1,031,148 $1,062,393 $1,073,017 $1,083,747 $1,094,584 $1,105,530 $1,116,586 $1,127,751 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 5,241,694 501,012 506,022 511,082 516,193 521,355 526,569 531,834 537,153 542,524 547,949 Business 14,587,254 1,394,280 1,408,223 1,422,305 1,436,528 1,450,893 1,465,402 1,480,056 1,494,857 1,509,805 1,524,904 Subtotal Zb, Long Distance $19,828,948 $1,895,292 $1,914,245 $1,933,387 $1,952,721 $1,972,248 $1,991,971 $2,011,891 $2,032,010 $2,052,330 $2,072,853 Total 2, Voice $30,617,037 $2,926,440 $2,955,704 $2,985,261 $3,015,114 $3,045,265 $3,075,718 $3,106,475 $3,137,540 $3,168,915 $3,200,604 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity Home/SOHO, 4% 1,176,363 93,526 98,203 103,113 108,268 113,682 119,366 125,334 131,601 138,181 145,090 Business, 30% 2,105,268 167,378 175,747 184,535 193,761 203,449 213,622 224,303 235,518 247,294 259,659 Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $3,281,631 $260,905 $273,950 $287,647 $302,030 $317,131 $332,988 $349,637 $367,119 $385,475 $404,749 c. Cable Modem Home/SOHO, 48% 1,882,181 149,642 157,124 164,980 173,229 181,891 190,985 200,535 210,561 221,089 232,144 Business, 35% 196,492 15,_622_ 16,403 17,223 18,084 18,989 19,938 20,935 21,982 23,081 24,235 Subtotal 3c, Cable Modem $2,078,673 $165,264 $173,527 $182,204 $191,314 $200,879 $210,923 $221,470 $232,543 $244,170 $256,379 Total 3, Data $7,635,469 $607,055 $637,407 $669,278 $702,742 $737,879 $774,773 $813,511 $854,187 $896,896 $941,741 4. Video a. Cable TV Home/SOHO 7,382,371 705,622 712,679 719,805 727,003 734,273 741,616 749,032 756,523 764,088 771,729 Business 813,033 77,711 78,489 79,273 80,066 80,867 81,675 82,492 83,317 84,150 84,992 Total 4 Cable TV $8,195,404 $783,334 $791,167 $799,079 $807,070 $815,140 $823,292 $831,525 $839,840 $848,238 $856,721 S. Total Project Revenue TPR $47,255,842 $4,837,6291 $4,410,319 $4,480,960 $4,553,634 $4,628,429 $4,705,434 $4,784,745 $4,866,463 $4,950,691 $5,037,539 Appendix 9: Annual Revenues - City/Cable/Telco Partners METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices page 44 Project Feasibility Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout Scenario 1 - City project Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Financing 10,250,000 Principal Balance 10,260,000 9,551,757 8,786,855 7,960,761 7,068,580 6,105,024 5,064,383 3,940,491 2,726,688 1,415,780 0 Interest 8.0% n/a 820,800 764,141 702,948 636,861 565,486 488,402 405,151 315,239 218,135 113,262 Principal Repayment 10 n/a 708,243 764,902 826,094 892,182 963,556 1,040,641 1,123,892 1,213,803 1,310,908 1,415,780 Annual Debt Service 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 Project Funds Available Beginning Balance 10,260,000 6,628,267 5,524,897 4,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2,218,339 2,034,499 1,985,898 2,056,377 Cash n/a Gross Revenues 10,649,531 n/a 406,216 649,089 840,530 962,536 1,113,476 1,194,982 1,305,423 1,346,429 1,396,590 1,434,260 Annual Funds Available 10,260,000 7,034,483 6,173,986 5,295,628 4,767,175 4,207,042 3,804,957 3,523,762 3,380,928 3,382,488 3,490,637 Project Funds Expended Incremental Capital Costs 3,109,903 737,061 707,874 366,836 311,087 288,799 233,050 210,762 146,763 111,409 62,500 Backbone Infrastructure 6,286,043 Cumulative Backbone Cost 3,109,903 3,846,963 4,554,837 4,921,673 5,232,761 5,521,559 5,754,610 5,965,371 6,112,134 6,223,543 6,286,043 Distribution System 4,415,835 521,831 683,159 675,163 546,527 538,532 409,895 401,900 273,264 212,943 152,623 0 Cumulative Distribution System Costs 521,831 1,204,989 1,880,153 2,426,680 2,965,211 3,375,107 3,777,006 4,050,270 4,263,213 4,415,835 4,415,835 Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs 10,701,879 3,631,733 1,420,219 1,383,038 913,363 849,619 698,694 634,950 484,025 359,706 264,032 62,500 Cumulative Capital Cost 1 3,631,733 5,051,952 r 6,434,990 7,348,353 8,197,972 8,896,666 9,531,616 10,015,641 10,375,347 10,639,379 10,701,879 Operation & Maintenance Expenses General Operations, % of gross revenues 12.0% n/a 48,746 77,891 100,864 115,504 133,617 143,398 156,651 161,571 167,591 172,111 Upgrades, % of cumul. backbone costs 7.0% n/a - - 172,259 366,293 386,509 402,823 417,576 427,849 435,648 440,023 Network Management, % of gross revenues 10.0% n/a 40,622 64,909 84,053 96,254 111,348 119,498 130,542 134,643 139,659 143,426 Network Maintenance, % of cumul.ca ital cost 3.0% n/a 193,050 220,451 245,939 266,900 285,948 300,469 311,260 319,181 321,056 Subtotal, Operation & Maintenance n/a 89,368 335,849 577,626 823,990 898,374 951,667 1,005,238 1,035,324 1,062,079 1,076,617 Total, Annual Costs 3,631,733 1,509,587 1 1,718,887 1,490,989 TI,673,609 1,597,068 1,586,617 1,489,263 1,395,030 1,326,111 1,139,117 Feasibility Annual Net Revenue 6,628,267 5,524,897F2,926,056 ,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2,218,339 2,034,499 1,985,898 2,056,377 2,351,520 Debt Service 0 1,529,043,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 Ending Balance after Debt Service 6,628,267 3,995,854 2,275,597 1,564,524 1,080,932 689,297 505,456 456,855 527,334 822,478 Annual Coverage Factor 3.61 2.91 2.49 2.02 1.71 1.45 1.33 1.30 1.34 1.54 Appendix 10: Project Feasibility - City Project METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices page 45 Project Feasibility Stage t Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout Scenario 2 - City/cable partner Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr B Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr t i Financing 5,000,000 Principal Balance 5,000,000 5,000,000 4,631,797 4,226,774 3,781,249 3,291,171 2,752,085 2,159,091 1,506,797 789,274 0 Interest 10.0% n/a 500,000 500,000 463,180 422,677 378,125 329,117 275,209 215,909 150,680 78,928 Principal Repayment 9 n/a 368,203 405,023 445,525 490,078 539,086 592,994 652,294 717,523 789,274 Annual Debt Service 500,000 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 Project Funds Available Beginning Balance 5,000,000 20,629 659,733 1,230,788 1,742,438 2,183,644 2,698,333 3,275,989 3,913,150 4,599,371 5,331,969 Cash 0 Gross Revenues 12,940,757 0 1,082,783 953,106 1,066,838 1,167,018 1,262,687 1,344,889 1,422,668 1,487,071 1,548,047 1,605,650 Annual Funds Available 5,000,000 1,103,412 1,612,839 2,297,625 2,909,456 3,446,331 4,043,222 4,698,656 5,400,220 6,147,418 6,937,619 Project Funds Expended Incremental Capital Costs Backbone Infrastructure 4,255,826 4,004,310 195,716 6,485 61550 6,615 6,681 6,748 6,815 6,884 6,952 2,070 Cumulative Backbone Cost 4,004,310 4,200,026 4,206,510 4,213,060 4,219,675 4,226,356 4,233,104 4,239,919 4,246,803 4,253,755 4,255,826 Distribution System 1,066,410 975;062 9,751 9,848 9,947 10,046 10,147 10,248 10,350 10,454 10,559 0 Cumulative Distribution System Costs 975,062 984,812 994,660 1,004,607 1,014,653 1,024,800 1,035,047 1,045,398 1,055,852 1,066,410 1,066,410 Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs 5,322,236 4,979,371 205,467 16,333 16,496 16,661 16,828 16,996 17,166 17,338 17,511 2,070 Cumulative Capital Cost 4,979,371 5,184,838 5,201,171 5,217,667 5,234,328 5,251,155 5,268,151 5,285,317 5,302,655 5,320,166 5,322,236 Operation 6 Maintenance Expenses General Operations, % of gross revenues 12.0% n/a 129,934 114,373 128,021 140,042 151,522 161,387 170,720 178,448 185,766 192,678 Upgrades, % of cumul. backbone costs 7.0% n/a - - 147,457 295,377 295,845 296,317 296,794 297,276 297,763 297,908 Network Management, % of gross revenues 10.0% n/a 108,278 95,311 106,684 116,702 126,269 134,489 142,267 148,707 154,805 160,565 Network Maintenance, % of cumul.ca ital cost 3.0% n/a - 156,035 156,530 157,030 157,535 158,045 158,560 159,080 159,605 159,667 Subtotal, Operation & Maintenance n/a 238,212 365,718 538,691 709,151 731,171 750,237 768,341 783,511 797,938 810,818 Total, Annual Costs 1 4,979,371 443,679 1 382,051 555,187 725,812 747,999 767,233 785,507 800,849 815,449 812,888 Feasibility Annual Net Revenue 20,629 659,733 1,230,788 1,742,438 2,183,644 2,698,333 3,275,989 3,913,150 4,599,371 5,331,969 6,124,731 Debt Service 0 500,000 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 Ending Balance after Debt Service 20,629 159,733 362,585 874,235 1,315,441 1,830,130 2,407,786 3,044,947 3,731,168 4,463,766 5,256,528 Annual Coverage Factor 1.32 1.42 2.01 2.52 3.11 3.77 4.51 5.30 6.14 7.05 Appendix 11: Project Feasibility - City/Cable Partner /METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/11/2001 Appendices page 46 Project Feasibility Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout Scenario 3 - City/telco partner Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Financing 4,900,000 Principal Balance 4,900,000 4,592,548 4,254,350 3,882,332 3,473,113 3,022,972 2,527,817 1,983,146 1,384,008 724,956 0 Interest 10.00/( n/a 490,000 459,255 425,435 388,233 347,311 302,297 252,782 198,315 138,401 72,497 Principal Repayment 10 n/a 307,452 338,198 372,018 409,219 450,141 495,155 544,671 599,138 659,052 724,956 Annual Debt Service 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 Project Funds Available 4,900,000 63,906 2,987,146 5,232,704 7,107,193 8,654,322 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 14,595,435 Beginning Balance Cash 0 Gross Revenues 39,256,930 0 4,069,917 3,635,555 3,699,105 3,764,649 3,832,277 3,902,080 3,974,156 4,048,605 4,125,533 4,205,053 Annual Funds Available 4,900,000 4,133,824 6,622,701 8,931,809 10,871,842 12,486,599 13,961,562 15,315,107 16,563,475 17,721,030 18,800,489 Project Funds Expended Incremental Capital Costs 3,882,041 203,593 26,704 28,039 29,441 30,913 32,459 34,081 35,786 37,575 13,819 Backbone Infrastructure 4,354,450 Cumulative Backbone Cost 3,882,041 4,085,634 4,112,338 4,140,377 4,169,818 4,200,730 4,233,189 4,267,270 4,303,056 4,340,631 4,354,450 Distribution System 1,480,049 954,053 47,703 50,088 52,592 55,222 57,983 60,882 63,926 67,122 70,479 0 Cumulative Distribution System Costs 954,053 1,001,755 1,051,843 1,104,435 1,159,657 1,217,640 1,278,522 1,342,448 1,409,570 1,480,049 1,480,049 Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs 5,834,499 4,836,094 251,296 76,791 80,631 84,663 88,896 93,341 98,008 102,908 108,053 13,819 Cumulative Capital Cost 1 4,836,094 5,087,390 1 5,164,181 5,244,812 5,329,475 5,418,370 5,511,711 5,609,718 5,712,626 5,820,680 5,834,499 Operation 6 Maintenance Expenses General Operations,% of gross revenues 12.0% n/a 488,390 794,724 1,071,817 1,304,621 1,498,392 1,675,387 1,837,813 1,987,617 2,126,524 2,256,059 Upgrades, % of cumul. backbone costs 7.0% n/a - - 144,913 291,887 294,051 296,323 298,709 301,214 303,844 304,812 Network Management, % of gross revenues 10.0% n/a 406,992 363,555 369,910 376,465 383,228 390,208 397,416 404,860 412,553 420,505 Network Maintenance, % of cumul.ca ital cost 3.0% n/a 154,925 157,344 159,884 162,551 165,351 168,292 171,379 174,620 175,035 Subtotal, Operation & Maintenance n/a 895,382 1,313,205 1,743,985 2,132,857 2,338,222 2,527,270 2,702,229 2,865,070 3,017,541 3,156,410 Total, Annual Costs 4,836,094 1,146,678 1 1,389,997 1,824,616 L 2,217,520 2,427,118 2,620,611 2,800,236 2,967,978 3,125,595 3,170,230 Feasibility Annual Net Revenue 63,906 2,987,146 1 5,232,704 7,107,193 8,654,322 _ 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 14,595,435 15,630,259 Debt Service 0 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 Ending Balance after Debt Service 63,906 2,189,693 4,435,252 6,309,740 7,856,869 9,262,029 10,543,499 11,717,418 12,798,045 13,797,983 14,832,806 Annual Coverage Factor 3.75 6.56 8.91 10.85 12.61 14.22 15.69 17.05 18.30 19.60 Appendix 12: Project Feasibility - City/Telco Partner METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices Project Feasibility Scenario 4 - City/cable & telco partners Financing 5,700,000 Principal Balance Interest 10.0% Principal Repayment 10 Annual Debt Service Project Funds Available Beginning Balance Cash Gross Revenues 47,255,842 Annual Funds Available Project Funds Expended Incremental Capital Costs page 47 Stage 1 Stage Z Stage 3 Buildout Tr 1 Tr Z Tr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Tr 7 Tr 8 Yr 9 Tr 10 Tr 11 5,700,000 5,342,351 4,948,938 4,516,183 4,040,152 3,516,518 2,940,521 2,306,925 1,609,968 843,316 0 n/a 570,000 534,235 494,894 451,618 404,015 351,652 294,052 230,692 160,997 84,333 n/a 357,649 393,414 1 432,755 476,031 523,634 575,997 633,597 696,956 766,652 843,316 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 5,700,000 84,778 3,550,749 6,289,434 8,588,302 10,498,937 12,227,819 13,797,952 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 0 0 4,837,629 4,410,319 4,480,960 4,553,634 4,628,429 4,705,434 4,784,745 4,866,463 4,950,691 5,037,539 5,700,000 4,922,407 7,961,068 10,770,394 13,141,936 15,127,366 16,933,253 18,582,697 20,096,091 21,491,449 22,784,691 Backbone Infrastructure 4,782,907 4,224,418 246,854 31,324 32,832 34,415 36,076 37,820 39,650 41,571 43,588 14,358 Cumulative Backbone Cost 4,224,418 4,471,273 4,502,597 4,535,429 4,569,843 4,605,919 4,643,739 4,683,389 4,724,961 4,768,549 4,782,907 Distribution System 2,053,121 1,390,803 60,525 63,429 66,477 69,676 73,034 76,559 80,258 84,141 88,217 0 Cumulative Distribution S stem Costs 12.0% 1,390,803 1,451,329 1,514,758 1 581 235 1 650 912 1 723 946 1 800 505 1 880 763 1 964 904 2053 121 2053 121 Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs 6,836,028 5,615,222 307,380 94,753 99,309 104,091 109,110 114,378 119,908 125,713 131,805 14,358 Cumulative Capital Cost 5,615,222 5,922,601 6,017,355 6,116,664 6,220,755 6,329,865 6,444,244 6,564,152 6,689,865 6,821,670 6,836,028 Operation & Maintenance Expenses General Operations,% of gross revenues 12.0% - 580,515 955,328 1,292,447 1,577,032 1,815,284 2,031,990 2,229,924 2,411,531 2,578,974 2,734,163 Upgrades, % of cumul. backbone costs 7.0% - - 158,740 319,889 322,414 325,062 327,837 330,747 333,798 334,803 Network Management, % of gross revenues 10.0% 483,763 441,032 448,096 455,363 462,843 470,543 478,475 486,646 495,069 503,754 Network Maintenance, % of cumul.ca ital cost 3.0% - - 180,521 183,500 186,623 189,896 193,327 196,925 200,696 204,650 205,081 Subtotal, Operation & Maintenance 0 1,064,278 1,576,881 2,082,783 2,538,907 2,790,437 3,020,923 3,233,160 3,429,620 3,612,491 3,777,801 Total, Annual Costs 5,615,222 1,371,658 1 1,671,634 2,182,093 2,642,999 2,899,547 3,135,301 3,353,068 3,555,333 3,744,297 3,792,159 Feasibility Annual Net Revenue 84,778 3,550,749 6,289,434 8,588,302 10,498,937 12,227,819 13,797,952 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 18,992,532 Debt Service 0 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 Ending Balance after Debt Service 84,778 2,623,101 5,361,785 7,660,653 9,571,289 11,300,170 12,870,303 14,301,980 15,613,110 16,819,504 18,064,883 Annual Coverage Factor 3.83 6.78 9.26 11.32 13.18 14.87 16.42 17.83 19.13 20.47 Appendix 13: Project Feasibility - City/Cable/Telco Partners METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices Switch Code PTANWAO1 DSO Central Office Name Port Angeles Address 406 S Laurel St (CO) City Port Angeles State WA Equal Access Date 12/17/88 Host Switch - Tandem Switch STTLWA06C9T Vertical Coordinates 6236 Horizontal Coordinates 9065 LATA 674 Existing Switch Type DMS100 Replacement Switch Type Replacement Switch Date Existing Switch Software LECO10 Replacement Switch Software LECO13 Software Replacement Date 06/06/01 Business NALs 6454 Residential NALs 15463 ISDN Date 04/24/95 Class Date 06/15/95 SS7 Date 06/25/94 % Digital Loop Carrier 16% Total Usage 38471669 Area Code(s) 360 page 48 Data Residential Business Network Access Lines (NALs) 15,463 6,454 City area within PA Exchange Assumed 60% Assumed 60% Lines within City 9,278 3,873 Lines/unit 1.2 3.5 Total units within City 7,732 1,107 Appendix 14: Qwest Port Angeles Laurel Street Central Office Switch Data= zz http://www.uswest.com/cgi-bin/iconn/iconn central.pl METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices r Appendix 15: NoaNet Route Map 1 ' METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS page 49 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Irv, i bw ; ' /Vr rim , ews"Wwft www s,4 mi wy RecA. t�nrq�lrrwr xidev�ien �rnmluflan ' ti-tt�r rum RewM1a6SFh A dA'Nclelafian 1 ' METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS page 49 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices page 50 Appendix 16: Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Sample Outline Request For Consortium Partner Proposals Introduction Purpose of the Request Background Scope of Project Goals Procedure for Responses Inquiries Submission of Responses Response Process Timeline Confidentiality of Responses Business Proposition Description of the Business Business Summary Products and Services Costs and Revenues Projected Returns Network Description General Description Design Criteria Network Management Implementation Scheduling Partnership Partnership Description Organization Partnership Management Partnership Policies and Activities Data Requested from Respondents Intentions and Capabilities Role Desired Desired Market Segments Competencies, Capabilities and Strengths Ability to Meet Partnership Requirements Respondent's Data Appendices Map of Proposed Network METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 1 Friday, March 30, 2001 "j'� E C= . Den -Ree Productions Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop What telecommunications services needs does your organization have today? Do you have any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? N so, how? low would your organization use a broadband wida area network N it were available Ind affordable? the Telecommunications Needs And Solutions Workshop is being held for large elecornmunications users and business leaders within Port Angeles. The purpose of the vorkshop is to learn about your telecommunications needs, and discuss solutions to meet ,our needs. The City is sponsoring this workshop as part of its broadband (high-speed) elecommumications services economic development goal. Workshop Agenda Session "A"10A*1PM Session "B"Noon— 3PU 0: FV METROPOLITAN Lunch <\v COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 1M- 1:15PM TNEEDS AND SOLUTIONS WORKSHOP Workshop FacMators Mr. Dennis Bragg Ne Ree Productions 3 i a Mc Brian Rolxrts I aMropolRen Communlcatbna GonwaaMa 8 t Mr. Larry Dunbar City of Pon Angeles 7unba�, Cly of Port Angeles _._ _ ._-- Planning, Brian Roberts, Metropolitan SolutionsLDen»is Bragg, Den Ree Production Provider Panel Discussion ler invitees : unbarLCdy of Port Armee es_ Planning, Brian Roberts, Metropolitan Telecommunkstions Swvke Provider Panel Discussion A service provider panel discussion will be held during the lunch hour. Service providers will describe their telecommunications coverage area and capability (e)dsting and/or planned), Specifically in Prat Angeles, discuss open access, and share partnership opportunities to bring broadband services to Port Angeles. Workshop Location The workshop will be held on Friday, March 30, 2001 at the City Fire Station located at 102 East 5th Street, Port Angeles. Parking is only available on a Street or Laurai Street, use the front entrance. ti 7c s s o- r P d. 4 b '`'cat- wNi,_ Workshop Invitees (bylnvNation only) Mac Ruddell iRhfddeY Attta Mail i Evan Boyd � -�-1.ClrmpicMedicel Cemer� _ --- __.__- rol _-r_..— _...._. showroom- _ Eileen Knight i Bergsma Slhormoom ! Fnd Goodwin Joan Sargent - t_.. CEmma Jarhsean Glenn. Goldberg - - ,Alan Bentley Bob lrrnaM A gales CommuniCellofls Ana Nolachuz Dive Meyer I C1811am County -... - .Bill James �.... DanielGooM�---7CIa1lamCauny ----- t-`pewNsgiwan Jk I tleguewood 1 Claltsm County Economic I Karen Rogan klerk HanMh �..ge+retopmnntCouncil Deiwwo ve t Sandi Jerome Joe Cledo 1 Cklism Cnunty - � Traci Lockhart 1 EmeryencyMsnBpement_ Bill Roberts i Excel Utility CorAtruction i Nancy Crozier Randy Johnson Green Crow Gary Smith .......... ----PeNnsula College --_-- rt Poninsuia College .-- -- { Business Assodallon ..1 Downtavn Assodadon School Dhittid i School District t Pori Cit POA Angeles _Port Of Port Angelos f lnCorporated rd¢ Medical Center Telecommunications Service Provider Invitees (by invitation only) Pete Grigonart I Northland Communicatlons ! Kann Moses I Avlsta own coirell i Tairoofnt Communications i Tim ongar ` CenturyTel rd Jane Nislike I Cvrost _.,-- -._ Sheldon Tenronva Koehler Fred MKCMIt CIaIWm CcwMy PUD Dave Sponcer t NOANET Mike Birasn gypen Ned Schumann 1, gympusNel F Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 52 , Den -Ree Productions 670 Lotzgesell Road Sequim, WA 98382 Ph: (360)- 683-2677 TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS WORKSHOP, 3/30/01 WORKSHOP FORMAT/PURPOSE: In an effort to analyze the community and customer support for the establishment of a community fiber optic, or telecommunications backbone, the City of Port Angeles contracted with Den -Ree Productions of Sequim, Washington to organize a process to conduct group interviews, or focus groups to obtain input. Through working with the City of Port Angeles and Metropolitan Communications Consultants, Den -Ree Productions finalized a list of 10 specific questions, focusing on different aspects of the telecommunications backbone plan. These ranged from how such a network could be employed in the community, to the respective advantages and disadvantages of such a network (see detail in summary report for a listing of all questions). Den -Ree Productions met with two focus groups and led them through a discussion on several topics, starting with broad questions, gradually moving the group to more focused discussions. The workshop was held in Port Angeles on Friday, March 30th, 2001. The discussion was broken into 2 different workgroups in order to improve the responsiveness in each session and the deployment of the discussion topics. Each of these sessions lasted approximately 2 hours using the following agenda: 1). Introduction of participants 2). Brief explanation of the city's planning effort 3). Interactive discussion and evaluation of key questions In order to preserve objectivity, participants were only allowed to attend one of the two workshops, thereby entering the process from a fresh perspective. During the workshops, participants were presented each question and then asked to write their responses on cards that were then collected and shared with the group. The discussion allowed the panel to help the facilitator group the responses using a process known as "storyboarding ", posting the response cards under general headings. Once a series of questions were completed in this manner, participants were then asked to come forward and analyze all of the responses on the storyboard. Using stickers and a point value system, participants were able to make one final, "close-up" review of the cards for each question and assign top priority to the responses they felt to be most critical to each question. This not improved the dynamics of the discussion, but allowed for a "second look" by viewing all of the responses collectively as they were prioritized. DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS $/1/2001 1 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 53 The cards were then collected off the board and point values calculated (see summary report). In addition, notes and audio recordings of the workshops were collected to provide an additional, detailed ' record of the process. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS: In selecting the workshop participants, the City of Port Angeles and Den -Ree Productions endeavored to include a broad range of both potential customers of the telecommunications backbone, but also those who represented specific segments of the population such as local government, health care, small business and the public -at -large. ' Workshop "A" 10am to 12noon Bob Jensen- Angeles Communications Bill Robards- Excel Utilities Construction ' Alan Bentley- Port Angeles Business Association Dan Gouin- Clallam County Central Services Bill James- Port of Port Angeles ' Dave Meyer- Clallam County Central Services Steve Baxter- Port Angeles School District Evan Boyd- Olympic Medical Center Workshop "B" fpm to 3pm Jerry Nichols- Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce Sandi Jerome- Science, Technology, Manufacturing Association Greg Scherer- Pacific Rim Hobbies (small business) Emma Janssen- Peninsula College Gary Smith- Olympic Medical Center Katy Stansifer- Clallam County Economic Development Council Eileen Knight- Port Angeles Downtown Association (business) Joan Sargent- former Port Angeles Mayor (citizen -at -large) Paula Johnson- First Federal Savings and Loan Dan Englebertson- Clallam County/ Pencom Kathy Prince- Daishowa America By incorporating a broad range of workshop participants, the process was able to include input covering not only the operation of the telecommunications backbone, but general opinions about the projects' viability and expense from leading community members representing a variety of viewpoints. In addition to the workshop participants, the event also included an hour-long panel discussion with local telecommunications service providers representing telephone and data carriers, cable television and local Internet service providers. They included: Pete Grigorieff Northland Communications ' John Utley Fairpoint Communications Fred Mitchell Clallam County Public Utility District Ned Schumann Olympus Net Terry Kennedy Olypen ' Tony Nicholson Century Tel Sheldon Koehler Tenforward DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Worksh Den -Ree Productions 670 Lotzgesell Road Sequim, WA 98382 Ph: (360)- 683-2677 TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS WORKSHOP- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 54 ' Overall, 19 participants took part in the Telecommunications Workshop on March 30, 2001, generating between 250 and 300 response cards on 10 key questions that were developed for the focus group component of the business plan. (These are detailed in the Detailed Report). The primary findings are as follows: 1. What telecommunications services needs does your organization have in PA today? Are there any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? If so, how? Participants first considered their present, unserved telecommunications needs with the demand for high-speed connectivity clearly ranking as the most important demand that's not being met with the present infrastructure. Participants were then asked to list the areas where they had specific telecommunications needs in their organizations today, or in the community as whole. As with many of the questions throughout the workshop, the panel clearly said they not only want "fast" telecommunications services, but also want them at "affordable" prices. Finally, the groups were asked how their telecommunication needs could change in the future. The prospect for the convergence of combined telecommunications services (TV, phone, Internet) emerged on top. Business people who participated further expected the need to compete, or offer new services via the Internet. 2. How would your organization use a broadband wide area network if it were available and affordable? Workshop participants were asked to consider how they might use the telecommunications backbone if it were available now, at an affordable price. The morning panel's involvement in local government clearly showed with the top selection favoring remote connectivity and service to offices and departments scattered at various locations around the community. Other top responses included the prospect for video conferencing and remote training and education for people who cannot travel to attend school. 3. Is development of a broadband network throughout PA important? Should investment be limited to those areas that make economic sense or should the City pursue citywide development? How could an investment in a citywide project be justified? Participants in the morning workshop clearly believed that the network should be developed beyond a "limited model`, in order to include more population in potential services and improve economic impacts throughout the community, although cost was mentioned as a factor. The afternoon work group suggested a "limited" deployment might be a possible path for initial network development, using partners for expansion. At the same time, the participants felt a large deployment is necessary if the network is going DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 1 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 55 to have the greatest benefit, in the shortest period of time. In fact, they saw partnerships as key to overcoming service limits. Participants felt economic development and education opportunities were a primary means of justifying the network in a community network. 4. What are the advantages/disadvantages of a City partnership in a broadband telecommunications backbone to enable broadband services for business? Not surprisingly, the issue of "cost" topped the list of "advantages'. When it came to disadvantages, the functions and use of a joint network, such as security of documents and information management were mentioned. The afternoon group saw specific advantages to such a partnership, not the least of which was the rate of broadband deployment, and the use of existing technology, although the panel expressed concerns about working out the details of such a partnership. 5. Is 'open access" and competition important for the advancement of broadband telecommunications services? The morning group simply said "yes", open access was important. The afternoon group felt open access could benefit the consumer, with more options, better service and lower prices. 6. What criteria should the City use to evaluate proposals to develop a broadband telecommunications infrastructure? Quality of Service, cost and Return on Investment emerged as the top considerations, with other suggestions such as "access to many or all", and consideration of existing resources and how to integrate those into the network. Other factors included reliability, technology and experience (of potential partners). 7. What needs do public, educational and governmental organizations have that may go un -served if a broadband infrastructure is not developed? The morning group clearly showed a determination that the network should be constructed, again with the cost of development a theme in their responses. The afternoon panel, with a greater number of business representatives, expressed concerns that the lack of a network would slow economic growth and hurt the community's ability to compete in attracting new business. ' S. What obstacles would need to be overcome with "last mile" infrastructure? In this question, participants were allowed to freely touch on a variety of challenges that must be bridged with the "last mile" deployment of a community network. The cost of that development was the primary concern, but others worried about the time for construction, administration, how to avoid ' construction disruptions to the community and convince people of the importance of building the network. ' 9. What types of business/industry could we attract to PA if broadband services were available? These responses touched on a variety of business sectors that need broadband in order to compete in today's markets including call centers, engineering/architectural firms, high-tech research and ' development and any "businesses that use Internet distributed & developed products & services." Some suggested the network could attract "any business who brings employees who have high expectations in the area of high speed connection & services". ' 10. Should the City be involved in providing telecommunications services, or only be the service provider of Iast resort? The groups were asked to separate their answers into subheadings of "advantages" and "disadvantages" of the City of Port Angeles actually providing the telecommunications service. Generally, most in the morning workshop saw the disadvantages of this scenario, saying, "government should not be competing as a private enterprise". But the afternoon panel felt that the city could/ should actually take steps to insure the availability of service if necessary, although they expressed concerns about the city's expertise and expense of such a deployment. DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 56 TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS PANEL DISCUSSION During the period of time between workshop sessions, participants also had an opportunity to hear a one hour panel discussion involving telecommunication service providers representing telephone and data services, cable television and local Internet service providers (see background report for a complete listing). The various representatives related steps their firms were taking to improve, or expand their services in the future. All related an interest in expanding service offerings, although they said that costs of service must be taken into account. Some did express an interest in partnering with the city and showed support for "open access" to a local telecommunications network. Den -Ree Productions 670 Lotzgesell Road Sequim, WA 98382 Ph: (360)- 683-2677 TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS WORKSHOP- DETAILED REPORT POINT SYSTEM: During the workshop, participants were asked to rank the individual response cards to each of the questions, using stars with the following point system, with the most points awarded to the responses they felt best reflected their primary feelings or opinions under each question. Each participant was allowed to have a gold, silver and blue/red vote for each question heading (or sub -heading). Gold = 5 points Silver = 3 points Blue/Red =1 paint AM Workshop (See listing of participants in previous section) Question #1 1). What telecommunications services needs does your organization have in PA today? Are there any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? If so, how? Because of the complexity of this question, the group was asked to break their responses into subsections. DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 1 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 57 Unserved Needs: ' Participants first grouped their present, unserved telecommunications needs with the demand for high-speed connectivity clearing ranking as the most important demand that's not being met with the present infrastructure. -High speed connectivity to remote locations, i.e. - fiber, T1, etc. ' *26 points* ' Other responses included not only the demand for broadband service, but also the desire to use such bandwidth to implement additional services, such as video/voice/data throughout the community. - "DSL or equivalent services" ' *18 points* -"Looking to enhance video to the citizens (streaming video to citizens)" *16 points* ' "Fiber to remote locations" *6 points* -"Connection to roads and fairground" ' *4 points* -"Voice and video services across IP network internal or external" *1 point* 1 Other ideas mentioned in this subsection included: "Broadband to all schools- voice, data, and video" ' -"Fiber/broadband connectivity all sites, 4 sites unserved" Needs Today: 1 Participants were then asked to list the areas where they had specific telecommunications needs in their organizations today, or in the community as whole. As with many of the questions ' throughout the workshop, the morning panel clearly said they not only want "fast" telecommunications services, but want them at "affordable" prices: -"Affordable high speed service" ' *24 points* -"Organization becoming more dependent on remote locations via WAN connections" *10 points* ' -"56K > $50 month" *9 points* ' Others related that present changes in their organizations were impacting their demand for affordable, high capacity bandwidth: ' "Changing slowly, need lower cost, more capacity" *6 points* -"Change is a constant thing. There is always a demand for bandwidth" *5 points* -"Always changing, more need for high speed Internet, SAN, video" *3 points* ' Other responses in this subsection included: DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 58 "Wireless DSL > $50" -"Yes: A. Work reaches us via Internet B. Billing is via Internet" -"POTS" -"Reasonably priced, T-1 speed data communications connections - for remote, small # users, locations" -"T-1 connectivity available but at cost -prohibitive rates for small # of users" Change: Finally, the group was asked how their telecommunication needs were changing in the future. The prospect for the convergence of combined telecommunications services clearly emerged on top: "People want combined services: T.V., Phone, Internet, etc." *28 points* -"Needs changing - will require faster service in order to compete on Internet" *13 points* -"Connection courthouse to Juvenile, D&F, Roads yard, fairground" *4 points* Other responses to this sub -heading for question one focused on specific connections to government locations in the community, especially from Clallam County's standpoint, with the desire for video conferencing capabilities to various locations, such as the Clallam County Juvenile Detention Center, Forks, Sequim, the Clallam Bay Prison, remote office locations like the Clallam County Drug Task Force and other facilities off the Olympic Peninsula. Question #2 2. How would your organization use a broadband wide area network if it were available and affordable? With the next question, workshop participants were asked to consider how they might use the telecommunications backbone if it were available now, at an affordable price. The morning panel's involvement in local government clearly showed with the top selection favoring remote connectivity and service: "Link voice, data, video to all internal locations & expand to remote citizens for better service (county services & offices)" *21 points* "To link remote locations to main network, voice/video/data" *10 points* -"Video delivery SAN'S (storage area networks) - voice over IP distance learning (bandwidth capacity)" *9 points* Others suggested the network could be beneficial to local business in reaching customers, providing improved video conferencing or linking existing customer locations: -"Business could use broadband - area network to offer goods and services to all in area" *6 points* -"Video conf. (more efficient - replace dial-up)" *4 points* DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 1 ' Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 59 "Link existing customer sites... (Transfer data business)" *3 points* Other ideas including use of the network for better connections to the Internet, moving data among multiple locations at a better price, or performing services such as invoicing, permitting, bidding and ' other work throughout the community. Question #3 ' 3. Is development of a broadband network throughout PA important? Should investment be limited to those areas that make economic sense or should the City pursue citywide development? How could an investment in a citywide project be justified? ' As with Question #1, this issue was broken down into subheadings to facilitate discussion of the importance of the community developing the network. ' Limited Investment: First, participants were asked to consider whether there should be a limited development ' of the backbone, i.e. just to those customers or areas of the city that made strict economic sense. Only one suggestion was made that this be done throughout a partnership with primary users and organizations. ' -"Citywide develop partnerships with primary/large users/org." *3 points* ' Citywide: Participants in the morning workshop clearly believed that the network should be ' developed beyond a "limited model", in order to include more population in potential services and improve economic impacts, although cost was mentioned as a factor: ' -"It is important, but as county government we can't stop at the city limits" *28 points* -"Broadband services are important to all, county -wide development shall be considered" *11 points* t -"Yes, extremely - Citywide development may spread up -front costs over more users, thereby lowering costs" *9 points* -"Hard to say? The locations within the city have the capacity but cost is prohibitive. Citywide and beyond" *7 points* -"Yes, citywide development, investment necessary economic development" *5 points* Justified: Finally for Question #3, the panel was asked to consider factors that could justify the development of the citywide network. Most clearly agreed with the statement that the network would ' be an incentive to economic growth and educational opportunities, lowering long range costs by shared use of the network: ' DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 60 -"Economic growth incentive better more education. Opportunities long range cost savings - sharing" *23 points* -"Partnership" *9 points* Others said it might be difficult to justify spending the dollars necessary to build the network, but felt a public vote might be helpful in building support for the project: -"Public support (vote?)" *9 points* -"Have the public vote on it, perception is everything" *8 points* -"Increased productivity "or" enhanced efficiencies, $'s are hard to quantify" *4 points* Others suggested that the network could be justified through economic development, and that the project "probably can't be justified solely on financial basis, however, government agencies have obligations to provide some services, which are needed but can't be totally justified". Question #4: 4. What are the advantages/disadvantages of a City partnership in a broadband telecommunications backbone to enable broadband services for business? For this question, participants were asked to break their responses into "advantages" or "disadvantages". Advantages: Not surprisingly, the issue of "cost" topped the list of advantages (and was a factor with every response from the group under this subheading): -"Lower cost" *25 points* "Expanded opportunities, lower cost (deliver goods)" *8 points* -" Lower investment to City, benefit partners" *7 points* -"Building public support, spread cost" *6 points* -"Better access/ availability to information and services" *3 points* Others felt that it would be an advantage to spread the cost of the network between public and private enterprises, and to give business faster connections to serve their customers and clients. Disadvantages: When it came to disadvantages, the functions and use of a joint network, such as security of documents and information management were mentioned: -"Coordination, prioritization" DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 1 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 61 *18 points* -"Mandated security requirements, quality of service, reliability, limited area and scope (court documents, law & justice, financial, individual)" *17 points* -"The functions could be limited by the needs of the city *vs.