The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 05/14/2002 UTILITY ADVISORY r. OMMITTEE PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM PORT ANGELES~ WA 9B362 ~:nn p~ A~NDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. R~LL ~ALL III. A~PR~VAL ~F ~INUTE~ F~R APRIL 9~ 2B0~ ELEOTRIO UTILITY RURAL ECONOHIC DEVELOPHENT REVOLVING FUND FOR 2002 F. RAYONIER LEAOHATE REPORT (~MARTERLY) V. NEXT ~EETING ~ATE - ~MNE 1 ~ ~ 200~ Vh AD~OURNHENT UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Port Angeles, Washington April 9, 2002 L Call to Order: Chairman Bentley called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ~.~- IL Roll Call: Members Present: Chairman Bentley, Councilmember Erickson, Councilmemb~r Rogers (3:03), Councilman Campbell (3:05), Dean Reed Members Absent: None Staff Present: Craig Knutson, Ken Ridout, Scott McLain, Gary Kenworthy, Larry Dunbar, Doyle McGinley, Jim Harper, Steve Sperr, Jeff Young, Cate Rinehart Others Present: Brian Gawley - Peninsula Daily News IIL Approval of Minutes: Chairman Bentley asked if there were any additions or corrections to the meeting minutes of March 12, 2002. None were given. Dean Reed moved to approve the minutes. Councilmember Erickson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV. Discussion Items: A. Leak Detection 2002 Results Doyle McGinley, Water/Wastewater Collection Superintendent, explained that the City had contracted with Utility Services Associates to locate leaks in the water distribution system. The company worked four days at a cost of under $1,000 per day and can cover the entire City in five to six years. The general location of the survey this year was from Lauridsen Boulevard to Railroad Avenue and Lincoln to Cedar. The estimated water loss detected and repaired was 55,800 gallons per day. A brief discussion followed. Staff was asked to review chart figures to compare areas. No action taken. Information only. B. Wastewater NPDES Permit Update Jeff Young, Treatment Plant Superintendent, briefed the committee on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CNPDES) permit indicating a nine minimum control plan was being addressed. Indications are that the milestone goal is for more indepth testing. Brown and Caldwell are involved in reviewing the information as it changes. A short discussion followed. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 9, 2OO2 No action taken. Information only. C. 2002 Electric Design Consultant Selection Jim Harper, Electrical Engineering Manager, advised two electrical rebuild projects (Valley Feeder 1205 Overhead and thc Elwha Underground) were scheduled to be packaged as a single design contract. Proposals for thc designs wcrc requested from five engineering consulting firms with three responding. An evaluation team determined the most qualified firm for the job. There was a brief discussion with questions regarding thc consultant selection process. Dean Reed moved to recommend City Council authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with R. W. Beck for electrical design services for a cost not to exceed the negotiated amount of $95,350. Councilmember Erickson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. D. Northland Cable Negotiation Update Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, announced that as a result of the tenth negotiation meeting held on March 27th an agreement was ready for adoption. Should Northland Cable accept the agreement on May 6th it will return to the May 14' UAC and to Council May 21st. A short discussion followed with questions regarding changes the cable attorney had made in the agreement. Mr. Dunbar indicated there was nothing significant. No action taken. Information only. E. Phase III Downtown Watermain/Sidewalks Loan Application Stephen Sperr, Utility Engineer, emphasized the third phase would complete the downtown watermain replacement and was designed to target mains west of Oak Street to Valley Street and along the north side of Front Street between Laurel Street and Oak Street. It will also include sidewalk replacement along a portion of First Street, Front Street and possibly Laurel Street on the west side between Railroad Avenue and Front Street. A Public Works Trust Fund application (PWTF) had been submitted last year but failed to make the list. Revisions have been made and the application will be submitted before the May 13t~ deadline. During the discussion that followed there were some questions concerning the reason for failing to make the list last year and if the west side of Laurel Street between First Street and Front Street would be addressed. It was disclosed that the City missed by one point and that a smaller project had been pushed ahead. The Laurel Street issue would be included as part of the application. Councilman Campbell moved to recommend City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Public Works Trust Fund loan application certification in an amount not to exceed $1,980,000 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 $1,980,000. Councilmember Rogers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 2 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 9, 2002 F. Consultant Selection for 2002/2003 ~Vater & ~Yastewater Projects Stephen Sperr, Utility Engineer, mentioned there are four water and wastewater projects that require engineering and other services not already part of an existing consultant agreement. Four firms were sent a request for proposal for design and two responded. Selection was based on the written proposal, presentation and interview. There was a brief discussion with questions concerning the high fee and the lack of response. It was explained that unusual conditions are involved with one of the projects as it goes through rough terrain and through Olympic National Park. Engineering consultants that did not submit proposals indicated that they were either too busy to take on the project, or they didn't have the expertise for these particular projects. Councilmember Eriekson moved to recommend City Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Agreement with Skillings-ConnoIly, Inc. for engineering support services for a total amount not to exceed $160,000. Councilmember Rogers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. G. Amendment No. 1 to Engineering Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. Gary Kenworthy, Deputy Director of Engineering/City Engineer, pointed out that the agreement with Parametrix needed to be amended to reflect actual costs, additional costs for ongoing tasks, the addition ora new task and the extension of the time of performance. A review was given concerning the various areas and the status of each. A discussion followed with questions regarding contract costs falling in future budget years. Councilman Campbell moved to recommend City Council authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Professional Services with Parametrix, inc., increasing the not-to-exceed total of the agreement to $607,970. Councilmember Erickson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. V. Late Items: None VII. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be May 14, 2002. At 3:00 p.m. VIII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Allen Bentley, Chairman Cate Rinehart, Administrative Assistant 3 WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: May 14, 2002 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director RE: Septage Acceptance Plant and Makah Lagoon Sludge Summary Summary: The recent Septage Acceptance Plant demonstration successfully treated 66,000 gallons of septage with no adverse affect to the treatment process at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP also processed 200,000 gallons of lagoon sludge from the closed wastewater lagoon on the Makah reservation, again with no adverse affect to the treatment )rocess. lecommendation: For Information Only Background/Analysis: Lakeside Corporation delivered the Septage Acceptance Plant (SAP) to the WWTP on January 30th, 2002. The Treatment Plant began receiving deliveries of scptage on February 20th, 2002. The SAP demonstration ended on March 6t~, 2002. The 66,000 gallons of septage received had no recognizable affect on the plant. The Septage Acceptance Plant (SAP) demonstration was well received. Septage haulers that participated were very supportive of this project and expressed an interest in continuing to use our facility. Four out of the seven possible septic haulers on the 2002 Clallam County Certified Septic Pumper list used the SAP. Two haulers had prior contractural agreements and one was out of our area (Raymond,WA.). Septage Hauler Gallons Delivered Revenue Acme Septic Pumping 2,000 $220 West Waste Pumping 5,000 $550 Roto Rooter S & D 16,000 $1,760 Arrow Septic 43,000 $4,730 Totals 66,000 $7,260 N:\UAC~Fina~apuac,wpd Utility Advisory Committee Septage Acceptance plant and Makah lagoon sludge Page 2 The Treatment Plant started receiving deliveries of the Makah lagoon sludge on March 14t~, 2002 until April 5th, 2002. 200,000 gallons were processed for a revenue of $30,000. There was no recognizable affect on the plant. N:\UAC~inal~ap uac.wpd WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: MAY 14, 2002 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager RE: Proposed Cable Television Franchise Ordinance Summary: The negotiation team is pleased to bring an outstanding cable television fxanchise ordinance to the Utility Advisory Committee for its consideration. Recom.mendation: Recommend City Council approve the proposed cable television franchise ordinance with Northland Cable Television, the Institutional Network fiber aption recommendation herein, and cancel the fiber optic pilot project. Background/Analysis: On December 15, 1987, City Council approved a fifteen-year non- exclusive cable television franchise that will expire on September 30, 2003. On October 3, 2000, the cable operator requested its franchise be renewed in accordance with the formal procedures of the Cable Communications Policy Act (Act). On October 17, 2000, City Council approved a professional services agreement with Metropolitan Communications Consultants (MCC) that included a cable television and telecommunications public proceeding and development of a draft cable television franchise for renewal negotiations. On May 22, 2001, City Council approved professional services agreements with MCC and the law firm of Winstead, Sechrest & Minick (WSM), for technical and legal services during the cable television franchise renewal negotiations. In order to preserve the City's authority under the Act, the City commenced Step 1 of the formal renewal process (public proceeding) prior to the deadline of April 1, 2001. As part of the public proceeding a cable television service survey was conducted followed by public meetings. The public proceeding included an assessment to determine the future cable-related needs and interests of the community and reviewed the cable operator's performance and compliance with the current franchise. On August 31, 2001, MCC completed the Cable Television and Telecommunications Needs and Interests Report. On September 18, 2001, City Council accepted the report and authorized staff to request a formal proposal from the Cable Operator to reasonably meet future cable-related needs and interests as identified in the report. On October 19, 