HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 07/12/1999 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
Call to Order:
Members Present:
Orville Campbell, Chairman C/'/~ Bill Myers
Joe Michalczik, Vice Chairman
Larry Doyle t,,-/ Glenn Wiggins (Alternate)
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Date: July 12, 1999
To: Utility Advisory Committee Members
From: Bill Myers, UAC Member
Subject: Landlocked Electrical Facilities
Committee Members:
I apologize for this format to comment on a meeting agenda item considering changes to the
Landlocked Electrical Facilities policy regarding reimbursement to affected consumers for under
grounding. I have an unscheduled appointment change at Virginia Mason that must take priority.
I strongly support the concept of changing out all of the landlocked electrical services to a
totally underground environment in the street fight of way. These areas were established at
a time and under a City Light policy that was much opposed to underground facilities.
· However, there is a City Light policy (a written Policy # S-03B, sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2
dated 1/I/94) that clearly sets forth the method of compensation for relocation of a line
extension under two circumstances: (1) If the consumer requests the change from overhead
to underground all costs are paid by the consunw. (2) If the change is initiated by City Light
the consumer will be reimbursed up to maximum of $1000 for trenching, meterbase
conversion. No reimbursement is allowed for landscaping or costs exceeding $1000
® This policy was hashed out aRer considerable discussion, the majority of which focused on
the shared responsibility of City Light and the consumer, defining those portions, and fixing
a reimbursement price that was fair to the City and the individual consumers. The minutes
of the meeting of May 9~, 1995 summarize these discussions. Committee member Michalczik
expressed concern over all City Light customers paying for what may benefit only a few, The
writer reminded the committee that these plats were set by the City, not the consumer, and
as such the consumer should not be punished by paying for these mistakes.
· These conversions do benefit all City Light customers in the form of reduced maintenance
costs, both short and long term. Landlocked facilities were the product of bad planning and
approvals by the City, not the consumers who had little or no control over the engineering.
· The consumers reimbursement is more than adequate for most residences. The writer
mentioned in a previous meeting that under the existing reimbursement policy, three
residential services were converted earlier this year (feeding residences on Westview Drive
from transformer pads on Hamilton Way) for around $950 for all three,
The existing policy regarding conversion of landlocked facilities, re-affirmed in 1995,
as amended by committee member Miehaiczik's motion and ultimately passed by the
committee and council, is fair and equitable to all City Light customers, and should not
be changed.
William Myers
Committee member
SERvi~E EXTENSIONS FROM ~ ,,,.4
L LOe D FACiLI S
~
1.1 ~¢s~ p~d~s ~ s~t fo~ to cns~ ~at unifo~ criteria ~d practices will b~ applied M ~1
situations MvolvMg IMe extensions ~or new se~ices ~om l~dlocked elec~cal facilities.
2.0 ORGANI~TIONS AFFECTED:
2.1 CiW Light Dep~ent, No~l~d Cable ~d US West Comm~ications.
3.o ~
3.1 All lhe extensions ~d new se~ices ~hg off ~om a l~dlocked pole or pad-mount enclos~e
must be under~ound. Fu~e rel~ation of ~e l~dlocked facilities should also be consid~ed h
· e desi~ of&e l~e extension ~or new se~ice.
4.o ~
4.1 ~ shall me~ ~y pole, or pad-mo~t enclos~e or equipment, which ~ot be
reached by dffe~ access ~m ~pmved sffee~ or alleys.
4.2 ~ sh~l me~ ~y facilities no,ally hst~led ~d owned by CiW Li~t ~ order to
p~vide ele~cal se~ice to a prope~.
4.3 ~ shall me~ hcilRies provided by ~d o~ed by CiW Li~t ~at will not requffe
m~ten~ce for at le~t ten (10) ye~.
4,4 L~c~in~ ~all me~ ~v ~m~d cover_ pl~. fences, rockefies, or o~er a~ificial s~res
(~clndin~ ddveways~, not a s~cmml comoonem of~e residence or commemial s~cm~.
~
5.1 After receiv~g a request for a new se~ice ~e follow~g po~ts will be checked ~ ~e field:
5.1.1 Accessibili~ of newest soume of power.
5.1.2 Condition of ~y l~dlocked poles.or equipment ~at mi~t be p~ of a potential so,ce
of power.
5.2 If newest some of power is not a lmdlocked facili~ then the provisions of ~e L~
EX~NSIONS POLICY ~ill govern.
5.3 If ~e source facilities m l~dlocked ~en ~e follow~g steps will be followed:
5.3.1 If exist~g facilities ~e ~ good condition the l~e extensio~new se~ice will take off of
the exist~g facili~ but ~e relocation of ~e l~dlocked facilities shall be considered
~ the design. Applic~t must a~ee to provide access to the exist~g facilities.
5.3.2 If the exist~g facilities ~e not ~ good condition pl~s should be made to relocate the
exist~g facilities or obtain legal ~d pe~ent access to ~e facilities.
5.3.3 ~y relocation's or conversions to ~der~ound should effect ~e m~um nmber of
exist~g facilities ~ possible.
5.3.4 If ~y facilities ~e placed on private prope~ the provisions of the EASE~NT
POLICY will be followed.
Policy No. S - 03 B
Effective I/I/94
Supersedes 1/1/93
Approvat Rjr
Page2 of 2
5.4 Allocations of costs should be made on thc following basis:
5.4.1 Property owner/contractor shall receive the same credit against the cost of the line
extension/new service as provided for under the LINE EXTENSIONS POLICY.
5.4.2 The cost of underground services shall be borne entirely by the property
owner/contractor.
5.5 If facilities are relocated or placed underground then any existing consumers shall be given the
following options:
5.5.1 If the facilities are placed underground at the consumers request City Light will install all
primary voltage equipment at no cost to the consumer. Consumer will pay for the cost of
trenching, meter base conversion and restoration involved in undergrounding services.
Service cable to be provided by City Light (ownership and maintenance responsibility to
be consumers).
5.5.2 If City Light initiates the under~ounding, Ci~ Light will install all primary voltage
eauipment at no cost to the conqumer. Ci~ Light will ?ay u.n to $1000 towards the cost
of trenching and meter base conversion involved in underm'oundinn the consumers
service. The consumer will pay any costs exceedin.n $1000 for trenching and meter base
conversion, and the full cost of restoration of any landscaping. Ownership and
lltaintanance responsibility for service wire and meter base shall remain with the
consumer.
5.5.3~ If under 5.5.1 or 5.5.2 the consumer is unable to pay his share of the cost, the City will
allow the consumer to pay the cost =f .+r.:n:~['~g =.:.a_. r::+.zmt~,n over a period of two
years. Payments shall be in the form of higher utility hills which evenly spread the
consumers share of the costs, plus interest, over the two year period.
5.5.=4~ If overhead lines are relocated overhead then City Light will relocate existing overhead
or underground services at no cost to the consumer.
5.5.~4 If overhead lines are relocated overhead and the consumer wishes to convert from
overhead to underground services then the consumer must pay all costs in excess of what
it would cost City Light to relocate overhead services.
5.5._~$ In all cases City Light will provide existing consumers with a minimum of 60 days
advance notice of proposed construction and the options available to the consumer.
6.0 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN APPENDIX:
Exhibit D - Landlocked Facilities Example Sheet.
SCHEDULE OF RATES
1999
Staff Range of Hourly Rates
Principal $135
Project Manager $80 to $130
~nglneer W/Senior Engineer $75 to $~25
Engineer llI/SlaffProf~slonal Eagineor $60 to $95
Engineer II/StaffEngineex $55 to $85
Engineer IJJunior Engineer $50 to $75
F, ngineeriag Teelmiainn $40 to $70
Scientist (Envkonmental, Biologist, Hydrogeologist, Toxicologist) Sen/or/IV $80 to $130
Scientist (Environmental, Biologist, Hydrogeologist, Toxicologist) iii $60 to $95
Scientist (Envirommental, Biologist, Hych'ogeologist, Toxicologist) II $55 to $85
Scientist (Environmental, Biologist, Hyckogeologist, Toxicologim) I$50 to $80
Enviromneatal Technician $40 to $75
Architect/Landscape Architect III $60 to $95
Architoet/Landscape Arclxiteet II $50 to $80
Amlattect/Landscape Architect I/Intern $40 to $70
Professional Land Surveyor $75 to $100
Senior Surveyor $60 to $90
2 Pexsoa Survey Crew $ I 10 to $135
CADD Operator $40 to $75
Lab Technician $25 to $45
Word Processing $35 to $55
Clerical $25 to $40
Note: This schedule is intended to provide information on the range of hourly rates for anticipated staff
specialties that may be required, Actual rates charged depend on individuals assigned to project.
Hourly rotes for staff ~ecialties required that are not included in this schedule will be based
upon the individuals assigned to the project. Rates quoted above includ~ direct and indirect
employee expenses ~nd corporate overhead and profit.
UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM
PORT ANGELES, WA 9S3~32
dULY I ;~, I ggg
3:00 P.M.
AG E N DA
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
I[I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF dUNE 7, 1999, REGULAR MEETINg.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. PRESENTATION ON VISION fOR RAYONIER SITE
B. TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE
C. LANDFILL COVER FOR CELLS J AND 2
D. APPROACH TO ~ANDLOCKED ELECTRICAL FACILITIES
V. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS
A. ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SERVICE RellABlliT~
B. EDIZ HOOK UNDERGROUND CONVERSION
C. Fiber OPtiC STUDY UPDATE
VI. LATE ITEMS
Vii. NEXT MEETING - AUGUST 9, 199~
VIII. ADUOURNMeNt
UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Port Angeles, Washington
June 7, 1999
L CalltoOrder: Draft
Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
IL Roll Call:
Members Present: Councilmen Campbell, Doyle and Williams, Bill Myers, and Joe
Michalczik.
Members Absent: None.
StaffPresent: J. Pittis, Y. Ziomkowski, B. Titus, S. McLain, T. Smith, D.
McGinley, R. Ellsworth, D. Miller, S. Evans, K. Ridout, and C.
Hagar.
Others Present: Steve Sanderson, Karen Rogers.
III. Approval of Minutes:
Councilman Doyle moved to approve the minutes of the June 7, 1999, meeting. Councilman
Williams seconded the motion. Ken Ridout's name was inadvertently omitted from staffpresent
at the meeting, which will be corrected. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
unanimously.
As a courtesy to Mr. Sanderson who was present to make the TOPS Presentation, that item was
placed at the top of the agenda.
IV. Discussion Items:
D. TOPS PRESENTATION
Mr. Sanderson reviewed the information contained in the packet regarding the possible construction
of a Thermal Oxidation Process System (TOPS) for on-site testing at the Port Angeles Landfill. He
assured the Committee that the System could be removed, if desired, when testing was completed.
Mr. Sanderson briefly reviewed the process and showed a short video which demonstrated the TOPS
theory. Following the video, Mr. Sanderson stressed that a test site is being sought, and the landfill
would be the most likely spot to locate the system. He responded to questions and provided
additional information and clarification regarding the TOPS unit.
A minimum of one quarter acre is necessary for the test site, and Mr. Sanderson felt there were
several suitable areas at the landfill. Councilman Campbell suggested staffreview the requirements
and compile a list of possible test sites at the landfill.
Councilman Williams expressed concern over liability issues regarding air pollution, etc., as a result
of testing Mr. Sanderson stated that, prior to testing, permits must be issued by the Olympic Air
Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA), Department of Ecology (DOE), and County Health
Department. Therefore, OAPCA would be the pollution regulatory agency, and any complaints
Utility Advisory Committee
June 7, 1999
would be forwarded to them and the City is held harmless.
Following further discussion, Councilman Doyle moved to recommend the City Council
authorize and support the siting of a TOPS test facility for Lincoln Environmental Solutions,
Inc., at the Port Angeles landfill, provided all necessary permits can be obtained to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney's office and the Public Works and Utilities Department. Bill
Myers seconded the motion. Following further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion,
which carried unanimously.
A. Telecommunication Ordinance
Interim Manager Pittis explained that Attorney Knutson had been detained at another meeting and
could not be present for this discussion. Therefore, this item will be treated as information only and
brought back to the July meeting. He reviewed the information contained in the packet. Interim
Manager Pittis referred to the brochure on the Local Telecommunications Infrastructures Options
seminar which will be held in August of this year. Attorney Knutson will be attending this
conference, and Interim Manager Pittis suggested that Chairman Campbell and one other member of
the UAC also attend. Both Councilman Campbell and Councilman Doyle expressed interest.
Councilman Campbell reminded the Committee that one of the City's goals under Quality of Life was
establishment of a Telecommunications Ordinance. However, he felt that telecommunications
facilities also served the needs of the City, businesses, hospitals, schools, etc. Therefore, he felt that
staffshould look into what the City is attempting to accomplish by establishing this ordinance, such
as encouraging the development of facilities and services which would benefit the community,
promoting economic development, and generating revenue. Councilman Campbell stated that, in
reviewing this Ordinance, all these things should be considered.
