HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/07/1999 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
Call to Order: ~~~' //q~
Members Present:
Orville Campbell, Chairman ~ Bill Myers
Joe Michalczik, Vice Chairman ~// Larry Williams
Larry Doyle C~ Glenn Wiggins (Alternate)
Members Absent:
Others Present:
UTILITY ADVISORY COMMl~-i-EE
VERN BUI~TON CONFERENCE ROOM
POR~ ANGELES, wa 9~3~2
JUNE 7, J999
3:00 P.M.
AGENDA
L CALL TO ORDER
il. ROLL CALL
Ill. APPROVAl Of MINUTES Of MAY I O, I ~)99, Regular MEETING.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE
B. SCADA QUOTES
C. WEATHERIZATION LOAN REPORT
D. TOPS PRESENTATION
E. WAter STRATEGY
F. DISCUSSION Of Fiber PRESENTATION
V. INt=ORMATION ONlY ITEMS
Vi. LATE ITEMS
VII. NEXT MEETING - dUlY I 2, I ~9~)
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Port Angeles, Washington
May 10, 1999
I. Call to Order: Draft
Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call:
Members Present: Councilmen Campbell, Doyle and Williams, Bill Myers, and Joe
Michalczik.
Members Absent: None.
StaffPresent: C. Knutson, J. Pittis, B. Titus, D. McGinley, B. Collins, B. Upton,
and C. Hagar.
II1. Approval of Minutes:
Councilman Doyle moved to approve the minutes of April 12, 1999, meeting. Councilman
Williams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
IV. Discussion Items:
A. Cable Television Status Report - Pete Grigorieff, Northland Cable Regional Manager
City Clerk Upton stated that at the Committee's request, she had invited Mr. Pete Grigorieff and Ms.
Rose Gosslin to this meeting to report on cable television in Port Angeles. Mr. Pete Grigorieff,
Northland Cable Interim Regional Manager, introduced Rose Gosslin, Office Manager. Mr.
Gdgorieff reviewed the information contained in the Northland Report, which was part of the packet.
The information reviewed included system structural and operational information, summary of the
previous year's activities, planned construction and upgrades, and current and future technology
advances and services. Various sections were discussed, and Mr. Grigorieff responded to questions
and provided additional clarification.
Councilman Doyle inquired as to the charge for Service Agreement and what service it provided. Mr.
Grigorieff stated the charg.e was $2.75 per month and was designed to cover in-house wiring
problems. Without the service agreement, Northland Cable is only responsible for the wire to the
ground block, which is outside of the home.
Mr. Michalczik asked why Pay-per-View television was not mentioned in the report. Mr. Grigorieff
stated Northland did not offer Pay-per-View at this time, due to its current channel capacity. He
explained that many smaller operations do not offer this service because of channel constraints.
However, Northland did hope to be able to offer this service sometime in the future, as it is
investigating digital compression services, which allows for greater capabilities.
During discussion of Local Origination Programming, Councilman Campbell stated the Northland
Cable News personnel are a great asset to the community and are very professional in delivering local
news.
Councilman Campbell noted that fiber optics is going to be discussed later in the agenda, and he
inquked if Northland Cable would consider working with the City, PUD, etc., in obtaining fiber optic
systems. Mr. Grigorieffstated Northland had some discussion with the PUD regarding fiber optics,
and he felt Northland would definitely wish to see any plans the City made.
Councilman Campbell thanked Mr. Grigorieff and Ms. Gosslin for the time and information.
B. Draft Water Supply Strategy
Revised Scope for Regional Water Study
Interim Manager Pittis stated this information is an attempt to fully describe the water issues facing
the City in the future. Attorney Knutson noted that some of the information contained in the report
is concerned with the City's water rights and strongly stated that this is a draft document for
discussion purposes only and not for public consumption.
Interim Manager Pittis reviewed the information contained in the Water Supply Strategy prepared
by CH2M Hill. He reminded the Committee, that while these issues have been discussed at length
in the recent past, this document has not been discussed for quite some time. Interim Manager Pittis
stated this item can be brought back to the next meeting if the Committee needs additional
information following today's discussion. Interim Manager Pittis then reviewed the document section
by section, explaining the various issues, responding to questions, and providing additional
clarification.
Interim Manager Pittis noted that some of the drivers affecting the City's decisions evolve around the
clos'mg of the Rayonier mill. This issue can cause problems for the City's water right as it relates to
the industrial pipeline. Staff is attempting to get confirmed records as to Rayonier's water
consumption in the past; this information may then be used for further documentation of this water
right.
Interim Manager Pittis expounded on the Ranney Collector issue, as it has the potential to be declared
as groundwater under the influence of surface water, which would require revised disinfection
methods and/or treatment. A second problem with the Elwha Ranney Collector is declining yields
due to the river moving west. This may signal the need for additional supply development in the
future.
Other Issues and Decision which drive the water supply strategy include Elwha Dam removal, the
Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, changes in water fight law, watershed planning, Morse Creek
hydropower station, growth, the Endangered Species Act, and corrosion control. During discussion
of growth and future water supply needs, Joe Michalczik requested that the Water Demands
Projections table be changed to reflect domestic vs. industrial water demands. Also, Councilman
Williams noted that the first paragraph describing this issue (page 14) contained an error.
"....projected average annual demand (ADD)..." should read "...projected average daily demand..."
