Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091802S JiegioD.IIntergovernDleDtal~eetûlg Port of Port TOWDsend/City of Port TowDseDd Pubtie Utitity Distriet #1 of Jefferson County Jefterson County September 18, 2002 Washington State University Spruce Room Can to Order: The following representatives were present: · City of Port Townsend Counci1members: Kees Kolft Catharine Robinso~ Geoff Masci · Port Commissioners: Bob Sokol and Herb Beck · POO Commissioners: Wayne King, Ken McMille~ Dick Shipman · Jefferson County Commissioners: Dan Titterness, Glen Huntingford, Richard Wojt Guests: Guy Rudolph Tom McNerney David Brader, WSU Nancy Dorgan Stewart Elliott, Peninsula Daily News David Sullivan Mark Pell Ned Shumann, Olympus Net Larry Crockett, Port of Port Townsend David Timmons, City of Port Townsend Bill Graham, POO Gary Rowe, Jefferson County David Goldsmith, Jefferson County Dana Roberts Patience Rogge Gene Pry, Millennium Digital Media Wayne King, serving as Chair, called the meeting to order in at 9:10 a.m. in the Washington State University Spruce Room, Shold Business Park, Port Hadlock, W A. Approval of ~iDutes: JUDe 26, 2002 After copies of the minutes were distributed, Kees Kolff moved for their approval. Dan Titterness seconded the motio~ which carried by unanimous vote. Pubtie ComDlent: David Brader, WSU Technology Coordinator distributed a handout &om a recent Economic Development Conference, a sheet on the five points raised at the workshop on the Intelligent Community Forum and an explanation of how WSU figures into this topic and the broadband issue. DiseussioD of Topics: 1. Port - Update OD Compo PIaD Proeess: Larry Crockett distributed a handout of the Port's Comprehensive Scheme update, noting that the Port's website also contains a complete overview of the process, the advisory committee, minutes, etc. The purpose of the website is to get broader information out to - and input &om -- the public. He reviewed høw meetings are structured; noting that at each meeting the advisory committee will discuss a specific Port property. Tomorrow's topic is Point Hudson. Bob Sokol explained that Commissioners were not attending the advisory committee meetings lof6 to allow members to hold a more open and direct discussion. In addition to the Comprehensive Scheme process, the Port is also working on the Airport Master Plan, which is an FAA funded and mostly FAA-driven process. Soon the process will enter the citizen review phase, which functions similarly to the Compo Scheme advisory committee. 2. Port - Publie Forum on Ref. 51: The Port and City will co-host a public forum on Referendum 51 on October 9th at 7:00 in the Pt. Hudson Pavilion. Representative Lynn Kessler will present for the referendum and those in opposition will be represented. Citizens would be offered an opportunity to submit written questions. Kees Kolff suggested that a fàcilitator be engaged for the forum and that the City and Port General Managers meet to discuss and plan the event. 3. Port _ Possible Fire District No.6 and City Fire Merger: Mr. Crockett noted that the Port, with its various fàcilities, marinas, and airport is interested in this issue beginning to be discussed by the City. Observing that the possible merger seems to be an issue for the PUD, the County and City, Bob Sokol requested an update ftom the City. Geoff Masci, Chair of the City Council General Government Committee, reported on a recent workshop between the City Council, Fire District 6 and the City Fire Department at which a possible merger was discussed. A conceptual consolidation plan outlined expected benefits of increased staffing and reduced response time. Recognizing that the Port's operation of both airport and marinas presents unique issues such as enhanced training for staff: he said discussions of this plan would continue. Kees Kolff noted that there bas not yet been an open public hearing to find out whether the citizens would be in favor of a merger and there is still more information to be gained. The next steps are for the City and Fire District 6 to define the level of service needed to fulfùl their responsibilities. Richard Wojt noted that most of the Fire Department work is in the form of Emergency Medical Services and that the level of service would be greater after a merger. During discussion, it was recognized that volunteer firefighters are a critical part of the service and that retaining trained volunteers is becoming increasingly difficuh. Training and certification requires a lot of time. Glen Huntingford asked whether the fire district has liability for untrained volunteers, adding that it might be unfàir to ask volunteers to provide level of service for which we should have paid staft In response to a question whether the terms merger, consolidation, contract or annexation are interchangeable, Geoff Masci said there are subtle differences and varying levels of involvement. He said some contractual obligations a1ready exist such as with Port Townsend Paper and Fort Worden. Kees Kolff acknowledged the need to keep the Port informed and asked David Timmons to ensure that the Port gets a copy of workshop materials. Richard Wojt observed ftom the age demographics that the volunteers come &om the smallest percentage of the population. Wayne King agreed that the State needs to be aware of the limitations of volunteers. The Port noted that at the last aircraft incident the Port Townsend Fire District responded before Fire District No.6. The FAA sets fire response times. 2of6 Ken McMillen suggested that if everyone is having the same problem with unfunded mandates, it might be time to address loosening regulations on volunteers. Glen Huntingford noted that the Washington State Association of Counties is beginning to look at the different services Counties provide and have started to document the expenses of unfunded mandates. They will be assembling this data for discussions with legislators. Other taxing entities might be interested in reviewing and reporting that information. David Timmons suggested that this topic be presented at the next meeting to clear up misperceptions. Fire Services was suggested as a topic for the next meeting agenda. 