* the needs of the partner (availability)" *8 points* -"How to service those outside city limits" *3 points* -"Billing/ ownership" *1 point* Others saw issues with the related costs, meeting the demands for service, and a feeling that the general population would not appreciate the cost of the service to business. Question #5 5. Is 'open access" and competition important for the advancement of broadband telecommunications services? -"Yes" This was a more general question, with the simple answer of "yes" being the top response. *23 points* -"Yes, competition and alternatives are important" *10 points* -"Yes! Should be available to all or most, Competitive prices down" *5 points* -"Competition will always promote better function at a lower cost" *5 points* -"Yes, levels playing field" *1 point* Others said that the competition stemming from "open access" could help to keep costs down, giving everyone access to the service. Only one respondent answered this question in the negative, saying service providers "will probably need some assurance of cost recovery". Question #6 6. What criteria should the City use to evaluate proposals to develop a broadband telecommunications infrastructure? These responses touched on a variety of suggestions, most related to quality and cost of service: -" QOS & ROI" *13 points* -"Cost, Access to many or all, Quality" *13 points* -"Look at existing resources and their integration' *8 points* -"Level of function serving the greatest # of citizens" *8 points* DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 62 -"Cost, Quality of service' *1 point* -"Needs of the community" *9 points* One panelist wondered how long it would take for the network project to "break even". Question #7 7. What needs do public, educational and governmental organizations have that may go un -served if a broadband infrastructure is not developed? With this question, workshop participants were encouraged to look into the future and visualize what needs might be unserved if the network is not developed. The morning group clearly showed a determination that the network should be constructed, again with the cost of development a theme in their responses: -"None - Cost is the issue (Available facilities vs. cost - problem now!)" *23 points* -"They will remain at the current technology for sometime" *8 points* "Economic development absolutely requires broadband access as a minimum requirement" *8 points* "Inability to have top-notch communications (local)" *1 point* Question #8 8. What obstacles would need to be overcome with "last mile" infrastructure? In this question, participants were allowed to freely touch on a variety of challenges that must be bridged with the "last mile" deployment of a community network. The cost of that development was the primary concern: -"Cost & how to allocate cost over business or residential users" *16 points* -"Cost & Time" *14 points* -"Cost, Administration, Remote locations?, Whole county" *11 points* -"Cost, How to implement will little to no disruption to community" *10 points* -"ESA/Permits cost, room on ROW" *5 points* Another panelist expressed concern about the cost of equipment (cable plant) and service for servicing the "last mile" Question #9 9. What types of business/industry could we attract to PA if broadband services were available? The panel was asked to group their responses under two headings for this question ("business" and "industry"), although participants placed all their responses under the "business" heading. DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 1 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 63 Business: These responses touched on a variety of business sectors that need broadband in order to compete in today's markets: -"Call Centers, All Internet dependent bus., Engineering/ Architectural, Government" *15 points* "High tech research and development, Software development" *13 points* -"Information services, Aerospace, Server farms" *10 points* -"Small e -businesses software etc. We already have off Pen. Broadband, Again $$$" *6 points* Industry: The morning group had no specific responses under the "industry" heading. Question #10 10. Should the City be involved in providing telecommunications services, or only be the service provider of last resort? This question generated a number of responses, as well as verbal discussion as the cards ' were collected. The group was asked to separate their answers into subheadings of "advantages" and "disadvantages" of the City of Port Angeles actually providing the telecommunications service. Generally, most saw the disadvantages of this scenario. ' Advantages: ' When considering possible advantages, most of the panelists felt the city should only provide specific telecommunications services if it were a "last resort" situation, although some felt the city could help facilitate the implementation of service, or use of existing infrastructure. ' -"Last resort" *10 points* -"Only if service were lower cost" *5 points* ='No, possibly in over it's head, May not be cost effective, Control and administration requirements, We would like dark fiber, Not involved (but should facilitate)" ' *3 points* Other responses that were included but didn't receive any votes, and actually followed more of the "disadvantage" theme: -"Ability to provide service which may not be totally financially feasible" -"May drive costs down and/or increase availability of services" "No, shouldn't step in (shouldn't be last resort)" t-"Partner for competition - best, Last resort - No" Disadvantages: DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 64 With this subheading, the participants were actually challenged to look at the same question from a different angle. Although the second response was more truly a "disadvantage" consideration, the top choice once more sent a clear message of concern about having the city be that "provider of last resort": "Government should not be competing with private enterprise" *25 points* -"Telco may not be as responsive in bringing new or better services if revenue is lost" *15 points* PM Workshop The afternoon group (see list in section 1) represented a somewhat different panel, although it was not specifically organized that way. Because of the participant's individual schedules, it developed that the afternoon workshop had a higher proportion of those representing business than the morning group (which had a few more representing local government). The scheduling factor also resulted in a scenario where there was more of a demographic "mix" in the afternoon group, with the participation of several women (whereas there had been no women on the morning panel). These differences contributed to not only different viewpoints, but also more spirited verbal discussion as the questions were reviewed. Question #1 1). What telecommunications services needs does your organization have in PA today? Are there any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? If so, how? As with the morning session, the group was asked to break this question down into key subheadings. Unserved: Whereas the morning panel had touched on larger, overall network concerns, the small business participants in the afternoon group hit on more specific problems, especially as it related to POTS (plain old telephone service) and existing voice networks, be they wired or wireless. But like their colleagues in the morning, the afternoon group listed affordable telecom, and especially broadband service as a top priority: -"Broadband options, low cost broadband" *28 points* -"Adequate phone lines (# of lines)" *25 points "Business focus ISP (no email blocking)" *14 points* -"More options for phone services" *11 points* "Internet businesses, Home user & home business, faster connectivity" *3 points* -"Reliability of DCS & phones and cell, Cost is high" *5 points* DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 65 One other participant said they would like to be able to watch their local news, and other streaming video over better Internet connections. NeedsToday: As with the morning group, the afternoon participants made it clear that "more bandwidth at lower cost" is their highest priority. (It should be noted here that the point totals for these and some of the following questions might be somewhat higher than the maximum number of potential points expected for each question. This may have stemmed from some confusion on the part of the participants, as they were "voting", or their enthusiasm for some of the response cards. In any event, since the process was only interested in finding the "top" responses to each question, the slight variances in point totals do not affect the overall findings and conclusions). -"More bandwidth, Low cost broadband" *47 points* -"Last mile broadband" *13 points* -"Video conferencing & streaming video" *10 points* -"Telephone overseas" *6 points* -"Affordable DSL or cable modems" *5 points* -"Broadband Internet access" *5 points* ' -"Visibility, expanded, markets, cost effectiveness" *4 points* -"Cell phone reception" ' *4 points* -"Voice data video" *4 points* ' -"More broadband; >T-1, better connectivity between disparate systems" *3 points* "DSL better rates" *3 points* ' -"To establish a web page, Internet & economical access" *3 points* -"ISDN POP (in PA)" *1 point* Others said "unserved needs" today included: ' -"Clean, clear pots for data lines (low speed band)" -"Fast, reliable, economical voice- data" -"Interactive communications between citizens and county" ' Change: ' The afternoon group's focus on business was reflected in their responses under the third heading for Question #1, i.e. how their telecommunications needs are changing, with the growing demand presented by the Internet and the ability to deliver new services at the forefront. Others DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 66 (representing the college and the public pointed to the need for on-line education and access to services: -"Increased Internet competition (more competition to local business)" *19 points* -"Deliver more services via Internet (Banking)" *18 points* -"Video conferencing w/the home user -cheap" *14 points* -"Internet via TV" *6 points* -"To utilize Internet retail sales more effectively" *6 points* -"Affordable teleconferencing" *5 points* -"More sites (Internet) require video download" *4 points* -"Customers accessing data remotely, Video conferencing, Video training/ Education, Telecommute" *4 points* -"More online instruction" *3 points* -"Access to gov't. info & services, more efficiently" *2 points* Other responses mentioned the need to have more broadband to handle more complex streams information, such as data and pictures, interactive training and conferencing from a central location, sharing of network resources between education and government and private, as we as public video conferencing. Question #2 2. How would your organization use a broadband wide area network if it was available and affordable? Like their counterparts in the morning, the participants in the afternoon work session saw a need to extend services between remote locations and their people they serve: -"Video conferencing remote training" *34 points* -"Bring education to homes or businesses (requires Bandwidth) expand to remote areas or for people that cannot spend time to attend school away" *20 points* -"Expectations of 24/7/365 (reliability)" *13 points* -"Market to companies outside area as a benefit" *11 points* -"Extended OMC's connectivity to Docs & other healthcare providers" *8 points* -"We already use DSL- Homes For Sale, Display our product, Relay MIS info, Training" *5 points* Other comments: DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 67 -"Move our product form client/server onsite to ASP (Internet -use firms update once)- -"Video -training/ education, nce)"-"Video-training/education, Video -Conference, Remote access -data, contractors, employers" Question #3 3. Is development of a broadband network throughout PA important? Should investment be limited to those areas that make economic sense or should the City pursue citywide development? How could an investment in a citywide project be justified? The afternoon group was also asked to break their responses to Question #3 into three different subheadings. Limited Investment: In this area, the participants had more suggestions than the morning group, touching on the concept of using a limited network deployment, with partnerships to help with expansion of the backbone: -"Limited at first, then partner for expansion" *28 points* "Economic sense (otherwise we'll never get anything) -Important to get something for EDC" *26 points* -"Start with limited for economic development" *14 points* Citywide: ' At the same time, the participants felt a large deployment was necessary if the network were going to have the greatest benefit, in the shortest period of time. In fact, they saw those partnerships as key to overcoming service limits: -"Yes, it is important, the largest area of development should be pursued. When you limit the area, it increases the digital divide to those outside the area. Citywide at a minimum." *25 points* "Should quickly develop those services that make economic sense. The rate of change is too great for this to be a five year project. Similar to how roads are developed." *19 points* "If there are no partnerships for investment, there will be limits of service" *15 points* -"Yes, More than citywide, W/o some idea of the cost - can justify" *5 points* Justified: The afternoon group clearly felt that economic development was a primary means of justifying the investment in a community network. Unlike the morning workshop, no one mentioned the idea of putting the question to a vote: -"Attract business who need this service level" *27 points* -"To attract firms to locate (in the served area) & increase jobs & sales of products for health & stability of our area" *15 points* rDEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 68 -"Economic development attract hi tech co. better gov't serv. opportunities for sm. Business for outreach" *10 points* -"Equal ground with metropolitan area' *9 points* -"Economic dev attract high tech companies' *5 points* -"Increased competition (i.e. lower cost) of services provided over wire. More providers (TV, phone, Internet)" *5 points* -"Improve health of "individuals" by giving HC providers better information- faster" *4 points* -"Delivery of social services to outlying populations" *3 points* "Better services attract seniors for retirement" *3 points* Other responses included: -"Provide better services (by our gov't)" -"Provide better services to PA citizens at lower costs" -"Attracts new business - high tech -multinational" -"Provide oppor. for network sharing: schools, healthcare, gov't" -"Number of business and individuals that are connected is increasing" Question #4 4. What are the advantages/disadvantages of a City partnership in a broadband telecommunications backbone to enable broadband services for business? Advantages: The afternoon group saw specific advantages to such a partnership, not the least of which was the speed of broadband deployment, and the use of existing technology: -"Would make services available now!" *32 points* ='Can use their technology - save cost, Do not reinvent wheel" *22 points* "More advantages than disadvantages, provided gov't doesn't slow down development" *13 points* "Shared costs" *7 points* -"Faster completion of the project" *5 points* "Lower maintenance costs - Telecom provides" *4 points* Other comments included having a "method for Internet access", "non -stagnation" and pushing the "development to meet local business needs rather than a private ISP needs." Disadvantages: DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 69 Concerns centered over the potential problems in trying to work out the details of such a partnership: -"Another entity to negotiate with" *30 points* -"Changing leadership (either side of partnership)" *15 points* "Partnerships require lawyers which can slow down process" *10 points* "Excludes other competition?" *6 points* -"Company could default, go under, etc." *1 point* One of the more colorful response cards in the entire workshop process came to this question: -"Getting in bed with devil? Could be" Question #5 5. Is "open access" and competition important for the advancement of broadband telecommunications services? This group showed support for the concept of "open access", especially for consumer benefit, but with conditions that take into account the private sector: -"Yes - But: Business & gov't using pipe should divide cost of maintenance" *20 points* "The consumer benefits ultimately w/more options, better service, lower prices" *16 points* ' -"Open access encourages "buy in" to the project" *15 points* -"Competition promotes growth & reduced cost. Open access provides the greatest opportunity for new services" *10 points* "Increased choices "Freedom"" *7 points* ' -"Yes, lower prices, Less restrictions for private" *6 points* ='No -we need limited access to qualified provider - but enough of them to compete" ' *5 points* "Lower costs?" *4 points* ' The group also said that open access is "good, provided, each user pays for their share" that it g p PY "should lower the cost for everybody" by promoting "competition which drives the price down for users". Questions #6 6. What criteria should the City use to evaluate proposals to develop a broadband telecommunications infrastructure? DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 70 The afternoon workshop generated a wide range of responses, but the primary points like reliability and experience (of the partner) received the highest marks. -"Reliability, Technology, Experience' *32 points* -"Cost- how much- Who's paying use of existing facilities? & infrastructure" *13 points* "Consider what infrastructure already exists & how to access" *11 points* -"Whatever's best for the area. To promote growth & development = Quality of life!! for all residents" *6 points* -"Cost effective, cost of user fees" *6 points* -" % of cost paid by partner" *5 points* -"The problem will be to trade off, good vs cheap vs. fast, You will only get to pick 2" *5 points* "Potential for expansion" *4 points* -"Technical ability - prior projects" *3 points* -"Partners willing to advance open to listen to smaller groups as well as large entities" *2 points* -"Cost timeline reputation" *1 point* Others suggested the costs to the consumer, as well as the amount of control, technology and infrastructure. Question #7 7. What needs do public, educational and governmental organizations have that may go un -served if a broadband infrastructure is not developed? Most of the concern here centered over the so-called "digital divide", or access issue, as well as impacts on impact growth and seeing the area slip behind in business competition: "Slow economic growth" *27 points* "Digital divide- those without will be farther divided from those who have access" *25 points* "Our community & area become non-competitive vs. other communities" *11 points* "Slow development of duplicate services. Harder to attract new businesses. Existing businesses less competitive" *5 points* -"Lost in the "50's" *4 points* -"Addresses business? We'll lose our kids, business to metro area" *3 points* "Continued development of duplicate services & facilities" *1 point* DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 71 -"Businesses could loose opportunities on Internet" *1 point* Question #8 8. What obstacles would need to be overcome with "last mile" infrastructure? As with the morning group, "cost" was the primary concern with the responses to this question: -"Cost - convincing people of importance" *21 points* -"Consumer desire" *13 points* -"Justification of costs" *11 points* -"Partnerships that can feasibly complete this. Limited options. Cost" *9 points* -"Who is doing it? Squabbling" *9 points* -"Force USWest to reduce installation cost of ISDN (excellent last mile solution), Add ISDN POP" *6 points* -"Another wire to your house? Another ditch through your yard? OR can we use what's there?" *5 points* One participant suggested that the cost question might be best addressed by developing the "last mile" infrastructure through partnering. Question #9 9. What types of business/industry could we attract to PA if broadband services were available? Perhaps because of their business outlook, the afternoon group had a much broader ranger of suggestions for both subheadings to this question. Business: "Businesses that use "Internet" distributed & developed products & services" *26 points* -"Any business who brings employees who have high expectations in the area of high speed connection & services" *13 points* -"Large business, Call centers, Remote Transcriptions, ASP, Application service providers" *6 points* -"Consulting services, Engineering services, Programmers" *3 points* Other ideas included software developers, media/ technology firms, advertising and graphic arts. Industry: Unlike the morning group, the afternoon panel had a number of suggestions on industries that might be attracted to relocate to Port Angeles if broadband were available: IDEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 72 "Research & development teams, Software developers, Technical manufacturers' *19 points* -"Any knowledge transfer industry" *12 points* -"You will not likely attract "heavy" industry due to our infrastructuring. (No railroad, poor Hwy 101)" *11 points* -"Extreme sport manufacturing design, customer support centers" *3 points* Question #10 10. Should the City be involved in providing telecommunications services, or only be the service provider of last resort? This panel provided a sharp look at both the "advantages" and "disadvantages" of the city being a service provider, saying the city could/ should actually take steps to insure the availability of service if necessary: Advantages: -"Guarantee the service would be available" *41 points* -"Better to use the expertise of providers" *30 points* -"Yes resources, yes aval., yes technology aval. This is the reason why we have a "city" *23 points* -"Any/all of the above (in the question) as needed to fulfill the need" *14 points* Other Ideas: Disadvantages: -"Unknown territory" *16 points* -"Stifles competition, probably more expensive (few businesses are like the gov't)" *13 points* -"Interfere with private & smaller services" *11 points* -"Taxpayer's end vs. subsiding private businesses" *4 points* Some expressed concerns about the existence of another "government regulated entity", and whether the city would be capable of providing technical support. DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 • CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 22, 2001 To: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Fiber Optic Backbone Business Plan Authorization to Proceed Summary: The Business Plan verified the overall feasibility of four scenarios to develop a fiber optic backbone. As part of the Business Plan, a strategic direction was recommended that explores partnership opportunities to develop a fiber optic backbone, retaining City development as the opportunity of last resort. The PA Works! Committee and the Utility Advisory Committee recommend proceeding with implementation of the business plan. Recommendation: Approve the business plan, rescind the fiber optic backbone design engineering services agreement with MCC, and authorize the Mayor to sign consulting services agreements with Metropolitan Communications Consultants and Dow, Cogburn and Friedman. Background/Analysis: On October 17, 2000, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with MCC including legal services from the firm of Dow, Cogburn and Friedman (DCF) to implement the Community Telecommunications Action Plan. On February 6, 2001, Council approved an agreement in the amount of $166,882 with MCC for fiber optic backbone design engineering services and withheld notice to proceed until business planning verified overall feasibility. Based on the business plan's recommendations and strategic direction, the fiber optic backbone design engineering agreement should be cancelled. On April 30, 2001, a draft of the business plan was presented at a special meeting of the Utility Advisory Committee and P.A. Works! Committee with no action requested. A total of four infrastructure development alternatives were presented including: City developed and owned, City/Cable provider partnership, City/Telephone provider partnership, and City/Cable/Telephone consortium. The business plan confirmed the overall feasibility of each alternative described above and recommended a strategic direction for the City to follow as it pursues development of a broadband telecommunications infrastructure. The business plan recommends the City's role should be an infrastructure enabler versus a telecommunications services provider. A copy of the final business plan is attached. In order to proceed with implementation of the business plan, consulting services proposals were obtained to assist the City on a Pilot Project, negotiation of a City/Cable provider partnership, and development of a City/Cable/Telephone consortium. A copy of the consulting services proposals is attached. May 22, 2001 City Council Memo Page 2 The business plan's recommendations and strategic direction support the proposed mission "To ensure delivery of broadband telecommunications products and services to Port Angeles by 2002, by enabling the development of necessary telecommunications infrastructure. " Although the business plan confirmed the overall feasibility of a City owned and operated fiber optic backbone, it should only be pursued if future infrastructure development partnership efforts are unsuccessful. A summary of the business plan's infrastructure development recommendations and strategic direction is provided below. Business Plan Infrastructure Development Scenario Strategic Direction 1. City Development Delay until outcome of Scenarios 2-4 2. City/Cable provider partnership Proceed with negotiations 3. City/Telephone Partnership 4. City/Cable/Telephone consortium Proceed with consortium planning Below is a summary of the consulting services scope of work required to proceed with implementation of the business plan's strategic direction. Strategic Direction Scope of work summary City Pilot Project Project definition and design consulting services for a fiber optic infrastructure pilot project. During the project definition stage, goals, participating customers, and service providers would be determined. The cost of the proposed scope of work is $35,000 (lump sum) and the construction and equipment costs are estimated at $350,000. If the project definition and design consulting services are approved, Staff would return to the Utility Advisory Committee requesting their recommendation for bid award of the pilot project. City/Cable provider Proceed with technical and legal consulting services to negotiate an partnership upgrade to the Cable Operator's infrastructure as part of the franchise renewal. Prior to negotiations, MCC would prepare the infrastructure partnership, network, cost, and schedule requirements. Outside legal services proposed would be provided to assist the City Attorney with franchise renewal issues as they may arise under Federal Law. The proposed technical and legal consulting services total $25,000 and $10,000 respectively (time and expense). The cost of consulting services will depend on how well negotiations proceed. City/Telephone Proceed with technical services in support of consortium partner Partnership, and development. The proposed technical consulting services for City/Cable/Telephone consortium partner development is $20,000 (time and expense). consortium On May 7, 2001, the PA Works! Committee and the Utility Advisory Committee instructed Staff to return with a comprehensive proposal for consortium planning, consortium partner solicitation, and consortium building. 102 �PWKSV,IGHIIPOWM\�BUSINESSPLANREPORTO.DOC I* • • C� AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES AND METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS RELATING TO: COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLANNING THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of May 2001, by and between THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES, a non -charter code city of the State of Washington, (hereinafter called the "CITY") and METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS, a Washington Limited Liability Corporation (hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT"). WHEREAS, the CITY desires to develop the Port Angeles Telecommunications Network, in accordance with the strategic direction recommended in the Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Business Planning Analyses, and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a qualified consulting firm to perform the scope of work as detailed in Exhibits A, and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it is in full compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington for professional registration and/or other applicable requirements, and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it has the background, experience, and ability to perform the required work in accordance with the standards of the profession, and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it will provide qualified personnel and appropriate facilities necessary to accomplish the work; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above representations and the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: V I SCOPE OF WORK The scope of professional services to be performed and the results to be achieved by the CONSULTANT shall be as detailed in the attached Exhibit A and shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the work. The CITY may review applicable segments of the CONSULTANT'S work product at the designated milestones set up in the CONSULTANT'S Work Outline and Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Upon completion of review, the City shall approve the work segment or request revisions if the work segment is incomplete or unsatisfactory. If the work segment is not satisfactory, the CONSULTANT shall make such changes as may be required by the CITY. Such changes shall not constitute "Extra Work" as related in Section XI of this Agreement. The CONSULTANT agrees that all services performed under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the standards of the profession and in compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws. The Scope of Work may be amended upon written approval of both parties. II OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Upon completion of the work, all documents, exhibits, photographic negatives, or other presentations of the work shall become the property of the CITY for use without restriction and without representation as to suitability for reuse by any other party unless specifically verified or adapted by the CONSULTANT. However, any alteration or reuse of the documents, by the City or by others acting through or on behalf of the City, will be at the City's sole risk. City of Port Angeles page 1 5/17/2001 103 III DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Each party shall designate its representatives in writing. The CONSULTANT'S representative shall be subject to the approval of the CITY. IV TIME OF PERFORMANCE The CONSULTANT may begin work upon execution of this Agreement by both parties. The work shall be completed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the attached Exhibit A. V PAYMENT The CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT as set forth in this section of the Agreement. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment shall be time and expense on the basis of the CONSULTANT'S total budget required as set forth in attached Exhibit A — Scope of Work, Tasks II and III, and Section VI Compensation below. B. Payment shall be lump sum on the basis of the CONSULTANT'S total budget required as set forth in attached Exhibit A — Scope of Work, Task IVA and Section VI Compensation below. B. The CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to the CITY on a monthly basis. Invoices shall detail the work; shall indicate the specific task or activity in the Scope of Work to which the costs are related; shall indicate the percentage completion for each task; and shall indicate the cumulative total for each task. C. The CITY shall review the invoices and make payment for the percentage of the project that has been completed less the amounts previously paid. D. The CONSULTANT invoices are due and payable within 30 days of receipt. In the event of a disputed billing, only the disputed portion will be withheld from payment. 0 E. Final payment for the balance due to the CONSULTANT will be made upon the completion of the work; and acceptance by the CITY. F. Payment for "Extra Work" performed under Section XI of this Agreement shall be as agreed to by the parties in writing. VI COMPENSATION Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties, the CONSULTANT'S total compensation under this Agreement, including labor, direct non -salary reimbursable costs and outside services, shall not exceed the amounts as shown in attached Exhibit A. VII EMPLOYMENT Employees of the CONSULTANT, while engaged in the performance of any work or services under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the CITY, and claims that may arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT'S employees while so engaged, on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. In performing this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall not employ or contract with any CITY employee without the City's written consent. VIII NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT shall conduct its business in a manner, which assures fair, equal and non-discriminatory 0 City of Port Angeles page 2 ori /«uU 104 treatment of all persons, without respect to race, creed or national origin, or other legally protected classification and, in particular: A. The CONSULTANT shall maintain open hiring and employment practices and will welcome applications for employment in all positions, from qualified individuals who are members of minorities protected by federal equal opportunity/affirmative action requirements; and, B. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations issued pursuant thereto, relating to the establishment of non discriminatory requirements in hiring and employment practices and assuring the service of all persons without discrimination as to any person's race, color, religion, sex, Vietnam era veteran status, disabled veteran condition, physical or mental handicap, or national origin. IX SUBCONTRACTS A. The CONSULTANT shall not sublet or assign any of the work covered by this Agreement without the written consent of the CITY. B. The CONSULTANT will be using the firms submitted with its proposal as subcontractors. Subcontractors other than those listed shall not be permitted without the written consent of the CITY. C. In all solicitation either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed pursuant to a subcontract, including procurement of materials and equipment, each potential subconsultant or supplier shall be notified by the CONSULTANT of Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, including the nondiscrimination requirements. X CHANGES IN WORK Other than changes directed by the CITY as set forth in Section I above, either party may request changes in the scope of work. Such changes shall not become part of this Agreement unless and until mutually agreed upon and incorporated herein by written amendments to this Agreement executed by both parties. XI EXTRA WORK The CITY may desire to have the CONSULTANT perform work or render services in connection with this project, in addition to the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A and minor revisions to satisfactorily completed work. Such work shall be considered as "Extra Work" and shall be addressed in a written supplement to this Agreement. The CITY shall not be responsible for paying for such extra work unless and until the written supplement is executed by both parties. XII TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. The CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten (10) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. Written notice will be by certified mail sent to the consultant's designated representative at the address provided by the CONSULTANT. B. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to the completion of the work, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT, which, when added to any payments previously made, shall compensate the CONSULTANT for the percentage of work completed. C. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work, documents that are the property of the CITY pursuant to Section II above, shall be delivered to and received by the CITY prior to transmittal of final payment to the CONSULTANT. XIII INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS The CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify the CITY from any claims, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of claims by third parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death, caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, City of Port Angeles page 3 5/17/2001 105 CONSULTANT employees, affiliated corporations, officers, and subcontractors in connection with the work performed under this Agreement. The CITY agrees to indemnify the CONSULTANT from any claims, damages, losses, and costs, including, but 10 not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of claims by third parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death, caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY, CITY's employees, or agents in connection with the work performed under this Agreement. If the negligence or willful misconduct of both CONSULTANT and CITY (or a person identified above for whom each is liable) is a cause of such damage or injury, the loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the CONSULTANT and the CITY in proportion to their relative degrees of negligence or willful misconduct and the right of indemnity shall apply for such proportion. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the CONSULTANT and the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the CONSULTANT'S liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the CONSULTANT'S negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the CONSULTANT'S waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. The parties have mutually negotiated this waiver. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. However, the CONSULTANT expressly reserves its rights as a third person set forth in RCW 51.24.035. XIV INSURANCE The CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The CONSULTANT shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for. bodily injury and property damage; and, 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer's liability; and, 3. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of the endorsement naming the CITY as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The CITY reserves the right to review a certified copy of all required insurance policies in the CONSULTANT'S office. The CONSULTANT'S insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The CONSULTANT'S insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, and the CITY shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. XV APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, and in the event of dispute the venue of any litigation brought hereunder shall be Clallam County. 0 City of Port Angeles page 4 on rrcuu 106 XVI EXHIBITS AND SIGNATURES This Agreement, including its exhibits, constitutes the entire Agreement, supersedes all prior written or oral understandings, and may only be changed by a written amendment executed by both parties. The following exhibits are hereby made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A — Scope of Work, Budget Estimates, Project Schedule, Work Outline and Schedule In WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF PORT ANGELES MAYOR METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS r PRESIDENT APPROVED AS TO FORM: CRAIG KNUTSON, CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: BECKY UPTON, CITY CLERK City of Port Angeles page 5 5/17/2001 107 EXHIBIT A — SCOPE OF WORK page 1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND WORK SEQUENCE MCC recommends the strategic direction and sequence of work outlined in the schematic below. The tasks in the dotted outline box are covered by the City's existing authorization, issued October 17, 2001. The bold outline shaded tasks are the items covered by the current request for authorization. Recommended Strategic Direction City Development (Scenario 1) Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Implementation Metropolitan Communications Consultants 1108 a Confidential and Proprietary 19 • • .................t . Partner CAN Franchise ' Solicitation Building Renewal Public Proceeding Consortium NInterests Future Needs & Report Design Review Planning Evaluate Responses Negotiations Structure and o City Execute Agreements _ a Negotiations Draft Integrate Pilot Planning Recommend Partners ' Request for Into Network Functional Operations _ k o Proposal N � j No Stop Other Negotiations Other Scenario (3 and 4) Negotiations City Development (Scenario 1) Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Implementation Metropolitan Communications Consultants 1108 a Confidential and Proprietary 19 • • Consortium Partner Consortium ' Solicitation Building ;v = Consortium Consortium Pilot Design Consortium Proposals Agreements Design Review Planning Evaluate Responses Negotiations Structure and Build Pilot Organization Determine Strategic Execute Agreements Test Pilot Policy and Relationships Integrate Pilot Planning Recommend Partners Begin Consortium Operations Into Network Functional Operations No City Development (Scenario 1) Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Implementation Metropolitan Communications Consultants 1108 a Confidential and Proprietary 19 • • r� • E Exhibit A- Scope of Work PRIOR AUTHORIZATION (10/17/00) Task I - Cable Franchise Renewal Proceedings A. Public Proceedings B. Ascertainment Report and Draft Ordinance CURRENT AUTHORIZATION REQUEST Task II - Scenario 2 Negotiations A. Franchise Ordinance Negotiations 1. Partnership Requirements 2. Network Requirements 3. Cost Requirements 4. Schedule Requirements 5. Prepare Final Ordinance B. Franchise Ordinance Adoption 1. Assistance during Franchise Ordinance Adoption Process 2 Task III - Other Scenario Negotiations A. Continuing development work with service providers and other applicable parties through Task II B. Task IV - Pilot Project A. Pilot Project Definition and Design. 1. Demonstration Goals 2. Users, Providers and Services 3. Fiber Design & Bid Documents 4. Equipment Design & Purchase Documents 5. Pre -Bid Cost Estimate 6. City Financing Advisory Services FUTURE WORK (NOT IN THIS AUTHORIZATION) Task IV - Pilot Project (estimated Total Project Cost $350,000) B. Pilot Project Bid Solicitation and Awards C. Fiber Construction and Equipment Installation. Task V - Consortium Planning Task VI - Consortium Partner Solicitation Task VII - Consortium Building Task VIII - Network Implementation BUDGET ESTIMATES The work covered by this proposal is estimated to require the time and expense budgets shown below. Item Description Fee Basis Proposed Budget Task II Scenario 2 Negotiations Time and Expense $25,000 Task III Other Scenario Negotiations Time and Expense $20,000 Task IVA Pilot Project Definition and Design Lump Sum $35,000 Total, Estimated Budget Required, all tasks Metropolitan Communications Consultants $80,000 Confidential and Proprietary Exhibit A- Scope of Work page 3 ADDITIONAL WORK, STANDARD HOURLY RATES AND EXPENSES Additional work requested, outside the scope of work of this proposal, may be done on a negotiated lump sum basis or at the standard rates listed below. Description Labor charge/hour Direct project expenses Technician Engineer/Analyst Principal $40 to $70 $80 to $170 $195 reimbursed at actual cost plus 10% based on receipts presented WORK SCHEDULE The schedule is shown on the following Gantt charts. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 110 Confidential and Proprietary a • • b. General public, input 2124 r;. PEG .stakeholder input 2/24 d, I Nri , t<rkethoidr:r input 2/24 _. 3. Public Me e.ungs a. Public Meeting 3/29 �-F-- b. Needs and Solutions Workshop 3/30 (i)----•..• B. Ascertainment Report & Draft Ordinance 1 k.1cerujinment Report a. Franchise Compliance 4126 a ...... b Operator_ past performance 4/26 i ........ ....:.. c.. Present needs and interests 4/26 i d. Future ne-4,ds & intprests 4/26 i .... .._._. ...... .. e. Ascort inrnent Report ._. ..... .......... _.. .... 