Interim Manager Pittis pointed out that the seven points contained in Attorney Knutson's memo
describe the basic provisions of the Ordinance. He explained that this Ordinance basically regulates
the use of the public rights-of-way, which is a charge of the City Council.
Discussion ensued, and staffresponded to questions and provided clarification. No action was taken;
this item will be brought back to the July meeting.
B. $CADA Quotes
Deputy Director Titus reviewed the information contained in the packet and provided a hrief history
of this issue. S & B Inc. has provided services at the wastewater treatment plant, and staffhas been
satisfied with the work performed. Deputy Director Titus responded to questions and provided
clarification. At Councilman Doyle's request, he explained the functions of the SCADA system and
how it would be of benefit to the City.
Deputy Director Titus explained that the existing control system for the water utility is antiquated,
and repairs are difficult as parts are no longer readily available. Staff felt it was in the best interest
of the City to standardize the manufacturer and product line, and SCADA has been used in other
areas of the City. Hopefully, all systems will be transferred to SCADA within the next five years.
If approved by the Council, the system can be up and running in about three months.
Following further discussion, Joe Michalczik moved to recommend the City Council authorize
the Mayor to enter into an agreement with S & B, Inc. for a water SCADA system at a cost not
to exceed $100,000. Councilman Doyle seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Utility Advisory Committee
June 7, 1999
C. Weatherization Loan Report
Interim Manager Pittis reminded the Committee that staff had been asked for an update on the
Weatherization Loan Programs. He then deferred to Scott McLain, Power Manager, and Finance
Director Ziomkowski.
Scott McLain explained that Zero-Interest Loans were available fi:om 1980 to 1983. The money was
provided by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and loan payments are returned to them.
Five of these loans remain to be paid.
Money for the Weatherization Loans came fi.om the City Light reserves. The loans are administered
by the Finance Department, along with the Conservation Loans, which are funded with flex-fund
monies. In 1998, a loan program was begun which is administered by First Federal Savings and Ldan
and backed by the City.
Director Ziomkowski reviewed the Weatherization and Conservation Loans. The last Weatherization
Loan will be paid off in the year 2000. This was a successful program, as almost 1,200 loans were
given. A successful audit was recently conducted on both Weatherization and Conservation Loans.
Director Ziomkowski reminded the Committee that flex fund money can be reused when repaid for
future Conservation Loans. Interim Manager Pittis stated that under deregulation the BPA could
possibly ask the City to pay 3% of electric revenues for future conservation programs.
Discussion ensued and staff responded to questions and provided clarification. Councilman Williams
encouraged the City to include a "due on sale" clause to future loans. Mr. McLain will look into this.
No action was necessary.
E. Water Strategy
Intenm Manager Pittis reminded the Committee that the Draf~ Water Supply Strategy Report fi:om
CH2M Hill had been discussed at the last meeting. He asked if the Committee had any further
thoughts, comments, or changes to make regarding the report. Discussion followed regarding the
industrial pipeline.
No changes to the report were requested. A final draf~ of the Report will be brought back to a future
meeting.
F. Discussion of Fiber Presentation
Deputy Director Titus reviewed the information contained in the packet. He noted that the May 26,
1999, presentation by R. W. Beck had run over time; therefore, a review of the action plan had not
takea place. He noted that other utilities and municipalities have pursued, to some degree, either fiber
optics or telecommunications options. Based on feedback received following the meeting with R.
W. Beck, staff felt it was time to move toward having a feasibility study completed to determine the
desirability of the City going into the telecommunications business. Staff is seeking direction from
the UAC and the City Council in this regard.
Joe Michalczik noted that the PUD has been speaking to potential customers and asked Deputy
Director Titus for comment. Deputy Director Titus stated the PUD Commissioners had authorized
proceeding with investigating telecommunications. PUD staff had spoken to the hospital, park
service, school district and some of the larger potential users in the community to see if there was any
interest in this service or tying into infrastructure once it was in place and what they would be willing
Utility Advisory Committee
June 7, 1999
to pay for the service. The PUD will then tailor its approach to telecommunications based on
information received.
Discussion ensued, and Deputy Director Titus provided additional clarification. Tim Smith,
Economic Development Director, felt that business growth in Port Angeles and across the peninsula
needed this technology and infrastructure. The City can wait and assume the PUD or U. S. West will
provide the service, or the City can do its part to provide a backbone within its distribution area. The
City should work with the PUD and U.S. West in order to help provide the necessary infrastructure.
Mr. Smith felt this was an opportunity that can't miss, and City Light has the capabilities of studying
the issue and helping to get it implemented. Joe Michalczik asked what an RFP might include, and
Deputy Director Titus responded.
Following further discussion and explanation, Councilman Williams moved to recommend to the
City Council that they go on record as supporting the concept of the City entering into the
telecommunications field and authorizing staff to devote the resources necessary to follow the
action plan as attached to the memo, up to and including issuing an RFP for a feasibility study.
Bill Myers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
VII. Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be July 12, 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
VIII. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Orville Campbell, Chairman Carol A. Hagar, Deputy City Clerk
4
Angeles, Elwha Tribe, Rayonier, Inc.,
Washington, the federal government, and especially
solution to the Port ~°~ngeles Urban Area's regional
the removal of the Elwha Dams l'u~s been combined
with an et salmon habitat and water
to theirs streams due to the cooperative efforts of business, environmental
June 1, 1999
TO: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
City Attorney's
Office RE: Drat~ Telecommunications Ordinance
Attached is a draft telecommunications ordinance. The basic purpose of the ordinance
is to deal with issues raised when Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of
Memorandum 1996.
This federal law was intended to develop competition in the telecommunications market-
place by allowing local telephone exchange carders to provide long distance telephone
Craig D. Knutson service, as well as cable television, audio services, video programming services,
city Attorney interactive telecommunications, and Internet access. Similarly, long distance providers,
Denms C. Dickson cable operators, and utilities were permitted to offer local exchange telephone service.
Sr. Assistant City Attorney This very complex legislation was based on expectations that increasing compe{ition in
the market would protect consumers fi.om monopoly abuses and improve the quality and
Candace Kreider quantity of services. Congress expressly preserved the rights of local governments to
Legal Assistant manage their public rights-of-way and receive fair and reasonable compensation from
Chrystina Bruneau telecommunications providers so long as they do so on a competitively neutral and non-
Administrative Assistant discriminatory basis.
Jeame DeFrang As a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, many cities experienced an increase in
Admimstrative Assistant the number of requests to use public rights-of-way. To deal with this increase, cities are
adopting telecommunications ordinances. Issues being addressed include guidelines to
treat all telecommunications providers similarly and compensation for and management
of City rights-of-way.
The City of Port Angeles has not yet been faced with requests from the tele-
communications industry to locate facilities in City rights-of-way. Recently, however,
U.S. West has announced plans to bring fiber optic cable to the Olympic Peninsula.
Also, it is always possible that other companies may decide to take advantage of the
1996 Act's encouragement of competition by locating new telecommunications facilities
in Port Angeles.
Accordingly, the attached telecommunications ordinance has been drafted to include the
following basic provisions:
1. Registration. Telecommunications providers would be required to register
with the City, pay applicable fees, and provide information regarding facilities and
services.
June 1, 1999
Page 2
2. Franchise. Telecommunications providers would be required to enter into franchise
agreements with the City. Franchise agreements would include the following types of provisions:
a. Required information;
b. Termination or abandonment;
c. Hold harmless and insurance;
d. Permission to use City fights-of-way;
e. Rates charged to customers.
3. Fees. Telecommunications providers would be required to pay the following fees:
a. Registration fee: $500;
b. Application processing & construction deposit fees as necessary to cover the
City's costs;
c. Franchise fee (to be negotiated by the City in an amount to compensate the
City for costs as well as the fair market value of the use of City fights-of-
way);
d. Pole rental fee.
4. Permit Issuance. Telecommunications providers would be required to obtain construction
permits addressing such issues as location of facilities, construction methods, restoration
requirements, and related issues.
5. Permit Standards.. Telecommunications providers would be required to comply with
applicable City ordinances dealing with fight-of-way construction and to comply with the policy of
encouraging shared occupancy of underground excavations and installing additional conduits for
future applicants.
6. Location of Facilities Telecommunications providers would be required to locate their
facilities so that they are consistent with the following terms and conditions:
a. Minimum interference with public safety;
b. Minimum interference with convenience of property owners;
c. Maximum utilization of underground facilities;
d. Minimal disruption of the fights-of-way;
e. Erection, removal, and common use of poles;
f Temporary movement of wires.
7. Relocation or Removal of Facilities. Telecommunications providers would be required
to move their facilities at the provider's own expense when reasonably determined by the City to be
necessary for the public health, safety, or welfare (such as a City construction project in the fight-of-
way).
Also attached is an announcement for the Second Annual Local Telecommunications Infrastructure
Options Seminar to be held in S~ttle on August 19th and 20th. This program is intended to provide
June 1, 1999
Page 3
an update on key issues facing local decision-makers during the transition to competitive local
telecommunications markets. I plan to attend. Jack and I thought that UAC members may also be
interested.
The seminar could provide information that would result in changes to the proposed tele-
communications ordinance. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to hold offbringing the ordinance
to the City Council until after the seminar.
Craig I~ Knutsoni'l~ity Attorney
CDK:cb
Attachments
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, regulating
telecommunications facilities within City rights-of-way, establishing fees
for such Facilities, amending Ordinances 2932 and 2166 as amended, and
amending Chapters 3.72 and 11.08 and adopting Chapter 11.14 of the
Port Angeles Municipal Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. A new Chapter 11.14 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code is hereby adopted
to read as follows:
CHAPTER 11.14
TELECOlVlMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Sections:
11.14.010 o Purpose
11.14.020 - Definitions
11.14.030 - Registration
11.14.040 - Franchise
11.14.050 - Fees
11.14.060 - Permit Issuance
11.14.070 - Permit Standards
11.14.080 - Location of Facilities
11.14.090 - Relocation or Removal of Facilities
11.14.100 - Assignments or Transfers of Franchises and Permits
11.14.110 - Revocation or Termination of Franchises and Permits
11.14.120 - Enforcement
11.14.010 - Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish reasonable, non-
discriminatory regulations for the use of telecommunications facilities within City rights-of-way, to
insure reasonable access to City rights-of-way for telecommunications owners, operators, and
providers on a competitively neutral basis while prote~ting the public health, safety and welfare, to
microwave, radio, satellite or similar facilities, with or without benefit of any closed transmission
medium, including, as examples only, telephone service, cellular phone service, cable service, and
open video systems.
F. "Work" means all construction, alteration, enlargement, improvement, repair,
and/or demolition of a facility, which has not been previously authorized by franchise, lease, or
permit.
11.14.030 - R~. All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications
semites originating, terminating, or existing within the City or having facilities within the City shall
register with the City pursuant to this Chapter and pay all applicable fees. In addition, such entity
shall provide the following information on forms provided by the City:
A. A description of the registrant's existing and proposed telecommunications
facilities within the City;
B. A description of the telecommunications service that the registrar~ intends to offer
or provide; and
C. Any other information deemed by the City to be relevant to determine whether
the registrant: (1) is subject to right-of-way permitting or franchising under this Chapter or Chapter
11.08 PA/VIC; (2) is required to pay any other applicable fee or tax; and/or (3) has duly obtained and
maintains in force any applicable permit or other authorization from either the State of Washington
or the Federal Communications Commission.
11.14,040 - Franchise. '
A. All owners, operators, and providers of cable service and open video systems who
intend to construct, install, operate, maintain, and/or locate facilities in City right-of-way shall enter
-3-
hereunder shall contain substantially similar terms and shall not contain more or less favorable terms
and conditions than exist in other such franchises, taldng into consideration relative characteristics
of each applicant.
E. No grant of franchise hereunder shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, or
license to occupy any City fights-of-way, nor convey any right, rifle, or interest in such rights-of-way.
Franchisees shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations and shall obtain all necessasy
construction and other permits.
F. A frenchisee shall make its telecommunication services available to the City at its
most favorable rate for similarly situated users; provided, however, the City may negotiate more
favorable rates, free service, or fight to use or access franchise facilities in lieu of other obligations
of the franchisee.
G. Existing franchises or agreements with owners, operators, and providers of
telecommunications service shall not be abrogated by this Chapter and shall continue in effect until
terminated or amended pursuant to their own terms.
H. In the event of franchise termination or abandonment of the franchisee's facilities
in whole or in part, the City shall have the authority to require the franchisee to remove its facilities
from City rights-of-way or shall have the first option, directly or as an intermediary, to acquire the
facilities.
I. The franchisee shall agree to save and hold the City harmless from, and defend
the City against, any claims for personal injury or property damage arising out of or in any way
connected with the franchisee's occupancy of City rights-of-way, and shall maintain a comprehensive
Fh~bility insurance policy, and provide to the City satisfactory proof thereof, in an amount and form
detelrnined reasonably necessary by the City, but in no event providing coverage less than $1,000,000
and B, a franchise fee in the amount set forth in the franchise agreement approved by the City, which
amount shall be determined by negotiation between the City and the prospective franchisee and shali
ensure compensation to the City for all costs and expenses associated with processing a franchise
application and monitoring compliance with franchise provisions all costs of current and ongoing
maintenance, repair, or restoration of right-of-way related to the impact of the installation
maintenance and use of City assets other than utility poles provided for in E. below, and the fair
market value of the use of City rights-of way.