2001, the Cable Operator submitted a formal renewal proposal to the City. On November 11, 2001, the City provided public notice that it received the October 2001 formal renewal proposal. N:\UA C\Original\ franchiseadopfion, wpd Proposed Cable Television Franchise Ordinance Page 2 May 14, 2002 On November 6, 2001, the Cable Operator's legal counsel contacted WSM to discuss the formal renewal procedures. On behalf of the City, WSM invited the Cable Operator's legal counsel to research the legal precedent supporting a waiver of the Act's formal renewal procedural requirements. On January 30, 2002, the Cable Operator's legal counsel produced a case supporting a waiver of the Act's requirement to either accept or render a preliminary decision to deny the October 2001 formal renewal proposal by February 19, 2002. The case produced was the March 7, 2001 unpublished federal district court opinion ofFrontiervision v Town of Naples, Maine. On February 19, 2002, based on the Cable Operator's waiver of the relevant formal procedural requirement of the Act, the City Council authorized an extension of the informal negotiation timeline through the end of May 2002. Informal franchise negotiation summary An informal negotiation was held concurrently with the formal process to renew the franchise in accordance with the Act. A management oversight committee and City Council members Karen Rogers and Orville Campbell provided oversight to the City's negotiation team. The proposed franchise ordinance was developed with full consideration and understanding of the City's objectives from the fiber optic business plan and the Cable Television and Telecommunications Needs and Interests Report. On March 27, 2002, the City and the Cable Operator completed the negotiation under the informal method. The City's legal review of the franchise ordinance was completed on May 2, 2002. On May 6, 2002, the Cable Operator provided their acceptance of the proposed franchise ordinance. In accordance with the Cable Act, on May 6, 2002 the public was notified about the proposed franchise ordinance and provided an opportunity to comment through May 17, 2002. The next steps of thc formal renewal procedure may be avoided if City Council approves the proposed franchise ordinance. The next step of the formal renewal procedure would include a preliminary City determination to either accept or deny the Cable Operator's formal franchise renewal proposal, which could be followed by an administrative proceeding. Summary of proposed franchise Staff believes that an outstanding ordinance was reached with the Cable Operator that closely reflects and is responsive to the Community's current and future cable-related needs and interests taking into consideration the cost to meet those needs. In addition to substantial cable television improvements and an emergency alert system, and in keeping with the City's economic development goals thc proposed 15 year non-exclusive franchise ordinance enables broadband telecommunications benefits to residents via cable modem services, and via fiber connections to businesses, and public/government/educational institutions. A summary of the proposed franchise ordinance is included as Attachment 1. A summary of the anticipated compensation and expenses under the proposed ordinance is included as Attachment 2. Recommendations from MCC and WSM are included as Attachment 3. A complete copy of the proposed Franchise Ordinance is available from the Public Works and Utilities office or the City's wcbsitc and was not included due to its length (over 50 pages). N:\UAC\Ofi glnal\ franchlseadopfion.wpd Proposed Cable Television Franchise Ordinance Page 3 May 14, 2002 The City's time and expense to complete both informal and formal franchise renewal procedures was worthwhile. The use of outside expertise for technical support and legal counsel ensured the community's interests and the municipality's authority were safeguarded. A management plan has been prepared and staff assignments have been made to monitor and oversee the franchise and complete related projects. Educational and Governmental (EG) Access The proposed franchise ordinance enables the City to continue its current educational and governmental programming on channel 21. The City can receive up to three educational and governmental channels if needed. In addition, the City can install a cablecast system in the City Hall Council Chambers that would allow "live" meetings to be televised. Televising City Council and other meetings would make it easier for citizens to receive information and be involved in community issues. The Cable Operator will provide the City $60,000 or will provide the equipment required for cablecasting and continuing financial support in the amount of approximately $0.05/subscriber/month which represents about $3,500 per year. Cable Operator funding for EG Access is available after the first two years of the proposed franchise ordinance. Staff will seek City Council approval to proceed with the purchase and installation of cablecast equipment as part of the 2004 proposed budget. Fiber optic business plan On May 22, 2001, City Council approved the City's fiber optic business plan. Approval of the proposed franchise ordinance is consistent with the City's fiber optic business plan's recommendations, strategic direction and mission "To ensure delivery of broadband telecommunications products and services to Port Angeles by 2002, by enabling the development of necessary telecommunications infrastructure." A fiber optic pilot project was approved as part of the fiber optic business plan. On September 18, 2001, City Council approved a delay to the fiber optic pilot project schedule to allow additional time to prepare and negotiate proposals. On November 13, 2001, the Utility Advisory Committee approved a further delay to the fiber optic pilot project through March of 2002. The delays provided the opportunity to achieve City fiber optic backbone business plan goals through the cable franchise. The I-Net and reserve fibers obtained under the proposed franchise ordinance, provide the broadband backbone infrastructure needed in the City and relieve the City from having to develop a municipally owned network. These fibers are available to Northland and other service providers and set the stage for future services, competition and economic development. Since there is no longer a need for development of a City owned fiber optic backbone, the exploratory fiber optic pilot project is also no longer needed. Stafftherefore recommends the fiber optic pilot project, including the remaining scope of work under an agreement with MCC, be cancelled. N:\UAC\Orlginal\franchiseadoption.wpd Proposed Cable Television Franchise Ordinance Page 4 May 14, 2002 Institutional Network O-Net) Construction of the I-Net dark fiber backbone under the proposed franchise ordinance is a lawful public/private activity recognized by the Cable Communications Act. Completion of the I-Net is a high priority for the City to satisfy municipal wide area networking needs. The Cable Operator will submit the I-Net backbone plans and specifications which is anticipated to be approved by the City within 90 days of City Council approval of the proposed franchise ordinance. The I-Net dark fiber backbone will be constructed within eighteen (18) months following of the City's approval of the Cable Operator's plans and specifications. The I-Net consists of 12 dark fibers and the negotiated City cost is $250,000. To give potential I- Net users flexibility an option for an additional 12 dark fibers has also been negotiated that could enable gradual cost effective transitions from simple and inexpensive to more sophisticated and expensive electronics. Staffrecommends an expense of $2,824.80 is approved as part of the City's adoption of the proposed franchise ordinance for an additional 12 dark fibers in the I-Net backbone from 16th & "C" Streets to 16th & 'T' Streets. A prompt decision for this one mile section was requested by the Cable Operator because it is part of their planned construction this year. On or before October 1, 2002, the City can make a decision to increase the remaining thirteen miles of the I-Net backbone dark fibers from 12 to 24. Over the upcoming months the City will consider if the option for more dark fibers is needed for initial, individual fiber, simple point to point connectivity by the City and potential I-Net users. As the number of actual users and sites grow, sharing of bandwidth and fibers, and use of more expensive equipment can be phased in. Having 24 fibers would provide flexibility and more capacity for the City, potential I-Net users, and future service providers. It also gives the City the opportunity for additional revenue as the City would charge potential 1-Net users and service providers for use of excess capacity/dark fibers. If the City decides to accept the option for an additional 12 dark fibers in the 1-Net backbone, there would be a total of 36 dark fibers comprising the I-Net and reserve fibers. The increased cost of 12 additional I-Net dark fibers is $100,000. The City cost's of the I-Net dark fiber backbone including 24 fibers is $350,000, which is approximately 10-15% of the estimated cost of the stand-alone project the City was contemplating before completing the business plan. Funding for the City's cost of the I-Net is available within electric utility reserves. N:\UAC\Orig/nalLfranchise adoption, wpd Attachment 1 - Proposed franchise ordinance summary The Cable Operator will upgrade its hybrid fiber/coaxial (HFC) network and replace its 330MHz headend equipment with 550MHz equipment. The upgraded HFC network and headend equipment will 550 MItz Upgrade provide expanded cable services capable of delivering 78 analog channels within 2 years. The City will not incur any expenses for the ...................... _up_gr_ _aJ~._ .............................................................. The Cable Operator's upgraded HFC network will be used by others to offer cable modem Interact service to all subscribers no later than the Cable Modem end of 2003. The Cable Operator recently reached an agreement with Service - Local ISP Olypen to provide Interact service and may reach an agreement with another local Interact service provider (ISP) in the near future. The ........................ _C_it y_ _ _wi 11_ _n_o.t_i_n_c_ur _a_n_y_ _e_x_lLe _n_s_e_s_ fo_ r_ _c_a_b_l_e_ _m_ _o_d_e_ _m_ s _e ~ i_c_ e_ ._ .............. By October 1, 2002, the Cable Operator will provide an emergency Emergency Alert alert system that will provide both audio and video message override of System the cable system during emergencies. The City will not incur any ........................ _e_xp__e.n_s_e_s_f_o_r__t_h.e__C__a_bl_e Op____e_r_a_tp_r'_s_e__m_?