6 L Negotiations (haft Ordinance %a, Draft Ordinarick .......... . .... _...._.. Task 4/01 5/01 6/01 7/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 11/01 12/01 1/02 IV. Pilot Project A. Pilot Definition & Design 1. Demonstration Goals 5/23— 2. Users, Providers and Services 5/30 I Fiber Design & Bid Documents 6/20 4, Equipment Design & Purchase Documents 6/20 5. Pre -Bid Cost Estimate 8/15 .. _ 8/22 6. City Financing Advisory Services 7. City Acceptance 8/28 c l B. Solicitation and Awards (Not included) 1 Adzrriize for fiber Bids 9/3 2. Open Fiber Bia', 9/17 1 3 Evaluate & Pr.cornniond fiber Arland 9/18 9/18 4 City hriancing In Place 10/B 5 UAC At ln 6. Council Acc eptWIUI 10/16�(i)- C. Fiber Construction & Equipment Installation 1. Fiber Notice to Proceed & Equip Ordr 10/19 e 2. fiber Contruc.tirri 10/19 11/30 3 f lbei Testing 4 Receive Equipmeiit 11/30 (i Equipment In �tallauon 12/7 6 Equipment lasting, Network Startup 12/21 7.IJACAcce.ptaiice 1/7+ r� 8. Council Acceptance 1/15 Pilot Project Work Outline and Schedule Metropolitan Communications Consultants Task Milestone * Confidential and Proprietary • • i DOW, COGBURN & FRIEDMAN, P.C. Attorneys at Law Arboretum Great Hills Center 9600 Great Hills Trail, Suite 150W Austin, Texas 78759 Direct Dial:(512) 637-1360 Fax:(512) 637-1361 www.dcf.com Clarence A. West, Shareholder Email: cawest(&-dcf.com May 15, 2001 Mr. Larry Dunbar Power Resources Manager City of Port Angeles 321 East 5th Avenue Port Angeles, Washington 98362 RE: Engagement Letter between City of Port Angeles, Washington, and Clarence A. West of Dow, Cogburn & Friedman, P.C., concerning cable renewal with Port Angeles, Washington and related issues Dear Mr. Dunbar: This letter sets forth the agreement between the City of Port Angeles, Washington ("the City") and Clarence A. West, Dow, Cogburn & Friedman, P.C. ("Attorney"), in his representation with respect to briefing of city officials on the above referenced matters. Our agreement is as follows: The professional services to be performed by the Attorney consist of the following: Cable Television Franchise Renewal Issues. Upon request of the City Attorney, Attorney will review and assist on cable franchise renewal issues as they may arise under Federal Law. 113 2. As compensation for the services to be provided by the Attorney under this agreement, the Client will pay the Attorney the following: 16 (1) Client agrees they will compensate Attorney and Attorney's firm at the maximum hourly rate of $260/hour (discounted from the standard hourly rate of $310), based upon detailed monthly billings showing hours and services provided. (2) Client further agrees that it will reimburse reasonable out-of- pocket expenses incurred by Attorney, including, but not limited to copies, long distance telephone charges, travel cost, including airfare, lodging and meals, and other related expenses. (3) The fees shall not exceed the sum of $10,000.00, without express written authorization from the City. If the foregoing accurately sets forth our agreement, please sign this letter in the space below and return a signed copy of this letter to me, and retain the other copy. I look forward to a productive engagement with the City. Sincerely, DOW, COGBURN & FRIEDMAN, P.C. By: Clarence A. West ccc ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: CITY OF PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON By:___ - Name: Title: Date: 11 1360\0002\LTRDUN01.wpd -2- 114 • • The Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Business Planning Analyses May 1, 2001 Prepared for City g it of Port Angeles ` P.O. Box 1150 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 <7—METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Seattle: 5847 McKinley PI. N., Seattle, Washington 98103 Tel: 206.522.6778 Fax: 206.522.6777 Tacoma: 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1702, Tacoma, Washington 98402 7:1253.272.1636 Fax: 253.272.1482 www.mcco.com • 115 • • • 116 THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES 321 East Fifth Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 CITY COUNCIL Larry Doyle, Mayor Cathleen McKeown, Deputy Mayor Orville Campbell Lauren Erickson Jim Hulett Glenn Wiggins Larry Williams Michael Quinn, City Manager • PROJECT TEAM Glen Cutler, Director, Public Works and Utilities Scott McLain, Deputy Director of Power Systems Timothy Smith, Economic Development Director Tanya O'Neill, Information Technology Manager Project Manager Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager Project Consultant* Metropolitan Communications Consultants, LLC Seattle and Tacoma, Washington • 117 10 L_J ��7 • • • PA TELECOM THE PORT ANGELES TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK fir`, BUSINESS PLANNING ANALYSES May 1, 2001 Table of Contents Executive Summary.................................................................. ................................................ s-1 A. Introduction Background ................................................................................ Authorization............................................................................ 2 Related Activity...................................................................... 4 Mission and Goals................................................................................................................ 4 Competitive Environment.................................................................................... B. Project Definition 6 Telecommunications Products and Services Value Chain ................................. 8 Surveysand Interviews...................................................................................................... Infrastructure Development Alternatives .................................. BusinessProposition ..................... ..................................................................................... 12 ValueProposition........................................................................................... C. Project Analyses 13 Criteria and Assumptions................................................................................................. 13 ................................... Projects Analyzed.••••"..... 13 Infrastructure General Plan.......................................................... ....... 14 Users and Growth........................................................................................................ 21 Project Cost Estimates ............................................... 22 Revenue Estimates................................................................ 24 Feasibility Analyses........................................................................ .................................... D. Findings and Discussion 26 Analysis Findings ......................................... Discussion.................................................. E. Recommendations 31 Recommendations.............................................................................................................. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS -5/1/2001 119 10 List of Tables and Figures Tables 1. Service Providers and Users Contacted..................................................................... 14 4 2. Basis of User Projections............................................................................................. 17 3. City Network Projected User Growth...................................................................... 18 4. City/ Cable Network, Projected User Growth ........................................ 19 5. City/Telco Network Projected User Growth ......................................................... 6. City/Cable/Telephone Network, Projected User Growth ............... 21 7. Summary of Annual Costs for Alternative Project Scenarios ............................... 22 8. Summary of Annual Revenues for Alternative Project Scenarios ........................ 9. 10. Summary of Project Feasibility ..................................................................................25 PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework .................................................. 29 Figures 1. Telecommunications Value Chain.......................................................... 2. Backbone Concept Plan.................................... .........................................................15 3. Ring, Distribution and Fiber Connection Schematic ............................................. 16 4. Recommended Strategic Direction...................................... ..................................... 28 • 5/1/2001 120 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Executive Summary page s-1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS City Mission, Goals and Commitment to Enable Broadband Telecommunications • Facing a decline in core natural resource industries such as fishing and logging, the City of Port Angeles has recognized that broadband telecommunications can play a role in stimulating and sustaining community and economic development. • The City of Port Angeles has established an economic development goal that includes evaluation of the cost, benefits, and feasibility of enabling broadband telecommunications in the city. • The City of Port Angeles has therefore undertaken a vigorous telecommunications initiative, the proposed mission of which is: To ensure delivery of broadband teleconnnunications products and services to Port Angeles in 2002, by enabling the development of the necessary telecommunications infrastructure. • The City's commitment to enable broadband telecommunications is tied to a Community Telecommunications Action Plan and schedule approved by Council on October 17, 2000. Existing Hindrances to Broadband Telecommunications in Port Angeles • The capital expenditures necessary to develop telecommunications infrastructure are the greatest limiting factor hindering providers from deploying broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles. • The cost of last -mile connections to each individual home and business is the largest expense in the deployment of broadband telecommunications infrastructure. Development Options for Enabling Broadband Telecommunications • Four infrastructure development scenarios, the original Power Engineers City Backbone project and three additional consortium scenarios, have been investigated for consideration by the City: Original City Backbone Project - Scenario 1: City developed and owned project Additional Consortium Projects - Scenario 2: City/ Cable provider partnership - Scenario 3: City/Telephone provider partnership - Scenario 4: City/Cable/Telephone consortium Since the primary measure of economic development success is the number of ultimate end-users that can be most quickly benefited, partnering with owners of existing infrastructure to reach the greatest number of Port Angeles residents and businesses is the best means of achieving economic development success. Financial Analyses and Findings • The financial analyses of the options show that all four scenarios are feasible. ■ All three consortium projects (Scenarios 24) however, are superior to the original City stand-alone project (Scenario 1) in meeting the City's economic development goals, as well as providing cost savings, greater returns and mitigation of risk. Conclusions The findings indicate that any of the consortium projects will meet the City's goals, be superior and easier to implement than a standalone City developed and owned infrastructure project. The findings also indicate the City has a good existing opportunity to develop broadband infrastructure through the current cable franchising renewal. At the minimum, the opportunity can yield a limited non- commercial institutional network. A City developed network, although feasible, is therefore the last choice that the City should consider. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 21 Executive Summary page s-2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ' Policy and Strategic Direction •The City should proceed with a telecommunications network consortium project. • The City of Port Angeles should take a strong, pro -active leadership role in developing and managing the consortium. • The infrastructure project should plan to connect the majority of end users through private partner infrastructure but concurrently offer the option of direct fiber drops to larger customers last -mile needing more bandwidth and willing to pay for the required fiber drop. ■ The City should stimulate the demand for direct fiber drops by providing incentives such as a low difference between the copper and fiber drops. This cost financing program to cover the incremental should rapidly increase the number of high bandwidth end-users. • The City should focus on attracting Qwest, Olypen, other owners of infrastructure, and telecommunication service providers to a City led infrastructure development consortium. • In dealing with prospective partners, the City should provide incentives and determine how it might build their markets to make their participation in a consortium more attractive and justifiable. • The City should undertake development of a project on its own project only as a last choice, in the event no others will step forward or join it in the project development. • At a minimum, should difficulties arise with development of the broadband infrastructure, the City should strive to obtain an institutional network for non-commercial public use. Broadband Infrastructure through Cable Television Franchise Renewal • The City should capitalize on the opportunity provided by the current cable franchise renewal proceedings and aggressively negotiate with Northland Cable to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. Consortium Implementation s • The City should keep developing all available options by concurrently proceeding with work on Scenarios 3 and 4. • The concurrent negotiations will maintain a competitive atmosphere that will be an incentive to Northland as well as other prospective partners. • The City should formalize the process of building the consortium to maintain implementation time frame goals. • The City should prepare and distribute a Request for Consortium Partner Proposals to private telecommunications companies. The solicitation process should run in parallel and in close coordination with the Cable Franchise renewal process currently underway. • The City should delay the engineering design phase of the City Backbone project awarded to MCC until the consortium is finalized. 1122 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 C_l A. Introduction page 1 BACKGROUND e historically changed areas of the country that receive the Shifts in the U.S. and global economies hav benefits of economic growth. Municipalities need to respond to these shifts to remain competitive in the pursuit of economic health and development. As shown in areas that have been left behind, inaction can be a harmful response when faced with changing economic conditions. The latest economic shift has revolved extensively around technological advancements in computing and telecommunications. The convergence of these industries has led to the rise of the Internet and changed the way we live and work. It is a feature of these technologies that people and businesses can now more effectively communicate over longer physical distances. This levels the playing field and creates a solid opportunity for smaller municipalities to compete for economic development opportunities previously beyond their reach. A good example is the trend of larger firms to locate call centers and hundreds of jobs in rural communities with desirable quality of life advantages. Attractive smaller cities such as Port Angeles now can compete but must prepare if they wish to benefit from this new opportunity. Enabling broadband telecommunications in the community is a crucial preparatory step. Conversely, there is a barrier to this opportunity becoming a reality. Infrastructure required for broadband telecommunications is capital intensive, and smaller markets do not provide the return on investment required by private companies. Municipal governments, however, can play a unique role in enabling the market by providing leadership, regulatory oversight and capital for telecommunications infrastructure development. By taking a pro -active leadership position, municipal governments can overcome the limiting factor of infrastructure, and greatly accelerate the development of broadband telecommunications in their communities. AUTHORIZATION The City of Port Angeles recognizes the telecommunications opportunity and the role it can play in sustaining community and economic development. Facing a decline in core natural resource industries ' such as fishing and logging, the City of Port Angeles has set goals and objectives, and undertaken a vigorous telecommunications initiative. The various components of this initiative include City sponsored technical studies2, community -wide education and discussions;, and participation in service provider programs4$ to develop a vision for integrating the community through technology. Summary findings from these programs are given in the section entitled "Related Activity" on the next page, and findings have been incorporated into this report where applicable. On August 10, 2000 the City engaged Metropolitan Communications Consultants (MCC) of Tacoma and Seattle, Washington to prepare a plan of action6 to guide the City in its telecommunications planning and development efforts. The report summarized the City's work to date, identified additional planning 'City Council Goals and Objectives 2001 Community Development Objectives: "Review and evaluate the feasibility and cost/ benefits of fiber optic expansion, or other technological source, to provide broadband services, other advanced technology services, and advanced communication and information services to the community." Economic Development Objectives: "Explore opportunities to support and promote the economic diversification of the .community, especially in areas of advanced ntial businesses that can expand our local economy" technology, marine industrial, telecommunications, and other pote t No. l of Clallam County and the City of 2Power Engineers, Inc., "Communications Systems Evaluation for Public Utility Distric Port Angeles", February 10 2000. 3DenRee Productions, "E-nable Visions Tour", February 2000. 4Fairpoint Communications, "BridgeWorkssm Program", in process SUnisys Corp., "E -@action Community Helper Solution", Community Portal Study, November 2000. 6Metropolitan Communications Consultants, "Community Telecommunications Action Plan', September 29 2000. 5/1/2001 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 123 A. Introduction page 2 needs and telecommunications opportunities and recommended specific action for the City to take over the next three-year period. ,O On October 17, 2000, the City authorized MCC to implement the recommendations of the September 2000 Action Plan. The authorization covers three tasks, the third of which is this report, as described below: • Telecommunications Ordinance. Assist the City in finalizing its draft telecommunications ordinance and modification of related ordinances for consistency. This task brings the City into compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, provides for management of public rights-of-way and levels the playing field for prospective service providers. The final draft was delivered on March 27, and adoption is anticipated in May 2001. • Community Telecommunications Needs and Interests. This task is to assist the City in its formal proceedings for renewal of the current cable television franchise held by Northland Cable. A procedural requirement of the renewal is an ascertainment of cable related community needs and interests. Making best use of the opportunity, the City has expanded this task to include community telecommunications needs and interests. The work is currently in the public proceedings and data gathering stage and the needs and interest assessment is scheduled for completion in May. PA Telecom Network Business Planning Analyses (authorization for this report). This report was authorized to analyze the infrastructure development options available to the City, and to make recommendations on the best course of action. Because of the commitment to its telecommunications goals and the current industry shortage of optical fiber, the City implemented a fast track schedule for proceeding with the backbone infrastructure proposed in the Power Engineerings report. A design contract was awarded to MCC on February 13, 2001, conditioned however, on notice to proceed being withheld until verification of overall feasibility by the business planning analyses. Action on this item is discussed in the recommendations of this report. RELATED ACTIVITY The recognition of the importance of broadband telecommunications has led to various efforts and studies of the current telecommunications environment in Port Angeles. The following activities have been reviewed and their findings are summarized below: Power Engineers, Inv On March 22, 2000 the City of Port Angeles and Clallam County Public Utility District No.,1 received an engineering report from Power Engineers, Inc. for a fiber optic backbone communications system in Clallam County. Local businesses were surveyed with 56% stating they would definitely use the proposed system and an additional 20% stating they would possibly use the proposed system. This more detailed business planning study carries forward one of the recommendations of the Power study. E-nable Visions Tourlo In February 2001 the results of a survey entitled "E-nable Visions Tour' sponsored by the City and conducted by a local Port Angeles consultant were released. In contrast with the Unisys study described later, survey methods, data, and finding were released in the E-nable report. The survey contacted 2,600 area residents and queried them on subjects such as computer ownership, Internet usage, and interest in telecommunications services. zdnetcom/intweek/stories/news/04164,2646759,OO.html 8See footnote 2 9Ibid 105ee footnote 3. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 124 • page 3 A. Introduction The study found high levels of Internet usage across demographic groups in the community. In addition, 77% of the survey respondents indicated interest in improved bandwidth and advanced telecommunications services. These findings led to the first recommendation of the E-nable report: "The Cite/ of Port Angeles should promote and pursue the innnediate and rapid deployment of widespread, affordable, and proven broadband technology such as DSL or cable modems in order to promote economic grozoth..." FairPoint Communications BridgeWorks•m Programn In July 2000, FairPoint Communications, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), gave a presentation of their BridgeWorkss program to a group of interested parties, including members of PA WORKS! The program's goal is to assist communities in using advanced telecommunications services to stimulate economic growth. The program has four phases, starting with a needs assessment and proceeding through collaboration, implementation to the final stage of economic acceleration. Fairpoint with the support of PA WORKS! has been continuing this program with periodic workshops for key community, business and governmental leaders. Unisys Corporation72 In May 2000, the Unisys Corporation announced that it had selected Port Angeles as the site for a feasibility study for a community portal to access the Internet. The project however, was dropped in November after Unisys announced the decision related to their study. The company cited a dispersed population base, lack of infrastructure, and low levels of Internet use as the obstacles to the project. It is important to note, however, that details on the study methods, data, and findings have not been released. Sappho Gap ProjeCt13 The Cities of Port Angeles and Forks have worked together since April of 2000 attempting to create a fiber loop through all of Clallam County. The Sappho Gap is the name assigned to a missing section of infrastructure which would connect existing systems being installed by CenturyTel on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula, with the Qwest infrastructure on the east side. The project entails linking the CenturyTel and Qwest systems at a meet point between Joyce and Sappho. In September 2000, the Clallam County Economic Development Council submitted an application to the Washington State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) for Qwest Settlement Telecommunications Project Assistance grant funds for the Sappho Gap project. On April 19, 2001, the CERB Board awarded grants to 5 projects, among which the top award of $1.7 million was made to the Sappho Gap Project. Wireless Communication Planning in Clallam County14 In April 2001, the Clallam County Economic Development Council and Clallam County PUD No. 1, authorized a study entitled "Wireless Communication Planning in Clallam County", a project to evaluate and design an optimum wireless voice and high-speed data communications infrastructure plan for Clallam County. The study entails identification of existing service and of technology limits for various wireless providers and design of a plan for an "open access" platform for wireless communications facilities. 11See footnote 4. 12See footnote 5. 135ee footnote 5. 14Clallam County Economic Development Council and Clallam County PUD No. 1. "Wireless Communication Planning in Clallam County", study in progress by Hatfield and Dawson, April 12, 2001. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 125 A. Introduction page 4 NoaNet1s The Northwest Open Access Network (NoaNet) is a nonprofit corporation that has licensed fiber optic cables from the Bonneville Power Administration to build and operate a broadband network that serves public power electric utilities and their customers in the state of Washington and parts of Oregon. NoaNet is envisioned to be a broadband communications backbone between public utility districts (PUD's) and other entities, allowing access to network services by the PUD's and their customers as well as establishing a common broadband link to the Internet for use within their respective Districts. NoaNet's initial Washington network was put into operation in January 2001. Service providers are now being solicited. BPA began installing approximately 107 miles of fiber optic cable between its Olympia substation and its Port Angeles substation in March 2001 and is expected to complete most of its work by July 2001. NoaNet has indicated that its schedule follows closely thereafter, probably in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2001. NoaNet's Port Angeles area member is the Clallam County PUD No. 1. NoaNet represents an alternate way (to Qwest) off the peninsula for any Port Angeles telecommunications infrastructure. A map of the NoaNet Olympia to Port Angeles network route map is shown in Appendix 15. MISSION AND GOALS Based on the foregoing economic development background, the proposed mission of the City of Port Angeles Telecommunications Initiative is: To ensure delivery of broadband telecommunications products and services to Port Angeles in 2002, by enabling the development of the necessary telecommunications infrastructure. Broadband telecommunications services consist of the following: • High-speed transmission of data, voice, and video traffic, including broadband Internet access via DSL modems, cable modems, direct fiber connections, or wireless technologies. • Local area networking (LAN), and wide area networking (WAN) ■ Digital cable television City Goals The goals of the initiative are in support of the above mission statement. These goals include: • Plan, develop and enable an economically feasible infrastructure project. • Enable the largest number of homes and businesses to obtain broadband telecommunications in as rapid a time frame as feasible. • Foster competition in the delivery of products and services. ■ Prevent the development of excessive redundant infrastructure. COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT Any project that changes the telecommunications landscape will have impacts on the competitive dynamics of the industry. As a result, it is crucial to understand the current competitive situation of telecommunications infrastructure in the area prior to undertaking a project. In this way, the City of Port Angeles can better understand potential partners and competitors to any network developed. Off the Peninsula Any telecommunications network within Port Angeles and the surrounding area must connect to a line traveling off the Olympic Peninsula that connects on the other end to the major nationwide trunk lines crossing the country. At the current time, the only provider with a high capacity fiber optic line off the peninsula is Qwest, with a line that connects to a trunk line in Seattle. Access to this line can be provided from Qwest's central office in downtown Port Angeles. A competitive line is currently under tsht,•//wti,w noanet.net/about.html. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 1126 5/1/2001 7 A. Introduction page 5 construction by BPA/Northwest Open Access Network (NoaNet) of which the Clallam County PUD is a member. BPA reports this line will be completed in late summer 2001 with a Point of Presence at the Port Angeles BPA substation. A third project is the previously described Sappho Gap project that provides the currently missing link to connect Port Angeles to Forks and on to major trunk lines near Olympia. All traffic carried by any future Port Angeles backbone will have to utilize one of these methods to carry traffic to and from the community. In addition, users requiring high levels of uninterrupted service may require redundancy beyond the existing Qwest trunk prior to locating their businesses in the area. Port Angeles Backbone A backbone aggregates, carries, and distributes traffic coming into and leaving the city. The backbone connects to the trunk line off the peninsula and contains last -mile distribution cross connections. At the present time an integrated, open -access fiber optic backbone does not exist in Port Angeles. The current infrastructure is a patchwork of copper, coaxial cable, fiber-optic and wireless connections built by separate users in an attempt to provide bandwidth for their needs. The most substantial backbone section is a high capacity fiber optic ring between the Qwest central office and their largest customer, Olympic Medical Center. Northland Cable has a smaller amount of backbone fiber to carry their cable television traffic. It would be advantageous to design an integrated, open -access backbone that builds upon and connects to current available infrastructure, but execution would depend on partnerships between the builder and current owners of private infrastructure. Last Mile Beyond the new backbone, the last mile connection to the end-user presents the greatest challenge of all the segments of any new telecommunications infrastructure. Costly connections must be provided, one by one, to each home or business. The cost and the delayed time frames associated with providing fiber drops directly to the end-user has become the limiting factor in attempts elsewhere to provide community -wide fiber connections. As a result, the vast majority of other network projects have utilized DSL and cable modem technology to provide broadband data communications. These technologies utilize copper and coaxial connections already connected into the majority of homes and businesses. In Port Angeles, Qwest is the primary owner of the copper connections to the end-user that have traditionally carried only voice traffic. Northland Cable has coaxial connections providing cable television to approximately 60% of the homes in the City. Connecting a new fiber backbone to either of these last -mile infrastructure layouts will dramatically accelerate the adoption of broadband telecommunications to the community. Fiber optic connections can still be made available to users willing to pay a higher price for the increased bandwidth the fiber connection will allow. Olypen, a local Internet Service Provider, is currently providing wireless last mile connectivity to homes and businesses on a limited basis. The company has installed various antennas at key high points in the community. Olypen then provides a wireless data connection at broadband speeds up to 1 Mbps. A significant limitation of this service is the requirement for uninterrupted line -of -sight between the antenna and the home or business. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 127 B. Project Definition page 6 TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES VALUE CHAIN A representation of the telecommunicationsi This figure provides an overview of theflow of product and services to the end-user andshowshow in Figure 1. representative companies operating in each segment of the chain. An important aspect of the value chain is the distinction between providers of infrastructure, labeled in green, and the providers of produts hainCOthers, such as Qwest operate hown in blue.a across multiple areasany private nies operate in only one distinct area of the Products and Services Telecommunications products and services include software, content, and the ability to connect to the Internet using an Internet Service Provider (ISP). Specialized marketing and technology expertise is required to successfully compete in these marketplaces. Numerous private companies provide these products and services over installed telecommunications infrastructure. Infrastructure To reach the end-user, companies offering telecommunications products and services rely on owners of infrastructure to provide a pathway to the customer. These infrastructure companies can be split into two sub -groups: • Infrastructure product companies that manufacture and provide fiber, copper and network equipment. • Organizations that ultimately provide and "light up" the copper or fiber wires that connect homes and businesses. These pathway providers operate in three segments: - Trunk carriers that carry telecommunications traffic between communities, regions, and nations; - Backbone carriers that carry traffic aggregated on a community or metropolitan level, and - "Last mile providers that carry traffic in and out of individual homes and businesses. Municipal governments such as the City of Port Angeles have core competencies in enabling or providing infrastructure to the community, and have the ability to operate in the select regions of the value chain that exist within their jurisdiction. This opportunity includes the backbone and last mile infrastructure connections to the community. Role of the City The City should be open to any course of action that can meet the above mission and goals. As such it can play any role that will accomplish its goal, from being just a regulator and facilitator to infrastructure developer and builder. There are compelling reasons however, for the City to take an authoritative leadership role. As previously mentioned, the limiting factor in deploying broadband telecommunications is the capital expenditure necessary to build the infrastructure required as a first step. Due to the smaller market size of the Port Angeles area, private companies have been unwilling to spend the capital. On the other hand, private companies are also wary of municipalities building networks for fear of perceived "unfair" competition. The resulting situation is a stalemate with demand unsatisfied and "new age" economic development stalled. The City for the following reasons however, can effectively address both difficulties: • The backbone infrastructure falls within the city limits and the City has the authority to build it. • The City should be willing to bring capital, rights-of-way, poles and other assets to any development proposal. • The City has experience in providing infrastructure to the community and will do so if necessary. • The City however, should be committed to be an infrastructure enabler, not necessarily a builder, and not a service provider competitor. 5/1/2001 128 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS • n B. Project Definition L Content Application Providers (e.g. Starwave, ESPN, Disney) Application Service Providers (e.g. Napster, Yahoo, MSN) Internet Service Providers (e.g. Qwest, Olypen, TenForward, Olympus -net) Voice -'V ( Data ' ( Video Software Operating Systems Providers (e.g. Hewlett Packard) Telecommunications Network Equipment (e. g. Cisco, Nortel, Marconi, Alcatel) Transmission Media, Fiber/Copper Providers (e. g. Corning, Lucent, Fujikura) Trunk CarrierBackbone Provider JH"Last mile" Provider (e.g. AT&T, Sprint) k(Partial/ Limited only) (e.g. Qwest, Northland) Figure 1: Telecommunications Value Chain METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS page 7 B. Project Definition page 8 The City should not provide telecom products and service. • The City should support, however, competition in the market and should be willing to be the service provider of last resort in the event competition does not evolve. • The City is in the planning stage and has not made any decisions but should be committed to enabling broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles in 2002. • The City should be open to any and all possible solutions for solving the limiting factor of broadband access. • Concurrent Cable Franchise Renewal and Institutional Network negotiations provide the City with excellent opportunities to form partnerships with private telecommunications providers to begin working toward a solution. Once the capital -intensive backbone infrastructure is in place, telecommunications service providers are typically eager to deliver their products and services over the network. Instead of having to make large capital investments, service providers can instead pay the infrastructure providers as they receive revenues from their customers (the end-users). Thus the limiting factor of the value chain can be overcome. In this typical scenario, the end-user becomes a customer of the product and service provider, and the product and service provider becomes the customer of the infrastructure provider. SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS As part of the business planning process, the City of Port Angeles and MCC collaborated on a web -based survey, conducted interviews with select organizations within the community and on March 30, 2001 held a Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop. Organizations were segmented into.three groups: End-users of products and services Providers of products and services Providers of infrastructure The results of the surveys and interviews were utilized in the analysis of the competitive dynamics of the telecommunications market in Port Angeles, and helped form the basis for assumptions in the business analysis of options available to the City. A copy of the Workshop report is given in Appendix 16. A list of the service providers and major users contacted as part of this analysis is given in Table 1. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 130 y 0 • page 9 B. Project Definition Name Title Telephone e-mail Company Service Providers Northland Cable Television Pete Grigorieff Manager Western Division Ops Mgr 360-452-8466 206-621-1351 Pete@northlandtv.com mroberge@northlandco.com Northland Communications Corp. Michael W. Roberge Richard J. (lack) Dyste VP Technical Services 206-621-1351 jack@northlandco.com Qwest Communications lane Nishita Regional Manager 206-345-2316 inish@qwest.com Fairpoint Communications Daniel P. Fine Regional VP of Sales 704-414-2527 360-417-9757 dfine@fairpoint.com Ischerencel@fairpoint.com Lynn Scherencel jutley@fairpoint.com John Utley CenturyTel Tim Grigor Wa. General Manager 253-851-1345 jill.comsa@centuryiel.com Jill Comsa Account Manager Ross Shenner Area Manager tony.nicholson@centurytel.com Tony Nicholson Area Manager Avista Communications Greg Greene Karen Moses President General Manager, Yakima 509-444-4900 509-853-4010 kmoses@avistacom.net New Edge Networks Sal Cinquegrani Exec. Dir. Community Relations 360-693-9009 Nu Wave Communications Heidi Dunfield SVP, Business Development 541-386-5000 Ten Forward Communications Sheldon Koehler Owner 360-457-9023 sheldon@tenforward.com360-457-9023 Darren Atkins Manager Mike Breen Owner 800-962-8714 billing@olypen.com Olypen Jared Emory Broadband Design Engineer 800-962-8714 Terry Kennedy 800-962-8714 terry@olypen.com 0 01 m us.net Y P Ned Shenann Dave Meyer ned@olympus.net davemeyer@olympus.net i s Angeles Communications, Inc. Bob Jensen 360-457-4375 Excel Utility Construction Bill Roberds 360-452-1110 billwash@olypen.com Clallam Co PUD No. 1 Fred Mitchell Assistant General Manager 360-452-9771 x235 fredm@clallampud.net Northwest Open Access Network Dave Spencer Chief Operating Officer 208-343-6477 dspencer@noanet.net PA Prospective Large Users Clallam County Daniel Gouin Central Services Department 360-417-2000 x2406 dgouin@co.clallam.wa.us Port of Port Angeles David H. Hagirwara Deputy Executive Director 360-417-3422 daveh@portofpa.com bjames@potofpa.com Bill James Port Angeles School District 121 Steve Baxter Supervisor of IS & Technology 360-457-8575 x33 steve_baxter@pasd.wednet.edu Peninsula College Ken Jacobson Director of IS 360-452-9277 kjacobso@ctc.edu emmaj@pcadmin.ctc.edu Emma Janssen Olympic Medical Center Evan Boyd Sr. Network Administrator 360-417-7192 eboyd@olympicmedical.org Craig Haught Eric Jacobson grsmith@olympicmedical.org Gary Smith Virginia Mason Port Angeles Ida Brooks 360-457-2156 First Federal Savings & Loan Paula Johnson 360-457-0461 paula@ffpa.com Daishowa America Kathy Prince IS Supervisor 360-457-4474 kathy.prince@daishowaamerica.com Jason.mangano@daishowaamerica.com Jason Mangano Table 1: Service Providers and Users Contacted 5/11/211 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS page 10 B. Project Definition INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES General The Power Engineers study presented a preliminary engineering evaluation of a City developed and consideration rough did not inccial feasibility analysesoThe report16 City owned backbone project. The ccope ofinanwork conclude that the or alternatives or ownership governance City should implement only a transport network and that the City should: ... contract with one or more service providers, sucli as Olypen or Centum/ Teleplione, to provide services across the network. In considering the relative merits of any alternative the primary criteria is economic development is the number of ultimate end-users that potential. The major index of economic development potential Other related criteria are network gaphic rage and capability. In ehe users, have widest coverage can be immediately benefit e she netwo k that will serve the most the best alternate summary, and offer the quickest and most capable service. In addition to the alternatives that will be discussed, the City is involved in three ongoing telecommunications initiatives. These are: requested by Northland Cable. • Cable Franchise renewal proceedings • Deployment of DSL service by Qwest and resellers. • The Sappho Gap project The City's involvement in these initiatives should continue actively and aggressively, concurrent with All should be explored to evaluation of the broadband network alternatives in this analysis. avenues for the City to implement. develop the most favorable business proposition Status Quo, Private Network Alternative Under this alternative, the City would not initiate any development, and provision of broadband in with their individual telecommunications would be left to private companies to develop accordance however, consider Port Angeles a smaller market that does not market strategies. Private companies, necessary. This has been Qwest's position until February 19, 2001 when justify the capital expenditures turn -around indicated to the City that it would furnish DSL service in Port Qwest in an unexpected Angeles, a move that may in part have been prompted by the City's active consideration of other this to be a positive development. alternatives to jointly provide broadband services. We view Under this alternative the City's activities would be limited to: and is dependent on their plans. • City accepts status quo, remains a customer of incumbent providers to comply with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, to ■ City updating of its policies and regulations level the playing field, and to ensure a competitive market in the area under its jurisdiction. This is scheduled for completion in May 2001. work has already been implemented17 by the City and its and telecommunications assets to providers on a • City makes available and manages rights-of-way basis. In doing so, the City must be prepared for separate and duplicate systems, non-discriminatory heavy use, damage, and repeated repair of its streets, poles and other assets. adband Under this alternative, the City has no leverage to determine the extent could be delayed mingfor of broadband rs. This competitive services telecommunications and significant, will not meet the City' is developmentgoals and is a default approach, one already alternative considered in related studies and found to unacceptable City Network Alternative A second alternative is City development of a broadband transport network. By developing such a the City integrates provider needs, and making it available to all qualified service providers, network Inc., 1. 