E. All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications services whose
facilities are to be placed on City utility poles shall pay a pole rental fee in the amount established
pursuant to a pole rental agreement with the City.
11.14.060 - Permit Issuance.
A. Other than as exempted by applicable law, no person shall construct or install any
facilities within City rights-of-way without first obtaining a construction permit therefor. The
applicant shall provide the following:
1. The location and route of all facilities to be installed on existing utility
poles.
2. The location and route of all facilities to be located under the surface of
the ground, including the line and grade proposed for the burial at all points along the route which
are within the public ways.
3. The location of all existing underground utilities, conduits, ducts, pipes,
mains, and installations which are within the public ways along the underground route proposed by
the applicant.
4. The location of all facilities within the Cit}' which are not located within
-7-
provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 11.05 PAMC, except as specifically negotiated otherwise for
good c~use demonstrated to the City's satisfaction.
B. In addition to the requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 11.08 PAMC, all
persons subject to this Chapter shall comply with the following requirements:
1. At all limes comply with all applicable statutes, laws, ordinances, policies,
and regulations;
2. Upon request, timely provide written information sufficient for customary
land survey purposes concerning the location of facilities;
3. Upon request, timely provide accurate as-built maps and plans certifying
the location of facilities;
4. Upon request, timely make available books, records, maps, and other
documents maintained with respect to facilities for inspection at reasonable times and places; and
5. Pay all applicable fees required under this Chapter and Chapter 11.08
PAMC.
C. In furtherance of the public purpose of reduction of right-of-way excavation, it
is the City's policy to encourage both the shared occupancy of underground excavations as well as
the installation, whenever possible, of additional conduits for occupancy of future franchise or permit
applicants. Therefore, the City may require the franchisee or permittee to install additional conduit(s)
in the right-of-way, provided the expense of such conduit(s) shall be borne by the City (calculated as
the difference between what the applicant would have paid for the installation of its conduit(s) and
the additional cost of the additional conduit(s)) or such expense may be recouped by the franchisee
or permittee by charging a reasonable market rate for occupancy of the additional conduit(s). If the
City owns or leases conduit(s) or excess conduit capacity, which is technologically feasible for an
-9-
concurrentlywith other users of the right-of-way in order to minimize disruption. Facilities shall be
installed within an existing underground duct or conduit whenever capacity permits. Whenever new
facilities will exhaust the capacity of a public right-of-way or utility easement to accommodate future
facilities, a person subject to this Chapter shall provide additional ducts, conduits, manholes, and
other facilities for nondiscriminatory access by future owners, operators, and providers of
telecommunications services in accordance with policies to this effect promulgated by the Public
Works and Utilities Department.
E. Erection, removal, and common use of poles:
I. No poles or other wire-holding structures shall be erected within the
public right-of-way without prior approval of the City with regard to the location, height, type, and
any other pertinent aspect of such structures. However, no location of any privately-installed pole
or wire-holding structure shall be a vested interest, and such poles or structures shall be removed or
modified without expense to the City whenever the City determines that the public convenience
would be enhanced thereby.
2. In the event that the City or a person subject to this Chapter desires to
make use of the poles or other wire-holding structures of one or more other persons subject to this
Chapter but agreement among such parties cannot be reached, the City may require the person whose
structures are sought to be used to permit use by another for such consideration and upon such terms
as the City shall determine to be just and reasonable, iftbe City determines the use would enhance
the public convenience and would not unduly interfere with the operations of the person whose
structures are sought to be used.
F. A person subject to this Chapter shall, on the request of any person holding a
building moving permit issued by the City, temporarily raise or lower its wires to permit the moving
-11-
initial issuance unless approved by the City.
2. Absent exiraordinaty and unforeseeable circumstances, no assignment or
transfer shall occur before construction of the facilities has been completed.
3. Prior to assignment or transfer, the foltowing information shall be
provided to the City not less than 120 days before the proposed date of transfer:
a. Complete information setting forth the nature, terms, and
conditions of the proposed assignment or transfer;
b. All information otherwise reasonably required by the City of a
franchise or permit applicant, respectively, under this Chapter with respect to the proposed assignee
or transferee;
c. Any other information reasonably required by the City; and
d. An application fee in the amount set forth in Chapter 3.72 PAMC,
plus any other costs actually and reasonably incurred by the City in processing and investigating the
proposed assignment or transfer.
4. Assignment or transfer shall not occur or be approved unless the assignee
or transferee has at least the legal, technical, financial, and other requisite qualifications to can'y on
the activities of the franchise or permit granted hereunder.
C. Any assignment or transfer of a franchise or permit without the prior written
consent oftbe City as set forth herein, unless such consent is waived by the City, shall be void and
shall result in revocation of the existing franchise or permit.
D. Any assignments or transfers which singularly or collectively result.in a change
of fifty percent (50%) or more of the ownership or working control of the franchisee or permittee or
of the ownership or control of affiliated entities having ownership or working control of the
franchisee or permittee, or of control of the capacity of the facihties or substantial parts thereof of
the franchisee or permittee, shall be considered an assignment or transfer requiting City approval
- 13-
expeditiously pursued, that the alleged violation or noncompliance is rebuttable, or that it would be
in the public interest to impose some penalty or sanction less than revocation.
C. In the event that a person who holds a franchise or permit fails to provide
reasonably satisfactory evidence to the City, the City may revoke or terminate the franchise or
Final action on franchise terminations shall be by the City Council, and final actions on permit
revocations shall be by the City Manager or designee.
D. In determining whether a person subject to this Chapter has violated or failed to
comply with material provisions of this Chapter or of a franchise or permit, the appropriate City
authority shall determine the appropriate action to take considering the nature, circumstances, extent,
and gravity of the violation as reflected by one or more of the following factors:
1. Whether the misconduct was egregious;
2. Whether substantial harm resulted;
3. Whether the violation was intentional;
4. Whether there is a history of prior violations of the same or other
requirements;
5. Whether there is a history of overall compliance; and,
6. Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted, or cured.
11.14.120 - Enforcement.
A. Any person found violating, disobeying, omitting, neglecting, or refusing to
comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction,
any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or by
imprisonment of up to ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A separate and
distinct violation shall be deemed committed each day on which a violation occurs or continues.
-15-
6. Exhibitions sponsored by or promoted by civic, charitable
or other non-profit organization 5.00
7. Sidewalk cafes 50.00
8. Ali other exhibitions 50.00
9. Activities not specifically mentioned 50.00
10. Ramps, steps, or any similar installation 100.00
11. Fences 100.00
12. Retaining Walls 150.00
13. Rockeries 150.00
14. The application fee for a temporary street use permit shall be fifl3t ($50)
dollars.
15. The application fee for a permit for obstruction of unopened streets shall be
one hundred fifty ($150) dollars per year.
C. Move Permit Fees. The fee schedule for building move permits shall be as
follows:
1. Relocate a building on the same lot or parcel
(without use of public fight-of-way) $ 25.00
2. Move building from inside City limits to outside City limits $50.00
3. Move building from one City lot to another City lot
(use City right-of-way) $100.00
4. Move building from outside City limits to inside City limits $200.00
5. Inspection fee $30.00/hr.
D. Plan Review and Permit Fees for Grading, Filling, Cleating and Drainage
Activities:
1. ~ and Filling. The permit fee for grading and filling activities shall be as
follows:
-17-
4. Fees for review of drawings, specifications and compliance schedules for
pretreatment facilities; at cost
5. Fees for issuance of industrial wastewater acceptance forms: $75.00
6. Other charges as the City may deem necessary to carry out the requirements
of Chapter 13.06 PANIC: at cost.
G. Water Service Connection Fees
I. The new residential water se~ice connection fee, including the meter, shall
be:
Service Size Meter Service Connection Fee
1" 5/8" $ 550.00
1" 3/4" $ 575.00
1" 1" $ 600.00.
2. The new commercial/industrial water service connection fee, including the
meter, shall be:
Service Size Meter Service Connection Fee
1" 1" $1,000,00
1-1/2" 1-1/2" $1,500.00
2" 2" $2,000.00.
3. The fee for special or emergency tum-ons or mm-offs shall be filly dollars
during regular working hours and one hundred dollars outside of regular working
hours.
4. The water quality test fee required under PA/VIC 13.36.080 shall be $50 plus
the cost of the laboratory tests.
H. The fee for a permit for sewer connection shall be as follows:
1. Single-family houses: $80.00
2. Multiple-family dwellings, including duplexes, apartment buildings, trailer and
auto courts, motels, and similar structures: $80.00 for the first dwelling unit and $6.00 for each
additional dwelling unit.
3. All other stmcturas, including, but not limited to, hotels, apartment hotels,
office buildings, stores, churches, schools, hospitals, buildings accessory thereto, and
industrial/commercial structures of any kind and additions thereto: One-half cent per gross square
- 19-
L. In addition to the sewer or storm drain fees required under this Section, any person
receiving a permit bom the City for a sewer or storm drain connection shall pay to the City of Port
Angeles the actual cost incurred by the City in the restoration of any street, alley, curb, sidewalk,
utility or other structure of the City of Port Angeles, which is in any way altered or damaged as a
result of construction pursuant to a sewer or storm drain connection permit.
M. Septic Hauler Fees.
1. Annual Fee--Septic Hauler. The annual fee shall be $50.
2. Volume Fee. The monthly charge si~all be as follows:
a. Fresh waste shall be charged at a rate of $0.02 per gallon of waste.
b. Other septic discharge shall be charged at a rate of $0.09 per gallon
of waste.
N. Whenever an application for a developer reimbursement agreement is submitted, it
shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee of three hundred dollars ($300) plus five dollars ($5)
for every parcel to be encumbered by the agreement in order to cover the City's expenses in
processing the application. (Ord. 2932 §9, 10/11/96)
O_~. Telecommunications Fees:
1_. Registration Fee $500.00
2_~ Assi_e~ment or Transfer Fee $250.00
Section 3. Ordinance 2166 as amended and Chapter 11.08 of the Port Angeles Municipal
Code are hereby amended by amending PAMC 11.08.010, .060, and. 110 to read as follows:
11.08.010 Definitions. The following definitions apply to the provisions of this Chapter,
unless the context shall indicate otherwise:
A. "Applicant" means any person making application for a permit for construction or
-21 -
Section 4 - ~. If any provisions of this Ordinance, or its application to any person
or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application of the provisions of
the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.
Section 5 - Effe~ive Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days afJe~ the date of
publication.
PASSF. I-} by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the __ day of ,1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
By Summary
4.19
- 24 -
RULK RATE
LAW SEMINARS INTERNATIONAL U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
810 Third Ave. · Ste. 140-1 · Seattle, WA 98104 PESMIT # 169
Phone: (206) 621-1938 or (800) 854-8009 SEATTLE, WA
Fax: (206) 567-5058 · Email: registrar~lawseminars.com
Local Telecommunications
Infrastructure Options
August 19 and 20, 1999
The Meeting Place at Pike Place Market
Seattle, Washington
YESl Please register the following:
Name:
Name:
Firm: ewwwww~wwwwwwW ECRLOT -e~ C-005
Address: CRRZG KNUTSQN pUD~ w
C'rT¥ RTTORNE:Y
BOX 1150
Phone: Fax: 321 £ 5TH ST
Emaih PORT RNGELE$ ~/Pl g5362-3205
If you cannot attend, check boxes to order:
[] Homestudy Course [] Course Materials only
Fill in Visa/MasterCard/American Express information
below or send check:
No. Exp.:
Signature:
LAW SEMINARS INTERNATIONAL
Second Annual ~For...
Attorneys,
. m~sentati~
Telecommunications
Infrastructure Options
Currant Issues in the Transition to Competitive Markets
August 19 and 20, 1999
The Meeting Place at Pike Place Market
Seattle, 'Washj.ngton
Carol S. Arnold, Prporam Co-Chair. is a partner in the Litigation Department at Prestcn
~_.__..~ ' Gates & Ellis. She has represented public entities on utility issues for over 15 years.
~.Aw s~mA~s INT~[~AT~O,^L Judith E. Endejan, Prooram Co-Chair. ioined Williams Kastner & Gibbs in August 1997
after nine years as counsel for GTE Corporation. She chairs the firm's telecommunicatioris
practice group·
Ronald Sims, [~, brought a record that includes high-tech innovation to his
........ position as King County Executive. In April 1996, President Clinton recognized his eco-
nomic development expertise by appointing him to the Commission on US-Pacific Trade
About Lo.cal.~ ........ and Investment Policy.
Telecom uniC; ti 3ns Felix H.Anderson, the Director of Information Technology Services for the City of Bellingham,
Infrastructure is responsible for the City's computing, data, voice, and video networks.
