The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 02/08/2000 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROLL CALL Call to Order: ~ (~ ~ Members Present: Orville Campbell, Chairman ~ Bill Myers Dean Reed, Vice Chairman /,~~' Larry Williams i~ Larry Doyle L.~' Glenn Wiggins (Alternate) Members Absent: ~o . UTILI~ ADVISORY COMMl'l-FeE VERN BURTON MEETING ROOM PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 3:00 P.M. AGENDA I. Call TO ORDER ~I. ROll Call Ill. APPROVal OF MINUTES Of ~JaNUaRY I O, 2000, REGULAR MEL~FING. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. FREE DUMP Day - BeNefit FOOD BaNk B. OlYMPiC Coast BEACH CLEAN-UP C. FIBER OPTICS STUDY UPDATE (VERBAL) D. "1" STREET SUBSTATION RFP (VERBAL) E. I/I PilOt PROGRam (VERBal) F. DOWNTOWN WATERMaIN/SIDeWaLK PROUECT (VERBAl w/haNDOUT) G. BIOSOLiDS DISPOSAL - PRESENtaTION bY PaRAMETRIX H. ResiDeNtial CONTAINER CONVERSION I. APPReCIaTION DaY - FEBRUARY 24TM (VERbal) ~J. Se~ MEETINg Date FOR March V. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS VI. LATE ~TEMS VII. Next MeETINg - To be Bet VIII. ADJOURNMENT UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Port Angeles, Washington January 12, 2000 I. CaR to Order: ~,~ Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. II. Roll Call: Members Present: Councilmen Campbell, Doyle, and Williams Members Absent: Bill Myers and Dean Read. Staff Present: Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, G. Cutler, C. Hagar, T. McCabe, G. Kenworthy, and K. Ridout. III. Approval of Minutes: Councilman Doyle moved to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1999, meeting. Councilman Williams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV. Election of New Chair and Vice Chair Mayor Doyle moved to nominate Councilman Campbell as Chairman. Councilman Williams seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. Mayor Doyle moved to nominate Councilman Williams as Vice Chair. Councilman Williams seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. V. Discussion Items: ,4. Private Hauler Contracts Director Cutler reviewed the information contained in the packet. Councilman Campbell asked if any conditions in the new contract were substantially different from the previous contracts. Tom McCabe, Solid Waste Collections Supervisor, stated the only change in conditions is to ask haul~rs to arrive at the landfill no later than 4:30 p.m. which will allow staff to perform daily cover by closing time to avoid overtime costs by the City. Also, in the past each hauler had a separate contract and some of them were difficult to read. This contract allows for a Waste Acceptance Policy which will apply to all haulers. Mr. McCabe responded to questions and provided clarification. Councilman Williams asked if the City had received its new permit from the County to operate the landfill. Director Cutler stated staff is in the process ofreapplying and the County has intimated it is considering a five-year permit for the landfill. After further discussion and clarification, it was suggested staff work with Attorney Knutson to add a clause to the contract as to what happens if the landfill permit is not granted. Councilman Williams moved to recommend the City Council approve the private haulers contract with the changes as noted. Mayor Doyle seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. B. Summary of Fiber Optics Feasibility Study Director Cutler explained that Scott McLain, Power Manager, has been working on this issue but he is out ill today. An electronic report has been sent by Power Engineers, Inc. and it will be copied and distributed to the City Council and City Attorney for review. Brief discussion followed regarding the upcoming visit of Senator Patty Murray and the possibility of federal funds for installing for fiber optic facilities. No action was taken. C. Electric Utility Financial Review Director Cutler stated that Scott McLain was also going to give this presentation. However, he did inform the Committee that the Revenue Requirements Review would be done in-house this year. He felt the City was in good financial shape and this review would go along with the fiber optic study. In the event of a proposal on these issues, the UAC and Council will have a good picture of the City's financial situation for decision making purposes. No action was taken. VI. Information Only Items: A. Water Supply Mitigation Councilman Campbell asked Director Cutler to give a brief report on the meeting with the Park Service on water supply mitigation. Director Cutler stated it was a second meeting with the Park Service, Tribe, Dry Creek, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Interior, Elwha Home Owners Association, and consultants. They discussed a Memorandum of Understanding, and have started looking into what mitigation facilities need to be constructed due to dam removal. Director Cutler felt good progress was being made and there was a good cooperative effort among all parties. The next meeting is scheduled for February 18, 2000. The Departments of Health and Ecology will also be requested to assist in this process and contact will be made with the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife to see how those organizations relate to the permitting process. Attorney Knutson gave a review of some of the challenges and potential pitfalls. With the assistance of Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, the City had succeeded in getting a provision in this year's appropriations Bill which allows the City to get reimbursed up to $500,000 for costs related to water mitigation due to the removal of the dams. The Park Service announced that its policies and regulations would allow for reimbursement only if there was already a contract in place, so they will attempt to work around it. Attorney Knutson reviewed the discussion of the Endangered Species Act which also took place at that meeting. Lengthy discussion took place. No action was taken. VL Late Items: A. Phase H- Downtown Watermain Project Director Cutler announced that the process had begun for design of the Phase II of Watermain and Sidewalk Replacement Project in the downtown area. Staff will meet first, and then hold discussions with downtown businesses and organizations. Letters have gone out to various agencies .and individuals asking for any knowledge of historic structures or murals in the project area. The area affected by this project is the south side of Front Street fi.om Lincoln to Oak Street. Brief discussion followed. No action was taken. B. Future Landfill Possibilities. Tom McCabe distributed copies of an article fi.om the November issue of Waste News regarding a shopping mall in Elizabeth, New Jersey, which had been erected on an abandoned municipal landfill. This was for information only. No action taken. C. Oak Street Ken Ridout, Deputy Director of Permits and Utilities, announced that Oak Street between First and Front would be closed on Wednesday, January 12, 2000, and preparatory to being reopened as a two- way street. VII. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held February 8, 2000. VIIL Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Orville Campbell, Chairman Carol A. Hagar, Deputy City Clerk I ORTANGELEs WASHINGTON, U.S.A. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: February 8, 2000 To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITrP2E FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Biosolids Disposal Clallam County has directed the City to develop a plan for disposal of biosolids and report it to them through the permit process. Parametrix, Inc. has identified four options for alternative uses for the biosolids generated at the Wastewater Treatment Plant: (1) export biosolids to a third party; (2) use as daily and intermediate cover; (3) operate a compost facility to produce final cover; and (4) operate a compost facility to produce Class A compost for sale. Currently, biosolids produced at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant are being disposed in the new cell at the Landfill. Disposal ofbiosolids in the Landfill is not allowed by our current permit and is regulated by WAC Chapter 173-304, 351. The disposal ofbiosolids in the Landfill is only allowable on a temporay basis where the Health Disixict has determined that an emergency exists and there are no other readily available options. The N-PDES Permit for the Wastewater Treatment Plant designates that biosolids will be disposed of for a beneficial use. A representative dom Parametfix, Inc. will present the four alternatives with costs for implementing each option. Recommendation: We immediately export biosolids to a third party to meet permit requirements and pursue composfing operations. Attach. Parametrix Biosolids Disposal Extension of Landfill Permit N:~PWKSXSWASTEXLANDFILL\COMPOST~BIOS208.WPD , :'~0 i',itss~p ',Nav Suite 202 8remert0n, WA 98312-2234 :,0-,')77-00t4 · Fax: 360-479-5961 January 27, 2000 PMX #235-2191-005 Mr. Tom McCabe, Solid Waste Manager City of Port Angeles P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 RE: Biosolifls Disposal Dear Tom: Based on our earlier meeting with Glenn Cutler and Engineering/Solid Waste staff, we have evaluated several options for management of the City's biosolids. This evaluation should be considered qualitative in nature with the goal being elimination of alternative management techniques, which are found to be regulatorily/institutionally fatally flawed or are obviously cost prohibitive. Those alternatives passing this initial screening could then undergo a more in depth analysis for final selection. The initial short list included: · ALTERNATIVE #1 - DO NOTHING Continue disposal ofbiosolids into Cell 3 of the landfill. · ALTERNATIVE #2 - EXPORT TO THIRD PARTY Consider exporting biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant directly to a third party for final treatment/disposal. · ALTERNATIVE #3 - PALF LAND APPLICATION Land apply biosolids to daily and intermediate cover soils to qualify for WDOE beneficial use requirements. ALTERNATIVE #4 - CO-COMPOST PALF FINAL COVER Operate co-composting operation at PALF to produce final cover topsoil only. Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 2 · ALTERNATIVE #5 - CO-COMPOST WITH OUTSIDE SALES Operate co-composting facility to produce marketable product for both external (off-site) sale as well as PALF final cover production. Before reviewing the analysis in detail, I want to call your attention to Table 1 - Key Assumptions/Design Criteria. Please review and familiarize yourself with these criteria. They were instrumental in guiding the development and evaluation of each of the options. I Biosolids Production Wet Wt. 1,700 T/YR Dry Wt. 340 T/YR ~ 20% solids 3% annual increase Yard Waste Production 4,000 T/YR 5% annual increase Landfill Cover Requirements Y2000 - 5,000 CY final Y2007 - 15,000 Final Annual - 500 CY intermediate Compost Feedstock 4:1 Wt. Basis Final Product- 75% feedstock Recycle - 30% feedstock ALTERNATIVE #1 - DO NOTHING Description: Alternative #1 considers continuing the current practice of biosolids disposal directly into the landfill. This practice violates both the wastewater treatment plant and the landfill-operating permit regarding beneficial use of the biosolids. Limitations: Not considered a viable management option due to regulatory requirements. Cost: Not applicable. Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 3 ALTERNATIVE #2 - EXPORT TO THIRD PARTY Description: This concept considers exporting all biosolids to a third party for final treatment and disposal. Biosolids would be delivered directly from the wastewater treatment plant to the third party contractor. Preliminary reconnaissance of third party providers found five potential contractors. The City of Port Townsend operates a co-composting operation at the site of the closed Jefferson County landfill. Currently the City processes approximately 300 tons of biosolids/septage solids with a like quantity of yard waste to produce a compost product, which is classified as Class A. The finished product, approximately 3,500 cubic yards annually is sold to the public. We contacted the City and were informed that they are n_~o longer accepting biosolids from out of County sources. Two additional providers were located in eastern Washington; Boulder Park Inc. in Douglas County and Natural Selection Forms in Yakima County. Both facilities are fully permitted land application/soil amendment sites with significant excess capacity. The Douglas County site uses biosolids for soil amendment for dry land wheat farming while the Yakima County facility amends soil for hop growing. It should be noted that Kitsap County is currently using the Yakima County facility for disposal of its biosolids. Estimated costs are $49.00 per ton including haul from Port Angeles. The City of Bainbridge and City of Sequlm utilize leased forestland from Pope Resources in Jefferson County for spray application of biosolids. This option was not investigated further since it involves application of wet sludge (not dewatered). LRI in Pierce County operates a co-composting facility near Puyallup. Preliminary discussions indicated a willingness to accept Port Angeles biosolids at a cost of between $60.00 to $65.00 per ton, including haul from Port Angeles. Under this scenario yard waste would continue to be collected via the recycling contractor and received at the landfill from self-haulers. Minimal processing would occur and disposal would be via the landfill (partial beneficial use). Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 4 Limitations: This alternative could be utilized effectively through the remaining landfill life (2006). After landfill closure, costs would escalate sharply due to the need to allocate additional disposal costs for yard waste management. Cost: From a cost perspective, three elements are considered: · Biosolids Disposal: Basic assumptions used considered the contract price paid by Kitsap County (1999) + 4% escalation + additional haul costs (Kitsap County vs. Port Angeles). Per ton costs was estimated at $37.50 per ton (wet) + $1.50 inflation + $10.00 additional haul -- $49.00 per ton. This assumes pick up of the dewatered biosolids directly at the Port Angeles treatment plant. · Final Cover Production: 20,000 cubic yard of topsoil required (2000 and 2007) at purchase price of $12.50 (2000) and $15.21 (2007) = $290,650.00. · Yard Waste Collection/Processing: Yard waste collection via the current recycling contract produces approximately 1,100 tons per year at a cost of just over $146,000.00 annually. The remaining yard waste quantity (3,000 tons per year) is received directly at the landfill via self-haulers. The cost to process the entire amount at the landfill (4,100 tons per year) is estimated at approximately $8.00 per ton. ALTERNATIVE #3 - PALF LAND APPLICATION Description: Land apply biosolids at the PALF to comply with beneficial use requirements. This option does not consider a co-composting program, but simply a soil amendment program, which would meet the requirements of WAC 173-308. Under this concept only that quantity of biosolids which can effectively b~ used "beneficially" would be considered eligible for this disposal. The remainder would have to be disposed using an approved alternative (probably Alternative #2 or #4). Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 5 Based upon intermediate cover soil needs, approximately 300 to 500 cubic yards of biosolids could be beneficially used at the landfill on an annual basis. This would still require off-site disposal of up to 1,400 tons per year, using a third party provider. Yard waste would continue to be collected and minimally processed for use and disposal at the Port Angeles Landfill. Limitations: As outlined above, intermediate cover soil amendment at the landfill will utilize only 20% to 30% of the annual biosolids production. Upwards of 1,400 tons will still require off-site disposal. Topsoil requirements for final cover soil will not be satisfied with this alternative. Therefore, the City will have to purchase 5,000 C.T. in 2000 and 15,000 C.T. in 2007 for final closure. Cost: After further evaluation, this alternative does not offer significantly different costs than the 100%o export option -Altemative //2. For cost comparison purposes this alternative is considered cost identified to Alternative #2. ALTERNATIVE #4 - CO-COMPOST PALl* l*INAL COVER Description: This concept considers restarting the biosolids/yard waste composting program at the PALF to produce final cover soils and intermediate cover soils as required through landfill closure (2007). As stated earlier, final cover soil requirements and intermediate cover needs on the seven year operating cycle will total approximately 23;500 cubic yards. Restarting the co-composting operation will require modifications in order to operate successfully. The existing facility has an excellent composting area; however, the yard waste processing, compost curing and finished product storage areas are deficient. Additionally, more equipment will be required in order to operate on continuous basis. Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 6 A preliminary evaluation was conducted and it is recommended that a hard surface operations area be created adjacent to the composting facility which would accommodate compost curing, finished product storage and screening operations. Approximately 25,000 s.f. would be required of which 10,000 s.f. would be under roof. A preliminary construction cost range for completing this facility is between $400,000.00 and $460,000.00, depending upon leachate disposal and drainage requirements. Equipment needs include an additional front-end loader (dedicated halt~ime to composfing operations); a dedicated tub grinder and a dump truck (10 cubic yards). Considering purchasing this equipment based upon "used" prices, a preliminary budget of between $250,000.00 and $300,000.00 is recommended. Approximately 2 1/3 full time employee equivalents will be required to operate this facility, including a fully certified compost operator. This existing compost facility is in need of cleanup and refurbishing. Items include minor equipment replacement/repair, drainage improvements and general housekeeping items. A budget estimate, assuming outside contractor, is approximately $25,000.00. The total recommended budget range for "re-start" is estimated at between $675,000.00 to $785,000.00. Limitations: Alternative #4 considers limited production of compost material for on- landfill use only. Over the evaluation period (2000 - 2007) approximately 23,500 cubic yards of final and intermediate cover will be required. This will consume all available quantities of biosolids; however, a surplus of unused yard waste will be created. As in Alternative #2, we have budgeted primary processing of this material (size reduction) and landfill disposal. Once the landfill completes closure in 2007, this alternative will require modifications to convert from a Class B compost to a Class A facility to allow off-site distribution and sale of the product. Additionally, the issue over 2,500 cubic yards of surplus yard waste will have to be addressed either by enlarging the composting operation or incorporating the tipping fee for disposal into the budget. Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 7 Cost: Composting costs are divided into two components: operations and debt service. Operations cost were estimated based on 2lA FTE's and include standard overhead expenses. Debt service was computed based upon a seven year amortization period and 6.5% interest. Combined costs. The combined O&M plus debt service was calculated at approximately $313,000.00 per year and escalated at 4% for the seven year operating period. Excess yard waste disposal (not composted) was estimated at $8.00 per ton with no landfill fee associated with disposal of this material directly into the landfill. As with previous alternatives, the cost of yard waste collection was included as a measure of"total cost" of managing this waste stream. ALTERNATIVE #5 - CO-COMPOST WITH OUTSIDE SALES Description: This alternative is similar to Alternative #4 with the additional goal of utilizing all biosolids and yard waste generated to produce a compost for both landfill uses and outside sales. Under this scenario the feedstock ratio would be approximately 7:1 on a dry weight basis. This ratio is a bit high and could cause operational problems. Potential solutions include added moisture or reducing the ratio on a portion of the product. This latter concept would essentially produce two products: co-compost and yard waste compost alone. Finished compost over the seven year operating cycle could total approximately 45,000 cubic yards of which 23,500 cubic yards would be utilized on the landfill. This leaves a surplus of approximately 21,000 cubic yards or approximately 3,700 cubic yards available for off-site sale annually. Limitations: As with the previous alternatives, landfill closure in 2007 will impact this alternative. However, this alternative may not be as negatively affected as others. Assuming the City is effective in developing an off-site market for finished product, the additional quantity of material not required for landfill closure could be absorbed into the market with increased revenues from product sale very close to the value of commercial topsoil and/or mulch. Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 8 Cost: The economics of this alternative are different from Alternative #4 in two respects: a) Capital cost amortization for this alternative is higher due to the projected increase in facility size required to handle larger quantities of both feedstock and finished product. b) Compost production costs are a bit higher in order to reflect additional effort to produce a higher quality material for off-site sale. ANALYSIS Table 2 was prepared to uniformly compare the alternatives over the next seven year operating cycle. This may not be a true economic life cycle comparison which is usually 15 to 20 years; however, the closure of the landfill in 2007 is such a critical event, we felt extending the analysis beyond that point required too many assumptions. It should be noted that waste quantities were escalated based upon anticipated growth of the waste streams using data supplied by the City or the PALF Development/Closure Plan. Operating costs were uniformly inflated at 4% per year. It should also be noted that the analysis included yard waste collection as a viable cost factor. Decisions regarding management of yard waste and biosolids need to clearly reflect total costs associated with each of these waste streams. Alternative #1 - The Do Nothing alternative was discarded without cost analysis due to its regulatory non-compliance. Although likely the most cost effective approach, (at least through landfill closure) this current practice will not be permitted to continue. Alternative #2 - Export to Third Party is estimated to cost approximately $2,500,000.00 over the seven year operating cycle. The key cost components are landfill operations and biosolids disposal - $1.3M and yard waste collection at $1.2M. Alternative #3 was essentially considered equal to Altemative #2. There are small variations in off-site disposal quantities; however, any savings would potentially be offset by additional on- site operating costs associated with managing biosolids at the landfill. Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 9 Alternatives #4 and #5 consider restarting the co-composting operation. The initial concept (Alternative #4) would produce a Class B product for use on the landfill only as final and intermediate cover materials. Alternative #5 would consume all biosolids and yard waste generated to produce a Class A product, which would be available for use on the landfill as well as sale to outside customers. The overall costs for these co-compost plans are surprisingly close. While Alternative #5 has higher capital expenses, unit operating costs are lower and off-site sales ($250,000.00) help to reduce total expenses. Regardless of which of these plans are implemented the overall costs are significantly higher than Alternative #2 ($3.6M vs. $2.5M). From a cost and speed of implementation perspective, Alternative #2 has a definite advantage. This plan could be implemented in 60 to 90 days; requires no capital expense and would realize approximately $1 million in savings over either of the composting options. The mechanism would involve soliciting proposals from potential providers (four identified) and negotiating a contract for haul and disposal of biosolids. Implementation of the composting program would require a much more lengthy timeframe. Final engineering design, permitting and facility construction will require between five and eight months to complete. Since this extensive capital investment was not envisioned in the 2000 budget, it may require postponement until FY2001. This could cause problems with both the wastewater treatment and solid waste permit issue by the WDOE and Clallam County Health Department respectfully. These agencies have stated that "beneficial use" disposal of the biosolids will be a condition of continued permitting of these facilities. If the decision is made to implement composting, it may be advisable to negotiate a short term third patty contract for disposal of biosolids until such time as the composting facility can be brought on line. From a long range perspective the co-composting options have certain advantages which will not be fully realized until the landfill closes at the end of 2006. After landfill closure all waste streams will be subject to a tipping fee for haul and disposal at an out of County facility. This will definitely alter the economics of dealing with yard waste and biosolids from an avoided cost basis. As an example - if long haul were implemented today and yard waste were treated as common solid waste, costs for out of County disposal of yard waste and biosolids would exceed $400,000.00 annually. This cost is greater than either of the composting options. It may be appropriate to apply this "avoided cost" scenario in the comparison of the current alternatives. If for example Alternative #5 were implemented considering certain avoided costs for selected waste streams, the results would be radically different. Assuming biosolids would pay 75% of avoided costs ($62,500.00 per year) and self hauled yard waste 15% of avoided cost ($33,000.00 per year), the first year's expense could be reduced from $356,000.00 to $260,000.00. If grant funds could be obtained for 50% of the capital expense, this annual charge Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 10 could be further reduced to $187,500.00. This constitutes over 45% reduction in annual costs and under these cimumstances we would not hesitate to recommend implementation of Alternative #5 - Co-Composting. There are other intangible issues, which should be considered in the evaluation process. These include: Regulatory Requirements: There is increasing pressure at the State level to ban yard wastes from landfills. If this measure is enacted, any alternative, which allows disposal of yard waste in the landfill, would be in violation. · Economic Benefits: Implementation of the compost options creates and maintains 2½ jobs for Clallam County. This is not a justification for selection of a higher cost alternative; however, all things being equal, it is certainly an important consideration. · Environmental Benefit: The composting altematives produce a beneficial product for use in Clallam County and lessen the impact associated with the mining of topsoils. · Septage Disposal: Although not considered in this evaluation, implementation of the composting options would allow the development of a cost effective septage waste program. Currently there is no septage handling facility in Clallam County and septic tanks pumpers are forced to haul these wastes to either Jefferson or Mason Counties. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon this preliminary analysis, Parametrix offers the following recommendations: 1. Consider implementation of Alternative #5 on a phase basis as follows: a. Solicit proposals from third party providers for disposal of biosolids for one year with implementation beginning June 1, 2000. b. Explore grant opportunities for expanded capital facilities to upgrade existing compost operations. Mr. Tom McCabe PMX #235-2191-005 January 27, 2000 Page 11 c. Re-evaluate cost of service for biosolids and yard waste collection/disposal. Implement avoided cost structures by FY01. d. Negotiate interlocal agreement with Clallam County, City of Sequim and Forks to become regional provider for yard waste composting and potentially septage wastes. e. Complete engineering design, permitting and construction of upgraded compost facilities to begin operation by June 2001. f. Institute training program to provide certification for a compost operator. These recommendations provide the City with the ability to quickly become "compliant" with their wastewater and solid waste permits; secure the necessary funding (grants and revenue) to insure cost competitiveness and restructure the user service fee system in a politically sensitive manner. Given the long range impacts associated with landfill closure - implementing a beneficial re-use for these waste streams seems to be the right thing to do. We would be glad to discuss our work papers and findings with you in more detail and we look forward to presenting the options to the UAC on February 7? Please contact me personally with any questions. I can be reached at (360) 377-0014. Sincerely, PARAMETRIX, INC. Richard A. /~ ' Managing Principal IlBREMERTON-IIVOLI~PROJ-MRKIPROJECI~PT-ANGELkPH-2ENGRk2191-O§ILTRMEMO~I. biosolids disposal r*v 1-27.doc CLALLAM COUNTY D~ws~o~/Fn~ Mams~o~5 m-~, < CL~ CO~Y Commou~ ' 223 E. Fo~ ST., P.O. Box ;vmo~~DlvlSlON PORT~S, WA 98362414~ February 1, 2000 Gle~ Cutler Public Works Director City of Po~ ~geles P.O. Box 1150 : c~ Or Po~ ~geles, WA 98362 ,~., ~;¢ ..... ~c v.."-~;.,..~ .. · ~: Pon ~geles L~dfill Pemit This letter is to give the Ci~ of Po~ Angeles ~ extension on their solid waste operating permit scheduled to expire Febm~y 15, 2000. Cl~lm Co~ will extend ~e c~ent solid w~te operating pemit until M~ch 15, 2000. ~c~d D~lop from P~metrix requested ~e extension in ~ effo~ to compile all of the components requested for ~e 2000 pe~it renewal. If you have ~y questions, please call me m (360) 417-2347, Sincerely, Enviromental Health Specialist Cc: Bob Martin, Director, Department of Community Development Tania Busch-Weak, Director, Environmental Health Division Andy Brastad, Director, Natural Resources Division Cris Matthews, Department of Ecology Richard Dunlop, Parametrix Correspondence file pOR.TANGELES WASHINGTON, U.S.A. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: September 3, 1999 To: Utility Advisory Committee FROM: Dale A. Miller, Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: Free Dump Days The City of Port Angeles Solid Waste Division of the Public Works Department sponsors an annual free clean up day for the residents of Clallam County. This practice has been in affect in some form for approximately twenty five years. This memorandum will profile five current free dump day programs. These programs will be from the City of Port Angeles, City of Olympia, Mason County, Thurston County, and Lewis County. The City of Port Angeles: Contact, Dale Miller, 360-417-4874 The current program that the Solid Waste Division has in place is typical of most programs, with the exceptions being the City of Olympia and Thurston County. The standout quality of our program that none of the others have is the benefit to the Port Angeles Food Bank. Outlined below is the Benefit Dump Day program: 1. All Clallam County residents are eligible to participate, 2. No commercial haulers, 3. All landfill tipping fees are waived, 4. A five(S5.00) dollar, or six food item donation for the food bank is accepted, 5. Food Bank volunteers collect load information, help direct traffic, and assist unloading vehicles, 6. City of Port Angeles employees operate equipment, and control traffic at the working face of the pit. The City of Port Angeles absorbs all the costs incurred by this event. The two major costs involved is lost tipping fees, and overtime pay for the City employees. The attachment to this memo reflects the costs, and the cost centers. The 1999 event generated 371 tons at a cost of $32,622.00, for a cost of $87.92 per ton. The City of Olympia: Contact, Penny Maybie 360-753-8509 The City of Olympia does not have free dump days. City residents are able to placed certain items at curbside for collection. Those items are; cardboard, tires, scrap metal, appliances,(without refrigerant). These items are collected by City employees from the water and street divisions. This curbside set out program is for four(4) days, with the residents materials being collected on their regularly scheduled solid waste day. The 1999 collection days received 88.41 tons at a cost of $14,715.00, for a cost of $166.00 per ton. Thurston County: Contact, Mary Harrington 360-785-5136 Thurston County does not have free dump days, however they have a program named County Recycle Days. Like the City of Olympia program, only select items can be disposed o£ Items accepted are; tires, appliances, waste oil, and scrap metal. Although the tipping fees at the Thurston County landfill are waived for these certain items, the event is not totally free. There is a five(S5.00) dollar fee for disposing scrap metal and a ten($10.00) environmental fee for the disposal of refrigerated appliances. The 1999 event generated 49.5 tons of materials for a loss of tipping fees of $3148.00. Additional costs included $1000.00 for metal processing and $1100.00 for tire removal. Labor for this event is provided by the inmates of Thurston County Jail. Two on site personnel were needed, at cost of $250. The total cost was $5498.00, or $111.00 per ton Lewis County: Contact, Melanie Case 360-740-1456 Lewis County sponsors two(2) clean-up days per year. Lewis County method of disposal is long hauling from a transfer station. These collection events is part of the long haul contract agreement with Robanco.. The transfer station does not accept appliances, or tires for this event. Lewis County events are scheduled to be on a Sunday, much like Port Angeles. Labor cost for these events are included the long haul contract. The tipping fee at the Lewis County Transfer station is $82.00 per ton. Loss tip fees for 1999 were $69,290.00 for this year. All non hazardous materials are accepted. Mason County: Contact, Toni Clement 360-426-1452 This was the first year that Mason County had a free dump day. As part of their long haul agreement, Mason County provides for their residents three days per year to dispose of storm damaged materials. In 1999 Mason County only utilized two of those days. The third day became their first free dump day. There are restrictions as to what can be disposed o£ No freezers or refrigerators and only four tires per household. The residents can haul as much as they want, however they must call to sign up. This year Mason County residents disposed of 57.37 tons and paid two employees overtime for the event. At the time of writing this memorandum, Mason County did not have a complete total of cost for this event. Future of Dump Days: Listed below are possible ways to control the cost of future dump days. More in depth analysis of each possibility would be needed before deciding which alternative to implement. 1. Discontinue all future free dump days. 2. Provide all City residents with a coupon with their utility bill allowing them one free load within a given time frame. 3. Ask assistance from the County to help with the cost of the event. Much like sharing the cost of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events. 4. Accept only certain items. 5. Continue the current program, until the landfill closes. Have the lead agency in control of solid waste disposal for the County to determine the fate of these events. Benefits: Having a flee dump day is beneficial to the community. Many of the loads brought to the landfill on dump days would have been destined to illegal dumping or remaining in the residents yards.. Loads being illegally dumped are not only unsightly and costly to clean up, but provide safe haven for vermin. Another benefit to the community is the donations made to the Port Angeles Food Bank. All the agencies that were contacted stated that they will modi~' their future events to include a benefit for their local food banks. Attached for review is a series of charts showing the participation and costs involved with the City of Port Angeles Benefit Dump Days. If you additional questions or want additional information please call me at 417-4874. VEHICLES 1995 ! 996 1997 1998 1999 CITY 478 368 275 373 329 COUNTY 488 472 362 420 472 TONS 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 CITY 181.46 149.00 105.26 150.16 128.31 COUNTY 189.31 183.8 152.29 152.39 243.00 TIP FEES 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 CITY $13,936.12 $11,443.20 $8083.96 $11,532.28 $9854.20 COUNTY $14,539.00 $14,115.84 $11,696.87 $11,703.55 $18,662.40 * Cost without labor ** Cost with labor included TOTAL 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 VEHICLES 966 840 637 793 801 TONS 370.77 332.80 257.55 302.55 371.31 COST $28,475.12 $25,559.04 $ 21,153.61 $ 24,792.61 $ 32,622.00 PER/TON $ 76.80* $ 76.80* $ 82.13'* $ 81.94'* $ 87.85** AGENCY Port Angeles Olympia Mason County Lewis County Thurston County COST/TON $ 87.85 $166.00 N/A $ 82.00 $111.00 FOOD BANK 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 DONATIONS N/A $ 995.25 $1826.60 $ 2700.00 $ 2100.00 FOOD ITEMS N/A 3020 1860 2000 4183 poatA WASHINGTON, U.S.A. CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: February 8, 2000 To: Utility Advisory Committee l~rom: Earth Day Volunteer Organizations Subject: Olympic Coast Beach Cleanup Summary: The City of Port Angeles received a letter from Jan Klippert, Project Coordinator for Olympic Coast Cleanup. This project is a joint effort of 20 organizations and 400 volunteers from Olympic Peninsula and the Puget Sound Basin to clean up the ocean beaches on the Olympic Peninsula in support of Earth Day on April 29, 2000. The estimated amount of debris collected is 10 to 15 tons. They have asked the City of Port Angeles to become a partner in this project by waiving tee tonnage fee at the landfill. Estimated cost of the fees would be between $700 to $1200. Recommendation: UAC consider the request from Olympic Coast Cleanup Project and make a recommendation to City Council. Background / Analysis: The City of Port Angeles in the past has supported various cleanup projects by waiving landfill disposal fees. The majority of request have been within the city limits, with anywhere from 20 to 50 volunteers. The city has supported an ongoing program the Clallam County Shel~tt'Road Department Chain Gang by a~eeing to waive landfill fees. Debris collected by the chain gang is from Clallam County. OLYMPIC COAST CLEAN-UP ,Jlympic Coast Clean-up Partners IMlam Bay-Sekiu Chamber of Commerce January 11, 2000 ~ ,rks Chamber of Commerce r,ends of the Trail Mayor Gary Braun P.O. Box 1150 ':,~t Resort, Ozette Port Angeles, WA 98362 Par~ Co,ference RE: Olympic Coast Cleanup sa,ct,a,y Dear Honorable Mayor Braun, ,'(vmpw Coast Nat onal Mar ne Sanctua,y Admory Co~,cil Volunteers fi.om throughout the Olympic Peninsula and the Puget Sound '~vmpic National Park Basin will be collecting and removing marine debris fi.om the Olympic National Park ocean beaches as a part of their contribution to EarthDay April /!vmpic Park Associates 29, 2000. Many individuals, organizations and agencies are partnering in this ~vmpic Peninsula Audubon major coastal clean up project. This letter is a request that the city of Port .,,le,te Tr, be Angeles become a partner and dump fees are waived for the disposal of the debris collected. ,~c~s It is anticipated that 300-400 volunteers will participate. They will remove 10 itc Mountaineers to 15 tons of marine debris fi.om the beaches. Staff fi.om the Olympic National Park is providing general guidance for this project and will truck the ~lversiqy of Washington Department of Zoology debris to the transfer station. Your favorable consideration of this request will be appreciated. I am looking forward to having Port Angeles as a partner in ~,lumeersfor Outdoor Washington this important community project. Jan lli~ippert Local Campgrounds~ Parks~ Project Coordinator Restaurant~ Lodging, and Communitl~ Information Enclosure: A Status Report January 11, 2000 [allam Bay-Sekiu Chamber of ~d)-963-2346 chamber~Sekiu.com Cc: Mark O'Neill, District Ranger Olympic National Park ~ ,rks Chamber of Commerce ¥~0-374-2531 chamber~olypen.com 3283 Mora Road Forks, WA 98331 : '~0- 903-2899 Iostresort~hotmaibcom Glen Cutworth, Public Works Director ,~) .lpic National Park 60-3?4- 7566 don_Preston~nps.gov ,,al'om McCabe, Manager. Solid Waste Division '06-364-2689 jpklippert(~aol, com %attl~'. WA 98133 DRAFT Communications Systems Evaluation for Public Utility District No. 1 of Clallam County and the City of Port Angeles POWER Engineers, Inc. January 27, 2000 Drift 01-27-00 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... Construction Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 1 Excess Capacity Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. / .4rchitecture Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... Cost Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Joint Network Conclusions. ................................................................................................................................. 