Interim Manager Pittis continued to review the document, explaining alternative supply options and
recommended supply strategy. Interim Manager Pittis explained that staffis now requesting the UAC
to approve the next scope of work adjustment in the amount of $12,119. The additional information
will enable the Council to decide on alternative location issues of treatment plants or regional water
supply issues. Senator Gorton has said he would be willing to consider reimbursing the City for
consultant costs on issues relevant to protecting its water interests.
2
Following further discussion and clarification, Councilman Doyle moved to recommend to the City
Council that the City enter into a contract with CH2M Hill for an expansion of Scope and
Budget for Contract No. 97.16 (Water Supply Study). Joe Michalczik seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
V.. Information Only Items
A. Future Requirements for Conservation and Renewable Resources
Bob Titus, Deputy Director of Utility Services, reviewed the information contained in the packet.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) will include new elements for the 2001 through 2006
rate period. Among them will be the Conservation and Renewables Discount (C&RD). This will
establish criteria for utilities to earn up to a 3% discount on wholesale power bills. The draft plan
calls for the discount to be built into the rates with utilities reporting their achievements annually.
Should a utility not spend at least 3% of its wholesale power costs on qualifying conservation and
renewable resources, it would be required to pay to the BPA the difference between actual spending
and 3% of annual power purchases.
Deputy Director Titus responded to questions and provided additional clarification. He informed the
Committee that this if for information only to increase its awareness of a topic that will gain
importance as 2001 approaches.
No action was taken.
B. Telecommunications and Fiber Optic Opportunities for Port Angeles
Deputy Director Titus reviewed the information provided in the packet. He stated staffhas been
working with the PUD and EDC on this issue· The PUD has arranged to have a consultant give a
telecommunications and fiber optics presentation on May 26, 1999, at 1:00 p.m.
Discussion followed. Councilman Campbell noted that if fiber optics is going to occur on the
Peninsula, the City of Port Angeles will have to lead the way. Attorney Knutson suggested the
Economic Development people quoted in this morning's paper be invited to address the UAC
regarding their interests and concerns on this topic. Deputy Director Titus stated that the PUD
Commissioners, City Council, UAC, and EDC Board members have all been invited to the meeting
of May 26, 1999. This will be a good opportunity for community discussion of this issue· Bill Myers
noted that this is an exciting opportunity for the City. It is clearly what is needed if the City hopes
for any real development. Joe Michalczik asked for a plan to review at the next UAC meeting. ·
No action was taken.
V1. Late Items
,4. Pole Use Agreement with Port
Deputy Director Titus reviewed the information distributed prior to the meeting and reminded the
Committee that the City has entered into several agreements like this in the past.
Bill Myers moved to recommend the City Council approve the Pole Rental Agreement with the
Port of Port Angeles. Discussion followed and Joe Michalczik expressed concern over entering into
a 15-year contract. Bill Myers pointed out that Section 12 of the contract contained an exit clause,
so the City was not tied to fifteen years. Following further limited discussion and contract
clarification, Councilman Williams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
B. Verbal Report from Interim Manager Pittis Regarding Landfill
Interim Manager Pittis stated he and Councilman Campbell had presented a report to the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee and the County regarding closure of the landfdl on December 31, 2006. During
discussion, it was asked if the rates would remain unchanged during the life of the landfill. The
response was that staff:will seek contracts with haulers through the year 2006 at the current rate of
$63. There is some risk involved; however, it locks in the flow of refuse into the landfill, which is the
greatest concern. Interim Manager Pittis asked the Committee if it had any problem with staff
seeking these contracts. It was the general consensus of the Committee that staff should proceed in
that direction.
Old Joe Road Water System
Counc'dman Doyle reminded the Committee that this issue had been discussed at a previous meeting.
He recently spoke to a resident of Old Joe Road, and someone is putting in a new water line. Interim
Manager Pittis stated the City and County have issued the necessary permits, but that the City will
inspect the line only after all of the residents have agreed to participate. Following inspection and
certification, the line will be hooked up to the City's water system. Interim Manager Pittis stated he
was informed there will be an approximately $2,500 fee to hook up to this line. As there is some
dissension among the neighbors, perhaps the City and State Department of Health will have to exert
pressure on the residents to settle this issue. Brief discussion followed. No action was taken.
VIL Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be June 7, 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
VIIL Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Orville Campbell, Chairman Carol A. Hagar, Deputy City Clerk
4
June 1, 1999
TO: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
City Attorney's
Office RE: Draft 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 carriers to provide long distance telephone
Craig D. Knutson service, as well as cable television, audio services, video programming services,
city Atlorney interactive telecommunications, and Internet access. Similarly, long distance providers,
Dennis 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 competition in
the market would protect consumers from 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 fi'om
telecommunications providers so long as they do so on a competitively neutral and non-
Chrystina Bruneau
Administrative Assistant discriminatory basis.
Jeanie DeFrang As a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, many cities experienced an increase in
Adminis~rativeAssistant thenumber ofrequests to use public fights-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 rights-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 rights-of-
way);
d. Pole rental fee.
4. Permit Issuance. Teleeoramunications 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 right-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 rights-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 tho 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 right-of-
way).