16Power Engineers, page »City of Port Angeles, "Telecommunications and Related Ordinances' Adoption Draft, March 26, 2001. 5/1/2001 32 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS J 11 B. Project Definition page eliminates duplicate networks and optimizes management of its limited rights-of-way and other telecommunications assets. This alternative also provides maximum protection for the public interest in contrast to a privately developed network where the owners would be inclined to "cherry pick" the most profitable customers and not provides citywide service. On the other hand, this alternative carries great risk, related to competition, competencies, and financing. If the network is to be wholly owned by the City, the City will also have to construct the distribution and last mile system to reach the ultimate end-users. Also, even though the City may only intend to provide the transport pathway, the project may be perceived as inappropriate use of public monies in competition for the customers of the incumbent private companies. If the City can assure the private providers that they, not their end-users, are the City's target customers, competencies and system standards then become an issue. Required system redundancy, dependability, network management, operation and maintenance will be at levels far beyond existing in-house City competencies. These challenges are not technically insurmountable but may well be financially unachievable. Public/Private Network Alternative The most attractive alternative available to the City of Port Angeles is for the City to take a leadership role in a public/ private consortium network alternative. Ideally this consortium would have as members, one or both of the incumbent providers of existing last -mile infrastructure. By developing a backbone that connects to the last -mile infrastructure of these incumbent partners, the number of ultimate end-users immediately benefited increases dramatically beyond that in other alternatives. There are other advantages for considering such an alternative: • Close coupling of public/ private partners allows the best matching of needed competencies with the proper resources and market focus. ■ The public'interest is protected while risk is spread among a larger group of participants. • Financing risk can be balanced using both public and private, available financing opportunities. ■ Making use of partners' last mile infrastructure through DSL and/or cable modems is a less capital - intensive first step that allows network costs to be managed incrementally and to grow with demand. • Using a private partner's existing last mile infrastructure immediately enables widespread broadband service which may be adequate to meet demand, particularly among residential users for a long time. • At the same time, fiber drops can be offered concurrently to users needing higher bandwidths and willing to pay the cost of early deployment of new fiber optic last mile infrastructure. • Quick deployment of widespread broadband service will also enable the City to implement broadband utility applications much sooner, an imperative in the current electric utility market. Cable Television Infrastructure Upgrading The City of Port Angeles is currently in the formal franchise renewal process with Northland Cable for the Cable Television Franchise in Port Angeles. These negotiations provide the City with the opportunity to work together with Northland to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. Institutional Network At a minimum, should the City not proceed with a City owned network or if no partnerships can be achieved, the City still has the opportunity to obtain a governmental and educational institutional network through the cable franchise renewal. An institutional network will limit broadband service to non-commercial public, educational and governmental users but will allow dramatic cost -savings and efficiencies in their operation. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 133 B. Project Definition BUSINESS PROPOSITION page 12 Port Angeles Telecom The business proposition is the creation of a new business to provide broadband telecommunications products and services in the city of Port Angeles. The new business, for convenience hereafter referred to as Port Angeles Telecom (PA Telecom), would be developed, owned, and operated either by the City or a City led consortium as previously described. Physical Infrastructure The physical infrastructure itself will be a high speed, high capacity, citywide network, serving the proprietary communications needs of the City of Port Angeles and institutional, commercial and residential customers in the City. The initial phase of the infrastructure would consist of a fiber optic backbone and a hybrid fiber/ copper distribution system. Later phases of the infrastructure development could bring upgrades of the distribution system to the ultimate state of an all -fiber network with fiber to the user. VALUE PROPOSITION The City's Competitive Advantages With the business proposition it is crucial for the City to clearly understand the value proposition it brings to any negotiation or business arrangement to enable broadband telecommunications. The City has a strong value proposition based upon the following competitive advantages: • The City's willingness to bring substantive capital to any project deemed feasible by business analyses. This is a crucial item that private companies have identified as the limiting factor to accelerated private build out of infrastructure. ■ Access to long term municipal financing, which is more favorable than private commercial financing. ■ Control of public rights of way, poles, and other telecommunications assets. • Experienced project management and prior experience in providing and managing utility infrastructure in Port Angeles. • Valuable competitive advantage in the City's solid customer relationships. • The ability to facilitate the navigation of governmental and regulatory issues relating to a project. • Skilled management and leadership ability in consortium building and partnerships. • Willingness to sell its share of any developed network once the project is complete and operations are stable. This is consistent with the City goal of enabling broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles and not becoming a competitor with private industry. Its strong value proposition should make the City an attractive partner in the eyes of private companies in an infrastructure development consortium. The City's Crucial Leadership Role The above advantages give the City a strong position to negotiate and to take the leadership role in any project for development of telecommunication infrastructure. It is crucial that the City take the lead if it is to achieve its goals, as private companies have understandably different goals based on profitability, not necessarily consistent with the City's economic development and public service goals. The City can further enhance its advantages by leveling the playing field to attract competition, by creating a favorable telecommunications environment, by preparing itself, and by developing community readiness. The City leadership is essential for these inter -related telecommunications and economic development activities to be successfully accomplished. 1134 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 • C. Project Analyses page 13 CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS The criteria and assumptions used in the project analyses are listed below. The criteria are based on project materials gathered, design and cost data from MCC records and current industry and vendor sources. Conservative planning assumptions have been used, and where appropriate remain consistent across all analyses. The primary criteria and assumptions, based on a ten-year analysis period, are shown below: PROJECTS ANALYZED Project analyses were performed on four potential PA Telecom network projects. The first is an analysis of a City developed project, the other three are City led consortium projects. The four projects are: City Developed • Scenario 1, City Developed and Owned PA Telecom Network (also called City Backbone Project). This is a feasibility analysis of the Power Engineers proposal. The infrastructure layout is modified from the Power preliminary design to reflect changes based on a field inspection of the route and an immediate build -out of the backbone rather than a 4 phase build -out as proposed. City Led Consortium Developed • Scenario 2, Partnership with a Cable Provider, desirably Northland Cable, the incumbent cable TV provider and owner of coaxial last -mile infrastructure. • Scenario 3, Partnership with a Telco Provider, desirably Qwest, the incumbent local exchange carrier and owner of copper last -mile infrastructure. Century Telephone is another potential partner, having extensive operations on the Olympic Peninsula and infrastructure near but not in Port Angeles. • Scenario 4, Partnership with both a Cable and Telephony Provider. INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL PLAN The physical infrastructure itself will be a high speed, high capacity, citywide network, serving the proprietary communications needs of the City and institutional, commercial and residential customers throughout the city. The infrastructure will have a ring topology and will consist of a fiber backbone and hybrid fiber/copper distribution system spreading out to reach all potential users. Backbone Layout • At this point, without specific information regarding the existing last mile infrastructures of the incumbent providers, a backbone layout based on the Power Engineers preliminary design, modified per a field survey by MCC/LMSI, has been prepared and is shown in Figure 2. • The backbone consists of 17 miles of 96 -strand fiber in a figure-eight ring configuration, with associated voice, data, and video, transport and customer interface equipment, located in 10 network nodes. • All network nodes are assumed to be located in existing City owned buildings or other properties. ■ A partnership with the cable and/or telephone provider will determine the customized layout to best incorporate the specific provider's last mile distribution infrastructure. It is expected that such a custom layout should result in a less extensive backbone. • To be conservative and for purposes of analysis, the more extensive backbone in Figure 2 has been assumed to be applicable for all scenarios. • A schematic of the backbone between 2 nodes is shown in Figure 3. Distribution Cabling • A city owned distribution system would ultimately consist of approximately 50 miles of last mile fiber and copper cabling reaching an estimated 3,535 customers in the 10 -year analysis period. The analyses assume that approximately 242 will be direct fiber and the balance copper connections. S!1 /20 1 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS D. Project Analyses page 14 A single partner distribution system would consist of the last mile partner infrastructure integrated into the backbone through approximately 20 miles of distribution fiber connections and direct fiber drops. For analysis purposes, a single over -designed distribution system has been assumed without regard to type of potential partner. A multiple partner distribution system would consist of all last mile partner infrastructures integrated into the backbone through approximately 36 miles of fiber connections and direct fiber drops. USERS AND GROWTH Basis of User Projections • User growth projections over the 10 -year analysis period were estimated for both a City developed network (Scenario 1) and a Consortium developed network (Scenarios 2-4). • For either City or Consortium development, user projections were made for home and business users by the categories of voice, data or cable television customers. ■ The projections incorporate the findings of the Enable Visions Tour community survey and reports, dated February 2001, but are deliberately set low to achieve conservative analyses. • In the Port Angeles exchange, Qwest's last mile telephone infrastructure and DMS100 switch18 in its Laurel Street Central Office, currently serve 15,463 residential and 6,454 business access lines. • Since the Port Angeles exchange extends beyond the city and since exact data from Qwest is proprietary and unavailable, the project market in the city for local telephone service has been conservatively estimated at only 60% of the total access lines served by Qwest's Laurel Street Switch. • At 60%, the 2001 available market for voice and data services is 9,278 residential lines (7,732 residences) and 3,873 business lines (1,107 business establishments). The difference between access lines and establishments is noted because construction costs are based on cabling drops (1 per establishment) whereas revenues are based on access lines. • The cable television market currently served by Northland Cable's19 last mile infrastructure is 10,653 homes passed. Since the 10,653 homes passed include areas outside the city, the telephone data have been extrapolated to get homes passed in the city. The cable television market in the city is therefore made up of 7,732 homes and 1,107 businesses, a total of 8,839 available connections. • Direct fiber customers are assumed to be equal across all scenarios, approximately 4% of the home/ SOHO (small office, home office) connections and 30% of business connections. Table 2 summarizes the market opportunities and basis of user projections for each scenario. Scenario 2001 Market Voice Data I Cats lines connects I connects 1. City Project 17.0% 40.7% n/a 9.9% 34.8% 17.0% 43.4% 71.1% 9.9% 43.4% 9,278 7,732 7,732 Business Users Total Users Voice Data I Cate Voice Data Catv lines connects connects lines I connects connects 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 36 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 10 • Market penetration at yr 11, in % of yr 2001 market 40.0% n/a 1. City Project 17.0% 40.7% n/a 9.9% 34.8% 17.0% 43.4% 71.1% 9.9% 43.4% n/a 54.7% 14.9% 14.9% 43.4% 69.0% 2. City/Cable 3. City(felco 100.0% 86.9% n/a 100.0% 86.9% n/a 100.0% 86.9% n/a 4. City/Both 100.0% 86.9% 71.1% 100.0016 86.9% 54.7% 100.0% 86.9% 69.0% Table 2: Basis of User Projections 18Qwest Communications interconnection Database, see Appendix 15. 19Data furnished by Mr. Pete Grigorieff, Manager, Northland Cable, 2/8/01. 36 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 10 • OJ CA R CL H d H u 0 0 N U'7 N r Z Q r J D LA z O u N z O r Q V z cD c C O u z a r J 0 a O r ►l 137 page 16 C. Project Analyses Backbone Node A i 'j �� ✓{ Fire Station ❑ ❑ User Site at nate Backbone Device 1 -..... - walsla�rn _ --•- Edge Device Azza 1 0 F •H Qwest CO (' Backbone Node A Coverage Area a 0 - LL User Drop Fibers. typ. — Service Provider A User Site Typical Device a� C L c X Remote _`= •. - r_ User Site, adjacent y a 1' o - a Neighborhood Dist. Fibers, typ_ User Sae Qwest CO (' Backbone Node A Coverage Area a BacZone Device 16F0001PO Backbone Node Bi !f Backbone Node B Coverage Area Figure 3: Ring, Distribution and Fiber Connection Schematic 0 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 - Edge Dewe *04 stabw NoaNet or Other L SITYH User Site, adjacent User Site X Remote o Neighborhood Dist. Fibers, typ. r-� d -- �..... �Nn' ..... _... o c D User Site U iY LL X / Remote Service Provider B c Typical Device a 'o - - User Drop Fibers.tyP• :0 - U) BacZone Device 16F0001PO Backbone Node Bi !f Backbone Node B Coverage Area Figure 3: Ring, Distribution and Fiber Connection Schematic 0 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 - Edge Dewe *04 stabw SITYH User Site, adjacent BacZone Device 16F0001PO Backbone Node Bi !f Backbone Node B Coverage Area Figure 3: Ring, Distribution and Fiber Connection Schematic 0 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 rLl C_ Proiect Analyses page 17 Scenario 1 City Network (City Backbone Project), User Projections The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 1 City developed network is shown in Table 3 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual product categories. Scenario 1 Home Users Business Users Total Users City Infrastructure Voice lines Data connects Catv connects Voice lines Data connects Catv connects Voice lines Data connects Cate connects 2001 Market 9,278 7,732 7,732 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 Year 1 Year Year 3 150 400 300 800 0 0 100 150 100 150 0 0 250 550 400 950 0 0 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 650 850 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,300 1,700 2,100 2,400 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 195 235 270 300 325 195 235 270 300 325 0 0 0 0 0 845 1,085 1,320 1,500 1,675 1,495 1,935 2,370 2,700 3,025 0 0 0 0 0 Year Year 10 1,450 1,525 1,575 2,900 3,050 3,150 0 0 1 0 345 365 385 345 365 385 0 0 0 1,795 1,890 3,245 3,415 0 0 1,960 1 3,535 = Year 11 151 167000 8,839 I 127000 8,839 89000 's I� Voice Lines 1,960 d 41000 I , ..,,' ' I Data Users 3,535 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rr "Oil + CATV Users 0 Project Year 8 9 loll Table 3: City Network, Projected User Growth • Although the backbone can be built quickly, the 10 year build out of a City distribution infrastructure to reach all end-users limits the rate of user growth. This is a hindrance for providers, such as cable television companies, who want to immediately furnish citywide service. • In the City alternative, it has been assumed that cable television will be furnished by the incumbent provider using its own separate network and that the City network will not have any cable television users. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001139 page 18 C. Project Analyses • It is possible that another cable television company may be attracted to use the City network and be willing to invest in the required distribution and last mile system. This possibility however, is covered by and is a variation of Scenario 2, the City/ Cable Partner consortium scenario. • The network's voice customers will be competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC) to whom citywide coverage by infrastructure will not necessarily be a critical factor. This is because CLEC's primarily target businesses, which will be reached in the early build -out stages of the distribution system. • Qwest has a competitive advantage as the incumbent and it has been assumed that a CLEC using the City network to compete against Qwest will gain only 15% of the total voice market and 40% of the total data market by year 11. The voice market assumptions are deliberately conservative in view of the fact that this scenario has the highest risk for the City, as described on page 11. Scenario 2 City/Cable Consortium Network, Projected User Growth • The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 2 City/ Cable developed network is shown in Table 4 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual product categories. 5/1/2001 1. 40 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 10 • • Home Users Business Users Total Users Voice Data Catv Voice lines Data connects Catv connects Voice lines connects Data Cate connects lines connects connects RYear 9,278 7,732 7,732 3,873 1,107 1,107 13,151 8,839 8,839 150 2,165 5,026 100 310 554250 2,475 5,579 400 2,273 5,076 150 325 559 550 2,599 5,635 Year 4 650 2,387 5,127 195 342 565 845 2,729 5,691 Year 5 850 2,506 5,178 235 359 570 1,085 2,865 5,748 Year 6 1,050 2,632 5,230 270 377 576 1,320 3,008 5,806 Year 1,200 2,763 5,282 300 396 582 1,500 3,159 5,864 Year 8 1,350 2,901 5,335 325 415 588 1,675 3,317 5,923 Year 9 1,450 3,046 5,388 345 436 593 1,795 3,482 5,982 Year 10 1,525 3,199 5,442 365 458 599 1,890 3,657 6,042 Year 11 1,575 3,359 1 5,497 1 385 1 481 605 1,960 3,839 6,102 51 I +I 16,000 8,839 I I 12,000 8,839 81000 A a• r, Voice lines 1,960 C 4,000 1 i E Data Users 3,839 1 2 R CATV Users 6,102 3 4 5 6 Projed Year $ 9 loll Table 4: City/Cable Network, Projected User Growth 5/1/2001 1. 40 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 10 • • r-� • page 19 C. Project Analyses • For Scenario 2, the incumbent's 5,579 cable television customers will be brought on board immediately. • Using only a 1% annual increase, the cable television customers will grow to 6,102 users by year 11, a 69% penetration of the 2001 available market of 8,839 homes and businesses passed in the city. • Qwest will still be the incumbent competitor for voice and data services. The market penetration for voice has therefore been assumed to be the same as for Scenario 1, approximately 15%. • Because the network will have access to all the cable television customers, and because of the immediate availability of cable modem service, it has been assumed that the data market opportunity would be open to the most aggressive competitor. It has been conservatively assumed however, that the Scenario 2 network will get a little under half, or approximately 44% of the available customers. Scenario 3 City/Cable Consortium Network, Projected User Growth • The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 3 City/Telco developed network is shown in Table 5 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual product categories. Scenario 3 Consortium City/Telco 2001 Market Home Users Business Users Total Users Voice lines 9,278 Data connects 7,732 Catv connects 7,732 Voice lines 3,873 Data connects 1,107 Catv connects 1,107 Voice lines 13,151 Data connects 8,834 Cate connects 8,839 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 9,278 9,324 9,418 9,512 9,607 9,703 9,800 9,898 9,997 10,097 4,330 4,546 4,774 5,012 5,263 5,526 5,803 6,093 6,397 6,717 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3,873 3,892 3,931 3,971 4,010 4,050 4,091 4,132 4,173 1 4,215 620 651 683 718 754 791 831 872 916 1 962 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,151 13,217 13,349 13,482 13,617 13,753 13,891 14,030 14,170 4,950 5,197 5,457 5,730 6,017 6,317 6,633 6,965 7,313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,312 7,679 0 Year 11 0 4W 'I .W r. 4W WK ,aF 00- 1 2 3 4 s 5 6 7 Project Year 8 9 loll wi I Voice Lina 14,312 Data Users 7,679 CATV Users 0 Table 5: City/Telco Network, Projected User Growth METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 141 C. Project Analyses page 20 • In Scenario 3, it has been assumed as in Scenario 1 that cable television will be furnished by the incumbent provider using its own separate network and that the network will not have any cable television users. Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco Consortium Network, Projected User Growth • The estimated user growth based on a Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco developed network is shown in Table 6 and its accompanying chart. • The pink columns at the left of the chart represent the year 2001 available user market. The 3 series shown on the chart represent the market penetration for each of the 3 individual.product categories. Scenario 4 Consortium City/Both 2001 Market Home Users Business Users Total Users Voice lines 9,278 Data connects 7,732 Catv connects 7,732 Voice lines 3,873 Data connects 1,107 Catv connects 1,107 Voice lines 13,151 Data connects 8,839 Catv connects 8,839 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 9,278 9,324 9,418 9,512 9,607 9,703 9,800 9,898 9,997 10,097 4,330 4,546 4,774 5,012 5,263 5,526 5,803 6,093 6,397 6,717 5,026 5,076 5,127 5,178 5,230 5,282 5,335 5,388 5,442 5,497 3,873 3,892 3,931 3,971 4,010 4,050 4,091 4,132 4,173 4,215 620 651 683 718 754 791 831 872 916 962 554 559 565 570 576 582 588 593 -599 605 13,151 13,217 13,349 13,482 13,617 13,753 13,891 14,030 14,170 4,950 5,197 5,457 5,730 6,017 6,317 6,633 6,965 7,313 5,579 5,635 5,691 5,748 5,806 5,864 5,923 5,982 6,042 14,312 7,679 6,102 Year 11 16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 8,839 8,839 s Projed Year o 9 10 11 Voice Lines 14,312 Data Users 7,679 CATV Users 6,102 Table 6: City/Cable/Telephone Network, Projected User Growth - In this scenario, the network serves both incumbents and their existing customers and the current market penetrations for all product categories have therefore been assumed. 1142 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 10 • �1 page 21 C. Project Analyses PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Summary of Cost Estimates is below in Table 7 and its A summary of the annual costs for each of the four scenarios presented Scenario are given in Appendices 2-5. accompanying chart. Detailed cost estimates for each Annual Cost, $million Total ario Yr t Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 m 1. 3.63 1.42 1.38 0.91 0.85 0.70 0.63 0.48 0.36 0.26 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 N 10.70 5.32 partner 4.98 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.01 5.83 partner 4.84 5.62 0.31 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.01 6.84 partners • 6 0 5 .£ 4 3 1 ..1 wk. y' 4. City/both partners 4 To " �► .. s 3. City/telco partner a 0 .: 2. City/cable partner 2 3 4 5 1. City project Project Year 6 8 9 10 11 Table 7: Summary of Annual Costs for Alternative Project Scenarios Project Capital Costs • Total project construction costs (TPCC) are broken down into backbone infrastructure, distribution system costs. And indirect costs. • Backbone Infrastructure is further categorized into backbone fiber and backbone electronics. It has been assumed that the entire fiber backbone including all 10 nodes will be constructed in year 1, and that node electronics will be staged to match customer demand and requests for service. • Backbone costs differ between the scenarios, the most expensive being Scenario 1, because of the greater quantity of node electronics needed to interface with end users than in the other scenarios. • The Scenario 1 distribution system will be staged to meet demand over the 10 year analysis period and will consist of direct fiber drops to approximately 250 business and SOHO users, the balance of the distribution system will be copper. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 43 C. Project Analyses page 22 • Again, the Scenario 1 distribution system cost is the highest reflecting the construction of a new distribution system versus the integration of one or more existing distribution systems. • Indirect costs are assumed to be 25% of total project costs and cover legal and administrative, engineering, fieldwork, and financing costs. Annual Operation and Maintenance Expenses • Annual operation and maintenance expenses have been grouped into the following categories: - General operating expenses covering staff salaries, office space, equipment, etc., estimated at 12% of gross revenues. - System upgrades/ replacements at 5% of cumulative backbone costs beginning in year 4, at which point all of the original warranties for equipment are assumed to have expired. - Network management at 10% of gross revenues. - Network maintenance at 3% of cumulative capital costs. REVENUE ESTIMATES Summary of Revenue Estimates A summary of the revenue estimates for each of the four scenarios is presented below in Table 8 and its accompanying chart. Detailed revenue estimates for each scenario are given in Appendices 6-9. Alternative Project Scenario Yr 1 Yr 2 0.41 Yr 3 0.65 Yr 4 0.84 Annual Yr 5 0.96 Revenue, Yr 6 1.11 $million Yr 7 1.19 Yr 8 1.31 Yr 9 1.35 Yr 10 1.40 Yr 11 1.43 Total Sm 10.65 1 CI ro ect 1.08 4.07 0.95 3.64 1.07 3.70 1.17 3.76 1.26 3.83 1.34 3.90 1.42 3.97 1.49 4.05 1.55 4.13 1.61 4.21 12.94 39.26 2. City/cable partner 3. City/telco partner 4.84 4.41 4.48 4.55 4.63 4.71 4.78 4.87 4.95 5.04 47.26 4. City/both partners 6 �� "• 1 I �� i! ij I g 'c4ro �,1 3 i Ij!►. (•� L. i �-J 4. City/both partners A N Z { ( ? 3. City/telco partner 1 + ; 0 1 .;,, 2. City/cable partner ,Z1 -Tl 45 6 1. City project Projed Year 8 9 10 i, Table 8: Summary of Annual Revenues for Alternative Project Scenarios 1 144 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1 /2001 • • • 0 C. Project Analyses page 23 Basis for Revenue Estimates • A fundamental basis is that PA Telecom, regardless of scenario, will be a transport network, whose customers will not be individual end users in the city, but rather the service providers such as telephone or cable television companies serving the ultimate end users. • All four scenarios represent a basic initial network consisting of a core fiber backbone and a first stage, upgradeable distribution system. • The first stage distribution system will support digital service line (DSL) transport over copper at up to 12 megabits per second (mbps) and cable modem transport over coaxial cable at up to 30 mbps. • Such transport capabilities over the copper and/or coaxial cable distribution system sections may prove to be adequate for residences and even smaller businesses for many years and are an economical step to begin broadband connectivity in the community. • The direct fiber connections (4% of residential and 30% of business) are an example of what an ultimate all -fiber network would be like. Transport capacities are no longer limited by transmission media but by the capability of system electronics, currently capable of multiple gigabit per second (1000 mbps) transport. • Revenue estimates for direct fiber connections are based on individual and multiple T-1 (1.5 mbps) transport. This is deliberately conservative as large direct fiber users will be paying for T-3 (45 mbps), OC -3 (155 mbps) and even faster transport, the revenue for which is not included in the analyses. Revenue Sources • PA Telecom will offer service providers access to end users via the network, and charge the providers a "transport fee' based on gross revenue generated. • Reports filed by service providers at the WUTC, indicate their costs to provide service fall into the following three general categories: Network operations (customer service, billing, engineering, equipment, etc.) - Content or programming, and The transport system (the network) • The records show that the last category, transport costs, range from 389 to 459 per revenue dollar. PA Telecom's transport fee to providers has been set at 30% of the providers retail charge to the end-user. Using cable television as an example, the cable company will charge the individual home user $39 per month (Ultra Basic Package 5) and PA Telecoms revenue would in turn, be $11.70 per month. • Where a partner's last mile infrastructure is used (Scenarios 2-4) PA Telecom's transport revenue is shared equally with the partner. In the cable television example, PA Telecom and the cable partner each receives $7.50, half of the transport fee collected. • Service providers will be asked to pay a one-time connection charge for all new drops, whether fiber or copper, constructed by PA Telecom. It is assumed the providers will pass this charge on to their end user customers affected. • The one time connection charge will cover the cost of the drop and is: - $1,450 per direct fiber drop - $322 per copper drop • The City should stimulate the demand for direct fiber drops by providing incentives such as a low cost financing program to cover the incremental difference between the copper and fiber drops. This will rapidly increase the number of high bandwidth end-users. • Unit prices used for revenue calculations are based on available records of tariffs and provider charges for delivering voice, data, cable television services and expectations of future market prices. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 145 C. Project Analyses page 24 FEASIBILITY ANALYSES Financing Options ' For feasibility analysis purposes, and consistent with City participation in the project scenarios, the yardstick of municipal financing, that is, the ability to meet bond issuance requirements, has been used to measure feasibility. Financing options available depend on the alternative chosen for development of the proposed project. Besides participant cash contributions, various means of public and/or private financing are available. The analyses assume the latter option, that the project will be 100% financed. • A City sponsored project would have recourse to public funding sources such as municipal bond issues, supported by revenue (revenue bonds) or taxes (general obligation bonds). Revenue bonds would be the preferred financing method for a City sponsored project. • A City/ private partnership alternative can combine features of both public and private financing sources. Care must be observed regarding lending of credit by the City and other legal constraints, but at this time preliminary investigations20 indicate funding can be arranged. The City's participation in any of the PA Telecom development scenarios will be through its Public Works and Utilities Department. For simplicity, the analyses herein assume the issuance of electric utility revenue bonds, even though the eventual financing may take another form21, especially in Scenarios 2-4, where private partners are involved. Basis of Feasibility Analyses The feasibility analysis of the PA Telecom project is based on the following items: • Electric utility revenue bonds backed by strong financial commitments could reasonably be expected to receive an investment grade rating and an average interest rate for these bonds would be in the range of 8.0% to 10% depending on the strength of the contracts with key customers. • An 8% rate is used for Scenario 1 and 10% for Scenarios 2-4. • The State of Washington recognizes a 7 -year life cycle for equipment, a much shorter period than the ` life cycle of optical fiber. The equipment life cycle is shorter, not because of physical deterioration but because of obsolescence and improved new technology. The term of the financing therefore has been set at 10 years, a reasonable overall assumption. ■ City electric utility revenue bonds will require coverage of net user revenue to annual debt requirements of at least 1.3 times the debt service requirements. • Revenue bonds will require a debt service reserve fund (DSRF). The required amount in the DSRF is generally the lesser of: - 10% of the par amount of the bonds - 100% of maximum annual debt service, or - 125% of average annual debt service. • The DSRF is used to pay for debt service in the event that net revenues in any one year are insufficient to pay debt service. • The par value of the revenue bonds required, calculated in the feasibility analyses for each scenario (Appendices 10-13), are: - Scenario 1 City project, $10.26m - Scenario 2 City/cable partner project, $5.0m - Scenario 3 City/ telco partner project, $4.9m - Scenario 4 City/cable/telco partners project, $5.7m 20MCC private communication with City Financial Consultant, Steve Gaidos, Gaidos Consulting, 4/3/01 21ibid 1146 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 is C. Proiect Analyses page 25 Project Feasibility Project Feasibility, expressed as debt coverage (net revenue/ annual debt service) and annual cash balances, is summarized in Table 9, shown with its accompanying charts on the next page. Detailed feasibility calculations for each scenario are given in Appendices 10-13. Alternative Project Scenario $m Financing lot % Yrs Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Debt Coverage Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr /0 Yr 11 I. city 10.26 8.0% 10 n/a 3.61 2.91 2.49 2.02 1.71 1.45 1.33 1.30 1.34 1.54 2. City/Cable 5.00 10.0% 10 n/a 1.32 1.42 2.01 2.52 3.11 3.77 4.51 5.30 6.14 7.05 3. city/Telco 4.90 10.0% 10 n/a 3.75 6.56 8.91 10.85 12.61 14.22 15.69 17.05 18.30 19.60 4. City/Both 5.70 10.0% 10 n/a 3.83 6.78 9.26 11.32 13.18 14.87 16.42 17.83 19.13 20.47 Ending Cash Balance, Sm 1. city 10.26 8.0% 10 6.63 4.00 2.93 2.28 1.56 1.08 0.69 0.51 0.46 0.53 0.82 2. City/Cable 5.00 10.0% 10 0.02 0.16 0.36 0.87 1.32 1.83 2.41 3.04 .3.73 4.46 5.26 3. City/Telco 4.90 10.0% 10 0.06 2.19 4.44 6.31 7.86 9.26 10.54 11.72 12.80 13.80 14.83 4. City/Both 5.70 10.0% 10 0.08 2.62 5.36 7.66 9.57 11.30 12.87 14.30 15.61 16.82 18.06 25 City/Both ($5.7 as 10% 10 yr) r/Telco ($4.9m 10% 10 yr) F- -0 r -- - ; ($5.0m 10% 10 yr) 2 3 4 5 6 1. City ($10.3m a% 10 yr) 7 $ Project Year 9 1011 1 S.o6' 25 !( 14.83 j I 20+ on A 0 15 4. City/Both ($5.7m 10% 10 yr) h10 '`, "' + 5.26 %i 3. CityRelco (54.9m 109'0 10 yr) / f Z. Cit /cable S5.0m 10% 10 r W 0 � r: y ( r) 1 2 0.82 3 4 5 1. City ($10.3m 8% 10 yr) 6 � Project Year $ 9 10 11 Table 9: Summary of Project Feasibility METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/11/2001 /1/2001 147 D. Findings and Discussion ANALYSIS FINDINGS page 26 Existing Hindrances to Broadband Telecommunications in Port Angeles • The capital expenditures necessary to develop telecommunications infrastructure are the largest limiting factor hindering broadband telecommunications in Port Angeles. • Private providers of telecommunications infrastructure are currently unwilling to make the capital expenditures necessary to provide broadband telecommunications infrastructure to the whole city. • The cost of last -mile connections to each individual home and business is the largest expense in the deployment of broadband telecommunications infrastructure. City Commitment and Opportunities to Enable Broadband Telecommunications • The City of Port Angeles has established an economic development goal that includes evaluation of the feasibility and cost/benefits of enabling broadband telecommunications in the city. • The City's commitment to enable broadband telecommunications is tied to a Community Telecommunications Action Plan and schedule approved by Council on October 17, 2000. • The primary measure of economic development success is the number of ultimate end-users that can be immediately benefited. • Economic development success is the most compelling reason to partner with owners of existing infrastructure to reach the greatest number of Port Angeles residents and businesses. • Concurrent cable franchise renewal and institutional network negotiations provide the City with an excellent immediate opportunity to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. • Infrastructure development opportunities, however, are not limited to the immediate opportunity, and four project scenarios, the original Power Engineers City Backbone project and three additional consortium scenarios, have been investigated for consideration by the City: Original City Backbone Project - Scenario 1: City developed and owned project Additional Consortium Projects - Scenario 2: City/ Cable provider partnership (immediate) - Scenario 3: City/Telephone provider partnership - Scenario 4: City/Cable/Telephone consortium All four scenarios are based on construction of a new fiber optic backbone ring. Scenario 1 includes a new fiber/copper distribution system. In Scenarios 2-4, the fiber backbone is connected to existing distribution networks of last -mile infrastructure to reach the homes and businesses in Port Angeles. Financial Analyses and Findings • The financial analyses of the options show that all four scenarios are feasible. • All three consortium projects (Scenarios 2-4) however, are superior to the original City stand-alone project (Scenario 1) in meeting the City's economic development goals, as well as providing cost savings, greater returns and mitigation of risk. • Over the analysis period of 10 years, the total capital cost of the City project (Scenario 1) is the highest at $10.70 million. • For the consortium projects, total capital costs range from a low of $5.32m for Scenario 2, $5.83m for Scenario 3 to a high of $6.84m for Scenario 4. These costs are detailed in Table 7. • All four scenarios would require financing to bridge an initial shortfall in available funds during project construction. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 148 10 • 1] D. Findings and Discussion page 27 • The financing required, based on a 10 year repayment period and interest as shown is: - Scenario 1: City developed and owned project. $10.26 million (8% interest) - Scenario 2: City/ Cable provider partnership $5.0 million (10%) - Scenario 3: City/Telephone provider partnership $4.9 million (10%) - Scenario 4: City/Cable/Telephone consortium $5.7 million (10%) • Revenues from the project consist of one-time connection charges, and a transport charge calculated as a percentage of provider product and service revenues. • Over the analysis period of 10 years, the total revenues of the City project (Scenario 1) are the lowest at $10.65 million. • For the consortium projects, total revenues range from a low of $12.94m for Scenario 2, $39.26m for Scenario 3 to a high of $47.26m for Scenario 4. These revenues are detailed in Table 8. • Feasibility for the projects is measured by the requirements for municipal revenue bond financing, that is by debt coverage and annual ending cash balances. ■ Debt coverage for the City project (Scenario 1) is the weakest, not exceeding 1.3 until year 9. Debt coverage in the initial 8 years is artificially maintained above 1.3 by the large front end financing required in year 1 to supplement the inadequate revenues. ■ Debt coverages for the consortium projects are very strong, ranging from 1.32 to 7.05 for Scenario 2, from 3.75 to 19.6 for Scenario 3 and from 3.83 to 20.47 for Scenario 4. These figures are detailed in Table 9. • Ending balances for the City project (Scenario 1) are the weakest, not showing profitability until year 9. Positive ending balances in the initial 8 years are artificially maintained by the large front end financing required in year 1 to supplement the inadequate revenues. • Ending balances for the consortium projects are very strong, showing profitability immediately and increasing annually to $5.26m for Scenario 2, to $14.83m for Scenario 3 and $18.06m for Scenario 4 in year 10. • Conclusions The findings above indicate that any of the consortium projects will meet the City's goals, be superior and easier to implement than a standalone City developed and owned infrastructure project. The findings also indicate the City has a good existing opportunity to develop broadband infrastructure through the current cable franchising renewal. At the minimum, the opportunity can yield a limited non- commercial institutional network. A City developed network, although feasible, is therefore the last choice that the City should consider. DISCUSSION Strategic Direction Based on the findings of this report, a strategic direction is recommended, and is shown graphically in Figure 4. The chart indicates that the City should proceed with Scenario 2 (City/ Cable partner) and aggressively negotiate with Northland Cable to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. Concurrently, the City should also proceed with work on Scenarios 3 and 4 for the following reasons: • The City should keep developing all available options. The concurrent negotiations will also maintain a competitive atmosphere that will be an incentive to Northland as well as other prospective partners. • Although the parties are currently very cooperative, there is no guarantee that the Scenario 2 negotiations with Northland will achieve the schedule or all the results desired by the City. Proceeding concurrently with other consortium negotiations will provide the City with ready isalternate options and protect the critical schedule. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS a/1141149 /1141149 D. Findings and Discussion page 28 • One example of the need to keep developing all the City's options is the City's ongoing discussions with CenturyTel, a stakeholder in the Sappho Gap project, previously described on page 3 of this report. The project received state grant funding on April 19 2001, as a result of which, CenturyTel has become an even more significant potential partner for the City. The opportunity to develop the City's relationship with CenturyTel should be grasped now and should not be delayed. • Lining up a potential CLEC partner such as CenturyTel is consistent with the "quick strike' strategy embedded in all scenarios. The strategy is to build high bandwidth fiber drops to City, educational and other public institutional users as well as major commercial users in the first years of any scenario. This enhances the ability for a CLEC such as CenturyTel to offer competitive services early on to public and business users, their targeted market. h Recommended Strategic Direction No City Development (Scenario 1) Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Implementation Figure 4: Recommended Strategic Direction Should t e negotiations with Northland under Scenario 2 be successful, the concurrent other consortium negotiations could be terminated, although as a practical matter, they will probably continue, transitioning Scenario 2 into Scenario 4. If none of the partner or consortium scenarios is successful, the City still has the option of proceeding by itself under Scenario 1. 5/1/2001 O METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 15 10 • • CATV Franchise CATV Franchise Pilot prd Renewal Scenario 2 Negotiations Partner PubhcProceedng:,:, Consortium V Future Needs & Cable Operator w .o Interests Report Propos r City Informal/Formal Consortium Negotiations Draft Negotiations Consortium Proposals Needs & Interests Adoption of d Request for Broadband Capability fiY Tes Franchise Proposal Reasonably Met? Ordinance Design R Structure and No Negotiations Stop other Negotiations -L No City Development (Scenario 1) Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Implementation Figure 4: Recommended Strategic Direction Should t e negotiations with Northland under Scenario 2 be successful, the concurrent other consortium negotiations could be terminated, although as a practical matter, they will probably continue, transitioning Scenario 2 into Scenario 4. If none of the partner or consortium scenarios is successful, the City still has the option of proceeding by itself under Scenario 1. 5/1/2001 O METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 15 10 • • other Scenario (3 and 4) Negotiations Pilot prd Consortium Consortium Partner Partner Consortium Pilot Defi Development Solicitation Building Design Consortium Consortium Consortium Proposals Agreements Pilot De planning Design R Structure and Evaluate Responses Negotiations Build Organization Determine Strategic Execute Agreements Test P Policy and Relationships IntegratInto Planning Begin Consortium Ne Functional Operations Recommend Partners Operations No City Development (Scenario 1) Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Implementation Figure 4: Recommended Strategic Direction Should t e negotiations with Northland under Scenario 2 be successful, the concurrent other consortium negotiations could be terminated, although as a practical matter, they will probably continue, transitioning Scenario 2 into Scenario 4. If none of the partner or consortium scenarios is successful, the City still has the option of proceeding by itself under Scenario 1. 5/1/2001 O METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 15 10 • • D. Findings and Discussion page 29 Work and Operations Planning Framework The framework for a work plan for negotiation of the cable television franchise and development of a consortium project, covering four major task areas, arranged by type of work and anticipated timing is given in Table 10. is Notes: CMgr -- Consortium Manager (City of Port Angeles) CM ---- Consortium Member PW&U -- Public Works and Utilities UAC — Utility Advisory Committee Table 10: PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework 5/11/2001 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 1-1. Year 2001 Year ZOOZ Year 2003 Primary support 1. Preparation A. Strategic Direction X I Council UAC, City Council 1. Accept Business Plan Analyses Council UAC, City Council z. Approve Recommendations X ! 9/30 PW&U outsource as req'd 3. Continue Negotiations w/Northland X > > > I City staff outsource as req'd 4. Continue Developing Provider Relationships i X > B. Consortium Planning ; X I I City staff outsource as req'd 1. Structure and Organization X I i City staff outsource as req'd z. Policy and Planning ! City staff outsource as req'd 3. Functional Operations X X City staff outsource as req'd a. Management & Administration X I i City staff . outsource as req'd b. Financial and Accounting I City staff outsource as req'd c. Legal and Regulatory X I I City Ci staff outsource as req'd d. Technical Services X I City staff outsource as req'd e. Construction and Maintenance j X X I City staff outsource as req'd f. Product Development i X City staff outsource as req'd g. Marketing I X City staff outsource as req'd h. Customer Relations A. Consortium Partner Solicitation PW&U outsource as req'd 1. Prepare Consortium RFP I X I PW&U outsource as req'd z. Issue Consortium RFP i X X City staff outsource as req'd 3 . Evaluate RFP Responses I City staff outsource as req'd 4. Determine Strategic Relationships X City staff outsource as req'd 5. Select Partners for Consortium Negotiations X B. Consortium Building X City staff outsource as req'd 1. Develop Consortium Agreements City staff outsource as req'd a. Define Member Roles X X I I City staff outsource as req'd b. Specify Product/Services Areas I I City staff outsource as req'd c. Set Pricing Schedules X I I City staff outsource as req'd d. Financing Commitments X I City staff outsource as req'd e. Timeline Agreements X I City staff outsource as req'd 2. Negotiate Agreements X i City staff outsource as req'd 3. Conclude Agreements X ICity I staff outsource as req'd 4. Establish Consortium X I City staff outsource as req'd 5. Begin Operations i j is Notes: CMgr -- Consortium Manager (City of Port Angeles) CM ---- Consortium Member PW&U -- Public Works and Utilities UAC — Utility Advisory Committee Table 10: PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework 5/11/2001 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS D. Findings and Discussion NL Operations A. Consortium Operations 1. Operations Setup 2. Network Planning a. System Standards and Specs b. Comprehensive Plan c. Prepare Capital Construction Program d. Prepare Operating Budget 3. Project Design a. Transmission Infrastructure b. Network Equipment 4. Project Financing a. Review for Financing Constraints b. Opinion on Proposed Financing c. Complete Project Financing d. Sources & Amounts of Owner Capital 5, Customer Development a. Solicit Prospective Customers b. Sign-up Key Customers c. Execute Service Contracts 6. Project Construction a. Solicit Bids b. Construction Contract Awards c. Construct Backbone Facilities d. Construct Network Operating Center e. Construct Backbone Nodes f. Construct Distribution Facilities g. Procure and Install Equipment h. End to End System Tests (.Operator Training j. Project Acceptance 7. Begin Network Operations Notes: CMgr -- Consortium Manager (City of Port Angeles) CM ---- Consortium Member page 30 Jr:Z081 Year 2002 Year 2003 primary supper 1 X ! I CMgr outsource as req'd X ! I CMgr CM or outsource X I CMgr CM or outsource CMgr CM or outsource X I j CMgr CM or outsource X X I X ! j i CMgr CMgr CM or outsource CM or outsource X CMgr CM or outsource lX X X j CMgr CM or outsource I I X X i i i CMgr CM or outsource j X X j i CMgr CM or outsource I X i CMgr CM or outsource X ; ` I CMgr CM or outsource II X I i I CMgr CM or outsource X > > > ; > i i CMgr CM or outsource X I > > > > CMgr CM or outsource 1 X > > I I CMgr X > > ! 1 CMgr X i > i X CMgr X ! CMgr outsource as req'd X CMgr outsource as req'd I X i > X CMgr Contractor, CM X I > I X CMgr Contractor, CM X > I X CMgr Contractor, CM X I > X CMgr Contractor, CM X i X CMgr Contractor, CM ` I X CMgr Contractor, CM X CMgr Contractor, CM I X CMgr I I X > > > I > CMgr PW&U -- Public Works and Utilities UAC -- Utility Advisory Committee Table 10: PA Telecom Consortium Operations Framework (continued) Ongoing City Telecommunications Initiatives Beyond initial development of the project and on an ongoing basis, the City can make Port Angeles attractive to both telecommunications users and providers. This should be done regardless of what decisions the City might make regarding infrastructure development. City action, such as leveling the playing field to attract competition, creating a favorable telecommunications environment and developing community readiness will enable the City and the Port Angeles community to take full advantage of whatever infrastructure is eventually realized. The City has already taken action on several of these items and may consider collaborating with interested community and economic development organizations and groups to pool resources and efforts in pursuing these objectives. 5/11/2001 152 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS • • E. Recommendations page 31 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made for consideration and action by the City of Port Angeles: Administrative and Procedural • The City should review this report and analyses and satisfy itself that it concurs with the findings and recommendations proposed. • The City should invite selected community representatives to assist it in reviewing the report. • The City should request the City Utility Advisory Committee to review and recommend City Council acceptance of this study. • The City should assign responsibility for implementing individual work plan tasks to qualified and appropriate parties. Preliminary assignment suggestions are shown in Table 10. Policy and Strategic Direction • Proceed with a telecommunications network consortium project. • The City of Port Angeles should take a strong, pro -active leadership role in developing and managing the consortium. • The infrastructure project should plan to connect the majority of end users through private partner last -mile infrastructure but concurrently offer the option of direct fiber drops to larger customers needing more bandwidth and willing to pay for the required fiber drop. • The City should stimulate the demand for direct fiber drops by providing incentives such as a low cost financing program to cover the incremental difference between the copper and fiber drops. This should rapidly increase the number of high bandwidth end-users. • The City should focus on attracting Qwest, Olypen, other owners of infrastructure, and telecommunication service providers to a City led infrastructure development consortium. is• In dealing with prospective partners, the City should provide incentives and determine how it might build their markets to make their participation in a consortium more attractive and justifiable. • The City should undertake development of a project on its own project only as a last choice, in the event no others will step forward or join it in the project development. • At a minimum, should unforeseen difficulties arise with development of the broadband infrastructure, the City should strive to obtain an institutional network for non-commercial public use. Broadband Infrastructure through Cable Television Franchise Renewal • The City should use the opportunity provided by the current cable franchise renewal proceedings and aggressively negotiate with Northland Cable to develop broadband infrastructure through upgrading of the existing cable television infrastructure. Consortium Implementation • The City should keep developing all available options by concurrently proceeding with work on Scenarios 3 and 4. • The concurrent negotiations will maintain a competitive atmosphere that will be an incentive to Northland as well as other prospective partners. • The City should formalize the consortium building process to implement time frame goals. • Prepare and distribute a Request for Partners (RFP) document to.private telecommunications companies. A sample table of contents for an RFP is given in Appendix 15. • The RFP process should run in parallel and in close coordination with the Cable Franchise renewal process currently underway. • Delay the engineering design phase of the project, awarded to MCC, until the consortium is finalized. • Begin planning for the capital budgeting process. METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 5/1/2001 53 The Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Business Planning Analyses Appendices May 1, 2001 This document contains proprietary materials furnished by MCC to the City for internal use and is not intended for distribution Prepared for City of Port Angeles P.O. Box 1150 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Seattle: 5847 McKinley PI. N., Seattle, Washington 98103 Tel: 206.522.6778 Fax: 206.522.6777 Tacoma: 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1702, Tacoma, Washington 98402 Tel: 253.272.1636 Fax: 253.272.1482 www.mcco.com 154 PO • • • nnunrli page 34 PA TELECOM \ THE PORT ANGELES TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (!mil - `•;�f BUSINESS PLANNING ANALYSES APPENDICES -/ May 1, 2001 Appendices 1. Project Feasibility Summary ............................................................................... 35 2. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 1 City Project ................................................... 36 3. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 2 City/ Cable Partner ................................... 37 4. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 3 City/Telco Partner ...................................... 38 5. Project Capital Costs - Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco Partners ...................... 39 6. Annual Revenues - City Project......................................................................... 40 7. Annual Revenues - City/Cable Partner........................................................... 41 8. Annual Revenues - City/ Telco Partner............................................................ 42 9. Annual Revenues - City/Cable/Telco Partners .............................................. 43 10. Project Feasibility - City Project......................................................................... 44 11. Project Feasibility - City/ Cable Partner............................................................ 45 12. Project Feasibility - City/Telco Partner............................................................ 46 13. Project Feasibility - City/Cable/Telco Partners .............................................. 47 14. Qwest Port Angeles Laurel Street Central Office Switch Data ...................... 48 15. NoaNet Route Map................................................................................................ 49 16. Sample Outline Request for Consortium. Partner Proposals ............................ 50 17. Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop ..................................... 51 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/20155 /1/2055 • • 156 • • Aooendices page 35 Scenario 2 - /Cable partner Stop 1 2 Fwa.deg Stno 3 BWWo.t 5,0w,009 10.07E 9Yes Alternative project Scenario Yr 1 Yr 2 Tr 3 Tr 4 Tr 5 Tr 6 Yr 7 Yrs Tr 9 Tr 10 Yr 11 Scenario 1 - qq 0 0 0 0 0 Finandog Awo.et 10,260,000 &0% 10 yrs Beginning Balance 10,260,000 6,628,267 5,524,897 4,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2,218,339 2,034,499 1,985,898 2,056,377 Cash Gross Revenues n/a n/a 406,216 649,089 840,530 962,536 1,113,476 1,194,982 1,305,423 1,346,429 1,396,590 1,434,260 Annual Funds Available 10,260,000 7,034,483 6,173,986 5,295,628 4,767,175 4,207,042 3,804,957 3,523,762 3,380,928 3,382,488 3,490,637 AnrwalCosts 3,631,733 1,509,587 1,718,887 1,490,989 1,673,609 1,597,068 1,586,617 1,489,263 1,395,030 1,326,111 1,139,117 Annual Net Revenue 6,628,267 5,524,897 4,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2,218,339 2,034,499 1,985,898 2,056,377 2,351,520 Debt Service 0 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 Enclinq Balance 6,628,267 3,995,854 2,926,056 2,275,597 1 1,564,524 1,080,932 689,297 505,456 456,855 527,334 822,478 Debt (overage 7.05 3.61 2.91 2.49 2.02 1.71 1.45 1.33 1.30 1.34 1.54 Scenario 2 - /Cable partner Fwa.deg Amount 5,0w,009 10.07E 9Yes Beginning Balance Beginning Balance 5,000,000 20,629 659,733 1,230,788 1,742,438 2,183,644 2,698,333 3,275,989 3,913,150 4,599,371 5,331,969 Cash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gross Revenues 0 1,082,783 953,106 1,066,838 1,167,018 1,262,687 1,344,889 1,422,668 1,487,071 1,548,047 1,605,650 Annual Funds Available 5,000,000 1,103,412 1,612,839 2,297,625 2,909,456 3,446,331 4,043,222 4,698,656 5,400,220 6,147,418 6,937,619 Annual Costs 4,979,371 443,679 382,051 555,187 725,812 747,999 767,233 785,507 800,849 815,449 812,888 Annual Net Revenue 20,629 659,733 1,230,788 1,742,438 2,183,644 2,698,333 3,275,989 3,913,150 4,599,371 5,331,969 6,124,731 Debt Service 0 500,000 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 Endinq Balance 20,629 159,733 362,585 874,235 1,315,441 1,830,130 2,407,786 3,044,947 3,731,168 4,463,766 5,256,528 Debt Coverage 3.83 1.32 1.42 2.01 2.52 3.11 3.77 4.51 5.30 6.14 7.05 Scenario 3 - /Telco partner Finned" Mort 4900 000 F 10.01. In Beginning Balance Beginning Balance 4,900,000 63,906 2,987,146 5,232,704 7,107,193. 8,654,322 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 14,595,435 `0 Cash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gross Revenues Gross Revenues 0 4,069,917 3,635,555 3,699,105 3,764,649 3,832,277 3,902,080 3,974,156 4,048,605 4,125,533 4,205,053 Annual Funds Available 4,900,000 4,133,824 6,622,701 8,931,809 10,871,842 12,486,599 13,961,562 15,315,107 16,563,475 17,721,030 18,800,489 Annual Costs 4,836,094 1,146,678 1,389,997 1,824,616 2,217,520 2,427,118 2,620,611 2,800,236 2,967,978 3,125,595 3,170,230 Annual Net Revenue 63,906 2,987,146 5,232,704 7,107,193 8,654,322 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 14,595,435 15,630,259 Debt Service 0 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 Ending Balance 63,906 2,189,693 4,435,252 6,309,740 7,856,869 9,262,029 10,543,499 11,717,418 12,798,045 13,797,983 14,832,806 Debt Coverage 3.83 3.75 6.56 8.91 10.85 12.61 14.22 15.69 17.05 18.30 19.60 Sceeerio 4 - CitylbotM Partners ooe+orti..r Miowd 5,700,000 10.0x. 10' In Beginning Balance 5,700,000 84,778 3,550,749 6,289,434 8,588,302 10,498,937 12,227,819 13,797,952 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 Cash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gross Revenues 0 4,837,629 4,410,319 4,480,960 4,553,634 4,628,429 4,705,434 4,784,745 4,866,463 4,950,691 5,037,539 Annual Funds Available 5,700,000 4,922,407 7,961,068 10,770,394 13,141,936 15,127,366 16,933,253 18,582,697 20,096,091 21,491,449 22,784,691 Annual Costs 5,615,222 1,371,658 1,671,634 2,182,093 2,642,999 2,899,547 3,135,301 3,353,068 3,555,333 3,744,297 3,792,159 Annual Net Revenue 84,778 3,550,749 6,289,434 8,588,302 10,498,937 12227,819 13,797,952 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 18,992,532 Debt Service 0 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 Frklino Balance 84,778 2,623,101 5,361,785 7,660,653 9,571,289 11,300,170 12,870,303 14,301,980 15,613,110 16,819,504 18,064,883 Debt Cover-ge 3.83 6.78 9.26 11.32 13.18 14.87 16.42 17.83 19.13 20.47 Appendix 1: Project Feasibility Summary METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS rrO1Jn ICld1 Y di IO lAJI If tuc' """"'157 ""i '157 ..A Ln 00 Appendices page 36 Scenario 1 - City Project Connection Description: Nome/SOHO Business Total connections 3,150 385 Stage! Year 1 0 0 Year 2 300 100 Stage 2 Year 3 500 50 You 4 500 45 = Year 5 "' 400 40 Yeu 6 400 35 Stagy 3 Beildoet You 7 You B 300 300 30 25 Year 9 200 20 You 10 150 20 Year 1/ 100 20 3,535 3,535 0 0 400 400 550 950 545 1,495 440 1,935 435 2,370 330 2,700 325 3,025 220 3,245 170 3,415 120 3,535 Totals, annual Totals cumulative Cost Estlmato Total Hart You 1 Year 2 You 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 You 7 Year 3 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 96 fiber 44,900 517,248 44,900 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist CrossConnect 720,000 720,000 Splicing, backbone Subtotal la, Fiber Backbone 124,800 $1,871,248 124,800 $1,871,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node BB Node Expansion Dist CrossConnect Equip Accessories Network Management Spares, HQ Equip Subtotal 1b, Backbone Equip. 850,000 1,472,917 480,000 54,670 150,000 150,000 $3,157,587 255,000 0 54,314 7,360 150,000 150,000 $616,674 340,000 166,667 74,682 8,300 0 0 $589,648 255,000 229,167 74,003 8,130 0 0 $566,299 0 227,083 59,745 6,640 0 0 $293,469 0 183,333 59,066 6,470 0 0 $248,870 0 181,250 44,809 4,980 0 0 $231,039 0 137,500 44,130 4,810 0 0 $186,440 0 135,417 29,873 3,320 0 0 $168,609 0 91,667 23,083 2,660 0 0 $117,410 0 70,833 16,294 2,000 0 0 $89,128 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 $50,000 $2,487,922 $589,648 $566,299 $293,469 $248,870 $231,039 $186,440 $168,609 $117,410 $89,128 $50,000 Total 1 Backbone Infrastructure $5,028,835 2. Distribution System Route preparation Router rep Fiber Installation Fiber splicing Copper drop Copper Installation Equip Accessories Premise equipment 265,125 43,470 253,575 31,395 104,733 691,635 21,735 2,121,000 30,000. 7,560 44,100 5,460 11,384 75,180 3,780 240,000 $417,464 $2,905,386, ; $726,347 $3,631,733 ' 41,250 6,300 36,750 4,550 16,377 108,150 3,150 330,000 $546,527 $1,136,175 $284,044 51,420,219 40,875 6,030 35,175 4,355 16,266 107,415 3,015 327,000 33,000 5,040 29,400 3,640 13,102 86,520 2,520 264,000 32,625 4,770 27,825 3,445 12,990 85,785 2,385 261,000 24,750 3,780 22,050 2,730 9,826 64,890 1,890 198,000 24,375 3,510 20,475 2,535 9,715 64,155 1,755 195,000 16,500 2,520 14,700 1,820 6,551 43,260 1,260 132,000 12,750 2,160 12,600 1,560 5,024 33,180 1,080 102,000 9,000 1,800 10,500 1,300 3,498 23,100 900 72,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $540,131 $437,222 $1,106,430 $730,690 $276,608 $182,673 $1,383,038 $913,363 $430,825 $327,916 $321,520 $218,611 $170,354 $122,098 $679,695, $558,955 $507,960 $387,220 $287,765 $211,226 $169,924 $139,739 $126,990 $96,805 $71,941 $52,806 $849,619 `� S698,694 $634,950 $484,025 $359,706 $264,032 $0 $50,000 $12,500 $62,500 Total Z. Distribution System $3,532,668 3. Total, Project const. torts (TFCC) Indirect Costs 4. Total Project Costs TPC $8,561,503 $2,140,376 $10,701,879 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS is Appendix 2: Project CapitAl Costs - Scenario 1 City Project Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 • .A s 9 Appendices 40ase 37 Scenario 2 - City/able partner Total ". Stage 1 Stile 2 = Stage 3 Beildost Connection Descrimles Connections Year Year 2 Year 3 You 4 : Year 8 Year 6 ' ` .Yeu 7 Year ti Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Home/SOHO 5,497 0 5,026 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 Business 605 0 554 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Totals, annual 6,102 0 5,579 56 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 Totals cumulative 6,102 0 5,579 5,635 5,691 5,748 5,806 5,864 5,923 5,982 6,042 6,102 Cost Estimate " Tete Amt Year t Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year d Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 44,900 44,900 96 fiber 517,248 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist CrossConnect 540,000 540,000 Splicing, backbone 124,800 124,800 Subtotal ia, Fiber Backbone $1,691,248 $1,691,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node 850,000 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BB Node Expansion 167,280 0 152,951 1,530 1,545 1,560 1,576 1,592 1,608 1,624 1,640 1,656 Dist CrossConnect 360,000 329,162 3,292 3,325 3,358 3,391 3,425 3,460 3,494 3,529 3,564 0 Equip Accessories 36,132 33,037 330 334 337 340 344 347 351 354 358 0 Network Management 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spares, HQ Equip 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal tb, Backbone Equip. $1,713,413 $1,512,200 $156,573 $5,188 $5,240 $5,292 $5,345 $5,398 $5,452 $5,507 $5,562 $1,656 Total 1 Backbone Infrastructure $3,404,661 $3,203,448 $156,573 $5,188 $5,240 $5,292 $5,345 $5,398 $5,452 $5,507 $5,562 $1,656 2. Distribution System Route preparation 30,110 27,531 275 278 281 284 286 289 292 295 298 0 6fiber drop 72,265 66,075 661 667 674 681 688 694 701 708 715 0 Fiber Installation 421,546 385,436 3,854 3,893 3,932 3,971 4,011 4,051 4,091 4,132 4,174 0 Fiber splicing 52,191 47,721 477 482 487 492 497 502 507 512 517 0 Copper drop Copper Installation Equip Accessories 36,132 33,037 330 334 337 340 344 347 351 354 358 0 Premise equipment 240,883 220,249 2,202 2,225 2,247 2,269 2,292 2,315 2,338 2,361 2,385 0 Total 2 Distribution System $853,128 $780,049 $7,800 $7,878 $7,957 $8,037 $8,117 $8,198 $8,280 $8,363 $8,447 $0 9.,Total, Projact Coad, Cosh (TPCC), _ : $4,257,789 , ,. S3u98%497'1],",$164,373 ;131066 :r; ", Si3,157,_ 513,325 _ „44313,462 313,597 "513,733, , $13,870 $14,009 $1,656 Indirect Costs $1,064,447 $995,874 $41,093 $3,267 $3,299 $3,332 $3,366 $3,399 $3,433 $3,468 $3,502 $414 4. Total Project Costs PC $5 322 230 � 54,979,371 $205,467 ''116,333 516,496. • : 516,661 , r` $16,828 516,996 " 517;166 .$17,338 $17,511 $2,070 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 4 Appendix 3: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 2 City/Cable Partner Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 page 38 Appendices METRTAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Appendix 4: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 3 City/Telco Partner Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Total Connections 6,717 962 7,679 7,679 State 1 Yew 1 0 0 0 0 - Year t 4,330 620 4,950 4,950 Stga t ..• . Year ll . Yew 4 216 227 31 33 247 260 5,197 5,457 Year S 239 34 273 5,730 Tear 6 251 36 287 6,017 Stage 3 Buildout Year 7 You 6 263 276 38 40 301 316 6,317 6,633 Year 9 290 42 332 6,965 Year 10 305 44 348 7,313 Year 11 320 46 366 7,679 Scenario 3 • City/ telco partner - Connection Description Home/SOHO Business Totals, annual Totals cumulative Cost Estimate Total Amt Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Year 6 Year 7 Year 6 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 96 fiber 44,900 517,248 44,900 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist CrossConnect 540,000 540,000 Splicing, backbone Subtotal la, Fiber Backbone 124,800 $1,691,248 124,800 $1,691,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $O $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node BB Node Expansion Dist CrossConnect Equip Accessories Network Management Spares, HQ Equip Subtotal 16, Backbone Equip. 850,000 232,165 360,000 50,148 150,000 150,000 $1,792,312 850,000 0 232,059 32,326 150,000 150,000 $1,414,385 0 149,655 11,603 1,616 0 0 $162,875 0 7,483 12,183 1,697 0 0 $21,363 0 7,857 12,792 1,782 0 0 $22,431 0 8,250 13,432 1,871 0 0 $23,553 0 8,662 14,103 1,965 0 0 $24,730 0 9,095 14,809 2,063 0 0 $25,967 0 9,550 15,549 2,166 0 0 $27,265 0 10,028 16,327 2,274 0 0 $28,628 0 10,529 17,143 2,388 0 0 $30,060 0 11,055 0 0 0 0 $11,055 $3,105,633 $162,875 $21,363 $22,431 $23,553 $24,730 $25,967 $27,265 $28,628 $30,060 $11,055 Total 1 Backbone Infrastructure $3,483,560 Z. Distribution System Route preparation 6 fiber drop Fiber Installation Fiber splicing 41,790 100,295 585,055 72,435 26,938 64,651 377,131 46,692 1,347 3,233 18,857 2,335 1,414 3,394 19,799 2,451 1,485 3,564 20,789 2,574 1,559 3,742 21,829 2,703 1,637 3,929 22,920 2,838 1,719 4,126 24,066 2,980 1,805 4,332 25,270 3,129 1,895 4,549 26,533 3,285 1,990 4,776 27,860 3,449 0 0 0 Copper drop Copper Installation Equip Accessories Premise equipment 50,148 334,317 32,326 215,504 $763,242 1,616 10,775 $38,162 1,697 11,314 1,782 11,880 1,871 12,474 1,965 13,097 2,063 13,752 2,166 14,440 2,274 15,162 2,388 15,920 0 $40,070 $42,074 $44,177 $46,386 $48,706 $51,141 $53,698 $56,383 $0 Total2 Distribution S stem $1,184,039 3. Total, Project Const. ;oaks poo Indirect Costs 4. Total Project Costs (TK)-' 54.667,599 $1,166,900 $5.534.499 $3,868,875 $967,219 $4,836,094 $201,037 $50,259 $251,296 $61,433 $15,358 $76,791 ; $54;805,, $16,126 $80,631 - ';'i67,7$0 $16,933 $84.60,," „71,117 , $17,779 ` - $88,896. $74,672 $18,668 $93,341 $78,406 $19,602 $98,008 $82,326 $20,582 $102,908 $86,443 $21,611 $108,053 $11,055 $2,764 $13,819 METRTAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Appendix 4: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 3 City/Telco Partner Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 ApP endices loge 39 Scenario 4 - City/cable/telco Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Buildout Connection Description Connectioas Year 1 you 2 Year 3 Yen 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year a Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Home/SOHO 7,314 0 4,833 227 237 249 261 274 287 301 315 331 Business 1,163 0 804 33 34 36 38 40 41 43 46 48 Totals, annual 8,477 0 5,637 259 272 285 299 313 328 344 361 379 Totals cumulative 8,477 0 5,637 1 5,896 6,168 6,453 6,752 7,065 7,394 7,738 8,099 8,477 Cost Estimate Total Amt Year 1 You 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Yew 7 Year 3 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Backbone Infrastructure a. Fiber Backbone Route preparation 44,900 44,900 96 fiber 517,248 517,248 Aerial Installation 314,300 314,300 Backbone Node 150,000 150,000 Dist Crossconnect 720,000 720,000 Splicing, backbone 124,800 124,800 Subtotal I a, Fiber Backbone $1,871,248 $1,871,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 b. Backbone Electronics Backbone Node 850,000 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BB Node Expansion 267,333 0 181,094 7,881 8,259 8,656 9,072 9,510 9,969 10,450 10,956 11,487 Dist CrossConnect 480,000 319,170 14,687 15,394 16,137 16,916 17,734 18,593 19,494 20,440 21,434 0 Equip Accessories 57,744 39,116 1,702 1,784 1,870 1,960 2,054 2,153 2,257 2,366 2,481 0 Network Management 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spares, HQ Equip 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1b, Backbone Equip. $1,955,077 $1,508,287 $197,483 $25,059 $26,266 $27,532 $28,861 $30,256 $31,720 $33,257 $34,870 $11,487 Total 1 Backbone Infrastructure $3,826,325 $3,379,535 $197,483 $25,059 $26,266 $27,532 $28,861 $30,256 $31,720 $33,257 $34,870 $11,487 Z. Distribution System Route preparation 64,160 43,463 1,891 1,982 2,077 2,177 2,282 2,392 2,508 2,629 2,757 0 6 fiber drop 153,984 104,310 4,539 4,757 4,986 5,226 5,478 5,742 6,019 6,311 6,616 0 Fiber Installation 898,240 608,476 26,480 27,750 29,084 30,483 31,952 33,494 35,113 36,812 38,595 0 Fiber splicing 83,408 56,501 2,459 2,577 2,701 2,831 2,967 3,110 3,260 3,418 3,584 0 Copper drop Copper Installation Equip Accessories 57,744 39,116 1,702 1,784 1,870 1,960 2,054 2,153 2,257 2,366 2,481 0 Premise equipment 384,960 260,776 11,349 11,893 12,465 13,064 13,694 14,355 15,048 15,776 16,541 0 Total 2 Distribution S stem $1,642,497 $1,112,643 $48,420 $50,744 $53,182 $55,741 $58,427 $61,247 $64,206 $67,313 $70,574 $0 3. Total, Project Coa�(T[CC) r -"s 55;468,822 54,492177..:. 5245,904, : ;, 575,803.. s79f447r 883,173 ; e `$87,288 $91,503 $95,927 $100,570 $105,444 $11,487 Indirect Costs $1,367,206 $1,123,044 $61,476 $18,951 $19,862 $20,818 $21,822 $22,876 $23,982 $25,143 $26,361 $2,872 4. Total Project Costs $6 536 023 $5,615,222 $307,380 $94,753 $99,309 $104,091 $109,110 $114,378 $119,908 $125,713 $131,805 $14,358 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS auaa, Appendix 5: Project Capital Costs - Scenario 4 City/Cable/Telco Partners Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices Sceaut0 1 - City ProjectStq� 2, , Yeu 6 Yat i Stpe 3 Baildoet Yeu 7 reu B Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 End -User Description Total Users .. Tar 2 ': Yeu 3 ,1far 4 . Voice - Home/SOHO Users 1,575 150 400 650 850 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,450 1,525 1,575 Voice - Business Users 385 100 150 195 235 270 300 325 345 365 385 Data - Homo/SOHO Users 3,150 300 800 1,300 1,700 2,100 2,400 2,700 2,900 3,050 3,150 Data- Business Users 385 100 1 150 195 1 235 270 300 325 345 365 385 Catv - Home Users n/a Catv - Business Users nla Pro ect Rewnre I.Total $ ' Teu 1,' Year 3 " - Tom 4 Tear 3 Tear 6 Tear 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO, 4% fiber 182,700 17,400 29,000 29,000 23,200 23,200 17,400 17,400 11,600 8,700 5,800 Home/50HO, 96% copper 973,123 92,678 154,464 154,464 123,571 123,571 92,678 92,678 61,786 46,339 30,893 Business, 30% fiber 167,475 43,500 21,750 19,575 17,400 15,225 13,050 10,875 8,700 8,700 8,700 Business, 70% copper 86,725 22,526 11,263 10,137 9,010 7,884 6,758 5,632 4,505 4,505 4,505 Total i Connection Charges $1,410,023 $176,104 $216,477 $213,176 $173,182 $169,880 $129,886 $126,585 $86,591 $68,244 $49,898 2. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 734,400 10,800 28,800 46,800 61,200 75,600 86,400 97,200 104,400 109,800 113,400 Business 961,200 36,000 54,000 70,200 84,600 97,200 108,000 117,000 124,200 131,400 138,600 Subtotal Za, Local Voice $1,695,600 $46,800 $82,800 $117,000 $145,800 $172,800 $194,400 $214,200 $228,600 $241,200 $252,000 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 1,101,600 16,200 43,200 70,200 91,800 113,400 129,600 145,800 156,600 164,700 170,100 Business 1,922,400 72,000 108,000 140,400 169,200 194,400 216,000 234,000 248,400 262,800 277,200 Subtotal 2b, Long Distance $3,024,000 $88,200 $151,200 $210,600 $261,000 $307,800 $345,600 $379,800 $405,000 $427,500 $447,300 Total Voice $4,719,600 $135,000 $234,000 $327,600 $406,800 $480,600 $540,000 $594,000 $633,600 $668,700 $699,300 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity 440,640 6,480 17,280 28,080 36,720 45,360 51,840 58,320 62,640 65,880 68,040 Home/SOHO, 4% 720,900 0 27,00 40,500 52,650 63,450 72,900 81,000 87,750 93,150 98,550 103,950 Business, 30% Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $1,161,540 $33,480 $57,780 $80,730 $100,170 $118,260 $132,840 $146,070 $155,790 $164,430 $171,990 b. DSL Home/SOHO, 96% 2,820,096 41,472 110,592 179,712 235,008 290,304 331,776 373,248 400,896 69,552 421,632 73,584 435,456 77,616 Business, 70% 538,272 20,160 30,240 - 39,312 - - -- . _- 47,376 $282,384 54,432 $344,736 60,480 $392,256 65,520 $438,768 $470,448 $495,216 $513,072 Subtotal 3b, DSL $3,358,368 $61,632 $140,832 $ 219,024 $95,112 $198,612 $299,754 $382,554 $462,996 $525,096 $584,838 $626,238 $659,646 $685,062 Data $4,519,908 Total 4. Total Prosect Reveaae (TPR) $10,649,531; I $406,216 $649,089 . 5840,530 $962,536 $1,113,476 $1,194,982 $1,305,423 $1,346,429 $1,396,590 $1,434,260 METRWAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Appendix 6: Annual Revenues - City Project page 40 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 0 Appen* Scolio 2 •�titT/ai10 partMr: Stpo 1;!St � 3 Wio�t Ead-User Dere ; y .. .' Total Use Tar 2 � ' Yoar 3 Tow 4 Year S : Year a 'Year 7 : "": ° Year a Tar ! year 10 Year 11 Voice - Home/SOHO Users 1,575 150 400 650 850 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,450 1,525 1,575 Voice - Business Users 385 100 150 195 235 270 300 325 345 365 385 Data - Home/SOHO Users 3,359 2,165 2,273 2,387 2,506 2,632 2,763 2,901 3,046 3,199 3,359 Data - Business Users 481 310 325 342 359 377 396 415 436 458 481 Catv - Home Users 5,497 5026 5076 5127 5178 5230 5282 5335 5388 5442 5497 Catv- Business Users 605 554 559 565 570 576 582 588 593 599 605 Project Revenue " '. _..:, Yeiel $ : Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S Year a . Year 7 Year a Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO, 4% fiber 194,797 125,568 6,278 6,592 6,922 7,268 7,631 8,013 8,414 8,834 9,276 Business, 30% fiber 209,170 134,833 6,742 7,079 7,433 7,804 8,194 8,604 9,034 9,486 9,960 Total 1 Connection Charges $403,966 $260,400 $13,020 $13,671 $14,355 $15,072 $15,826 $16,617 $17,448 $18,320 $19,236 2. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 734,400 10,800 28,800 46,800 61,200 75,600 86,400 97,200 104,400 109,800 113,400 Business961,200 36,000 54,000 70,200 84,600 97,200 108,000 117,000 124,200 131,400 138,600 Subtotal 2a, Local Voice $1,695,600 $46,800 $82,800 $117,000 $145,800 $172,800 $194,400 $214,200 $228,600 $241,200 $252,000 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 1,101,600 16,200 43,200 70,200 91,800 113,400 129,600 145,800 156,600 164,700 170,100 Business 1,922,400 72,000 108,000 140,400 169,200 194,400 216,000 234,000 248,400 262,800 277,200 Subtotal 2b, Long Distance $3,024,000 $88,200 $151,200 $210,600 $261,000 $307,800 $345,600 $379,800 $405,000 $427,500 $447,300 Total Voice $4,719,600 $135,000 $234,000 $327,600 $406,800 $480,600 $540,000 $594,000 $633,600 $668,700 $699,300 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity Home/SOHO, 4%u 588,182 46,763 49,101 51,556 54,134 56,841 59,683 62,667 65,800 69,090 72,545 Business, 30%u 1,052,634 83,689 87,874 92,267 96,881 101,725 106,811 112,152 117,759 123,647 129,829 Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $1,640,815 $130,452 $136,975 $143,824 $151,015 $158,566 $166,494 $174,819 $183,560 $192,738 $202,374 b. Cable Modem Home/SOHO, 96% 1,882,181 149,642 157,124 164,980 173,229 181,891 190,985 200,535 210,561 221,089 232,144 Business, 70% 196,492 15,622 16,403 17,223 18,084 18,989 19,938 20,935 21,982 23,081 24,235 Subtotal 3b, Cable Modem $2,078,673 $165,264 $173,527 $182,204 $191,314 $200,879 $210,923 $221,470 $232,543 $244,170 $256,379 Total Data $3,719,489 $295,716 $310,502 $326,027 $342,329 $359,445 $377,417 $396,288 $416,103 $436,908 $458,753 4. Video a. Cable TV Home/SOHO 3,691,185 352,811 356,339 359,903 363,502 367,137 37 37 38 38 Business 406,517 38,856 39,244 39,637 40,033 40,433 40,838 40,838 41,246 ,246 ,659 41,659 ,075 42,075 ,464 42,496 Total 4 Cable TV $4,097,702 $391,667 $395,584 $399,539 1 $403,535 $407,570 $411,646 $415,762 $419,920 $424,119 $428,360 S. Total Project Revenue (TPR)''- ...-'$1M0,75Td 51,084783 1 $953,106 '` 51,066 838 $1,167,018 '$1,262,687 " -$1,344,889 $1,422,668 $1,487,071 $1,548,047 $1,605,650 MA 0) METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS W Appendix 7: Annual Rdvenues - City/Cable Partner 41 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 page 42 Scenario 3 - City/telco partner t Stay 1 Stalls:,2. Stay 3 Buildout End -User Descrl tfoa .. Total Users Year 2 You 3 You 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 6 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Voice - Home/SONO Users 10,147 9,278 9,371 9,464 9,559 9,655 9,751 9,849 9,947 10,047 10,147 Voice - Business Users 4,236 3,873 3,912 3,951 3,990 4,030 4,071 4,111 4,152 4,194 4,236 Data - Home/SOHO Users 6,717 4,330 4,546 4,774 5,012 5,263 5,526 5,803 6,093 6,397 6,717 Data - Business Users 962 620 651 683 718 754 791 831 872 916 962 Catv - Home Users nla Catv - Business Users n/a Pro ect Rewaae Total S Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 leer a Year 9 Yew 10 Year 11 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO, 4% fiber 389,593 251,135 12,557 13,185 13,844 14,536 15,263 16,026 16,827 17,669 18,552 Business, 30% fiber 418,339 269,665 13,483 14,157 14,865 15,609 16,389 17,208 18,069 18,972 19,921 Total 1 Connection Char jes $807,933 $520,801 $26,040 $27,342 $28,709 $30,145 $31,652 $33,234 $34,896 $36,641 $38,473 2. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 3,494,463 334,008 337,348 340,722 344,129 347,570 351,046 354,556 358,102 361,683 365,300 Business 7,293,627 697,140 704,111 711,153 718,264 725,447 732,701 740,028 747,428 754,903 762,452 Subtotal 2a, Local Voice $10,788,090 $1,031,148 $1,041,459 $1,051,874 $1,062,393 $1,073,017 $1,083,747 $1,094,584 $1,105,530 $1,116,586 $1,127,751 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 5,241,694 501,012 506,022 511,082 516,193 521,355 526,569 531,834 537,153 542,524 547,949 Business 14,587,254 1,394,280 1,408,223 1,422,305 1,436,528 1,450,893 1,465,402 1,480,056 1,494,857 1,509,805 1,524,904 Subtotal 2b, Long Distance $19,828,948 $1,895,292 $1,914,245 $1,933,387 $1,952,721 $1,972,248 $1,991,971 $2,011,891 $2,032,010 $2,052,330 $2,072,853 $2,926,440 $2,955,704 $2,985,261 $3,015,114 $3,045,265 $3,075,718 $3,106,475 $3,137,540 $3,168,915 $3,200,604 Total Voice $30,617,037 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity 1,176,363 93,526 98,203 103,113 108,268 113,682 119,366 125,334 131,601 138,181 145,090 Home/SOHO, 4% 2,105,268 167,378 175,747 184,535 193,761 203,449 213,622 224,303 235,518 247,294 259,9 Business, 30%u Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $3,281,631 $260,905 $273,950 $287,647 $302,030 $317,131 $332,988 $349,637 $367,119 47 $385,47,5 7 $404,749 , b. DSL Home/SOHO, 96% 3,764,363 299,284 314,248 329,961 346,459 363,782 381,971 401740 421927 87,927 442,179 92,323 464,288,939 96,939 Business, 70%u 785,967 62,488 65,612 68,893 72,338 $418,796 75,954 $439,736 79,752 $461,723 83,740 $484,809 $509,050 $534,502 $561,227 Subtotal 3b, DSL $4,550,329 $361,772 $379,861 $398,854 $653,811 $686,501 $720,826 $756,867 $794,711 $834,446 $876,169 $919,977 $965,976 $622,677 Total Data $7,831,960 4. Total Project Revenue ITPRI $39,256,930 $4,069,917 $3,635,555 $3,699,105 $3,764,649 $3,832,277 $3,902,080 $3,974,156 $4,048,605 $4,125,533 54,205,053 METRWAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Appendix 8: Annual Revenues - City/Telco Partner 0 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 0 Appeno Scenario 4 • City/both partnere Stage t Stage 2 Stage 3 Bendoet End -Wer Description Total Users Year 2 ' Year 3 Year 4 Teu $ Year 6 ` You 7 Yew 8 TOW 9 Tow 10 Year 11 Voice - Home/SOHO Users 10,147 9,278 9,371 9,464 9,559 9,655 9,751 91849 9,947 10,047 10,147 Voice - Business Users 4,236 3,873 3,912 3,951 3,990 4,030 4,071 4,111 4,152 4,194 4,236 Data - Nome/SONO Users 6,717 4,330 4,546 4,774 5,012 5,263 5,526 5,803 6,093 6,397 6,717 Data - Business Users 962 620 651 683 718 754 791 831 872 916 962 Catv - Home Users 5,497 5026 5076 5127 5178 5230 5282 5335 5388 5442 5497 Catv- Business Users 605 554 559 565 570 576 582 588 593 599 605 Pro oct Mveauo Total $ - You 2 Yoor 3 " ' Yam 4 Toar S You 6 Tow 7 Year i Year 9 Tear 10 year 11 1. Connection Charges a. One time Connection Charge Home/SOHO,4%fiber 389,593 251,135 12,557 13,185 13,844 14,536 15,263 16,026 16,827 17,669 18,552 Business, 30% fiber 418,339 269,665 13,483 14,157 14,865 15,609 16,389 17,208 18,069 18,972 19,921 Total t Connection Charges $807,933 $520,801 $26,040 $27,342 $28,709 $30,145 $31,652 $33,234 $34,896 $36,641 $38,473 L. Voice (by CLEC) a. Local Home/SOHO 3,494,463 334,008 337,348 340,722 344,129 347,570 351,046 354,556 358,102 361,683 365,300 Business 7,293,627 697,140 704,111 711,153 718,264 725,447 732,701 740,028 747,428 754,903 762,452 Subtotal 2a, Local Voice $10,788,090 $1,031,148 $1,041,459 $1,051,874 $1,062,393 $1,073,017 $1,083,747 $1,094,584 $1,105,530 $1,116,586 $1,127,751 b. Long Distance Home/SOHO 5,241,694 501,012 506,022 511,082 516,193 521,355 526,569 531,834 537,153 542,524 547,949 Business 14,587,254 1,394,280 1,408,223 1,422,305 1,436,528 1,450,893 1,465,402 1,480,056 1,494,857 1,509,805 1,524,904 Subtotal 2b, Long Distance $19,828,948 $1,895,292 $1,914,245 $1,933,387 $1,952,721 $1,972,248 $1,991,971 $2,011,891 $2,032,010 $2,052,330 $2,072,853 Total Voice $30,617,037 $2,926,440 $2,955,704 $2,985,261 $3,015,114 $3,045,265 $3,075,718 $3,106,475 $3,137,540 $3,168,915 $3,200,604 3. Data (by CLEC) a. Direct Fiber Connectivity Home/SOHO, 4% 1,176,363 93,526 98,203 103,113 108,268 113,682 119,366 125,334 131,601 138,181 145,090 Business, 30% 2,105,268 167,378 175,747 184,535 193,761 203,449 213,622 224,303 235,518 247,294 259,659 Subtotal 3a, Direct Fiber $3,281,631 $260,905 $273,950 $287,647 $302,030 $317,131 $332,988 $349,637 $367,119 $385,475 $404,749 c. Cable Modem Home/SOHO, 48% 1,882,181 149,642 157,124 164,980 173,229 181,891 19 85 20 21 221081 232,144,235 Business, 35% 196,492 15,622 16,403 17,223 18,084 18,989 19,938 ,9 ,935 20,935 ,982 21,982 23,081 24,235 Subtotal 3c, Cable Modem $2,078,673 $165,264 $173,527 $182,204 $191,314 $200,879 $210,923 $221,470 $232,543 $244,170 $256,379 Total 3. Data $7,635,469 $607,055 $637,407 $669,278 $702,742 $737,879 $774,773 $813,511 $854,187 $896,896 $941,741 4. Video a. Cable TV Home/SOHO 7,382,371 705,622 712,679 719,805 727,003 734,273 741,616 749,032 756,523 764,088 771,729 Business 813,033 77,711 78,489 79,273 80,066 80,867 81,675 82,492 83,317 84,150 84,992 Total 4 Cable TV $8,195,404 $783,334 $791,167 $799,079 $807,070 $815,140 $823,292 $831,525 $839,840 $848,238 $856,721 S. TOW prol Revenue TPK ; ':. 