4. Jefferson County - Intergovernmental Fiber Loop: Gary Rowe introduced David Brader ofWSU and Bill Graham of the PUD, noting that this project is a combined PUD _ County effort. He then delivered a presentation showing how public agencies in East Jefferson County could be provided high-speed broadband capabilities through fiber optic cabling. A map indicated proposed connections not only at the City and County offices, but also at Ft. Worden, the airport and Tn-Area. The network could also be expanded to include Millennium or Sprint in order to provide access to Quilcene and Brinnon. The purposes for creating the loop were listed as follows: more efficient management of resomces with consolidation of servers and other equipment, expanding broadband capabilities, allow for video over the network and eliminating other methods, enhanced telephone systems (voice over IP), to meet the strong need among public agencies for high-speed connections between fucilities, and to support economic development. He also reviewed ownership choices: publicly owned network, public/private network, private network, or a public access network. Funding for the project could come trom a portion of the Community Investment Fund (CIF), grants, and intergovernmental cooperation. It was noted that the final draft of the CIF agreement ordinance has gone through legal review and a hearing date would be set as soon as legal issues can be resolved. The CIF, which is currently at $500K and comes trom a .08% sales tax, generates $150K to $160K per year. The construction timeftame would be dependent on funding. Between $500K and $1.2 million was estimated, depending on what type of arrangements with uti1itie~ etc. could be utilized and depending on the cost of cabling. Leveraging money would need to be discussed, as would phasing. The idea is to use grants or the CIF to build it and use existing revenues for ongoing maintenance. The County has agreed to be the lead on design and engineering, including getting assistance ftom Clallam County PUD and eventually professional engineering. Regarding utilizing existing infrastructure, David Brader said he does not believe it is reasonable to ask the public to pay for the entire inftastructure in a publicly-owned network, but we should instead build connections to the existing inftastructw-e and make an agreement for the use of it. He also talked about the potential for growth and a connection to Internet 2 in Seattle. There was additional discussion about the collaboration among organizations to maximize the use of the existing cable and to extend fiber to Quilcene and Brinnon. Discussion included the possibility of obtaining grants to help fund the project. A question was whether there are ahemative technologies that could offer similar benefits. Gary Rowe said that while wireless and other options exist, fiber networking is the most developed and is the best for long haul, whereas wireless can be used for short distances. Neither radiation nor security are issues with fiber. Geoff Masci expressed concern about funding yesterday's technology for 30f6 tomorrow's problems. Public entities would have access to this technology, while small businesses and home-based business would not be able to afford the service. Bill Graham responded that a possible funding mechanism would be a local utility district in which a neighborhood could petition the PUD to provide the service. This is being explored in Kitsap. Ned Schumann commented that while wireless can be a safe and secure mechanism, fiber might be the best for the long haul. Kees Kolff suggested that each entity produce a costlbenefit analysis so that it could then be presented to the public. GeoffMasci expressed concern about taxpayers being asked to fund the enhancement of public employees' workplace. Ken McMillen spoke about the need to demonstrate a benefit to economic development. He added that while the PUD is willing to spend the estimated S330K to get a line from Fairmount to Four Comers, it is critical that the PUD have the complete support of the City, County and Port. Dan Tittemess commented that the County is interested in making County government more efficient and supporting Economic Development in the community. Remarking that West End residents would not benefit from this service, Wayne King suggested that only those areas that would benefit from the service should have to pay. Herb Beck recognized the need for improved telephone communications between the Port's main office and Point Hudson. Bob Sokol noted that this discussion began when the legislature said Ports and PUDs could get into the wholesale broadband business. He continues to struggle with whether we are the end user or the wholesale provider. It would be the Port's tenants rather than the Port itself who would most benefit from the fiber. He needs to know whether there are private entities that could distribute this capacity to their customer base. Bill Graham explained that the Attorney General has said that the bill authorizing the PUDs and Ports to provide wholesale telecommunications did not authorize them to do inter-local agreements. While an inter-local agreement was thought to be needed in order for the PUD to provide this collective government group bandwidth, it would instead need to be a third party provider. David Brader said a Public Development Authority (PDA) is defined in the RCW, which could be a reseUer and each of the public groups and private partners would be on the Board of that PDA. Glen Huntingford recognized Gary Rowe's contributions to today's discussion. He stressed that the goal is to spend money efficiently and give new or existing businesses the opportunity to expand. On a smaller scale, he provided an example of the County's need to provide fire flow to a new County building in Quilcene. He asked if it is desirable to spend taxpayer money to build a system to provide fire flow to this building