Also attached is an announcement for the Second Annual Local Telecommunications Infrastructure
Options Seminar to be held in Seattle on August 19th and 20th This program is intended to provide
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, regulating
telecommunications facilities within City rights-of-way, establishing fees
for such facilities, amendin~ 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
TR! .F-COMMUNICATIONS 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 o Relocation or Removal of Facilities
11.14.100 - Assignments or Transfers of Franchises and
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 fights-of-way for telecommunications owners, operators, and
providers on a competitively neutral basis while protecting the public health, safety and welfare, to
conserve the limited physical capacity of the public rights-of-way held in pubfic trust by the City, and
to reasonably and fairly compensate the City for private use of and disruption to City fights-off-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
35A.47.040.
11.14.020 - Definitions. 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 service 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
appurtenances 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 services as regulated in this Chapter.
E. "Telecommunications 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 - R~gistration. All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications
services 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 registrant 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, and/or locate facilities in City right-of-way shall enter
-3-
into a fianchise agreement with the City of Port Angeles, which franchise shall be in accordance and
compliance with the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended and this Chapter.
B. All other owners, operators, and providers of telecommunications service who
intend to construct, 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 of the 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 regulations, 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 terms
and conditions than exist in other such franchises, talfing into consideration relative characteristics
of each applicant.
E. No grant of franchise hereunder shall confer any exclusive tight, privilege, or
license to occupy any City tights-of-way, nor convey any right, tire, or interest in such tights-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 fl~nchise~'s occupancy of City tights-of-way, and shall maintain a comprehensive
liability insurance policy, and provide to the City safisfactoqt proof thereof, in an amount and form
determined reasonably necessary 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 occun~nce, $1,000,000 for property damage to any one person and $3,000,000
aggregate 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 copyright 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 owners, 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
?AMC.
B. All owners, operators, and providers of telecommunication services who are
granted permission by the City to install facilities in City rights-of-way shall pay additional application
processing fees, construction deposits and fees, and other related fees, as the City may de~ermine 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 Poli~y 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 oftbe 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 I[~uance.
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 b~
the applicant.
4. The location of all facilities within the City which are not located withir
-7-
right-of-way.
5. Construction methods to be employed for protection of existing
structures, fixtures, and facilities within and adjacent to the right-of-way.
6. The location, dimensions, and type of trees and significant vegetation
within or adjacent to the right-of-way along the route proposed by the applicant, together with a
landscaping plan for protecting, 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 permit 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
authorifing 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, construction, 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 11.08 PA_MC, all
persons subject to this Chapter shall comply with the following requirements:
1. At all times comply with all applicable statutes, laws, ordinances, pohcies,
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 fight-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
applicant to occupy, the applicant shall be required to occupy the City' s conduit(s) or excess capacity
in order to reduce the 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 applicant 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, wires, and appurtenances shall be located, erected, and maintained so that
no facilities shall endanger or interfere with the lives ofpersons 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
service. If facilities of any person subject to this Chapter are required to be placed underground in
the future, others subject 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
concurrently With other users of the right-of-way in order to minimize disruption. Fadlities 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 Depa~ment.
E. Erection, removal, and common use of poles:
1. 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
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 fight-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, (b) operations in or upon the right-of-way
by the City, another governmental entity, or persons having permitted facilities in the right-of-way,
(c) 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 of a 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-
iaitial issuance unless approved by the City.
2. Absent extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances, no assignment or
transfer shall occur before construction of the 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, terms, and
conditions of the proposed assignment or transfer;
b. Ali 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 cam] 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 of the 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 singnlarly or collectively result.in a change
offit~y percent (50%) or more of the ownership or working control of the lYanchisee 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 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 o Revocation or Termination of Franchises and Permits.
A. A franchise or permit granted hereunder may be revoked or terminated 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 facilities 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 cfa 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 offrequeocy broadcast with another applicant
of a higher priority.
B. In the event that the City believes that grounds exist for revocation or termination
of a 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 revoke 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 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-
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 addition to
penalties provided for violation, such nuisance shall be subject to abatement by any lawful means at
the expense and liability of any party determined to be responsible therefore.
C. Nothing 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 amending PAMC 3.70.110 to read as follows:
3.70.110 - Public Works Denartment (DepartmenO Fees and Deposits.
A. The fee for a permit for eomtmction or excavation work in the City right-of-way
shall be as follows:
1. Concrete walk installation $60.00
2. Curb & gutter 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 PAMC 11.12.120, shall be as follows:
1. Benches $ 5.00
2. Litter receptacles 5.00
3. Bicycle racks 5.00
4. Private planters 5.00
5. 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 fit~y ($50)
dollars.
15. The appficafion fee for a permit for obstruction of unopened streets shall be
one hundr~ fil~y ($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/br.
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:
-17-
Estimated volume of ~ading & fill Fee
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 Fee
Less than one acre $30
One acre to five acres $50
Over five acres $1 O/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 Ins_oection.
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
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 PAMC: at cost.
G. Water Service Connection Fees
1. The new residential water service 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 M~r 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-ohs or turu-offs shall be fil~y dollars
during regular working hours and one hundred dollars outside of regular working
hours.
4. The water quality 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 $600 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 remaining 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 interceptors: $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.