Ross C. Baker is Senior ExternalAffairs Manager/Land Use Policy Counsel for AT&T Wire-
less Services in Washington.
?13~$ program Charles L. Best, now in private practice, is a former Chief Counsel for U.S. WEST Commu-
~.h,l~j/~s,~.~.~.~/~ nications in Oregon. His practice emphasizes regulated industries, including telecommuni-
fac/ng'/0c~/~ d~ . _cations, and professional discipline.
makers d~i~g~t~.e ~!! Stephen P.'~ ~owen, who manages Blumenfeld & Cohen's San Francisco office, has repre-
transition to competl- ~entP~J't,~e diverse members of the California Telecommunications Coalition. He also works
tire local tetecOm~l" with other industries contemplating entry into telecommunications such as major corporate
nicatior,~ .~'A,rk~ fl users and electric and gas utilities·
feat~dras a~clal Robert Geppert is the National Director of Telecommunications for KPMG Peat Marwick's
a~lress byKtng State & Local Tax Practice. He works in the firm's Seattle office.
RO~ E~n$;on the role Steven J. Klein has been Tacoma Power Superintendent since June 1993. During his ten-
o~telel3OmmUnic~, ure, Tacoma became one of the first cities to construct a publicly-owned hybrid filter-coax
t/or/~nfr~,~//~ucture system for the purpose of offering broadband telecommunications and cable TV services to
'~f0F~e~x)nom~c everyone in the service area.
development. Gregory J. Kopta is a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine where he represents telecommuni-
-'.~'~ "~ cations and cable television clients before various state and municipal agencies.
';!- ~ Matt Lampe is the Director of Strategic Planning for Enterprise Technology for the City of
To'-' Seattle. He is the city's lead policy staff for telecommunications issues.
William L. Lowery is the Director of Miller & Van Eaton's new San Francisco office. He
specializes in counseling and representing local governments on cable television and tele-
communications issues.
.~ Ronald N. Main is the Executive Director of the Washington State Cable Communications
Association.
. : ' ;"~:~ [~E1 i'~:'"~-- Kimberly A. Miller, a manager in the Municipal Affairs Group at GTE Service Corporation,
focuses on municipal right-of-way issues on a national basis. Her responsibilities include
'~ ';;; Ste,;,'146;'J.;.- legislative initiatives, regulatory compliance, and franchise negotiation.
Seattle, WA 98104 Mark A, Simonson is GTE's liaison for railroad, municipal, county, state, and federal rights-
~ f~x of-way issues in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Northern California. He also negotiates and
administers joint use agreements with electric utilities, cable television companies, other
(206) 567-5051~
telecommunications service providers, and government agencies.
~ em8i! ..~.~ ~ Martin L. Stern, former deputy chief of the Competition Division at the Federal Communica-
re~[~~ tions Commission, is a partner at Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. He provides stra-
L/~- i~ ~'~ ~. ~- tegic and policy advice to telecommunications and information technology companies.
~ .:~:' ~ ~--'.~ · · · Timothy X. Sullivan is City Attorney for University Place and serves as a member of the
· '~' ' ~"'"~- * :' :~ ' : Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys Telecommunications Working Group.
Ghassan Tarskji is a Professor of Civil Engineering at San Francisco State University and
a Senior Partner at Sigma Engineers. His research projects include the effect of trenching
on the service life of pavements.
Kirk R. Wines is a private practitioner who has been the City Attorney for the City of Medina
for over 25 years. He has represented both the city and private parties in cellular tower siting
- disputes. - *.
pORTANGELES
W .~ E~ H I N ~ T O [M, U, $. A,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: July 12, 1999
TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utility Services
Strs. r~CT: Landfill Engineering, Constuction and Environmental Monitoring Services Contract
Amendment No. 4, Parametrix, Inc.
Summary: Parametrix has incurred additional engineering costs associated with cell 3 design
revisions, construction change orders, and added tasks for annual environmental monitoring and design
of the first phase of the landfill closure. An amendment to Parametrix's current agreement is needed to
reimburse Parametrix for these added costs and future tasks to be completed this year.
Recommendation: Recommend Council approval of Amendment No.4 to Parametrix's current
agreement in the amount of $211,060 which brings the total agreement amount to $746,684.00.
Authorize the Mayor to sign the extension of the agreement with Parametrix for Professional
Services which includes Amendment No. 4.
Back~round / Analysis: Parametrix's original contract for this series of landfill services was
executed in 1996 for preliminary engineering work related to the landfill capacity planning and
evaluation alternates and permitting. Three subsequent amendments have provided for preparation of
permit documents to bring the site into compliance with new regulations, preparation of initial cell 3
construction documents, preparation of development, closure, and post-closure plans, update of the
landfill's operations and maintenance plan, and revised cell 3 construction documents for rebidding in
1998. This final amendment provides for the added engineering and construction management services
required during cell 3 for change orders, and ongoing operations and planning assistance for 1999. The
two new services included in this final amendment include a task for environmental monitoring
assistance which was previously covered under a separate agreement with Parametrix and a task for
the phase 1 landfill closure design and contract documents preparation. Attached for review are
excerpts from the amendment which include a summary of the project understanding, a table of thc
revised tasks and added costs for each task, and descriptions of the two new services to be provided.
Future work remaining at the landfill will be the final closure work which will include further
extension of the gas collection system and placement of a cover membrane over Cells 1, 2 and 3 and
capping with soils and compost material and final seeding. The phase 1 design and preparation of
construction documents included in this amendment will provide the construction of final cover for
closure over cells 1 and 2 in summer of 2000. A temporary cover is proposed for the 1999-2000
winter. The temporary cover and phased closures will reduce the amount of rainfall runoff' from
entering the landfill and thereby reduce the amount of leachate which has to be treated before
discharge to the wastewater treatment plant.
This amendment is in the amount of $211,060 and will bring the total contract amount to $746,684.00.
The future closure phases, environmental monitoring, and landfill assistance will be provided under a
new contract. The added amendment costs are funded by the Solid Waste Utility Fund with additional
funding of 87.5% for Task 7 (Cemetery Stormwater Outfall Design & Contract Documents) by
FEMA/State Emergency Services reimbursement.
Parametrix has provided excellent support for the City's solid waste issues, environmental monitoring,
and landfill planning and construction and approval is recommended. The amendment costs are in line
with the services performed and proposed. Processing of the amendment was delayed from last
February in order to identify all costs and avoid additional amendments to this agreement.
N:~PRO JECTS~95 -24L~CONSULTxCONTRACTxAMD4UAC.WPD
Contract Amendment Proposal No. 4 Engineering, Operations,
City of Port Angeles Landfill Permitting and Construction Services
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Thc construction of Cell 3 at thc City of Port Angeles Landfill was substantially completed in late
1998; however, some work was postponed until the spring of 1999 due to weather related concerns.
Operations in the new cell have commenced and the installation of new gas control piping, leachate
breakout containment berms, and other improvements are in place and functioning. The next phases
of work for the Port Angeles Landfill include continued operations assistance, completion of work
related to the Cell 3 construction, solid waste planning for future disposal, and commencement of
landfill closure design and construction in accordance with the landfill Closure Plan.
Under the previous contract amendments with the City of Port Angeles, Parametrix has provided
engineering design, landfill operations support, solid waste planning and financial planning
assistance to the Cily. The following summarizes previous contract amendments:
Original Contract: Executed in April 1996 provided for preliminary engineering work related to
landfill capacity planning, evaluating grading and permitting alternatives, and
preliminary permitting requirements evaluation.
Amendment No. 1: Executed in March 1997 provided for the preparation of landfill permitting
documents to bring the site into compliance with WAC 173-351 permitting
requirements. This included preparation of revised Development, Closure
and Post-Closure Plans, an updated Plan of Operations and Maintenance, and
preparation of project documents for the Cell 3 construction.
Amendment No. 2: Executed in August 1997. This Amendment provided for additional studies
related lo the Cell 3 design, preparing final plans per review comments, a
Cell 3 construction budget assuming construction in 1997, landfill operations
assistance for 1997 and solid waste planning assistance.
Amendment No. 3: Executed in March of 1998. This amendment updated the Cell 3 construction
services budget for construction in 1998, provided for landfill operations
assistance through 1998 and provided for the design and construction
management of the Cemetery Outfall project.
With the substantial completion of Cell 3 construction to 1998, this contract amendment proposal
is submitted to provide for continuing engineering, permitting, and operations assistance in 1999 and
includes the following items, which are described in more detail in this proposal:
I. Provide for the completion of Cell 3 work not completed in 1998 including roadway
paving, waste storage area paving, and other minor work.
City of Port Angeles Landfill I PMX #23-2191-05
Contract Amendment Proposal No. 4 May 1999
Supplrnent for Final 5-24-99
Contract Amendment Proposal No. 4 Engineering, Operations,
City of Por~ Angeles Landfill Permitling and Construction Services
2. Modify the construction services scope of work and budget proposal to include work
performed during permitting and bid evaluation in 1998 by AGRA which was not
included in the original scope of work and budget proposed in Amendments No. 2
and No. 3.
3. Continue to provide operations assistance to the land/ill operations manager
including assistance in gas control system improvements, landfill surveying and
grading, and waste acceptance.
4. Provide for continued solid waste management and permitting consulting with the
City of Port Angeles as requested.
5. Complete thc design and construction management for the Cemetery Outfall project
per current understanding of design requirements.
6. Prepare plans, specifications and obtain approvals for thc construction of the first
phase of landfill closure to be constructed in 1999.
The following table summarizes the proposed contrac! amendment budget amounts for each existing
and new task on this project:
Task Current Budget Revised Task
No. Task Description Budget Request Budget
TASK 1: PRELIMINARY EN G INEERING
1.1 Site Life Verification $4,862 $0 $4,862
1.2 Grading Plan Alternatives $5,826 $0 $5,826
1.3 Permitting Requirements $7,752 $0 $7,752
TASK 2: PRELIMINARY ENG INEERI~G AND PERMIT'I lNG
2.1 Closure/Post-Closure Plan $19,078 $0 $19,078
2.2 Financial Planning/Strategy $2t,108 $0 $21,108
2.3 Engineering Report $37,498 $0 $37,498
2.4 Permit Application $4,246 $0 $4,246
2.5 Client/Agency Coordination $13,673 $0 $13,673
TASK 3: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
3.] 60% Submittal $35,512 $0 $35,512
3.2 100% Submittal $20,472 $0 $20,472
3.3 Final Submittal $28,625 $0 $28,625
3.4 QA, Projecl Management & Meetings $8,974 $0 $8,974
TASK 4: CELL 3 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
4.1 Construclion Management $40,149 $3,692 $43,841
4.2 Construction Observalion $37,850 $7,232 $45,082
4.3 Specialty Inspections $68,372 $32,106 $100,478
4.4 Construction Surveying $13,686 $0 $13,686
City o/ Port,4ngele~ Landfdl 2 PMX #25-2191-05
Contract ,4mendment Proposal No 4 May 1999
Supplment for Final 5-24-99
Contract Amendment Proposal No. 4 Engineering, Operations,
City of Port Angeles Landfill Permitling and Construction Services
_ I
Task Current 'Budget Revised Task
No. Task Description Budget Request Budge1
4.5 CQA Report/Project Closcou~ $16,336 $0 $16,336
TASK 5: LANDFILL OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE
5.1 General {~perations Assistance $25,123 $19,855 $44,978
5.2 Leachate Pre-Treatment Ops Assistance $8,894 $0 $8,894
5.3 Gas Control Operations Assistance $18,196 $10,944 $29,140
5.~ Waste Acceptance Policy Preparation $5,055 $605 $5,660
5.5 Hydrogeology Investigation $43,673 $0 $43,673
TASK 6: SOLID WASTE PLANNING ASSISTANCE
6.1 Regulatory Coordination/Negotiations $14,181 $18,490 $32,671
6.2 Comprehensive Planning/Consulting $19,020 $19,309 $38,329
TASK 7: CEMETERY STO~ATER OUTFALL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
7.1 Outfall Design Development $13,935 $3,671 $17,606
7.2 Outfall Construction Support $3,528 $4,445 $7,973
TASK 8: PHASE I LANDFILL CLOSURE DESlGN& CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
8.1 Topo Survey & Base Map Preparation $0 $4,141 $4,141
8.2 Preli~ninary Engineering $0 $19,608 $19,608
8.3 90% Submittal $0 $24,069 $24,069
8.4, 100% Submittal $0, $] 1,245 $] ],245
8.5 I Final Submittal & Approval $0 I $6,299 $6,299
TASK 9: LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
9.1 Project Managemem $0 $3,101 $3,101
9.2 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring $0 $14,920 $14,920
Coordination and Reporting
9.3 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report $0 $7,328 $7,328
( 1999 Calendar Year)
TOTALS: $535,624 $211,060 $746,684
City oJ' Port Angeles Landfill 3 PMX #23-2191-05
Contracl Amendment Proposal No 4 May 1999
SupplmentJor Final 5-24-99
Contract Amendment Proposal No. 4 Engineering, Operations,
City of Port Angeles Landfill Permitting and Construction Services
PHASE VIII
PHASE I LANDFILL
CLOSURE DES1GN
Port Angeles Landfill desires to conduct a partial closure of Cells 1 and 2 of the landfill. The area
to be closed is approximately 5 acres. This area has been filled to approximately final grade as
outlined in the site Development and Closure Plan (DCP, Parametrix 1998). The closure will be
designed and constructed as outlined in the DCP to include a two foot low permeability soil liner or
Bentonite mat overlain by a geomembrane, geocomposite drainage layer, and 24-inches of cover
soil.