3 Operation and Maintenance Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 3 PROCESS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 5 PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................................5 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................................... 6 BENEFITS-RISKS OF PROJECT ..................................................................................... 7 JOINT OR SEPARATE NETWORK ........................................................................................... 7 Fiber Infrastructure-Separate Network .......................................................................................................... ] 0 Fiber Jnfrastructure--Joint Network ................................................................................................................ I 0 Operation-Separate Network ........................................................................................................................... 10 Operation-Joint Network .................................................................................................................................. 11 Maintenance-Separate Network and Joint Network .................................................................................... l 1 Customer Service-Separate Network .............................................................................................................. 11 Customer Service-Joint Network ..................................................................................................................... 12 GOVERNANCE OPTIONS .................................................................................................... 16 AUTHORITY. .....................................................................................................................16 GEOGRAPHICAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 17 SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE .................................................................................. 17 General Steps ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 City and District Phasing .................................................................................................................................. 18 INTERNAL USE ................................................................................................................. 18 NETWORK ARCHITECTURE ........................................................................................ 21 EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE/ASSETS, .................................................... 24 ARCHITECTURE 1-DARK FIBER ......................................................................................... 25 ARCHITECTURE 2-ATM BASED NETWORK ........................................................................ 25 ARCHITECTURE 3-ETHERNET (IP) BASED NETWORK .......................................................... 26 Convergence ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 Current technology ............................................................................................................................................. 27 ARCHITECTURI:~ 4-SONET/IP ............................................................................................ 27 ESTIMATED COSTS BY ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 28 EXCESS CAPACITY ........................................................................................................ 31 COMMUNICATIONS DEMAND 1N CLALLAM COUNTY ............................................................ 31 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 34 MARKET DEMAND ............................................................................................................ 35 PARTNERING .................................................................................................................... 36 CONCLUSIONS. ............................................................................................................... 39 Draft 01-27-00 GENERAL NETWORK STRATEGY AND EXCESS CAPACITY .................................................... 39 NETWORK ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................................ 40 BUILD SEQUENCE ............................................................................................................. City ........................................................................................................................................................................ 41 District .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 l GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................. 43 APPENDIX A SURVEY RESULTS APPENDIX B DETAILED COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX C NETWORK LAYOUT APPENDIX D REFERENCE MATERIAL Table of Figures Figure 1-Estimated Total System Capital Costs ............................. , .......................................... 2 Figure 2-Estimated Separate Capital Costs ............................................................................... 3 Figure 3-Estimated Annual O&M Costs .................................................................................. 4 Figure ,g-Study Procedure ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5-Equipment Interconnect ............................................................................................ 8 Figure 6-Joint Owned Equipment ............................................................................................ 8 Figure 7-Shared Fiber ............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 84Dverall System Architecture ................................................................................... 13 Figure 9-Overall City Architecture ........................................................................................ 14 Figure I O-Overall District Architecture ................................................................................. 15 Figure I l-Typical Node (ATM) ............................................................................................ 22 Figure 12-Classification of Those Surveyed ........................................................................... 32 Figure 13-Interest in System ................................................................................................. 33 Figure 14--Type of Service Requested .................................................................................... 33 Figure 15-Type of Demand ................................................................................................... 35 Figure 16-Parmering Response ............................................................................................. 36 Table of Tables Table l-Joint versus Separate Network Summary ................................................................... 10 Table 2-Requirements Met by Architecture ........................................................................... 21 Table 3-Architecture Comparison .......................................................................................... 23 Table 4-Architactare Benefits-Risk ....................................................................................... 24 Table 5-Estimated Capital Costs ............................................................................................ 29 Table 6--Estimated O&M Costs ............................................................................................. 30 PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfl) ii Draft 01-27-00 Executive Summary The City of Port Angeles (City) and Public Utility District (PUD) Number 1 of Clallum County (District) retained POWER Engineers, lnc., (POWER) to review the communications needs within the serving area of both entities and to help determine the feasibility of building a fiber optic-based backbone communications system in Clallam County. POWER evaluated internal District needs, City needs, and other needs related to economic development in Clallam County. Each network architecture reviewed could be used by the City and District as a transport network or as an application network. · A transport network would be one that carries applications (services) such as voice, video, and data. The City and District would contract with one or more service providers, such as Olypen or Century Telephone, to provide the services across the network. · An application network would be a situation where the City and/or the District offers applications such as telephone service, video conferencing, and lntemet access to users. Because the City and District both have stated they do not want to initially provide applications directly, POWER will not address the second type of operation. General Conclusions POWER's study drew conclusions in the following areas: · Construction - Can the network be built, and what are the challenges? · Excess capacity - Is them interest in a network, and how could it be used internally? · Architecture - What kind of network should be built, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? · Governance - How should the City and District own and operate the network? · Cost - What are the estimated construction costs for the network? · Joint network - Should the network be jointly owned or separately owned? · Operation and maintenance - How should the network be operated and maintained? Construction Conclusions No significant physical obstacles that would prevent construction of a network were identified. Some areas having difficult access to the District's transmission line were determined to exist west of Port Angeles, between Airport Substation and Sappho Substation. Options exist to reduce the impact of this difficult access, including the potential use of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission line that runs parallel to the District line. Excess Capacity Conclusions There is a high level of interest from public and private entities in the (joint) serving areas in accessing any excess capacity on a fiber network in Clallam County. The three typical types of communication access - voice, video, and data - are all in demand in Clallam County. Architecture Conclusions Any of the three network architectures (ATM, IP, and SONET/1P) that use electronics would meet the current and futm'e communications needs of the District and City. Configuration of PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dlb 1 Draft 01-27-00 specific node electronics will determine an architecture's ability to meet more strategic requirements, such as automated meter reading (AMR), cable television (CATV), etc. Governance Conclusions Separate and/or joint network construction, operation, and maintenance are very flexible. The routing of the fiber allows the City and District to meet at two (2) substations within the City of Port Angeles and share equipment and fiber or simply interconnect to each entity's infrastructure with special lines of demarcation. Cost Conclusions Estimated costs for the four (4) architectures were determined. They are summarized in Figure /-Estimated Total System Capital Costs. Details can be found in Table 5-Estimated Capital Costs on Page 29 and in Appendix B-Detailed Cost Estimates. $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $t4,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,00O $4,000,000 Dark Fiber ATM IP SONETIIP System Type Figure l-Estimated Total System Capital Costs Estimated separate and joint architecture costs were determined. With the physical routing of the District's and the City's systems, there were two (2) locations where they could be interconnected: the City's Laurel Substation and the BPA substation by Peninsula College. The estimated City and District costs are shown separately in Figure 2-Estimated Separate Capital Costs. Details can be found in Table 5-Estimated Capital Costs on page 29 and in Appendix B-Detailed Cost Estimates. Draft 01-27-00 $14,500,000 $12,500,000 $10,500,000 $8,500,000 [] City $6,500,000 B District $4,500,000 $2,500,000 $5OO,OOO Dark Fiber ATM IP SONETIIP Figure 2-Estimated Separate Capital Costs Joint Network Conclusions With a joint network, there would be minimal capital cost reductions to either entity to construct the initial backbone. Some cost reduction would be realized by sharing equipment at two nodes (specific) and sharing approximately 1.7 miles of fiber cable between the BPA substation and Laurel Street Substation (see Figure 7-Shared Fiber on page 9). This would save approximately $61,200 in fiber and between $106,000 and $400,000 (depending on the architecture) in equipment. Operation and Maintenance Conclusions The cost of operation and maintenance of the network is directly related to: · the number of users · the frequency of user additions or removals to the network · the number of fiber cable changes to add or remove users · the total number of network elements (nodes and customers) on the system Compiled using general industry knowledge, the estimated operation and maintenance costs are shown in Figure 3-Estimated Annual O&M Costs. For additional details regarding O&M cost estimates, see Table 6-Estimated O&M Costs on page 30. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfl~ 3 Draft 01-27-00 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 District $300,000 $200,00O $100,000 $o Dark Fiber ATM IP SONETIIP Architectures Figure 3-Estimated Annual O&M Costa There will be additional cost and manpower impacts to the City and District that cannot be quantified easily. They include: · An increased adminislrative staff to market the network, perform accounting functions for the network, and to seek staff (or an outside entity) to operate and maintain the network. · An increased workload for the procurement of the main backbone as well as all upgrades and changes to the networlc This may require more staff during the initial two or three years of network operation to meet growth demands. With the phased approach, the network will be growing dynamically until all of the fiber is placed. After the backbone is completely operating, the workload may decrease. · The increased use of legal counsel and management at the board level, particularly during the initial stages of the network. The rotes the City and District charge for access will need to be determined, contracts with service providers and/or panners will require review and approval, and it is possible the City and/or District may face legal challenges to the network(s). Savings by .jointly operating and maintaining the network(s) could be realized. Quantifying this is difficult. Jointly operating and maintaining the network(s) should reduce the number of technicians required to operate and maintain the system, reduce the size and complexity of a network operations center (NOC), and reduce billing complexity. In addition, customers would realize the benefit of procuring telecommunications infrastructure from one (apparent) entity, rather than causing customers to coordinate between two entities when the customer requires access to the infrastructure in both the City of Port Angeles and Clallum County. PEI-BOI 46-O432-99/dFo 4 Draft 01-27-00 Process Summary The following items were evaluated for the review of the feasibility for constructing a fiber optic backbone system. · benefits and risks of the project · network architecture · excess capacity · parmerships · network strategy · capital and operation costs · community network requirements Procedure To meet the objectives of the project, thc procedure shown below was used. Evaluate Internal Survey Excess Deterntine Fiber Needs Capacity Routing Choose Estimate Fiber Technologies Segment Route Distances Estimate Costs for Fiber and Electronic~ Figure 4,-Study Procedure · The internal needs of the City and District were evaluated. The District currently has two T-] and two 56k leased lines in addkion to their dial-up lines. These lease lines cost $1,32g.72 per month. The City's internal requirements remain undetermined. · A survey was used to help determine the interest in excess capacity on the network and to help identify the type of architecture that would benefit users of any excess capacity. · Maps of the City's and the District's electrical distribution and transmission systems were used to identify fiber routing that would provide for the interconnection of City and District facilities. The fiber also was routed near entities (public and private) that indicated interest and areas that were identified as key for economic development. PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dfb 5 Draft 01-27-00 · The maps were used to estimate the linear distance of the proposed fiber system, the location and number of splices and nodes, and ultimately an estimated cost to construct a dark fiber backbone network (see Architecture 1-Dark Fiber). · The preliminary route was broken into eleven (11) segments to allow for a phased construction and to assist in the joint-venus-separate review. · Network technologies were identified and assessed as to their ability to meet the internal needs oftbe Dislrict and the City. The technologies assessed, which are commonly in use in the communications industry, were: · Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) · lnternet Protocol/Ethernet (lP/Ethemet) · IP/Synchronous Optical Network (1P/SONET). · Three leading vendors in each technology - Fore, Cabletron, and Cisco - were contacted and asked to provide budgetary pricing for a genetic node configuration. · The node counts identified on the maps were used to determine budgetary pricing for the network with each technology. Study Assumptions · Separate and joint City and District networks were to be evaluated. · Points of intercormecfion between the City and District would be used to delineate joint and separate networks. · The City and District would use a competitive bid process for the procurement and consmaction of the network. · The network would be a backbone transport system. · Some technologies may not allow for the transport of some specific services. Draft 01-27-00 Benefits-Risks of Project TIY~s section looks at the advantages and disadvantages of the following areas: · network analysis · governance options · authority · geographical issues · system construction sequence · internal use Joint or Separate Network The geography of Port Angeles and Clallam County allows for simple segmentation of the two (2) networks or a limited mount of joint infrastructure and benefit from joim O&M advantages. Separate and jo'mt network construction, operation, and maintenance are very flexible due to the physical routing oftbe fiber. Several options are available to the City and District: · joint operation and maintenance of either separate or joint networks · joint build/share of approximately 1.7 miles of fber · sharing of electronics at two node locations, the City's Laurel Substation and the BPA's substation near Peninsula College · interconnection of separate networks at the two node locations · completely separate networks The City and District can meet at two (2) substations (nodes) in the City of Port Angeles and either share equipment and fiber, or simply intemonnect. The City and District have at least three options with regard to physical fiber interconnection at these two locations: Sharing 1.7 miles of fiber cable would save the district a minimal amount, compared to the overall project cost. · Building separately and creating limited route redundancy would be accomplished by building on the District's transmission line through Port Angeles. This would provide the interconnection between the City and the District with an added measure of protection in this section against a cable or electronic failure. · Building separate fiber cable and intemounecting the electronic equipment would protect against elec~-onic or fiber failure. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfl~ 7 Draft 01-27-00 The figures below show these possibilities. I Figure S-£quipment Interconnect I ! L I Figure 6.~Joint Owned Equipment Draft 01-27-00 Figure 7-Shared Fiber Fignm 8-Overall System Architecture, Fibre P-Overall City Architecture, and FiD~"c ]0- Overall District Architecture also show the logical layout of the system. Detailed drawings of the physical routing can be found in Appendix C-Network Layout. The segments identified in the network architectxtres allow a separation between a City network and a Dis~ct network. Operation of a separate network, shown in Figure 5--Equipment Interconnect, could be accomplished by simply designating a demarcation at one or two locations (Laurel Street Substation and the BPA substation) and adding a second set of node electronics. The second set of electronics could be purchased by shared capital costs or purchased by one entity and leased to another. Or, the City and Disl~'iet could jointly share (m' lease from one owner) the elee~onics (as shown in Figure 6-Joint Owned Equipment), but operate and maintain theh' own fiber cable, using the fiber cable for a demarcation. The networks then could be configured to pass any traffic required between them, allowing for connectivity between the two networks. Separate networks would require a great deal of coordination between the City and the District regarding operation, maintenance, billing, troubleshooting and other network fimctions. This would potentially increase the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to both the City and the District. This increase would come in the form of duplicated technical and support staff, additional provisioning requirements for traffic that spans both separated networks, additional time and complexity when ~oubleshooting problems, and reduced customer service. A summary oftbe benefits and risks of separate and joint networks can be found in Table 1-Joint versus Separate Network Summary. PEI -BOI 46-0432-99/df~ 9 Draft 01-27-00 Explanations of each benefit and risk for the four categories are shown below. SEPARATE NETWORKS JOINT NETWORK Item Benefits , Risks Benefits Risks Increased Save 1.7 miles of Fiber physical No major risks fiber No major risks Infrastructure redundancy constraction Administration Reduced Administration issues between issues between networks operation costs City and District Separate Separate "Seamless" Operation objectives of networks to network for Possible issues in City and District customers customers aligning objectives of Higher cost Lower cost City and District Administration Reduced Separate issues between operation costs Administration Maintenance objectives of networks issues between City and District Higher cost Lower cost City and District Customer Separate Reduced "Seamless" Administration customer customer network for issues between Service recognition I response customers City and District Table l--Joint versus Separate Network Summary Fiber Infrastructure-Separate Network The separate networks' benefit of increased physical path redundancy comes from the District building fiber on its transmission line between the BPA substation and Airport Substation. This would provide backup fiber and electronics for the City and District networks through that small portion of network. It also would allow for redundant interconnection between the City and the District. Fiber Infrastructure-Joint Network The benefit of the joint network is the sharing of capital costs and maintenance of approximately 1.7 miles of fiber cable. Operation-Separate Network By operating separate networks, the City and the District can pursue separate objectives and goals. One will not be directly affecting the operation of the other's network. Areas that might be impacted by another's operation include, but are not limited to: · pricing · customer service · services offered · reliability · network growth PEI-BOI 46-0432-991d fo l 0 Draft 0t-27-00 This does cause some potential problems (risk) for the City and the District. They include: · An increased risk of higher costs to end users, due to the additional operation and maintenance requirements of both the City and District. · A perception of separate networks by customers due to separated billing, contacting two separate entities for service, and contacting two separate entities for service problems. An example of this is the recent trend of computer hardware manufacturers not providing suppor~ for the software (such as Windows 98) provided with the computer. When there is a software-related problem, they often charge extra or refer the customer to another company (as Microsoft does). Tiffs separate system arrangement has caused confusion and frustration with computer users. · Difficulty for the City and the District in administering service for customers who need to access both networks. This issue could come in the form of not being able to coordinate the service order, difficulty troubleshooting system failures, billing issues, and others. Operation-Joint Network By operating a joint network, the City and District could provide benefits to the customers of the network. They include: · The potential to reduce costs by reducing O&M and initial capital costs through shared electronics and O&M personnel. · Creating a "seamless" network for the customer. This allows the customer to deal with one entity for billing, service order, problem resolution, and general use of the network. As the City and District know, customer service is very important in running a business. Some risks of operating a joint network include: · Difficulty for the City and District in operating the network as one entity. Issues that might occur include assigning O&M costs, assigning income from the network, and assigning expenses from upgrades or major repairs of the network. · Difficulty for the City and District in creating mutual objectives for the network and continuing a common "vision" for the initial implementation and future of a network. Maintenance-Separate Network and Joint Network Maintenance of a separate or joint network carries similar benefits and risks as the operation does. The customer issues would not apply to the daily maintenance of the network, such as most software upgrades, most equipment upgrades, and most equipment vendor changes, as this usually happens in the background. Customer Service-Separate Network By operating separate networks, the City and the District can show customer service as separate entities. This would clearly separate for the public which entity is enabling advanced communications services. This does create the potential risk of slowing response time for new connections and problem resolution. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dib 11 Draft 0'1-27-00 Customer Service-Joint Network By operating a joint network, the City and the District will create a "seamless" network for the customer. This allows the customer to deal with one entity for billing, service order, problem resolution, and general use of the network. This does create the potential difficulty for the City and the District to appear, from the customers' view, to operate the network as one entity. The figures below show a representation of each network configuration. The potential interconnecfion between the City and the District can be seen at the BPA substation and the Laurel Substation. Currently, the District does not have a substation at either location. Space could be made available as required by the option chosen. PEI-BOI 4~0432-99/dfl~ 12 Draft 01-27-00 Figure B-Overall System Architecture P£I.BO! 46-0432-99/d~ 13 Draft 01-27-00 0.28 Mi 0.43 Mi To/From Distri¢l 0.86 Mi 1,1 Mi Figure 9-Overall City Architecture PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dfl~ 14 Draft 0t-27.00 Figure lO-Overall District Architecture PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/afb 1 5 Draft 0t-27-00 Governance Options With the physical routing (physical network) of the backbone initially determined, the question of separate networks versus a joint network becomes somewhat less significant. There are only two locations (nodes) where the City's and the District's networks would meet each other: Laurel Substation and the BPA substation by Peninsula College. Details can be found in Figure 8- Overall System Architecture and the maps in Appendix C-Network Layout. The only "shared" fiber that could be built would be between these locations, with a total distance of approximately 1.7 miles. With only two (2) nodes and 1.7 miles of fiber in common, the cost savings for the physical fiber construction are relatively small compared to the total estimated cost of the system. This suggests that a separate fiber physical network should be built with interconnection in the form of either duplicate electronics or direct fiber connections. Figure 5-Equipment Interconnect, Figure 6- Joint Owned Equipment, and Figure 7-Shared Fiber show the three intercounection concepts. With two separate physical networks, the question becomes an issue of how to connect the logical (electronic) networks. The logical network is the technology (and electronics) that transports the communications traffic. It could be joint or separate as well. If the logical network is jointly operated, the City and District would purchase the same technology (architecture), most likely from the same vendor, and interconnect the two physical networks. The intemonnection at the two node locations still could be in any of the forms shown in Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7. There are several advantages to operating and maintaining the logical network jointly: · seamless operation and transport of communications traffic between the City's and the District's physical networks · consistent service throughout the county · seamless usage by customers · reduced operation and maintenance costs by reducing staff The biggest disadvantage to a joint logical network would involve the interaction between the City and the District, especially if the two entities desire different network objectives. A joint operation and maintenance agreement combined with separate fiber and electronics ownership could help reduce conflicts. Authority The City and the District fall under different requirements with respect to the construction and operation of a communications network (infrastructure). · The City appears to have the authority to construct and operate, at any level, a communications network. This network could be operated for internal City use, economic development, or any other purpose the City determines. · The District, under current Washington State Attorney General opinion, can build a communications network required for operation and maintenance of their current and future electric utility infrastructure. The District can lease any excess capacity in such a network, until it is required for District use. Excess capacity can be in the form of physical PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dPo 1 6 Draft 01-27-00 infrastructure, such as fiber strands/cables, or bandwidth, such as excess capacity on the electronics the District uses. Geographical Issues Them are some areas that may present minor challenges to the construction of the fiber backbone: · the District mmsmissiun line running west of Port Angeles (Laird's Comer Substation) to the Sol Duc Substation · the canyon crossings in Port Angeles · the District transmission line that runs through Olympic National Park From an engineering perspective, these concerns do not prevent a project from being built. A detailed review of the areas would yield options, such as long-span cable or the use of messenger wire for the canyon crossings and using the BPA transmission line instead of the District's transmission and distribution infrastructure. Acquiring the needed permits in Olympic National Park may require significant time and special engineering or construction techniques, but they should still be allowed along existing access routes. System Construction Sequence General Steps The network construction sequence depends on the architecture chosen, the amount of capital available to build the network, the influence of partnerships, legal ramifications, and other non- technological reasons. The general steps of the building process are: 1 Create a workable business plan for the network. · Approach entities that might be interested in parmering in some manner. · Approach entities that might be interested in using the network as anchor tenants. · Determine which entities could provide "last-mile" access (the distr/bufion portion) to avoid possibly over-building existing infrastructure. · Determine entities that might be served directly from the backbone without significant last-mile build-out. 2 Build the backbone. · Some "distxibution" can be served directly from the backbone, and a backbone will allow the City and District to "see" the impact of advanced communications and increase competition within Clallam County. This will help begin a cash flow for the network. · Physical mute redundancy may not be required initially, but the mute will typically "appear" within areas of higher population/demand first. · Connectivity between cities can be a single route, depending on the service requiremems being transported. · Break the backbone into pieces based on the amount of capital available, the locations of desired impact, and the locations required to access or provide services. PE~-~O~ 46~432-99/~b 17 Draft 01-27-00 3 Begin the distribution system (community network), if required, while the backbone is being built. · Determine the need. It is possible that such companies as US West or Northland Cable will provide the needed last-mile connectivity to those beyond the backbone. This avoids the need for over-building existing infrastructure. · Choose the technology that will provide the type of services desired within the available capital. · Conduct a pilot test in an area where high penetration is likely or desired. · Expand the system when demand, backbone, and capital allow. This process is very dynamic: the backbone must keep up with the dislxibution traffic demands, but distribution can help provide funding for backbone expansions. City and District Phasing The architecture drawings show the backbone in eleven (l 1) distinct segments. These segments have been set based on geography, estimated demand, and general construction considerations. These could be used to phase in the backbone construction. For cost-estimating purposes, they are shown separately. The order in which the City and District build each segment depends on several factors: · partnering arrangements with other entities · capital funds available · internal needs of City and District · demand for services · operation of network (joint vs. separate) · final network architecture (joint vs. separate) A general order, related to internal needs, operation, and final network architecture, is included as part of the conclusions. This will take into account the suggested strategy for the build and operation of the network. Internal Use The District currently has four (4) leased T-I and 56k lines for voice and data. Any network architecture would eliminate the costs of these leases. The District would see an estimated recurring savings of $15,944.64 per year, which could provide funding for a portion of the network. Any network architecture would allow the City and District to upgrade their existing voice, data, and operation services. The upgrades could include placing additional lines, faster data transfer on networks, and advanced supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) applications. BPA is currently offering a new purchase program called "Slice." This allows program customers to purchase "slices" of power in very short intervals (less than 1 minute). To participate, the BPA is requiring each participating utility to provide real timeload information. The proposed network infrastructure, in combination with access to the Washington Public Utility District Association's (WPUDA) NoaNet position, puts the District and the City in a position to react to the changing power purchasing paradigm. Dollar savings to Slice could not be guaranteed when this report was being prepared. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfo 18 Draft 0~1-27-00 Note: For more details, see the BPA web site: htlp://www.bpa.gov/Power/psp/products/slice/slice.shtml PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dib ]. 