Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2001-037 Phase I of Telecommunications and Technology Planning ProjectRESOLUTION NO. R-2001- 37 A RESOLUTION establishing telecommunications as an economic development priority of the City of Yakima and directing implementation of the priority work plan developed as part of Phase 1 of the City's Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project. WHEREAS, the City of Yakima (the "City") recognizes the importance of advanced telecommunications infrastructure and services in enhancing economic opportunities in the Yakima area; and WHEREAS, the City further recognizes the importance of advanced telecommunications infrastructure and services in enhancing the quality of life of the Yakima area, and WHEREAS, the City has established the Telecommunications Planning Committee (the "TPC"), consisting of representatives of business, economic development, government, educational and institutional organizations and the telecommunications industry to assist in and provide community oversight of the City's Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project (the "Project"), and WHEREAS, the Project is to be an ongoing effort designed to encourage the orderly and timely deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure and services in the Yakima area; and WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the Project has resulted in development of a priority work plan for the City to follow in meeting telecommunications goals established by the TPC and the City, and WHEREAS, said priority work plan provides strategies and recommendations necessary for the realization of established telecommunications goals, and WHEREAS, establishing telecommunications as an economic development priority will assist in the effective implementation of said priority work plan, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Telecommunications is hereby established as an economic development priority of the City of Yakima and direction is hereby given for implementation of the priority work plan developed as part of Phase 1 of the City of Yakima's Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 6th day of ATST. City Clerk March , 2001. ary Place, Mayor City of Yakima Telecommunications Planning Committee Members List Name 1. Blake Davis 2. Dave McFadden 3. Dave Miller 4. Derik Dahlke 5. Don Mills 6. Doug Picatti 7. Forbes Mercy 8. Gary Bailey 9. Gary Webster, Chair 10. George Chappell 11. George Helton 12. Greg Rich 13. Jar Arcand 14. Jim Pinnell 15. Jim Smith 16. Jim Watters 17. John Utley 18. Karen Moses 19. Richard Miller 20. Peggy Keller 21. Rick Pettyjohn 22. Rita Anson 23. Roger Wilson 24. Sev Byerrum 25. Steve Carlson 26. Mike Munly Affiliation Qwest YCDA/New Vision Efcom FairPoint Communications Tek -X FutureLink/Westside Merchants Northwest InfoNet Charter Communications Chamber of Commerce Qwest Yakima County Avista Communications DARC Pinnell Incorporated Perry Technical Institute FutureLink FairPoint Communications Avista Communications Y.V.C.C. Y.V.C.C. City of Yakima City of Yakima Data Associates Yakima School District FairPoint Communications AT&T Wireless MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Mary Place and City Council Member From: Randy Beehler, Telecommunications Division ManageiVY Date: 2-22-01 Subject: Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project Report Attached is the City of Yakima Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project Report (the "Report"). The Report is the product of Phase 1 of the City's Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project (the "Project"). Phase 1 of the Project began in November of 1999. Metropolitan Communications Consultants ("MCC") conducted research during Phase 1 of the Project and authored the Report. The Report provides a clear picture of the telecommunications environment in Yakima from the quality and availability of infrastructure to the current and future demand for services to the status of City policies and procedures that may affect the market. The Report also includes a series of recommendations and a "priority work plan" (see pages 27-35) which establishes a process for completing tasks necessary to implement the recommendations. The Telecommunications Planning Committee (the "TPC"), formed by the City in November of 1999, played a key role in Phase 1 of the Project. The TPC, chaired by Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Gary Webster, provides citizen oversight of the Project. The TPC will be integral in the development of additional phases of the Project. A presentation of the Report findings and recommendations as well as the next steps in the Project will be made to the City Council during its March 6, 2001 regular agenda meeting. The presentation will be made by MCC personnel, TPC members and City staff. If you have questions about the Report prior to the March 6 presentation, please contact me at 575-6092 or rbeehler@ci.yakima.wa.us. rpb cc: Dick Zais, Bill Cook, Michael Morales The City of Yakima Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project February 22, 2001 METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Seattle: 5847 McKinley PI. N., Seattle, Washington 98103 Tel. 206.522.6778 Fax. 206 522 6777 Tacoma. 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1702, Tacoma, Washington 98402 Tel 253 272 1636 Fax• 253 272 1482 www.mcco.com 1 ' METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Seattle• 5847 McKinley PI. N., Seattle, Washington 98103 Tel. 206 522 6778 Fax 206.522.6777 Tacoma 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1702, Tacoma, Washington 98402 Tel. 253.272.1636 Fax 253 272.1482 www.mcco.com 1 February 22, 2001 1 Mr. Randy Beehler, Manager Telecommunications Division The City of Yakima 124 S. Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 1 Subject: Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project Dear Mr. Beehler: We are submitting the attached copies of our report for the Telecommunications and Technology Plan- ning Project. The first section of the document is a copy of the PowerPoint slide presentation made to the Economic Development Committee and the Telecommunications Planning Committee on January 18th. 1 Thank you. Very truly yours, Metropolitan Communications Consultants, LLC t,�cu d ' Richard C. T. Li, P.E. President 1 1 1 1 1 The City of Yakima 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 City Council Mary Place, Mayor John Puccinelli, District 1 Clarence C. Barnett, District 2 Lynn K. Buchanan, District 3 Larry Mattson, District 4 Bernard J. Sims, At Large Position 6 Henry C. Beauchamp, Jr., At Large Position 7 City Staff Richard A. Zais, Jr., City Manager Ray Paolella, City Attorney Project Team Community and Economic Development Department William Cook, Director Telecommunications Division Randy Beehler, Manager Consultants Metropolitan Communications Consultants Offices in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 The City of Yakima, Washington TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PROJECT February 22, 2001 Table of Contents Summary Slide Presentation s-1 A. Introduction Project Background 1 Project Authorization 1 Scope of Work 2 Acknowledgments 2 B. Telecommunications Regulations and Policies Federal and State Telecommunications Laws and Regulations 3 The 1996 Telecommunications Act and Its Effect on Yakima 4 Washington State Statutes 5 C. Yakima Telecommunications Environment Yakima Community and Focus Groups 6 Telecommunications Awareness and Use 6 Business Location Decision Factors 6 Service Provider Inquiries 8 D. Findings Local Goals and Policies - An Opportunity for Yakima 9 Telecommunications Policy 9 Status of Yakima Telecommunications Policies and Regulations 10 Telecommunications Infrastructure in Yakima 12 Infrastructure Owners and Service Providers 12 Products and Services Available 16 Telecommunications Survey Response 19 Estimated Use and Projected Demand 21 Community Telecommunications Readiness 22 Findings Concerning Non -Yakima Respondents 24 E. Priority Work Plan Goals and Direction 26 City Facilitation 26 Support Infrastructure Development 29 Increase Infrastructure Use 31 Build Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal 31 F. Recommendations 35 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Table of Contents (continued) G. Appendices 1. 1996 Telecommunications Act Section 253 36 2. RCW 35.21.860 and RCW 82.04.065 37 3. Telecommunications Policy Recommendations 39 4. The Concept of eGovernment 41 5. Smart Park/Smart Building Development Issues, Criteria and Examples 45 6. Fiber Rings in Smart Park Developments 49 List of Tables and Figures Tables 1. Federal and State Telecommunications Laws and Regulations 3 2. Non -Yakima Organizations Surveyed 6 3. Yakima Telecommunications Survey Respondents 7 4. Status of Yakima Telecommunications Policies and Regulations 11 5. Total Telecommunications Plant in Washington State 13 6. Yakima County Telephone Exchanges and Telephone Companies 13 7. Qwest Yakima Central Offices 14 8. Telecommunications Products and Services Available in Yakima 17 9. City of Yakima Telecommunications Service Providers 18 10. Estimated Year 2000 Use and 2005 Demand 23 11. Priority Work Plan Summary 33 Figures 1. Qwest Service Area and Yakima Infrastructure 12 2. Avista Washington Service Area 15 3. Findings, Survey Respondents 19 4. Findings, Nature of Survey Respondents 20 5. Findings, Business Culture of Respondents 20 6. Findings, Current Applications and Use 21 7. Findings, Applications Desired 21 8. Findings, Access Speeds Desired 22 9. Findings, Most Important Factor Affecting Use and Demand 22 10. Estimated Year 2000 Use and 2005 Demand 23 11. Findings, Community Telecommunications Readiness 24 12. Findings, Relocation Decision Factors, Non Yakima 25 13. Findings, Most Important Factor Affecting Use and Demand, Non Yakima 25 14. Fiber Ring Schematic 51 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUMMARY SLIDE PRESENTATION page s-1 Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 44 City of Yakima TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PROJECT Report Summary January 18, 2001 S Mevopofl , Cemmuniraioia Cornilu,ns siva. Task Name May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Begin Project O 5/26 • Review Policies and Regulations 6/29 • Assess Telecom Environment 7/6 • Findings ii)- 9/21 • Priority Work Plan -01 11/9 • Recommendations L© 1/18/01 Report presentation to Council 2/6/01 <+MavapoliwCnrtmnveuaa Cs•ssnunu slab ] Review Policies and Regulations A- Policy Guidelines • Economic Development • Competition, Best Technology, Service • Support Telecommunications Development • Lead Yakima to use Telecommunications • Public Trust Responsibilities • R/W and Public Property Management c Mevapoiiian Canmuniwiws Conulwres cline 5 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Report Summary page s-2 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Assess Telecom Environment Available Infrastructure • How Much Exists, and Whose is It? • How Much is Planned? • Community Awareness and Readiness Non -Yakima Businesses, Location Factors , Metropoloan Communications Conatlwnu Assess Telecom Environment Surveys and Interviews • Yakima Community Survey, 9/2000 link to website i • Non -Yakima Businesses, 10/2000 link to website • Service Providers, 1/2001 link to website Metropolitan Communications Consultand Findings - Policies and Regulations - Ordinances Yes No • Telecommunications Ordinance xx • Wireless Ordinance xx • Licenses & Business xx update • Streets and Sidewalks xx update • Extra Conduit Authority xx C Metropolitan Communications Consultant. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Report Summary page s-3 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 Findings - Policies and Regulations - Franchises and Permits Yes No • Master Permit xx • Cable Television Franchise xx • Use Permit xx update • Facilities Lease or License xx update Administrative • Master Permit Checklist • Permit Process Record t Metropolitan Conmunicanom Consultants xx xx Findings - Yakima Infrastructure Pi, Metropolitan Communications Cmvlmr11 Findings - Survey Respondents • Yakima Community Survey, September 2000 Total 10,058 persons represented by responses .e Metropormo Cmmm12m®110111 Consular. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Report Summary page s-4 Slide 10 Slide 11 Slide 12 Findings - Nature of Respondents • Yakima Organizations Surveyed, September 2000 Business 64% e Meugwlnan Cammumrnuos Consultants Findings - Respondents Business Culture kr Ottani d Melmpalnan Commune unions Con tans eeIn4 to Intoner ,I1,1e 11 Findings - Current Applications and Use 100% fe% Metopoluen Communications Consul.. sJWe 17 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Report Summary page s-5 Slide 13 Slide 14 Slide 15 Findings - Applications Desired FWr<wrr Emperor GN...r ..X !stow E•Gse... E•Trr dr E�rtMq sank* ant moors woke I.h .dhIly Mnuopolaan Communications Conwiranu Findings - Access Speeds Desired Meo-opolown Communications Consultants slide 14 Findings - Most Important Factors Affecting Use and Demand Metlopolitan (.171i 510¢ Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Report Summary page s-6 Slide 16 Slide 17 Slide 18 Findings - 2000 Use and 2005 Demand • Yakima Community Survey, September 2000 c• MepopoNan Camnunreuons Consuga,n 66.16 Findings - Relocation Decision Factors Non Yakima 1•61,601c Local Fw w••1 tl Meoopolvan Communications Consuluns cry Yh•clsacln• 1....... Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Report Summary page s-7 Slide 19 Slide 20 Slide 21 Findings - Most Important Factors Affecting Use and Demand Non Yakima Metropolitan Communiravons Consultants 51.19 Recommendations City Facilitation Support Infrastructure Development Increase Infrastructure Use Build Yakima Telecom Portal Meeopolnan Comm...0ns Consuemn Recommendations City Facilitation • Build Favorable Telecom Environment • Level Regulatory Playing Field • Develop Community Readiness d Mempovun Communication (ansulains mlt Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 Report Summary page s-8 Slide 22 Slide 23 Slide 24 Recommendations Support Infrastructure Development • Keep Current on Existing Infrastructure • Develop Infrastructure Guideline Plan • Consider "Fill -In" Projects • Build Telecom Marketplace Yakima 114eVec,orPortal is Metropolitan Communncauoru Consultants Recommendations Increase Infrastructure Use • City Leadership • Economic Development Collaboration • Demonstration Projects • Yakima Telecom Portal Maropol ten Communications Consultant side "lt Recommendations Build Yakima Telecom Portal • Enable City Facilitation • Foster Infrastructure Development by Building Telecom Marketplace • Promote Greater Utilization of Existing Infrastructure link to samp/e portal e Metropolitan Communicanons Consultant Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 A. INTRODUCTION page 1 Project Background The 1996 Telecommunications Act is a sweeping overhaul of the central body of U.S. communications law, in place since 1934. As a result of the new law, cities find themselves unavoidably involved with new and complex telecommunications issues, activities, policies, and investment. At a minimum, com- pliance actions are required to develop and overhaul outdated policies, planning documents and regula- tions to meet a new generation of telecommunications activities. At the same time, significant opportuni- ties exist for cities to exploit the new telecommunications technologies to improve their business proc- esses, customer services and influence economic development and the quality of life in the community. Yakima is currently served by a varietyl of telecommunications providers. Qwest is the incumbent local exchange carrier with two central offices and its primarily copper loop plant built throughout the city. There are two competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC) who have (Avista) or are planning (Fairpoint) fiber optic networks in Yakima. The city's cable television network is being upgraded with fiber optic lines by Charter Communications. In addition, there are 17 resellers who provide CLEC services using Qwest or others' lines. Wireless infrastructure owners range from four of the ten largest wireless carriers in the United States to Yakima County with its Lower Valley Wireless Public Safety Network and Northwest Microwave with its digital microwave network. Surprisingly, the study has found the existing infrastructure to be potentially very strong. Individual company policies and criteria based upon ex- pected returns on investment however have resulted in service being poor or unavailable and in customer dissatisfaction. It has been five years since deregulation of the telecommunications industry by the 1996 Telecommunica- tions Act. New telecommunications activity in Yakima however, is still in an early stage of development. Opportunely, it is still early enough to influence infrastructure development in Yakima and to take ad- vantage of it for the benefit of the City and the community. Since the understandable goal of commercial infrastructure owners is go where the customers are, the challenge to the City is how to bring about a citywide telecommunications infrastructure without the City itself directly building it. The City recognizes that its appropriate role is not to be a competitor with the commercial providers. At the same time, to accomplish its goals, it also cannot just be a passive regulator letting development oc- cur as it may. For the City of Yakima, these complex issues mandate careful consideration and study. It is against such a background that the City has commissioned this study. Project Authorization The City of Yakima is the recipient of a United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant to carry out a Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project. As a preparatory step, the City assembled a Telecommunications Planning Committee (TPC), and the TPC has since actively participated in the conduct of the project. Based on the grant funding and following a public solicitation process, the City then awarded a contract to Metropolitan Communications Consultants on May 16, 2000, to prepare a Telecommunications and Technology Planning Study. Notice to proceed was given and formal commencement of work began on May 17, 2000. The report herein is the product of the City's authorization and the EDA grant funding. 