Parametrix, Inc. will prepare the construction contract documents for the Phase I Closure.
Construction documents include Construction Drawings, Specifications, and a Construction Quality
Assurance Plan. These documents will be prepared and submitted to the Clallam County and
Ecology for approval prior to bidding. After review by the County and Ecology, any required
revisions will be made and final, bid ready, construction documents will be prepared.
After completion of consmaction documents, Parametrix will provide construction support to include
notifying selective bidders, conducting bid reviews, assisting in preparation of contract award
notifications and contract finalization. During construction Parametrix will provide for Contractor
submittal reviews, oversee construction for conformance with the project specifications and
drawings, review payment requests, and perform construction closeout procedures such as preparing
punchlists (and ensuring their completion) and record drawing preparation.
A detailed breakdown of project work including objectives, activities, assumptions and budgets are
provided in the following scope of work.
PHASE IX
LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
SCOPE OF WORK
The objective of this task is to comply with the reporting requirements of WAC 173-304 (closed
landfill) and WAC 173-351 (active landfill), the Solid Waste Handling Permit issued by the Clallam
County Health Department (Health Department), and the Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan
(Parametrix 1994).
To meet this objective, our services have been divided into thc following tasks:
Task 9.1 Project Management
Task 9.2 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Coordination and Reporting
Task 9.3 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (1999 Calendar Ycar)
pO TA_ ¢ L s
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: July 12, 1999
To: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Bob Titus, Deputy Director of Utility Services
SUBJECT: Landlocked Electrical Facilities
In the early 1960's, the City allowed some developers to install overhead electrical facilities on rear lot
lines without providing for access (no alley or dedicated right-of-way). After almost 40 years, many of
the poles have deteriorated to the point where they are unsafe and need to be replaced. Several years ago,
City Light adopted a policy of converting these landlocked overhead facilities to underground in the
adjacent street right-of-way. A number of areas were converted in this fashion and the City paid for all
costs except for meter base conversion and restoration of landscaping where new services were installed
to connect homes to City Light's new underground facilities.
All of these areas were relatively small in size and the cost to City Light was in the range of $10,000-
$30,000. However, when the largest landlocked area (Southwood) was scheduled for conversion in 1998
the cost estimate was $132,000 and the makeup of the UAC had changed from when the original policy
(unwritten) was established and the current UAC members questioned the appropriateness of the City
paying for most of the conversion cost. They asked that other options be identified and that costs for all
other landlocked facilities be estimated so that the UAC could best determine how to treat the remaining
areas. That information is now complete and is summarized in the attached tables.
The upper table shows the component costs of the various options for the various projects. This breakout
is provided to facilitate discussions on who should bear which costs. The lower table identifies the
options available to eliminate the remaining landlocked facilities and their cost. The "Maintenance"
column shows the amount that City Light would expend for normal maintenance if access was not an
issue and should represent the minimum amount that the City should pay towards conversion/relocation.
The next column "OH In-Place" shows the cost to open up the right-of-way and replace the line overhead.
This cost does not include acquiring property or dealing with landscaping. The next column "OH In Street
IUW' shows the cost to rebuild the line overhead in the street right-of-way including overhead service
drops to the houses. The next column "OHAJG In Street R/W' shows the cost to rebuild the line overhead
in the street right-of-way but undergrounding the services. The final column "UG In Street R/W" shows
the cost of rebuilding the line underground in the street right-of-way.
From a practical standpoint, opening up the right-of-way is not attractive because of the unknown initial
and on-going costs to acquire and maintain the right-of-way and the almost certain opposition from the
homeowners. There are also problems with trying to install overhead services from a newly relocated
overhead line because the service drops would need to cross over the roofs and could present electrical
safety code problems (existing service entrances are on the back side of the house). It should also be
noted that the last project "8/Blvd. East of Liberty" is an existing underground installation and to date we
have never converted an existing underground line to overhead. Staff would like to suggest that
discussions focus on the last two options and which costs should be borne by the City and which costs
should be borne by the property owner.
Action to be taken: Recommend to the City Council how furore landlocked facility
conversions/relocations should be handled and how costs should be divided between the City and the
property owner.
Estimated time: 40 minutes.
N :/PWKS/LI GHT/DIRECTOIWMEMOS/LANDLCK.WPD
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 12, 1999
To: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: JIM HARPER ~
SUBJECT: ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SERVICE RELIABILITY - INFORMATION ONLY
Two areas of City Light service do not current meet City reliability standards. They are the area east of
Liberty Street, from Lauridsen Boulevard to Second Street on the east side of the City. And on the west
side of the City the area west of M Street and south of 12th Street.
EAST SIDE RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS:
There is no contingency feed for the 264 customers still served by the 4kv system. In the event of a
system failure they are out until the system can be repaired. In addition, under peak winter loading
conditions there is insufficient capacity in existing 12kV feeder ties to provide power to all customers
in the event of a transformer failure at Washington Substation.
The proposed conversion will allow contingency backup service to the area being converted and provide
an additional 12.47kV feeder tie between Washington And College Substations. Feeder capacity will
then be sufficient to feed all Washington Substation customers in the event of a loss of Washington
Substation transformer. The underground cables in the Cresthaven area need to be replaced before we can
convert the last island of 4.16kV to 12.47kV. Three sections of landlocked facilities will be eliminated
in the course of replacing the 4.16kV underground. Upon completion of this project the outage time for
a system failure should be reduced from a potential of up to several days down to a maximum of an hour
or two at the most.
Detail design and contract preperation are being initiated to convert the last remaining 4.16kV distribution
to 12.47kV and relocate associated facilities, which are landlocked, to the street. This project estimated
to cost $180,000 was planned and budgeted for 1999.
WEST SIDE RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS:
There is insufficient substation capacity and/or feeder tie capacity to serve all of our customers in the
event of a failure of the transformer at "F" Street Substation. A substation transformer failure during
peak winter load conditions will result in some customers being out of power for at least 24 to 48
hours while temporary measures are implemented.
Increasing the capacity at 'T' Street Substation will provide the spare capacity to pick up all
customers in case of a transformer failure at "F" Street Substation and in addition will provide
additional capacity for future load growth on the west side of town. The anticipated cost is
approximately $550,000.
This Substation upgrade is in the Capital Facilities Plan for material order in 2000 and construction in
2001. The new substation transformer has a delivery lead time of up to 48 weeks, therefore, it is
necessary to have the design completed and materials ordered by early summer of 2000 in order to
construct during the summer of 2001. The design contract should be awarded in January 2000 if the
design and material specifications are to be complete by early summer.
The RFP for design of the "I" Street Substation Upgrade is anticipated to be submitted to potential
design consultants in October.
The capacity of the feeder ties between "F" Street Substation and 'T' Street Substation is proposed to
be increased by two projects in the Capital Facilities Plan for 2000. The overhead line on 10th Street
from "N" Street to Milwaukee Drive is to be be rebuilt to 336 AA at a cost of approximately $50,000.
In addition the construction of a line on "O" Street from 10th Street to 14th Street and reconductoring
the line on "O"Street from 14th Street to 18th Street at an approximate cost of $121,000.
Action to be taken: None at this time
Estimated time: 10 min
pm A.N¢ L S
W A S H I N G T O N, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 12, 1999
To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: JIM HARPER ~
SUBJECT: EDIZ HOOK UNDERGROUND CONVERSION
INFORMATION ONLY
As part of the City's beautification program, undergrounding of City Light overhead lines in scenic areas
are budgeted for as opportunities occur. For 1999 we budgeted $50,000 to convert lines from the Coast
Guard Base west along Ediz Hook. How far we convert from overhead to underground will depend on
the actual cost of this first segment and whether there are other areas that would benefit more from
undergrounding.
There are currently approximately 8700 ft of overhead facilities on Ediz Hook beyond Daishowa.
Depending on the required trench location and digging conditions the cost to underground this line
will be approximately:
1) Native backfill, no paving repair $23/ft $200,000 total.
2) Control density backfill, no paving repair $34/ft $300,000 total.
3) Control density backfill, plus paving repair $54/ft $470,000 total.
If we can trench to 47 inches with a stable trench off. of the roadway then the cost should be
approximately $23 per foot. However, from previous digging in the area this is highly unlikely. The
off.the road location utilizing a shallower trench and concrete encasement will result in a cost of
approximately $34 per foot. If land use or restrictions force us to trench in the current roadway the
cost will increase to approximately $54 per foot. We will not know where the trench can be located
until we get into the design and permit process.
The $50,000 planned and budgeted for 1999 will allow the conversion of 950 to 2000 feet of
overhead to underground.
Action to be taken: None at this time.
Estimated time: 10 min
pORTANGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: July 12, 1999
To: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Bob Titus, Deputy Director of Utility Services ~
S~JBJECT: Fiber Optics Study Update
Information Only
Attached is a copy of the joint RFP issued by the City and the PUD to determine the feasibility and
implementation of a community fiber optic system. Results of the RFP will come back to the UAC at the
August meeting for discussion and a recommendation to take to the City Council. The PUD is anxious
to have some questions answered so, as a joint project, it is moving ahead rapidly.
Action to be taken: None at this time.
Estimated time: 10 minutes.
N:/PWKS/LIGHT/DIRECTOR/MEMO S/FI B ERRFp.WPD
2431 East Highway 101 (360) 452-9771
Post Office Box 1090 FAX 452-9338
Port Angeles, WA 98392
Wi[liam McCrorie, District No. 1
Hugh Halfner, District No. 2
Michael Mclnnes, General Manager Ted Simpson, District NO. 3
July I, 1999
Bergman Telecom
5701 - 34th Avenue E
Tacoma, WA 98443-1507
Attention: Byron Bergman
Re: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL -
JOINT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A
COMMUNITY FIBER OPTIC NETWORK
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As indicated in our letter dated June 11, 1999, I would like to extend the
opportunity for your firm to submit a proposal for conducting a study based on
the enclosed Request for Proposal.
The proposal will be for a joint feasibility study for the District and the City of Port
Angeles. Proposals must be submitted in four (4) copies to our office not later
than 2:30 p.m., July 21, 1999.
If you have any questions relating to this Request for Proposal, I can be reached
at (360) 452-9771, Extension 210.
Sincerely,
~ Quimby X Moon
Electrical Engineer
QXM:mt
Enclosure
cc: City of Port Angeles
Same letter sent to the following:
Bergman Telecom Consulting
Attention: Byron Bergman
5701 - 34th Avenue E
Tacoma, WA 98443-1507
Blacl( & Veach
Attention: Charles D. Hill
4004 Kruse Way Place, Suite 200
Lal(e Oswego, OR 97035
Power Engineers, Inc.
Attention: Gary Willis
1295 South Eagle Flight Way
Boise, ID 83709
R. W. Becl(
Attention: Kevin Harper
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
Seattle, WA 98154-1004
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE
A JOINT FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR A COMMUNITY FIBER OPTIC NETWORK
City of Port Angeles P.U.D. No. 1 of Clallam County
321 East Fifth Street 2431 East Highway 101
Post Office Box 1150 Post Office Box 1090
Port Angeles, WA 98362 Port Angeles, WA 98362
(360) 417-4700 (360) 452-9771
July 1, 1999
!
I 1. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this request is to select a qualified Consultant to prepare a study
I that will consider the feasibility and costs to establish a high-speed, high-
bandwidth telecommunications (fiber optic based) network(s) in portions of
Clallam County. The network(s) shall have the capability of providing voice,
I data, video, Internet traffic, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) communications capabilities to all designated locations.
I 2. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL
i Please submit four (4) copies of your Proposal. Proposals must be mailed or
delivered to P.U.D. No. 1 of Clallam County in a sealed envelope to arrive not
later than 2:30 p.m., July 21, 1999.
I Via U.S. mail:
I P.U.D. No. I of Clallam County
Attention: Quimby X Moon
Post Office Box 1090
I Port Angeles, WA 98362
Via delivery service or hand-delivered:
P.U.D. No. 1 of Clallam County
Attention: Quimby X Moon
2431 East Highway 101
Port Angeles, WA 98362
I If you have questions regarding this request, please contact Quimby X Moon at
(360) 452-9771, Extension 210.
I 3. SCOPE OF PROJECT
The specific services that will be required as part of this strategic plan are
I described below and broken into Joint, District-specific, or City-specific:
a. Joint
I (1) Identify benefits and risks to the District and the City either jointly or
separately developing a fiber optic based network to connect
I District facilities and City facilities.