9 Draft 01-27-00 Network Architecture Four network architectures were considered: ~, dark fiber * ATM on fiber · IPon fiber · SONET/IP on fiber They are described in detail in this section. Each architecture can meet most or all of the needs the City and the District have expressed. They are summarized below. Estimated Backbone Requirement Bandwidth Dark Fiber ATM IP SONET/IP Required I SCADA 100 Mbps Yes, with Yes Yes, if Yes eleca'onics IP-based Yes, if Yes, with lP-based and Yes, with AMR 1 Gbps No distribution with distribution distribution With Yes, if Yes, with IP-based and Yes, with Water- extension to extension to with extension to Wastewater 100 Mbps water Systems facilities and water extension to water facilities water facilities electronics facilities Administrative 100 Mbps Yes, with Yes Yes Yes Support electronics Customer 10 Mbps Yes, with Yes Yes Yes Support electronics Data processing and 100 Mbps Yes, w/th distribution electronics Yes Yes Yes support Operations 100 Mbps Yes, with Yes Yes, if Yes Support electronics 1P-based Sealable N/A No Yes Yes Yes Economic Yes, fiber Yes Yes Yes Development lease only Table 2-Requirements Met by Architecture The estimated backbone bandwidth is listed as a data rate (x bits per second), but could also be thought of in terms of basic voice telephone lines. Each voice telephone line, called plain old telephone service (POTS), is assigned a data rote of 64 Kbps. Six hundred seventy-two (672) POTS lines can be transported on approximately 45 Mbps. By combining voice requirements and estimated data requirements, the total estimated bandwidth for each requirement can be estimated. PEI-BO146-0432-99/d~b 2 ] Draft 0t-27-00 For example, customer support (10 Mbps) would mainly consist of dial-in lines for calls and a limited amount of data transfer, when compared to an lntemet site. Twenty-four POTS lines add up to 1.544 Mbps, or commonly called a T-I. This leaves about 8 Mbps for data use. This should be sufficient for an lmemet service provider (ISP) site, as most dial-up users can connect at only 53 Kbps or much less. Data also transfers more efficiently than voice, so it does not require a dedicated amount of bandwidth as a voice line does. For the purposes of this report, the network architecture will consist of the fiber cable routing and the electronics used to transport services on the fiber. The architectures described below are backbone in nature. Services (transport and application) can be delivered directly from the backbone m locations along the backbone route. The route has been designed to pass the majority of the survey respondents, schools, hospitals, government offices, and areas identified by the City and County EDC, the City, and the District. The geographic or physical muting of the network can be seen in detail on the drawings in Appendix C-Network Layout. Figure 8-Overall System Architecture, Figure 9-Overall City Architecture and Figure 10~)verall District Architecture show how the network routes logically. The route essentially follows City and District power transmission lines to bring the backbone close to areas that have indicated need. By bringing the backbone fiber closer to the locations that may want to connect, the amount of additional fiber needed to connect them can be reduced. The electronics operating the backbone will also provide the connection for network users, by means of a fiber cable. If that end user is near the backbone, then fiber strands within the backbone cable can be used to make the connection, reducing the overall cost of the network. Figure I 1-Typical Node (AIM) shows th/s configuration. (6) T-1 circuit emulation (CES) ports. ~ FORE Systems T~se wou~ cony ~ ESX-2400 POTS services FORE Systems ASX-1200 Confrenc~n~ Transpo~ uplinks to ff~e ATM switch. Figure 11-Typical Node (ATM) PEI-BO! 46-0432.99/d~ 22 Draft 01-27-00 Note: An ATM node is shown due to its ability to transport all communication services (voice, video, and data). The other architectures, IP and IP/SONET, would look similar, with changes in the electronics part numbers. Also, IP could not provide the T-1 circuits shown. The table below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each architecture. Dark Fiber ATM IP SONET/IP Lowest elec~'onics cost Provides Provides Provides mmsport for all transport for transport for all services most services services Provides a low-cost Technology is infrastructure converging to IP Virtually Virtually unlimited unlimited Virtually General competitors competitors unlimited Comparison competitors Solid standard Solid standard Not 100% High cost converged, some Most systems are services may not proprietary Finite number of be available competitors New High No legacy configuration of maintenance SCADA support standard technologies Virtually Well-proven for Well-proven data Best parts of unlimited voice, video and technology, solid SONET and IP bandwidth data; solid installed base technologies Technology installed base High initial Complicated All applications Newer, offering capital costs operation are not available some proprietary ; functions Table 3-Architecture Comparison Each architecture has its strengths and weaknesses: · SONET/IP and ATM may amact negative attention from US West and similar companies because of their ability to provide uaditional voice services. They may believe that the City and District desire to compete directly with them. Providing only universal transport on the network may help change their beliefs. · Some vendors of each technology use proprietary technologies to provide features. This is not always bad - it often provides desirable features or functionality. However, proprietary technologies can result in being limited to a single vendor for all future upgrades. For example, to provide POTS over a pure IP network, voice-over 1P (VolP) can be used, but it PEI-BO146-0432-99/dlb 23 Draft 0t-27-00 requires proprietary functions to allow for the voice to sound like a standard phone call in most IP equipment. · IP technologies are waiting for the industry to "catch up" and create standard-based technologies that provide desired features and functionality. This may leave some desired features unavailable until the future. The benefits and risks of each architecture are summarized be/ow. Dark Fiber ATM IP SONET/IP lmproved Improved lmproved communication communication communication infrastructure in infrastructure in infrastructure in Improved County County County communication Large number of Large number of Large number of Benefits infrastructure in competitors competitors competitors County Not a "voice" Can carry any network - Can carry uny type of reduced risk of type of communications communications legal issues Proprietary High capital cost Fewer systems Risks Finite resource Semi-voice applications Voice network - network - risk of today risk of legal legal issues issues Table 4-Architecture Benefits-Risk Ultimately, a distribution system (community network) that extends the network beyond the backbone will be required. Several options should be explored in detail for a distribution system. Those options should include: · fiber to the home · digital subscriber line (xDSL), using existing copper lines and cartier systems · CATV infrastructure · wireless (such as LMDS) · others that may be developed US West and Northland Cable have existing infrastructure that they could use - or, in the case of US West, a competitive local exchange carder (CLEC) - to provide the last-mile transport to the entire county. This could be accomplished through interconnecting and partnering with US West, interconnecting and parmering with a CLEC, or filing for CLEC status. Existing Communications Infrastructure/Assets The City and District own valuable assets with the existing transmission and distribution infrastructure. Those assets are the right of way and the physical infrastructure (poles and conduit). This infrastructure gains its value because it is available throughout the city and county and it connects every business and resident in Clallam County. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dFo 24 Draft 01-27-00 As the City and the District are aware, to construct such an infrastructure would require a tremendous capital outlay. By creating an "open" network, the City and District could reduce the initial capital costs for competitive communications companies and avoid spending capital to over-build exisfmg infrastructure. This could make all of Clallam County attractive to competition. Architecture 1-Dark Fiber This architecture would be purely an inactive, unlit infrastructure network. The geographical or physical routing of the network can be seen in detail on the drawings in Appendix B-Network Layout. Figure 8-Overall System Architecture, Figure 9-Overall City Architecture, and Figure 10-Overall District Architecture show how the network routes logically. The mute basically follows City and District power transmission lines to bring the backbone "close" to areas that have indicated a need in the survey. Some portions are following power distribution lines to bring the backbone nearer to those areas with need. US West was particularly eager for this type of architecture. US West expressed that a dark fiber infrastructure will allow competitors access to the area and also allow US West to divert capital reserved for fiber backbone projects to other services in the county, such as xDSL, specifically asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL). Northland Cable is currently running an analog CATV system and would be able to use only dark fiber. The company has plans to upgrade to digital at some point, but no deha/ls were given. By constructing a dark fiber network, the City and District would provide for a limited number of additional competitors in the County. This is due to the finite number of fibers that can be placed. Currently, it is possible to place up to a 432-strand cable on pole structures. Such a high-count cable would be large, around 1 inch or larger, which would dramatically increase the risk of structural failure. This could dramatically increase the costs of the project. Conversely, if too small a fiber count (48-72) is constructed and leased as excess capacity, we limit competitive access to the fn'st two or three competitors. If this network architecture is chosen, a fiber count that would not dramatically increase the structural failure rate, due to loading, would be recommended (48-96), which would reduce the number of entities that could use the network to provide advanced telecommunication services in Clallam County. Architecture 2-ATM Based Network This architecture would be an active, "lit" infrastructure network. This network would take the dark fiber architecture and use ATM electronics to allow the transport of data, voice and video. ATM was developed to help with the convergence of data and voice networks. The majority of the "long-haul" carriers - such as MCl/World Corn, AT&T, and Sprint - use time-based (SONET) networks. These networks are based on standard time division multiplexed technology. This allows for clear voice conversation, great reliability, quick recovery from fiber or electronics failure (typically 50 ms), high scalability (currently up to approximately 398,131 Mbps), and robust electronics. But SONET networks are not highly efficient in transporting data and voice simnllaneously. SONET uses fixed bandwidth circuits that do not change dynamically PEI-BO146-0432-99/dtb 25 Draft 01-27-00 as the dam traffic does. This creates "empty" circuits - bandwidth that is unavailable for use, but is not carrying traffic. As carriers begin to integrate more and more data traffic into time-based networks, a tremendous amount of bandwidth is consumed. Data uaffic in particular tends to be sporadic (or "bm'sty"): it could need 64kb of bandwidth one second, 1.5 Mb the next, and 256kb the majority of the time. ATM helps resolve this problem by controlling the way the data is placed on the time-based (SONET) portion of the network. ATM provides many advanced features not found in other standards-based technology, including the ability to control the minimum and maximum bandwidth a user is allowed, to give priority to certain types of data (such as voice and video) that need a large minimum of bandwidth. This Quality of Service (QoS) capability, coupled with the "carder grade" operation makes ATM a solid, well-proven standards-based technology for data and voice networks. Some drawbacks of ATM include its initial deployment cost and its reputation of being difficult to maintain and operate. These weaknesses are being addressed, and could disappear as competition and demand for communications networks increase. For the purposes of this report, a backbone transport rate of 2488.32 Mbps (OC-48) was chosen. The network was configured to provide twenty-four (24) 100 Mbps ports, six (6) Gigabit Ethernet ports, six (6) T-1 ports, and an NTSC video encoder for video conferencing. This configuration should be refined if the project moves forward into a detail design stage once the network is to be built. This would increase the accuracy of the cost estimates. The ATM architecture would allow the City and District to affect change by providing a transport infrastructure on which 1SPs; telephone companies, and other telecommunications-related companies could provide services to the citizens of Clallam County immediately. The network would be ready for the future of the convergence (see "Convergence" below), reliable in service, and scalable for future demand. All services in demand in Clallam County could be provided today with an ATM network. Architecture 3-Ethernet (IP) Based Network This architecture would be an active, "lit" infrastructure network. This network would take the dark fiber architecture and use Ethernet electronics to allow the transport oflP data. Convergence Currently, the telecommunications industry is experiencing a phenomena called convergence, a situation in which the voice networks of "today" (time-based) are being combined with the data networks of"tomorrow," which are IP-based. IP technology is becoming more powerful, and the world is entering a time when data traffic is exceeding voice traffic. People are communicating more by e-mail, electxonic documents, video conferencing, etc., than they are over voice lines. The entire telecommunications industry is experiencing change due to this convergence. New companies are being built around the lntemet and advance telecommunication services. Level 3 Communications is building and operating an IP-based network. On their web site, Level 3 talks about their plans: PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dfo 26 Draft 01-27-00 "The Level 3 network will be the first international communications network to use lnternet Protoco! (1P) technology end-to-end. Level 3 will focus primarily on the business market using its 1P-based network to provide a full range of communications services - including local, long distance, and data transmission as well as other enhanced services. ~ldditionally, the company will offer a range of lnternet access services at varying capacity levels, and, as technology development allows, at specified levels of quality of service and security." Note: View Level 3's web site at: http://www.level3.com/Content~l ~1233,us[info}indust~leadership.00.html Current technology As alluded to by Level 3, IP technology currently cannot provide all services. Data services, such as Internnt access and point-to-point data communications, run well over 1P networks. The City and County likely have a form of IP-based network in use today. Time-based services - voice and broadcast video - do not currently mn on pure IP-based networks well enough to meet the expected quality standards of end users. VolP products are improving dramatically. Most sound better than a digital cellular phone, but again, they are not quite "voice grade." Video conferencing nms over IP-based networks, but the delivery of broadcast video (cable TV and movies) cannot meet the expected quality standards of end users. Digital video, such as high- definition TV (HDTV), should work well on 1P-based networks, once it becomes readily available. For purposes of this report, a backbone transport rate of 1000 Mbps was chosen. The network was configured to provide twenty-four (24) 100 Mbps ports, six (6) Gigabit Ethernet ports, and an NTSC video encoder for video conferencing. For voice-only applications, a VolP system would need to be added. This configuration should be refined once the network is to be built. This would increase the accuracy of the cost estimates. This architecture would allow the City and the D/slx/ct to initiate change by providing a transport infrastructure on which ISPs and other data-related companies could provide services to the citizens of Clallam County immediately. The network would be ready for the future of convergence. Architecture 4-SONETIIP This architecture would be an active, "lit" infrastructure network. It would take the dark fiber architecture and use SONET and IP electronics to allow data, voice, and video a'ansport. This combination of SONET and IP technology was developed to help communication companies prepare for the convergence of data and voice networks. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfo 27 Draft 01-27-00 The majority of"long haul" carders, such as MCl/World Com, AT&T, Sprint, use time-based (SONET) networks. These networks are based on standard time division multiplexed technology. This produces clear voice conversation, great reliability, quick failure recovery (typically 50 ms), scalability, and robust electronics. The 1P portion is integrated into the SONET electronics, providing the stability of SONET and the data efficiency and capabilities of 1P. As with ATM, SONET/IP equipment helps resolve inefficient transport pmblems by controlling the way data is placed on the time-based (SONET) portion of the network. It provides many features, including: · the ability to control the minimum and maximum bandwidth a user is allowed · the ability to give priority to certain types of information (such as voice and video) that need a large (or guaranteed) minimum of bandwidth Tiffs QoS capability, coupled with the "carrier grade" operation, makes SONEI/IP a solid standards-based technology for data and voice networks. Some drawbacks of SONET/IP include its "newness," limited number of vendors, and new vendors. The technologies of SONET and IP are well proven separately. The integration of the two technologies often uses proprietary software or signals to gain the full benefit of the combination. Such major vendors as Nortel Networks, Lucent Technologies, and Cisco are currently supplying the combination of the two technologies. There are also several new companies providing these solutions. These weakness often are offset by the lower cost (compared to ATM) and the stability of such vendors as Nortel Networks. For purposes of this report, a backbone transport rote of 2488.32 Mbps (OC48) was chosen. The network was configured to provide twenty-four (24) 100 Mbps ports, six (6) Gigabit Ethemet ports, ten (10) T-1 ports, and an NTSC video encoder for video conferencing. Tiffs configaration should be refined once the network is to be built. This would increase the accuracy of the cost estimates. Estimated Costs by Architecture Each architecture's estimated construction costs has been summarized in Table 5-Estimated Capital Costs and in Appendix B-Detailed Cost Estimates. PEI-BOI 4(~0432-99/dfl~ 28 Draft 01-27-00 Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Fiber Number of ATM Estimated IP SONET/IP Section A,qenc¥ Fiber Distance Cost Nodes Cost Cost Cost 1 6.46 Miles $270,724 2 Nodes $680,724 $436,724 $470,724 2 43.64 Miles $2,141,185 5 Nodes $3,166,185 $2,556,185 $2,641,185 3 40.10 Miles $1,566,005 4 Nodes $2,386,005 $1,898,005 $1,966,005 4 District 16.90 Miles $700,727 4 Nodes $1,520,727 $1,032,727 $1,100,727 5 20.67 Miles $836,016 7 Nodes $2,271,016 $1,417,016 $1~536,016 6 33.48 Miles $1,349,557 7 Nodes $2,784,557 $%930,557 $2,049,557 7 22.79 Miles $878,206 1 Nodes $1,083,206 $961,206 $978,206 8 7.60 Miles $396,907 8 Nodes $2,036,907 $1,060,907 $1,196,907 9 6.28 Miles $288,088 3 Nodes $903,088 $537,088 $588,088 10 City 5.29 Miles $267,491 4 Nodes $%087~491 $599~491 $667,491 11 5.44 Miles $256,953 3 Nodes $871,953 $505,953 $556,953 Estimated District Total $7,742,420 30 Nodes $13,892,420 $10,232,420 $10,742,420 Estimated City Total $1,209,439 18 Nodes $4,899,439 $2,703,439 $3,009,439 Estimated Project TotalI $8,951,859 48 Nodes $18,791,859 $12,935,859 $13,751,859 Table 5-Estimated Capital Costs The estimated fiber cost includes the estimated cost of the cable and installation. The estimated cost of ATM, IP, and SONET/IP include the fiber cable costs, power equipment, and the technology equipment (ATM, IP, SONET/IP). The estimates were obtained by using vendor- provided budgetary costs for the configurations described in each section. This pricing does not include any contingency internal costs for the City or District, legal costs, system marketing, extensive pole replacements, or unforeseeable construction problems. A competitive request-for-proposal (RFP) process could reduce costs, especially in the electronics portion of the network. Each architecture's estimated operation and maintenance costs are summarized in Table 6- Estimated O&M Costs. The estimates are based on the assumption that the City and District will operate and maintain the network separately. No stock maintenance materials (fiber splicing, equipment, parts, cable, etc.) have been included. There is no simple, accurate method to predict the amount of activity that may be required to operate and maintain the network. PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/d~b 29 Draft 01-27-00 Fiber Onl, ATM IP SONET~P I ~ ! Hr 594 $32,686 $80 1 Hr 891 $71.314 $70 / Hr 891 $62.400 $75 / Hr 891 S66.857 2 ,55 1 Hr 594 $32~68E $801 Hr 891 $71 ~314 ;?0 / Hr 891 $62~400 75 1 Hr 891 $66r857 ~ $551H~ 594 $32.686 S801 Hr 891 $71,314 $70 1 Hr ~91 $62.400 $75 / Hr 891 $66.857 4 District 55 / Hr 594 $32fi86 $801 Hr 891 $71 ~314 ~70 1 Hr 891 $62,400 75 / Hr 891 $66,857 5 55 / Hr 594 $32~686 ~0 / Hr 89t $71 ~314 ~?0 / Hr 891 $62~400 75 / Hr 891 $66~857 $55/Hr 1040 $57r200 $80/Hr 1040 $83~200 ~?0 / Hr 1040 $72~§00 $75 / Hr 1040 $78,000 Districl $228,800 $728,0~0 $665,600 $696,8C0 City $228,800 $561,600 $520,000 $540~800 Table 6-Estimated O&M Costs For the proposes of comparison, it was assumed that two (2) fiber splicers/linemen would be required to maintain the fiber cable. If there is a large number of additional splices for service drops or fiber rearrangements, additional personnel may be required. Much like a power transmission infrastructure, typically there is limited maintenance required on fiber cable beyond changes to the network and the occasional accident or storm. It was assumed that two (2) technicians for the City and three (3) for the district (on all three technologies) could maintain the electronics for the backbone of the network. A different rate for each technology was used to reflect the relative level of skills required to operate and maintain each technology. The City and District have been building infrastructure for the electric, water, and sewer operations in Clallam County for several decades. This provides the City and District with significant experience in the construction and maintenance ofinfrastrucntre. While neither the City nor the District has significant direct experience in the construction and maintenance of fiber optic-based networks, it is not significantly different from constructing, operating, and maintaining an electrical network. Some mining for installation, splicing, and operation of electronics will be required. Several electric utilities have installed and operated fiber optic and microwave-based communications systems for core use. These are typically as reliable as standard telephone company networks, often with a greater "mix" of services being used. Traditional telephone company networks are voice-based, while utility networks are often a mix of voice, analog, and digital data. P£I-BO146-0432o99/d fo 30 Draft 01-27-00 Excess Capacity Communications Demand in Clallam County POWER, the City, and the Disthct surveyed the businesses operating within Clallam County and its cities. The purpose of this survey was to determine the interest and potential need for the City to build a fiber optic-based network within Port Angeles. The District may build a fiber optic network to improve internal data communications and electrical operation. The District may have excess capacity on this network that could be beneficial to the City and the general economic development of Clallam County. With these purposes in mind, business were identified within Port Angeles and throughout the county, a survey letter was developed (see Appendix A-Survey Results), and the business were contacted either by letter or phone call. The types of business identified fall into the following 15 categories. · Business · Medical · CATV · Newspapers · Cellular & Wireless Phone Service · Real Estate · Correction Centers · Schools · Financial Market · Telecommunications Providers · Government · Television Stations · lntemet Service Provider · Tribal Govemments · Law/Attorneys Figure 12421assification of Those Surveyed shows the percentage of each category contacted. The survey work also included some direct meetings and telephone calls with key businesses within the community, including US West Communications, Northland Cable, Olypen lntemet, Forks Hospital, and the Port Angeles Hospital. PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dlb 31 Draft 01-27-00 1% 4% i Business 9% · CATV [3 Cellular & Wireless Phone Service [3 Correction Centers 35% · Financial Market 8% Ii Government aa Intemet Service Provider E3 Law/Attomeys · Medical · Newspaper [] Real Estate 9% · Schools · Telecom Providers · Television Station 3%- · Tribal Govemment 3% '2% 8% 11% Figure 12-Classification of Those Surveyed The results of the meetings, phone calls, and direct surveys were positive. Most businesses contacted directly, either by a meeting or phone call, responded with some level of interest. The interest ranged from no interest to a desire for the City and District to build a dark fiber system to desires of a partnering relationship. Overall, 31% of those contacted responded. Those contacted were given only five (5) days to respond. This indicates a significant interest in a fiber project within Clallam County. Those who responded showed significant interest in the project: · 24% of those who responded showed no interest · 56 % showed interest · 20% showed modest interest Those who were classified as showing modest interest stated that they would possibly use a system if it was built, and those classified as showing interest stated that they would definitely use a system if it were built. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dlb 32 Draft 01-27-00 Moderate Interest No Interest 20% 24% Interest 56% Figure 13-Interest in System For a more detailed view of the responses, see Appendix A-Survey Results. The type of services requested on a fiber network were placed in three categories: · Data: for data-only tra~c, such as internet access and point-to-point data, including video conferencing. · Voice: for voice-only traffic, such as improved cellular or phone service. · Both: combines data and voice requests. Figure 14-Type of Service Requested shows the breakdown of the service types requested. The majority of the desired services were for both data and voice services. Ve~7 few were interested in voice-only services. Both Services 67% Voice Services 3% Data Services 3O% Figure 14-Type of Service Requested PEI-BO146~432-99/dfl~ 3 3 Draft 0t-27-00 Economic Development Representatives of the City and County EDCs met with the City, the District, and POWER. Both Councils believe that advanced communications would benefit Port Angeles and Clallam County. Tim Smith from the City EDC said that several businesses had considered relocating to Port Angeles but were unwilling or unable to do so because of the limited telecommunication services available within the City. No specific details about the services desired or required were available. Bart Phillips of the County EDC sent a memorandum on Sept. 28, 1999, to the City and District regarding the necessity of advanced communications to enable economic development throughout Clallam County. He states: "The Council is in the process of preparing a new economic development strategy for the City of Port Angeles. Due to be completed in October, it is fair to say that it will be dependent upon a community network and advanced telecom for its success. The underlying big idea is focusing on training for high tech industrial occupations not currently demanded in the current local marketplace. The focus will be to recruit branch offices to draw on this labor force. For example, Peninsula College currently h~ offering in MSCE and Cisco Routers. Based upon due diligence with Seattle-based tech firms and the Washington Software Alliance, these certifications would be expanded. In turn, business will be recruited into a new high tech center that will require broadband access. ' See the complete memo in Appendix A-Survey Results. Most businesses related to economic development that responded indicated that telecommunications was an important factor limiting their growth. lnfrastxucture is olden the barrier to competition in the telecommunications industry. The existing providers (ILEC and CATV) typically have a large investment in the existing infrastructure from which they are trying to recoup their costs while providing services. Over-bnilding an existing infrastructure can dramatically increase the cost of entrance into a new market, and obtaining access to existing infrastructure is difficult, despite the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In an interesting solution to the problem, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission separated Bell Atlantic Pennsylvania into an infrastructure company and a service company. According to an article on the New Jersey Coalition for Local Telephone Competition web site, tl~s action will dramatically improve competition in Pennsylvania. "The rules, approved by a 4-1 vote, with Robert K~ Bloom dissenting, include the breakup of Bell Atlantic Pennsylvania into two businesses. One would sell the use of Bell Atlantic's networks and services wholesale to companies that would resell the services to consumers. The other would be the company's retail division, which would sell services directly to consumers and businesses. PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dlb 34 Draft 01-27-00 Consumer groups and Bell Atlantic's competitors, including AT&T and MCI WorldCom, largely applauded the ruling. ~1 T& T said yesterday that it would start selling residential local- phone service in Pennsylvania in Bell.~ttlantic's territory as long as there was no delay in implementing the PUC decision and establishing the operating systems that would allow it to connect with Bell ~ltlantic's networlc MCJ WorldCom also said the decision made it likely that it would start selling residential local-phone service in the state next year as well. Note: The complete arlicle can be found at hup://www.competitionnow.orl~/news/082799.htm Market Demand The results of the survey indicate demand for voice and data services. The mount of demand and where it needs to connect is shown in Figure 15--Type of Demand. Not every respondent indicated the quantity, type, or location of their needs, but a general trend can be seen. There is more interest across all three areas of demand within the county. Additional interest in both data and voice services within and outside of Clallam County is likely. 25 ; 20 ~ 15 · In the county ~10° · Outside the count}/ 5 0 Voice Data Both Demand Types Figure 15-Type of Demand The majority of those who responded in detail showed that they desired access to both data and voice services within the county. There is some interest in both voice and data outside of the PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfl~ 3 5 Draft 01-27-00 county. This could be fulfilled through partnering or leasing with US West, Century Telephone, or other companies. Partnering During the survey, several ISPs, CLECs, and other telephone companies were contacted to determine their interest in the network. Those include US West, Century Telephone, Fair Point, Northland Cable, Olypen, and others. All of these companies expressed a desire to see a fiber network built in Clallam County. 1t% 8% "" Not Specified 46% · Lease rn Partner rn Partner Assist 35% Figure 16-Partnering Response Many of these companies are interested in providing services on a network, either directly or through a parmering arrangement. US West expressed that if a dark fiber network were built, it would frae up capital that the company could then invest in bringing xDSL services into the region. These services would allow residents and business to connect to the lntemet at higher speeds (256kb to 8 Mbps) than the existing copper phune lines. There are various DSL technologies available today (the x in xDSL refers to the type). US West currently provides ADSL services in many large metropolitan areas within its 14-state territory. Some CLECs are using (or planning to use) xDSL technology to provide data and voice services in areas where they want to begin competing. A fiber optic infrastructure, whether voice- or data- based, would provide an infrastructure that could support the deployment of xDSL technologies, allowing for immediate impact on the majority of Clallam County residents. There are some limitations on the distance and bandwidth ADSL and other xDSL technologies can provide, but these technologies are seen by the incumbent and competitive telephone companies as one way to avoid building, or rebuilding, a distribution infrastructure in the short term. Century Telephone expressed an interest in sharing fiber infrastructure for either route redundancy or to reduce capital expenditures. They currently have some fiber near the Sekiu and Piedmont substations. Details of the locations they are interested in and where fiber currently exists were not available. Century would like to discuss any plans the City and District may have PEI-BO146~432-99/drn 36 Draft 01-27-00 to avoid over-building each other and to assist in bringing advanced telecommunications services to Clallam County. Many of these companies would be willing to parmer to build, operate, and maintain this network. The details of such parmerships need to be followed up after a decision to build is made. Most companies will not discuss details at this preliminary stage of a project. PEI-BO146~432-99/dPo 3 7 Draft 01-27-00 Conclusions General Network Strategy and Excess Capacity There has been a very positive response to the survey and visits with various businesses in Clallam County. The majority of responses showed some interest in an advanced telecommunications infras~'ucture in Clallam County (see Figure 13-Interest in System). With the high number (31%) that responded within a short interval, it leads to the conclusion that the Clallam County area is in need of improved telecommunications services. Both the City and County EDC members have expressed the need for improved telecommunication services in the City of Port Angeles and within Clallam County. With improved services, both EDCs believe economic hnprovements within the City and County could be stimulated. This could be through call center-type companies, data warehousing companies, eleclronic commerce companies, and other communication-intensive businesses moving into the There are two basic elements in a communications system: · the physical infrastructure: in this case, fiber and eleclrunics · the content: such as lntemet access, basic phone, cable TV, etc. The City and District are very experienced in the infrastructure portion of a communications system. They are not directly experienced, but placing all dielectric self-supporting (ADSS) fiber cable is similar to placing conductor for a power system. The eleclronics installation, maintenance, and operation would require the training or staffing of individuals to perform those functions. Neither the City nor the District has significant experience with telecommunications content, such as lnternet access, basic phone service, or video conferencing services. With these things in mind, POWER would recommend that the City and District consider beginning the process of building an advanced communications system in the Clallam County region with the following goals and limits in mind: · Develop a detailed business plan to justify the project. · Engineer and build an infraslracture network only. This would include ADSS fiber cable and electronics to provide transport of content and private traffic. · Build separate City and District fiber cables and electronics. Construction and equipment orders should be combined as often as possible. Both the City and Dis~ct should choose the same technology and vendor. · Jointly share the operation and maintenance of the network to reduce costs for both the City and the District. · Seek partnerships or "anchor" tenants with such companies as US West, Century Telephone, Fair Point Communications, Olypen Interoet Services, and others. These companies (and others) have established communications content services. With access to low-cost infrastructure, it is likely they can or will be able to bring advanced communications to the PEI-BOI 46~432-99/dlb 39 Draft 01-27-00 people of Clallam County. They also, in the case of US West and Northland Cable Television, have last-mile access to the residents and businesses of Clallam County. · Build a dislribution system that can support high bandwidth requirements (greater than 45 Mbps) only if necessary. If the parmer/anchor tenant will continue to invest in the existing or new infrasU'ucture and technology (such as very high-speed digital subscriber line (VDSL) and improved cable modems) to meet the needs of residents and business, tiffs will not be necessary. · Find an operator to mn and maintain the network. As time progresses, the City and/or District could staffthis role. During the initial implementations, an external operator would allow the City and District to "learn" how this network operates and to avoid internal staffing problems if the network changes dramatically (for example, selling or leasing the entire infrastructure to a third party). · Use an RFP process for all major components of the network, including fiber cable, electronics, and operation and maintenance. Some vendors could provide all three, but separation will improve the choices available. · Find an interconnection (or more than one) off the peninsula. This would allow greater access to service providers and greater choices for content. There was some interest in access to the Seattle area (and beyond) from some companies surveyed. Network Architecture There is a large demand for combined voice and data services as well as data only. Both a data- only and voice-only network will support video conferencing. This means ifa voice-only or a data-only network is built, video conferencing will be supported. From the survey responses, the type (architecture) of conununications system that should be constructed, if the City and/or District choose to, should support data and voice services. Most voice services can be supported on a pure IP network (Architecture 3) by using VolP equipment. With the convergence of voice and data communications, POWER would recommend choosing either Architecture 3-Ethemet (IP) Based Network or Architecture 4-SONET/1P Network. The decision between the two types should depend on the level of risk the City or District is willing to assume. · The Ethernet network would pose the smallest risk of possible conflict with existing communications companies and regulators because of its data-only nature. It would reduce the flexibility of the network (at this time) to provide high-quality, reliable voice service (such as a call center would need), but would meet the data needs of most potential users. Several vendors can supply this type of equipment. · The SONETflP network would carry some risk because of its inherent voice capability, but would provide the flexibility of allowing voice and data services while providing the high reliability ofa SONET network. It also would provide some measure of "future proofing." SONET is not a dead technology - it is being used differently but will continue to be viable for some time. See "Not Fade Away.'?" from the November 1999 issue of Fiber Exchange ~ Appendix D-Reference Material. With these issues in mind, POWER would recommend that the City and District use the following goals or limits while preparing to build an advanced communications system in the Clallam County region. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfo 40 Draft 0'1-27-00 Determine which segments should be built first, based on cost, demand, parmemhip opportunities, and internal needs. ,, Engineer and write a detailed RFP for the portions of the network desired to be built f~t. Break it into three (3) portions (fiber cable, electronics, operation and maintenance), allowing for bids on any or all of them. · Obtain RFP responses from all throe technologies - SONET/1P, Etbemet, and ATM. ATM technology has been expensive to own and operate, but this is starting to change. · Use OC-12 (622.08 Mbps) or Gigabit Ethemet (1000 Mbps) rates for the RFP. The OC-48 (2488.32 Mbps) rate used in this report may be more than is required at first. The business plan could help refine this. · Initially, use the network for internal voice and data needs. This will allow a "bum-in" for the network and allow the City and the District to "adjust" to the network. Build Sequence The order in which the segments are built is greatly dependent on the individual requirements of the City and District, the demand for service, the requirements of any parmers and the capital available to construct. The current recommended sequence of segments for each entity is detailed separately. This build sequence may not be optimal. As the system is finalized and construction begins, the sequence should be reevaluated. The recommended build sequence is Segment 8, 9, 10, and then 11. · The market research indicates that the City should build Segment 8 fa'st. This segment will pass the majority of respondents who expressed interest in accessing the network. It will have a ring (route redundancy) through a large majority of the segment. It also will pass near City Hall and allow for the two potential interconnections with the District. Distribution fiber should be built (if necessary, depending on partners) to connect those initially interested. · Segment 9 should be built next. It will continue creating redundant physical paths for the fiber and complete the east end of Port Angeles. · Segment 10 should be built next. It will expand the network into the west portion of Port Angeles, pass additional respondents, and pass near areas identified as requiring economic development. · Segment 11 should be built next. It will complete the City of Port Angeles (as it exists today), create additional fiber paths, and finish the initial backbone. District The recommended build sequence is Segment l, 5, 6, 7, 2, 4, and 3. The Dis~ct is in a more complicated situation than the City. There is market demand in Squhn, Forks, and Neah Bay, the three extreme "ends" of the network. Portions of Segment 7 (Fairmont to Port Townsend) could be constructed with US West. Century Telephone has some fiber in Segment 3 and Segment 4. They are interested in additional fiber in those areas. Segment I and Segment 5 would benefit the District in terms of internal use and linking to Segment 7. Squim showed the most market interest. P£1-BO146~432-99/dlb 41 Draft 01-27-00 Without taking into account Century Telephone's desires, the District should build m the following sequence. If Century Telephone becomes involved, or expresses a desire to become involved, then the build sequence should be altered. · Segment 1 will allow the District and City to interconnect their networks, enabling the two networks to exchange traffic and O&M functions. · Segment 5 will allow the DisU'ict to begin to address internal SCADA and lease line needs. · Segment 6 will connect the City of Squire to the network and bring an external conngction into Port Angeles. The segment also will prepare the District for NoaNet interconnecfion at the Fairmont Substation. · Segment 7 will connect the City of Port Townsend. · Segment 2 will be the most difficult in terms of terrain. Funding for this segment may require revenue suppOrt from the rest of the network; by this point, it should be able to find revenue. It will bring the network closer to Century Telephone. · Segment 4 will connect Forks to the network and come closer to Century Telephone · Segment 3 will connect Neah Bay to the network and complete the District backbone. P£1.BO146-0432-99/dfo 42 Draft 01-27-00 Glossary of Terms Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line. Bellcore's term for one-way T-I to the home over the plain old, single twisted pair wiring already going to homes. ADSL is one- ADSL way video with control signals returning from the home at 16Kbps. ADSL, like ISDb uses adaptive digital filtering, which is a way of adjusting itself to overcome noise am other problems on the line. Currently being deployed for high speed internet access. Analog Telephone transmission and/or switching that is not digital. The architecture of a system refers to how it is designed and how the components of the system are connected to, and operate with, each other. It covers voice, data, video Architecture and text. Architecture also includes the ability of the system to can), narrow, medium and broadband signals. It also includes the ability of the system to grow "seamlessly" (i.e. without too many large .jumps in price). Asynchronous Transfer Mode. Very high speed transmission technology. High ATM bandwidth, Iow-delay, packet-like switching and multiplexin~ technique. The decrease in power of a signal, light beam, or light wave either absolutely or as a fraction ora reference value. The decrease usually occurs as a result of absorption, Attenuation reflection, diffusion, scattering, deflection or dispersion from an original level and usually not as a result of geometric spreading. The backbone is the part of the communications network that carries the heaviest Backbone traffic. The backbone is also the part of a network that joins LANs together- either inside a building or across a city or the country. Bandwidth A measure of the information carrying capacity of the system. The greater or higher the bandwidth, the ~reater the information capacity. Buffer Material used to protect optical fiber from physical damage - providing mechanical isolation and/or protection. Hardware installed with a receptacle to form a connection point. May include Build-Out attenuation. Capacity The information-carrying abilit~ ora telecommunications facility. The hardware and software arrangement that define a telecommunications system an~ Configuration thus determine what the system will do and how well it will do it. Convergence Time-based voice networks combined with the IP-based data networks. Unused fiber through which no light is transmitted or installed fiber optic cable not Dark Fiber carrying a signal. It's "dark" because it's sold or leased without light communication transmission. The customer is expected to put his own electronics and signals on the fiber and make it light. Thc demarcation point between the wiring that comes in from your local telephone Demarc company and the wiring you install to hook up your own telephone system. DS A hierarchy of digital signal speeds used to classify capacities of lines and trunks. Digital Service, level 0. 64 Kbps, the worldwide standard speed for digitizing one- DSO voice conversation using pulse code modulation. There are 24 DS channels in a DS-1 DS1 Digital Service, level 1. It is 1.544 Mbps. 24 DSOs. Carried on TI. DS2 Digital Service, level 2. 6.312 Mbps. 96 DSOs. Carried on T2. DS3 Digital Service, level 3. 44.736 Mbps. Equivalent to 28 DSls (28 Tls). Digital Subscriber Line. A three-channel digital line that links the ISDN customer's DSL terminal to the telephone company switch with four ordinary copper telephone wires. A local area network used for connecting computers, printers, workstations, terminals~ Ethernet etc., within the same building. Ethernet operates over twisted wire and over coaxial cable at speeds up to 10 Mbps. A technology in which light is used to transport information from one point to another Fiber Optics Fiber optics are thio filaments of glass through which light beams are transmitted over long distances~ carrying enormous amounts of data. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfl) 43 Draft 01-27-00 lnternet Protocol. Part of the TCP/IP family of protocols describing software that IP tracks the Interact address of nodes, routes outgoing message, and recognizes incoming messages. Integrated Services Digital Network. A totally new concept of what the world's telephone system should be. Provides an internationally accepted standard for voice, ISDN data, and signaling by making transmission circuits end-to-end digital. Adopts a standard out-of-band signaling system by bringing more bandwidth to the desktop. Usually refers to the connection from a main distribution point to the final customer Last-Mile location. It typically is used to refer to residential distribution (communications or power). A point of connection into a network. In mulfipoint networks, it means it's a unit Nude that's polled. In LANs, it's a device on the ring. In a packet-switched network, it's one of the many packet switches that form the network's backbone. OC Optical Carrier. A SONET optical signal. OI2-1 Optical Carrier level-1. The optical counter part ofSTS-1. SONET channel of 51.84 Mbps. 1 DS3. OC-12 SONET channel of 622.08 Mbps. 12 DS3s. OC-3 Optical Carrier leveI-3. The optical counterpart of STS-3. SONET channel of 155.52, Mbps. 3 D$3s. OC48 SONET channel of 2488.320 Mbps or 2.4 Gbps. 48 DS3s. Redundancy Having one or more "backup" systems available in case of failure of the main system. Synchronous Optical Network. A family of fiber optic transmission rates from 51.84 Mbps to 13.22 Gbps, created to provide the flexibility needed to transport many digita SONET signals with different capacities, and to provide a standard for manufacturers to desigr from. SONET is an optical interface standard that allows cooperation among transmission products from multiple vendors. Splice The ioining of two or more cables together by splicing the conductors pair-to-pair. STS Synchronous Transport Signal. A digital transmission link with a capacity of 1.544 Mbps. T1 uses two pairs of norm: TI twisted wires. TI normally can handle 24 voice conversations, each one digitized at 6 Kbps. Equivalent to DS1. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dlb 44 Draft 0t-27-00 Appendix A Survey Results This section contains the detailed results of POWER's survey of Clallam County, WA, and the City of Port Angeles. PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dFo Draft 01-27-00 Appendix B Detailed Cost Estimates This section contains POWER s cos estimates for the four network architectures examined in this report. PEI-BO! 46-~432-99/dPo Draft 01-27-00 Appendix C Network Layout This section contains detailed drawings of POWER's proposed network layout. PEI-BO146-0432-99/dlb Draft 01-27-00 Appendix D Reference Material The following article from the November 1999 issue of Fiber Exchange was used t~ guide architecture recommendations. Its full text is presented here to provide additional details. Not Fade Away? BY ROBERT PEASE Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) has served the communications industry well for more than 15 years, providing reliable voice transmission and enabling huge revenues for the likes of AT&T, Sprint, MCI WorldCom, and other incumbent network operators. But today, voice traffic no longer monopolizes the fiber-optic cables crisscrossing the land. Data Iraffic is skyrocketing, and more accommodating technologies, such as dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM), Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), and Intemet protocol (IP), are primed to give SONET equipment the proverbial "boot" in long-haul networks because of its perceived incompatibility with data networking requirements. On paper, the need for voice-friendly SONET gear certainly appears to have lessened. RHK Inc., a telecommunications industry analyst fu'm in south San Francisco, estimates most voice traffic is growing in the 8% to 15% range annually. That seems pretty substantial--until you compare that figure to data Iraffic's annual growth estimates of anywhere from 100% to 400%, depending on the carrier. Yet SONET use continues to increase among long-bani carriers. RHK believes the 1999 SONET market will expand 62% in North America alone. That hardly looks like a wholesale switch to data networking, says Dana Cooperson, senior analyst for transport systems at RHK. "A lot of the reliability, protection, and other features that people have gone to SONET for still aren't necessarily available in the data networking equipment," explains Cooperson. "So do we see a move to go right from an ATM switch or an IP router in to a DWDM system for long-haul transport? Absolutely. But it's not quite there yet. So SONET network elements still continue m have a very big role to play." Catriers~and their custom--ave become accustomed to a technology that, for lack of better terminology, "works." SONET delivers such att~butes as reliability, timing and framing, add/drop multiplexing, protection, provisioning, robnsmess of ~ransport, and bandwidth management capabilities. But even with the s~mng support of carriers and current traffic economics, a realistic look at the future makes it clear that the days are numbered for SONET as they know it. A new role? SONETs future is inextricably linked to emerging technologies such as DWDM, 1P, and all- optical networking. New carriers are using these new technologies to build data-centric networks with all sorts of protocol combinations, while incumbent carriers are well aware they must PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfl~ Draft 01-27-00 eventually make a transition from their voice-centcic networks into the world of data to keep pace. In this context, there are several U'ends developing on which many carriers, new and old, agree. First, SONET will eventually make a migration of sorts to the edge of the network. In the core, DWDM is gradually taking over the transport role, with manufacturers already writing the specifications of SONET into their DWDM equipment. On the edge of the network, SONET will fulfill a need for multiplexing as part of next-generation equipment. Global Crossing, in the form of the national U.S. network it recently acquired from Frontier Corp., illusWates this paradigm. "Our architecture certainly follows that," says Russ Shipley, vice president of network planning and development at Global Crossing. "If you look at the way we've designed our ATM and IP networks, they're directly on the optical layers, something you'll continue to see worldwide and not just in the United States." Shipley prefers to think of voice as an application riding the core network, with SONET being the ~ransport that works most efficiently for TDM voice networks. "They don't have SONET interfaces to switches, so you have to break it down into something the switch can handle when you're designing wanking networks around the world," says Shipley. "Without the interface, it needs to have the support of some type of DS-3 or DS-I multiplexing, and SONET, by its nature, has that capability." "One of the things SONET has provided, and provided well, is taking a lot of low speed signals and multiplexing them up to a higher speed signal that's more efficient for transport," agrees Cooperson. "There's an awful lot of activity to make access more efficient--not by abandoning SONET--but by adding functionality to what was a fairly single-purpose network element." Access equipment manufacturers are developing products for the edge of the network that mix ATM switching, IP routing, and SONET add/drop functionality in single elements, providing more efficiency. A new generation of multifunction multiplexers, for example, is able to handle lower speed protocols that were difficult to handle previously. "Eventually, the new carriers that appreciate the traditional SONET amibutes will begin to incorporate equipment that will provide interoperability between one protocol and another," says Stephen Montgomery, president of ElectroniCast Corp., an industry forecasting company in San Jose, CA. "Basically, it's really important for vendors to manufacture multiprotocol systems and solutions. We're seeing data networks, using various protocols such as IP, ATM, SONET, Gigabit Ethernet, and others, leaving the building and going all the way to the central office. Vendors will have to have some kind of interfaces for access equipment that can deal with all these protocols and manage them intelligently." G. Emory Anderson, an engineer in optical networking and SONET for Telcordia Technologies, agrees that SONET functionality will fred its way into hybrid equipment. He believes that most of the SONET functions will be absorbed by the other protocols. Which pieces of equipment absorb what functions depends on where they reside in the network. "We're seeing SONET creeping into the access area in various forms," says Anderson. "One reason is that SONET has evolved the capability to transport data, solving a lot of transport problems that haven't gone away. We're seeing a lot of different types of products coming out that make use of some of SONET's features. On one end of that scale, you're seeing some access products that simply offer data over large SONET frames, such as OC-3c and OC-12c. On the PEI-BO146-0432-99/dlb Draft 01-27-00 other end of the scale, companies are offering things like hybrid routers that offer protection switching." SONET for legacy and new While the future may indeed mirror these predictions, not everyone is rushing to embrace it. Several factors should ensure that SONET gear will hang on to its present position of prominence in many networks. First, current bottom line realities support the continued use of SONET equipment. Even with data traffic approaching or surpassing 50% of the communications traffic today, data services don't yet provide 50% of the revenues on most networks. That, says Cooperson, is one more reason why there is still a lot of impetus for carriers to deal with their communications traffic in ways that are efficient for voice, and SONET doesjust that. This factor even holds tree for the emerging carders. "Williams, for example, is focusing its network on data, but still buying SONET multiplexers because they have a need for private line and other data and data/voice mixes," says Cooperson. "Today, the most efficient and reliable way to transport that kind of traffic is to still use SONET." This reliance on SONET doesn't necessary diminish the company's value proposition as an economical alternative to incumbent carriers. "Williams doesn't have to deal with the big legacy issue of what to do with management systems, from provisioning to installation, so they can potentially operate more efficiently." Yet even incumbent carders with legacy networks can move into the data realm efficiently with SONET equipment. For example, a company such as AT&T is large enough that it can afford to have different networks running in parallel, each optimized for a different use, says Cooperson. "They have an IP backbone, for example, and are building that up to OC-192," she explains. "That's a big step for them. They're also doing their voice traffic in parallel. There's still a good life for SONET, particularly at the higher speeds of OC-48 and OC-192." Meanwhile, incumbent carriers have existing customer bases they need to keep happy. Thus, carders like Sprint are interested in reaping the benefits of the data explosion, but not by sacrificing the customer base they've built over the years. Sprint's national backbone is primarily made up of 4-fiber, bidirectional, line-switched SONET. Why? Because SONET has offered proven reliabilily. In fact, unlike some career companies that experienced as many as 15 to 20 reportable fiber cuts this year, Sprint says they have not contacted the Federal Communications Commission with a single fiber cut in 1999. Although it doesn't mean zero fiber cuts, it does mean service was never interrupted for customers. "One thing you have to remember is that there are 250 million people in the United States," says Charles Fleckenstein, group manager for Sprint's business and technology division. "Most of those people are still connected to the old TDM [time division multiplexing] infrastructure. They're used to picking up the phone and having the dial tone work now. So one thing Sprint expresses to vendors is that we don't want to take a step backwards. We want this whole thing to evolve, but not at the expense of our customer base." "There is going to be a migration as we move out of the SONET environment into more of the optical and direct IP-over-wavelengths on our DWDM systems," says Nell Grenfell, vice president of advanced research and technology at Sprint. "There are issues of making sure we maintain some of the same SONET allributes available, such as network management capabilities, within the optical environment. Most of the vendors are moving that way and their so/ut/on over the next few years will solve most of those problems." PEI-BO146-0432-99/dfl~ Draft 01-27-00 Grenfell says there is still the lingering question of how to provide protection and service consistency. A gradual move to hybrid systems is likely, in which a considerable amount of SONET could still be used throughout the network, concentrating on the edges. What's the Sprint timeline look like? "We're running IP over DWDM now," says Grenfell. "We'll have a significant amount of OC-48 1P-direct on wavelength by the end of this year. We'll be starting with the ATM OC-48 on the direct wavelength early next year." RHK's Cooperson believes the incumbent carders will likely spend at least five years making changes to enormous networks. Telcordia's Anderson says he recently heard it said there is about a ~llion dollars worth of SONET equipment deployed today. So all the statements and predictions about SONET dropping out of sight in the near furore have to be considered in light ora huge embedded base. Tomorrow's market for SONET equipment may not be a trillion dollars, but it's certainly not pocket change. PEI-BOI 46-0432-99/dlb INFILTRATION AND INFLOW REDUCTION PILOT PROGRAM PROJECT 99-21 Summary With the assistance of Brown and Caldwell, the City has started a pilot program to evaluate and quantify the cost to reduce infiltration and inflow into the sewer system. The pilot program includes: 1. Installing flow monitoring and recording devices in 9 sewer manholes at key locations in the City, to establish baseline flows during dry periods and wet weather periods. The installation of these devices has been completed. 