Ali 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 addition to the sewer or storm drain fees required under this Section, any person
receiving a permit 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 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 shall 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)
Telecommunications Fees:
L Registration Fee $500.00
~ Assignment 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 -
be established as set forth in Chapter 3.70 PAMCby'~,,.~ ~'",~l,y ~',~,,u.,~.." by ,~,l~.il,,,~ ,~,~,· .,,~.~ be'
11.08.110 Permittee - Liability InsUrance Required.
A. Any permittee receiving a permit unde~ the terms of this Chapt , '
u, ,~,~,~., ,~ ,,~,~ u.u~.,,~,,~ ,,,,u,~ ~ u. ~, shall provide to the City satisfactory proof of the existence
of'a comprehensive liability insurance policy, in an amount and form determined by the City-C--mgine~
or-C-ity-Attom~, but in no event providing coverage of less than ~ne million dollars
for personal injury to any one person, ~qa~e~a~red-hhma~a~hree million dollars for injury to more
than one person arising out of the same incident, ~n¢ million dollars for property
damage, three million dollars for property damage to more than one person arising out of the same
incident, and one million dollars for all other types of liability including clairn~ for clama~es for
invasion of privacy, defamation, violation or infringement of any copyright or related law, or darna~e
arising out of failure to comply with any applicable law or regulation against clainis
..... ~ ......... City
'~ w,,,~,~ ,~u i~, ~,,, ,,~ ,,,,~ ,~,,~,~.. The shall further be provided with an endorsement
to such policy, naming the City as an additional insured.
- 23 -
Section 4 - Severabilitv. 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 = Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days after the date of
publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the __ day of ,1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
By Summary
- 24 -
B BULK RATE J
LAW SEMINARS INTERNATIONAL U.S, POSTAGE
PAID
810 Third Ave. · Ste. 140-1 o Seattle, WA 98104 P£RMIT # 169
Phone: (206) 621-1938 or (800) 854-8009 SEATTLE, WA
Fax: (206) 567-5058 ° EmaiJ: registrar@lawserainars.com
Local Telecommunications
Infrastructure Options
August 19 and 20, 1999
The Meeting Place at Pike Place Market
Seattle, Washington
YESI Please register the following:
Name:
Name:
Firm: *~***w*w***.a,..* ECRLOT ** C-005
PUDS
Address: CRC~ZG KNUTSON
C3'T¥ ¢ITTORNEY
BOX 1150
Phone: Fax: 321 E 5TH ST
Email: PORT ¢tNGELES ~IA 90362-3206
If you cannot attend, check boxes to order:
r'l Homestudy Course [] Course Materials only
Fill in Visa/MasterCard/American Express information
below or send check:
No. Exp.:
Signature:
LAW SEMINARS INTERNATIONAL
Second Annual
Local
Telecom m u n icatio ns
Infrastructure Options
Current Issues in the Transition to Competitive Markets
August 19 and 20, 1999
The Meeting Place at Pike Place Market
Seattle, Washjngton
Thursday, August I 9, 1999
8:30 Introduction and Overview 1:00 Scope of Local Options
Judith E. Endejan, Esq., Pmoram Co-Chair · Cellular Facilities: Minimizing Visual Impacts
VVTIliams Kastner & Gibbs, Seattle, WA Kirk R. Wines, Esq.
Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA
Carol S. Arnold, Esq., Pro ram Co-Chair
Preston Gates & Ellis, Seattle, WA · Rights-of-Way Issues: The Extent of Preemption
Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act and State
8:45 Public Ownership and Operation of Law
Facilities Martin L. Stern, Esq.
· A National Perspective Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds,
William L. Lowery, Esq. Washington, DC
Miller & Van Eaton, San Francisco, CA · Lessons from Cases Around the Country
· Lessons from a Pioneering Public Fiber System TimothyX. Sullivan, Esq.
Steven J. Klein City of University Place, University Place, WA
Tacoma Power, Tacoma, WA
2:45 Break
· Tips for Evaluating Potential Benefits and Pitfalls
Felix H. Anderson 3:00 Industry Perspective on Appropriate
City of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA Local Policies
· CLEC Perspective
10:30 Break Gregory J. Kopta, Esq.
1 0:45 Competitively Neutral Local Policies Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, WA
· Developing a Strategy for Complying with the · Wireless Perspective
1996 Telecommunications Act Ross C. Baker, Esq.
Stephen P. Bowen, Esq. AT& T Wireless Services, Seattle, WA
Blumenfeld & Cohen, San Francisco, CA · ILEC Perspective
· Open Internet Access over Cable Systems: KimberlyA. Miller
Do Cities Need to Change Their Approach to GTE Service Corporation, Irving, TX
Regulating Cable Services? · Cable Perspective
Matt Lampe Ronald N. Main
City of Seattle, Sea,e, WA Washington State Cable Communications
Association, Seattle, WA
12:00 Luncheon Address:
The Role of Telecommunications 5:00 Reception Sponsored by
Infrastructure in the Future of Williams Kastner & Gibbs arid
King County Preston Gates & Ellis
Ronald Sims
King County Executive, Seattle, WA
About the Conference...
"The telecommunications industry continues to evolve at a rapid pace with
explosive growth in wireless services and new competition in the form of cable
modems for Intemet access. Communities with dense urban areas face increased
demand from carriers for street cuts and cell towers. Communities that are less
attractive to new carders face the challenge of modernizing their telecommunications
infrastructure to support the advanced services necessary for economic growth in the
information age.
These challenges can be particularly difficult because local governments have an
obligation, under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, to develop competitively neutral
policies. This program will provide all participants in local infrastructure decisions with
the latest information for finding the best solutions for Washington's communities."