_~/e_n__cT_a_l_e. rt_ _s. _ys_t_e. _m_. .............. No earlier than 5/21/2004, the Cable Operator will provide $60,000 or the equipment needed to broadcast "live" from City Hall. The Cable Educational, and Operator will provide additional playback equipment to the City by Governmental (EG) 8/21/2002. The Cable Operator will also provide staffing and financial Access support for operation of the City's government access channel. Over the term of the franchise up to 3 EG channels can be activated based on need. Community Cable The Cable Operator will provide free basic cable service to municipal Service and educational facilities. The Cable Operator will provide and maintain an I-Net dark fiber backbone that will satisfy the City's need for a wide area network among municipal facilities. The City shall have an irrevocable and exclusive right to manage, control and use I-Net dark fibers for non- Institutional commercial purposes. The City will pay the Cable Operator up to Network $250,000 for the incremental cost of 12 fibers for the 1-Net backbone including 7 nodes. The City has an option for an additional 12 I-Net (I-Net) dark fibers that would cost an additional $100,000. The City and potential I-Net users will be responsible for site drops to institutions and for purchasing, installing, operating and maintaining the equipment required to activate the I-Net There are no charges from the Cable ........................ _02 _er a_t_o_r_ fo_r_u_s_e_ _o_f_ t_h__e.n_ _e ~_o_r_k_: a_s_i gn_ _ j_fi_c_ ~_t y_o_s_t_ _s _a_vi_ng__s_. .............. An additional 12 dark fibers within the I-Net backbone will be available for the Cable Operator or third party providers to furnish I-Net Reserve commercial services, excluding cable services. Each business will be Fibers responsible for the cost ora site drop and for the cost o£commercial services. Third parties will be charged for use of the Cable Operator's dark fiber based on competitive market rates. N:\U AC\Original\franc hiseadoption.wpd Attachment 2 - Proposed franchise ordinance compensation and expenses Various Forms of Compensation I Estimated Compensation 550 MHz U adc ! Lame Cable O~erator investment ............ J~_ .......................... ~ ................................................... i Cable Modem Platform I Sienificant Cable Ooerator investment 5 % Franchise Fee ! $125,000/year ...... § 8bl 6b-0- ' EG Access Playback Equipment ! $15,000 estimated renlacement value EG Access Su ort , $3,500/year after 2nd ear ............... ~P_~ ........................ q ............................................... ~ .... EG Access - u to 3 channels ! Sienificant in-kind value EG Staffing & Technical Resources ! Sienificant in-kind value ig._u, idated Dama es (if violations) , Dail char es of $100 not to exceed $5,000/ ear .............. g-~ ...................... -t ........ 7_ .... g_e ...............................~___ Cable Service to Communit Facilities I $12,000/year estimated in-kind value Subscriber Discounts ! $20,000/vear estimated value .......................................... -I ............................ 7--~.~ ..... 7---7 Emer enc Alert S stem ! S~emficant ~n-k~nd value ..... lg2___~: ...... ,Y_ ..................... 4 ............................. ~ ...................... I-Net Irrevocable & Exclusive Ri hts ! I-Net at 15% of the cost of stand-alone system I-Net Backbone Dark F~ber Charge ! Charees based on cost for use of excess canamtv I-Net Backbone Reserve Fibers I Significant in-kind value City EG Expenses I Estimated Expense I _ _~_G_ _ _A_c_c_?s_ ~ 9 ~ui p~_e_n_t ................... I_ _$_ _6_0_, _0_0_0_ py_ _e S_uj p_m_ep_t~ r o_ _vi _d_e_d_ _by_ _C_a_b_ 1.e- Op_ _ _ _e_r_a_t _o_r/ EG Access E ui ment Installation ] $15,000 .............. 9__P ........................ n ................................................... ] EG Access Staffing I $0.05/subscriber/month after 2"a year/ City I-Net Backbone Expenses I Estimated Expenses Professional Services , To Be Determined 1-Net Plans and Specifications I Provided by the Cable Operator Fiber Ontic (sheath) Provided bv the Cable Onerator ....... _~.~ ................................. ~ .............. ~ ............... ~.~ ........... _~__~_' ..... I-Net Construction -4 Provided by the Cable ._O~.erator ' ~] ~,~T6-p-t] ~-~ ~;~ ~;-(-1-~ ~ -a~-~ -~; ~7 ...... , ............. -~5-S-O-5~66-f4i~7~T;~ Fiber _O2tic Strands _O2tion (1_2) J ............. ~-O-O-51~66-~l-~xr~n-~-~n-c-r-e-~-e-n-t~-~-o-s-t Fiber Splicing ! Provided bv the Cable Onerator Demand and Routine Maintenance ! Cable Onerator/Citv Shared exvense Initial City Site Drops ! To Be Determined City Premise Eauinment , To Be Determined Node and Network Equipment ! To Be Determined Network Operation and Management I To Be Determined Potential I-Net User Activation Estimated Potential I-Net User Expenses Expenses I-Net backbone ! Exnense allocated to users User Site Dro~s ~ Exnense incurred or recovered from user .............. 1.2 .......................... .~ .............. L ..................................... User Premise Equipment ! Exoense incurred or recovered from user Node and Network Eaui¢ment Expense allocated to users as needed ..................... L~,_2K2 ................ .~ .................................................... - P- e-m- a- n- -d- -as- -d- ~-°- u- t J-n-e- -M--aJ-nLe-n-a-n-c- e- ....... 4 ......................... -E-x-lLe-n-s-e- -al 1-°-c-a-t-e-d- -t -°- -u-s-e-r s Network Operation and Management I Expense allocated to users N:\UAC\Orig/nal\fvanchiseadoption.w pd -~ METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS _ CONSULTANTS Seattle: 5847 McKinley PI. N., Seattle, Washin§ton 98103-5710 Tel; 206.522.6778 Fax: 206.522.6777 Tacoma: P.O, Box 86907, Steilscoom, Washin§ton 98388-0907 Tel: 253.589,~ 770 Fax: 255.5§9.9254 www.mcco.com May 14, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Utility Advisory Committee City of Port Angeles 321 East Fifth S~reet Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 Re: Northland Cable Franchise Renewal Agreement Recommendation for Acceptance Dear Mayor Wiggins, City Council Members, Utility Advisory Committee Members: MCC is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist in the cable franchise renewal process and to have participated on the City teamin the completed negotiations. The final document now before the City is an outstanding example of government and private business working together for economic development and the public interest. For Northland Cable Television, the 15 year franchise recognizes the company's significant investment in the community, secures its long term operation in Port Angeles and provides an opportunity for new services as well as for strengthening and growing Northland's existing business. From the City's perspective, in addition to improved cable television service and benefits for its citizens, the franchise enables the provision of broadband services to the residents, businesses, and public institutions in Port Angeles, the achievement of a major City economic development goal. The franchise eliminates unnecessary duplication of facilities by the City and relieves the City from having to compete with private business, an undesirable position, with difficult requirements, high liability and risk. The franchise also saves the City $10.7 million, the amountestimated in the May 2001 Business Plan for the City to undertake development of a similar network on its own. We wish to congratulate both the City and Northland Cable Television for accomplishing such an important community project. We also want to thank the members of the negotiating teams, Scott McLain and Larry Dunbar of the City, Richard Dyste and Pete Grigorieff of Northland, with whom we had the pleasure to work. We are pleased to recommend acceptance of the Franchise Agreement by the Utility Advisory Committee and the City Council. Very truly yours, METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS, LLC Richard C. T. Li, P.E. RECEIVED VVINSTEAD 2 9 2002 April 24, 2002 direct dial: 512.370.2888 cwest~winstcad.com Mr. Larry Dunbar 321 East 5th Avenue P. O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 Re: Recently Negotiated Franchise With Northland Cable Television, Inc: Dear Larry: Pursuant to your request I provide this letter concerning a recommendation to adopt the Franchise recently negotiated with Northland Cable Television, Inc.. Under the Federal Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 546) in a renewal of a cable television franchise the City can require that the cable operator reasonably meet cable-related community needs, so long as those needs are reasonable. (Examples of the cable-related community needs would be adequate Public, Education, and Governmental Channels and adequate capital support for those channels; technical upgrade to the cable system, and capacity in an Institutional Network CI-Net"), if there is one). In the event the cable operator reasonably meets those community needs, then the City cannot lawfully deny the proposed Franchise, i.e. it must renew. In my review of both the City's cable-related community needs report and the proposed Franchise, the Franchise does reasonably meet those needs and, in fact, it arguably exceeds the needs in several areas, particularly in the "broadband" I-Net area. Therefore, I would recommend adoption of the proposed Franchise. Sincerely, CAW:em 37064-I - 04/24/2002 SUITE 800 PH 512.474.4330 WIIqSTEADS~EI~'I~T&MI/qICK Austin, Dalla$~ Fort V/orth, 100 CO/qGRE$S AVEIqUE FAX 512.370.2850 ~t~s andCou~dors Houston, ~exico City, P.O. Box 863 223 Ea~ Fou~h Street Po~ Angeles, WA 98362-0149 From the Desk of 360.417.2233 F~: 360.417.2493 CommiSsioner Mike Dohe~ Email mdohe~co.clallam.wa.us File No. A46,31 13 May 2002 TO: Hike Quinn, Port Angeles City Manager RE: Franchise with Northland Cable and Costs to Government During the past several months, a number of county staff have been involved in ongoing discussions relating to the county's ability to receive broadband communications, After returning from meetings with you, Dennis Bickford, and others, County Administrator Dan Engelbertson has been left with the impression that the City is working toward an open system with the possibility of connection to several alternative systems including PUD, Northland Cable, or I-Net. Meetings between City, County, PUD, OMC, and other technical staff have resulted in very different information. Those attending technical level meetings believe that public jurisdictions in Clallam County may be left with limited options at a cost to the taxpayer higher than would be the case with other alternatives. The County has identified a number of broadband applications for which fiber connections would be ideal. Our concern on these issues is simple, the availability of sufficient fiber as soon as practically possible and at the lowest cost available to the public we serve. The County has heard various arguments both pro and con about the PUD's fiber system, however, cost estimates both initial and on-going appear to provide substantial savings for the County, OMC, and other agencies. Other than providing for a point of presence inside the City and connection to it, the system is close to being available for use. I have attached a copy of a memorandum received from the county's Information Technology Director detailing his observations and concerns. In his last paragraph he suggests that the CAO and technical staff of each of the agencies potentially served by a fiber system meet together to discuss these matters. I concur with that recommendation and suggest a meeting take place prior to final approval of the franchise agreement with Northland Cable. I believe the county's concerns are shared by other public agencies in the community. A meeting with all public agencies should result in education on any misunderstood issues and provide a forum to discuss unresolved concerns with both decision makers and technical staff. ! urge you consider such a