2. Re-phimbing roof drains in a pilot area of the City around the high school (see drawings) this summer and fall so that they drain to the storm sewer and not the sanitary sewer. 3. Monitoring sewer flows in the pilot area after this to see the effect removal of roof drains has on wet weather flows. The cost to remove the roof drains from the sewer system in the pilot area, and the effect this has on sewer flows, will be extrapolated for the entire City. In this way, we can then make a decision on whether it is economically beneficial to the City to establish a Roof Drain Ordinance. This will also evaluate where the cost burden to remove the roof drains will fall - publically subsidized, the property owners, or a public/private partnership. Flow Monitoring Devices Nine flow monitoring devices were installed at the end of January. Each device measures and records flow in 10 minute intervals. A City employee downloads this information every other week on to a laptop computer. This information will then be summarized into reports and charts that compare these flows to storm events. Brown & Caldwell will assist in evaluating the data. The cost to install these devices was approximately $36,000. The total cost to remove the roof drains in the pilot area is not known yet. Initial estimates for removal are approximately $2,000 per residence. The locations of the flow monitoring devices are listed below: Site No. Location Site No. Location 1 Orcas & Vine Streets 6 Laurel & Railroad Streets 2 Francis St. at 4/5 Alley 7 Marine Drive at Valley Street (West) 3 Francis at Front/Georgiana Alley 8 Marine Drive at Valley Street (East) 4 North end of Francis Street 9 Marine Drive at Cedar Street 5 Lincoln St at 1/2 Alley N:\PROJECTS\99-21 \SCOPE. WPD pOR.TANGELES W A $ H I N (~ T O N, U.S.A. CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: February 8, 2000 To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~/~ FROM: Gary W. Kenworthy, P.E., Deputy Director of Engineeri~yY //Engineer SUBJECT: Downtown Watermaln/Sidewalk Replacement, Phase II, Project 99-11; Historical Underground Issues/Direction Summary.: . Phase II of the downtown watermain and sidewalk replacement project 99-11 is under design and construction is scheduled to start this spring. Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed tilling in of the hollow sidewalk areas and the loss of historicai sites or access thereto. Construction by filling the hollow areas will eliminate the use of the hollow sidewalk area for future access to basement areas. Alternates to preserve the future access include: Structural covering &the hollow sidewalk area which is costly and would not be covered by the current loan; Relocate watermain to street which would eliminate pavers and street trees but would allow more extensive watermaln replacement which would be covered by the current loan. Our current schedule was to have the project completed in June, 2000. Any changes now will more than likely slip the construction to after labor day or later, with completion by December or later, due to the significance of the changes and weather conditions. Recommendation: Reaffirmation of the original project scope or new directions for revisions to the scope are needed. Background / Analysis: The watermain replacement project was developed to improve water service and upgrade fire flows to meet current standards in the downtown area. This project is identified in our water comprehensive plan as a high priority project to replace the failing cast iron watermains constructed in 1914. In the early concept stages of the project it was decided to also improve the downtown appearance by replacement of the sidewalks removed by the project with pavers. This was expanded during Phase I construction to include paver crosswalks, bulbed intersection corners, and Laurel Street fountain improvements. Phase II of the Downtown Watermain/Sidewalk project is currently under design and scheduled for construction this spring. Phase II proposes replacement of the watermains and sidewalks along the south side Front Street, between Lincoln and Oak Streets, and, if funding allows, along the east side of Laurel Street, between Railroad Avenue and Front Street. The proposed construction for Phase II is similar to that used for Phase I (i.e. replace the cast iron watermains in the right of way area behind the curbs). Some of the areas behind the curbs remains hollow due to the retaining wall and sluicing method of street construction used in 1914. In Phase I these hollow areas were filled in by construction of an additional retaining wall at the right of way line. The N:~PRO JECTS~99-11 \CORR\UACUG.WPD [ 1/14/00] filling in provided a more stable structural seismic environment for the utilities and allowed use of pavers for the required sidewalk replacement. The pavers provided a significant aesthetic improvement to the downtown area and also facilitate future utility service extensions and repairs without the need to jackhammer out and replace the old concrete sidewalks. In Phase II, and remaining phases it was anticipated that several historical/significant sites could be impacted and public input was solicited regarding identification these sites. Except for driveway crossings, the area along the south side of Front and Laurel Streets is hollow. Staffhas investigated all of the Phase II hollow sidewalk areas for historical/significant sites. The murals under the old peddle and paddle are not in the right of way and there has been no direct access from Front Street since the 1914 construction. It has been stated that the old City Hall has a brick storefront. What is in place at old City Hall is the unscored brick facing used to close in the basement and it does not appear to be a pre-1914 storefront. A storefront was identified earlier along the west side of Laurel Street which is of historic significance. This storefront will not be impacted by the watermain replacement in this or later phases. All watermain replacement in Laurel Street is proposed to be only on the east side. The new areas identified following our requests are two above ground facilities (Elwha Theater and the Brothel above Family Shoe Store) which are not impacted by this or future phases of the watermain replacement. One new area that has been identified by our request is the hollow sidewalks themselves. In our earlier identification of significant historic sites these were not considered since these areas were primarily used as water, sewer, electrical, and gas utility corridors, fuel oil tank storage, coal chutes, and added basement space (Elks and Seafirst Buildings). There are no longer any gas or coal services and the use for fuel tanks is limited. It has come to our attention that there are those who wish to preserve the hollow sidewalks areas for use as covered walkways to access basement businesses and view historic storefronts. With this phase there are several options, or combinations thereof, which can be accommodated if design/construction schedules and funding allow. To keep the current project on track a decision is required at this time as to which option to pursue in design and construction. The above ground historical issues regarding the Elwha Theater and the Brothel are not included in this analysis. The primary watermain replacement options available are as follows: 1. Waterrnain under sidewalk area with retaining walls and fill. A. Includes paver sidewalks/crosswalks and street trees. B. Access to murals under the old peddle and paddle could be developed using existing access/stairways from alley. C. Design/construction $I, 112,000 2. Watermain under sidewalk area with Structural cover. A. Includes paver sidewalks/crosswalks and street trees. B. Design/construction $1,612,000 (Does not include added cost of underground lighting, ventilation, fire protection, accesses, walkways with added excavation for clearances, security closures, or other code items which may be required for public C. Additional local funding ($500,000) and State lending agency project scope change approval would be required NAPROJECTSk99-11 \CORR\UACUG.WPD [1/14/00] 3. Watermaln in street. A Includes paver crosswalks, but would not include paver sidewalks or street trees.. Watermain replacement would be expanded to utilize approved funding. B. Design/construction $1,112,000 ($500,000, original scope without expansion) C. State lending agency project scope change approval would be required. The current project is funded by a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, 3.35%, 20 year loan in the amount of $1,030,000. The loans scope of work includes funding the watermain replacement along with sidewalk replacement with pavers, paver crosswalks, and street tree replacements as part of the downtown image improvements. Any significant changes beyond this scope of work will require State approval. With the current interest and publicity regarding the historic downtown underground reaffirmation of the original project scope or direction for revisions to the scope are needed to keep the project funded and on schedule. Our current schedule was to advertise in February, award in March, and have the project completed in June, 2000 to avoid work in the downtown area during the summer tourist season. Any changes now will more than likely slip the construction to after labor day with completion in November, weather permitting. Significant changes could delay the project into the 2001 construction seasons. N:~PROJECT8~99-11 \CORR\UACUO.WPD [ 1 / 14/00] / / po :A WASHINGTON, U.S.A. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: February 8, 2000 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Residential Container Conversion Staff has completed analysis of the 90 gallon conversion proposal at the request of the Utility Advisory Committee. The project will be completed in two phases. Phase I (years 1-3), convert all residential mutes from 300 gallon containers to 90 gallon containers. Solid Waste Division will add one additional automated collection operator to help with the increased residential collections in 2001. Phase II (years 4-5), research the feasibility of biweekly collection in residential routes. This plan would put the City of Port Angeles in compliance with the proposed Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan. This conversion will not affect commercial accounts. Background/Analysis: The City has 6400 residential customers, 2400 use 90-gallon containers and 4000 use 300-gallon containers. (The average is three residences per 300-gallon container.) Staff did an inventory of the 2263 300-gallon commercial and residential containers and found 24% were broken in some manner. The majority of the broken containers are on residential routes. Most of the broken containers are original containers purchased in 1984. The guarantee on these containers was for 10 years. A percentage of the 300-gallon containers will continue to break. Containers needed for conversion will be purchased within the existing budget. Total expenditures for purchasing 90-gallon containers is $225,000. The Equipment Operator, including benefits, will cost $49,000 (beginning in 2001). Operation and maintenance cost for the automated collection vehicle is $16,000. Now is the time to start the conversion process because of the need to replace broken containers. Three hundred gallon containers will continue to be utilized for commercial accounts. A rate study will be conducted during the Summer of 2000. This proposal has the potential to reduce the amount trash going into the Landfill and the long-haul operation when the Landfill closes. Recommendation: Support conversion of the 300-gallon residential containers to 90-gallon containers and make a recommendation to the City Council. Attach: Comparison N 5PWKS\SWASTE\CONVEP,28.WPD Current System: 1. Staffing leveh A, Collection Supervisor B, Three Automated Collection Operators C. Community Service Coordinator D. Landfill Equipment Operators ( sick leave and vacation relief of Automated Collection Operators ) 2. Residential customers: A. 2,400 residents use 90 gallon containers. ( have no alley access) B, 4,000 residents share 300 gallon containers. ( have alley access ) C. 76 residents are given two 30 gallon containers with liners and pickup every Wednesday by the Community Service Coordinator ( residents receiving this service are physically unable to use a 300 or 90 gallon container ) D, Hours of collection 7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. E. 300 gallon containers are collected on one side of alleys. ( this is the most efficient collection method ) F. 300 gallon containers in dead-end and stubs are placed on drivers side of equipment. ( this allows us to back into the stub or dead-end, reducing risk and liability ) 3. Equipment: A. Four automated collection vehicles in fleet. B. Three are used every day for commercial and residential collections, ( fourth vehicle is used primarily as a backup ) C. One automated collection vehicle is scheduled for replacement 2001 budget. D. Vehicles are replaced every nine years. 4. Container Budget: A. Budget for the year 2000 is $75,000, 1. Replace broken 300 and 90 gallon commercial and residential containers. 2. Service new residential and commercial customers. 90's Conversion: A public relations program to help customers with questions on the residential container conversion. Most of the customers will place their container in the alley next to their property. Pick-up of the containers will require two passes down each alley. On stubs and dead-end streets, containers will need to be placed on the drivers side to reduce our risk and liability, Staff will have time to identify issues with three year period. 1. Staffing level: A. Collection Supervisor B Four Automated Collection Operators ( add one Automated Collection Operator in 2001 budget ) 1. Cost for Automated Collection Operator $49,000. a year ( includes benefits, overtime, holidays) C. Community Service Coordinator D. Landfill Equipment Operators ( sick leave and vacation relief for Automated Collection Operators ) 2. Residential Customers: A. 6,400 residential customers will have their own 90 gallon containers within three years. City will purchase 4,090 containers over three year period 1. Year 2000 3,733 residents will have 90 gallon containers 2. Year 2001 5,066 residents will have 90 gallon containers 3. Year 2002 6,400 residents will have 90 gallon containers B. Containers will be placed on both sides of alley. C. 90 gallon containers in dead-end and stubs will be placed on driver side of equipment. ( this allows us to back into the stub or dead-end, reducing risk and liability ) D. Hours of collection will be 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday E. Special collection will increase with people unable to use a 90 gallon container. F. Collection days wil~ remain the same for most customers. G, The 300 gallon containers being replaced with 90 gallon containers will be removed by Community Service Coordinator with assistance from Street Division. ( on collection day) 3, Commercial Customers: A. 300 gallon containers taken from residential alleys will be used for replacement of broken containem and new commercial acooun~s. B. Staff will investigate the need to lock up containers. ( illegal dumping ) 4. Equipment: A. Four automated collection vehicles in fleet. B. Three are used every day for commercial and residential collections. C. Fourth vehicle will be used every day starting 2001 for afternoon pick-up of residential collections. 1. Operation and Maintenance will cost $14,000. a year, increase in equipment hours. ( 2.080 hours) C. One automated collection vehicle is scheduled for replacement in 2001 budget. D. ',Jehicles are replaced every eight years. $. Container Budget: A. Purchase all 90 gallon containers for conversion with the 2000, 2001, 2002 budget. B. Cost estimate to purchase 90 gallon containers. ( $55. per container ) $75,0001Jmes three years = $225,000. $225,000 divide by $55.00 per container -~ 4,090 containers 6. Recycling: A. Intensify focus on recycling. Recycle more Tag & Plastics. Campaign for all yard debris to be removed from containers and recycled. Campaign for removal of plastics from yard debris. Advantages of all 90 gallon containers: Replaces an aging inventory of 300 gallon containers. · Encourages more recycling of household waste and yard debris. Reduces the amount of illegal dumping by County residents. Keep the alleys cleaner. · Eliminate concerns of residents having a 300-gallon container on "Their Property" · Less maintenance and repair of collection vehicles ( fewer heavy containers ) · Support of Clallam County Comprehensive Plan. · Everyone has their own 90 gallon container. · Reduce container maintenance by City crews. · Reduce potential City liability on fire hazards. Support of Survey where majority of citizens suggested they would like to have their own 90-gallon container, · Eliminate ability to put large bulky items in containers. Disadvantages of all 90 gallon containers: · Requires adding one automated collection operator. Extra Operation and Maintenance of equipment. · More containers in alley on collection day. · Reduce life expectancy of trucks from nine years to eight years. · Increase of illegal dumping on commercial customers. ]pm A WASHINGTON, U.S.A. DATE: January 10, 2000 ME M O re: Tom McCabe, Solid Waste Superintendant FROM: Dale A. Miller, Recycling Coordinator PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES RE: 90 Conversion Public Information Plan DEPARTMENT Submitted to you is the public information plan for implementation of 90 gallon refuse Glenn A. Cutler Director 140011 containers for residential use. Phyllis Rasler g~lministrative A~sistant [480o1 Information distribution regarding implementation can be achieved through; - Town meetings Gate Rinehart Administrative Assistant · Speakers at civic clubs, i.e. Lions, Kiwanis [n?oo] · Radio talk shows, KONP Open Line Ken ridout · Northland Cable News Deputy Director [4802] * Informational Meetings with City Employees and 7bpiCS tO be discussed should include, but not limited to; · The current system, why change? Jim Harper · Landfill status * Benefits · Increase recycling activity ~r. Electrical Inspector [47351 · Increase yard waste collections, i.e. introduce yard ~vaste disposal fees at $co. Mclain the landfill, enact ordinance prohibiting yard waste mixed with household Power Manager [4703] garbage. Doyle McGinley * Missed collections interim · Special collections, Seniors/Handicapped $uperinlenclent [4855] · Waste reduction alternatives Equipment Services Implementation mvareness; · Create time line Light Operations Manager [4731 · Public awareness, newsletters, television ,radio, Home Show, Fair, ga~/Holbrook speakers, door hangers Treat. Plant Supervisor [4845] After implementation provide dependable service; Tom ~Ca~ · Drivers are first line impression makers, if their service level decreases, perception is the program is failing t andfill Supervisor [48131 · Keep public informed of success and pitfalls Street Maintenance Supel~isor If you wish to discuss any of this proposed plan I am available. [4825]