Proc~ram Co-Chairs: Carol S. Arnold, Esq. and Judith E. Endejan, Esq.
Carol S. Arnold, Pr0qram Co-Chair. is a partner in the Litigation Department at Preston
Gates & Ellis. She has represented public entities on utility issues for over 15 years.
LA~,S~t~.p~'~,~T~ON^~ Judith E. Endejan, Proqram Co-Chair. joined Williams Kastner & Gibbs in August 1997
~ ~ ..... after nine years as counsel for GTE Corporation. She chairs the firm's telecommunications
practice group.
Ronald Sims, Luncheon Address, 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
and Investment Policy.
Felix H. Anderson, the Director of Information Technology Services for the City of Bellingham,
is responsible for the City's computing, data, voice, and video networks.
Ross C, Baker is Senior External'Affairs Manager/Land Use Policy Counsel for AT&T Wire-
less Services in Washington.
Charles L. Best, now in private practice, is a former Chief Counsel for U.S. WEST Commu-
nications in Oregon. His practice emphasizes regulated industries, including telecommuni*
· _cati(~ns, and professional discipline.
Stephen p.~, ~owen, who manages Blumenfeld & Cohen's San Francisco office, has repre-
transition to ~ ~entPdJ'~,~e diverse members of the California Telecommunications Coalition. He also works
with other industries contemplating entry into telecommunications such as major corporate
users and electric and gas utilities.
Robert Geppert is the National Director of Telecommunications for KPMG Peat Marwick's
State & Local Tax Practice. He works in the firm's Seattle office.
Steven J. Klein has been Tacoma Power Superintendent since June 1993. During his ten-
ure, Tacoma became one of the first cities to construct a publicly-owned hybrid filter-coax
~ ,, system for the purpose of offering broadband telecommunications and cable TV services to
everyone in the service area.
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
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.
Kimberty 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
legislative initiatives, regulatory compliance, and franchise negotiation.
Mark A. Simonson is GTE's liaison for railroad, municipal, county, state, and federal rights-
~ fax 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) 567-505~,.~ ~ telecommunications service providers, and government agencies.
email Martin L Stern, former deputy chief of the Competition Division at the Federal Communica-
tions Commission, is a partner at Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. He provides stra-
~ 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 Tarakji 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 sitin§
~ ~ .~ disputes. ~'-
Friday, August 20, 1999
9:00 Introduction 12:00 Lunch (on your own)
Carol S, Arnold, Esq., Program Co-Chair
Preston Gates & Ellis, Seattle, WA 1:00 Update on Model Telecommunications
Ordinances in Washington and Elsewhere
Judith E. Endejan, Esq., Prooram Co-Chair · Municipal Perspective
Williams Kastner & Gibbs, Seattle, WA Carol S. Arnold, Esq.
9:15 Local Tax Issues Preston Gates & Ellis, Seattle, WA
· An Update on Appropriate Local Taxes and Fees · Industry Perspective
under the 1996 Telecommunications Act Judith E. Endejan, Esq.
Robert Geppert Williams Kastner & Gibbs, Seattle, WA
KPMG Peat Marwick, Seattle, WA
2:45 Break
10:00 Break
3:00 Ethics: Managing Confli~:~,~.s of Interest
10:15 Street Degradation Cha~e-~..' ~..' Best, Esq.
· A Review of Research on the Impact of Street Cuts Atto,,~ey at Law, Portland, OR
on the Life of a Street
Ghassan Tarakji, PhD, PE 4:00 Adjourn
San Francisco State University,
San Francisco, CA
· Industry Response ~
Mark A. Simonson
GTE Northwest, Everett, WA
_ Information...
Registration: We recommend advance registration, as seating Course Accreditation: This course meets all of the requirements
is limited. Registration is complete when we receive payment or for continuing legal and professional education. Application has
agree to later payment. You can register in any of the following been made for Washington CLE and AICP credits. Please call
ways: (206) 621-1938 for more information.
Call us at (800) 854-8009 or (206) 567-4490. Substitution or Cancellation: You may substitute another
Fax the registration form on the front page of this person at any time. We will refund tuition, less a $50 cancellation
brochure to us at (206) 567-5058. charge, if we receive your cancellation by 5:00 p.m. Pacific 'lqme
Email us at registrar@lawseminars.cam, on Friday, August 13, 1999.
If you want a secure transaction, go through our Seminar Location: The seminar will be held in The Meeting
web site (www. lawseminars.com) and use our Place at Pike Place Market, 93 Pike Street, Suite 307, Seattle,
electronic registration form. WA 98101, (206) 447-9994.
Mail us a copy of the registration form on the front of
this brochure. Sponsor: For over 20 years the expe~ls at LAW SEMINARS
Walk-ins are welcome, subject to space availability, iNTERNATIONAL have been dedicated to presenting (~ualitv con-
Tuition: Regular tuition for this program is $795 with a group tinuing professional education seminars throughout the United
States and Canada. They pride themselves on including in their
rate of $750 for two or more registrants from the same firm. For
governments, we offer a special rate of $715 and a local govern- faculties tod professionals who are also excellent speakers. LAW
SEMINARS INTERNATIONAL has received international acclaim
ment rate of $397.50. For students and people in their job for less for the organization and content of its seminars.
than a year, our rate is $397.50. All rates include admission to all
seminar sessions, food and beverages at breaks, lunch on Thurs- If You Cannot Attend: Our complete Homestudy Course, con-
day, and ail course materials. Make checks payable to LAW sisting of a full video transcript and the course materials, is avail-
SEMINARS INTERNATIONAL. able for $805. The course materials alone are available for $100.