meeting at your earliest convenience. ! look forward to hearing from you on this matter. Since/~y, Commissioner Cc: Dave Meyer Doug Harrison, Clallam County PUD Gary Smith, Olympic Hedical Center CLALLAM COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT COURTHOUSE 223 E^ST FOURTH STREET DAVID B. MEYER, DIRECTOR P O Box 863 ~'~m, 2002 PORT ANGELES WA 98362-0149 May 360 417-2000 To: Mike Doherty, Clallam County Commissioner Subject: City of Port Angeles Restrictions on Fiber Interconnection We need to share with the City an issue that is increasingly becoming move and more frustrating for Clallam County and our desire to provide low cost government to the tax payers. My Department, along with a halfa dozen other community organizations, believe that the City is fast moving toward policies and a franchise that may unreasonably delay and restrict the locations and type of access that parties within the City can make to the PUD fiber. If a private provider of fiber can, together with the PUD and other service providers, create a network that is cost- effective, well-provisioned and can be ready within a few months, what objection could the City of Port Angeles have with this? To say that this is accomplished through the Northland franchise ordinance, is not totally clear. It is very desirable for us to discover what Capacity Provisioning, the PUD, our own IT personnel, and the talent of other organizations, such as OMC, can accomplish as a team. Answers we need are not being provided because of the obstacles put in the way of the PUD and Capacity Provisioning by the City. Those obstacles are limiting the locations and class of traffic that people inside the City can hand to the PUD. With the PUD ready-to-serve and an independent fiber provider ready to build, is there any reason the City cannot immediate accommodate the build-out and facilitate the cross-connects that many folks would like to see happen? I feel we need a joint meeting of both political leaders and technical folks to lay all the issues on the table and come up with a cost effective solution. The meeting should include all the major players, including the PUD folks, so everyone can hear and voice issues· Res ectfu y, /. // ~avid Meyer, Diredtor Information Technology c. Dan Engelbertson, County Administrator .k\CS~Agencies Working TogetherXFiber Interconnections PA and CCdoc WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: MAY 14, 2002 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager RE: Institutional Network Activation and Site Drops Alteruativcs Summary: Staff has identified several alternatives for activation of the Institutional Network (I- Net) dark fiber backbone and construction of site drops for the City and potential users. The alternatives range from the City acting on its own behalf to the City have a large role in a facilitated effort. Recommendation: Activation and site drop alternatives are being presented for information only with no action requested. Background/Analysis: Construction of the I-Net dark fiber backbone under the proposed franchise agreement is a lawful public/private activity recognized by the Cable Communications Act. Within 90 days of City Council approval of the proposed franchise agreement, City approval of the I-Net backbone plans and specifications is anticipated. After the City approves the plans and specifications, the Cable Operator will construct the I-Net dark fiber backbone within eighteen (18) months. Completion of the I-Net is a high priority for the City to satisfy municipal wide area networking needs. A total of 12 I-Net backbone dark fibers will be available to serve the City and other potential I- Net users. On or before October 1, 2002, thc City will determine if it will exercise an option to include an additional 12 dark fibers in the majority of the I-Net backbone. Use of the I-Net dark fiber backbone by potential I-Net users for non-commercial services, user connections to I-Net nodes, and interconncctions to other networks must bc approved by the City. Institutional use of I-Net dark fiber may include use of the entire 14 mile backbone or lesser sections such as from node to node. The I-Net will include 12 reserve fibers, which together with any unused I-Net fibers and under specified conditions, may bc used by the Operator or third party service providers for commercial (excluding cable television) services. These fibers represent the dark fiber backbone infrastructure previously evaluated as a feasible but last resort scenario to be developed by the City only if no other developer was able to provide thc infrastructure. As a result of the negotiated franchise, thc Cable Operator will build thc dark fiber backbone through provision of N:\UAC/O6ginaN-Net activatlon, wpd Institutional Network Activation and Site Drops Alternatives Page 2 May 14, 2002 the I-Net, at a cost to the City of 10-15% of actual cost, for the ultimate benefit of the entire Port Angeles community. The I-Net dark fiber backbone will set the stage for future services, competition and economic development. The City may charge service providers and other qualified users for use of dark fiber/excess capacity. Determination of I-Net backbone dark fiber/excess capacity charges will be recommended in the near future. The franchise provides for the City and participating I-Net users to be responsible for activation of the I-Net. The City and participating I-Net users are also responsible for the cost of services, if any, received from providers through interconnections to the I-Net. Activation and site drop alternatives presented in this staff report only cover institutional use and service to the City, educational, and other governmental and public institutions. Commercial use of the 12 reserve I-Net dark fibers by businesses is expected to be through third party providers. Five alternatives for activation are presented below. The first alternative, is for potential 1-Net users, including the City, to activate separate dark fibers for their individual use. Depending on City needs for dark fiber and the number of actual users and sites served, available fiber may quickly be used up, at which time one of the following alternatives would be required. Even if the option for 12 additional dark fibers is approved by the City, it could be quickly used up depending on how it's used. The second alternative is for the City to activate and operate the I-Net by itself (reserve fibers not including) and offer excess capacity to potential 1-Net users. Under this alternative the City would not offer participation to potential I-Net users until the network is activated. The third alternative is similar to the second except that an 1-Net user other than the City would activate and operate the 1-Net and offer excess capacity to the City and other potential users. The fourth alternative is for a consortium of potential I-Net users, with the City as the lead agency, to activate and operate the 1-Net. This would require more facilitation with participating I-Net users for a request for proposal for equipment and installation. Consortium participants would share all costs, including the request for proposal process, the equipment installation project, and the ongoing operation and management expenses. The fifth alternative is for a service provider to activate and operate the I-Net. A request for proposal process would be required, but its costs could be shared among 1-Net participants. City facilitation would be significant but limited, as participating I-Net users would deal directly with the provider once it begins operations. As part of this alternative, private and public service providers could submit a proposal to activate and operate the I-Net. This alternative could combine private and/or public resources to efficiently serve participating I-Net users and, if approved by the Cable Operator, future commercial users. Institutional Network Activation and Site Drops Altematives Page 3 May 14, 2002 Activation alternatives Acti_v_ati_o_n__ _A_lte__m_a_t_i_v_e.s__1 ....... _A_ _d_v_a_n_t_a_g_e_ s_ t _o_ _Ci_t[_ ....... Disadvantages to City 1. Separate ! Limited City facilitation. Limited quantity of fibers. activation of I-Net I Simple connection agreement. No sharing of excess fibers by user, i No City RFP process, equipment capacity or including the City ! Promptly satisfies City needs, expense. I~ Maintenance, operation and ~ I man.a_~e_ment. ~ 2. City activates i Implementation s~mple. ,' Total Clty responslblhty for all and operates the I- I Sharing of excess capacity. I expenses and risk. Net for itself, excess ! Promptly satisfies City needs. ! Involvement in network capacity available to ! Total City control. I operation and management. participating users. I 3. 1-Net user I Implementation simple, i Little if any City control. ~ activates and ! Sharing of excess capacity. .~ operates the I-Net,! Promptly. . satisfies City needs. .~ for itself, excess I Limited City facilitation. '~ capacity available to i ~ the City and other I 1 ~ users. 1 4. I-Net user [ Sharing of expenses for node i High City involvement as lead consortium activates I equipment, operation, I agency. and operates the I- ! maintenance, and other services. ! Need for interlocal agreements Net. I Group purchase may provide I and consulting services for i savings. [ RFP process. I Requires City RFP process for I I equipment and installation. ' I Involvement in network -~ I ' operation and management. , ' Shared control. 5. Service provider Outsourcing of services, [ Little if any City control. activates and operation and management. [ City RFP process for I-Net operates the I-Net. Sharing of equipment for I-Net ! activation and operation. and reserve fibers. [ Need interlocal agreements 1-Net users share in RFP costs, i and consulting services for I-Net users deal with provider ] RFP process. directly. N:\U A C\O6 git~al~I -Net acfivation.wpd Institutional Network Activation and Site Drops Altematives Page 4 May 14, 2002 I-Net Site drop alternatives Three alternatives are presented below for construction of site drops from the I-Net backbone to reach City facilities and participating I-Net users. First, under the proposed franchise ordinance the City can use the Cable Operator to construct site drops for itself and others. The second alternative is to solicit a contractor/operator through a competitive bidding process with work awarded to the lowest qualified bidder or vendor with the most favorable lease/purchase terms where the City would own and finance the site drops itself· The third alternative is the City and each participating I-Net user could be responsible for construction and financing of their own site drop. Open access, allowing non-exclusive use, will be a condition of all site drop connection agreements from the I-Net backbone. Please refer to the following table for a summary of the site drop construction alternatives. Construction Alternative [ Advantage to City [ Disadvantages to City 1. Cable Operator Continuity in design, , Payment in full on completion constructs all site i construction, and maintenance, i only financing option. drops. ! Included in proposed franchise i City responsible for developing ~ i agreement without competitive i site plans. ~ , bidding process· i Interlocal agreements required to I Cost recovery from I allocate costs to users· I participating users· I Promptly satisfies municipal I WAN needs· 2. Contractor i Contractor prepares route and i City capital required. ~ constructs all site i site plans. ! Maintenance not included. '~ drops. City owns I I Interlocal agreements required to ~ site drops. I I allocate cost to users. ~ I I Preparation of a competitive I b~d&ng document and ~ i i consulting services needed. 