1 Table 9, p.16 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 A. Introduction page 2 Scope of Work The scope of work2 for the Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project is divided into the fol- lowing three major areas and the sub -areas: Analyze Yakima Telecommunications Environment Evaluate Existing Infrastructure • Identify Current Demand • Project Future Demand • Determine Infrastructure and Application Needs Develop Goals and Policies • Identify Telecommunications and Infrastructure Development Goals • Review City Telecommunications Policies and Regulations Develop Priority Work Plan • Infrastructure Development Plan • Partnerships • Progress Evaluation • Public Information and Involvement Plan Early in the work, the scope was adjusted based on the City's determination that it should be a facilitator, not an infrastructure builder, and that it should not compete with existing service providers. It was also determined that the study should investigate not only the extent and nature of infrastructure already ex- isting in Yakima, but also the awareness and readiness of the community to use the infrastructure al- ready existing. The project budget was correspondingly shifted from Progress Evaluation and Public In- formation and Involvement activity to the adjusted work tasks. The project deliverable consists of forty (40) printed copies and an original electronic copy, in Acrobat portable document format (pdf), of a written report ready for distribution. Acknowledgements The work was facilitated by the guidance and generous assistance of City representatives, staff, the City's Telecommunications Planning Committee, as well as numerous other public and private parties in the Yakima community. The help of all parties is sincerely appreciated and acknowledged. 2 City of Yakima, "Technical Assistance Agreement", between City of Yakima and Metropolitan Communications Consultants, May 16, 2000. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 B. TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATIONS AND POLICIES page 3 1. Federal and State Telecommunications Laws and Regulations A summary of Federal and State legislation and regulations governing telecommunications and applicable to Yakima is given in Table 1. It should be noted that this section is not intended to constitute legal advice and the City should consult its own counsel for specific legal questions. Federal Government Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-385) Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-549) Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) Washington State Chapter 83, Laws of 2000 RCW 35.99 RCW 35.21.860 RCW 82.04.065 RCW 80.36 RCW 80.36.040 RCW 47.24 Washington Administrative Code Superior Court of Pierce County Order No. 96-2-09938-0 December 13, 1996 Comprehensive reform of telecommunications law and the Communications Act of 1934. Frees telecommunications companies to compete in nearly every market. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to cable television. Imposed new controls on cable rates and new rules to protect consumers. Generally considered ineffective. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to set forth the authority of a governmental or franchising authority to regulate cable television. Settling jurisdiction questions between FCC and state regulators. Central body of U.S. communications law until 1996 Telecom Act. Use of city or town rights of way by telecommunications and cable television providers. Authorizing the provision of telecommunications services by public utility districts and rural port districts. New procedures for alternative forms of regulation of telecommunications companies. Electricity, telephone, or natural gas business - franchise fees prohibited Definition of competitive telephone service, network telephone service and telephone business. Washington State statutes relating to telecommunications. Requires consent of City Council before use of road, street, and railroad rights-of-way. Municipal control & regulation of state highways that are also city streets. Title 480 Washington State regulations governing telecommunications. Granting City of Tacoma's Motion for Summary Judgment and finding that: - the City has authority under State and Federal law to provide cable television service in the Light Division service area, and - has authority under State and Federal law to lease telecommunications facilities and capacity to telecommunications providers Table 1: Federal and State Telecommunications Laws and Regulations Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 B. Telecommunications Regulations and Policies page 4 The 1996 Telecommunications Act and Its Effect on Yakima The Communications Act of 1934 was the central body of U.S. communications law for 62 years until 1996. As enacted, the 1934 Act focused on telephone and radio, but it was not restricted to any particular technol- ogy. For many years, Congress attempted to update the 1934 Act as technology advances and regulatory obsolescence made the law increasingly out of date. Eventually, on February 8, 1996, the 1996 Telecommunications Act was signed into law. The law was a sweeping measure that overhauled the outdated laws and opened up the telecommunications industry to competition. A review3 of over 50 federal cases interpreting and applying the Telecommunications Act of 1996 may be found at http: / / www.mrsc. org/ legal / telecomm/ sullivan99.htm. Particular aspects of the law that affect the City of Yakima include: Control of Public Rights -of -Way and Rental Compensation • Section 253(a) of the 1996 Act, shown in Appendix 2, provides that "no State or local statute or regula- tion, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." • Section 253(b) however, affirms the authority of local governments to manage public rights-of-way and to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers on a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory basis for use of the rights-of-way, if compensation required is publicly disclosed. On July 31, 1997, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals4 overturned two prior FCC rulings and ruled that franchise fees are not a tax, but a form of rent, the price paid to use the public rights-of-way. The ruling is significant for Yakima and other cities in classifying the position of cities as "landlords" over their rights-of- way, entitled to rental compensation, rather than taxing authorities. Another recent decision affirming the authority of local governments was made in the case of TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn. On March 7, 2000, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals5 upheld the City of Dearborn's imposition of a 4% of gross revenues franchise fee on TCG Detroit, which had installed fiber optic cables in the public rights-of-way. The company had alleged that the fee was a barrier to entry, in violation of Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Telephone Franchises • The law allows competitors into the local telephone exchange business and furthermore, does not pre- empt any state law that allows local municipalities to grant franchises for local exchange service and to collect a franchise fee or utility tax. The significance of this aspect of the Act for Yakima is that it can require and award telephone franchises on a non-discriminatory basis subject to the restrictions in current state law shown in Appendix 3 (RCW 35.21.860 and 82.04.065). Cable Television Franchises The law maintains the requirement that cable operators must obtain a franchise, however there are changes that may affect certain franchise provisions. • Section 301 changes the definition of a cable system to exclude any facility that serves subscribers with- out using any public right-of-way. The City therefore could not require such an operator to obtain a franchise. The law prohibits certain regulatory actions by franchising authorities. 3 Sullivan, Tim, "fireless & Wireline.• How are Local Governments Faring under the Telecommunications Act of 1996? A Review of Federal Cases', paper presented to WSAMA Conference, Spring 1999. 4Cities of Dallas and Laredo, TX v. FCC, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 96-60427, decision July 31, 1997 5TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn, et al., U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, No 98-2034/2035, decision March 7, 2000. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 8. Telecommunications Regulations and Policies page 5 • Section 301(e) prohibits the regulation of subscriber equipment or transmission technology. • Section 303 preempts regulation of the provision of telecommunication services by a cable operator. • Section 621(b)(3)(A) provides that a cable operator shall not be required to obtain a franchise for the provision of telecommunications services, if the operator is (already) engaged therein. This provision im- plies that if an operator has a cable franchise and is not engaged in telecommunications service, the City can require a separate telecommunications franchise when the operator decides to add that service, or provide service to new areas. On September 18, 1997, in its order FCC 97-331, the FCC ruled against TCI Cablevision (which admitted it was not engaged in telecommunications) requiring TCI to obtain a tele- communications franchise for a new area in Troy, Michigan. • Section 621(b)(3)(D)6 allows the City to make institutional networks a requirement imposed on the cable operator by federal law. • While cable providers may not contest the City's authority to require an institutional network, they may have a different interpretation of the kind of institutional network to be provided. A provider may con- sider the allocation of additional channels to be adequate fulfillment of its obligation. Washington State Statutes Washington State statutes relating to telecommunications are found in Title 80 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), primarily in Chapter 80.36. An important section related to franchising is the require- ment under RCW 80.36.040, that telecommunications companies desiring to use city rights-of-way first ob- tain the consent of the City Council. Some of the definitions in Chapter 80.04 also apply, such as RCW 80.04.010 regarding Telecommunications Companies. Three bills, signed into law March 27, 2000 and now codified under Chapter 35.99 RCW, were designed to spur development of advanced telecommunications systems throughout Washington, particularly m rural areas of the state: The law authorized Public Utility Districts and rural port districts to provide wholesale telecommunica- tions services to retailers within their jurisdictions. The intent is to stimulate public telecommunications development in rural areas, often unjustifiable to private telecommunications companies. A current ex- ample is Northwest Open Access Network, (http:/ /www.noanet.net/) which has a route near Yakima, with a node at Moxee. • The law also addresses the use of public rights-of-way in cities and towns by telecommunications and cable television providers and the local regulation of the use of public rights-of-way. The impact of this new law on Yakima is included in the status checklist of Yakima's telecommunications policies and regulations, in the next section. • The law allows companies to petition the state Utilities and Transportation Commission for alternative rules that consider the specific needs of the company and its customers. State regulations related to telecommunications are found in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Title 480. Major applicable portions are listed below: • Procedural regulations are found in Chapter 480.09, which apply to utilities of all types, including tele- communications. • Tariffs for utilities, including telecommunications, are covered in Chapter 480.80. • Chapters 480.120 and 480.121 apply specifically to telecommunications, and cover telephone companies and registration of telecommunications companies. 6Section 621(b)(3)(D) states. "Except as otherwise permitted by sections 611 and 612, a franchising authority may not require a cable operator to provide any tele- communications service or facilities, other than institutional networks, as a condition of the initial grant of a franchise, a franchise renewal, or a transfer of a franchise." Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 C. YAKIMA TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT page 6 Yakima Community and Focus Groups To determine the Yakima telecommunications environment, a list of focus groups, representing a cross section of the governmental, institutional and business community was developed, as a core list of par- ties to be surveyed. Residences were not targeted, the assumption being that business service would be the infrastructure driver, and that residential service would be an add-on accomplished by equipment upgrades to increase the bandwidth of cabling installed. Telecommunications Awareness and Use The adjustment of the project scope of work determined that the survey should investigate not only the extent and nature of infrastructure already existing in Yakima, but also the awareness and readiness of the community to use the infrastructure already existing. The resulting process included: • A two part Internet questionnaire surveying awareness and use, hosted on MCC's website and linked to the City and County's web pages. The questionnaire was publicized in the local newspaper, through several news stories, and through the help of the Chamber of Commerce, which sent out a broadcast fax to over 100 Yakima organizations asking the recipients to respond to the survey. • Almost 80% of the parties on the focus group list responded to the City, as well as others, including 16 non -Yakima organizations. Based on the information received, the responses represented 10,058 workers. The list of respondents is shown in Table 3 on the next page. • Personal interviews with 14 key businesses and organizations in Yakima, based on and following up the web based questionnaire and the responses given. The Yakima organizations interviewed are highlighted in yellow in Table 3. Business Location Decision Factors In addition, a group of 21 non -Yakima businesses were asked to respond to a web -based survey regard- ing "Business Location Decision Factors" with the intent of applying the findings to future economic de- velopment planning and marketing for the City of Yakima. These organizations are listed in Table 2 be- low. Personal interviews were conducted with four of the non -Yakima businesses responding to the sur- vey. These organizations are highlighted in yellow in Table 2. Organization Name Organization Name Manufacturing High -Tech 1. Alcoa 2. Barrett Enclosures 3. Flow International 4. DeYoung Manufacturing 5. Data I/O Corporation 6. Integrated Data Com, Inc. 7. Therus Corporation 8. Telect, Inc, Spokane 9. Tube Art, Seattle Finance 10. 11. www.alcoa.com www.flowcorp.com www.data-io.com www.placethecall.com www.therus.com www.telect.com Service 18. Hawkins and Co. PR Inc. 12. Equarius Inc 13. Cascade Microtech, Inc. 14. Simutech 15. Software Engineering Concepts, Inc 16. p2exposure.com 17. DistributionWorks.com Moss Adams, LP Frank Russell Capital Inc. www.mossadams.com www.russell.com 19. IKON Technologies, Inc 20. CAN Consulting & Engineering 21. SmartContractor Table 2: Non -Yakima Organizations Surveyed (Interviewed companies highlighted in yellow) www.eauarius.com www.cmicro.com www.simutech.com www.speclanguage.com www.prhawk.com www.ikonnw.com www.cnaco.com www.Sm artContractor.con Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 C. Yakima Telecommunications Environment page 7 Organization Name Governmental 1. Yakima Engineering Division 2. Yakima Fire Department 3. Yakima Planning Division 4. Yakima Public Works Dept 5. Yakima Air Terminal - McAllister Field 6. Yakima Communications Center (911) 7. Yakima County Community & Institutional 8. Yakima County Development Association 9. Yakima Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (WANE) 10. Yakima Convention Center 11. Yakima Valley Regional Library 12. The Capitol Theatre 13. Yakima Symphony Orchestra Educational 14. Diocese of Yakima Catholic Schools 15. Yakima Adventist Christian School 16. Yakima School District #7 Address 129 N 2ND St 401 N Front St 129 N. 2nd St 2301 Fruitvale Blvd. 2400 W Washington Ave 128 N.2nd St. 404 E Yakima Ave 24 S 3RD Ave 10 N. 8th Street 102 N. 3rd St. 1953RD St 32 N 3RD St # 333 5301 Tieton Dr # B 1200 City Reservoir RD 104 N. 4th Ave. 17. Yakima Valley Community College 18. Perry Technical Institute S.16th Ave. & W. Nob Hill Bv. 2011 W. Washington Ave. Social and Human Services 19. United Way of Yakima County 20. Central Washington Comprehensive Mental Health 21. Planned Parenthood of Central Washington 22. Ymca Child Care Financial 23. Ment Mortgage of Central Washington Inc. 24. Yakima National Bank 25. Traditions Credit Union 26. Wa. State Employees Credit Union 27. Wells Fargo bank Professional 28. Halverson & Applegate, P. 5. attorneys 29. MARK R. FORTIER, P.S., Attorneys 30. Picatti Brothers, Inc 31. Wardell Architects, P.S. Medical and Health Care 32. Yakima Providence Hospital 33. Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital 34. Central Washington Family Medicine 35. Medical Associates of Yakima, P.L.L.C. 36. North Star Lodge Telecom 116 5 4Th St 402 4th Ave 208 N. 3rd Ave 212 E F St 901 Summitview Ave # 250 601 W Walnut St 1800 Presson PI 2610 W. Nob Hill Bv. 101 E. Yakima Ave. 311 N 4Th St 117N3RDSt#101 105 S.3rd Ave 509 W Chestnut Ave 110 S 9th Ave 2811 Tieton Drive 1806 W Lincoln Ave 319S11Th Ave 808 N 39Th Ave 37. AT&T Wireless 38. Avista Communications 39. Qwest 901 W. Yakima Ave. 15 West Yakima Ave 1219 S.40th Ave. 40. Sousley Sound & Communications 41. Charter 42. Northwest Microwave Inc. 43. Tek -X Inc. 1005 Tieton Dr 1005 N. 16th 901 Pitcher St 2008 S 1st St Organization Name Business 44. Ace Hardware Distribution Center 45. All Seasons Htg & AC Inc 46. Bemd Moving Systems 47. Business Services Plus 48. Casa Mia 49. Conover Insurance Incorporated 50. Critical Thinking 51. Custom Vacuum 52. Data Associates, Inc. 53. DataStar Corporation (Computers) 54. Dowty Aerospace 55. Efcom (computers) 56. golden kayland restaurant 57. Idea Marketing Advertising 58. Irwin Research & Development 59. V Jack Myers Heanng Instrs 60. KSOH 89.5 FM 61. LAZERQUICK 62. Land Profile Inc. 63. Miller Glass Corporation 64. motorvations/jml productions 65. Noland-Decoto Flying Services 66. Rankin Equipment Co. 67. Ridgeviw Estates LLC 68. Right Hardware 69. supenor asphalt co 70. Shields Bag & Printing 71. Yakima Bindery 72. Fidelity Title Co 73. Yakima Ttle & Escrow 74. YCCS A National Collection System Address 2801 River RD 302 S 3RD Ave 660 N 18Th Ave 203 N 4Th Ave 3312 W Nob Hill Blvd 125 N 50th Ave 616 S 75th Ave 102 S 5Th Ave 505 5 3RD Ave 915 Summitview Ave 2720 W. Washington Ave 22 N 2ND St 4001 Summitview Ave # 22 507 W Chestnut Ave 2601 W. 1st St. 811 W. Yakima Ave 1006 S. Fair Ave. 4001 Summitview Ave # 4 6 5.2nd Street 312 W YAKIMA Ave 619 S 48Th Ave 2810 W Washington Ave 2521 River RD 1616 Gordon Rd Apt B 3700 Fruitvale Blvd 2000 E Beech St 1009 Rock Ave 310 E Chestnut Ave 406 N 2ND St 120 N Naches Ave 2021 5 3RD Ave Non -Yakima 1. FairPoint Communications 2. ClientLogic Corporation 2625 Marin Way East, Olympia 3, Highland School District, Cowiche WA 4. Naches Valley Sch Dists Naches WA 5. Gearjammer, Inc. Union Gap Truck Stop 6. New Tech-niques, Union Gap 7. KAZ Trophies & Engraving Union Gap 8. R&R Beverage Co., Union Gap 9. Spuriock,Inc. 10. Sundown M Ranch 11. Papa Bairds 12. Tube Art 13. Tree Top, Inc., Selah 14. Cowiche Growers Incorporated Warehouse 15. Yakima Valley Credit Union 16. Goodwill Industries of the Yakima Valley 17000 Summitview RD 24 Shafer Ave 2310 Rudkin RD 2806 Main St 3302 Main St 94 Pioneer St 1551 1St Ave, Zillah 2280 State Route 821 4108 Terrace Hts. Dr. 2730 Occidental, Seattle 205 S Railroad Ave 251 Cowiche City RD 313 E 4th St, Wapato 503 S 1St St, Selah Table 3: Yakima Telecommunications Survey Respondents (Interviewed companies highlighted in yellow) Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 C Yakima Telecommunications Environment page 8 Service Provider Inquiries The facilities based providers, Qwest, Avista, Fairpoint and Charter, are all represented on the City Tele- communications Planning Committee and indicated their willingness to furnish information to assist this project. As a result, a specific service provider questionnaire was prepared, posted on the project website and all Yakima providers were directed to the site and invited to respond. Responses received have been followed up by telephone call and e-mail correspondence, but unfortunately have been lacking in specif- ics as to location, sizing, quantity and other network details. The reason given is that the material is pro- prietary, business sensitive and confidential. Other public and private sources have been researched, in particular, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) records. These sources have provided limited but useful information which is described in the Findings Section of this report. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. FINDINGS page 9 Local Goals and Policies - An Opportunity for Yakima As communities and individuals in all walks of life become more "web -centric", advanced telecommuni- cations and the Internet are becoming an important way to communicate, disseminate information, and conduct business. In 1999, the Internet had more than 200 million users worldwide, a number that is pro- jected to triple to 600 million by 2003. The time is fast approaching when more than half of all citizens will have an e-mail address and use the Internet regularly. Furthermore, the Internet is driving an elec- tronic economy by becoming a medium of exchange for business transactions, estimated to top $1 trillion worldwide by 2003. Currently, there is considerable private telecommunications activity in Yakima by Charter, Qwest, Avista and others. The City recognizes how important telecommunications has become to its citizens and busi- nesses. It recognizes the opportunities telecommunications can bring if there is wide availability, useful products and services based on the best technology, and affordable pricing as a result of consumer choice and competition. The City also recognizes that there is an appropriate role that it should play to reach its goal to see orderly infrastructure development throughout the city to bring the benefits of advanced tele- communications to all its citizens and businesses. In view of this, the City has decided that it should not be an infrastructure builder and owner. This would be a counterproductive role for many reasons, not the least of which is the danger that infrastruc- ture owners and service providers would regard the City as a competitor with the unfair advantage of also being the local regulator. The City has determined therefore, that its appropriate role is to be a facilitator, to complement, and where possible, coordinate development with the goal that telecommunications infrastructure, benefits and opportunities are brought to the whole community. The City believes that this cooperative, pro- active approach, fostering orderly development and complementing activity by others will actually en- hance the opportunities for providers, their customers and the City. It is important that local goals and policies are formalized and that the City's goals and commitment are made official for the telecommunications industry, providers and users to have confidence in the City's attitude and position. In stating its telecommunications goals and policies therefore, the City should not just address the mandated compliance issues of the Federal and State laws and regulations. The City has the opportunity to state its vision, its goals for the community and set policies to unlock the maximum benefits from advanced telecommunications in general and the Internet in particular, for the well being of the City and its citizens. Telecommunications Policy Findings concerning potential opportunities from advanced telecommunications are presented below in items 1-2. Findings concerning rights -of way management typically considered for setting city and mu- nicipal telecommunications policy follow in items 3-9: Findings Concerning Potential Opportunities from Advanced Telecommunications 1. That the development of advanced telecommunications infrastructure in Yakima presents an opportunity for the City to modernize its operations and business processes, empower new applications, and enter the new electronic economy for the benefit of the City and the community; 2. That the development of advanced telecommunications infrastructure in Yakima presents an opportunity for the citizens and businesses in the community to communicate, conduct business, and participate in the new electronic economy for their individual benefit as well as that of the Yakima community. Typical Right -of -Way Related Findings 3. That it is in the interest of the public to establish standards for use of the Public Rights -of -Way for operators of telecommunications systems, in a manner which: Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D Findings page 10 • encourages competition by establishing non-discriminatory terms and conditions under which an operator of a telecommunications system may use public property to serve the public; • protects public interests in the use of the limited physical capacity of the Public Rights -of -Way; • protects the public and the City from any harm resulting from such private use of Public Rights -of - Way and preserves and improves the aesthetics of the community; • protects and carries out the regulatory authority of the City and recovers administrative costs, in a manner consistent with federal and state law. 4. That the City's public streets, alleys, utility easements, other City property, and utility facilities such as its poles and conduits within the City (collectively referred to as the "public property") constitute valuable property owned by the public. 5. That such public property is critical to the travel of persons and the transport of goods in the business and social life of the community by all citizens; is used by the City and other government agencies to provide services to protect public safety, critical utility services to its citizens, including electric, water and wastewater utility services; and is used by the City to provide telecommunications and other services to itself and other government agencies. 6. That such public property can be partially occupied by private companies and other entities for facilities used in the delivery, conveyance, and transmission of utility and public services rendered for profit, to the enhancement of the health, welfare, and general economic well-being of the City and its citizens. 7. That such public property is a unique resource so that proper management by the City is necessary, to maximize the efficiency and minimize the costs to the taxpayers of the foregoing uses and to minimize the inconvenience and negative effects, including degradation, upon the public from the construction, emplacement, relocation, and maintenance of telecommunication facilities in the Public Rights -of -Way. Status of Yakima Telecommunications Policies and Regulations The status of City's telecommunications policies and regulations was reviewed and a summary is given on the next page in Table 4. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 11 Item Description To comply with Tes No Comments Telecommunications Policies 1 Policy Guidelines Consistent w/Mission xx Document in Telecom Ordinance and Council Priorities Ordinances 2 Telecommunications Ordinance 1996 TCA xx Basic telecom regulatory document 3 Wireless Ordinance Zoning xx Siting, location, design regulations 4 Licenses and Business Regulations Title 5 YMC xx Chap. 5.50.050 YMC - update Electric, telephone, gas and steam businesses 5 Streets and Sidewalks Title 8 YMC xx Chap. 8.20 YMC - Right -of -Way Use Permits update Chap. 8.72 YMC - Excavations, Obstructions Chap. 8.92 YMC - Excay. by Franchise Holders 6 Extra conduit authority RCW 35.99.070 xx City option, add to Title 8 YMC Franchises and Permits 7 Master Permit RCW 80.36.040 o RCW 80.36.040 Municipal Consent or Municipal Consent RCW 35.99.030 update General permission to use the r/w. 8 Cable Television Franchise xx Ordinance 93-115 - TO (now Charter) 9 Use Permit RCW 35.99.020 xx Permit to install specific facilities in a specified RCW 35.99.030 update location. Most commonly a construction or r/w permit 10 Facilities Lease or License xx Use of city facility assets update Administrative 11 Written explanation of master permit RCW 35.99.030(1)(a) xx Check list approval process 12 Permit approval process record RCW 35.99.030(3) xx Denial of master permit must be supported by substantial evidence contained in written record 13 Reasonable advance notice RCW 35.99.030(5) xx City engineering and public works coordination for plans to do construction in r/w process Table 4: Status of Yakima Telecommunications Policies and Regulations Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 12 Telecommunications Infrastructure in Yakima The state of Washington is divided into two Local Access Transport Areas (LATA) containing 460 sepa- rate geographical areas (telephone exchanges) within which local telephone service is provided. Yakima County is in the Spokane LATA, and is covered by 20 exchanges served by four separate local exchange carriers—Qwest, Sprint, Verizon, and Ellensburg Telephone Company (Fairpoint Communications). The City of Yakima falls within the Yakima telephone exchange in which the incumbent local exchange car- rier is Qwest. The area south and east of the city is served by Sprint. Ellensburg Telephone Company and Verizon serve the area to the north. These service areas are generally shown in Figure 1. Infrastructure Owners and Service Providers Three companies, Qwest, Avista Communications and Charter Communications, own the major existing telecommunications infrastructure in Yakima. Direct information regarding the extent and nature of the existing infrastructure for Qwest and Avista is limited, both companies declining, for proprietary reasons, to disclose particular information. Public records are available from the WUTC, but much is statewide data and not Yakima specific. FCC data is more recent and Yakima specific, however neither source pro- vides cabling quantities, types or locations. The available data, summarized in Tables 5-7, are shown be- low in Figure 1. Figure 1: Qwest Service Area and Yakima Infrastructure Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 IND IND IND IND D. Findings page 13 Transmission Plant Paired Copper Cable Analog Microwave Digital Microwave Fiber Optic Satellite Coax Loop Plant Analog Copper Loaded Copper Pairs Analog Subscriber Carrier Other Digital Copper ISDN XDSL Digital Subscriber Carrier Fiber Optics Other % of Total Interoffice Plant 19.81 % 0.22% 2.83% 77.10% 0.00% 0.06% % of Total Subscriber Plant 87.200% 3.300% 0.200% 0.050% 1.715% 0.175% 0.200% 4.860% 0.050% 0.245% Data reported by GTE, Telephone Utilities of Washington (PTI), United Telephone Company of the Northwest and US West, representing approximately 98% of the total access lines (customers) in Washington State for landline customers. Table 5: Total Telecommunications Plant in Washington State Exchange Cowiche/Rimrock White Pass Tieton Selah Naches Nile Grandview Granger Harrah Mabton Toppenish Wapato White Swan Whitstran Z�Ilah Sunnyside NPA 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 509 NXXs 678 672 673 696/7/8 653 658 882 854 848 894 865 877 874 Telephone Company Cowiche Telephone Co. Cowiche Telephone Co. Cowiche Telephone Co. Ellensburg Telephone Co. GTE NW (Verizon) GTE NW (Verizon) Spdnt/United Sprint/United Sprint/United Sprint/United Sprint/United Sprint/United Sprint/United 973 Sprint/United 829 Sprint/United 836,837,830,839,840 Sprint/United Centrex/ Custom CLASS CentraNet Calling Calling Calling available available available available available available - available available available available available - available - available available available available available available available available available - available available available available available available - available available available available available available available available available available available available - Intra - Exchange ISDN Fiber Inter - Exchange Fiber available available available Yes ICB ICB yes yes yes yes yes yes IND IND yes yes yes yes yes yes ICB IND Yakima Yakima Yakima Yakima 509 248,449,451,452,453 509 457,573,574,575,576 509 577,941,945,949,952 509 961,965,966,969,972 Qwest Qwest Qwest Qwest available available available available available available available available available available available available ICB ICB ICB ICB Available = service Avail -EIA (for ISDN) available; - = not available; Avail' = available with restrictions; DNR = did not respond; = extended ISDN availability; yes = in -use in exchange; ICB = individual case basis; IND = information not disclosed. Table 6: Yakima County Telephone Exchanges and Telephone Companies8 7 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, "Status of Telecommunications Infrastructure in Washington State", a re- port to the House and Senate Energy and Utilities Committees, December 1,1997. 