Upcoming Seminars...
Hydroelectricity in Today's Competitive Western Marketplace June 3 and 4 Portland, OR
Eminent Domain June 10 and 11 Seattle, WA
Successful Permitting Stratggies July 22 and 23 Portland, OR
Local Government and Municipal Law August 12 and 13 Seattle, WA
pORTA NGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLI(~ WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 10, 1999
TO: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Bob Titus, Deputy Director of Utility Services
SUBJECT: SCADA Quotes
The City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a water SCADA system in March and received three
proposals by the closing date of April 23, 1999. Proposals were received from AGI Technologies, S &
B, Inc., and Technical Systems Inc. (TSI). The process that the City chose to solicit proposals under was
through competitive negotiation where both price and quality of product are used to evaluate proposals.
After reviewing the proposals, checking references and visiting a site where similar equipment has been
installed, staff has concluded that the best proposal is the one submitted by S&B.
Proposals were rated using the following criteria: total overall impression of the proposal submitted,
experience and results of similar'projects, experience of the project manager, understanding of the project,
experience and knowledge of local conditions, ability to provide ongoing maintenance services, and cost.
Very little separated the top two vendors, S&B and TSI, except for the cost. Cost of the three proposals
is shown in the table below.
Vendor Cost
AGI $170,000
S&B $91,100
TSI $111,255
Staff is currently working up a contract for this project and is evaluating several optional items suggested
by S&B. However, so as not to delay the project we would like to move forward with a not to exceed
recommendation.
Action to be taken: Recommend to the City Council that the Mayor be authorized to enter into an
agreement with S & B, Inc. for a water SCADA system with a not to exceed cost of $100,000.
Estimated time: 20 minutes.
N:/PWKS/LIGHT/DIRECTOIUMEMOS/S&B.WPD
pORTANGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 7, 1999
TO: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Scott McLain, Power Manager
Yvonne Ziomkowski, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Conservation Loans.
Loans for conservation improvements have been available to customers since the inception of the program
in 1980. The first loan program was the zero-interest program, with loans due when the home was sold.
From 1983 to 1995 weatherization loans were offered utilizing light fund reserves at various interest rates
and terms of up to five years. In 1995 the City signed a flex agreement with the Bonneville Power
Administration that allowed us to use a portion of our flex allocated Bonneville funds to provide loans for
conservation improvements. These loans are at various interest rates with terms of up to 10 years. Money
paid back on these loans is funding the current conservation programs. Since November of 1998,
conservation loans are available and administered through First Federal Savings and Loan.
Weatherization and Conservations loans are always collectible, as the property is liened by the City. The
status of each of these loan programs is described below.
Zero-interest Loan Pro~ram. ¢1980-1983~
This program was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration. We currently have 156 loans still
outstanding. Staff recently completed an audit of these accounts to see if any had changed owners without
our knowledge. Letters went to 15 customers to determine the current ownership. It appears that
approximately five of these loans need to be paid off.
Weatherization Loans (1983=1995)
This program was funded by the City Light. There are 40 accounts still active with $34,960 in principal
remaining. The audit of these accounts was completed in May 1999. As a result, 14 letters were mailed to
customers who were delinquent in their payment; delinquent interest is not payable until the maturity of the
loans. The remaining loans will mature in the year 2000. Over the 12-year period approximately 1160 loans
were issued.
Conservation Loans {1995-1998}
This program is funded by a BPA grant. There are 42 accounts still active with $169,359 in principal
remaining. As part of the annual audit, conformation notices were mailed to customers, also five letters were
sent to customers who were delinquent in their payments. There were 110 loans originally issued with
maturity dates between year 2000 and 2008.
First Federal Loans ¢1998-eurrenO
This program started in 1998 and five loans have been issued to-date.
L I N C 0 L N LUTiONS
.ENVIRONMENTAL
..... Recycling by' Reduction. May 7. 1999
(,orporate od~tce:
Po~ .~es City Council. Utilities Adviso~~ Committee
4130 Tumu'at~ 0 ~
..~I E 5th Street
~uck Route
Pon ~geles. WA 98362
MAY I 0
· ~stnngton 98~ ~2 Testing of TOPS at City Landfill L
Office:
Dear Utilities Adviso~ Committee Members,
(36O2 417-~
~ax: Will Possinger and I are vew interested in the possibility of utilizing the City
(360) 4173844 Landfill for the on-site testing of the Thermal Oxidation Process Systems (TOPS)
roll-rme., solid waste disposal unit. We are in the early stages of the permit application process
with the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, Depanment of Ecology, County
(877) 417-3884
Depa~ment of Health, etc. A key to the permit process is where that testing will be
· -,~it: conducted, and the possible impact on the surrounding area
lir;coln Cao~lp~ot.com
The landfill would be ideal for myriad reasons. Not the least of which is
zoning; from which all other considerations stem.