547,255,842 54,837,629 54,410,319. `$4,480,960 $4,553,634" 54,628,429 ": 54,705,434 +$4,784,745 $4,866,463 - $4,950,691 $5,037,539 mal Appendix 9: Annual Revenues - City/Cable/Telco Partners o / METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS V1 43 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS page 44 Appendices - ♦ V Project Feasibility Stag t staN t 1►r !< Tri Star 3 bidldort Yr 7 rr 8 Will Trio 1r t 1 Scenario 1 -City projKt < Yr 1 rr t ; Yr 3 ,, 1r 4 Financing 10,260,000 10,260,000 9,551,757E8,786,8;55 7,960,761 7,068,580 6,105,024 5,064,383 3,940,491 2,726,688 1,415,7800Interest Principal Balance 8.0% nla 820,800 702,948 636,861 565,486 488,402 405,151 315,239 218,135 113,262 10 nla 708,243 826,094 892,182963,556 1,040,641 1,123,892 1,213,803 1,310,908 1,415,780 Princi al Re a ment 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 Annual Debt Service Project Funds Available 10260,000 6,628,267 5,524,897 4,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2218,339 2,034,499 1,985,898 2,056,377 Beginning Balance Cash 10,649,531 nla nla 406,216 649,089 840,530 962,536 1,113,476 1,194,982 1,305,423 1,346,429 1,396 ,590 1,434,260 Revenues Gross R Grosse vendsAvailable 10,260,000 7,034,483 6,173,986 5,295,628 4,767,175 4,207,042 3,804,957 3,523,762 3,380,928 3,382,488 3,490,637 AnnuaProject Funds Expended Incremental Capital Costs 6,286,043 3,109,903 737,061 707,874 366,836 311,087 288,799 233,050 210,762 146,763 111,409 62,500 6,286,043 Backbone Infrastructure 3,109,903 3,846,963 4,554,837 4,921,673 5,232,761 5,521,559 5,754,610 5,965,371 6,112,134 6,223,543 Cumulative Backbone Cost 4,415,835 521,831 683,159 675,163 546,527 538,532 409,895 401,900 273,264 212,943 152,623 4,415,835 0 4,415,835 Distribution System Cumulative Distribution System Costs 521,831 1,204,989 1,880,153 2,426,680 2,965,211 3,375,107 698,694 3,777,006 634,950 4,050,270 484,025 4,263,213 359,706 264,032 62,500 Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs 10,701,879 3,631,733 1,420,219 1,383,038 913,363 7,348,353 849,619 8,197,972 8,896,666 9,531,616 10,015,641 10,375,347 10,639,379 10,701,879 Cumulative Capital Cost 3,631,733 5,051,952 6,434,990 Operation & Maintenance Expenses 48,746 77,891 100,864 115,504 133,617 143,398 156,651 161,571 167,591 172,111 General Operations, % of gross revenues 12.0% nla 25 366,293 386 509 402,823 417,576 427,849 435,648 440,023 Upgrades, % of cumul. backbone costs 7.0%n nla119,498 40,622 64,909 84,053 96,25 130,542 134,643 143,426111,348 Network Management, % of gross revenues 10.0% nla 193,050 220,451 9 266,900 285,948 300,469 311,260 319,6181 321,056 Network Maintenance, % of cumul.ca ital cost 3.0% nla 89,368 335,849 577,626 823,990 898,374 951,667 1,005238 1,035,324 1,062,079 1,076,617 Maintenance Operation & Ma Subtotal, Ope nla 1,509,587 1,718,887 1,490,989 1,673,609 1,597,068 6 617 1,58 , 1 489263 1,395, 030 1,326, 111 1,139,117 Total, Annual Costs 3,631,733 Feasibility 6,628,267 5,524,897 4,455,098 3,804,640 3,093,566 2,609,974 2,218,339 2,034,449 1,985,898 1,529,043 1,056,377 1,529,043 2,351, 520 1,529,043 Annual Net Revenue 0 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 1,529,043 822,478 Debt Service 6,628,267 3,995,854 2,926,056 2,275,597 1,564,524 1,080,932 689,297 505,456 456,855 527,334 Ending Balance atter Debt Service 3.61 2.91 2.49 2.02 1.71 1.45 1.33 1.30 1.34 1'54 Annual (overage Factor Appendix 10: Project Feasibility - City Project Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS A dives age 45 PPen Project Feasibility 2 -City/able partner ' „ :, 3tp.1 .:; Tr t Yr: stao• z " rr a `' ' Yr4l rr s . ' rr fl Tr r stage 3 Bull"Scenario rr b Yr • rr to Tr It Financing 5,000,000 4,004,310 4,004,310 975,062 975,062 195,716 4,200,026 9,751 984,812 6,485 4,206,510 9,848 994,660 6,550 4,213,060 9,947 1,004,607 6,615 4,219,675 10,046 1,014,653 6,681 4,226,356 10,147 1,024,800 6,748 4,233,104 10,248 1,035,047 6,815 4,239,919 10,350 1,045,398 6,884 4,246,803 10,454 1,055,852 Principal Balance 5,000,000 5,000,000 4,631,797 4,226,774 3,781,249 3,291,171 2,752,085 2,159,091 1,506,797 789,274 0 Interest 10.0% n/a 500,000 1 500,000 463,180 422,677 378,125 329,117 275,209 215,909 150,680 78,928 Principal Repayment 9 n/a 368,203 405,023 445,525 490,078 539,086 592,994 652,294 717,523 789,274 Annual Debt Service 500,000 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 868,203 Project Funds Available Beginning Balance Cash Gross Revenues Annual Funds Available Project Funds Expended Incremental Capital Costs Backbone Infrastructure Cumulative Backbone Cost Distribution System Cumulative Distribution Svstei Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs Cumulative Capital Cost Operation i Maintenance Expenses General Operations, % of gross revenues Upgrades, % of cumul. backbone costs Network Management, % of gross revenues Network Maintenance, % of cumul.capital cost Subtotal, Operation & Maintenance Total, Annual Costs Feasibility Annual Net Revenue Debt Service Ending Balance after Debt Service Annual Coverage Factor 5,000,000 20,629 659,733 1,230,788 1,742,438 2,183,644 2,698,333 3,275,989 3,913,150 4,599,371 5,331,969 0 0 1,082,783 953,106 1,066,838 1,167,018 1,262,687 1,344,889 1,422,668 1,487,071 1,548,047 1,605,650 51000,000 1,103,412 1 1,612,839 2,297,625 2,909,456 3,446,331 4,043,222 4,698,656 5,400,220 6,147,418 6,937,619 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 20,629 659,733 0 500,000 1,230,788 868,203 1,742,438 868,203 2,183,644 868,203 2,698,333 868,203 3,275,989 868,203 3,913,150 868,203 4,599,371 868,203 5,331,969 868,203 6,124,731 868,203 20,629 159,733 362,585 4,255,826 1,066,410 4,004,310 4,004,310 975,062 975,062 195,716 4,200,026 9,751 984,812 6,485 4,206,510 9,848 994,660 6,550 4,213,060 9,947 1,004,607 6,615 4,219,675 10,046 1,014,653 6,681 4,226,356 10,147 1,024,800 6,748 4,233,104 10,248 1,035,047 6,815 4,239,919 10,350 1,045,398 6,884 4,246,803 10,454 1,055,852 6,952 4,253,755 10,559 1,066,410 2,070-, 4,255,826 0 1,066,410 5,322,236 4,979,371 205,467 16,333 16,496 16,661 16,828 16,996 17,166 17,338 17,511 2,070 4,979,371 5,184,838 1 5,201,171 5,217,667 r 5,234,328 5,251,155 5,268,151 5,285,317 5,302,655 5,320,166 5,322,236 12.0% 7.0% 10.0% 3.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a 129,934 - 108,278 - 114,373 - 95,311 156,035 128,021 147,457 106,684 156,530 140,042 295,377 116,702 157,030 151,522 295,845 126,269 157,535 161,387 296,317 134,489 158,045 170,720 296,794 142,267 158,560 178,448 297,276 148,707 159,080 185,766 297,763 154,805 159,605 192,678 297,908 160,565 159,667 nla 238,212 365,718 538,691 709,151 731,171 750,237 768,341 783,511 797,938 810,818 4.979.371 443,679 1 382,051 555,187 725,812 747,999 767,233 785,507 800,849 815,449 812,888 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 20,629 659,733 0 500,000 1,230,788 868,203 1,742,438 868,203 2,183,644 868,203 2,698,333 868,203 3,275,989 868,203 3,913,150 868,203 4,599,371 868,203 5,331,969 868,203 6,124,731 868,203 20,629 159,733 362,585 874,235 1,315,441 1,830,130 2,407,786 3,044,947 3,731,168 4,463,766 5,256,528 1.32 1.42 2.01 2.52 3.11 3.77 4.51 5.30 6.14 7.05 Appendix 11: Project Feasibility - City/Cable Partner w Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 ..& page 46 Appendices Stage deildoat Project feasibility stag• 1 .' flags 2 Tr 4 Yr, 5 Yr G Yr 7 Yr B Yr 9 Yr t0 Yr 11 Scenario 3 - city/telco partner. Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3. Financing 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,592,548 4,254,350 3,882,332 3,473,113 3,022,972 2,527,817 1,983,146 1,384,008 724,956 0 72,497 Principal Balance 10.0% nla 490,000 459,255 425,435 388,233 347,311 302,297 252,782 198,315 599,138 138,401 659,052 724,956 Interest 10 n/a 307,452 338,198 372,018 409,219 450,141 495,155 544,671 Principal Repayment 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 Annual Debt Service Project Funds Available 4,900,000 63,906 2,987,146 5,232,704 7,107,193 8,654,322 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 14,595,435 Beginning Balance Cash 39,256,930 0 0 4,069,917 3,635,555 3,699,105 3,764,649 3,832,277 3,902,080 3,974,156 4,048,605 4,125,533 4,205,053 Gross Revenues 4,900,000 4,133,824 6,622,701 8,931,809 10,871,842 12,486,599 13,961,562 15,315,107 16,563,475 17,721,030 18,800,489 Annual Funds Available Project Funds Expended Incremental Capital Costs 4,354,450 203,593 26,704 28,039 29,441 30,913 32,459 34,081 35,786 4,303,056 37,575 4,340,631 13,81 4,354,450 3,882,041 Backbone Infrastructure 3,882,041 4,085,634 4,112,338 4,140,377 4,169,818 4,200,730 4,233,189 4,267,270 0 Cumulative Backbone Cost Distribution System 1,480,049 954,053 47,703 50,088 52,592 55,222 57,983 60,882 1,278,522 63,926 1,342,448 67,122 1,409,570 70,479 1,480,049 1,480,049 CumulativetributionSysribution5 tem Costs 954,053 1,001,755 1,051,843 1,104,435 80,631 1,159,657 84,663 1,217,640 88,896 93,341 909,71 18ZOj68 ,819 134,4 Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs 5,834,499 4,836,094 251,296 5,087,390 76,791 5,164,181 5,244,812 5,329,475 5,418,370 5,511,711 5,609,718 j712.68 5,712,626 5,820,680 5,834,499 Cumulative Capital Cosy 4,836,094 Operation 6 Maintenance Expenses 794,724 1,071,817 1,30 1294 1 1 1301,214 2303,844 23046 9 ades, 488,390 General Operations, % of gross revenues 12.0% nla 3 ,621 0512 96,3 37 98,709 812 % of cumul. backbone costs Upgr390,208 7.0% nla 406,29187 992 369,910 376,465 383,81 397,416 175,035 Network Management, % of gross revenues 10.0% 3.0% nla nla 154,925 157,344 159,884 162,55363,555 165,351 168,292 171,379 379 2,865,070 174 620 3,017,541 3,156,41 Network Maintenance, % of cumul.ca ital cost 895,382 1,313,205 1,743,985 2,132,857 2,338,222 2,527,270 2,702,229 Subtotal, Operation & Maintenance nla 1,146,678 1,389,997 1,824,616 2,217,520 2,427,118 2,620,611 2,800,236 2,967,978 3,125,595 3,170,230 Tota1, Annual Costs 4,836,094 1 Feasibility 7,107,193 8,654,322 10,059,482 11,340,951 12,514,871 13,595,497 797,452 14,595,435 797,452 15,630,2Y 797,452 63,906 2,987,146 5,232,704 Annual Net Revenue 0 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 797,452 11,717,418 12,798,045 13,797,983 14,832,801 Debt Service 63,906 2,189,693 4,435,252 6,309,740 7,856,869 9,262,029 10,543,499 Ending Balance ager Debt Service 15.69 17.05 18.30 19.60 3.75 6.56 8.91 10.85 12.61 14.22 Annual Coverage Factor Appendix 12: Project Feasibility - City/Telco Partner Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Y 47 Project Feasibility Scenario 4 - City/cable i telco partners Stage i ° Tr t Tr 2 stage 2 rr 3 tr 4 Tr S Iles Tr 7 Stage 3 Buildout Yr B •r g Tr 10 Tr 1 t 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 Cash Gross Revenues 47,255,842 0 0 4,837,629 4,410,319 4,480,960 4,553,634 4,628,429 Financing 5,700,000 Principal Balance Interest 10.0% Principal Repayment 10 5,700,000 5,342,351 n/a 570,000 n/a 357,649 4,948,938 534,235 393,414 4,516,183 494,894 432,755 4,040,152 451,618 476,031 3,516,518 404,015 523,634 2,940,521 351,652 575,997 2,306,925 294,052 633,597 1,609,968 230,692 696,956 843,316 16,997 7666,652 0 84,333 843,316 Annual Debt Service 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 927,649 196,925 200,696 204,650 205,081 0 1,064,278 1,576,881 2,082,783 Project Funds Expended 2,790,437 Project Funds Available 3233,160 3,429,620 3,612,491 3,777,801 a" 5,615,222 1,371,658 T 1,671,634 2,182,093 2,642,999 Beginning Balance 1,390,803 5,615,222 5,700,000 84,778 3,550,749 6,289,434 8,588,302 10,498,937 12,227,819 13,797,952 15,229,629 16,540,758 17,747,152 Cash Gross Revenues 47,255,842 0 0 4,837,629 4,410,319 4,480,960 4,553,634 4,628,429 4,705,434 4,784,745 4,866,463 4,950,691 5,037,539 Annual Funds Available 448,096 5,700,000 4,922,407 7,961,068 10,770,394 13,141,936 15,127,366 16,933,253 18,582,697 20,096,091 21,491,449 22,784,691 183,500 186,623 189,896 193,327 196,925 200,696 204,650 205,081 0 1,064,278 1,576,881 2,082,783 Project Funds Expended 2,790,437 3,020,923 3233,160 3,429,620 3,612,491 3,777,801 a" 5,615,222 1,371,658 T 1,671,634 2,182,093 2,642,999 Incremental Capital Costs Backbone Infrastructure 4,782,907 3,353,068 3,555,333 3,744,297 3,792,159 4,224,418 246,854 31,324 32,832 34,415 36,076 37,820 39,650 41,571 43,588 14,358 Cumulative Backbone Cost 4,224,418 4,471,273 4,502,597 4,535,429 4,569,843 4,605,919 4,643,739 4,683,389 4,724,961 4,768,549 4,782,907 Distribution System 2,053,121 1,390,803 60,525 63,429 66,477 69,676 73,034 76,559 1 800 505 80,258 1 880 763 84,141 1 964 904 88,217 2053 121 0 2053 121 Cumulative Distribution System Costs Subtotal, Incremental Capital Costs Cumulative Capital Cost Operation i Maintenance Expenses General Operations, % of gross revenues Upgrades, % of cumul. backbone costs Network Management, % of gross revenues Network Maintenance, % of cumul.capital cost Subtotal, Operation & Maintenance Total, Annual Costs Feasibility Annual Net Revenue Debt Service Ending Balance after Debt Service Annual Coverage Factor 6,836,028 1,390,803 5,615,222 1,451,329 307,380 1,514,758 94,753 1,581,235 99,309 1,650,912 104,091 1,723,946 109,110 114,378 119,908 125,713 131,805 14,358 2,411,531 5,615,222 5,922,601 1 6,017,355 6,116,664 T 6,220,755 6,329,865 6,444,244 6,564,152 6,689,865 6,821,670 6,836,028 319,889 322,414 325,062 327,837 330,747 333,798 334,803- 12.0% 580,515 955,328 1,292,447 1,577,032 1,815,284 2,031,990 2,229,924 2,411,531 2,578,974 2,734,163 7.0% 158,740 319,889 322,414 325,062 327,837 330,747 333,798 334,803- 11.32 10.0% 483,763 441,032 448,096 455,363 462,843 470,543 478,475 486,646 495,069 503,754 3.0% - - 180,521 183,500 186,623 189,896 193,327 196,925 200,696 204,650 205,081 0 1,064,278 1,576,881 2,082,783 2,538,907 2,790,437 3,020,923 3233,160 3,429,620 3,612,491 3,777,801 a" 5,615,222 1,371,658 T 1,671,634 2,182,093 2,642,999 2,899,547 3,135,301 3,353,068 3,555,333 3,744,297 3,792,159 84,778 3,550,749 0 927,649 84,778 2,623,101 6,289,434 927,649 15,361,785 8,588,302 927,649 7,660,653 10,498,937 927,649 9,571,289 12,227,819 927,649 11,300,170 13,797,952 927,649 12,870,303 15,229,629 927,649 14,301,980 16,540,758 927,649 15,613,110 17,747,152 927,649 16,819,504 18,992,5 927,64! 18,064,8 3.83 6.78 9.26 11.32 13.18 14.87 16.42 17.83 19.13 20.47 Appendix 13: Project Feasibility - City/Cable/Telco Partners MA 0 0) METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS to Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 Appendices Kit; Central Office Name Port Angeles IMF win� 50216 city Port Angeles Equal Access Date 12/17/88 Tandem Switch STTLWA06C9T Horizontal Coordinates 9065 NY M -1 - Existing Switch Type DMS100 < _,.:� Replacement Switch Date , n r , n Replacement Switch Software LECO13 „,. ONOW H,,.. Business NALs 6454 Fn - 57 ISDN Date 04/24/95 SS7 Date 06/25/94 'd 'a���.c"=i`u�...r. Total Usage 38471669 ra, ;, NO iRka Data Residential Business Network Access Lines NALs 15,463 6,454 Ci area within PA Exchange Assumed 60% Assumed 60% Lines within City 9,278 3,873 Lines/unit 1.2 3.5 Total units within City 7,732 1,107 Appendix 14: Qwest Port Angeles Laurel Street Central Office Switch Data - 22 htq2//www.tiswest.com/­cgi-bin/`iconn/iconn central.pl page 48 .. 0 170mETROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 • r� L J C� • Appendices �r page 49 Appendix 15: NoaNet Route Map C Por! Angeles :. Happy Valky�" Faumouid l ff Shelton r Aberdeen SwO Elmo satso ` . ' ._ ����. ,may` • �. ,, ad Legend ,:.mac: f t.• F cult Aeae r— C!, f Gc-aya,��i,awr f j A,ur=te=r r,a*2n12311"n u� A ew • s+f it r' P- u r METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS s Proprietary ana uonnaenuai ai vlvvl 7 1 I Fibra Opb-s F,r.t. �� Mprvr�ti � {NY Mcr1011,6rain ,:.mac: f t.• F cult Aeae r— C!, f Gc-aya,��i,awr f j A,ur=te=r r,a*2n12311"n u� A ew • s+f it r' P- u r METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS s Proprietary ana uonnaenuai ai vlvvl 7 1 I Appendices Appendix 16: Port Angeles Telecommunications Network Sample Outline Request For Consortium Partner Proposals Introduction Purpose of the Request Background Scope of Project Goals Procedure for Responses Inquiries Submission of Responses Response Process Timeline Confidentiality of Responses Business Proposition Description of the Business Business Summary Products and Services Costs and Revenues Projected Returns Network Description General Description Design Criteria Network Management Implementation Scheduling Partnership Partnership Description Organization Partnership Management Partnership Policies and Activities Data Requested from Respondents Intentions and Capabilities Role Desired Desired Market Segments Competencies, Capabilities and Strengths Ability to Meet Partnership Requirements Respondent's Data Appendices Map of Proposed Network 172 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS page 50 Proprietary and Confidential 5/1/2001 pe • • • • Friday, March 30, 2001 Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop What telecommunications services needs does your organization have today? Do you have any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? N so, how? how would your organization use a broadband wide area network N It were available ind affordable E L ' r rhe Telecommunications Needs And Solutions Workshop is being held for large eleconxnunications users and business leaders within Port Angeles. The purpose of the L' vorkshop is to learn about your telecommunications needs, and discuss solutions to meet Eour needs. The City is sponsoring this workshop as part o1 its broadband (high-speed) elecommunications services economic development goal. CWorkshop Agenda Session "A" 10AVAPM Session 'B" Noon 3PM Den -Ree 1O:OOAM Session A Introductions, Larry Dunbar, City o/ Port Angeles M : Productions 10:15AM Fiber Optic Backbone Business Planning, Brian Roberts, Mebopddan M ' Communications Consultants - -- U1O:3OAM --telecommunications Needs and Satstons Deems Bragg, Den -Ree Pmductior N _ ._ METROPOLITAN LurxS1 T�lscommunlcations S�►vics P/ovJdar'PanNOlseusabn ' How(AU workshop tlrtd sen�cepinvitees vilees welcome) COMMUNICATIONS C CONSULTANTS _ Joe a kwWuctions Lady Dunbar City of Port Angeles 1.00PM A 1 15PM Fiber Optic Backbone Business Planning. Brien Roberts, flbtropoiten Commanicafions consulttlrNs .... —r— 136PM TslecarvnurucetKms-Needs and SoWtlom, Oenms.Bregg, Den -Ree Product* or 3:00PM A 0um NEEDSAND Telecommunications Service Provider Panel Discussion OSOLUTIONS A service provider panel discussion will be held during the lunch tour. Service providers Nwill describe their telecommunications coverage area and capability (existing and/or S planned), specifically in Port Angeles, discuss open access, and share partnership WORKSHOP opportunities to Ming broadband services to Port Angeles. Workshop Facilitators Workshop Location �Q q.o'`+a w!nyy Myr�i..e The workshop will be held on Friday, + 4p g eip e' March 30, 2001 at the City Fire Station located at 102 East 5th yj ' e,w s,w `: Street, Port Angeles. Parking is only d M` Rm Produciwod Bragg pen-Ree available on !r Street or Laurel w spa n _ Street. use the front entrance. w, `� , c wa ay ta' *yam , s p+■ y sP a Workshop Invitees (by invitation only) . ... .. .. ! Otymplc Medical Center Mac Raddag Rrrddell Atrto Mab even Boyd - + Pacific RMn Monies Kann McCorrrtock .Fast Federal Savings 8 ;Orap Seltarer - Loan _.l __.. . _. _ ._.-._ ..-....-. - �...: _ Peninsula Coll Efean KnipM ' Dergsma Snovaoom i Fred Goodwin efle __ --- ;Emma Jrxrsan Peninsula College ,loan Sargent - Glenn t3olsMrp (At.n Bemey ,.Business Assoelelion Bop.hr ss ._ ... _. Angeles Communications .Aria HoheAut Oownlown Association Ilan Enpehamon ccSO/Psrican : Jim Jona sorsa DisWind - -_ - Rias vriarrrria Chamber q Camrneree ; 8taw Baxar ectad OietAcf Mr. &nen R~. - _. _ t - POA Of eletropoin■n ; Dave Meyer Cellam Courcy &a Jamas Port Angeles cmunmwt - ! Danlal Derdn - Cla°am County Dow Hapiwars Poll 01 Port A les om CoMue■ms s i Jim Haquawood Claltam County Economic I Kann Rogers STMh !Development Council _i-- - Mark Hamln eOsiswe hoaanai Jerome STMA . ... -_......... C.. - - -Traci Lockhart j V494nls Mason Jw CeAO � lNlam County -..Emergency Management _..;_ ._ ... K -Pty IncorporatedIncorporatedBill RohsrM Excel utility Construct" telncy Croriol ! ....._ .... -. ... - - Smith otympic Medical Center Randy Johnson ` Green Crow ;Wry Telecommunications Service Provider Invitees (by invitation only) Pole GAporfen Northland Communications ! Kann Moses Avisla Mr Larry Dune■r Cny W Pon ArVeles Dawn Correll i FairPoint Communications Tim DAgar CemuryTel -ji.no Nitrile _ Qwest - j ahelAon Tentorwerd Koaher I� Fuad MItcMN CISWm County PUD I Daw Spencer NOANET -i Mike Been # otypen I Nsd Schumann ClympusNel 173 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 52 Den -Ree Productions 670 Lotzgesell Road Sequim, WA 98382 Ph: (360)- 683-2677 TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS WORKSHOP, 3/30/01 WORKSHOP FORMAT/PURPOSE: In an effort to analyze the community and customer support for the establishment of a community fiber optic, or telecommunications backbone, the City of Port Angeles contracted with Den -Ree Productions of Sequim, Washington to organize a process to conduct group interviews, or focus groups to obtain input. Through working with the City of Port Angeles and Metropolitan Communications Consultants, Den -Ree Productions finalized a list of 10 specific questions, focusing on different aspects of the telecommunications backbone plan. These ranged from how such a network could be employed in the community, to the respective advantages and disadvantages of such a network (see detail in summary report for a listing of all questions). Den -Ree Productions met with two focus groups and led them through a discussion on several topics, starting with broad questions, gradually moving the group to more focused discussions. The workshop was held in Port Angeles on Friday, March 30th, 2001. The discussion was broken into 2 different workgroups in order to improve the responsiveness in each session and the deployment of the discussion topics. Each of these sessions lasted approximately 2 hours using the following agenda: 1). Introduction of participants 2). Brief explanation of the city's planning effort 3). Interactive discussion and evaluation of key questions In order to preserve objectivity, participants were only allowed to attend one of the twb workshops, thereby entering the process from a fresh perspective. During the workshops, participants were presented each question and then asked to write their responses o 1 tatdr that were then collected and oup the responses using a shared with the group. The discussion allowed the panel to hep the process known as "storyboarding ", posting the response cards under general headings. Once a series of questions were completed in this manner, participants were then asked to come forward and analyze all of the responses on the storyboard. Using stickers and a point value system, participants were able to make one final, "close-up" review of the cards for each question and assign top priority to the responses they felt to be most critical to each question. This not improved the dynamics of the discussion, but allowed for a "second look" by viewing all of the responses collectively as they were prioritized. 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 174 0 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 53 The cards were then collected off the board and point values calculated (see summary report). In addition, notes and audio recordings of the workshops were collected to provide an additional, detailed record of the process. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS: In selecting the workshop participants, the City of Port Angeles and Den -Ree Productions endeavored to include a broad range of both potential customers of the telecommunications backbone, but also those who represented specific segments of the population such as local government, health care, small business and the public -at -large. Workshop "A" 10am to 12noon Bob Jensen- Angeles Communications Bill Robards- Excel Utilities Construction Alan Bentley- Port Angeles Business Association Dan Gouin- Clallam County Central Services Bill James- Port of Port Angeles Dave Meyer- Clallam County Central Services Steve Baxter- Port Angeles School District Evan Boyd- Olympic Medical Center Workshop "B" fpm to Spm Jerry Nichols- Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce Sandi Jerome- Science, Technology, Manufacturing Association Greg Scherer- Pacific Rim Hobbies (small business) Emma Janssen- Peninsula College Gary Smith- Olympic Medical Center Katy Stansifer- Clallam County Economic Development Council Eileen Knight- Port Angeles Downtown Association (business) Joan Sargent- former Port Angeles Mayor (citizen -at -large) Paula Johnson- First Federal Savings and Loan Dan Englebertson- Clallam County/ Pencom Kathy Prince- Daishowa America By incorporating a broad range of workshop participants, the process was able to include input covering not only the operation of the telecommunications backbone, but general opinions about the projects' viability and expense from leading community members representing a variety of viewpoints. In addition to the workshop participants, the event also included an hour-long panel discussion with local telecommunications service providers representing telephone and data carriers, cable television and local Internet service providers. They included: Pete Grigorieff Northland Communications John Utley Fairpoint Communications Fred Mitchell Clallam County Public Utility District Ned Schumann Olympus Net Terry Kennedy Olypen Tony Nicholson Century Tel 0 Sheldon Koehler Tenforward DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 175 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 54 ben -Ree Productions 670 Lotzgesell Road Sequim, WA 98382 Ph: (360)- 683-2677 TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS WORKSHOP- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overall, 19 participants took part in the Telecommunications Workshop on March 30, 2001, generating between 250 and 300 response cards on 10 key questions that were developed for the focus group component of the business plan. (These are detailed in the Detailed Report). The primary findings are as follows: 1. What telecommunications services needs does your organization have in PA today? Are there any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? If so, how? Participants first considered their present, unserved telecommunications needs with the demand for high-speed connectivity clearly ranking as the most important demand that's not being met with the present infrastructure. Participants were then asked to list the areas where they had specific telecommunications needs in their organizations today, or in the community as whole. As with many of the questions throughout the workshop, the panel clearly said they not only want "fast" telecommunications services, but also want them at "affordable" prices. Finally, the groups were asked how their telecommunication needs could change in the future. The prospect for the convergence of combined telecommunications services (TV, phone, Internet) emerged on top. Business people who participated further expected the need to compete, or offer new services via the Internet. 2. How would your organization use a broadband wide area network if it were available and affordable? Workshop participants were asked to consider how they might use the telecommunications backbone if it were available now, at an affordable price. The morning panel's involvement in local government clearly showed with the top selection favoring remote connectivity and service to offices and departments scattered at various locations around the community. Other top responses included the prospect for video conferencing and remote training and education for people who cannot travel to attend school. 3. Is development of a broadband network throughout PA important? Should investment be limited to those areas that make economic sense or should the City pursue citywide development? How could an investment in a citywide project be justified? Participants in the morning workshop clearly believed that the network should be developed beyond a "limited model", in order to include more population in potential services and improve economic impacts throughout the community, although cost was mentioned as a factor. The afternoon work group suggested a "limited" deployment might be a possible path for initial network same time, the participants felt a large deployment development, using partners for expansion. At the is necessary if the network is going 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 10 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 55 to have the greatest benefit, in the shortest period of time. In fact, they saw partnerships as key to • overcoming service limits. Participants felt economic development and education opportunities were a primary means of justifying the network in a community network. 4. What are the advantages/disadvantages of a City partnership in a broadband telecommunications backbone to enable broadband services for business? Not surprisingly, the issue of "cost" topped the list of "advantages". When it came to disadvantages, the functions and use of a joint network, such as security of documents and information management were mentioned. The afternoon group saw specific advantages to such a partnership, not the least of which was the rate of broadband deployment, and the use of existing technology, although the panel expressed concerns about working out the details of such a partnership. 5. Is "open access" and competition important for the advancement of broadband telecommunications services? The morning group simply said "yes', open access was important. The afternoon group felt open access could benefit the consumer, with more options, better service and lower prices. 6. What criteria should the City use to evaluate proposals to develop a broadband telecommunications infrastructure? Quality of Service, cost and Return on Investment emerged as the top considerations, with other suggestions such as "access to many or all", and consideration of existing resources and how to integrate those into the network. Other factors included reliability, technology and experience (of potential partners). 7. What needs do public, educational and governmental organizations have that may go un -served if a broadband infrastructure is not developed? The morning group clearly showed a determination that the network should be constructed, again with the cost of development a theme in their responses. The afternoon panel, with a greater number of - business representatives, expressed concerns that the lack of a network would slow economic growth and hurt the community's ability to compete in attracting new business. 8. What obstacles would need to be overcome with "last mile" infrastructure? In this question, participants were allowed to freely touch on a variety of challenges that must be bridged with the "last mile" deployment of a community network. The cost of that development was the primary concern, but others worried about the time for construction, administration, how to avoid construction disruptions to the community and convince people of the importance of building the network. 9. What types of business/industry could we attract to PA if broadband services were available? These responses touched on a variety of business sectors that need broadband in order to compete in today's markets including call centers, engineering/ architectural firms, high-tech research and development and any "businesses that use Internet distributed & developed products & services." Some suggested the network could attract "any business who brings employees who have high expectations in the area of high speed connection & services". 10. Should the City be involved in providing telecommunications services, or only be the service provider of last resort? The groups were asked to separate their answers into subheadings of "advantages" and "disadvantages" of the City of Port Angeles actually providing the telecommunications service. Generally, most in the morning workshop saw the disadvantages of this scenario, saying, "government should not be competing as a private enterprise". But the afternoon panel felt that the city could/should actually take steps to insure the availability of service if necessary, although they expressed concerns about the city's expertise and expense of such a deployment. 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 177 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 56 TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS PANEL DISCUSSION During the period of time between workshop sessions, participants also had an opportunity to hear a one hour panel discussion involving telecommunication service providers representing telephone and data services, cable television and local Internet service providers (see background report for a complete listing). The various representatives related steps their firms were taking to improve, or expand their. services in the future. All related an interest in expanding service offerings, although they said that costs of service must be taken into account. Some did express an interest in partnering with the city and showed support for "open access' to a local telecommunications network. Den -Ree Productions 670 Lotzgesell Road Sequim, WA 98382 Ph: (360)- 683-2677 TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS WORKSHOP- DETAILED REPORT POINT SYSTEM: During the workshop, participants were asked to rank the individual response cards to each of the questions, using stars with the following point system, with the most points awarded to the responses they felt best reflected their primary feelings or opinions under each question. Each participant was allowed to have a gold, silver and blue/red vote for each question heading (or sub -heading). Gold = 5 points Silver = 3 points Blue/ Red =1 point AM Workshop (See listing of participants in previous section) Question #1 1). What telecommunications services needs does your organization have in PA today? Are there any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? If so, how? Because of the complexity of this question, the group was asked to break their responses into subsections. 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 1178 10 • 0'' Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 57 Unserved Needs: Participants first grouped their present, unserved telecommunications needs with the demand for high-speed connectivity clearing ranking as the most important demand that's not being met with the present infrastructure. -High speed connectivity to remote locations, i.e. - fiber, T1, etc. *26 points* Other responses included not only the demand for broadband service, but also the desire to use such bandwidth to implement additional services, such as video/voice/data throughout the community. - "DSL or equivalent services' *18 points* -"Looking to enhance video to the citizens (streaming video to citizens)" *16 points* -"Fiber to remote locations" *6 points* -"Connection to roads and fairground" *4 points* -"Voice and video services across IP network internal or external" *1 point* Other ideas mentioned in this subsection included: "Broadband to all schools- voice, data, and video" -"Fiber/broadband connectivity all sites, 4 sites unserved" Needs Today: Participants were then asked to list the areas where they had specific telecommunications needs in their organizations today, or in the community as whole. As with many of the questions throughout the workshop, the morning panel clearly said they not only want "fast" telecommunications services, but want them at "affordable" prices: -"Affordable high speed service" *24 points* --organization becoming more dependent on remote locations via WAN connections" *10 points* 2'56K > $50 month" *9 points* Others related that present changes in their organizations were impacting their demand for affordable, high capacity bandwidth: -"Changing slowly, need lower cost, more capacity *6 points* "Change is a constant thing. There is always a demand for bandwidth" *5 points* -"Always changing, more need for high speed Internet, SAN, video" *3 points* Other responses in this subsection included: 5/1 /2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 179 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 58 "Wireless DSL > $50" -"Yes: A. Work reaches us via Internet B. Billing is via Internet" "POTS" -"Reasonably priced, T-1 speed data communications connections -for remote, small #users, locations" -"T-1 connectivity available but at cost -prohibitive rates for small # of users" Change: Finally, the group was asked how their telecommunication needs were changing in the future. The prospect for the convergence of combined telecommunications services clearly emerged on top: -"People want combined services: T.V., Phone, Internet, etc." *28 points* -"Needs changing - will require faster service in order to compete on Internet" *13 points* -"Connection courthouse to Juvenile, D&F, Roads yard, fairground" *4 points* Other responses to this sub -heading for question one focused on specific connections to government locations in the community, especially from Clallam County's standpoint, with the desire for video conferencing capabilities to various locations, such as the Clallam County Juvenile Detention Center, Forks, Sequim, the Clallam Bay Prison, remote office locations like the Clallam County Drug Task Force and other facilities off the Olympic Peninsula. Question #2 2. How would your organization use a broadband wide area network if it were available and affordable? With the next question, workshop participants were asked to consider how they might use the telecommunications backbone if it were available now, at an affordable price. The morning panel's involvement in local government clearly showed with the top selection favoring remote connectivity and service: -"Link voice, data, video to all internal locations & expand to remote citizens for better service (county services & offices)" *21 points* -"To link remote locations to main network, voice/video/data" *10 points* "Video delivery SAN's (storage area networks) - voice over IP distance learning (bandwidth capacity) *9 points* Others suggested the network could be beneficial to local business in reaching customers, or linking existing customer locations: providing improved video conferencing -"Business could use broadband - area network to offer goods and services to all in area" *6 points* -"Video conf. (more efficient - replace dial-up) *4 points* 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 180 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 59 -"Link existing customer sites... (Transfer data business)" 0 *3 points* Other ideas including use of the network for better connections to the Internet, moving data among multiple locations at a better price, or performing services such as invoicing, permitting, bidding and other work throughout the community. Question #3 3. Is development of a broadband network throughout PA important? Should investment be limited to those areas that make economic sense or should the City pursue citywide development? How could an investment in a citywide project be justified? As with Question #1, this issue was broken down into subheadings to facilitate discussion of the importance of the community developing the network. Limited Investment: First, participants were asked to consider whether there should be a limited development of the backbone, i.e. just to those customers or areas of the city that made strict economic sense. Only one suggestion was made that this be done throughout a partnership with primary users and organizations. -"Citywide develop partnerships with primary/large users/org." *3 points* aCitywide: Participants in the morning workshop clearly believed that the network should be developed beyond a "limited model", in order to include more population in potential services and improve economic impacts, although cost was mentioned as a factor: -"It is important, but as county government we can f'ip at the city limits" *28 points* -"Broadband services are important to all, county -wide development shall be considered" *11 points* -"Yes, extremely - Citywide development may spread up -front costs over more users, thereby lowering costs" *9 points* -"Hard to say? The locations within the city have the capacity but cost is prohibitive. Citywide and beyond" *7 points* -"Yes, citywide development, investment necessary economic development" *5 points* Justified: t Finally for Question #3, the panel was asked to consider factors that could justify the development of the citywide network. Most clearly agreed with the statement that the network would be an incentive to economic growth and educational opportunities, lowering long range costs by shared use of the network: 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 181 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 60 -"Economic growth incentive better more education. Opportunities long range cost savings - sharing" 10 *23 points* -"Partnership' *9 points* Others said it might be difficult to justify spending the dollars necessary to build the network, but felt a public vote might be helpful in building support for the project: -"Public support (vote?)" *9 points* -"Have the public vote on it, perception is everything *8 points* „ -"Increased productivity "or" enhanced efficiencies, $'s are hard to quantify *4 points* Others suggested that the network could be justified through economic development, and that the stified solely on financial basis, however, government agencies have project "probably can't be ju obligations to provide some services, which are needed but can't be totally justified". Question #4: 4. What are the advantages/disadvantages of a City partnership in a broadband telecommunications backbone to enable broadband services for business? For this question, participants were asked to break their responses into "advantages" or "disadvantages". Advantages: Not surprisingly, the issue of "cost" topped the list of advantages (and was a factor with every response from the group under this subheading): -"Lower cost" *25 points* -"Expanded opportunities, lower cost (deliver goods)" *8 points* -"Lower investment to City, benefit partners" *7 points* -"Building public support, spread cost" *6 points* -"Better access/ availability to information and services" *3 points* f the network beeen ublic Others felt that it would be advantagean � connections ons to sethe cost rve their ustomers and clients and private enterprises, and to givebusiness faster Disadvantages: When it came to disadvantages, the functions and use of a joint network, such as security of documents and information management were mentioned: -"Coordination, prioritization" 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 182 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 61 *18 points* -"Mandated security requirements, quality of service, reliability, limited area and scope (court documents, law & justice, financial, individual)" *17 points* -"The functions could be limited by the needs of the city *vs.