3. Each I-Net user I No City responsibility for user I Multiple right-of-way licenses including City (or i site drops. I and construction permits. .= contractor) builds I Lease/purchase may be Mmntenance, operatmn and h~ and owns its i possible I management most difficult. individual drops I Simple connection agreement, i Potential users not interested in I Promptly satisfies municipal I owning site drops. ~I WAN needs. Institutional Network Activation and Site Drops Alternatives Page 5 May 14, 2002 What's next? I-Net Backbone Consulting services will be needed as part of the I-Net backbone construction project. Services needed include assistance reviewing the Cable Operator's I-Net plans and specifications, construction work in progress, fiber testing and final acceptance. Staff recommends that an amendment to the professional services agreement with Metropolitan Communications Consultants (MCC) for professional services is negotiated for services during the construction phase of the 1-Net backbone. MCC offers high quality professional services, has the desired qualifications and experience with similar municipal projects, has full knowledge of the project background which would provide continuity and cost savings to the City, and is available to complete the scope of work in the required time frame. I-Net activation, site drops, additional fiber option How we proceed with I-Net network activation, site drops, and decisions on an additional 12 dark fibers will include consideration of whether other potential users participate in the project or if it will be a City-only network. Staff will have discussions with potential I-Net users and other interested parties to determine their interest in the I-Net. Staff will return to the Utility Advisory Committee at its June 11, 2002 meeting to discuss network activation, site drop construction recommendations, the option for additional fibers, and additional consulting services that may be needed. I-Net schedule The I-Net dark fiber backbone construction schedule and tentative schedules for a stand-alone municipal project, potential I-Net user development, site drop competitive bidding, and activation request for proposal are included as Attachment 1. Ill 0 @ High Fiber Count Low Low Equipment Cost High Low City facilitation High WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: May 7, 2002 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Rick Hostetler, Customer Service Leadworker Scott Kenyon, Customer Service Rep. P~: Standardizing After Hour Connect / Reconnect Fees Summary: Currently, fees differ by which department responds to after regular business hour calls for connection of utilities. Finance would like to standardize fees. Recommendation: Finance requests UAC to recommend City Council approve an ordinance standardizing after hours connect / reconnect fees. Background/Analysis: As a result of answering survey questions regarding fee structures, Finance staff discovered the City has different rates for after business hour utility connects and reconnects depending on thc department responding to the call. The City currently averages about one after hours utility connection request per month. Customer Service charges $50.00 for the after hours request for restoring utilities to self-contained electric meters and water meters. The Water Division charges $115.00 for the same service to water meters if they get the after hours call. The Municipal Code allows for the Light Division to charge the current rate for light or water connects, which is either $50.00, or $115.00. Because there are so few requests for this service, Finance requests standardization of the fees to $115.00. While this amount will not cover the costs associated with the service if performed by the Light Division, over the course of a year, the costs of the service will be covered by the excess generated by the Water and Customer Service Divisions. WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO BATE: May 14, 2002 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Scott McLain, Deputy Director of Power Systems SUBJECT: Contribution to Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund for 2002 Summary: The City Council established the Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund (Fund) in 1999. By contributing $75,000 to this fund, the Electric utility can receive a $25,000 credit on its excise taxes owed to the State. The Electric utility has been budgeted to contribute to this fund again for the year 2002 in the amount of $75,000. It is expected that the Economic Development Steering Committee will utilize these funds for the City's Economic Development efforts. Recommendation: Recommend City Council authorize transfer of $75,000 from Electric Fund to the Electric Utilit~ Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund. Background / Analysis: In 1999, the City established the Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund (Fund) and the Electric Utility contributed $50,000 into the fund in 1999 and $75,000 in 2000 and 2001. By contributing at least $50,000 to the Fund, the Electric Utility can receive a credit of $25,000 on its excise taxes for the year. The Electric Utility has budgeted to contribute $75,000 to the City's Economic Development Fund in 2002 and by contributing through the Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund we may receive the $25,000 credit for 2002. Funds are limited to $350,000 per year for the entire State. The Electric fund has received a $25,000 credit each year since 1999. When the Fund was created in 1999, the Economic Development Steering Committee was designated as the board that oversees the fund. It is expected that this board will designate the funds to be used for the City's Economic Development efforts (Economic Development Director salary and expenses) as the qualifying project designed to achieve job creation or business retention. It is recommended that $75,000 be transferred to the Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund. pORTANGELES WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO Date: May 14, 2002 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities RE: Implementation ora Stormwater Utility Summary: One of our major goals, as directed by City Council is the implementation ora Stormwater Utility. A public outreach effort was conducted in late April and comments solicited fi.om the public. It is necessary to discuss the issues raised during the public meeting process and direct staff to finalize the ordinance. Recommendation: Discuss the issues raised during the public meeting process and direct staff to incorporate recommendations into the final ordinance and return to the UAC for further discussion. Background/Analysis: City Council established the implementation of a stormwater utility as a goal for the summer of 2002. The utility is needed to address l)the correction of long standing stormwater problems, 2) establishing equitable charges, 3) ensuring funds are available to leverage and pursue loans and grants, 4) encouraging development and sharing in costly improvements and 5) meeting required compliance actions associated with the Clean Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge ]Elimination System-NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permitting), Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. The Utility Advisory Committee at their February 12, 2002 meeting was presented with a draft code, a copy of the June 5, 2001 City Council meeting minutes directing the Public Works & Utilities Director to proceed with the development of a Stormwater Utility with emphasis on public education and a copy of the presentation given to City Council on June 5, 2001. A ser/es of public meetings was held to disseminate information concerning the need for a new stormwater utility, recent regulations, benefits, cost implications, highlights of the proposed ordinance and obtain feedback to help shape a recommendation to the UAC and City Council. Meetings were announced in the media (Peninsula Daily News - paid advertisement and a~icles, KONP - public service announcements and Peninsula Network News - cable TV outlet and Channel 21). A direct mailing campaign was also employed to announce the meetings to business, organization and property owners, see attached listing. N:\GLENN\Stormwater UAC Memo May 14, 2002A.wpd Presentations, attached, were given to the Chamber of Commerce (approximately 70 attendees) on April 22 at their lunch meeting, the Port Angeles Business Association (approximately 30 attendees) on April 23 at their breakfast meeting, and business (approximately 19 attendees) and residential (approximately 24 attendees) property owners on April 25 and 30 at 3pm and 7pm at City Hall. A copy of the draft ordinance, attached, was distributed along with material from the Department of Ecology on Urban Stormwater, see attached flyer. The presentation is on the City website for individuals to review. Comments are still desired. A summary of the comments/issues is attached with responses/pros and cons to facilitate discussion. The largest implementation challenge facing staffis the billing process. There are two options associated with billing for the utility. One is to bill the fees with water services and the other is to bill property owners and let them determine how to recover costs from their tenants if they don't occupy the facility or structure. Staffand businesses are leaning towards billing to the property owner. Selection of this option will necessitate delaying the collection until on or about January 1, 2003 because the City's existing financial software does not support billing by parcel numbers. Options continue to be explored for billings. The new HTE system is parcel based. Further research and discussion is necessary. It is recommended that the UAC discuss the issues and provide direction to the staff to permit finalization of the ordinance. Comments/Issues on Stormwater Utility Implementation Issue/Concern Recommendation Why should the City be exempt from paying the Utility Fee? * Exempt City Pro: facilities · If the City pays the fee it will have to be passed to tax payers and utility customers · City is exempt for cable TV service in the franchise Con: · City facilities contribute to the stormwater runoff · City pays water, sewer and electrical utility fees Port Angeles School District should not pay utility fee. * Do not exempt Pro.' the schools · Schools are in a budget difficulty · Treat schools similar to City facilities at least within City limits Con: · If schools are exempt others will want to be exempted · Schools generate revenue from taxpayers outside of the City as well as inside · School facilities contribute to stormwater issues Should the Assessment be a fee and not a tax? * Assessment Pro: should be a fee · Non-tax paying facilities will contribute. Their facilities contribute to the stormwater issues. · County has a system in place to collect based upon property ownership Con: · County would collect tax and