Attached is the Proposal submitted to the Solid Waste Adviso~ Committee
last month It outlines what Lincoln Environmental Solutions, Inc. (formerly E~co)
would like to do on the Olympic Peninsula. ~so attached are emission control data
and some of the practical considerations for incorporating TOPS into a Regional
Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan We believe it provides the most cost eflbctive
means of privatizing MSW disposal through the Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) application required by State and Federal regulations.
We ~ould like the oppo~unty to prove that this approach provides a win-
win-win scenario: It protects the environment; creates a wide variety of family-wage
jobs: and cuts rates paid by citizens It does not adversely impact on the ability of the
City ofPo~ ~geles to pay-offthe costs of the landfill. We would like to show how
the life of the landfill could be prolonged and the rates increased for other uses.
As our name implies, we want to help provide solutions; both environmental
and economic. We welcome the chance to discuss our Reduction by Recycling
theo~ with you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Marketing Director
/cc: Jack Pittis, City Manager/Director, Public Works
April 5, 1999
Mr. Joe Ciarlo
Chairman, Solid Waste Advisory Committee .:
Clallam County Courthouse
Port Angeles, WA. 98362
RE: Letter of Iment; Proposal for TOPS
Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste
Lincoln Environment Solutions, Inc. is prepared to negotiate for the fight to dispose
of the Municipal Solid Waste collected in Sequim and the Dungeness Valley. That
position is based on the conversation we had in February with you and Bob Martin, and
subsequent dialogues with other participants in the MSW collection/disposal business.
Will and Brian Possinger, Lincoln Industrial Corp, Directors of Manufac-
turing and Special Projects, and Steve Sanderson, Marketing Director will provide
quality control of the equipment and timely response to any needs by Sequim or Clailam
County. The manufacture of TOPS on the Olympic Peninsula will also result in the
addition of upwards of 30 FTE jobs in the family-wage pay scale in the next two-to-three
years. That does not include a significant number of field representatives anticipated for
the installation and maintenance of the equipment upon delivery.
Lincoln Environmental Solutions, Inc. can assure the Olympic Peninsula of clean,
environmentally acceptable emission levels. We have been in contact with the Olympic
Air Pollution Control Authority and the Department of Ecology and will be work very
closely with those agencies throughout the Notice of Construction (NOC) Application
process. The results of TOPS operations to date provide a Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) baseline that assures future compliance with emission standards.
DOE representatives have gone so far as to point out, based on BACT data, that
"Regulations won't kill your project". They were, in fact, very enthusiastic and down-
right encouraging. They did warn about the need for community acceptance and under-
standing of the Oxidation process, as opposed to "Burning" or "Incineration".
We have claimed to be able to provide a disposal solution that is also
economically beneficial to the Olympic Peninsula. That to end, we propose a Tipping
Fee in the amount of $58.00 per ton for the first two years. That is for a guaranteed
amount of Manicipal Solid Waste of not less than 40 tons per day per week; a week
consisting of not less than five days. EnEco Systems, Inc. will guarantee that it will
maintain the capability of processing up to 80 tons of MSW per day. After the first two
years of operation the Tipping Fees will be reduced to $55 per ton. After an additional
three years Lincoln Environmental Solutions, Inc. will offer to sell the TOPS to either
the City of Sequim or Clallam County.
Page 2 - TOPS Proposal
For it's part, Lincoln Environmental Solutions, Incl would like the following
a~surances:
- Assurance that flow control of MSW for the Sequlm/Dungeness Valley will not
fall below 40 tons l~r day for the population of 25,000 +/-. An average $ pounds/
person/day, conservative by national (6.1 lbs) standards, equals 62.5 tons per day.
- A lease of the Blue Mountain Transfer Station propeiW for 20 years at $1.00
per year. Lincoln Environmental Solutions, Inc. will convey all claims to real or
personal property improvements upon sale of the property or at the end of 20
years.
Lincoln Environmental Solutions, Inc. is a private, for-profit business group. We
would like to take-on the privatization of the MSW disposal needs of the Olympic
Peninsula in it's entirety. We see this proposal as a first step. We very much want to work
hand-in-hand with the efforts of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) to
establish a disposal/collection district with inter-local agreements that may assist in:
l) Protecting the environment of the Olympic Peninsula
2) Enhancing services to the community
3) Sustaining the rates paid by citizens
We do not see those objectives as mutually exclusive. We believe that unlike any
other options available to the Olympic Peninsula, TOPS can make all those elements
happen while actually complimenting the other.
Let us know how we might be of assistance. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Will Possinger Steve Sanderson
Director of Manufacturing Marketing Director
cc: Jim Bay, Manager, Sequim Public Works Department
Jack Pittis, Manager, Port Angeles Public Works Department
Bob Martin, Director, Depamnent of Community Development
Clallam County Commissioners
~OPS for all types of solid and tiquid wastes generated by small communities, or large commercial facilities (i.e., manufacturing
;kcs, shopping centres, hospitals, airport, s, ports, military bases, mining/forestry/oil camps). TOPS requires no daily operator.
lOPS offers 90% volume reduction, recovery of all glass, aluminum and metals. TOPS may be configured to deliver hot water
~md air conditioning or heating, saving on electricity. Both liquid and solid wastes may be processed ir. one system.~
G_ A] AGE TI UC.KS CREAT MOB E SSIONS TOPS
~ne env~onmen~ costs ass~]at~ with ~c~g ~iculate & acid e~ssions & non-renewable energy u~ge)
md ~d~ng (toxic g~ & soft/water t~g) have often b~n ac~pt~ ~use of
.ney ~e less n~m~t th~ ~e~E options. The e~or ~ this logic ~s ~at res~ch h~ gr~tly improv~
:he t~otogy of o~dafion so that it is now f~ more h~m-
~1 ~ use ~c!~ ~d ~dfi~s ~ k ~s ~ u~ TOPS.