* the needs of the partner (availability)" *8 points* -"How to service those outside city limits" *3 points* -"Billing/ ownership" *1 point* Others saw issues with the related costs, meeting the demands for service, and a feeling that the general population would not appreciate the cost of the service to business. Question #5 5. Is "open access" and competition important for the advancement of broadband telecommunications services? This was a more general question, with the simple answer of "yes" being the top response. -"Yes" *23 points* -"Yes, competition and alternatives are important" *10 points* -"Yes! Should be available to all or most, Competitive prices down" *5 points* -"Competition will always promote better function at a lower cost" *5 points* -"Yes, levels playing field" *1 point* Others said that the competition stemming from "open access" could help to keep costs down, giving everyone access to the service. Only one respondent answered this question in the negative, saying service providers "will probably need some assurance of cost recovery". Question #6 6. What criteria should the City use to evaluate proposals to develop a broadband telecommunications infrastructure? These responses touched on a variety of suggestions, most related to quality and cost of service: -" QOS & ROI" *13 points* -"Cost, Access to many or all, Quality" *13 points* -"Look at existing resources and their integration" *8 points* -"Level of function serving the greatest # of citizens" *8 points* 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 62 "Cost, Quality of service" *1 point* "Needs of the community" *9 points* One panelist wondered how long it would take for the network project to "break even'. Question #7 7. What needs do public, educational and governmental organizations have that may go un -served if a broadband infrastructure isnot developed? With this question, workshop participants were encouraged to look into the future and visualize what needs might be unserved if the network is not developed. The morning group clearly showed a determination that the network should be constructed, again with the cost of development a theme in their responses: "None -Cost is the issue (Available facilities vs. cost - problem now!)" *23 points* -"They will remain at the current technology for sometime" *8 points* -"Economic development absolutely requires broadband access as a minimum requirement" *8 points* -"Inability to have top-notch communications (local)" *1 point* Question #8 8. What obstacles would need to be overcome with "last mile" infrastructure? • In this question, participants were allowed to freely touch on a variety of challenges that must be bridged with the "last mile" deployment of a community network. The cost of that development was the primary concern: -"Cost & how to allocate cost over business or residential users" *16 points* -"Cost & Time" *14 points* -"Cost, Administration, Remote locations?, Whole county *11 points* „ -"Cost, How to implement will little to no disruption to community *10 points* -"ESA/Permits cost, room on ROW" *5 points* Another panelist expressed concern about the cost of equipment (cable plant) and service for servicing the "last mile" Question #9 9. What types of business/industry could we attract to PA if broadband services were available? The panel was asked to group their responses under two headings for this question ("business" and "industry"), although participants placed all their responses under the "business" heading. DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS • 5/1/2001 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 63 Business: These responses touched on a variety of business sectors that need broadband in order to compete in today's markets: -"Call Centers, All Internet dependent bus., Engineering/ Architectural, Government" *15 points* "High tech research and development, Software development" *13 points* -"Information services, Aerospace, Server farms" *10 points* -"Small e -businesses software etc. We already have off Pen. Broadband, Again $$$" *6 points* Industry: The morning group had no specific responses under the "industry" heading. Question #10 10. Should the City be involved in providing telecommunications services, or only be the service provider of last resort? This question generated a number of responses, as well as verbal discussion as the cards were collected. The group was asked to separate their answers into subheadings of "advantages" and "disadvantages" of the City of Port Angeles actually providing the telecommunications service. Generally, most saw the disadvantages of this scenario. Advantages: When considering possible advantages, most of the panelists felt the city should only provide specific telecommunications services if it were a "last resort" situation, although some felt the city could help facilitate the implementation of service, or use of existing infrastructure. -"Last resort" *10 points* --Only if service were lower cost" *5 points* -"No, possibly in over it's head, May not be cost effective, Control and administration requirements, We would like dark fiber, Not involved (but should facilitate)" *3 points* Other responses that were included but didn t receive any votes, and actually followed more of the "disadvantage" theme: "Ability to provide service which may not be totally financially feasible" -"May drive costs down and/or increase availability of services" -"No, shouldn't step in (shouldn't be last resort)" "Partner for competition - best, Last resort - No" 40 Disadvantages: 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 185 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 64 With this subheading, the participants were actually challenged to look at the same question from a different angle. Although the second response was more truly a "disadvantage" consideration, the top choice once more sent a clear message of concern about having the city be that 10 "provider of last resort": -"Government should not be competing with private enterprise" *25 points* -"Telco may not be as responsive in bringing new or better services if revenue is lost" *15 points* PM Workshop The afternoon group (see list in section 1) represented a somewhat different panel, although it was not specifically organized that way. Because of the participant's individual schedules, it developed that the afternoon workshop had a higher proportion of those representing business than the morning group (which had a few more representing local government). The scheduling factor also resulted in a scenario where there was more of a demographic "mix" in the afternoon group, with the participation of several women (whereas there had been no women on the morning panel). These differences contributed to not only different viewpoints, but also more spirited verbal discussion as the questions were reviewed. Question #1 1). What telecommunications services needs does your organization have in PA today? Are there any un -served broadband needs? Are your needs changing? If so, how? s As with the morning session, the group was asked to break this question down into key subheadings. Unserved: Whereas the morning panel had touched on larger, overall network concerns, the small business participants in the afternoon group hit on more specific problems, especially as it related to POTS (plain old telephone service) and existing voice networks, be they wired or wireless. But like their colleagues in the morning, the afternoon group listed affordable telecom, and especially broadband service as a top priority: -"Broadband options, low cost broadband" *28 points* -"Adequate phone lines (# of lines)" *25 points "Business focus ISP (no email blocking) *14 points* "More options for phone services" *11 points* -"Internet businesses, Home user & home business, faster connectivity *3 points* -"Reliability of DCS & phones and cell, Cost is high" *5 points* 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 65 One other participant said they would like to be able to watch their local news, and other streaming video over better Internet connections. NeedsToday: As with the morning group, the afternoon participants made it clear that "more bandwidth at lower cost" is their highest priority. (It should be noted here that the point totals for these and some of the following questions might be somewhat higher than the maximum number of potential points expected for each question. This may have stemmed from some confusion on the part of the participants, as they were "voting", or their enthusiasm for some of the response cards. In any event, since the process was only interested in finding the "top" responses to each question, the slight variances in point totals do not affect the overall findings and conclusions). "More bandwidth, Low cost broadband" *47 points* "Last mile broadband" *13 points* -"Video conferencing & streaming video" *10 points* -"Telephone overseas" *6 points* -"Affordable DSL or cable modems" *5 points* -"Broadband Internet access" *5 points* -"Visibility, expanded, markets, cost effectiveness" *4 points* -"Cell phone reception" *4 points* -"Voice data video" *4 points* -"More broadband; >T-1, better connectivity between disparate systems" *3 points* "DSL better rates" *3 points* -"To establish a web page, Internet & economical access" *3 points* -"ISDN POP (in PA)" *1 point* Others said "unserved needs" today included: -"Clean, clear pots for data lines (low speed band)" ='Fast, reliable, economical voice- data" -"Interactive communications between citizens and county Change: The afternoon group's focus on business was reflected in their responses under the third heading for Question #1, i.e. how their telecommunications needs are changing, with the growing demand presented by the Internet and the ability to deliver new services at the forefront. Others 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 187 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 66 (representing the college and the public pointed to the need for on-line education and access to services: 4* -"Increased Internet competition (more competition to local business)" *19 points* -"Deliver more services via Internet (Banking) *18 points* -"Video conferencing w/ the home user- cheap" *14 points* -"Internet via TV" *6 points* -"To utilize Internet retail sales more effectively" *6 points* -"Affordable teleconferencing" *5 points* "More sites (Internet) require video download" *4 points* -"Customers accessing data remotely, Video conferencing, Video training/ Education, Telecommute" *4 points* "More online instruction" *3 points* -"Access to govt. info & services, more efficiently" *2 points* Other responses mentioned the need to have more broadband to handle more complex streams information, such as data and pictures, interactive training and conferencing from a central location, sharing of network resources between education and government and private, as we as public video • conferencing. Question #2 2. How would your organization use a broadband wide area network if it was available and affordable? Like their counterparts in the morning, the participants in the afternoon work session saw a need to extend services between remote locations and their people they serve: -"Video conferencing remote training" *34 points* -"Bring education to homes or businesses (requires Bandwidth) expand to remote areas or for people that cannot spend time to attend school away" *20 points* "Expectations of 24/7/365 (reliability) *13 points* -"Market to companies outside area as a benefit" *11 points* -"Extended OMC's connectivity to Docs & other healthcare providers" *8 points* "We already use DSL- Homes For Sale, Display our product, Relay MIS info, Training" *5 points* Other comments: DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 5/1/2001 • Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 67 -"Move our product form client/server onsite to ASP (Internet -use firms update once)" -"Video-training/education, Video -Conference, Remote access -data, contractors, employers" Question #3 roughout PA important? Should investment 3. Is developm t those areas that make economic sense or should the City pursue citywide development? Howl c ted uld an investment in a citywide project be justified? The afternoon group was also asked to break their responses to Question #3 into three different subheadings. Limited Investment: In this area, the participants had more suggestions than the morning group, touching on the concept of using a limited network deployment, with partnerships to help with expansion of the backbone: -"Limited at first, then partner for expansion" *28 points* -"Economic sense (otherwise we'll never get anything) -Important to get something for EDC" *26 points* -"Start with limited for economic development" *14 points* Citywide: At the same time, the participants felt a large deployment was necessary if the network were going to have the greatest benefit, in the shortest period of time. In fact, they saw those partnerships as key to overcoming service limits: -"Yes, it is important, the largest area of development should be pursued. When you limit the area, it increases the digital divide to those outside the area. Citywide at a minimum." *25 points* -"Should quickly develop those services that make economic sense. The rate of change is too great for this to be a five year project. Similar to how roads are developed." *19 points* -"If there are no partnerships for investment, there will be limits of service" *15 points* -"Yes, More than citywide, W/o some idea of the cost - can justify" *5 points* Justified: The afternoon group clearly felt that economic development was a primary means of justifying the investment in a community network. Unlike the morning workshop, no one mentioned the idea of putting the question to a vote: -"Attract business who need this service level" *27 points* "To attract firms to locate (in the served area) & increase jobs & sales of products for health & stability of our area" *15 points* 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 189 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 70 The afternoon workshop generated a wide range of responses, but the primary points like reliability and experience (of the partner) received the highest marks. -"Reliability, Technology, Experience' *32 points* -"Cost- how much- Who's paying use of existing facilities? & infrastructure" *13 points* -"Consider what infrastructure already exists & how to access' *11 points* -"Whatever's best for the area. To promote growth &development =Quality of life!! for all residents" *6 points* -"Cost effective, cost of user fees" *6 points* of cost paid by partner" *5 points* -"The problem will be to trade off, good vs. cheap vs. fast, You will only get to pick 2" *5 points* "Potential for expansion" *4 points* -"Technical ability - prior projects" *3 points* -"Partners willing to advance open to listen to smaller groups as well as large entities" *2 points* -"Cost timeline reputation' *1 point* Others suggested the costs to the consumer, as well as the amount of control, technology and • infrastructure. Question #7 7. What needs do public, educational and governmental organizations have that may go un -served if a broadband infrastructure is not developed? Most of the concern here centered over the so-called "digital divide", or access issue, as well as impacts on impact growth and seeing the area slip behind in business competition: -"Slow economic growth" *27 points* -"Digital divide- those without will be farther divided from those who have access" *25 points* "Our community & area become non-competitive vs. other communities" *11 points* -"Slow development of duplicate services. Harder to attract new businesses. Existing businesses less competitive" *5 points* -"Lost in the "50's" *4 points* -"Addresses business? We'll lose our kids, business to metro area" *3 points* -"Continued development of duplicate services & facilities" *1 point* 5/1/2001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 71 "Businesses could loose opportunities on Internet" 4 *1 point* Question #8 8. What obstacles would need to be overcome with "last mile" infrastructure? As with the morning group, "cost" was the primary concern with the responses to this question: -"Cost - convincing people of importance" *21 points* -"Consumer desire" *13 points* -"Justification of costs" *11 points* -"Partnerships that can feasibly complete this. Limited options. Cost" *9 points* "Who is doing it? Squabbling" *9 points* -"Force USWest to reduce installation cost of ISDN (excellent last mile solution), Add ISDN POP" *6 points* -"Another wire to your house? Another ditch through your yard? OR can we use what's there?" *5 points* One participant suggested that the cost question might be best addressed by developing the "last mile" infrastructure through partnering. Question #9 9. What types of business/industry could we attract to PA if broadband services were available? Perhaps because of their business outlook, the afternoon group had a much broader ranger of suggestions for both subheadings to this question. Business: -"Businesses that use "Internet" distributed & developed products & services" *26 points* -"Any business who brings employees who have high expectations in the area of high speed connection & services" *13 points* -"Large business, Call centers, Remote Transcriptions, ASP, Application service providers" *6 points* 'Consulting services, Engineering services, Programmers" *3 points* Other ideas included software developers, media/ technology firms, advertising and graphic arts. Industry: Unlike the morning group, the afternoon panel had a number of suggestions on industries that might be attracted to relocate to Port Angeles if broadband were available: • 5/142001 DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 191 Appendix 17: Telecommunications Needs and Solutions Workshop page 72 'Research & development teams, Software developers, Technical manufacturers' *19 points* -"Any knowledge transfer industry" *12 points* -,,you will not likely attract "heavy" industry due to our infrastructuring. (No railroad, poor Hwy 101)" *11 points* -"Extreme sport manufacturing design, customer support centers" *3 points* Question #10 10. Should the City be involved in providing telecommunications services, or only be the service provider of last resort? This panel provided a sharp look at both the "advantages" and "disadvantages" of the city being a service provider, saying the city could/ should actually take steps to insure the availability of service if necessary: Advantages: -"Guarantee the service would be available" *41 points* -"Better to use the expertise of providers" *30 points* --Yes resources, yes aval., yes technology aval. This is the reason why we have a "city" *23 points* -"Any/all of the above (in the question) as needed to fulfill the need" *14 points* Other Ideas: Disadvantages: -"Unknown territory" *16 points* -"Stifles competition, probably more expensive (few businesses are like the gov't)" *13 points* -"Interfere with private & smaller services" *11 points* -"Taxpayer's end vs. subsiding private businesses" *4 points* Some expressed concerns about the existence of another "government regulated entity", and whether the city would be capable of providing technical support. DEN -REE PRODUCTIONS 192 5/1/2001 • NGELES DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Loan Application for Phase III of Downtown Watermain/Sidewalk Replacement Project. Summary: This loan application is for the third phase of the project to replace the watermains and sidewalks in the downtown area and will complete the watermain replacements. It will include sidewalk replacement with pavers in the watermain replacement areas along portions of First, Front, and Laurel Streets. The Utility Advisory Committee supports the PWTF loan application. Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the PWTF loan application certification in the amount $1,500,000 for Phase III of the Downtown Watermain/Sidewalk Replacement Project. In addition, if the loan is approved, authorize the Mayor to execute the PWTF loan agreement provided that the loan amount does not exceed $1,500,000. Background / Anal This is the third phase of the project to replace the watermains and sidewalks in the downtown area. Phase I was completed in 1999. Phase II was completed earlier this year. Completion of Phase III will bring the entire downtown area to a service level that meets current fire flow standards. In addition, the replacement mains will provide added safety measures against failure due to age (original watermains were installed in 1914) and seismic risks. In conjunction with the watermain replacement sidewalks will be replaced in many areas with pavers which enhance the downtown appearance. Phase III will replace the watermains west of Oak Street to Valley Street in the downtown area along with a short section of watermain on the east side of Laurel between Front and First Streets. Pavers are proposed along portions of First Street, Front Street and Laurel Street in conjunction with the watermain replacements. The City submitted a PWTF application for Phase III in 2000, but it did not make the list of funded projects. The City is in the process of completing this year's application, after consultation with the Washington State Public Works Board, with revisions that should result in a higher ranking. The application will be submitted before the June 4, 2001 deadline. This project is currently included in the Capital Facilities Plan (WT30-99) as a 2002 project and the total cost of the project is $2,000,000. Matching city funds of $500,000 are proposed from the Water Utility. The PWTF loan interest rate will be 1 % over 20 years. The Utility Advisory Committee supports the PWTF loan application. NAPROJECTS\20-19 Downtown WaterMain Phase 3\CCPWTFOI.wpd 194 • • NGELES WASH IN GTO N, CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Leak Detection 2001 Results The City of Port Angeles Water Division has contracted with Utility Services Associates for the past eleven years. They have detected many leaks over the years resulting in recovery of water revenue and water conservation. Leak Detection was performed from April 9th through April 13th. Utility Services Associates surveyed the areas on our schedule. The first area surveyed was between Lincoln Street and Race Street, from Water Street to 8th Street. The second area surveyed was between Lincoln Street and Cherry Street, 2nd Street to 8' Street. There were also several specific locations within the City that we had surveyed. Seven leaks Were detected and reported. These were generally small in nature, less than 10 gallons per minute but substantial in cumulative effect over a 24-hour time period. In the areas surveyed we found no evidence of large main line fractures, suspected as a result of the recent earthquake. Estimated combined water loss was 41,040 gallons per day. All of the leaks that were detected have been repaired. Attach: Chart NAPWKS\WATER\lekdetCC.wpd 195 LEAK D water loss found and corrected (gallons per day) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 /-UU-1 NO DATA FOR 1995 AA2001\LEAKDETECTCHART'01.wpd 5 � ANGELES'. is WASHINGTON, PUBLIC WORKS &UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATE: May 14, 2001 To: MIKE QUINN, CITY MANAGER FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: Five Year Paving Program Attached is the revised five year paving program for your review. The paving program covers asphalt concrete overlays on arterial streets and alleys along with chip sealing of non -curbed arterial and residential streets. For the 2001 paving program we have held to the budgeted $250,000 ($200,000 overlay and $50,000 chip seal) and utilized an additional $31,200, if needed, from maintenance materials included in the street budget for a total of $281,200. For 2002 and later years we have utilized the proposed $300,000 annual paving program contained in the proposed CFP. Projects have been selected by utilizing our Pavement Management System rating program and traffic volume data. We will be utilizing State Transportation Program (STP) funds to the extent = possible for the paving program on identified federal arterial routes in the City. The use of STP funds, which are Federal Transportation Funds allocated to the Counties and Cities, for paving maintenance should eliminate the need for preparation of a costly biological assessment (BA) since routine maintenance is usually classified "no effects A full BA is required when STP funding is used on new street or capacity improvements such as the Airport Road/Edgewood Drive Realignment project. We have kept the rolling five year paving plan concept to review our future needs. A public meeting is planned for later this month to obtain added input on the proposed plan. N:\PWKS\ENGINEER\STRTCRSP\2001pgm.wpd 197 _Ae following tables below summarize the five year overlay/chip seal program and the commercial alley paving shedule. W `EAR OVERLAY COST ESTIMATE COST Race Street [Park to L. Blvd.] $ 34,000.00 2001 5th St. [Cherry St. to Vine St.] 1 $ 105,000.00 ESTIMATE Marine Dr. [Hill St. to 2400' NW] $ 64,000.00 "L" Street [L. Blvd. To 18th St.] YEAR TOTAL $ 203,000.00 Front/Georgiana [Washington to Chambers} Lauridsen Blvd. [Race to Lincoln] $ 167,300.00 2002 3rd Street [Cherry to Lincoln] 1 $ 51,700.00 Note: 2006 projects to include: Peabody St. [Front to 8th] Railroad Ave. [Lincoln to Oak] n:/projects/5 year pavement projects.xls ALLEYS YEAR TOTAL a LJL7,UVU.UU COST Cherry St. [8th St. to 15th St.] $ 62,000.04 2003 15th St. [Cherry St. to L. Blvd.] $ 9,000.0( ESTIMATE Georgiana St. [Eunice to Ennis] $ 120,000.0( "L" Street [L. Blvd. To 18th St.] Race Street [Front St. to Caroline] $ 24,000.0( Front/Georgiana [Washington to Chambers} YEAR TOTAL $ 215,000.0( First St. [Lincoln to Oak] $ 71,000.0( $ 47,000.00 First St. [Oak to Valley] $ 74,000.0( 2004 Laurel St. [First to Railroad] $ 32,000.0( Laurel St. [Viewcrest to Ahlversl Oak St. [First to Railroad] $ 32,000.01 Ist/Front [Chambers to Jones] YEAR TOTAL $ 209,000.01 $ 9,000.00 Front St. [Lincoln to Oak] $ 71,000.01 $ 17,000.00 Front St. [Oak to Valley] $ 83,000.01 2005 Lincoln St. [First to Railroad] $ 32,000.0 "C" Street [Glennwood to L. Blvd.] Cherry St. [First to Front] $ 16,000.0 YEAR TOTAL $ 202,000.0 Note: 2006 projects to include: Peabody St. [Front to 8th] Railroad Ave. [Lincoln to Oak] n:/projects/5 year pavement projects.xls ALLEYS COST CHIP SEAL COST TOTAL ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE Front/Georgiana [Eunice to Race] $ 29,500.00 "L" Street [L. Blvd. To 18th St.] $ 7,200.00 $ 24,000.00 Front/Georgiana [Washington to Chambers} $ 17,500.00 Lauridsen Blvd. ["L St. to Trk Route] $ 47,000.00 $ 31,200.00 $ 281,200.00 1/2 [Chambers to Jone] $ 15,000.00 Laurel St. [Viewcrest to Ahlversl $ 4,500.00 Ist/Front [Chambers to Jones] $ 10,000.00 Euclid Ave. [Hwy 101 to Glenwood] "C"] $ 9,000.00 Railroad/Front [Oak to Laurel] $ 17,000.00 Glenwood Street [Euclid to "C" Street [Glennwood to L. Blvd.] "N" Street [18th St. to 15th St.] $ 4,500.00 16th St. ["N" St. to Owen] $ 2,200.00 10th St. ['N" St. to T' St.] $ 15,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 35,200.00 $ 296,200.00 Ist/Front [Washington to Chambers] $ 15,000.00 Old Mill Rd. [Ahlvers Rd. to City Limits] $ 16,000.00 1 st/Front [Francis to Race] $ 15,000.00 Lindberg Rd. Area $ 10,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Ist/Front [Eunice to Francis] east half $ 8,000.00 Newell Rd. [L. Blvd. To Trk Route] 1st/Front [Vine to Albert] $ 15,000.00 $ 31,000.00 $ 299,000.00 $ 53,000.00 Front/Georgiana [Eunice to Albert] $ 15,000.00 Lower McDougal Area (No. Homestead) $ 10,000.00 Front/Gerogiana [Washington to Race] $ 15,000.00 Samara Woods $ 20,000.00 l st/2nd [Eunice to Race] $ 15,000.00 1 $ 45,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 284,000.00 1 3rd/4th [Laurel to Oak] $ 15,000.00 18th Street [McDonald to Landfill] $ 9,000.00 I Ist/2nd [Valley to Pump Station] $ 20,000.00 Milwaukee Dr. [10th to 1900' North] $ 7,000.00 1 Oak St. So. Of 1st by Gottschalks $ 10,000.00 Upper McDougal Area (So. Homestead) $ 10,000.00 1 1 $ 45,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 273,000.00 0 is 0 • JORT NGELES PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities SUBJECT: February Cardlock Fuel Usage During the City Council meeting of April 17, 2001 the question was raised on how we purchase our fuels. It was noted from the Voucher List that we had multiple charges to Petit Fuel Oil listed as "February Cardlock Fuel Usage". The City is considered a small fuel user, our purchase of fuel is not of sufficient quantity to allow us bulk pricing from outside sources. The fuel used by the City is purchased from Petit Oil. Petit Oil monitors and distributes fuel to the Corporation Yards 6,000 gallon tanks (we have 2 with gas in one and diesel in the other) and all of our satellite tanks. These satellite tanks are for our generators, boilers and equipment located at the Police and Fire Departments, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Elwha Ranney Well, and Landfill. The cardlock is used for the convenience of the City with the majority of the usage by the Police Department. The cost to the City for use of the cardlock is the same as if we purchased bulk fuel at the Corporation Yard. The use of the cardlock allows our Police Officers to stop at a convenient place for fuel without driving to the Corporation Yard. The voucher list shows usage of gas and oil for each vehicle in the fleet that uses the cardlock. The separate listing is an accounting method to keep track of fuel usage so it can be allocated to the vehicle in determining the operating cost. It should be noted that when the warrant is sent to Petit Oil it is for the accumulated total and not for each individual charge This method has also been used when we have had tire change outs for winter tires, when we change to studded tires, and when we replace tires. N:\TEMP\Fue1ChargesPetit0i1.wpd 199 • • 200 0 ORT A� NGELES �►� WASHINGTON, U.S.A. :� NMIP�ULBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATE: May 14, 2001 To: Michael Quinn, City Manager FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Water Line Installation Contract The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has allowed the City to delay the first requirement of the Bilateral Compliance Agreement (BCA) addressing the groundwater under the influence of surface water (GWI) determination. This first requirement involves providing adequate chlorine contact time for four customers of the City's water system. The DOH has extended the deadline to meet this requirement to May 31, 2001. The original method of providing adequate chlorine contact time was to connect those four customers to the Dry Creek Water Association water system. The cost to accomplish this method was determined to be too high, however (approximately $150,000). As a result, the City will be installing 144 lineal feet of 16 -inch waterline to provide the adequate chlorine contact time. Providing adequate chlorine contact time in the time frame given to the City by the DOH will require prompt mobilization by a contractor to complete the work. The City has negotiated a lump sum contract with Babbitt Construction, Inc. for $12,650, which already has equipment mobilized to the area for work almost complete under another public works contract. The proposed contract is attached for your review and signature. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. isNAPROJECTS\20-18 GWI\MEMOS\tocitymanager.wpd 201 • • • 202 • • • DATE: MAY 22, 2001 VGELES TO: MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Tanya O'Neill, Information Technology Manager SUBJECT: Wireless Contract with Olypen Summary: Olypen, Inc. has taken the option to terminate the Wireless Agreement between Olypen and the City of Port Angeles. Analysis proved that a clear line -of -site did not exist from Civic Field to Olypen's office building located at 802 E. 8' Street, Port Angeles, WA. The agreement consisted of Two years wireless service for the City at no charge (value $2,028) and the provision of a multipurpose telecommunications tower (value $2,000) to be used at the City's discretion. In return they would lease the southwestern most electric utility pole at Civic Field situated in the Townsite of Port Angeles, Clallam County, Washington for the purpose of installing a whip antenna to provide wireless services to that locale. Recommendation: None Background / Analysis: Olypen, Inc. has regrettably taken the option to terminate the Wireless Agreement between Olypen and the City of Port Angeles. The agreement consisted of. Two years wireless service for the City at no charge (value $2,028) and the provision of a multipurpose telecommunications tower (value $2,000) to be used at the City's discretion. In return they would lease the southwestern most electric utility pole at Civic Field situated in the Townsite of Port Angeles, Clallam County, Washington for the purpose of installing a whip antenna to provide wireless services to that locale. Regrettably, it was found that a clear line -of -site did not exist from Civic Field to Olypen's office building located at 802 E. 8' Street, Port Angeles, WA. The City's objectives, however, were met. Although the City is losing the use of a multipurpose tower, after careful analysis, IT has determined that utility poles are a less expensive, more efficient method for installation of wireless antennas. The decision to place the multipurpose tower in storage until placement could be discovered was made early on. The loss of the tower is minimal. Provision for wireless connections to the internet for City Hall, and additionally to the remote location of the Corp Yard facility at no charge for two years was a greater loss. However, Olypen and the City have arrived at a mutual agreement (contract attached) to provide wireless services for the same costs incurred by the City with modems in 1999. The cost per month for wireless for City Hall, Corp Yard, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Cemetery and Landfill averages to $169 per month. The same amount the City was paying for just City Hall using 56K modems. The City also had additional costs of telephone lines to the remote locations, inefficient speed and often no connections with loss of data GAMASTFORMtCOUNCIL. W PT Last Revised: 6/29/99 203 to the internet. With the installation of wireless communications, the City paid a fraction of the normal installation costs while under the Olypen/City Wireless Agreement. Moreover, the Information Technology Department is in the process of continuing the wireless connections to include the Wastewater Treatment Plant by June, 2001. With current connections, the cost for installation at the Wastewater Treatment Plant will be half what was originally forecast. Again, all City objectives were met with the exception of the monthly charges that will be incurred for the remainder of the calendar year 2001. Funding for internet connections were budgeted in 2001 (prior to the Wireless Agreement) and are available for the new wireless costs at the rate of $2,028 the same amount budgeted for 2001. cc: Planning Board Parks and Recreation Board Real Estate Committee • GAMMTFORI&COUNCIL. WPT 204 Last Revised: 6/29/99 PUt$LIU VVURnO 09 U 1 ILI 1 vVrru• • •••I • DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: MIKE QUINN, CITY MANAGER FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities Brad Collins, Community Development Director,/ SUBJECT: Telecommunications and Related Ordinances Adoption On April 24, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision that affects the City's proposed telecommunications ordinances. On May 7, 2001, Qwest provided comments on the City's proposed Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Facilities ordinance related to the recent court decision. In order to carefully consider the recent court decision and Qwest's comments on the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Facilities ordinance, adoption of the ordinances needs to be delayed. Staff anticipates that it will request Council adoption of the proposed ordinances on June 5, 2001. the law firm of Dow Co A case analysis by Clarence. A. West of �burn and Friedman, P.S., is attached Cog burn more information. Additionally, the City Attorney has learned that the Cities involved in the case may be asking the Ninth Circuit to clarify the part of its decision related to specific city ordinance provisions that the court had concerns with. N:\PWKS\IJGhwMVWTELEODNIREPGRT6..WPD . 205 SIS ON RECENT CASE ANBY CLARENCE A. WEST (5107 01) ISSUES PRESENTATION CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, ET AL. v. QWEST [April 24, 2001, 2001 WL 410043 (91h Cir. Wash.)] This case was a challenge under federal law (47 U.S.C. § 253) by an incumbent telecommunications provider (Qwest) to right-of-way franchise ordinances adopted by several cities in Washington State. The cities had also challenged a tariff filed by Qwest that specified that any right-of-way facility relocation cost would be paid by the requesting City. The Trial Court granted summary judgment on behalf of the cities, agreeing that facility relocation cost should be borne by the utilities, and dismissed the federal law claims as "unripe." On appeal from the Washington Federal District Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed three issues - (1) who bears relocation cost under Washington State law, (2) whether the federal issues were "ripe" for review, and if they were, did the right-of-way management and franchise ordinances violate federal law. The Court held that under Washington State law, as in most states, the utility pays the cost of relocation for City construction projects - not the City. The Court further held that a recently enacted Washington State law preempted the franchise requirements of the ordinances, and it also exempted any telecommunications providers that were asserting a pre-existing state legislative grant of authority to use the rights-of-way from the new type of franchise - a "master permit," to which all the parties agreed Qwest was asserting. As to the application of the right-of-way standards under state law, the Court did not address them, but stated it would defer to a State Court. However, the Court held -1- 206 v that the federal law issues were "ripe" to be considered. The Court concluded that Cities' franchise application process was so burdensome that it effectively prohibited entry into the market, and thus, was preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). The Court also held that, as a number of ordinance provisions had nothing to do with the right-of-way, but were regulating either the providers' business or its services, those provisions were also preempted. Lastly, the Court noted that several sections of the ordinances were overly broad with vague standards and, as such, allowed too much discretion to the City. Those sections were also preempted. The Court concluded that, as substantial parts of the various City ordinances were preempted, the Court held that the remaining portions could not be severed from the preempted parts of the ordinance, and thus preempted the entire ordinances. Some examples of the prohibited provisions were open ended authority to request information, favored rates and services for the city, required reports of stock sales, and request for information as to financial, technical and legal ability to provide services. As these provisions were unrelated to management of the right-of-way and/or allowed excessive discretion, they were prohibited by federal law. The Court also suggested that any "non -tax fees" for use of the right-of-way must be cost -based under federal law. The Court does not cite any authority on this point and it is contrary to the TCG v. Dearborne and the City of White Plains Opinions. It should be noted that under Washington State law, the City is prohibited from charging a franchise fee, but can only charge a cost -based fee. However, in lieu of a traditional zoo franchise fee, Washington State has a statutory 6% gross receipts tax, which was not challenged, but was commented on in a footnote as authorized by state law. R:\CAW01\SPEECH.2001\AUBURNLANG.wpd -3- 208 • • • • • • CITY OF PORT ANGELES HOTEUMOTEL GRANT FIRST QUARTER REPORT JANUARY 1, 2001 - MARCH 31, 2001 We, at the Port Angeles Parks & Recreation Department, have been very busy during the first quarter of 2001 with recreational activities that have brought additional tourists to Port Angeles. In keeping with our goal to impact tourism through the promotion and hosting of recreational events, we respectfully submit our First Quarter Report. We promoted and coordinated one adult and three youth basketball tournaments during the first quarter, one in January, one in February, and two in March. The Martin Luther King Classic, held January 13-14 for boys' and girls' teams, attracted 30 teams from out-of-town. The Presidents' Day Tourney, held February 17-18, also for boys' and girls' teams, attracted 38 teams from out-of-town. And the Spring Hoopfest, a boys' tournament held March 10-11, brought 23 teams into town. The Washington Recreation Basketball Federation's men's "N' State Tournament, was held March 24-25. A total of five out-of-town teams participated. _ We also worked with the Port Angeles Swim Club to help promote the All - Comers Swim Meet, February 9-10, in which 210 swimmers took part, about 300 out-of- town visitors in all. In summary, the five events held during the first quarter of 2001 attracted over 2,200 visitors, spending approximately $170,000.00 in Port Angeles. 209 • • • 210 County.AC!q ted uogs----...._._.a c F « �.:� ._ ...� _ ._... , - { �...._ �_ .._ . _.._ . ... i_ 1 Qther RTO 4 1 4 4 i - - - - - - ' - __ _._ --- _ - ---- -- of---- ---- _ Ij PA .- -- -- �i --._.i _. ...2 RTO --_-_- > >8S 1i S/0-County RTO--DoCds- 17i 16 10 - 5 _ - - - i _ ..__ i. 48 2a — 6 i _Q.... - UL .. ---- -- -..:_0 9 F 6 LAS PT 3 00 l 2 PA AC4 .. _ i - -- 1 _ - a. _. ... _9 PA Cjtjzen, Qogs PTS . _ _:_ _ ..__ _3 �: - - -- 8 _ 5� _ --_ -. r'-_ - ' 27 Dogs12 ---------- 0. . 4 _... -p _._._ . __._ i.___•__. _. ._.__� - .. __._._ _ .. :�j.- _. _. _...._ .. , _. ..�j .. Y -. - f-..:.... _ _ PA ACO,DOA Dogs. -- _ ._:. _-:_ _ _. - ._ --- I i I 1 PA Citizen DOA Dogs 2 OI 2' 0 - - -.._ ... -- t. ...._ .r. S/O Courrt DOA Vis. - ::.:_ 1_ 2 4 .... _.- - ,1 _ - - , . --- ,... _ _ __ .. _ _ .i._._.._. ._ __. _ �. .. SIO ACO uarantme ;.. - _ 4� ___ - - -3 n of OPA ACO Quarantine s 01 00 Do- i 1 18 41 PTS/siek/V[cous/other dogs.. _?: 6�._.__ 61- - -- -- — -� __ --=- - _: _ i.._. -= - _. Total ncoming_DQ�s _, : _ ;-----8 5' - ---9 9 :. _..8 Vit. R4+------0' D0 i _... Oa . _9..,.r_... -0 0 r 336 Total Adopted Dogs_-.:_.._. -2,6 - =341._ 44!___..__331_ ----O _-4-?-- 0�- : �i . Ot_ 0; 00 _1 37 01 - __....___.-------------- D.; 0�'i _ 4 11T12-L---:_D01 01 0D,u 6i TotaOADos_._..---- 4.3! 11 DD0To�-0 Di11- 4$---224 ComplaintsHandled in C� 44; 8t 4 - N N PORT FOR THE MONTH .OF April, 2001 . ul :Aug ................ ;Sep ;Oct .... Nov ;Dec YTD ........ ........ ...... 34 _...... ..................... 7 .............:-... ......... ....., ...... 49 ........................... ..................... 31 ....... ..... 16 ....... ........ ..... .... .....:.. ...... ...._.... ........ 6 :.:... ..... 26 ...............-. ..... ._...... 0 . ............................................... 18 .... ........ ................... ......... ........ 58 .. ...: .. .. ....: ....... 75 ...... . ........ ........ ...... 51 ....6 .................... ........ 5 :... ................. . ......... ... .......------.- 4 5 ......... .....--- ......... -- ........ 8 :..-----.... ........ ..-...... ..................,......-... . 1 .... ... ....... .............. 0 .----- ...--.... _.. 0 ................... 17 41 ------. 26 ............................ ............... . 4 9 ..................- ...... 28 ..... .....--- ......... ........ 3 5 _:.... ...16 ......... ............... .:... .... .. ....... --..... .... ......... ........ ........ ; 4 ..... - ....... ... ------ ..... .......... 0 --- .. ... ....... ...... 55 .... 0....:::....,U. ...... 0 0 0.:..:320 . ....::-0 0 0..... 0 ... 0....::.....0!........1.6.1 ..... :.0 ;.. 0. .... 0........... . U ...:::... o--!: ....... . .. - 0 0 .-.-::: - U..... :.. U...::..... 18 ..:.:. . 2 ::.. .. .........- ..- .. ..... ........ .... 3. ............ 7 .....- . . 