8 Information provided to WUTC by participating telephone companies, 11/96 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 14 Central Office Name Yakima Chestnut Yakima West Address 8 S 2nd Ave (CO) 3 N 72nd Ave (CO) City Yakima Yakima State WA WA Switch Code YAKMWAO2CGO YAKMWAWEDSO Equal Access Date 07/01/86 07/01/86 Host Switch - Tandem Switch YAKMWAWEC9T YAKMWAWEC9T Vertical Coordinates 6533 6535 Horizontal Coordinates 8607 8621 LATA 676 676 Existing Switch Type 1AES DMS1/200 Replacement Switch Type DMS100 Relataplacement Switch Date 01/27/01 Existing Switch Software 1AE13.1 LET010 Replacement Switch Software LEC012 LET013 Software Replacement Date 01/27/01 05/16/01 Business NALs 21449 4348 Residential NALs 30431 17669 ISDN Date - Class Date 06/15/94 SS7 Date 06/15/94 10/16/92 % Digital Loop Carrier 13.20% 24.00% Total Usage 112106267 39195897 NPA Area Code(s) 509 509 NXX Codes 225 248 249 965 966 972 452 453 454 457 573 574 575 576 577 Table 7: Qwest Yakima Central Offices 9 Qwest Infrastructure Tables 5, 6 and 7 give the following information regarding Qwest's Yakima infrastructure: • Although there is no data available regarding the quantities of the transmission or loop plant, it is rea- sonable to assume the Yakima plant would reflect the statewide proportions given in Table 5. If so, the loop plant (distribution system) in the city is 89.9% copper, while the transmission plant is 77% optical fiber. • Qwest's Yakima West CO is equipped with a 15 year old but industry standard Nortel DMS1/200, a wireline only switch (Table 7). • Qwest's downtown Chestnut CO, previously also equipped with a DMS1/200, but is to be upgraded in January 2001 with a Nortel DMS 100 switch (Table 7). • The DMS -100 is a state-of-the-art multifunctional switch that integrates DMS -100/200 (local/toll) wireline and DMS -MTX digital wireless capabilities onto a single hardware platform. • The City of Yakima represents a majority (14 of 20) of the prefix areas (NXX codes) served in the Yakima exchange by Qwest's 2 central offices (Table 6). • The 2 Qwest Yakima CO's serve 25,797 business and 48,100 residential, a total of 73,897 access lines (Table 7). 9Compiled from ICONN database at http.//www uswest com/cgi-bin/iconn/iconn pl. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 15 • Of the total, 12 130 are digital access lines representing 12% of the total access lines. It would be rea- sonable to assume the majority of these are data lines used primarily by businesses. Avista Communications Infrastructure10 Avista Communications is a competitive local exchange carrier that has a fiber optic network and one Yakima Central Office, located at 15 West Yakima Avenue. The company is building its fiber optic net- work and presently serves more than 100 business customers primarily in the central part of the city, in proximity to its fiber backbone. The only data that is publicly available for its local fiber plant is shown in Figure 1, in the form of "minor, moderate, or major" categories related to Census Tracts 2, 8, 11 (minor); 9, 10 (moderate) and 6,12 (major). The Avista central office in Yakima is one of three Avista switching centers in Washington, the others be- ing Bellingham to the north and Clarkston in southwestern Washington. Avista's two Points of Presence (POP's) are in Seattle and Spokane, the latter also being the company's network operating center. From Spokane, Avista is connected to ten major POP's in the country. The Wash- ington service area and facilities are shown on the adjacent map Locally, Avista's Yakima central office is connected by a large OC -48 (2.488 Gbps) link to the Qwest Chestnut CO, and from there, to Qwest's copper network in the city. The company's business model targets busi- ness customers needing 8 or more access lines. For Type 2 customers (8-50 lines), Av- ista will lease and resell T-1 lines from Qwest. For Type 1 customers (50 or more lines) Avista will extend fiber for a direct link to its network. Figure 2: Avista Washington Service Area FairPoint Communications11 Fairpoint Communications is a competitive local exchange carrier, formerly MJD Communications until April 2000 when the company name was changed to Fairpoint. The company was begun in 1993 and has since acquired 28 traditional telephone companies in rural markets operating in 17 states. Fairpoint en- tered the competitive local exchange carrier market in 1998, targeting small and medium-sized business customers in Tier IV and select Tier III markets, which typically have populations of less than 100,000. These markets are generally within a 200 -mile radius of the areas served by the company's traditional telephone companies. This "edge -out" strategy has been employed to leverage existing network infra- structure, operating systems and management expertise to accelerate the nationwide rollout of Fair - point's competitive communications business. The City of Yakima is a prime fit for the company's strategy as a rural, Tier IV city within 40 miles of a company owned ILEC, in this case the Ellensburg Telephone Company, the location of a new $4 million switch. In Yakima, the company has operated as a reseller using Qwest's infrastructure, and has business customers with approximately 1,500 access lines. The company plans however, to build infrastructure in Yakima and link to its Ellensburg switch with an OC -48 connection. In an interview in September, the Fairpoint representative indicated that the company was planning to collocate DSL access multiplexers (DSLAM's) in Qwest's two Yakima central offices by the end of 2001 and that Yakima was a first priority in Fairpoint's infrastructure development plans. 10 Compiled from interview 8/29/00 with Avista staff, survey response and Avista furnished data 1/11/01 11 Compiled from Fairpoint materials including interview 8/30/00 with Steve Carlson, Regional Sales Director, Fairpoint Commu- nications. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 16 Charter Communications Infrastructure12 Charter Communications is the City's current cable television provider holding a 15 -year franchise, effec- tive January 20,1994. Section 4.3.1 of Franchise Ordinance 93-115 requires a system upgrade within 48 months of the effective date of the ordinance to a minimum practical capacity of 75 downstream stan- dard video channels, with capability for pay-per-view and other services requiring addressability. The existing cable network is a medium capacity channel carriage system (330 MHz) with a capability of 40 channels. To meet the stipulated upgrade requirements, the system will have to be upgraded to a large capacity system (minimum 550 MHz). Mr. Gary Bailey, Charter's General Manager indicated the current upgrade was from 330 MHz to 870 MHz, using 2 -way fiber trunk to the nodes (over 60 each) ar- chitecture. Currently there are approximately 23,000 customers. The significant aspect of the upgraded Charter infrastructure is that it is an interactive fiber network (al- beit hybrid fiber/coax) with citywide geographical coverage closer to the City's goals than any other provider except the incumbent ILEC, Qwest. The upgrade is being made with a minimum 32 -strand fiber throughout Yakima. Charter has indicated that it intends to be in the business of commercial broadband services - high-speed access, LAN/WAN connectivity, and broadband Internet services. Cable modems are now being tested and are scheduled to be available in the first quarter of 2001. Other Service Providers Currently Adelphia Business Solutions (ABS), a competitive local exchange carrier, headquartered in Coudersport PA, is in the preliminary stages of applying for a franchise from the City of Yakima. Adel- phia operates an 18,000 -mile long haul fiber optic network serving approximately 80 cities in the eastern half of the United States. In 2000, through agreements with Level 3 Communications and Williams Communications, it acquired access rights to another 7,600 miles throughout much of the western United States including routes from California north to Portland and Seattle, and from Seattle to Boise, passing south of Yakima. It is anticipated that if ABS enters the Yakima market it will begin as a reseller and pos- sibly could become another facilities based provider. In addition to the providers described above, the City of Yakima is served by a variety of other telecom- munications providers differing in regulatory a classification per the Washington Utilities and Transpor- tation Commission (WUTC), and differing in technology deployed. A list of the providers currently serv- ing Yakima, grouped into six major categories, is given in Table 9. Products and Services Available Wireline Providers A summary of the telecommunications products and services available in Yakima is given in Table 8 on the next page. The products available are diverse and not less than what would be found in more urban markets. The conclusion is that the Yakima providers as a group have sophisticated and state of the art equipment, and that their equipment infrastructure is strong and capable. As a whole, the other part, the delivery infrastructure, is comparatively above average and potentially quite strong. The difficulties en- countered by prospective users are more related to service, competitiveness and cost - business, more than physical infrastructure issues. Wireless Providers Other than Northwest Microwave, no wireless carrier in Yakima furnished any system or other informa- tion, again declining for confidentiality reasons. Nevertheless, some strong assumptions about the nature of Yakima's wireless infrastructure can also be made, based on their offerings for consumers in Yakima. First, four of the ten largest wireless carriers in the United States each offer "advanced digital wireless services" to consumers in Yakima. This is not just digital cellular, which by itself, is significantly superior 12 Compiled from Charter materials including interview 8/30/00 with Gary Bailey, General Manager, Charter Communications. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 X Q1/01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D. Findings page 17 to first generation analog wireless; but digital wireless over cellular, over personal digital assistants, over the Internet. Extremely advanced infrastructure (i.e. routers, digital signal processors, switches, and fiber optic as opposed to coaxial cable networks) is mandated in order for these carriers to offer such services to consumers. Usually, larger businesses would receive these services first. Second, these companies are offering what is known in the wireless technology trades as the "killer ap- plications" to consumers: three-way conferencing over wireless, wireless email, wireless line blocking, wireless over laptop computer text messaging, etc. Large bandwidth is needed for these applications. Again, this is digital wireless as opposed to earlier generation analog. Consumers in Yakima have access to the same advanced wireless applications as one would have in any major high tech center, such as Se- attle, Austin, Raleigh-Durham, San Jose, etc. Telecom Providers Phone and Voice services LEC Services (local dial tone) IXC Services (long distance) CAP Services (reseller) CLEC Services (IXC or CAP) CMRS Services (wireless, radio) Data services DS -0 DS -1 DS -3 Frame Relay Asynchronous Transfer Mode ISDN SONET Ring Service SST (0C3-0Cn) DSL CSP Video Services Cable television Cable modems Telephony ISP Services Internet Access Broadband Internet Hosting Services note 1. note 2. note 3. note 4. note 5. note 6. note 7. Northwest Other Charter Qwest Arista Fairpoiut Microwave Wireless X Q1/01 X x x x x X X x x x X X X x X X X X X X compatible capable X X Q1/01 X x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X compatible capable X capable capable X X future -- capable X future reseller 2001 X Q1/01 X capable X X X X X X X X X Notes Notes 1. Local Exchange Carrier 5. Commercial Mobile Radio Service 2. Interexchange Carrier 6. Cable Service Provider 3. Competitive Access Provider 7. Internet Service Provider 4. Competitive LEC 8. Other wireless includes AT&T Wireless , Nextel, Sprint, Voicestream Table 8: Telecommunications Products and Services Available in Yakima Finally, many of these services require the latest internet-ready phones (e.g. Ericsson R280LX or Mitsubi- shi T250). It appears therefore, that Yakima must have advanced wireless infrastructure to sustain the extremely advanced wireless services available. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D. Findings page 18 WUTC ID Company Name website Long Dist. Local Wireless Cable ISP ITEC - incumbent local exchange carrier 4867 Qwest Corporation IRC - interexchange carrier (long distance) 12331 AT&T Comm. of the Pacific NW Inc. 65598 MCI Worldcom Communications, Inc. 36432 Spnnt Communications Company L.P. CLEC - competitive local exchange carrier facilities based 232288 Avista Communications of Washington 206155 Fair Point Communications Corporation reseller 221949 Advanced TelCom Group, Inc. 127517 BCI Corp. (Bnttan Communications International) 213428 C Systems, Inc. (Netlink, Inc.) 249265 CTI Long Distance, Inc. 13302 CTS (Communication TeleSystems International and WorldXchange) 15341 Excel Telecommunications, Inc. 22897 Frontier Communications of the West, Inc. 21746 Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. 146434 Global Crossing Local Services, Inc. 114101 GST Telecom Washington, Inc. (also ICON Communications Corp.) 20954 Marathon Communications, Inc 136003 McLeodUSA, Telecommunications 242141 New Edge Network, Inc. 138180 ProTel Advantage, Inc. 57597 Quantum Communications, Inc. 40565 Shared Communications Services, Inc. 54367 Touch America, Inc. (MRS - commercial mobile radio service (wireless, radio) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AT&T Wireless Cellular One Consumer Cellular Nextel Communications Northwest Microwave U.S. Cellular CSP - cable se►rice provider n/a Charter Communications ISP - internee service provider n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Access Northwest BentonREA Powemet Five K/Webster Global Crossing ICON Incommand Interactive Northwest Internet NW Infonet (includes Internet Express) TEK-X, Inc. Wolfenet http://www.gwest.com/ www.att.com http://www.wcom.com/main.phtml http://www.sprint.com/ www.avistacomm.net www.fairpoint.com www.atgi.net www.bcicorp.com http://www.c-systems.net/ http://www.worldxchange.com/ http://www.excel3.com/ http://www.trontiercorp.com/ http://www.frontiercoro.com/ http://www.globalcrossing.com/ http://www.gstcorp.com/ http://www.marathon.net/ http://www.mcleodusa.com/ http://www.newedgenetworks.com www.pro-tel.net http://www.toll-free.net/ http://www.shared.net/ http://www.in-tch.com/ www.attws.com http://www.cellularonewest.com/ http://www.savecell.com http://www.nextel.com www.nwmi.com www.uscellular.com www.chartercom.com httP://www.accessnw.net/ http://www.bentonrea.com/ http://www.fivek.com http://www.globalcrossing.com/ http://www.icon-stl.net/ http://www.incommand.com http://nwi.usonline.com/ www.nwinfo.net www.tekx.com http://www.wolfe.net/ no yes Yes yes Yes Yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes no yes no yes yes yes no yes no no yes yes yes yes yes Yes Yes yes yes yes no yes no yes yes yes no Yes Yes no yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes Yes yes Yes Yes yes Yes yes yes Table 9: City of Yakima Telecommunications Service Providers Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D Findings page 19 Telecommunications Survey Response Location of Respondents Almost 80% of the parties on the focus group list responded to the City's survey. The response represents 10,058 workers, 91.2% of whom are located in five Census Tracts as shown in the Table below. The level of response indicates that the response can be considered an accurate sample with respect to the data de- rived from the survey questions. Tract 1 3,377 33.6% Tract 7 2,377 23.6% Tract 2 1,276 12.7% Tract 8 1,201 11.9% Tract 3 1,002 9.9% Others 825 8.2% Totals 10,008 100% Figure 3 shows the geographic distribution of the survey respondents, grouped according to the 15 Cen- sus Tracts covering the City of Yakima. 29 Unite Yakima City Limits Typical Census —1 7 Tract, Pink is Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 28 Number of employees covered by responses from organizations in Census Tract 27 27 Figure 3: Findings, Survey Respondents Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 20 Nature of Respondents Figure 4 shows the composi- tion of the survey respon- dents. Businesses, including Telecommunications provid- ers, represent two-thirds (67%) of the total. The remainder is fairly evenly divided among gov- ernmental (9%), educational (9%), institutional (9%) and community (6%) groups. Business 64% Telecom Provider 3% F Institutional 9% Education 9% Figure 4: Findings, Nature of Survey Respondents Community 6% Government 9°% Business Culture of Respondents The business culture of the survey respondents is shown below in Figure 5. Although more respondents classified themselves as traditional businesses (55%), almost the same number (54%) said they were tak- ing action to move some or all of their operations to the Internet. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% traditional Internet contented moving to Internet Figure 5: Findings, Business Culture of Respondents 40% of the respondents also considered themselves Internet businesses, and together these data indicate a shifting of the culture, from which it can be implied demand for telecommunications is inherent. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 21 Estimated Use and Projected Demand Figure 6 below shows the current applications and use by the survey respondents. Internet (98%), cell phones (91 %) and local area computer networks (83%) are the leading applications used. Figure 7 shows desired applications that would be enabled by advanced telecommunications. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% S ngle line 7494 47% 34% 43% fl 91% 13% 83% 44144 40% 52% 98% 38% 90% 80% 70% 60%1 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Faster customer Empower service customers Multi Key PBX CTI Cellular 1 -way 2 -way LAN WAN Intranet Internet Remote line System 89% video video Figure 6: Findings, Current Applications and Use Customer self service 71% 73% 71% Customer E -Commerce E -Transactions E -Partnering interactivity Figure 7: Findings, Applications Desired access Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 22 Demand for Applications The findings, as shown in Figure 7, indicate that the businesses surveyed had a high level of interest (66- 86%) in using advanced telecommunications and the Internet to conduct business (e-commerce, e - transactions, e -partnering, customer interactivity and self service, etc.). Demand for Access Speed The access speeds desired by the organizations responding to the City's survey are shown in Figure 8. A total of 78% of the organizations responding want "broadband" access starting with ISDN speeds of 511 Mel 1116 112 MM 11'x. !i Y's 16% Dw'1 ism 4`i<r 45 low Figure 8: Findings, Access Speeds Desired 1_14 laps IT'b 128 kbps. Almost half (49%) want T-1 access speeds (1.54 mbps, i.e. 28 x 56 kbps dialup) or higher, even up to OC -3 (155 mbps, i.e. 2800 x dialup) levels. Most Important Factors Affecting Use and Demand The most important factors affecting use and demand reported by the survey respondents are shown in Figure 9. Not surprisingly, availability and cost are the two biggest factors, as reported by 61 % and 31 % Tarksi sopped heir Cog 3Y% Figure 9: Findings, Most Important Factors Affecting Use and Demand respectively, of the survey respondents. Interestingly, non -Yakima companies surveyed were more con- cerned about availability of access than cost, indicating that of all the factors limiting use of telecommu- nications, availability was first (80%) whereas cost was not even mentioned. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D. Findings page 23 Demand Projections The preceding data is the basis for the estimates of current year 2000 use and projected year 2005 demand, shown in Table 10 and Figure 10. In Figure 10, the existing use and projected demand for data (voice not included) services from the survey respondents is shown by geographic distribu- tion within the 15 Census Tracts covering the City of Yakima. Cense Total Respo Count, capita r 2000 yr 2005 Tract ave of range Mbps Mbps/cap Mbps Mbps/cap 1 3,377 146.11 0.04 292.22 0.09 2 1,276 10.26 0.01 20.53 0.02 3 1,002 7.18 0.01 14.37 0.01 4 25 1.54 0.06 3.08 0.12 5 125 1.54 0.01 3.08 0.02 6 25 0.51 0.02 1.02 0.04 7 2,377 56.80 0.02 113.61 0.05 8 1,201 6.67 0.01 13.34 0.01 9 150 3.08 0.02 6.16 0.04 10 25 1.54 0.06 3.08 0.12 11 375 9.75 0.03 19.50 0.05 13 50 1.02 0.02 2.05 0.04 15 50 1.02 0.02 2.05 0.04 idents 10,058 247.04 0.02 494.09 0.05 Table 10: Estimated Year 2000 Use and 2005 Demand 29 Yakima Cty thanks 1 Typical Corium Tract, talk Is tletrnhflrtan BtialMlal Alfa 4115 24 2ticoo demand centered by re meioses trans orgentuatlions bra Conant Tract 2 27 Figure 10: Estimated Year 2000 Use and 2005 Demand Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D. Findings page 24 Community Telecommunications Readiness Figure 11 summarizes the data regarding the general readiness of the community to employ advanced telecommunications. Lack of interest or skill are measures of the respondents, but not being able to get connected, lack of adequate access speeds and prohibitive costs are infrastructure or business issues attributable to service providers. Approximately one-third of the respondents indicated they lacked interest or skills, but two-thirds said they wanted better access speed and better competitive prices. Another 22% said they could not get con- nected. It can be implied that the last three categories representing two-thirds of the respondents are simply waiting for the service to arrive or improve, and are in fact ready. ,ca 68% Lack interest Lack skill Can't get connected Lack access speed Too expensive Figure 11: Findings, Community Telecommunications Readiness Findings Concerning Non -Yakima Respondents A limited number of non Yakima companies, comprising manufacturing, finance, high-technology and service organizations were surveyed and four were interviewed to provide a comparison for the re- sponse from the Yakima respondents. One company interviewed was Tube Art, a custom sign manufacturing company located in Seattle that has just opened a branch facility in Yakima. Tube Art is a longstanding (1946) traditional manufacturing company that is now heavily dependent on telecommunications. In considering expansion locations, availability of advanced telecommunications was a top prerequisite. Tube Art is a striking revelation of the changing nature of ordinary, not just high technology, businesses and organizations today. Tele- communications is not a specialty tool that only high-technology companies need and use, but it is be- coming a regular necessity for conducting almost any business. Figures 12 and 13 summarize the findings of the responses from the non -Yakima companies surveyed. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 D. Findings page 25 Relocation Decision Factors Relocation factors considered by non -Yakima companies surveyed indicate availability of support and training resources to be the biggest factor considered (73% of companies surveyed). Next and almost at the same level (72%) is the availability of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. These two factors appear to be mutually interrelated and interdependent. 80% 70%- 60%- 50% - 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%- Geographic Location Local Government 56% Property 72% 73% Infrastructure Resources Figure 12: Findings, Relocation Decision Factors - Non Yakima Companies Most Important Factors Affecting Use and Demand Non -Yakima companies surveyed were more concerned about avail- ability of access than cost, indicating that of all the factors limiting use of telecommunications, availability was first (80%) whereas cost was not even mentioned. The comparison is useful for Yakima to see what its own business and community organizations will ex- perience when the availability and use of advanced telecommunications Anomaly becomes widespread and common- place. Mier ark Figure 13: Findings, Most Important Factors Affecting Use and Demand -Non Yakima Companies Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E. PRIORITY WORK PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS page 26 E. PRIORITY WORK PLAN Goals and Direction In the field of communications, a major cultural change has taken place that is already affecting the City of Yakima and its citizens. The City has done much work, including this project, to understand the change, its impacts, effects, as well as its benefits and new opportunities. The City has determined that it must heed the changes and determine how to adapt to both protect Yakima from any negative conse- quences and to take advantage of any opportunities and benefits that may be available. A primary city goal is to bring advanced telecommunications infrastructure and the accompanying bene- fits and opportunities to all its constituents throughout the city. This requires the City to consider the best role it should play to successfully accomplish its goal. The City has done this and has chosen not to be an infrastructure builder and owner but rather to be a telecommunications facilitator. As a builder and owner the City could accomplish its goal and control the outcome by its own direct ac- tion. As a facilitator, having chosen to give up direct control, the City must now find ways to influence others to get what it wants. This is a challenging task since private owners and service providers have understandably different goals based on profitability, not necessarily consistent with the City's public service goals. The City's role as a facilitator can be approached in two ways. There is the passive approach in which the City simply lets development take place wherever and whenever it will, and in which the City facilitates by reaction whenever development occurs. The other approach is active and aggressive and despite not having direct control, there are definite tasks the City can undertake to influence development. Based on the findings of this study, a priority work and action plan for the City of Yakima, covering four major task areas, is presented below. Some items may be taken for granted and as a result may also be overlooked. An example is for the City to formally communicate its commitment to its goals. The initial steps of the work plan therefore are various policy, administrative and procedural housekeeping work items. A summary of work plan tasks, arranged by type of work and anticipated timing is given in Table 11. I. City Facilitation In its role as a facilitator, the City can make Yakima attractive to both telecommunications users and pro- viders. The city's central geographic location, the proximity of major backbone routes and the commu- nity's apt size in the Tier 3-4 rural telecommunications market are existing advantages. The City can en- hance its advantages by readying itself, by creating a favorable telecommunications environment, by lev- eling the playing field to attract competition, and by developing community readiness. Specific actions concerning these items are listed below, many of which can be practically accomplished very cost- effectively through a city telecommunications initiative described in paragraph IV, Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal. A. Administrative and Procedural 1. The City should review and accept this Telecommunications and Technology Planning Study. • The City should request and obtain review and acceptance of the study by the Telecommunica- tions Planning Committee. • The City should obtain review and acceptance of the study by the City Council and a resolu- tion of the Council directing the Community and Economic Development Department (CED) to implement the work plan recommended by the study. 2. The Community and Economic Development Department should review and carry out the work plan recommended by this study. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 27 • The Community and Economic Development Department should request the Telecommunica- tions Planning Committee (TPC) to coordinate implementation of the work plan. • The TPC should enlist the participation of its members and other interested parties and dele- gate responsibility for implementing individual work plan tasks to qualified and appropriate parties. Preliminary assignment suggestions are also shown in Table 11. 3. The City should dedicate the necessary resources to support its facilitation activities. 4. The City should organize its Telecommunications Division in preparation for administering ex- isting and ongoing telecommunications regulations, matters and initiatives. 5. The Telecommunications Division should develop a management and operating plan to assess and project its requirements such as staff, space, location, budget and sources of funding. B. Build Favorable Telecommunications Environment 1. The City should adopt the policy recommendations presented in Appendix 3 of this study. • City management and staff, with input from advisory groups such as the Telecommunications Planning Committee, should review and finalize the policy recommendations for official City action. • City action to formalize the policies can be by Council resolution or by incorporation into a new telecommunications ordinance recommended under paragraph B. Level Regulatory Play- ing Field, below. 2. The City should develop telecommunications related incentives it could offer to promote the ex- tension and improvement of service and to bring more competition, best technologies and new products and services to Yakima. • Possible financial incentives include tax credits and abatements, loans or grants, favorable or discounted rates for use of City facilities, and City participation and partnerships to enable use of municipal financing where possible and appropriate. • Currently tax credits are primarily limited to costs associated with redevelopment of property for historic preservation purposes. Creation of tax credits or local tax abatement programs for developing telecommunications -ready property or buildings is a financial incentive worth in- vestigating. • The City should also investigate and make available information on non -city programs from federal, state, and private foundations and organizations and support qualifying parties in ob- taining such assistance. • Federal programs are generally tied to specific conditions, limiting their use as incentives for telecommunications development. For example, Housing and Urban Development redevel- opment grants and low interest loans are directly tied to creation of jobs. Nevertheless, if a business was committed to a property or building, such funds could be spent on making the property telecommunications intelligent and ready. • A significant incentive that could be offered to attract more development of intelligent proper- ties is for the City to provide a free listing service through a City Yakima at Your Service Telecom Portal with a link from the YCDA website or vice versa. This would be exclusively for existing or prospective owners or developers of intelligent properties. • Non-financial incentives include making it easier and more convenient to do business with the City by simplifying city procedures, regulations, and ways of communicating with the City. • Telecommunications related incentives should be available to any organization or project that creates or improves the City's telecommunications environment. Telecommunications intelli- gent building or business park development is an example. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 28 C. Level Regulatory Playing Field 1. The City should level the playing field by developing and adopting a new telecommunications ordinance to put all telecommunications service providers on the same, non-discriminatory regu- latory basis. • The City has telecommunications franchises with Qwest and Avista Communications and is currently processing a request from Adelphia Business Solutions. These franchises have been prepared and negotiated as individual cases and may already have set precedents that will limit or define franchise conditions between future service providers and the City. • It is important in laying out a framework for the future that the City officially set forth a stan- dard, provider acceptable, governing ordinance to protect the City and its goals as well as pro- vide regulations that will encourage rather than hinder telecommunications development. • The telecommunications ordinance should provide consistent regulations for management of City owned rights-of-way and other property, desired by providers for construction of their fa- cilities. 2. The City should review its existing authority over related ordinances such as licensing, franchis- ing, consumer and citizen protection, and zoning control, and update applicable ordinances and regulations to be consistent with a new telecommunications ordinance. 3. The City should also prepare and adopt a wireless ordinance. • The City should take the initiative to plan, identify and inventory suitable sites for wireless telecommunications towers and facilities and pre -approve such sites for future use by provid- ers. • The City should consider an expedited procedure for processing wireless communications fa- cilities siting requests, whereby the City can automatically issue permits if pre -approved sites and locations designated are utilized. • Using incentives, co -location of the facilities of different wireless providers on common sites wherever possible should be encouraged. Providers should be encouraged to accommodate co - location of additional facilities for future users at a reasonable cost. If accommodation of fu- ture co -location is not provided, the City should require information why future co -location is not possible. 4. The City should track its Yakima service providers by creating or modifying the licensing code used on annual business license applications so that the providers can be identified and their in- formation stored in a central record. This will allow the Telecommunications Division and other applicable City offices to retrieve current information, monitor and maintain a fair and nondis- criminatory treatment of all providers. D. Community Readiness and Education In addition to attending to its own readiness as previously described the City should help the commu- nity get ready and educated on the use and applications of advanced telecommunications. 