or to consider working with the community to help build a system to benefit the whole community. He believes that if we are going to consider adding this technology we need to think about the broader community. To a question about Millennium's ability to provide this service, Kees Kolff offered a reminder that a business case must be built on the specific examples provided by a cost-benefit analysis. Bill Graham says he sees the potential of a cost-benefit analysis supporting the bringing of fiber technology closer to these neighborhoods and business. If we are only going to look at government efficiencies, we seem to be missing the bigger economic development possibilities. David Timmons commented that multiple issues are being raised: 1) governments upgrading their existing technology inftastructure to the highest available capacity, 2) fiber backbone - the long haul connection, and 3) how to get this access out into the 40f6 community. A cost-benefit analysis might need to be broken into these three components. Dick Shipman said he believes that economic development would involve a leap of faith. 5. Public Utility District #1 of JetTerson County - Telecommunications - Connection to NOANET (handout): Bill Graham explained the PuP's proposal to build the to-mile fiber optic backbone (1/3 of the original proposal) ftom the Fairmount BPA substation to Four Corners where NoaNet would install their electronics and Millennium would provide connections. By helping Millennium reduce their cost of leasing that line, it is hoped that their customers would benefIt. A PUD-through-NoaNet connection would provide a more affordable ahernative for wholesale telecommunications providers. The PUD network would also be open access, with no preference to public or private entities. With existing fiber and the fiber build proposed for the County network, the PUD could provide ingress/egress to the Internet via the NoaNet backbone at a substantially lower cost. A County network would be a distributive network of fiber-to--facilities, business parks and neighborhoods, leading to better opportunities for local businesses to connect to fiber- and cable-based broadband services. The PUD hopes that through a NoaNet connection they could make service more affordable and make more ports available to providers of wireless services at the Four Corners Area. He reported that the PUD would rely on the expertise of other NoaNet members and member associations (such as the newly incorporated Peninsula Communications Network Consortium, which is Kitsap, Chil1am, Jefferso~ Grays Harbor and Mason PuDs). He talked about how web-based technologies are currently driving broadband demand. 6. City of Port Townsend - Hood Canal Bridge Closure: Geoff Masci noted that the Council desires to keep the topic of the closure's impacts to the economy and government on the table at all times. David Timmons explained that as a result of discussions at meetings of the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (pRTPO), the EDC coordinated a Jefferson and CJallam meeting to discuss a strategy to be presented. The agreed upon process was that each entity would go back to their constituents and submit their own statement, but present it in a unified strategy. Based on the key goals of the bridge closure project, the key parameters of the strategy would be to maintain the current schedule and not cause any delays. Toward that end, any options or strategies should be consistent with the existing Environmental Impact Statement. Ideas and suggestions that would fit within these two key perimeters were as follows: 1) Rather than investing in and building a 15Oû-car paved parking lot at Fred Hill that would be recJaim.ed at the end of the project, develop the Gateway Visitor Center as a permanent facility. 2) Use the $750K in mitigation to make certain that the marketing strategy is coordinated with the existing Joint Olympic Marketing Program and to ensure local organizations drive this process. 3) Use the savings :trom utilizing the Gateway Visitor's Center for parking to institute a block grant program to help pay for a) special or unique needs - such as excursion or passenger ferries for special/festival events in Port Townsend, Forks and Sequim, b) direct marketing to target groups, c) a business counseling program. 4) A third ferry into Port Townsend :trom Keystone Ferry - three smaller ferries as opposed to the jumbo ferries. 5) From other sources of funds and programs, pay for '-advance improvements to Highway 101. 50f6 ~ " . . 6) Investigate transportation alternatives such as barging materials to avoid truck traffic and placing reftigeration units for perishables on the peninsula to allow for some stockpiling. 7) An independent pursuit of upgrading the Port Ludlow marina to handle a passenger ferry rather than building a temporary loading and ofl1oading facility at Lofall. He noted that these suggestions have received support ftom the Department of Transportatio~ Congressman Dicks and Representative Kessler. Dan Tittemess corrected that the ferry loading and offioading fàcility was planned at Southpoint rather than LofalL Also the intent was that some of the $400K savings from the parking would go to heJp pay for the Gateway Visitor facility. Glen Huntingford noted that a concern raised at the PRPTO meeting was how Brinnon would handle emergency medical needs from accidents arising from the increased traffic. Public Comment: Guy RudoJph said he sees the cost calculations documented, but bas not seen the income projections. He expressed concern about how the PUD would pay for the fiber optic improvements and how existing providers would be impacted. David Sullivan said that since our car culture is unlikely to change by 2006, a great entrepreneurial opportunity would be to provide a rental service on the other end - bicycles, scooters, vans, etc. Establish next meeting: The Port agreed to host the next Intergovernmental meeting and will survey entities for a suitable date. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 am. 60f6