9 Parks, Recreation & Beautification Commission April 19, 2001 Minutes I. Call To Order: The April 19'x, 2001 meeting of the Parks, Recreation & Beautification Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Vern Burton Community Center meeting room by Diana Tschimperle. II. RollCall: Members Present: Damaris Rodriguez, Chuck Whidden, Diana Tschimperle, and Pat Daja. Members Absent: Matt Kirsch & David Morris Staff Present: Marc Connelly & Mari Bilsborrow Audience: Mike Millar & Russ Veneema, Chamber of Commerce representatives IIL Ap�royal of Minutes/Audio Tape Disposition - March 22. •2001 Park Board: Following questions and discussion,Chuck Whidden moved to, approve the minutes as presented and dispose of the tapes in the usual manner. Pat Deja seconded the motion which carried unanimously. IV. Parlx Board Vacancy Interview: Larry Little was interviewed by Commission members for the current vacant position. V. Items for Audience not onBenda: None VI. Monthly Update: ✓Staff informed the Commission of the upcoming Lincoln Park Fishing Derby on April 21st. ✓Upcoming exhibition at the Fine Arts Center was reviewed. ✓Men's & Women's Slowpitch will begin in May. ✓Adult co-ed soccer will continue through June. ✓Valley Creek Estuary should be completed by Fall 2001. Drip irrigation and landscaping was accomplished on April 7 . ✓The Chamber of Commerce is hosting an acrobatic circus at Civic Field in August. ✓The Francis Street project has been put out to bid, with public bid opening scheduled for May 8, 2001. VII. Legislation: a. Vacancy Recommendation 213 Park Board 2 A ril 19, 2001 Chuck Whidden moved to recommend Larry Little to fill the current Park Commission vacancy. Damaris Rodriguez seconded the motion which carried unanimously. b. City Pier Conditional use Permit Request According to Chapter 12.12, Section .020 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code a conditional park use permit is required for events at the City Pier/Hollywood Beach area which are not expressly permitted by ordinance. Currently food vending is not identified in this ordinance as a permitted activity at the City Pier or waterfront parks. The Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce will be hosting the Concert on the Pier Series, Fourth of July Celebration and Jettin' in the Straits Event in the waterfront park area. Therefore, Russ Veneema, Chamber Director, and Milne Millar, Chamber President, were in attendance seeking approval of conditional parr use permits to allow local food vending during these events. The Director of Parks & Recreation can approve these events administratively by permit so long as the event is sponsored, operated and/or promoted by a civic, charitable, or non-profit organization or corporation. The Chamber of Commerce event request included food vending which is not a permitted activity according to city ordinance. However, activities not permitted by this section of the ordinance may be allowed, but only after the request is brought before the Parks, Recreation & Beautification for review. Staff recommended that the Parks Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a conditional use permit allowing local food vending at the events listed above. Staff plans to seek an amendment to this ordinance in the future to allow local food vending at community events held at City Pier and waterfront parks. Russ Veneema and Mike Millar added their comments regarding the upcoming Chamber of Commerce events. Chuck Whidden asked how the liability issue for these events would be handled. Staff replied that each event host is required to sign a Hold Harmless agreement as well as have proof of liability insurance naming the city as an additional insured. Park Board 3 Aril 19, 2001 Mike Millar assured the Commission that all food vendors invited to participate in Chamber events possess current liability insurance for their business. Parking issues at the Landing during Pier events were discussed. Chuck Whidden moved to approve the Conditional Park Use Permits requested by the Chamber of Commerce for upcoming City Pier Events. Pat Deja seconded the motion which carried unanimously. VIII. Other Considerations: a. Coast Guard Pier Lease Tabled until next meeting b. May 2001 Parti Tour Planning Parti Board discussed proposed and possible parks, and property to visit during the annual tour. Venues included but are not limited to Francis Street Park, Valley Creek Estuary, Lions Park, Ocean View Cemetery and William Shore Memorial Pool. IX. Parti Board Late Items: Discussion and update regarding the 1998 proposed pool renovation project ensued. Chuck Whidden asked if a park board member should be in attendance during special events. This idea was encouraged - at each members discretion. X. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Next meeting will be the annual park tour on May 17�k; tentative departure time will be 5:30 p.m. • 214 • • • 215 • • • WASH I N GTO N, U.S.A. CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: May 22, 2001 To: Mayor Doyle and City Council Members FROM: Sue Roberds, Planning Speci As SUBJECT: Department of Community Development Planning Division Monthly Report - April, 2001 CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS: Bed and Breakfast Permit 0 Boundary Line Adjustments 0 Conditional Use Permits 0 Environmentally Sens. Areas 0 Home Occupation Permit 0 Minor Deviations 0 Municipal Code Amendment 0 Parking Variance 0 Retail Stand Permit 0 Rezone 1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits 0 Shoreline Exemptions 0 Short Plat 0 Street Vacation 0 Subdivisions 0 Variance 1 Wetland Permits 0 Code Enforcement 1 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: Determinations of NonSignificance 2 Determinations of Significance 0 Mitigated Determinations of NonSignificance 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Building Permits 2 Clearing and Grading Permits 0 • 216 aft, L � 7 i a P FTSa �: imam {Y aft, L � 7 • • • 219 • • 220 Mission Statement: In partnership with our community, the Port Angeles Police Department recognizes its mission to serve in a compassionate, courteous, and professional manner, to promote freedom and peace of mind, pride in our neighborhoods, and the safety of our families. Patrol officers responded to a reported robbery at a local restaurant. The officers discovered that a patron had placed a $100 bill on the counter for payment when a 22 -year old male reached across the counter, grabbed the bill and fled. Officer Brian Raymond located the suspect hiding in a city Park bathroom. When taken into custody the suspect gave false identification, which he maintained up until he was recognized by jail staff. A 42 -year old male was arrested for felony hit and run, DUI and driving with a suspended drivers license. The male was driving in the 100 block of East Lauridsen Blvd. When he started accelerated rapidly it caused the tires to break traction and start spinning. The vehicle "fishtailed" and drove over the curb, striking a 50 -year old woman. She was knocked over the hood, into the windshield and over an embankment. After the accident the driver exited his vehicle and checked the damage to the front end of the car. He then re-entered his car, worked it off the curb and sped away in reverse. Apparently, the vehicle was damaged enough to prevent it from driving forward. A housekeeper at the Portside Inn reported that they had entered what should have been an unoccupied room and discovered two sleeping occupants and a baggy of marijuana. Sergeant Erick Kovatch and Detective Mike Hall responded to investigate. Their investigation led to the arrest of a 19 -year old and a 17 -year old male for possession of 11.9 ounces of marijuana, $3,680 in cash and drug paraphernlia. On the same day a housekeeper at the Red Lion reported finding approximately one ounce of marijuana concealed beneath a chair in one of the rooms. The marijuana could not be traced to anybody and was turned over to police for destruction. Patrol officers located a car reported stolen from Arizona. The car had been taken for a test drive and never returned to the owner. A 20 -year old Arizona man, a 17 -year old female and a 16— year old female were taken into custody for theft and possession of the stolen vehicle. Detectives conducted a welfare check on a couple (the male was an American citizen, while the female was a Canadian citizen) and their children at the request of Canadian authorities. A background check revealed that the male had no criminal history in the United States, but he had an extensive criminal history in Canada, including drug violations, weapons violations fraud, theft, assault, and assaulting RCMP officers with a knife. It also revealed that he had obtained a concealed weapons permit in Washington by lying about his criminal history in Canada. A search warrant was obtained and executed at their Port Angeles apartment. The search turned up guns, explosives, diagrams for making bombs, components for making b o m b s and other illegal weapons. The male was incarcerated for perjury to obtain a concealed weapons permit, the unlawful possession of firearms, the unlawful possession of dangerous weapons, and the unlawful possession of explosives and bomb making components. The female was incarcerated for possession of dangerous weapons. In April, Corporals Tyler Peninger, Edward Schilke, Kevin Miller and Detective Jesse Winfield completed training in the use and application of less -lethal ammunition. The training was conducted by Sgt. Erick Zappey, who is trained and certified by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission as an instructor of less lethal technologies. Each officer was issued a specially equipped Remington shotgun modified to launch less - lethal ammunition, commonly referred to as a "bean bag" round. These rounds consist of a 2" square nylon pouch filled with lead shot. When deployed, these less -lethal rounds hit the intended target with an amount of energy roughly equal to being hit by a baseball thrown at 100 mph. Officers are trained to consistently hit a 6 inch target at 75 feet. Shown above is the Remington Shotgun utilized for the deployment of less lethal ammunition. Each one of the shotguns is painted yellow so officers can eas- ily distinguish between less -lethal or standard weap- ons during the stress of the moment. THREE TASERS ASSIGNED TO POLICE OFFICERS During the month of April, the P.A.P.D. conducted department wide training on the use and application of the M-26, advanced conductive energy weapon, commonly called a Taser. The M-26 is a less lethal hand held weapon that re- sembles a semi automatic handgun but in lieu of fir- ing bullets, the M-26 fires probes which then trans- mits a 50,000 volt, 26 watt charge of electricity through a suspect. The net result is immediate physical incapacitation by overriding the central nervous system and control of the skeletal muscles. The stun effect of the device is temporary, (approximately 5-8 seconds) and does not inflict any long lasting injuries. Every member of the department that received the training, including Chief Tom Riepe, voluntarily took a 50,000 -volt hit from the device to provide each officer a better understand- ing and insight as to the effectiveness and safety of the weapon. 2 i 221 • v h "Ito, i 'Training Hours for the Month of March Course Hours Administration firearms 1.5 Lessons Learned II: Corruption, Racial Profiling 8 Performance Planning, Delegation Skills 4 Racial Profiling 4 Videos 2 ENCOM Tcce's-i Level II recerification 16 Operation.. _._..._. _ .... Access Level II certification 32 AC DataMaster refresher S 6 Advanced Taser 13.5 VOC Instructor 8 Firearms Training 30 School Resource Officer 40 Less Lethal Impact Ammunition 8 Lessons Learned II: Corruption, Racial Profiling 32 cial Profiling 4 Report Writing I Videos, miscellaneous 70.25 onthl Total 282.25 Year -to -Date Training (hours) 909.25 0 So far this year D.A.R.E. Officer Glen Roggenbuck A},has taught the D.A.R.E. cur- riculum to approximately 1000 elementary students. Glen is really en- joying the opportunity to teach and be a role model to the children of Port Angeles. E 222 3 N1 DIC l&PrPEiRiS CRIME PREVENTION Corporal Jack Lowell • Two new Crime Stoppers profiles • Crime Fax Alerts • Safe Kids Coalition Meeting • DUI Task Force Meeting • Mental Health Board • Clallam Responders Program • Kiwanis meeting • Block Watch meeting Miscellaneous: • Monthly report • Annual report • Peninsula College Advisory Board Meeting InvestiLyations: • Follow up investigations on earlier cases. • Assisted with the search of an eastside • apartment for weapons. • Photo -montage Corporal Jack Lowell was gone for a weeks va- cation. Our Police Department Senior Volunteers provided 114 hours of service during the month of April. Most of this was dedi- cated to office work, vacation house checks, radar/speed watch, animal control and other services. Last year the Senior Volunteers worked 1422 hours. Law Enforcement Advisory Board Minutes April 11, 2001 Attendees: Leland Lee, Chairman Rod Anderson Leonard Beil Frank Prince Jim Jones, Jr. Joe Girard Dennis Wilcox Deputy Chief Terry Gallagher Lena Washke, Secretary Call to Order: Chairman Leland Lee called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm. Minutes: The minutes of March 14, 2001 we approved as written. Communications and Letters: There were no letters. Committee Reports: There were no committee reports. Agenda Items 1. Welcome to Joe Girard The Board's newest member Joe Girard was welcomed. 2. Recruitment/Staffing The Department is currently recruiting for two new officers through the hiring agency publicsafetytesting.com. This is a website where applicants complete applications on-line and publicsafetytesting.com administers the written and physical exams. A list is then forwarded to the agency for interviews and thorough background checks. Using this agency relieves our Department of having to administer these tests and allows us to maintain a current applicant list. Law Enforcement is a very competitive employment field and at this point there is a shortage of applicants. There are 11 applicants on the final list and 6 of those have a Bachelors Degree. We expect to have two new Police Officers in the next 4 to 6 weeks. Upon hiring, they will complete a 6 -month basic training program. After successful completion of basic training, they will have one year of field training. Sergeant McLane retired last month after many years of service. Corporal Coyle was promoted to Sergeant. Following the Corporal testing process, Kevin Miller was promoted to Corporal. Our Department has been looking at implementing another Police Reserve Program. At the end of April, Department Personnel will attend training on Racial Profiling, Pursuit and other liability issues. This training in manual that Deputy Chief Gallagher is currently working may result in additional policies being implemented our revised policy on. 3. Benchmark Studies A select group of Department employees will be visiting other Police Departments that are approximately the same size; which may include Aberdeen, Bremerton, and Oak Harbor. The goal will be to compare our standard procedures to other Departments. The study should be complete in the next two months. 4. Detective Activity Sergeant Zappey took over as Sergeant of the Detective Division. Corporal Peninger will replace Sgt. Zappey as Firearms Instructor. Detectives Winfield and Hall are both handling child abuse cases. Detective Winfield has been trained as the Voice Stress Analyzer Operator for our Department. Detective Lowell handles the Crime Stoppers program, Crime Prevention and grant projects. After review of assignments, Deputy Chief Gallagher updated the Board on a few recent cases the Detective Division has dealt with. 5. Police Officer A guest officer was not available due to current activity. 6. Annexation — Gales Addition Area There were recent meetings regarding the Annexation Plan, but no new information was available. Upon implementation of the An- Department will require a minimum of 5 new officers to add one additional officer per shift. nexation Plan, our Meeting Adjourned 223 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 100( 224 kt, Activity Hours YTD Callback 0 12.5 Cannvttees and Meetings 5 34.75 Cant Time 12 82 DARE, School Resource Officer, School Patrol 0 22 Paid Details (outside funding) 9 61.5 Holiday 0 339 In Custody Arrests 5 37.5 Investigatims/Danestic Violence/ Warrants 30 155.75 Repot Writing 8.75 51.75 Shift Coverage 56.5 333.25 Training and Travel 143.5 439.75 Twelve Hour Rule 0 8 Miscellaneous* 8 17 Total 277.75 1594.75 Percent of Scheduled Work Hours 7.0% 7.0% *Range, K 9 Training DUI Eniplmis, Fheanns lnstructim Speaal Events Police Department Dispatches YTD totals are read on the right scale Cr m m m co v o 0 v �O O v N CCD 2 N N 7' .y.. W 3 c0 to O O 1 1 Ci 19000 17000 15000 13000 11000 9000 7000 5000 3000 1000 Juvenile Arrests Adult Arrests .11 .1 1 1 1 11 •1 w1 I / 1 :11 .11 1 1 1 1� 1 Adult Arrests ** HIGHER ARREST STATISTICS ARE DUE TO A CHANGE IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 7 • • 225 .11 .1 / :11 ** HIGHER ARREST STATISTICS ARE DUE TO A CHANGE IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 7 • • 225 • 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 226 TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 8 s Trdfic Violations ;. 1000 00 900- 800 800- 700- 700600500 600- 500 400 ...... ............................ .............. ..... 300- 249;. 5 LW.......................................................... ..... ._. :...... ..... ......... ...._ ..................... ......... . . 71 100116.:; 17 x 33 IA 6 10 ,. 8 6^ 0. m x �� vT M < <N o c d cc T T <,T cn d m, o v = p m w :Y Z w M� D ry � Q n a m r O( > > �' 0 fA 0 o f a to � -a 0 d C cc cu co m n mC M '�O a O n (D O O G CA (n o m ? gCD .i 3 m • 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 226 TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 8 s 250 Zoo 150 100 50 0 Part ia;nies O d O N N (p W C S S S � S Y 3 ° d d �'G v xCD _ x x ° CD CD X N ? N (aCD 3 S W co 0 {p G CA IL n m m Q 9 A 0 7 • 227 �6 �: �'✓ 1 Iii �_ � ��, �` €:'i �� ��� �� O d O N N (p W C S S S � S Y 3 ° d d �'G v xCD _ x x ° CD CD X N ? N (aCD 3 S W co 0 {p G CA IL n m m Q 9 A 0 7 • 227 r] 228 M■ffelWtd - (anat m1m) 700- 65D 600- 00560 550- 500- 500 450- 450 40D 400 50 350- W, 300- 250- 2 200- _ 150 _ 100 .. .. 91 0 Q> j O D Z> =30� 2 �N o N �•D jv p3 v R3 CD 211 9 C� CD 0) O O d cL i O i N 41 i !!1 7 CD CD O O n ' O N N A @ d Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Tickets 1999 149 174 168 116 238 133 163 225 267 143 233 156 2165 Revenue 1999 $2,040.00 $1,740.00 $2,305.00 $3,451.00 $2,140.00 $3,776.00 $1,945.00 $2,720.00 $2,950.00 $2,153.00 $1,605.00 $2,555.00 $29,380.00 Tickets 2000 246 292 291 219 167 147 290 259 130 260 201 84 2586 10 Revenue 2000 $2,225.00 $2,988.00 $4,611.00 $2,530.00 $1,885.00 $1,850.00 $1,525.00 $2,310.00 $1,830.00 $1,820.00 $1,911.00 $1,552.00 $27,037.00 Tickets 2001 128 201 310 298 VII A Revenue 2001 $1,094 $1,426 $2,010 $2,850 937 $7,380 a 11 • • C 229 DI CAL 1Vledi;�al Related Costs Eiec�tonic HJAI L COSTS/E.H.NIME Om� Monrtoruzg 20Q0" 2U01 2000" 2001" ', January $2,622.00 $411.50 0 $332.93 February $1,161.50 0 $191.82 $1575.10 March $971.25 0 $456.96 $917.75 April $431.25 $780.00 $274.61 $319.75 May $586.50 0 June $793.50 $120.00 July $293.25 0 August $655.60 $30.82 September $626.75 0 October $736.25 $1,026.64 November $345.00 0 December $287.50 $11,256.19 Total $9,510.85 $1,191.50$13,357.04 $3,145.53 11 • • C 229 CITY OF PORT ANGELES PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITY DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT APRIL 2001 AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND BLAST YEAR TO DATE (MG) 2.88 THIS YEAR TO DATE (MG) 2,651 SEWERISTORM SYSTEM MAINTENANCE MONTH (FT) YR. SEWER SYSTEM JETTED 3,450 38,231 STORM DRAINS JETTED 0 180 SYSTEM TV INSPECTED 350 1,473 TOTAL LANDFILL DISPOSAL TOTAL CfiV TONS _.. 'Ali , n, n,.. crrr ar ssaw w. aes. NM1L w. caw. waL oynrw�e pero6A< 3 - LANDFILL ANNUAL TONS THIS YR TO DATE (TONS) 13,848 *I LAST YR TO DATE (TONS) 13,646 oeWCAII nATA 10 YR AVG. TOTAL TO DATE 10.71 THIS YR TO DATE IN 7.63 RECORD HIGH THIS MONTH 4.08 RECORD LOW THIS MONTH 0.12 230 PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITY DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT APRIL 2001 WATER ' Installed 3 new water services ` Renewed 1 water service ' Repaired 11 service leaks Raised one meterbox Replaced 4 water meters ' Removed one water service Installed two 2" water valves for 8th Street main Repaired 4 two-inch watermains Repaired 2 six-inch watermains ` Repaired one 10" water main ' Re alcedone and repaired two fire hydrants WASTEWATER COLLECTION Baited Basins 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 WASTEWATER TREATMENT Land applied biosolids on farm sites Attended Cascade Controls PLC Upgrade seminar Installed sludge demonstration unit on west secondary clarifier ' Conducted new evaluations with staff Assisted Landfill with monitoring well samples Assisted Landfill with installing beach well pumps Sampled and submitted final toxicity test EQUIPMENT SERVICES Work Orders: 114 ' Service Orders: 23 ' #1557 Patch Truck tank repairs ' #1562 Sweeper water pump replaced #1610 Camera Van oil pan replaced #1905 Refuse Packer dump cylinder replaced ' #1907 Refuse Packer repair electrical ` #1911 Refuse Packer hydraulic repairs LIGHT OPERATIONS Replaced transformer damaged by fire Cleaned up oil spill on pier Replaced transformer damaged by car Hung six capacitor banks Replced all ID number on switches and cutouts Southwood undergrounding started O Street intertie started I.IOREP WW1-M1l 1 SOLID WASTE RECYCLING: ' Presentation at Monroe School Attended regional SW/Recycling Meeting COLLECTIONS: ' Placed 58 90 -gallon containers in April MANAGEMENT: Wildlife Management Meeting ` Landfill Operator Certification Trining ' SWAC Regional Meeting STREET Cleaned ditch at McDougal Street Pothole Patch - City wide ' Check Creeks/Culverts/Peabody Outfall ' New sidewalk for Food Bank Grade/gravel access road for Parks & Lincoln Park • Install guardrails @ 7th West of Albert, "M" Street gravel pit AC restoration: 1st & Lincoln/Regent St. S of Viewcrest Excavation for new building at the Corp Yard ' Assist Landfill in preparation for Benefit Dump Day Renew downtown plastics/centerline buttons ` Construct cabinets for Light Operations ' City Hall Breezeway, seal concrete ' Construct pedestals for Fine Arts Center • Conducted new evaluations ENGINEERING & PERMITS f ` Francis Street Park advertised ' Southwood - landlocked facilities construction support Airport Road Realignment project awarded ' Annexation support ' 8th Street reconstruction project construction support Elwha Dam removal mitigation support I & I Pilot Program Support "A" Street/Grant Avenue watermain construction support Downtown Waterline/Sidewalk Replace., Ph. II completed ` Gateway Project site selected ' Landfill Cover Project construction support Aerial Mapping contract support Laurel Street Side Repair design support Distribution System rebuild construction support ' Rayonier to Lee's Creek Waterfront Trail design support 5th & Race Signal Grant design "I" Street Substation transformer station design support Ennis Street slide repair design ' Front Street sidewalk design ' Ediz Hook OH -UG conversion design support • Substations LTC Filter design • _Attended RTPO meeting • Stormwater GAP analysis support • Lincoln Street stormwater design support ' Crown Park design support ' Black Diamond reservoir cover advertised • Camegie Library value engineering and design support • CFP/TIP support • 2001 Paving/Chip Seal design • • • 231 rc PARKS & RECREATION REVENUE Ocean View Cemetery William Shore Memorial Pool Vern Burton Community Center Senior Services Center - Rentals Senior Services Center - Kitchen Fees Senior Services Center - Leases Banner Lincoln Park Camping Fees City Pier Moorage Fees General Fund Revenue Total Longhouse/Clubhouse Lincoln Park Camping Fees Improvement Fund Total Vern Burton Kitchen Fees Co-Rec Volleyball Volleyball Tourney Fund Slowpitch Slowpitch Tourney Fund Mens Basketball Basketball Tourney Fund Youth Programs rdult Programs dultSoccer ecreation Activities Fund Total April 2001 $13,808.88 $11,485.51 $1,826.50 $1,343.00 $245.00 $550.00 $555.00 $0.00 $175.00 $29,988.89 $795.00 $0.00 $795.00 $120.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,195.00 $0.00 $0.00 $83.00 $3,914.00 $130.50 $1,015.00 $14,457.50 $15,216.25 $13,035.53 $1,265.00 $702.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $696.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31,914.88 $615.00 $0.00 $615.00 $240.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,240.00 $50.00 $155.00 $205.00 $2,991.54 $66.00 $895.00 $12,696.54 $36,995.33 $49,987.07 $6,097.50 $3,388.50 $245.00 $2,200.00 $2,250.50 $0.00 $175.00 101,348.90 $2,490.00 $0.00 $2,490.00 $540.00 $360.00 $0.00 $9,195.00 $0.00 $2,160.00 $463.50 $12,478.50 $1,314.00 $3,135.00 $29,645.50 • $44,580.98 $50,234.09 $5,041.00 $3,683.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $1,861.00 $0.00 $0.00 109.400.07 $2,477.50 $0.00 $2,477.50 $882.50 $290.00 $0.00 $8,249.00 $50.00 $745.00 $631.50 $12,307.92 $589.70 $3,206.00 $26,951.62 233 William ShorMemorial Pool Monthly Attenddrice/Revenue Report 2001April RECREATION --- Children 1,362 2,070 1,202 2,083 4,406 3,886 8,294 8,259 Adult Middle School Nite/Kid's Day 28/15 3/20 95/109 34/94 Pool Parties/Participants 38/307 18 /356 85/912 65/1,100 INSTRUCTION --- Children 770 743 3,362 3,401 0 13 0 172 210 172 13 210 Adults Parent/Child Orientation 339 352 1,121 1,626 Pre -School 693 616 2'662 2'875 Water Exercise 366 398 2,422 2,734 School District 666 524 2,449 2,937 Pool Rentals/Classes 3,006 2,856 12,188 13,796 Instruction Totals 6 POOL OPERATIONS --- 29 29 118 119 Days Open Hours Open 408.75 364.50 1,630.75 1,583.25 REVENUE --- Rental: Suits, towels, caps $277.22 $55.57 $1,112.64 $253.85 Admissions $2,736.89 $2,719.80 $10,052.52 $9,842.28 $3,596.50 $4,717.80 $17,467.04 $18,336.35 Lessons Aerobics $1,600.00 $1,558.00 $6,216.86 $5,135.00 $1,724.80 $2,340.99 $18,887.06 $10,984.52 Passes $26.39 $13.89 $75.92 $54.62 Showers Lockers $250.54 $196.00 $747.64 $640.25 $816.86 $951.92 $3,495.11 $3,071.15 Pool Rentals Sales Tax $456.31 $481.56 $1,932.28 $1,916.07 6 $ 36,995.33 $ 44,580.98 $ 37,806.86 $ 37,033.85 [ITFNT .[►� srvvv 17 Ground Burials 9 12 6 8 Ground Burial Inurnments 3 7 2 11 Niche Inurnments 5 1 1 6 Entombments 1 0 0 0 Year to Date Totals 18 20 13 25 X AA A THIS YEAR THIS MONTH LTO E MONTH r!637.00 TO DATE LAST YEAR ATAST $6,044.12 $3,850.86 $10,977.68 • 235 Parks & Cemetery Monthly Division Report April 2001 Accomplishments Turf Management P itin ALL locations ................................................. 628.5 hours ■► Mowing and trimming , , .. 362.5 hours it* Turf renovation/Repairs....................................................... Equipment "Winter"repairs and maintenance ............................................ 106.0 hours Total Hours Previous Year: 881.0 Beautification Total Hours Current Year: 1097.0 W • 52.0 hours it* Downtown planter maintenance(cleanup water etc.) ....................................... it* Maintenance of planted areas ........................................................ 106.5 hours Greenhouse, plant maintenance ...................... 53.0 hours it* Tree well cleaning and maintenance.................................................... 1.0 hours Total Hours Previous Year: 273.0 Total Hours Current Year: 258.0 Amenities NI♦ Pier general maintenance ............................................... . .. , ......... 12.5 hours 111* Floats; repairs to Ediz Hook Floats ............................... 22.0 hours it* Washroom servicing, cleaning and general maintenance ................................... 127.5 hours Park sign maintenance ....................... 5.5 hours it* Play equipment maintenance: Hamilton Head Start Playground Installation ................... 202.5 hours it* Other: Fences, Pier Octopus planting, ponds and fountain ................................ 222.0 hours Total Hours Previous Year: 469.0 236 Total Hours Current Year: 592.0 Sports Facilities Field Makeup and Maintenance 11* Baseball and softball including; Civic, Lincoln, Volunteer, Dry Creek, Shane andElks fields................................................................... 773.0 hours 11* Soccer fields...................................................................... 19.5 hours 11* Football field....................................................................... 0.0 hours 11* Tennis............................................................................ 2.0 hours 11* Field lighting repairs................................................................. 0.0 hours I Total Hours Previous Year: 660.0 Total Hours Current Year: 794.0 Waterfront Trail I11* Bench and memorial installations/maintenance......................................... 15.0 hours V Total Hours Previous Year: 91.5 Total Hours Current Year: 15.0 Building Maintenance General Maintenance and Repairs . 11* William Shore Pool................................................................ 3 6. 0 hours ���► Vern Burton Community Center ................................................. 126.0 hours ��*► City Hall and Police Dept ....................................................... 144.0 hours uw Senior Center............................................................... 121.0 hours I Total Hours Previous Year: 404.5 Total Hours Current Year: 427.0 Civic Complex City Hall mowing, atrium and planted areas II181► Atrium; tree and flower bed maintenance ............................................... 31.0 hours I' `Total Hours Previous Year: 16.0 Total Hours Current Year: 31.0 II • 237 Parks General Maintenance ��*Litter pickup from various park locations 128.0 hi17 I'* Park improvements .................... 32.5 ho11�Building maintenance:......................................................81.0 ho Forest Management; Removing tree limbs and other debris from various parks ............... 185.5 hours ���� g g Total Hours Previous Year: 625.0 Total Hours Current Year: 428.0 Special Events *Other.............................................................................. 2.0 hours Total Hours Previous Year: 13.5 Total Hours Current Year: 2.0 Campground nxy Closed for season........................................................... 0.0 hours I Total Hours Previous Year: 0.0 Cemetery Total Hours Current Year: 0.0 11* Ground burial interments............................................................ 24.5 hours III* Cremation interments .............................................................. 2.0 hours un* Crypt entombment .............................................. ................ 0.0 hours ill* Niche inurnments .................................................................. 0.0 hours Ill* Memorial marker settings............................................................ 13.5 hours 11* Mowing and trimming............................................................. 114.0 hours Building/Chapel cleaning and maintenance .............................................. 57.5 hours ���► Grave site refilling/regrading .......................................................... 8.0 hours CustomerService.................................................................. 2.5 hours Total Hours Previous Year: 176.0 238 Total Hours Current Year: 271.5 Parks Administration w* Daily supervision, crew training and safety meetings ..................................... 226.0 hours Total Hours Previous Year: 195.0 Total Hours Current Year: Sub Total Hrs Previous Year: 29292.5 Sub Total Hrs Current Year: 2,164.5 NON Productive Hrs previous year: 472.0 NON Productive Hrs Current Year: 90.0 (Illnesses, doctor/dental, vacations) (Illnesses, doctor/dental, vacations) Total Parks & Cemetery Division Hours: Previous Year: 2,764.5 Current Year: 2,254.5 Total Monthly Maintenance Hours March 2001 #1 Turf Management 387.5 hrs. #3 Amenities 132 hrs. #5 Waterfront Trail 63 hrs. #7 Civic Complex 10 hrs. #9 Special Events 0 hrs. #11 Cemetery 137 hrs. 0 #13 Time Loss 90 hrs. s #2 Beautification 85.5 hrs . #4 Sports Facilities 263 hrs. #6 Building Maintenance 485.5 hrs. . #8 Parks General Maintenance 373.5 hrs. . #10 Campground 0 hrs. #12 Parks Administration 226 hrs. • 239 • • • William Shore. -Pool Activities April 2001 ADMINISTRATION . *April Pool's Day - 140 individuals participated in water & boat safety and experienced kayaks, scuba and canoes *Conducted monthly in-service training class for pool staff *Port Angeles Fire Department utilized pool to practice water drills. • FOW-1 *Conducted Red Cross Life Guard Program 240 INSTRUCTIONAL Exercise classes for September: * Water Aerobics AM classes Mon - Wed - Fri * Water Aerobics PM classes Mon & Wed * Deep Water AM classes Mon - Fri ° 0 * Deep Water PM classes Tu & Thur * Water Walking AM classes Mon, Wed, Fri.() Swim Lessons Schedule: * April 9 - May 4 Grade -school * April 10 -May 3 Pre-school C O * On-going Private lessons ° v CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS ° * Port Angeles Swim Club 5:30 - 7:00 pm Monday - Friday * Port Angeles Diving Club 5:30 - 7:00 pm Monday, Wednesday & Friday * Port Angeles School District 7:45 - 8:15 am PE Classes Mon, Tue, Thur, Fri 9:05 - 9:35 am PE Classes Wed 1:00 - 1:30 pm Special Education Classes Mon - Fri * United States Coast Guard 9:00 - 10:00 am Rescue Swimmer Training Tues & Thurs RECREATIONAL SWIMMING April 28 Kid's Day April 28 p Middle School Night 15 Participants 28 Participants VERN BURTON COMMUNITY CENTER EVENTS Total approximate attendance: 4,780 April 2-6 Parks & Recreation Spring Break Program 25 enrolled April 2 Japanese Students Friendship Day with Parks Kids 80 April 7 Private Wedding 400 April 13 Soccer Dance 200 April 14 Key Club Dance 100 April 16 Blood Drive 175 April 18 Clallam County Transition Fair 300 April 19-21 Rotary Club Garden Show & Auction 2000 visitors; 200 for dinner April 26-29 Olympic Jazz Festival 1500 VBMCC - GYM USERS Total approximate attendance: 260 Noon Open Gym 120 Parks & Rec After School Program 100 Gym Walkers 10 Family Center Toddlers 30 VERN BURTON MEETING ROOM EVENTS: Total approximate attendance: 695 April 2 Japanese Exchange Students Friendship Day 80 April 3 Department of Personnel Testing 25 April 4 Clallam County Food Handlers Class 40 April 9 Ostomy Support Group 25 April 10-11 55 Alive Defensive Driving Class 40 April 12 Rotary Auction & Garden Show Meeting 50 April 13 Clallam County Salmon Recovery Meeting 20 April 18 Clallam County Food Handlers Class 35 Jazz in Olympics Meeting 40 April 22 Softball Umpires Clinic 50 April 23 Clallam County Food Handlers Class 35 April 24 Valley Creek Estuary meeting 20 April 26-29 Jazz in the Olympics Hospitality Room 200 April 30 Carrie Wanner - Health Seminar 15 School District Board Certifications 20 VBMCC - REGULAR MEETING ROOM USERS: Total approximate attendance: 287 Kiwanis - Juan de Fuca Group 140 Swim Club 10 Education Foundation 12 Transit Union 25 Juan de Fuca Festival 12 PAZZAZ Meeting 10 Board of Appeals 28 Non -Motorized Meeting 10 Land Trust 20 Park Board 8 Tai Chi 12 COUNCIL CHAMBERS: Total approximate attendance: 936 City Council Meetings 120 DUI Victims Panel 35 Soccer Meeting 20 Board of Adjustments 6 League of Women Voters 65 Department of Revenue 20 Planning 20 US Coast Guard Public Meeting 100 Jazz in Olympics 250 Historical Society Lecture 50 NW Research Institute 90 Dept Fish & Wildlife 30 NW Research Institute 90 City/County Staff Meeting 40 4 alp 4W ow ow ow 10 241 Recreation continued ---- LINCOLN PARK USES April To Date OTHER USES Clubhouse 3 12 Scout Meetings each Wed. evening Longhouse Loomis Building 1 3 3 8 4-H: 111 & 3nd Tuesday each month Scout Meetings: 3rd Tuesday each month Fly Fishermen Club: 15' Monday each month Other Parks Lions Park 1 1 Veteran's Park 3 4 RECREATION DIVISION PROGRAMS: Square Dance Lessons each Monday at the Senior Center - 25 participants Country Western Dance Classes - 40 participants Line Dance Classes -An average of 20 participants After School Program at Franklin & Jefferson Elementary Schoc -62 children enrolled Summer Park Program Registration began PARKS & RECREATION SPECIAL EVENTS; April 8 Co-ed Soccer Began 8 teams registered April 7-8 April Fool's Extravaganza 18 teams; all out-of-town April 2-6 Parks & Recreation Spring Break Youth Program 25 Students enrolled April 21 Lincoln Park Pond Fishing Derby 506 Participants April 21 William Shore Memorial Pool - April Pool's Day 140 Participants UP COMING RECREATION: May 26-27 Mitch Glazier (MGM) Softball Tournament June 16-17 Summer Solstice Tuneup WEEKLY ELEMENTARY & MIDDLE SCHOOL GYM and FIELD SCHEDULING FOR: AAU YMCA Junior Babe Ruth High School CITY PIER EVENTS: April 7 Kayak Symposium - 350 visitors UP -COMING PIER EVENTS: May 5 MG Car Show - 600 visitors 242 Soccer 243 ,0 PORT ANGELES SENIOR CENTER MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT April 2001 Information & Referral 1,998 1,580 7,336 6,960 Estimated Attendance 5,833 4,614 22,882 20,482 Health Programs 738 616 1,958 2,798 Education Programs 854 648 2,602 2,831 Social/Events/Programs/Meals 1,884 1,855 5,386 7,023 Trips: Taken 3 4 13 19 Passengers 22 70 144 246 Volunteers: 163 160 Hours 1,536 1,305 6,000 5,718 Membership: 72 48 1,437 1,378 City 44 29 962 921 County 28 19 475 457 243 • • � 0 SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER EVENTS - Users April 13 Peninsula Clerks Association April 14 Maple Grove Homeowners Association Square Dance Council Jewish OBS April 19 Department of Health & Human Services April 21 Yuhl Wedding Reception April 22 Nason Memorial April 24 Ripley Associates'Estate Planning April 26 Home Builders Association SENIOR CENTER REGULAR USERS Senior Nutrition Board Senior Providers Soroptimists Jet Set CCWAB . Square Dance Council Crime Stoppers NARFE Board Venture Club Eckankar Virginia Mason Peninsula College Rhody Society United Way SENIOR CENTER SPONSORED - SPECIAL EVENTS/PROGRAMS April 7 Annual Spring Flea Market April 18 Hosted 31 Annual Clallam County Middle School Spelling Bee April 21 Sponsored Food Both at Rotary Garden Show April 27 Make Your Own Garden Leaf at Barn's Door Hosted 41' Annual Senior Center & Peninsula College Generational Dance 244 s April 2001 SENIOR CENTER SPONSORED - REGULAR PROGRAMS Stretch Class/Weight Training Blood Pressure Checks Chair Massage Alzheimers Support Group Hearing Aid Tests/Repairs Yoga Tai Chi Health Amputee Support Group Chair Exercise (3x wk) Low Vision Support Self Help for Hard of Hearing Foot Care (4x month) Exercise Class Arthritis Support Group Education Investment Class Defensive Driving Class Investment Club Spanish Conversation Infinite Variety of Music Round Table on Politics Tap Dance Classes Creative Writing Paint on Own Golden Agers Senior Swingers Dance Senior Singers Olympic Peninsula Chess C Pool Bridge Cribbage Poker Lessons Social/Recreational Computer Labs 3x week Spring Chicken Band Water Color Oil Painting Computer Classes Geography of Canada Tax Assistance Coffee Lounge P R Committee At the Movies (weekly) Bingo (3x week) Calligraphy Pinochle (3x week) Pickle Ball (3x week) Crafts Pickle Ball Lessons • • • 245 I i I s7 Pal/ 0'/ OL led Deck- rn J - s/5 7Avm 1� i -n f °y UW- lOD v� �Bu�V Vo ��,• tam t we��— . ou.l rhe,- 0r w, n, �. rv�er�J S�''PI°°✓ °� a`' Claltar� � , fgtobS�ti, J,ar�n� sevv�as 246 �J • • 247 • Port Angeles Fire Department Saving Hearts and Homes April 2001 0 1050 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 April 2001 Total Fire Dept. Calls 1999 2000 2001 April 01/00 Total Calls 259 /224 2001 Total Calls YTD 1,019 2000 Total Calls YTD 912 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Fire $ Loss/Saved 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2001 2000 Saved ■ Loss LIN Saved Loss Fires < $5,000 I I 2001 YTD 7,057,340 1 269,300 Haz Mat I 2000 YTD 1,420,400 231,408 Fires > 5K Fires < 5K Auto Brush Haz Mat N 2001 E 2000 • Year to Fires > $5,000 Fires < $5,000 I I Auto Fires Brush Fires I Haz Mat I Date I Incidents 2001 8 11 8 1 12 10 2000 6 30 3 6 249 500 400 *0 200 100 0 Fire & Life Safety Insp Inspections Reinspections L 2001 2000 Medic I Transports ALS BLS 2001 2000 Advanced Life Support (ALS) & Racic T.ife. 4nnnnrt (RLS) Fire Dept. Inspections Reinspections 2001 YTD 454 246 2000 YTD 390 339 Medic I Transports ALS BLS 2001 2000 Advanced Life Support (ALS) & Racic T.ife. 4nnnnrt (RLS) Fire Dept. 2001 2000 % ALS - YTD 343 308 10.2 T BLS - YTD 37 55 32.7 1 250 Prevention Activities YTD 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2001 2000 C Permit Inspections Plan Reviews Public Education Contacts 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Patients Assisted Fire Dept. Olympic Ambulance 2001 2000 Patients Assisted Fire Dept. Permit Inspections Plan Reviews Public Ed Contacts 2001 18 14 18 2000 T 63 14 1 13 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Patients Assisted Fire Dept. Olympic Ambulance 2001 2000 Patients Assisted Fire Dept. 2001 2000 % YTD 768 757 1.4 t FIRE PREVENTION ACTIVITIES , 2001 1. Commercial This Month Year to Date Last Year This Month Last Year Year to Date Fire & Life Safety Inspection 119 454 81 390 Fire & Life Safety Reinspection 82 246 65 339 Code Violations Found 172 671 119 579 Code Violations Corrected 206 452 82 497 Building Survey 0 0 0 0 Complaints Investigated 2 5 7 29 Fire Drills Supervised 0 0 1 1 Lectures, Classes, Demonstrations, Station Tours 3 15 3 13 Fires Investigated 3 9 5 11 Fire Alarm Test 8 40 13 48 Sprinkler System Test 11 26 25 80 Hydrants 0 4 2 4 Permit Inspection 4 18 13 63 Juvenile Fire Setters Counseled 0 3 0 2 1. Commercial 0 3 2 5 2. Multi -family 0 1 0 0 3. Sprinkler System 0 1 2 2 5 4. Fire Alarm 0 1 2 0 3 FP - 32 Revised 10/4/95 r� • 251 • Medic I Statistics April, 2001 * Note: PAFD -- Port Angeles Fire Department OLY -- Olympic Ambulance Private -- Private auto, taxi, funeral home, etc. No Transport -- patient refused or required no transport Total Medic I Patients Assisted ALS BLS PRIVATE NO TRANSPORT PAFD OLY PAFD OLY Cardiac Arrest 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 Cardiac, Other 31 1 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Medical Motor Vehicle Accident 42 1 1 0 1 0 6 1 2 6 0 7 8 Drug/Alcohol Accident, Other 3 4 0 0 1 2 1 16 0 6 0 27 False all 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total 82 2 L4 725 12 48 * Note: PAFD -- Port Angeles Fire Department OLY -- Olympic Ambulance Private -- Private auto, taxi, funeral home, etc. No Transport -- patient refused or required no transport Total Medic I Patients Assisted This Month Year to Date This Month Last Year Last Year to Date 173 768 J 205 757 _J1 Medic II Statistics Citizens trained in CPR and airway management This Month Year to date This Month Last Last Year to Date Year 19 90 12 120 • 252 Fire causes $50,000 damage to garage PENINSULA DAILY NEWS PORT ANGELES — A fire damaged a city resident's garage Friday night, leaving moderate damage in its wake. Neighbors called. emer- gency dispatchers at 10:45 p.m. to report a fire in the 200 block of Fogarty Avenue. Responding firefighters extinguished the flames, but not before the interior sus- tained damage, Port Angeles Fire Marshal Ken Dubuc said. Damage to the structure and Motel guest extinguishes morning blaze PENINSULA DAILY NEWS its contents was estimated at $50,000. Dubuc said the blaze started when a mattress acci- dentally left against a light bulb ignited. Craig and Amy Heckman own the garage. PORT ANGELES — An early Tuesday morning motel 'fire may have been intention- ally set, Port Angeles Fire Marshal Ken Dubuc said. The fire in the employee lounge of the Portside Inn, 1510 E. Front St., was reported at 1:21 a.m. A fire sprinkler was trig- gered and a guest awakened by an alarm used a fire extin- guisher to put out flames out- side the room, Dubuc said. The blaze was limited to one room and mostly out by the time firefighters arrived. There were no injuries and no guest rooms were affected by the fire, officials said. Guests were able to return to their rooms. Damage to the inn, owned by Chong Keon Park of Port Angeles, was estimated at $2,500. Evidence at the scene indi- cated the fire may have been intentionally set, Dubuc said. He and Port Angeles police are investigating the blaze._ • • • 253 254 • 255