charge a fee Billings should be based upon property ownership and not to the tenant Bill fees to the Pro: property owner · Improvements on the property contribute to stormwater problems not the function in the building · Multiple tenants with shared facilities such as parking pose a significant challenge to determine the allocation of impervious surfaces · Tenants come and go without being regulated by the City but property owners much register with the County Con: · Residents desire to have one utility statement · City does not have a billing system based upon parcel numbers · Some properties have no current utilities N:/GLENN~Stormwater UAC Memo May 14, 2002 A.wpd Businesses will It is acknowledged that the fee is an increase for costs of doing consider relocating business in the City. Capital facility projects may in part offset costs outside of the City for property and business owners when stormwater improvements are due to ever increasing required. Past practices established by rules and regulations have costs of doing caused significant impacts on the quality of urban stormwater runoff. business in the City City utility services are less expensive then those in rural areas with improved public safety services. What is the County It is unknown what action the County is proposing to take in response gong to do on the to ESA and Stormwater Manual. The Port Angeles UGA maybe issue? subject to a NPDES Phase II permit. Other areas of the County are not subject to the NPDES Phase II permit. A letter is being drafted to be sent to Clallam County requesting they advise of their intentions. How do properties in There is no provision to extend the City's jurisdiction through this the County that ordinance outside the City limits. It would be beneficial to pursue impact the City's such an interlocal agreement to incorporate the direct impact of stormwater problem County stormwater, at least in the UGA. More dialogue with the contribute to the County is needed. utility? Minimum fee should It was noted that units will be rounded down to the nearest whole be one equivalent equivalent service unit. In some cases impervious surfaces could be service unit under one unit and therefore not be assessed. It is proposed to identify that the one equivalent service unit is the minimum unless the lot is undeveloped. Individuals on fixed Senior and low income discounts would apply at the same rate as income such as other utilities. Currently discounts apply to senior with low incomes Senior and Disabled and disabled with low incomes. Discounts range from 5 % to 30%. Low Income Discount residents are faced with cost of living increases which lag rising costs. Regional facilities Agree. Regional facilities should be constructed when necessary to should be constructed mitigate development when economical and appropriate. It is part of to reduce impact on the Stormwater Utility's work plan to resolve issues such as this. small lots City has caused The City has complied with stormwater requirements in the past and problems with prior will comply with future requirements at the appropriate level of decisions on compliance. It is difficult to speak to past practices of why facilities development and lack were constructed and the logic behind various decisions. The best of enforcement, possible decisions are made based upon the current facts and the specific situation. N:\GLENrN~Stormwater [lAC Memo May 14, 2002A.wpd If County passes a It is not known how the County plans on handling ESA and the utility will City Stormwater Manual requirements. The County has various funding property owners have options available. If the County imposes a tax on property it is to pay. possible that a portion of the tax will be marked for stormwater issues. Coordination of our assessments and services will be important. Can existing urban Yes. One of the early tasks the Stormwater Manager would services standards and undertake would be the review of existing regulations to make them guidelines and other more stormwater user friendly. Areas to be considered: alternatives regulations be to imperious parking lot surfaces, diverting stormwater from modified to reduce impervious surfaces to locations other than storm drains, etc. imperious surface requirements? What other Another early task of the Stormwater Manager will be to review alternatives for measures that would identify property owner stormwater mitigation reducing my actions (such as rain barrels, detention facilities, etc.) that might lead stormwater to reduced fees. assessment do I have outside of changes to imperious surface requirements? Will the fee be Yes. It is planned to conduct a rate review every three years to ensure reduced when capital that expenses and revenues do not get out of balance. In other words projects are no longer when expenses decrease then rates will decrease and when expenses required? increase then rates will increase. It is envisioned that the capital facilities requirements may be reduced in future years. What happens to Currently materials removed from the City catch basins are disposed catch basin waste of at the Landfill. Prior to closing of the landfill in 2006 alternatives after the landfill for disposal of catch basins wastes will have to be determined. closes? When will the City The original time line recommended that the creation of a stormwater make effective utility be formed this summer with collection of fees to commence collection of the once a billing mechanism has been established. If there is a billing stormwater fee? gap, we may need to alter the implementation date or set a flat fee for a defined period of time. State computer This issue is being referred to the DOE for a response. modeling method is not fully developed, has several bugs and inaccurately models the rainfall data for Sequim-Port Townsend rain shadow. N:\GLENN~Stormwater UAC Memo May 14, 2002A.wpd April 17, 2002 To the Port Angeles Community: The City of Port Angeles will be considering the implementation of a Stormwater Utility this Summer. A Stormwater Utility is being proposed to address flooding and bluff erosion problems, public education responsibilities, implementation of the Washington State Stormwater Regulations, protection of endangered species and to protect the water quality in our streams and harbor. A number of public meetings have been scheduled to explain the rationale, benefits and financial impacts associated with a Stormwater Utility. As a utility, there will be a monthly charge assessed with these services and improvements, currently contemplated at $6 to $8 per month for residential and an increased charge for commercial property based on impervious area. Port Angeles property owners, businesses and residents are strongly encouraged to attend one of the following meetings to be held at the Port Angeles City Hall. Meeting Date and Time Focus Group Thursday April 25 7 PM Business Property Thursday April 25 3 PM Residential Property Tuesday April 30 3 PM Business Property Tuesday April 30 7 PM Residential Property The presentation will be conducted by Glenn Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities and Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer and will last approximately 90 minutes with ample time for questions and answers. The presentations will be the same for all sessions. Times are being designated for two separate groups, business properties and residential properties. This will enable those with similar concerns to be in a setting that will provide the best opportunity to obtain information. If you are unable to come to your specific focus group you may attend any of the alternative meetings. These meetings are designed to be interactive. Questions are essential in our efforts to implement a Stormwater Utility. Your comments and opinions are important and will help formulate a proposal recommendation that goes to City Council for final consideration. All concerned citizens, property owners and businesses are invited. Please take time out of your busy schedule to learn about and help shape a Stormwater Utility for Port Angeles. Sincerely, Michael Quinn City Manager N:\GLENN\Stormwater_lnvite_Ltr. Wlxl Revised: April 11,2002 Olympic Memorial Hospital Port Angeles School District Safeway Albertson's K-Ply Daishowa America Olympic National Park US Coast Guard Air Station Port of Port Angeles North Olympic Peninsula Builders' Association Red Lion Hotel (West Coast Hotel) Chamber of Commerce Port Angeles Downtown Business Association Port Angeles Business Association Hartnagel's Angeles Millwork Ruddell Auto Mall Port Angeles Ford Lincoln Mercury Reid & Johnson Motors Murray Motors Used Cars Owner's of Plaza Shopping Center Owner's of Rite Aid/Goodwill Shopping Center Real Estate Agents Association Housing Authority Others as recommended by Staff ? April 2002 City Angeles of Port Implementation of a Stormwater Utility April 2002 Presentation~,~ · Why a Stormwater Utility · Recent Regulations and Requirements · Benefits of a Stormwater Utility · Cost Implications · Creating a City Stormwater Utility April 2002 Why a Stormwater Utility? · Correct Long Standing Stormwater Problems · Correct Inequitable Charges · Compromised Loan/Grant Opportunities · Economic Development · Unfunded Regulatory Mandates Long Standing Problems · Bluff Areas: Landslides · Flooding - Rose/Thistle/Canyon Edge - Porter/Grant - C St Extension - Vicinity of l0th & N Streets - Lincoln Park?Big Boy Pond · Creeks: Landslides and Flooding · Combined Sewer Overflows April 2002 Valley Creek and 7th Street Mill Creek at AhlVers R6ad April 2002 15/16 Alley btwn "A" & "B" Streets Porter Street and Grant Avenue 4 April 2002 North of Grant Avenue & West of Porter Street West ~Fourth Street &Ti,'N'~ Street 5 April 2002 Existing Inadequate Stormwater Program · Financed by - Wastewater Revenues - General Fund - Solid Waste Revenues Compromised Loan/Grant Opportunities · Public Works Trust Funds · Cleanwater Centennial Grants · Salmon Recovery Programs 6 April 2002 Community and Economic Development · No Moratorium on Development · Encourage Development · Attack in an Orderly Fashion · Improve Land Values · Share in Costly Improvements Unfunded Regulatory Mandates · Clean Water Act: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stomiwater Permitting - E.P.A. - permit by March 2003 · Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington - 2001 (Department of Ecology) · Endangered Species Act (ESA) - NMFS, USFWS - effective January 2001 April 2002 Requirements of Recent Stormwater Regulations (Summary) · Expand erosion and sediment control (ESC) program · Establish water qualit3, guidelines/requJxemems fo~ nexv and redevelopment · Provide formal documentation of City actix4ties · Expand facility inspec6on/condifion assessment program · FormaLize training program for City personnel · Implement public education and involvement program Forming a SW Utility Addresses Organization and Funding Needs · Focal point for responsibility in addressing complex storrnwater management issues · A stable and known (quantity) revenue source to fund capital and operational activities · Greater flexibility for equitably assessing charges that are proportional to the impact on environment and/or benefits received · Increase City and public awareness of stormwater related activities and management requirements 8 April 2002 Highlights of Proposed