Di~e~ Tm~ Pollution VS E~co ~ ~m~io~
O~d~r 5~z ~ 230 ~/~r (5~ ~/H0 Was~ ~ypes 0 - ~), No
N/A ~ No~ ~pplieable BDL = ~low Deteo~bI~ Li~t
~Eco Sy~ems Inc.
~vir~me~l Problems need ~CO~mi~l ~lurions
~, 1994
Product Profile: TOPS Model 2 Dual-Linked
with Liquid Waste Destructor
Why did the U.S. Navy choose TOPS?
1) No operator required.
As one observes the design, the first feature that stands out are the
large (9'x9') top doors. TOPS may be directly loaded by collection
vehicles with Ioade of up to 700 cubic feet! The U.S. Navy immedi-
.atcly recognized the benefits and daily cost savings they would enjoy
buttonbY eliminatingand walktheaway.need for an operator. With TOPS, simply push a
2) Environmental Stewardship, 90% Volume Reduction and
- Easy recovery of glass and me~ after thc process.
-significant volume reduction: up to 95%
- convert organics to clean heat energy
3) Guaranteed performance and no scrubber required.
Due to the unique batch load design, TOPS delivers a clean suck
emission - guaranteed. Incinerators that are loaded on a continuous
basis will generate high levels of particulate and may be accidentally
or wilfully overloaded causing smoke. TOPS, with its batch load de-
sign and low operating temperatures, ensures particulates arc not
generated and no heavy metals are ever released from the stack.
Unless high concentrations o£sulphur or chlorine are present, TOPS
does not require a scrubber.
Customer Profile
Purchased by: U.S. Naw,
Nuclear Defence Agency.
Location: Johnston Is.
Requirement: 20 ton/day
ENEco SYSTEMS INC.
Head Office: #404 - 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 3E2
Fax: (604) 649-3480 Telephone: (604) 649-4518
~ Y~STE~#$ ffitiC.
Fi~u~
4O Meters
PROPOSAL FOR TOPS Model 3, Quad-Linked, Automatic Ash Removal: September, 1998
Page 5
pORTANGELES
W A S H I N G T O N, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 10, 1999
To: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Bob Titus, Deputy Director of Utility Services
SUBJECT: Telecommunications & Fiber Optics
On May 26, 1999 representatives from RW Beck made a presentation on telecommunications and fiber
optics. The full UAC and most City Council members were in attendance and lots of good questions were
asked of the presenters. At the end of the handout that was distributed at the meeting was a section on
developing a practical action plan. An outline of their recommended process is attached.
Staff has attended several seminars and has looked into some aspects of providing telecommunications
infrastructure and/or fiber optics. Staff has also held informal discussions with US West, the PUD and
the EDC. These discussions have been very general because at this point the City Council has not been
asked nor have they given any indication that they would like staffto formally pursue the issue of City
involvement in telecommunications and fiber optics.
At this point staff would like to move towards having a feasibility study completed to determine the
desirability of the City getting into the telecommunications business at least to the extent of providing
the infrastructure either directly or in partnership with others. In order to do this we need clear direction
from the UAC and City Council.
Action to be taken: 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 attached action plan up to and including issuing an RFP for a feasibility study.
Estimated time: 20 minutes.
N:/PWKS/LIGHT/DIRECTOPdMEMOS/TELECOM.WPD
DEVELOPING A PRACTICAL ACTION PLAN
1. Initiate Effort
a. Dedicate necessary internal resources
b. Select outside assistance
c. Develop detailed work plan
d. Select other regional parties who wish to participate
e. Set realistic expectations
2. Conduct Initial Research
Identify what other utilities and municipalities are doing
b. Identify legal/regulatory constraints
Evaluate technology alternatives
d. Identify potential operational savings
e. Identify potential revenue opportunities
f. Identify current and potential competitors
3. Complete Feasibility Study
a. Select preliminary set of applications
b. Develop conceptual system design
c. Identify all costs and benefits
(1) Operational efficiencies
(2) Improved customer service
(3) New revenue streams
d. Develop preliminary financial projections
e. Conduct sensitivity analysis
4. Develop Dra~ Business Plan
a. Develop mission statement
b. Develop short-term and long-term objectives
c. Develop marketing strategy
d. Develop technology strategy
e. Develop operations strategy
f. Develop organizational plan
g. Develop risk mitigation strategy
h. Identify target strategic partners
5. Develop Detailed System Design
a. Finalize selection of technologies
b. Finalize system design
c. Develop protocols
d. Complete detailed cost estimate
6. Conduct Pilot Programs
a. Test all criteria parameters
b. Select relevant size, demographics and topology
c. Carefully assess results
d. Document lessons learned
e. Feed results back into planning process
7. Refine Business Plan
a. Incorporate lessons learned
b. Revise business plan
c. Secure necessary approvals to proceed
8. Full Implementation
a. Roll out technology, operations, and marketing plans
b. Monitor results
c. Make mid-course corrections as necessary