(2) Identify any geographical issues that are significant to the feasibility
I of a fiber optic based community network within Clallam County
and the advantages and disadvantages of multiple networks versus
I
Request for Proposal - Page 1
I
a single larger network and how such a system or systems might
be phased in.
(3) Identify and describe the advantages and disadvantages of the
governance options for a jointly owned and operated community
network(s).
(4) Identify the network amhitecture and physical location of facilities
used to arrive at the capital, installation, and operating cost
estimates (District, City, and Joint). Identify the capital and
operating cost savings associated with a jointly owned and
operated network system compared to separately owned and
operated District and City systems. In all cases, identify:
(a) Hardware/equipment requirements and costs: · Cable (number of fibers) size and type.
· Transmit and receive facilities.
· Repeater facilities.
· Overhead to underground installations.
· Attachment hardware.
(b) Installation costs: · Engineering.
· Crew.
· Equipment.
(c) Staffing and technical support requirements and costs: · Construction.
· Operation.
· Maintenance.
· Emergency Restoration.
(d) Training requirements and costs:
· General.
· Specific.
(e) Maintenance requirements/problems and costs:
· Inventory requirements,
(f) Software/programming requirements and costs.
(5) Evaluate possible future uses of excess capacity:
(a) City, County, State, and Federal offices/governments,
(b) Olympic Memorial Hospital.
(c) School Districts.
Requestfor Proposal-Page 2
!
I (d) College.
Peninsula
(e) U.S. West Communications.
i (f) CenturyTel.
(g) . Northland Cable Television.
(h) Bonneville Power Administration.
i (i) Others.
(6) Evaluate partnerships:
I (a) Bonneville Power Administration.
(b) LES.WVest Communicatrons.
i (c) CenturyTel.
(d) Northland Cable Television.
(e) Economic Development Council.
i (f) Others.
(7) Identify the advantages and disadvantages to the Distdct and the
i City of (a) installing a fiber network and leasing excess dark fiber
not needed for in-house communications needs and (b) installing a
fiber network and leasing excess bandwidth not needed for in-
house communications needs, and (c) providing additional
telecommunications products and services. Recommend which
option (a, b, or c) is best.
(8) Identify the steps for designing and installing a community
network(s) if the study concludes that it is feasible for the District
and the City. Include a timeline and cost estimate for consultant
services.
I b. District-Specific
Identify the capital and operating costs associated with providing voice,
I data, video, Internet traffic, and supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) communications capabilities to all District-owned facilities (see
Exhibit A).
!
c. City-Specific
I Identify the capital and operating costs associated with providing
(1
)
voice, data, video, Internet traffic, and supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) communications capabilities to all City-owned
and facilities (see Exhibit B). The system
City-based
community
should be easily expandable to all City customers and capable of
i supporting multiple applications.
!
I Request for Proposal - Page 3
!
(2) Identify the advantages and disadvantages of including the local
telephone and cable TV providers (U.S. West Communications and
Northland Cable Television) in a jointly owned and operated City
I community network. If joint ownership and operation is not
feasible, identify the extent to which, and the process for, involving
these entities.
i
4. PROPOSAL CONTENT
I Proposals shall include the following:
i a. Approach and methodology for this project, including a list of major
activities and anticipated project milestones.
i b. Firm's experience in completing similar plans for other organizations.
c. A list of employees proposed to work on this project, including their
i qualifications and experience and similar projects.
d. A comparison of cost estimates for similar projects with final project costs.
I e. Provide references for three similar projects with contact person and
phone number.
I Note: The number of pages should not exceed 30; and smaller, more focused
proposals would be appreciated.
I 5. PROPOSAL EVALUATION
I The following criteria will be used to evaluate the proposals:
a. General clarity, format, level of detail, and responsiveness to the request
I for proposals.
b. Qualifications, experience, and expertise of the consulting firm and the
I employees assigned to the project.
I
I
I
I
Request for Proposal - Page 4
I
EXHIBIT A
DISTRICT'S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
minimum the Distdct fiber network that connects the transmission
At
a
requires
a
optic
and distribution substations, water facilities, and office and operations complexes. The
network shall extend from Port Townsend Paper Corporation (Jefferson County) to
Neah Bay Substation and Forks Substations. The network shall be capable of
supplying the existing and future communications needs of the District including voice,
data, video, Internet traffic, and SCADA between all connected locations.
The long-term capabilities of the communications network (for the District) will have the
ability to support all utility applications, including distribution automation and demand
side management (DA/DSM). This may include the routing of fiber optic cable (or
hybrid) to individual (business/residence) locations. Therefore, the network shall be
easily expanded to include all District customers and capable of supporting multiple
applications.
The scope of the work shall include the following:
1. Evaluate the communications needs of the District.
a. SCADA
b. AMR (Automated Meter Reading).
c. WaterA, Vastewater systems.
d. Administrative support.
e. Customer support.
f. Data processing and data distribution support.
g. Operations support.
2. Determine network options and architectures for:
a. Meeting the current and future communication needs of the District,
including SCADA, AMR, distribution automation, and demand side
management.
b. Evaluate uses of capacity in excess of immediate needs, including
countywide infrastructure communication network needs.
3. Define potential costs and benefits for the network options and architectures.
Provide cost analysis based on District communication needs and potential
community communication needs.
4. Identify Federal, State, County, and City permitting requirements.
Exhibit A - Page I
5, Identify route and additional site selection requirements,
6, Identify hardware/equipment requirements and costs,
a. Cable (number of fibers) size and type,
b, Transmit and receive facilities.
c, Repeater facilities.
d, Overhead to underground installations,
e, Attachment hardware.
7. Identify installation costs.
a. Engineering,
b, Crew,
c, Equipment.
8, Staffing and technical support requirements and costs:
a, Construction,
b, Operation.
c, Maintenance,
d, Emergency Restoration.
9, Training requirements and costs:
a, General.
b, . Specific.
10. Maintenance requirements/problems and costs:
a, Inventory requirements.
11, Software/programming requirements and costs,
Exhibit A - Page 2
po A_N¢ L S
~i~ W A S H I N G T O N, U.S.A.
~ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 12, 1999
To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: IIM HARPER ~
SUBJECT: EDIZ HOOK UNDERGROUND CONVERSION
INFORMATION ONLY
As part of the City's beautification program, undergrounding of City Light overhead lines in scenic areas
are budgeted for as opportunities occur. For 1999 we budgeted $50,000 to convert lines from the Coast
Guard Base west along Ediz Hook. How far we convert from overhead to underground will depend on
the actual cost of this first segment and whether there are other areas that would benefit more from
undergrounding.
Them are currently approximately 8700 ft of overhead facilities on Ediz Hook beyond Daishowa.
Depending on the required trench location and digging conditions the cost to underground this line
will be approximately:
1) Native backfill, no paving repair $23/ff $200,000 total.
2) Control density backfill, no paving repair $34/ff $300,000 total.
3) Control density backfill, plus paving repair $54/ft $470,000 total.
If we can trench to 47 inches with a stable trench off of the roadway then the cost should be
approximately $23 per foot. However, from previous digging in the area this is highly unlikely. The
off the road location utilizing a shallower trench and concrete encasement will result in a cost of
approximately $34 per foot. If land use or restrictions force us to trench in the current roadway the
cost will increase to approximately $54 per foot. We will not know where the trench can be located
until we get into the design and permit process.
The $50,000 planned and budgeted for 1999 will allow the conversion of 950 to 2000 feet of
overhead to underground.
Action to be taken: None at this time.
Estimated time: 10 min
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, regulating
telecommunications facilities within City rights-of-way, establishing fees
for such facilities, emending Ordinances 2932 and 2166 as emended, and
emending Chapters 3.72 and 11.08 and adopting Chapter 11.14 of the
Port Angeles Municipal Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN as follows:
$~Jon 1. A new Chapter 11.14 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code is hereby adopted
to read as follows:
CHAPTER 11.14
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Sections:
11.14.010 - Purpose
11.14.020 - Definitions
11.14.030 - Registration
11.14.040 - Franchise
11.14.050 - Fees
11.14.060 - Permit Issuance
11.14.070 - Permit Standards
11.14.080 - Location of Facilities
11.14.090 - Relocation or Removal of Facilities
11.14.100 - Assignments or Transfers of Franchises and Permits
11.14.110 - Revocation or Termination of Franchises and Permits
11.14.120 - Enforcement
11.14.010 - Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish reasonable, non-
discriminatory regulations for the use of telecommunications facilities within City fights-of-way, to
insure reasonable access to City rights-of-way for telecommunications owners, operators, and
providers on a competitively neutral basis while protecting the public health, safety and welfare, to
-1-
conserve the limited physical capacity of the public rights-of-way held in public trust by the City, and
to reasonably and fairly compensate the City for private use of and disruption to City rights-of-way.
This Chapter is based upon the City's general police power authority as a code city of
the State of Washington and upon specific statutory authority such as is set forth in RCW
35P~47.040.
11.14.020 - Definition~. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words have the
meanings designated herein unless the context indicates otherwise:
A. "Cable service" means the provision of cable se~ice through a cable system as
defined in the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.
B. "Facilities" means the plant, equipment and property, including but not limited
to the poles, pipes, mains, conduits, ducts, pedestals, antennae, electronics, cables, wires, and other
appurterlances and equipment located under, on or above the surface of the ground within the right-
of-way of the City and used or to be used for the purpose of providing, transmitting, receiving,
distributing, or offering telecommunications services.
C. "Open video system" or"OVS' means a set of transmission paths and associated
signal generation, reception, and control equipment or other facilities designed to provide video
programming provided to multiple subscribers and which has been certified by the Federal
Communications Commission under applicable law.
D. "Person" or "person subject to this Chapter" means any individual, business, or
other entity that owns, operates, or provides telecommunication se~ices as resulated in this Chapter.
E. '~relecommunications services" means the providing or offering for rent, sale or
lease, or in exchange for other value received, of the transmittal of voice, data, image, graphic and
video programming information between or among points by wire, cable, fibre optics, laser,
-2-
microwave, radio, satellite or similar facilities, with or without benefit of any closed transmission
medium, including, as examples only, telephone service, cellular phone service, cable service, and
open video systems.
F. "Work" means all construction, alteration, enlargement, improvement, repair,
and/or demolition of a facility, which has not been previously authorized by franchise, lease, or
permit.
11.14 030 - ' t' . All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications
senfices originating, terminating, or existing within the City or having facilities within the Ci~t shall
register with the City pursuant to this Chapter and pay all applicable fees. In addition, such entity
shall provide the following information on forms provided by the City:
A. A description of the registrant's existing and proposed telecommunications
facilities within the City;
B. A description of the telecommunications service that the reg~h ant intends to offer
or provide; and
C. Any other information deemed by the City to be relevant to determine whether
the registrant: (1) is subject to right-of-way permitting or franchising under this Chapter or Chapter
11.08 PAMC; (2) is required to pay any other applicable fee or tax; and/or (3) has duly obtained and
maintains in force any applicable permit or other authorization from either the State of Washington
or the Federal Communications Commission.
11.14.040 - Franchise. '
A. All owners, operators, and providers of cable service and open video systems who
intend to construct, install, operate, maintain, end/or locate facilities in City right-of-way shall enter
-3-
into a franchise agreement with the City of Port Angeles, which ~enchise shall be in accordance and
compliance with the Federal Cable Communications Policy Ac~ of 1984 as amended and this Chapter.
B. All other owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications service who
intend to construc~ install, operate, maintain, and/or locate facilities in City right-of-way shall enter
into a franchise agreement with the City of Port Angeles, which franchise shall be in accordance and
compliance with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 as amended and with this Chapter.
C. An applicant seeking a franchise under this Chapter shall provide to the City
sufficient information to enable the City to make its determination regarding such franchise, which
information shall include but not be limited to the following:
1. The financial and technical ability and legal capacity ofthe applicant;
2. A complete description of the applicant's proposed facilities;
3. The capacity of the right-of-way to accommodate the applicant's facilities;
4. The capacity of the right-of-way to accommodate additional utility or
telecommunications facilities;
5. The extent of damage to or disruption of any public or private facilities,
improvements, services, travel, or landscaping and any plans by applicant to
mitigate or repair the same; and
6. The availability or unavailability of alternate routes to those proposed by the
applicant.
D. Within 120 days of receiving a completed franchise application, including all
necessary supplemental information required by the City from the applicant, the City shall meet with
the applicant to negotiate a franchise agreement. Approval of any franchise agreement shall be by
and within the sole discretion of the City Council. The Council's decision shall be based upon the
information provided in the application and the recommendation of the affected City department(s)
and will take into consideration the impact on City rights-of-way and related facilities, proposed
mitigation of damage and disruption, applicable laws and res, ulations, and any other factors deemed
necessary by the City to carry out the public interest. To the extent practicable, franchises granted
-4-
hereunder shall contain substantially similar terms and shall not contain more or less favorable lerms
and conditions than exist in other such fi'anchises, taking into consideration relative characteristics
of each applicant.
E. No grant of franchise hereunder shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, or
liceese to occupy any City rights-of-way, nor convey any tight, rifle, or interest in such right,v-of-way.