Ordinance · Enterprise Fund · Adopts: - Storm Water Management Plan (1996) - Urban Services Standards & Guidelines (1995) - WA Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington (2001) · $6 - 8 per month - Single & Duplex residential Property - Commercial/multiple Property 1 unit = 4,000 sqfi of impervious service Highlights offs:.'' Proposed Ordnance 7 (continued) · Exemptions - City, State, and Private Streets that meet City standards - Properties with NPDES permits · Rate Reductions - up to 50% - Private storm water retention systems · Billed as a Utility · Discounts for seniors and low income 9 April 2002 Examples of Assessment Charges Total Impervious Location Area Area ES[Is $6/month S.F. S.F. & % Local School 317,708 127,969 40% 31 $186 Multi-Family 52,030 37,803 73% 9 $54 (6th & Laurel) Grocery Store 194,404 184,535 95% 46 $276 (Lincoln Street) Warehouse 66,471 43,932 66% 10 $60 (Valley Street) Duplex Unit 14,000 4,800 34% 1 $6 Single Unit 9,000 2,900 32% 1 $6 10 April 2002 Multi-Family - 6th & Laurel Grocery Store - Lincoln Street 11 April 2002 Warehouse - Valley Street Stormwater Program Expenses Current Additional Total Mmual O&M $250K $350K $600K Capital Program $50K $250K $30...0.I~ Total Annual $300K $600K Program 12 April 2002 Rate Structure Development and Billing Features · Equitable · Practical · Acceptable · Implementable · Revenue sufficiency Potential Revenue from Stormwater 'Flat Rate' Charge · 9,600 Equivalent Service Unit Accounts · $6 - 8 per month per unit · Annual Revenue: $690,000 - $922,000 · Expenses $900,000 13 April 2002 Capital Projects · Catch Basin Improvements (yearly) $50K · Crown Park Overflow $100K · Lincoln St. Storm Drain Rehab $100K · Bluff Stabilization $450K · l0th and N Regional Retention $300K · Lincoln Street Stormwater Drain $500K · Albert St Stormwater $250K · Combined Sewer Overflows $1+M · Lincoln Park Flooding $250K · City Wide End of Street Discharges $1.25M Comparison with Typical Single Family Monthly Charge 8.oo- 6.00 - 14 April 2002 Things to Remember · Correct Long Standing Stotmwater Problems · Compromised Loan/Grant Opportunities · Economic Development · Unfunded Regulatory Mandates What Next? · Public Outreach · Comments on Formation of Stom~water Utility/Proposed Ordinance · UAC Discussions ..................... May 14 · Effective ................. Summer/Fall 2002 15 April 2002 Presentations at City Hall Meeting Date and Time Focus Group Thursday April 25 7 PM Business Property Thursday April 25 3 PM Residential Property Tuesday April 30 3 PM Business Property Tuesday April 30 7 PM Residential Property Points of Contact · Glenn Cutler, Director Public Works & Utilities 417-4800 or pubworks~ci, poct-anfeles, wa. us · Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer 417-4803 or gkenwo~kv~,ci, poct-an~eles, wa. us · ve~,eve, cLport-an~eles, wa. us Cl~ck on "$tormwater" 16 Focus '"'"'"'" Urban Stormwater ECOLOGY What is Urban S1ormwater? Stormwater is the wat~ that runs off s~rfaces such as rooftops, paved streets, highways, and parking lots. It can also come from hard, grassy surfaces including lawns, play fie]ds, as well as graveled roads and parking lots. Why is Urban SWrmwster~a Problem,. in Washington? Urban stormwatcr is a problem because it is often polluted and can harm human bcal~h, dr/nkihg water, and fish habitat. Untreated stormwater contains toxic metals, organic compounds, and bacterial and viral pathogens. It 'is not safe for people to drink, and is not recommended for swimming. In some areas of Washington, gravelly soils allow rapid infiltration ofstormwater. Untreated stormwater dlscharging to the Wound could contaminate aquifers that are used for drinking water. ¥irmally all of our mban creeks," slxeams, and rivers are harmed by urban slormwaler runoff. Stormwater is the leading contr~utor to watex quality pollution of urban waterways. Urban development causes ' significant changes in patterns of stormwater runoff- leading lo increased flooding during the wet season and decreased stream flows during the dry season. Current Programs to Control Pollution from Stormwater In 1987, Congress changed thc federal Clean Water Act by declaring thc discharge of storrowater (traditionally considered a nonpoint source) from certain industries and municipalities to be a point source of pollution requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 0',IPDES)permits or water quality discharge permiis. Washington State is delegated authority by the U.$~ Environmental PrOtectibn Agency (EPA) to implement the water quality permit protp.am. The EPA storr~water regulations establish t~.o phases for the storrnwatcr pern~it Program. Under Phase I, the Deparbnent of Ecology (Ecology) has issued stormwater HPDES General P~rraits to coyer stormwater discharges from certain industries and construction sites involving five or more acres, and municipalities with a population of more than 100,000. There are approximately 1,400 facilities covered under the Industrial General Permit. The number of construction sites under the Cons~uction General Permit var/es seasonally, from about 350 to nearly ?00 sites. The cities of Seatlle and Tacoma, and Clark, King, Pierce, and S~obomish counties are Co~cred under thc Phase I Municipal General Storrnwaie~ Permit. T~e Washington Department of Transportation is also covered within those jurisdiclions, except for Clark County. The municipal s~ormwaler perm/! requires the implementation ufa stormwater management program. The siormwater management program is a plan for the lerm of the permit to reduce the discharge of pollutants, reduce harm tO receiving waters, eliminate inappropriate discharges, and make progress towards compliance with surface water, ground water and sediment standards. Ecology is in the process of reissuing the municipal stormwater permit. February 2002 Ecoloto, i~ on equal opportunity agency. Publication Number 01-10-078 C~. Pn. nted on P, t~ Poper Future Stormwater Requirements EPA signed the final Phase II stormwater regulations in December 1999. The Phase H regulations expand thc requirement for stormwatcr permits to all municipalities located in urbanized areas, and to construction sites between one and five acres. Thc expansion of the construction site permit is likely to affect thousands of sites. Thc rule also requires an evaluation of cities outside of urbanized areas that are more than 10,000 in population to determine ifa permit is necessary for some or all of these cities. Under the new rule up to 90 additional municipalities in Washington may need stormwatcr permits. According to EPA rules, Ecology must issue a general permit for all Phase II municipalities and construction activities by December 2002, and those municipalities and construction sites must have peaxait coverage by March 2003. The Phase II municipal general permit must include provisions for public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff controls, post-cons~uction runoff controls, pollution prevention, and good housekeeping practices. State Stormwater Plan The 1999 Legislature appropriated funds to Ecology to form an advisory committee to update the state stormwater management plan and the Puget Sound stormwatcr teclmical manual. Since there was not a current formal state stormwater management plan, the committee provided input to Ecology 6n the development of such a plan. Ecology partnered with the Department of Transportation to sponsor a study ofstormwatar management. The stormwater study focuses on relationships between existing activities and opportunities for improvement. The study defines the framework of stormwater management in Washington and recommends measures that need to be taken to more completely address stormwater management This report is available online at: www.ec¥.wa.gov/programs,Nvq/stormwater/index.html Stormwater Mana, gement Manual , ~ Ecology has revised its stormwater management manual for Western Washington and is"in the process of completing a stormwater management manual for Cistern Washington. The manual has been updated to contain new information and technical standards and to expand the applicability beyond Puget Sound to all of western Washington. The objective of the manual is to provide a Commonly accepted set of standards and guidance for stormwater control measures. These measures are to be used by local governments, state agencies, and private businesses to control runofffi.om new development and redevelopment activities. It is generally expected that when these management measures are applied to new development and redevelopment activities the stormwater runoff produced will comply with water quality standards. Significant changes in the manual include: changing the thresholds for selection of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to require nearly all projects to use appropriate on-site stormwater management techniques, increased flow control requirements to address both peak flows and duration of high flows, and the requirement for higher levels of treatment for digcharges fi.om some commercial and induslriai sites. For more information, please contact Ed O~rien at (360) 407-6438, or visit Ecology's Stormwater Home Page at: www.ec¥.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/index.html Ecology is an equal opportunity agency. If, you have special accommodation needs, please calI Donna L. vnch at 060) 407-7529 (T'oice) or (360) ~107-6006 (7'DD}. E-mail may be sent to dlvn461(&.ecv, wa. eov Summary of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington The Washington Department of Ecology has recently published a new stormwater manual. The manual is published as a guidance document for municipalities in westem Washington. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan requires local governments in the Puget Sound Basin to adopt the updated manual or an equivalent manual by March 2003. NPDES Phase I municipalities are required to adopt an equivalent manual. USEPA Phase II mles require Ecology to publish a menu of BMPs that is appropriate for local conditions. The manual generally applies to new development and redevelopment of industrial, commercial, residential sites and road projects. It includes Minimum Requirements and Best Management Practices (BMP's). The guidance in the manual become requiremeats for projects through permits issued by local, state, and federal governments. Here are the key concepts and changes in the manual: · Thresholds for the application of BMP's are written to allow for more appropriate sizing and placement of flow control and treatment BMP's. Fewer projects (as compared to previous manual} will require engineered structures, but more projects will be required to apply appropriate BMP's. (See Volume I: Section 2.4; Section 2.5.6; Section 2.5.7) · Redevelopment projects generally have the same requirements for any new impervious surfaces as new development projects for their new impervious surfaces. Replaced impervious surfaces in redevelopment projects are subject to stormwater requirements only ff a 50% cost (sites) or 50% area (roads) thresholds are exceeded. Surfaces outside of project limits are not subject to stormwater requirements. (See Volume I: Section 2.4.2) · New BMPs have been added for controlling erosion from construction sites (Volume Ir) and for preventing stormwater pollution at its sources (Volume IV). · "Onsite" BMPs are specified to reduce hydrologic disruption and inappropriate sizes of treatment & flow control facilities (VoI.V, Chapter 5; and Vol. llrl, Section 3.1). · Higher levels of treatment are required for most discharges to lakes and streams from industrial, commercial, muitifarnily sites and from highways/arterials to reduce the incidence of discharges harmful to fish and other aquatic life (VoI.V, Chapter 3). · Flow control requirements now address matching the duration of peak flows. This requires the use of continuous runoff modeling. It results in retention and detention facilities that are significantly larger than required by the 1992 manual. (volume I, Section 2.5.7; and Volume · An hydrology model that predicts runoff for all areas of western Washington has been developed using Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran CrISPF). Ecology will add features to the model including a pond sizing routine. Phase I Municipal NPDES Permit Communities Mandatory Coverage Maple 'Valley Spokane County {Cenzus Urban Area~)~ Marysville Thurs~on County The Phase H regulations require Medina Whatcom County coverage for communities in Mercer lsJand Yakima County Urban Areas, as de£med in the Mill Creek 2000 Census Milton Potential Designation: Millwood (Communities with greater Algona Mountlake Terrace than lO, O00 population rnu~t Auburn Mukilteo be evaluated for coverage). Beaux Arts Newcastle In addition to those Belie,me Normandy Park communities that require Bcllingham Olympia mandato~J coverage Bonney Lake Pacific Ecology' mast evaluate Botheli Pascoe communities with more than Bremenon Port Orchard 10,000 population and a Brier Puyallup density of 1,000 persons pe~ Burien Redmond square mile or greater. Clyde Hill Renton Note - Some of these Covingion ?,ichland communities could be Des Moines Ruston des/minted as Urban Areas in DuPom Sammamish thug 2000 Census Edgewood SeaTac Edmonds $elak Aberdeen Enumclaw Shoreline Anacortes Everett Spokane Arlingto~ Federal Way $teilacoom Bainbridge Island :~ Fife Sumner camas Fircrest Tukwila Centralia Gig Harbor Tumwater Chehalis Hunt~ Point Uniou Gap Ellensburg Issaquah University Place Enumclaw Kelso Vancouver Monroe Kenmor~ West Richland Moses Lake Kennewick Woodinville Mount Yemon Kent Woodway Oak Harbor Kiridand ~ Yaldma Pon Angeles Lacey : Yarrow Point Pullman Lake Forest Pa~k $unnyside Lakewoud The Urban Area o! the {ollowinQ Walla Walla Longview counties: Wenatchee Lynnwood Benton County C0wlitz County Franklin County Kitsap County ~ These areas ate listed as Urban Areas in the 1990 Census, or are new.cities incorporated within existing Urban A~cas aftat thc 1990 Census. Thc 2000 Census may include additional cities not listed here. 2 Bainbridge Island is over 10,000 population, but does not currently exceed the 1,000 per square mile density threshold. Chapter 13.63 STORM AND SURFACE WATERS Sections: 13.63.010 Utility established. 13.63.015 Jurisdiction. 13.63.020 Plan adopted. 13.63.030 Transfer o f property. 13.63.040 Cost. 13.63.050 Definitions. 13.63.060 Fee imposed. 13.63.065 Automatic annual fee adjustment. 13.63.070 Single-family and duplex residential fees. 13.63.080 Commercial/multiple fees. 13.63.082 Exemptions 13.63.084 Private storm water retention system rate reduction. 13.63.085 Unused 13.633086Application for rate reductions - Appeal. 13.63.090 Unused 13.63.100 Billing and payment. 13.63.110 Remedies - Termination of water service. 13.63.120 Lien for service - Interest. 13.63.130 Inspections - Right of entry - Emergency. 13.64.200 Severability. 13.64.010 Utility established. There is created and established a storm and surface water utility. The utility shall be administered under direction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities. 13.64.015 Jurisdiction. The city shall have jurisdiction over all storm and surface water facilities within the city. No modifications or additions shall be made to the city's storm and surface water facilities without the prior approval of the city. 13.64.020 Plan adopted. The system or plan of the storm and surface water utility shall be (1) the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Economic and Engineering Services Inc. dated June 1996 and adopted by the city council on December 17, 1996, (2) applicable sections of the Urban Services Standards and Guidelines dated October 1995, and (3) the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, dated August 2001. The Urban Services Standards and Guidelines shall be revised to reflect the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for Westerr~shington. 13.63.030 Transfer of property. ~-n,~ All properties, property fights and interests of every kind or nature owned or held by the city, however acquired, insofar as they relate to or concern storm or surface water sewage are transferred to the storm and surface water utility, including by way of examples and not limitation, all properties, fights and interests acquired by adverse possession or by prescription in and to the drainage and storage of storm or surface waters over and under lands, watercourses, streams, ponds and sloughs to the full extent of inundation caused by the largest storm or flood condition. 13.63.040 Cost. Since the city now owns all the facilities, fights and interests set forth in PAMC 13.63.020 and 13.63.030, there is no estimated cost. 13.63.050 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this chapter: A. "Commercial/multiple property" means and includes all property zoned or used for multifamily, commercial or retail uses. B. "Impervious area" means any part of any parcel of land that has been modified by the action of persons to reduce the land's natural ability to absorb and hold rainfall. This includes areas which have been cleared, graded, paved or compacted. Excluded, however, are all lawns, agricultural areas, and landscaped area. C. "Single -Family and duplex property" means and includes all property used for single family and duplex residential uses. 13.63.060 Fee imposed. The owners of all real property in the city which contributes drainage water to and/or which benefits from the city's storm water utility shall pay a monthly fee as set,f~rth in this chapter. 13.63.065 Fee adjustment. The fees described in PAMC 13.63.070, as now existing and as subsequently amended, shall be adjusted by the passage of an ordnance. (Note: It is anticipated that storm water utility rate studies will be performed on not less than a three year cycle.) 13.63.070 Single-family and duplex residential fees. Thc monthly service fee for each single-family and duplex residential dwelling shall be $6.00/$8.00. 13.63.080 Commercial/multiple fees. The monthly fee for all commercial/multiple property shall be calculated by dividing the total impe. rvious in square feet b.y the.4000 square feet, rounded do~o the Whole number, times are. a the s~ngle family and duplex res~dentml fee. ~ 13.63.082 Exemptions. ~ Ciiy Streets, State Highways, private streets with storm and surface facilities in place meeting City standards, City owned properties, and other publicly or private owned properties or portions thereof having their own NPDES permitted storm and surface water runoff facilities which do not discharge to City facilities shall be exempted from charges under this system and structure of rates. 13.63.084 Private storm water retention system rate reduction. For any property other than a single-family residence or duplex residential dwelling, if the property owner (1) has been required by either the city since January 15, 1993, to install a private storm water retention system as a condition of the property's development or (2) has installed voluntarily since January 15, 1993, a private storm water retention system serving the property and meeting city standards at the time of installation, the city may at its sole discretion reduce storm and surface water service monthly fee charged for the property pursuant to PAMC 13..63.080 by up to 25 percent for systems meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of the 1992 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and up to 50 percent for meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The rate reduction authorized by this section shall not be used in conjunction with any other rate reduction authorized by this title ,,~ 13.63.085 Unsued 13.63.086 Application for rate reductions - Appeal. A. In order to qualify for exemptions or rate reductions set forth in PAMC 13.63.082 and 13.63.084, the property owner must file an application with the Director of Public Works and Utilities by November 15th of the year prior to the year in which the rate reduction is to be effective. B. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director of Public Works and Utilities relating to an application for exemption or rate reductions authorized by PAMC 13.63.082 and 13.63.084 may appeal the director's decision to the City Manager within 30 days of the date of the Director's decision. The City Manager's decision may be appealed to the City Council within 30 days of the date of the City Manager's decision. ,~ 13.63.090 Unused 13.63.100 Billing and payment. The city shall bill storm and surface water utility service accounts monthly and shall be billed to property owners in the same manner as water and sewer bills. 13.63.110 Remedies - Termination of water service. The Director of Public Works and Utilities or designee is authorized to terminate water service to any property owner who fails to pay the storm and surface water utility service fees imposed by this chapter in the same manner as delinquent water bills. Termination of such water service shall not limit other remedies available to the city. 13.63.120 Lien for serviee - Interest. Pursuant to RCW 35.67.200 et seq. the city shall have a lien for delinquent and unpaid storm water sewer charges. A sewer lien shall be effective for a total not to exceed one year's delinquent service charges without the necessity of any writing or recording of the lien with the county auditor. Enforcement and foreclosure of any sewer lien shall be in the manner provided by state law. Interest on the unpaid balance shall be eight percent per annum or higher rate as authorized by law. 13.63.130 Inspections - Right of entry - Emergency. The city is authorized to enter at alt reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of operating or maintaining the storm and surface water facilities, or to inspect or investigate any condition relating to the storm and surface water utility; provided, that the city shall first obtain permission to enter from the owner or person responsible for such premises. If entry is refused, the city shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry. Notwithstanding the foregoing, whenever it appears to the city that conditions exist requiring immediate action to protect the public health or safety, the city is authorized to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose ofinspecti~il, investigating or correcting such emergency condition. I3.24.200 Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter. Please send your comments to: Glenn A. Cutler, P.E. Voice: 360-417-4800 Director of Public Works and Utilities FAX: 360-417-4542 City of Port Angeles 321 East Fifth Street P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 E-mail: pubworks~ci.port-angeles.wa.us O~1~ G :~EXCHANG£~PWKS~codedmR2.WlXt