Franchisees shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations and shall obtain all necessary
construction and other permits.
F. A franchisee shall make its telecommunication services available to the City at its
most favorable rate for similarly situated users; provided, however, the City may negotiate more
favorable rates, free service, or right to use or access franchise facilities in lieu of other obligations
of the franchisee.
G. Existing franchises or agreements with owners, operators, and providers of
telecommunications service shall not be abrogated by this Chapter and shall continue in effect until
terminated or amended pursuant to their own terms.
H. In the event of franchise termination or abandonment of the franchisee's facilities
in whole or in part, the City shall have the authority to require the franchisee to remove its facilities
from City rights-of-way or shall have the first option, directly or as an intermediary, to acquire the
facilities.
I. The franchisee shall agree to save and hold the City harmless from, and defend
the City against, any claims for personal injury or property damage arising out of or in any way
connected with the franchisee's occupancy of City rights-of-way, and shall maintain a comprehensive
liability insurance policy, and provide to the City satisfactory proof thereof, in an amount and form
determined reasonably necessat~ by the City, but in no event providing coverage less than $1,000,000
-5-
for personal injury or death to any one person and $3,000,000 aggregate for personal injury or death
per single accident or occurrence, $1,000,000 for propelty damage to any one person and $3,000,000
aggre~e for property damage per single accident or occurrence, and $1,000,000 for all other types
of liability including claims for damage for invasion of the right of privacy, defamation, violation or
infringement of cop)right or related laws, or damaging related to the failure to comply with any
applicable law or regulation. Such insurance shall specifically name the City of Port Angeles, its
officers and employees, as additional insureds.
11.14.050 - Fees.
A. All owne~, operators, and providers of telecommunications services required to
register under PAMC 11.14.030 shall pay a registration fee in the amount set forth in Chapter 3.70
PAMC.
B. All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunication services who are
granted permission by the City to install facilities in City tights-of-way shall pay additional application
processing fees, construction deposits and fees, and other related fees, as the City may determine to
be reasonably necessary and appropriate to cover the City's costs.
C. All owners, operators, and providers of cable service or open video systems who
obtain a franchise granting use of city right-of-way shall pay to the City, in addition to the registration
and other fees required pursuant to PAMC 11.14.040A and B, a franchise fee in the amount set forth
in the franchise agreement approved by the City, which amount shall be a percentage of gross revenue
as provided in the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.
D. All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications services other than
cable service or open video systems who obtain a franchise granting use of City right-of-way shall
pay to the City, in addition to the registration and other fees required pursuant to PAMC 11.14.040A
-6-
and B, a franchise fee in the amount set forth in the franchise agreement approved by the City, which
amount shall be determined by negotiation between the City and the prospective franchisee and shall
ensure compensation to the City for all costs and expenses associated with processing a franchise
application and monitoring compliance with franchise provisions all costs of current and ongoing
maintenance, repair, or restoration of right-of-way related to the impact of the installation
maintenance and use of City assets other than utility poles provided for in E. below, and the fair
market value of the use of City rights-of way.
E. All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications services whose
facilities are to be placed on City utility poles shall pay a pole rental fee in the amount established
pursuant to a pole rental agreement with the City.
11.14.060 - Permit Issuance.
A. Other than as exempted by applicable law, no person shall construct or install any
facilities within City rights-of-way without first obtaining a construction permit therefor. The
applicant shall provide the following:
1. The location and route of all facilities to be installed on existing utility
poles.
2. The location and route of all facilities to be located under the surface of
the ground, including the line and grade proposed for the burial at all points along the route which
are within the public ways.
3. The location of all existing underground utilities, conduits, ducts, pipes,
mains, and installations which are within the public ways along the underground route proposed by
the applicant.
4. The location of all facilities within the City which are not located within
-7-
right-of-way.
5. Construction methods to be employed for protection of existing
structures, fixtures, and facilities within and adjacent to the fight-of-way.
6. The location, dimensions, and type of trees and significant vegetation
within or adjacent to the fight-of-way along the route proposed by the applicant, together with a
landscaping plan for protectil~ trimming, removing, replacing, and restoring any trees or significant
vegetation or areas disturbed by the construction.
7. Upon request by the City, the certification of a registered professional
engineer that the drawings, plans, and specifications submitted with the application comply with _
applicable technical codes, rules, and regulations.
B. The construction pen-nit shall be processed, issued or denied, and implemented
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11.08 PA/VIC.
C. Within forty-five (45) days after submission of all plans and documents required
of the applicant and payment of the fees required by this Chapter, the City, if satisfied that the
application, plans, and documents comply with all requirements of this Chapter, shall issue a permit
authorizing construction, installation, or location of the facilities, subject to such further conditions,
restrictions, or regulations affecting the time, place, and manner of performing the work as are
deemed necessary and appropriate.
11.14.070 - Permit Standards
A. In addition to the standards set forth in Chapter 11.08 PAMC, the standards set
forth in this section shall apply to the installation, conslruction' or placement within City right-of-way
of telecommunication facilities. Those persons who are granted franchises by the City or who enter
into lease agreements with the City shall be required in those instruments to comply with the
-8-
provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 11.08 PAMC, except as specifically negotiated otherwise for
good cause demonstrated to the City's satisfaction.
B. In addition to the requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 11.05 PAMC, all
persons subject to this Chapter shall comply with the following requirements:
1. At all times comply with all applicable statutes, laws, ordinances, policies,
and re~,~lations~
2. Upon request, timely provide written information sufficient for customary
land survey purposes concerning the location of facilities~
3. Upon request, timaly provide accurate as-built maps and plans certifying
the location of facllities~
4. Upon request, timely make available books, records, maps, and other
documents maintained with respect to facilities for inspection at reasonable times and places; and
5. Pay all applicable fees required under this Chapter and Chapter 11.08
PAMC.
C. In furtherance of the public purpose of reduction of right-of-way excavation, it
is the City's policy to encourage both the shared occupancy of underground excavations as well as
the installation, whenever possible, of additional conduits for occupancy of future franchise or permit
applicants. Therefore, the City may require the franchisee or pormittee to install additional conduit(s)
in the right-of-way, provided the expense of such conduit(s) shall be borne by the City (calculated as
the difference between what the applicant would have paid for the installation of its conduit(s) and
the additional cost of the additional conduit(s)) or such expense may be recouped by the franchisee
or permittee by charging a reasonable market rate for occupancy oftha additional coeduit(s). If the
City owns or leases conduit(s) or excess conduit capacity, which is technologically feasible for an
-9-
applicant to occupy, the applicant shall be required to occupy the City's conduit(s) or excess capacity
in order to reduce thc necessity to excavate the right-of-way. The applicant shall pay the City a fee
for such occupancy, which fee shall be the cost the applicant would have expended to construct its
own conduit, as certified by the applicant's engineer and approved by the City Engineer, and which
fee may be a lump sum or amortized annual payments as the City and apphcant may agree.
11.14.080 - Location of Facilities. In addition to the requirements of this Chapter and
Chapter 11.08 PAMC, facilities shall be constructed, installed, and located in accordance with the
following terms and conditions:
A. Poles, wi~s, and appurtenances shall be located, erected, and maintained so that
no facilities shall endanger or interfere with the lives of persons or interfere with any improvements
the City or other authorized public entity may.deem proper to make, or unnecessarily hinder or
obstruct the use of public rights-of-way or public property.
B. All transmission and distribution structures, lines, and equipment shall be so
located as to cause minimum interference with the proper use of public rights-of-way and places and
as to cause minimum interference with the rights of reasonable convenience of property owners who
are adjacent to any of said public rights-of-way and places.
C. Underground placement of cable, wires, and conduit is the preferred method of
distribution and shall be required in all areas currently receiving underground telephone and/or electric
se~wice. If facilitias of any person subject to this Chapter are required to be placed underground in
the future, others sub}ect to this Chapter, including those previously permitted, shall likewise place
their facilities underground at their own expense within a reasonable period of time specified by the
City.
D. Wherever possible, location or relocation of facilities shall be accomplished
-10-
conourently With other users of the fight-of-way in order to minimize disruption. Facilities shall be
installed within an existing underground duct or conduit whenever capacity permits. Whenever new
facilities will exhaust the capacity of a public tight-of-way or utility easement to accommodate future
facilities, a person subject to this Chapter shall provide additional ducts, conduits, manholes, and
other facilities for nondiscriminatory access by future owners, operators, and providers of
telecommunications services in accordance with policies to this effect promulgated by the Public
Works and Utilities Department.
E. Erection, removal, and common use of poles:
1. No poles or other wire-holding structures shall be erected within the
public fight-of-way without prior approval of the City with regard to the location, height, type, and
any other pertinent aspect of such structures. However, no location of any privately-installed pole
or wire-holding structure shall be a vested interest, and such poles or structures shall be removed or
modified without expense to the City whenever the City determines that the public convenience
would be enhanced thereby.
2. In the event that the City or a person subject to this Chapter desires to
make use of the poles or other wire-holding structures of one or more other persons subject to this
Chapter but agreement among such parties cannot be reached, the City may require the person whose
structures are sought to be used to permit use by another for such consideration and upon such terms
as the City shall determine to be just and reasonable, iftbe City determines the use would enhance
the public convenience and would not unduly interfere with the operations of the person whose
structures are sought to be used.
F. A person subject to this Chapter shall, on the request of any person holding a
building moving permit issued by the City, temporarily raise or lower its wires to permit the moving
of buildings. The expense of such temporary removal, raising, or lowering of wires shall be paid by
the person requesting the same. The person subject to this Chapter shall have the authority to require
such payment in advance and to be given reasonable notice to arrange for such temporary wire
changes.
11.14.090 - Relocation or Removal of Facilities. Within thirty (30) days of written notice
by the City, or such other time period as the City may deem appropriate, a person subject to this
Chapter shall at its own expense temporarily or permanently remove, relocate, alter, or change the
position of any facilities within the right-of-way whenever the City, in its sole discretion, determines
that such is reasonably necessary for (a) construction, repair, maintenance or installation of any City
or other public improvement in or upon the right-of-way, (la) operations in or upon the right-of-way
by the City, another governmental entity, or persons having permitted facilities in the fight-of-way,
(¢) the vacation of a public street or release of a utility easement, (d) the termination, expiration,
abandonment, or lack of a franchise or permit as required by this Chapter, or (e) circumstances
reasonably determined by the City to be inconsistent with the public health, safety or welfare.
11.14.100 - Assignments or Transfers of Franchises and Permits.
A. The City reserves the right to require in any franchise or permit issued pursuant
to this Chapter that ownership or control ora person subject to this Chapter shall not, directly or
indirectly, be transferred, assigned, or disposed of by sale, lease, merger, consolidation, or other act
of such person, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the City, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
B. Assignments and transfers of franchises and permits shall comply with the
following requirements:
1. No assignment or transfer shall occur within twelve (12) months of its
- 12-
initial issuance unless approved by the City.
2. Absent ~xtn~ordina~/and unforeseeable circumstances, no assignment or
transfer shall occur before construction oftbe facilities has been completed.
3. Prior to assignment or transfer, the following information shall be
provided to the City not less than 120 days before the proposed date of transfer:
a. Complete information setting forth the nature, t~,,,s, and
conditions of the proposed assignment or transfer;
b. All information otherwise reasonably required by the City of a
franchise or permit applicant, respectively, under this Chapter with respect to the proposed assignee
or transferee;
c. Any other information reasonably required by the City; and
d. An application fee in the amount set forth in Chapter 3.72 PAMC,
plus any other costs actually and reasonably incurred by the City in processing and investigating the
proposed assignment or transfer.
4. Assignment or transfer shall not occur or be approved unless the assignee
or transferee has at least the legal, technical, financial, and other requisite qualifications to car~ on
the activities oftbe franchise or permit granted hereunder.
C. Any assignment or transfer of a franchise or permit without the prior written
consent of the City as set forth herein, unless such consent is waived by the City, shall be void and
shall result in revocation oftbe existing franchise or permit.
D. Any assignments or transfers which singularly or collectively result.in a change
of fifty percent ($0%) or more of the ownership or working control of the franchisee or permittce or
of the ownership or control of affiliated entities having ownership or working control of the
franchisee or permittee, or of control of the capacity of the facilities or substantial parts thereof of
the franchisee or permittee, shall be considered an assignment or transfer requiring City approval
-13-
pursuant to PANIC 11.14.100. Approval shall not be required for mortgaging purposes.
11.14.110 - Revocation or Termination of Franchises and Permits.
A. A franchise or permit granted hereunder may be revoked or te, winated for the
following reasons:
1. Construction or operation in the City without a franchise or a permit.
2. Construction or operation at an unauthorized location.
3. Unauthorized assignment or transfer of a franchise or permit.
4. Misrepresentation by or on behalf of a person in any application upon
which the City relies in making any decision hereunder.
5. Abandonment of fadlities in the public ways.
6. Failure to relocate or remove facilities as required in this Chapter.
7. Failure to pay taxes, compensation, fees, or costs when and as due.
8. Insolvency or bankruptcy of the franchisee or permittee.
9. Violation of material provisions of this Chapter.
10. Violation of the material terms of a franchise agreement or permit.
11. Incompatibility with another franchise or permit applicant with a higher
priority which cannot find another adequate location.
12. Unreasonable interference of frequency broadcast with another applicant
of a higher priority.
B. In the event that the City believes that grounds exist for ~vocation or termination
ora franchise or a permit, the City shall give the person subject to this Chapter written notice of the
apparent violation or noncompliance and shall provide such person a reasonable period of time not
exceeding thirty (30) days to furnish evidence that corrective action has been or is being actively and
- 14-
expeditiously pursued, that the alleged violation or noncompliance is rebuttable, or that it would be
in the public interest to impose some penalty or sanction less than revocation.
C. In the event that a person who holds a franchise or permit fails to provide
reasonably satisfactory evidence to the City, the City may ~,oke or terminate the franchise or permit.
Final action on franchise terminations shall be by the City Council, and final actions on permit
revocations shall be by the City Manager or designee.
D. In determining whether a person subject to this Chapter has violated or failed to
comply with material provisions of this Chapter or of a franchise or permit, the appropriate City
authority shall determine the appropriate action to take considering the nature, circumstances, extent,
and gravity of the violation as reflected by one or more of the following factors:
1. Whether the misconduct was egregious;
2. Whether substantial harm resulted;
3. Whether the violation was intentional;
4. Whether there is a history of prior violations of the same or other
requirements;
5. Whether there is a history of overall compliance; and,
6. Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted, or cured.
11.14.120 - Enforcement.
A. Any person found violating, disobeying, omitting, neglecting, or refusing to
comply with any ofthe provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction,
any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or by
imprisonment of up to ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A separate and
distinct violation shall be deemed committed each day on which a violation occurs or continues.
-15-
B. All structures built, excavations made, and materials or installations placed, in any
public right-of-way in violation of this Chapter are declared to be a public nuisance. In Md/lion to
penalties provided for violation, such nuisance shall be subject to abatement by any lawful means at
the expense and liability ofany party determined to be responsible therefore.
C. Nothin~ in this Chapter shall be construed as limiting other remedies that the City
may have, at law or in equity, for enforcement of this Chapter.
Section 2. Ordinance 2932 as amended and Chapter 3.70 PAMC are hereby amended
by emending PA.MC 3.70.110 to read as follows:
3.70.110 - Public Works Department fD~artment~ Fees and Depo~it~.
A. The fee for a permit for construction or excavation work in the City right-of-way
shall be as follows:
1. Concrete walk installation :$60.00
2. Curb & 8utter removal and/or replacement 125.00
3. Driveway installation 125.00
4. All other work 40.00
5. Street cut 200.00
B. Street Use Permit Fees. The application fees for a Street Use Permit and for a
renewal of such permit, when required by PANIC 11.12.120, shall be as follows:
1. Benches $ 5.00
2. Litter receptacles 5.00
3. Bicycle racks $.00
4. Private planters 5.00
$. Landscaping higher than 30 inches 5.00
-16-
6. Exhibitions sponsored by or promoted by civic, charitable
or other non-profit organization 5.00
7. Sidewalk cafes 50.00
8. All other exhibitions 50.00
9. Activities not specifically mentioned 50.00
10. Ramps, steps, or any similar installation 100.00
11. Fences 100.00
12. Retaining Walls 150.00
13. Rockeries 150.00
14. The application fee for a temporary street use permit shall be fifty ($50)
dollars.
15. The application fee for a permit for obstruction of unopened streets shall be
one hundred fifty ($150) dollars per year.
C. Move Permit Fees. The fee schedule for building move permits shall be as
follows:
1. Relocate a building on the same lot or parcel
(without use of public fight-of-way) $ 25.00
2. Move building from inside City limits to outside City limits $50.00
3. Move building from one City lot to another City lot
(use City right-of-way) $100.00
4. Move building from outside City limits to inside City limits $200.00
5. InsPection fee $30.00/hr.
D. Plan Review and Permit Fees for Grading, Filling, Clearing and Drainage
Activities:
1. Grading and Filling. The permit fee for grading and filling activities shall be as
follows:
-13'-
Estimated volume of grading & fill Fe~
250 cubic yards or less and less than 4 feet of cut or fill No fee
251 to 1,000 cubic yards $22.50
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards or more $30.00
plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Additional plan review required for changes, additions or revisions to the approved plans shall
be at the rate of $30.00 per hour, provided that the minimum charge shall be $22.50. The hourly cost
to the City shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the
employees involved.
2. Clearing and Drainage. The permit fee shall be as follows:
Estimated area of clearing
Less than one acre $30
One acre to five acres $50
Over five acres $10/acre.
Additional plan review required for changes, additions or revisions to the approved plans shall
be at the rate of $30 per hour or the total hourly cost to the City, whichever is the greatest, provided
that the minimum charge shall be $15. The hourly cost to the City shall include supervision,
overhead, equipment, hourly wages, and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
E. Construction Inspection.
1. Inspections during normal business hours $30.00/hour
2. Inspections outside normal business hours
(the minimum charge shall be 2 hours) $60.00/hour.
F. Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Fees
1. Fees for monitoring, inspections and surveillance procedures: at cost
2. Fees for filing appeals: $25.00
3. Fees for reviewing accidental discharge procedures and construction: at cost
-15-
4. Fees for review of drawings, specifications and compliance schedules for
pretreatment facilities: at cost
5. Fees for issuance of industrial wastewater acceptance forms: $75.00
6. Other charges as the City may deem necessary to can~ out the requirements
of Chapter 13.06 PANIC: at cost.
G. Water Service Connection Fees
1. The new residential water service connection fee, including the meter, shall
be:
Service Size Meter Servk:e Connection Fee
1" 5~8" $ 550.00
1" 3/4" $ 575.00
1" 1" $ 600.00.
2. The new commercial/industrial water service connection fee, including the
meter, shall be:
Service Siz~ Meter Service Connection Fee
1" 1" $1,000.00
1-1/2" 1-1/2" $1,500.00
2" 2" $2,000.00.
3. The fee for special or emergency turn-ons or tutu-offs shall be fifty dollars
during regular working hours and one hundred dollars outside of regular working
hours.
4. The water qun!ity test fee required under PAMC 13.36.080 shall be $50 plus
the cost of the laboratory tests.
H. The fee for a permit for sewer connection shall be as follows:
1. Single-family houses: $80.00
2. Multiple-family dwellings, including duplexes, apartment buildings, trailer and
auto courts, motels, and similar structures: $80.00 for the first dwelling unit and $6.00 for each
additional dwelling unit.
3. All other structures, including, but not limited to, hotels, apartment hotels,
office buildings, stores, churches, schools, hospitals, buildings accessory thereto, and
industrial/commercial structures of any kind and additions thereto: One-half cent per gross square
-19-
foot of area occupied by all floors of such structure for the first 100,000 square feet (exclusive of
areas devoted to single-family dwelling houses for multiple-dwelling structures); and one-quarter cent
per gross square foot for the re~ining footage in excess of 100,000 square feet. In addition thereto,
$6.00 for each single-family or multiple dwelling unit combined therewith; with a minimum fee of
$80.00 and a maximum fee of $1,000.00.
4. The fee for additional direct connections to a public sewer shall be the same
as for an initial connection.
5. The fee for a reconnection to a public sewer using an existing side sewer shall
be the same as for an initial connection.
I. The fee for alteration or repair to existing side sewers installed and accepted under a
previous permit, other than normal clean-out or root cutting for which no permit is required, shall be
as follows:
1. Any repair of a side sewer: $30.00
2. The fee for capping side sewers shall be $225.00 and all work performed to
cap the side sewer shall be accomplished by the Department.
J. The fee for storm drain connections shall be as follows:
1. Installation of catch basins or similar imerceptors: $40.00.
2. All connections other than for a catch basin: $100.00.
K. The fees for various underground utility work performed by the Department shall be
as follows:
1. Tapping sewer or storm drain main lines to install a tee or wye: $125.00.
2. Hot tap water main: $250.00.
3. Tapping sanitary or storm manhole: $300.00.
4. Install fire hydrant: $2,600.00.
Ail work to actually tap the main shall be performed by the Department. All excavation of
trench, exposure of the main and trench backfill shall be provided by the applicant.
- 20 -
L. In eddition to the as~er or storm drain fees required under this Section, any person
L~C_~_'ving a lXn'mit from the City for a sewer or storm drain connection shall pay to the City of Port
Angeles the actual cost incurred by the City in the restoration of any street, alley, curb, sidewalk,
utility or other structure oftbe City of Port Angeles, which is in any way altered or damased as &
result of construction pursuant to a sewer or storm drain connection permit.
M. Septic Hauler Fees.
1. Annual Fee-Septic Hnuler. The annuel fee shell be $50.
2. Volume Fee. The monthl~ charge shell be as follows:
e. Fresh waste shnll be charged at a rate of $0.02 per gallon of wnste.
b. Other suptic discharge shall be charl~cd et · rate of $0.09 per gallon
of waste.
N. Whenever an npplication for n developer reimbursement agreement is submitted, it
shell be nccompanied by a non-refundable fee of three hundred dollars ($300) plus five dollars ($5)
for every parcel to be encumbered by the agreement in order to cover the City's expenses in
processing the application. (Ord. 2932 §9, 10/11/96)
Telecommunications Fees:
1~ Re_ai_'stration Fee $500.00
2_, Assi_anment or Transfer Fee $250.00
Section 3. Ordinance 2166 as emended end C~pter 11.08 of the Port Angeles Municipal
Code ere hereby arn~nded by emending PAMC 1 !.05.010, .060, and .110 to ~'eed ns follows:
11.08.010 Definitions. The following definitions apply to the provisions of this Chapter,
unless the conte~ shall indicete otherwise:
A. "Applicant" me~ns any person making application for n permit for construction or
-21 -
excavation work, pursuant to the terms of this Chapter.
B. "City" means the City of Pon Angeles.
C. "City Council" or "Council" means the City Council of the City.
D. "City Engineer" means the City Engineer of the City of Port Angeles.
E. "Construction" or "excavation" means the act of openinl~ excavatinl~ or in any manner
disturbing or breaking the surface or foundation of any permanent pavement; the establishment or
alteration of any established grade or street; and-the maintenance or removal of a sidewalk or
crosswalk, pavement, sewers, water mains, street lighting or appurtenances thereto, and constructing
or installing pol~s, pedestals, antennae, electronics, cables, wire~, and other appurtenances and
equipment located on or above the surface of the ground.
F. "Person" means any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or
organization of any kind.
G. "Permittee" means any person holding a permit from the City of Port Angeles for the
performance of any construction or excavation work within a right-of-way of the City.
"Right-of-way" means a dedicated or owned fight-of-way of the City, between the
outer boundaries thereof, within which may be located a street, highway, sidewalk, alley, avenue or
other structure used for pedestrian or vehicular tra~c, or a utility structure or appurtenance. A right-
of-way or easement is included within the definition of"Right-of-Way" whether such right-of-way
or easement is currently used or not.
I. "Work" means any construction or excavation within a fight-of-way of the City.
11.08.060 Permit - Fee. A permit fee shall be charged by the City for the issuance of a permit
for work in a right-of-way, which fee shall be in addition to all other fees for permits or charges
relative to any proposed work and shall include the cost of restoration. The amount of such fee shall
- 22 -
be established as set i~orth in Chapter 3.70 PAM~ ~I,~ C~ C,,,~,c;'. t,.~ ,~,|,,~,,,, ~.,.'..-,~y i~
11.08.110 Permittee - Liability Insurance R _equired.
~ Any pemittee r~ivins a permit under ~e terms of this, '
..... - ........... ' -' shall p ovid the City satisfact ry p f fth existen
ora con~ liabRity insurance policy, in an amount and fonn determined by the City~
o~-il,~wn~, but in no event providing coverage of less than .':~,~ ;I,,,,,~,,~ ,>~e million dollar~
for ix~onal injury to any one person, ' Ii n dollars for injury to more
tlum one person arising out of the same incident, an~ne million dollars for property
damage, three million dollars for prone~_ damage to more than one person azinin_t out of the same
incident, and one m~llion dollars for all other types pf liability inclutUn[, cinims for damages for
invasion ofnrivncv, detanagon_ violation or infring~m~nt of any cop_~_Rht or related law. or dsm~_e
erisin~ out of~ilure to comply with any ~pplicable law or regulation
·
,.~,, ~,~,, ,,~ ,,~ ,~.,~,,~,. The er be provided with an endorsement .
to such policy, naming the City as an additional insured.
Section 4 - Se~_. Ii'any provisions of this Ordinance, or its application to any pe~on
or circumstance~ is b~ld invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application of the provisions of
the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.
Section 5 - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five da~ after the date of
publication.
PASSED by the C~ Council of the City of Pon Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council
h~id on the __ day of ,1999.
MAYOR
ATI'EST:
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
By Summary
- 24 -