1. The City should help educate the community, using programs, through continuing education, seminars, community television shows, and by providing telecommunications educational ser- vices through Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal. 2. The City should continue to develop and raise community telecommunications awareness by continuing its web based surveys, publicizing telecommunications initiatives, industry and tech- nological advances, provider services and local training opportunities and programs. This can also be done through Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal. 3. The City should continue and expand and improve its communications with the public, specifi- cally using telecommunications to disseminate news and information, community service pro- grams and electronic government initiatives. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 29 4. The City should collaborate with YCDA, the Chamber of Commerce, service providers and other interested parties to sponsor seminars, workshops, trade shows, and to use the media to educate and expose the community to advanced telecommunications. 5. The City's educational efforts should include Spanish and bilingual versions to reach its large Hispanic community. 11. Support Infrastructure Development A. Develop and Maintain Existing Infrastructure Inventory 1. The City should undertake a project to assemble from its own records, and then electronically inventory and map, the various infrastructure facilities existing m the City. The service providers have offered to provide general information but are reluctant to give out proprietary and busi- ness sensitive details, especially concerning future plans. 2. The City should nevertheless attempt to obtain as much information from the providers as pos- sible to alleviate the burdensome task of searching the City records and to check the accuracy of City materials. Frequently, materials in the City's files will be design plans submitted with right- of-way permit requests and may be entirely different from what was actually constructed. B. Develop Infrastructure Guideline Plan 1. The City should develop a guideline plan for the infrastructure needed to serve the entire city. • The plan may be conceptual in nature but should be at a level that it can guide actual design and implementation to avoid duplicate overbuilding of facilities, and prevent exhaustion of valuable and limited rights-of-way. 2. The City should invite public and private participants to support and participate in the devel- opment and updating of the guideline plan. • Participants could be drawn from the existing Telecommunications Planning Committee, and in particular should include existing and other interested service providers. • The City should have a realistic expectation regarding the development of such a plan, under- standing that it is highly dependent on the cooperation of service providers, whose existing fa- cilities and future plans will greatly influence the guideline layout, and vice versa. 3. The guideline plan should include the following major items: • An overall citywide system layout, using and integrating where possible, the existing systems in the city, to bring high-speed service to all segments and areas of the city. • The plan should identify a central Yakima open access backbone, feeder links, and the distribu- tion networks to Yakima end-users. Since the identified backbone will undoubtedly be private and proprietary, the City should pursue ways to negotiate access and sharing of the backbone • Facilitate development of "Internet Exchanges"13 or "meet -me" points in Yakima, where com- mercial as well as public networks can cross connect, so that Yakima traffic can be quickly and efficiently routed to the major backbones for fast transport. 4. The City should begin to check the rights-of-way and lands identified by the plan route layout to permit the contiguous deployment of the physical infrastructure. • In developing the plan with provider furnished routing information, the City should include telecommunications conduits in City projects along the planned routes. • City road rebuilding and improvement projects can also be coordinated and planned to match provider infrastructure development. 13 http://www.paix.net/internet exchange/index htm Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 30 • Conformance to the City's guideline plan could be a requirement of a right-of-way use permit procedure. C. Perform "Fill -In" Projects 1. Based on provider input, the guideline plan should identify needy areas where it may not be commercially feasible for providers to build out the infrastructure. • In such cases, the City should consider becoming a supporting infrastructure builder and undertake "fill-in" projects to keep the build -out plan from being stalled. 2. An immediate example of a "fill-in" project is the commercial area around the airport, which is presently not serviceable by the existing providers due to lack of customers. • The City is contemplating a project that would provide two fiber optic links totaling about 5.5 miles, the major segment of about 4 miles being on Ahtanum Road, the other smaller segment of about 1.5 miles being on Washington Avenue, then proceeding toward South 36th Avenue. • The links would fill in sections that could fit into both Qwest and Avista existing and planned routes, although official plans from either provider are not publicly available. • Both segments are critical links to serve commercial properties, one of which already has an in- terested potential user. • A very preliminary estimate of the project cost, using industry standard unit prices is $275,000. The project qualifies as a prospect for funding from a $5 million rural economic development fund paid by Qwest as part of the final settlement of a telephone rate court case. The City is preparing an application for funding and should pursue the funding. D. Use Telecommunications to Build the Telecommunications Marketplace Commercial infrastructure is market-driven, and the City should support infrastructure development by helping build the marketplace. 1. The City can build the marketplace by using telecommunications to conveniently bring together users and providers and to make it easier for the parties to buy and sell products and services. 2. The City can use telecommunications to help Yakima service providers by providing a central- ized "one-stop" clearing -house to consolidate service provider resources and information for us- ers shopping for products and services. • Provide a service provider resource web page. • Invite providers to furnish Yakima specific web site that can be placed on City telecom portal. 3. The City can encourage property owners and developers to build intelligent properties to draw users who are telecommunications dependent. • Provide an intelligent property development resource web page. • Identify and provide a free listing of intelligent properties and buildings in Yakima. • Direct users to smart properties with incentives.. 4. Support telecommunications initiatives and legislative efforts where telecommunications devel- opment, competition and advancement of the City's goals and policies will be benefited. • A specific example is a request from Qwest for City support of its initiative to gain permission to provide local long distance service and relief from other current regulations that put it at a disadvantage with competitive local exchange carriers. • Identify telecommunications initiatives such as the WSU Rural Telework Project, described under Work Task IIIC.2 that the City can participate in or support. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 31 III. Increase Infrastructure Use A. City Leadership 1. The City should lead by example and set a pattern of using advanced telecommunications, for the community. 2. It can do this by preparing, equipping, and empowering all segments of City government to use advanced telecommunications wherever possible, to optimize City operations and business processes and make it easier and less costly for individuals and companies to do business with and in the City. B. Use Telecommunications to Increase Services to Meet Community Needs and Interests 1. In addition to utilizing telecommunications to improve internal efficiencies, the City can use it to put in place community initiatives to bring and expand services, especially to underserved seg- ments of the community. 2. A list of recommended examples and models may be found at http://www.mcco.com/yakima/shell new/Eng/1 Demo Project. asp C. Use Telecommunications to Strengthen Economic Development Collaboration 1. The City should increase its efforts to utilize advanced telecommunications as an economic de- velopment tool. This can be accomplished through Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal, described below. • The City should use telecommunications to strengthen economic development collaboration with the Yakima County Development Association (YCDA-- New Vision), the Chamber of Commerce, Washington Association of Minority Entrepreneurs (WAME), and other similar organizations. • A specific example of a collaboration opportunity for these Yakima organizations is with Washington State University and their World Telecom Project. The project is to identify and match rural communities with companies looking for back-office help and to develop jobs in rural communities through telework. IV. Build Yakima at your Service, a Proposed Yakima Telecom Portal The challenge to the City of Yakima is how to bring about a citywide telecommunications infrastructure without the City itself directly building it. There already are providers with their networks, but their goals are different from the City's. The City recognizes that an appropriate role is not to be a competitor to commercial providers, yet it also does not want to just be a passive bystander or a regulator waiting for others. There is a window of opportunity to influence infrastructure development in Yakima, and that exists now, as companies are entering the Yakima market (Avista, Fairpoint) or upgrading existing sys- tems (Charter). The policies recommended in Appendix 3 are designed to create a favorable telecommunications envi- ronment, one that will encourage competition, the best technologies and more and better products and services. Leveling the playing field, developing community readiness are pro -active steps, but still only preparatory in bringing about the City's goal. Supporting infrastructure development and making better use of what exists are further steps, requiring more commitment in their practical implementation. An exciting and simple initiative, through which many of the foregoing recommendations can be practi- cally applied, is Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal. A. Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal 1. A model in shell form of the Yakima Telecom Portal is available for viewing and limited activity at http://www.mcco.com/yakima/shell new/new city index.asp Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 32 2. The portal is a facilitation tool that can be used by the City and its delegated parties reviewing the work plan to conveniently communicate and implement applicable work plan tasks such as: • Communications, educational programs and related initiatives within the City and with the public, in connection with the City's continuing telecommunications planning and facilitation. • Commercial infrastructure is market-driven, and the City should support infrastructure development by helping to build the market. As such, the City can use the portal to provide intelligent or "smart" development resources showcasing properties and buildings that could be built or revamped to provide high-speed connectivity to attract bandwidth dependent tenants. • The City should also use the portal to consolidate service provider resources and information. • Service providers should be invited to furnish Yakima specific materials and web pages that can be carried on the portal allowing inquiring users to understand and compare provider offerings. 3. The functionality and content of the telecom portal can be incrementally expanded as the need arises. 4. The functionality and content of the total portal can be incrementally expanded beyond telecommunications to provide for other City and community needs and interests as required. The portal represents an invaluable, convenient tool for the City in its role as a telecommunications facili- tator. It is a convenient cost-effective means to centralize city initiatives and communicate with a large audience. It enables the City and its work plan participants and implementers to collaborate easily and it also can be used in the actual implementation of many of the tasks in the work plan categories described above. It can be used in implementing administrative and procedural tasks, in creating a favorable tele- communications environment and in increasing infrastructure use. Suggested areas where the portal can be used are shown on Table 11. As the City develops the work plan, undoubtedly more possibilities will emerge, at which time the functionality of the portal can be expanded to meet the need. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 33 A. Administrative and Procedural 1. Review and approval of report by City staff and TPC City Council study sessions and report acceptance Submit report to EDA in fufiment of grant provisions 2. Delegate pnority plan work tasks 3. Dedicate resources for City facilitation activities 4. Dedicate resources for City telecommunications administration 5. Organize Telecommunications Division B. Build F ble Telecommunications Environment 1. Adopt policy recommendations in Appendix 3 X City management, staff, advisory group to finalize policy recommendations X Formal Council action to adopt policies X 2. Develop telecommunications related incentives X Financial incentives X Non-financial incentives X Non -city incentives X C. Level Regulatory Playing Field 1. Develop and adopt Telecommunications Ordinace X 2. Update related ordinances X 3. Develop and adopt Wireless Ordinace X Identify and pre -approve available and future wireless sites X Establish expedited wireless siting procedure X Develop and establish co -location incentives X 4. Service provider tracking mechanism X City staff and TPC City Council and Staff City staff City CED City Management City Management City Management City Council and Staff City Management, staff, TPC X City Council X City staff X City staff X City staff X City staff D. Community Readiness and Education 1. Develop and provide educational programs X X X 2. Utilize web based tools X X X 3. Use telecommunications to improve City/community communications X X X 4. Collaborate with other Yakima organizations to sponsor programs X X X 5. Provide Spanish and bilingual versions of all programs X X X City staff and TPC City staff and TPC City staff and TPC City staff and TPC City staff and TPC City staff and TPC City staff City, TPC, YCDA City IS, Telecom City IS, Telecom YCDA, TPC City Telecom City, TPC, YCDA I1. Support Infrastructure Development A. Develop and Maintain Existing Infrastructure Inventory 1. Assemble existing data from City records X X Electronic inventory and mapping of existing infrastructure X X Ongoing updating and maintenance of records X X 2. Solidt materials from service providers X X X City PWD, Telecom City IS, PWD, Telecom City IS, PWD, Telecom City Telecom Table 11: Priority Work Plan Summary Metropol itan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 34 II. Support Infrastructure Development Now Short Term Long Term Use Portal Orgaaizatioa B. Develop Infrastructure Guideline Plan 1. Develop guideline plan 2. Solicit participation and support from public and pnvate organizations Form planning team Define goals, needs and expectations 3. Develop scope of work Possibility of integration or sharing of existing systems Possibility of integration or sharing of central backbone Possibility of "meet -me" point development 4. Right-of-way investigations and planning Plan conduits in City projects along route Coordinate City road improvement projects Possibility of Right-of-way use permit to require compliance with plan City PWD, Telecom City Telecom City Telecom City IS, PWD, Telecom City IS, PWD, Telecom City IS, PWD, Telecom City IS, PWD, Telecom City IS, PWD, Telecom City PWD, Telecom City PWD, Telecom City PWD, Telecom City Attorney, Telecom C. Perform "Fill -In" Projects 1. Identify underserved and needy areas X X X City CED, Telecom Support or perform qualifying "Fill -In" projects X X City IS, PWD, Telecom 2. Airport commercial area example X City CED, Telecom Washington and Ahtanum fiber fill-in project X X City CED, Telecom Pursue Qwest settlement funding X X City CED, Telecom D. Use Telecommunications to Build Telecommunications Marketplace 1. Bnng together seance providers and users X X X 2. Help users and providers with a "one-stop" City telecom cleanng-house X X Provide service provider resource web page X X Obtain Yakima specific provider websites X X X 3. Help smart park property owners and developers X X X Provide smart development resource web page X X Identify and list potential smart park and smart building properties X X X Direct users to smart properties with incentives X X X 4 Identify telecom initiatives for City participation or support X X X 11I. Increase Infrastructure Use YCDA, Service Providers City IS, Telecom City I5, Telecom Service Provider YCDA, City Telecom City IS, Telecom YCDA, City Telecom YCDA, City Telecom YCDA, City Telecom A. City Leadership 1. Lead by example and set the pattern X X X City Management 2. Equip all segments of City Government to use advanced telecom X X City Management B. Use Telecommunications to Meet Community Needs and Interests 1. Use telecommunications to extend community initiatives 1 1 1 11111 City CED, Telecom 2. Develop initiatives and expand list of demonstration projects 1 1 X City CED, Telecom C. Use Telecom to Strengthen Economic Development Collaboration 1. Use telecom portal to strengthen collaboration efforts X X X City CED, Telecom Gather and foster coordination of economic development organizations X X X YCDA, City CED, Telecom Develop collaboration projects X X X YCDA, City CED, Telecom W. Build Yakima at Your Semite, a Yakima Telecom Portal X X X City Telecom Table 11: Priority Work Plan Summary (continued) Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 E. Priority Work Plan and Recommendations page 35 F. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made for consideration and action by the City of Yakima: 1. The City should accept the report and submit it to the Economic Development Administration in fulfilment of its grant funding requirements. 2. The City should proceed with the work plan's administrative and procedural tasks including the delegation of the work plan tasks for study and implementation (Work Plan IA.1-2) and dedication of the necessary resources and support for the City's facilitation activities (Work Plan IA.3-5). 3. The City should create a favorable telecommunications environment in Yakima by: • Formally communicating its telecommunications goals and commitment to pursue its goals by officially adopting the recommended telecommunications policies (Work Plan IB.1). • Developing incentives to promote telecommunications activity in Yakima (Work Plan IB.2). • Leveling the playing field by adopting new telecommunications and wireless ordinances and updating related ordinances (Work Plan IC.1-4). • Educating and readying the community to use and benefit from advanced telecommunications (Work Plan ID.1-5). 4. The City should support infrastructure development by: • Developing and maintaining an existing infrastructure inventory (Work Plan IIA.1-2). • Developing an infrastructure guideline plan (Work Plan IIB.1-4). • Performing appropriate "fill-in" projects (Work Plan IIC.1-2). • Using telecommunications to build the marketplace (Work Plan IID.1-4). 5. The City should increase telecommunications use in Yakima by: • Setting a pattern and leading by example (Work Plan IIIA.1-2).. • Using telecommunications to increase services to meet community needs and interests (Work Plan IIIB.1-2). • Using telecommunications to strengthen economic development collaboration (Work Plan IIIC.1). 6. The City should build Yakima at your Service, a proposed City Telecom Portal (Work Plan IV, IVA.1-4). This can be done incrementally at a modest cost and can be expanded in scope and content in accordance with the City's needs, desires and schedule. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. APPENDICES page 36 APPENDIX 1: 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT SECTION 253 Sec. 253. Removal of Barriers to Entry (a) In General - No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunica- tions service. (b) State Regulatory Authority - Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State • to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254, requirements necessary to - preserve and advance universal service, - protect the public safety and welfare, - ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and - safeguard the rights of consumers. (c) State and Local Government Authority - Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government • to manage the public rights-of-way or • to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, - on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, • if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government. (d) Preemption - If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or lo- cal government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or le- gal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 37 APPENDIX 2: RCW 35.21.860 ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE, OR NATURAL GAS BUSINESS —FRANCHISE FEES PROHIBITED—EXCEPTIONS. (1) No city or town may impose a franchise fee or any other fee or charge of whatever nature or de- scription upon • the light and power, or gas distribution businesses, as defined in RCW 82.16.010, or • telephone business, as defined in RCW 82.04.065, except that (a) a tax authorized by RCW 35.21.865 may be imposed and (b) a fee may be charged to such businesses that recovers actual administrative expenses incurred by a city or town that are directly related • to receiving and approving a permit, license, and franchise, • to inspecting plans and construction, or • to the preparation of a detailed statement pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW. (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit franchise fees imposed on an electrical energy, natural gas, or telephone business, by contract existing on April 20, 1982, with a city or town, for the duration of the contract, but the franchise fees shall be considered taxes for the purposes of the limitations established in RCW 35.21.865 and 35.21.870 to the extent the fees exceed the costs al- lowable under subsection (1) of this section. RCW 82.04.065 "COMPETITIVE TELEPHONE SERVICE," "NETWORK TELEPHONE SERVICE," "TELEPHONE SERVICE," "TELEPHONE BUSINESS." (1) "Competitive telephone service" means the providing by any person of telecommunications equipment or apparatus, or service related to that equipment or apparatus such as repair or main- tenance service, if the equipment or apparatus is of a type which can be provided by persons that are not subject to regulation as telephone companies under Title 80 RCW and for which a separate charge is made. (2) "Network telephone service" means • the providing by any person of access to a local telephone network, local telephone network switching service, toll service, or coin telephone services, or • the providing of telephonic, video, data, or similar communication or transmission for hire, via a local telephone network, toll line or channel, cable, microwave, or similar communication or transmission system. "Network telephone service" includes • interstate service, including toll service, originating from or received on telecommunications equipment or apparatus in this state if the charge for the service is billed to a person in this state. "Network telephone service" includes • the provision of transmission to and from the site of an internet provider via a local telephone network, toll line or channel, cable, microwave, or similar communication or transmission sys- tem. "Network telephone service" does not include • the providing of competitive telephone service, • the providing of cable television service, nor • the providing of broadcast services by radio or television stations, nor Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 38 • the provision of internet service as defined in RCW 82.04.297 , including the reception of dial - in connection, provided at the site of the internet service provider. (3) "Telephone service means competitive telephone service or network telephone service, or both, as defined in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. (4) "Telephone business" means the business of providing network telephone service, as defined in subsection (2) of this section. It includes cooperative or farmer line telephone companies or asso- ciations operating an exchange.[1997 c 304 § 5; 1983 2nd ex.s. c 3 § 241 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 39 APPENDIX 3: TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Policy Guidelines Concerning Potential Opportunities from Advanced Telecommunications Policy guidelines that express a commitment to support telecommunications and to exploit resulting op- portunities are presented below in items 1-3. 1. Leading by Example • The City should lead the Yakima community to utilize advanced telecommunications by setting the example to enhance its operations and business processes, empower new applications, and participate in the electronic economy for the benefit of the City and the community. 2. Economic Development • The City should encourage economic development while preserving aesthetic and other community values and preventing proliferation of above -ground facilities. • Investments by telecommunications and video programming providers should be encouraged in order to enhance economic development programs and provide jobs, opportunities, and choices for its citizens. • The City should encourage open competition and the provision of advanced and high quality telecommunications services on the widest possible basis to the businesses, institutions and residents of the City, while eliminating unnecessary local regulation of telecommunications providers and services. • Public and private partnerships are encouraged to meet public service needs and to pursue State, Federal, and private grant funding for public benefit in advanced telecommunications. 3. Competition, Best Technology and Service • The City should set a policy to support efforts to establish an open, competitive marketplace for telecommunications and video programming services. • The City should promote and encourage competition for voice, data, video, and video programming services that make the latest and best technology available and keep service prices affordable for all City residents and businesses. • Universal access to telecommunications and video programming services should be encouraged for all residents and businesses. Typical Other Policy Guidelines Typical other policy guidelines, to manage City rights-of-way proactively while balancing the interests and needs of the community follow in items 4-6. 4. Public Trust Responsibilities • The City should discharge its public trust responsibilities consistent with rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory policies, industry competition, and technological development. • The City should protect public property, properly manage public assets and fairly and responsibly protect the public health, safety and welfare. 5. Rights -of -Way and Asset Management • A clear and nondiscriminatory local policy, standards and time frames concerning telecommunications and video programming systems that use Public Rights -of -Way should be established. • The City should permit and manage reasonable access to the limited physical capacity of the available Public Rights -of -Way of the City for telecommunications purposes in a Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 40 non-discriminatory, competitively and technologically neutral, and non-exclusive way to the extent required under applicable law. • The City should permit and manage reasonable access to the limited physical capacity of the available Public Rights -of -Way of the City for video programming purposes in a non-discriminatory, competitively and technologically neutral, and non-exclusive way to the extent required under applicable law. • The City should obtain sufficient information from requesting persons and entities to enable it to make effective decisions regarding access to City rights-of-way and the effective management of activity in the rights-of-way. • Telecommunications and video programming franchises should be managed to preserve the integrity of the City's infrastructure, ensure efficient use of City property and ensure compliance with City ordinances, rules and regulations. • Telecommunications and video programming franchisees should be required to place their facilities underground in situations where existing utility services are underground and/or whenever existing overhead facilities go underground and/or whenever City policy so requires. 6. Compensation for the Fair and Reasonable Value of Public Property Used • The City's current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating private access to and use of the Public Rights -of -Way should be fully paid by the persons seeking such access and causing such costs, in a non-discriminatory manner. • The public interest should be protected by collecting, to the extent allowed under applicable law, fair and reasonable compensation, associated fees, taxes, administrative costs, and construction costs for use of the rights-of-way for telecommunications and video purposes. Metropol itan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 41 APPENDIX 4: THE CONCEPT OF EGOVERNMENT eGovernment is • direct access to information and services from the City of Yakima online • direct communication to City of Yakima departments and personnel online With eGovernment, all of a constituent's information, from every department, can be found in one place. It could include, but not be limited to: • Online payment of property taxes, parking tickets, and water and utility bills • Online access to review and obtain court records • Online access to constituent services from State Senators, • Representatives, City Council members, County Executives and other politicians • Online renewal of driver's licenses, auto tags, and business permits and license • Online voter registration • Online real time access and participation to school board meetings • Online access to real estate and property records • Find the name of the local police captain. • See whether the home remodeling permit application was approved and much more Payments • Make paying taxes or fines as easy and convenient as possible. • Allow constituents to browse through pertinent information, look up what they owe, and make pay- ments - all from the convenience of their homes. • Utilize back -end user tools by enable government employees to search for payments made, reconcile, post information, and create user -designed reports. • Examples: - State taxes payment - Property tax payment - Utility Payments - Library Fines - Parking Tickets - Filing and permit fees Permits • Let individuals and businesses file online, 24 hours a day. • Fees, if any, can be paid with a credit card. • Back -end forms enable government employees to view and approve applications online. • Examples: - Permits for use of public area/parks - rail passes - Camping permits - Special Events - Block Parties - Charity Events - Parades - Sporting Events Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 42 Building Permits • Building - Residential or Commercial New Construction • Building - Fast Track • Building - Home Improvement • Modification Request Form • Re -Roofing . HVAC • HVAC Load Calculations • Electrical • Plumbing . Gas Installation • Mechanical • Fire • Fire Protection System • Fire Sprinkler • Use and Occupancy • Project Data Sheet • Contractor Registration • Accessibility Disabled • Asbestos Certification / Inspection • Zoning Approval • Site and Soil Evaluation for Subdivision of Land Land Disturbance Right of Way • Sign Permit Licensing Provide forms about how to obtain a license, the proper documentation required, and any renewal guidelines. • Allow people to apply online for incorporation papers, driver's license renewals, marriage certificates and more. • Examples: Marriage Licenses - Animals Household Animal Licenses - Kennel Licenses - Animal Sales Licenses Business Licenses - Corporate Filings - Drivers License Renewal - Tag Renewal - Vehicle Registration - Boat Registration Boating Licenses Fishing Licenses Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 43 - Hunting Licenses Deeds • Deed information available over the Internet creates a great service for constituents and local busi- nesses • It allows individuals to access information pertaining to a deed and to view the actual deed images online before requesting certified copies. • Allows City to accept payments for those copies. eVoting • Voter registration • Online voting • Find out when the polls close eKiosks • To deliver all these services online will obviously benefit a large number of constituents, but will be of no help to those who do not have access to the Internet. • By installing freestanding eKiosks in conveniently accessible areas, the City can make this service available to all of the constituents. Advantages to City of Yakima: . Reduce operating expenses • Increase efficiency through the power of the Internet • Build positive support from citizens by providing 24x7 convenience which increase their convenience and makes their lives more stress -free • Receive applications and fees quickly • Monitor, analyze, and update information almost effortlessly • Automate the collection and delivery of permit application data and fees • Approve and confirm permits in real time • Have 24x7 access to a centralized site for accessing and reviewing public records of approved permits • Achieve substantial administrative cost reductions • Significantly reduce processing errors . Dramatically improve the quality of application data • Enhance staff productivity by reducing walk-in traffic and queries • Improve service to contractors at no cost to you • Take electronic checks and major credit cards without paying service fees. Electronic collection and payment of total permit fees are made directly to your issuing agency's account. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 44 Advantages to the citizen • 24 Hour, 7 Day service improves productivity for business Automation of the collection and delivery of permit application data and fees Rapid approval and confirmation of permits • Centralized site for accessing and reviewing public records and documents • Electronic collection and payment of total permit fees direct to the issuing agency's account • Substantial administrative cost reductions • Non-exclusive service, does not preclude use of other online services • Significant reduction of permit processing errors City/community communications • E-mail addresses for all city managers published on a web site (may already be in place) • Web posting of meeting announcements • Web posting of community events etc. • Web enabled city forum and ability for citizens to voice concerns, complaints etc. • Visual graphic information on locations of public services. • Visual graphic information on future locations of public services. Public safety • Block watch crime notification by voice to specific city areas (if a crime is reported in a certain block, a voice notification to all homes within that radius of the crime and what to do to protect your person or property). This application is already being deployed in other cities. • Web site promoting public safety including policies, forms etc. • Emergency notification of "Rapid Response Teams" via a web interface. Public works • Web enabled permit applications for building, fire, demolition, percolation tests, sewer, etc. • Web enabled business licenses, etc. • Web site posting permit policies, etc. • Web and voice posting of permit progress whereby an application can be tracked through the process by the applicant • Web and voice enabled bill paying, etc., for city provided services such as water, sewer, etc. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G. Appendices page 45 APPENDIX 5: SMART PARK/SMART BUILDING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, CRITERIA AND EXAMPLES SMART PARK/SMART BUILDINGS1a 7. Traditional (heavy -industry origins) versus 21st Century (new age) 8. Setting and Aesthetics • Open, expansive landscaping (Western sensibility - horizontal world) • Building architecture (Eastern sensibility - vertical world) 9. Efficiency and aesthetics (together) • Simpler, less detailed buildings • Simple, expansive landscaping 10.Local building regulations • Ratios of office and open space • Building appearance, character, style, materials, dimensions • Occupant amenities, e.g. locker rooms, showers 11.Facilities and infrastructure • High-tech considerations (within aesthetics) • High speed telecommunications • Fiber-optic telecommunications networks • Cable systems • Wireless networks • Satellite dishes • Redundant cable entrances • Multiple building risers HIGH-TECH DISTRICTS15 Target Organizations 1. New media and Internet businesses 2. Computer services and software 3. Telecommunications 4. Advanced manufacturing 5. Biotechnology 6. Research centers Smart Buildings 1. Database of existing available space 2. Upgrading existing buildings 14Gross, Richard, "Business Parks of the 21st Century", Northern Colorado Business Report, 1997. 15 Connelly, Eileen, "City Wants to Develop High -Tech Districts", Staten Island Advance, 10/17/99. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G. Appendices page 46 INTELLIGENT CITIES, BUSINESS PARKS AND BUILDINGS High -Tech Firms, Requirements and Challenges16 1. Room to expand 2. Lease considerations • Shorter horizons, 2 yr vs. landlord's 10 yr. • Higher rents in return for shorter more flexible leases • Space for equity • Subleasing, default, termination 3. Exclusive high-tech occupancy, multi -tenant office buildings • Yes: provides sense of community, allows convenient collaboration e.g. Dallas INFOMART (120 technology companies) • No: Individual buildings to express identity and protect firms from employee "raiding" INTELLIGENT CITIES AND COMMUNITIES' 1. New key vertical market segments • Multi -tenant buildings • Hotels • Office parks • Financial institutions • Medical institutions and offices 2. Telecommunications infrastructure • In -property and in -building advanced communications systems - Broadband wireline • Single and multimode fiber optic networks • Increased fiber penetration - Fiber to tenant • Digital subscriber line (DSL) • Multiple building risers • Redundant cable entrances - Broadband wireless • FCC licensed commercial frequencies (24, 28, 31, 38 GHz) - Wireless based CLEC's, e.g. Teligent, WinStar, NextLink - Local loop technologies, e.g. Local multipoint distribution service (LMDS) • Unlicensed frequencies (2.4 GHz) • Roof rights for antennas - Broadband cable services • Cable modem technologies - Satellite access • Roof rights for satellite dishes 3. Inexpensive and ubiquitous access to 16 Bertram, Kevin, "High -Tech Firms Present Unique Challenge to Landlords", RealtyTimes.com, 11/30/98. 17 "Intelligent Cities and Communities of the Future", Telecommunications, September 1999. Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G. Appendices page 47 • Service provider networks • Complete range of bandwidth options, to DS -3 and above • Internet access, point-to-point connections, switched circuits and other applications 4. Choice of competing telecommunications and Internet providers 5. Proximity and accessibility to service provider switching equipment 6. Other requirements • Dependable power - Redundant system - Backup generator - Adequate power • General rule - 6 to 8 watts/sq. ft. 7. HVAC - Non-traditional business hours 8. Smart Building Examples (commercial building structured around broadband communications) http:/ /www.poly.edu/ite/55broad/s3c.htm • 55 Broad St., New York City http://www.55broadst.com - Inexpensive Internet Connectivity - Single- and Multi -Mode Fiber Optics - High Speed Category 5 Copper Wire - Satellite Accessibility - Video Conferencing Facilities - DS -3, T-1, Fractional T-1, 10-100 Mbps of Bandwidth Available - ISDN - LAN and WAN Connectivity - State -of -the -Art Voice, Video and Data Transmission - Advanced Telecom and Data Security - Hot Wired for Cable - OC -48 Switching Capacity - Local Dial Tone Access Providers - Long Distance Access Providers - Internet Access Providers - Digital sandbox - cyber training 9. Long Island Technology Center http://www.litechctr.com/telecommunications.cfm • Technology in the building: • Access to - Keyspan OC -12 Internet protocol backbone - Lightpath- a division of Cablevision - Bell Atlantic - Sonet Ring • Redundant fiber paths into and within the facility • Fiber from MDF and out to tenant spaces • PBX/voice mail provisioning • Video and Teleconferencing common facility • Satellite digital broadcast television. • Electronic whiteboards and remote learning facility • Centrally administered security system • All-weather outdoor and indoor CCTV Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 48 - Individual offices can be equipped with: • Fiber to the desk top • Central LAN server and administration • Secure phone lines to tenant PBX or facility PBX • Internet access from fractional T1, ISDN to full T3 • Wireless communication systems/ unified messaging • Access to multiple internet access providers 10. 111 Eighth Ave., New York City (1999 World Teleport Intelligent Building of the year) http: / /www.111eighthavenue.com/ 11. Caracas Teleport, Caracas, Venezuela (2000 World Teleport Intelligent Building of the year) http: / / www.otassca.com/ 12. 1063 King's Road, Hong Kong (2000 World Teleport Intelligent Building of the year) http: / / www.hkland.com/ property/ index.htm • Multiple entrance facilities, fiber optic and Category 5 cables provided by multiple fixed network (wireline) operators • Dual risers to allow telecommunications and broadband services diversity • Service provider equipment rooms • Satellite dish receiving channels from AsiaSat-1, Japan BS -3A and Palapa C2. • Multiple secure tenant telecommunications equipment rooms located on diverse floors 13. Smart Parks Examples (commercial real estate development structured around broadband communications) • Teleport (1985 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Econ. Dev. Initiative) http: / / www.worldteleport.org/ Whatis/ teleconnects.htmI • Sunderland Teleport, England http://www.worldteleport.org/Whatis/Sunderland.html 14. Intelligent Cities Examples • Tacoma, Wa. http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/tacol6.shtml Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 49 APPENDIX 6: FIBER RINGS IN SMART PARK DEVELOPMENTS The following is a brief summary of issues concerning fiber rings in smart park developments. Schematic Diagram of Fiber Ring • A schematic diagram of a typical underground fiber ring in a smart park development is shown in the figure on page 42. - The ring should be located in the planned rights-of-way following the general route of the other utilities such as water, sewer gas, and power. - If development plans are complete, the full conduit ring should be installed with splice points and risers to serve individual properties within the overall development area. If development is in incremental stages, the conduit and fiber rings can also be built incrementally, following the development plan, and as streets and other utilities are extended. - If the conduit ring is complete, but the users are added one after another, the fiber ring can be built incrementally, the first segment to User 1, then segment 2 to User 2, then to User 3, and finally back to the hub to complete the ring. Parties Benefited by a Fiber Ring • Three parties could be involved, and any or any combination could build and own the infrastructure, investing the required capital for conduit, fiber and possibly hub equipment: - The City of Yakima - Developer(s) and ultimately end-users - Service provider(s) • The speculative risk in building the infrastructure could be mitigated if there were an interested tenant to enable at least a first step in the project. Benefits to the City of Yakima • The benefits to the City, if it built and owned the ring, are: - Economic development marketing feature for attracting businesses with need for advanced tele- communications. - Encouragement of existing and prospective service providers by demonstrating the City's pro- active policies and attitudes towards fostering advanced telecommunications use, and helping rather than competing with service providers. - Possible revenue source for transport charges from service providers using the fiber ring to link to smart park tenant customers. Possible revenue source from service providers through lease of dark fiber to smart park tenant locations. - Possible revenue source from service providers using City smart park hub as a "meet me' facil- ity to co -locate equipment. Possible recovery of capital costs through sale of portion or all of the ring fibers and/or equip- ment. Benefits to Developers and End -Users • The benefits to developers of a fiber ring in a smart park are: - If a developer builds the ring, the developer could receive the same revenue benefits described for the City, although these would be secondary compared to the primary sales and/or rental in- come from the properties and their tenants. • The major benefit to the developer is that the fiber ring has advanced telecommunications capabilities that can be offered to end-users, which include: Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 50 High speed, high capacity access to service provider backbones - High-speed connectivity with all users on the ring, an important feature to companies located in different buildings in the same park. - Scalability, with new dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) equipment, optical fiber has virtually unlimited transmission capacity, restricted only by the ability of current equipment to exploit it. - Flexibility, that is the ability to carry any kind of communications, including applications that have not yet been thought of, thus "future proofing" the infrastructure investment. - Better system performance, network integrity, cost per mile, and less maintenance than tradi- tional communications facilities. - End-to-end network management capability, not available in traditional hybrid networks. - The ring topology provides system redundancy and survivability with no single point of failure. In the event of a cable cut, bi-directional line switched ring (BLSR) equipment designs using 2 fi- bers can provide self -restoration capabilities in milliseconds, versus hours for traditional net- works. Benefits to Service Providers • The benefits to service providers of a fiber ring in a smart park are: - Unsolicited assistance in developing the service provider market and in attracting service pro- vider target customers. - Available open infrastructure built by others, saving service provider capital investment. - If a provider builds the ring however, the provider could receive the same revenue benefits de- scribed for the City, although these again would be secondary compared to the primary sales in- come from the provider's customers. - The ring may be a pathway enabling the provider to fully or partially loop its network. Examples of Smart Parks with Full or Partial Fiber Rings • Kilroy Airport Center, 3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Long Beach, CA 90806 Kathy Delgado, 562-988-1160 • SRQ Aviation Park of Commerce, 6000 Airport Circle, Sarasota, FL 34243 Richard Rossi, 941-359-5200 • Airport Business Center, Roosevelt Avenue at 140th Ave. N., Clearwater, FL 34622 Paul Englehardt, 727-539-7002 • Muskegon County Airport Business Park, 100 Ellis Road, Muskegon, MI 49440 Sam Wendling, 616-724-1105 • Cerritos Town Center, 12750 Center Court Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703 Brad Simpkins, 562-468-0800 • Tri -City Corporate Center, One Parkside - 560 East Hospitality Lane, San Bernardino, CA 92408 Mike O'Brien, 909-788-3713 • Battlefield Corporate Park, 192 Ballard Court, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 R. Worth Remick, 757-490-3300 • Seaway Center, Seaway Boulevard, Everett, WA 98203 Tom Orbeck, 425-672-2062 Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 G. Appendices page 51 User 1 Provider's Network Typical splice point for future user, with green en- closure removed, showing black splice case with coiled future user fiber. User 2 User Splice Point, typ. 2 -Fiber User Drop, typ. Smart Park Fiber Ring Primary Fiber \ Alternate Fiber Connection \ Connection Provider Alternate Central Central Office Office Long Distance Carrier User 3 Long Distance Carrier Figure 14: Fiber Ring Schematic Provider's Network Metropolitan Communications Consultants 2/21/2001 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. ri For Meeting Of March 6, 2001 ITEM TITLE: A resolution establishing telecommunications as an economic development priority of the City Yakima and directing implementation of the priority work plan developed as part of Phase 1 of the City's Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project. SUBMITTED BY: 44—Cook, Director, Community and Economic Development Department CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Randy Beehler, Telecommunications Division Manager, 575-6092 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: In November of 1999, the City began Phase 1 of its Telecommunications and Technology Planning Project (the "Project"). To provide community oversight of the Project, the City formed the Telecommunication Planning Committee (the "TPC"). The TPC, chaired by Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Gary Webster, is made up of representatives from business, government, economic development, educational and institutional organizations and the telecommunications industry (see attached TPC members list). With a grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration and with the participation of the TPC, the City hired Metropolitan Communications Consultants ("MCC") in May 2000 to gather information about the Yakima telecommunications environment and develop recommendations and strategies to meet established goals. The priority work plan and recommendations developed by MCC (see report distributed Feb. 23) emphasize the need for the City to play an important role in making telecommunications a priority for the community. (continued on next page) Resolution X Ordinance Other (specify) Contract Mail to (name & address) Phone: Funding Source APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A COUNCIL ACTION: Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R-2001-37 To implement many of the recommendations, the City needs to think about telecommunications in a different way than it has in the past; to emphasize and focus on telecommunications as an economic development priority. A majority of the recommendations, such as updating City policies and procedures or developing an infrastructure guideline plan, will be implemented as the City focuses existing resources rather than commits new resources. Implementing other recommendations, like developing educational opportunities or developing a "telework" program, will be accomplished through partnerships with other organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and Washington State University. TPC members will also assume responsibility for implementing some of the recommendations. Recommendations requiring expenditure of funds, like building a "Yakima Telecom Portal"(an advanced website) or completing "fill-in" infrastructure projects, will be implemented in stages through grants or other funding programs as they become available. The attached resolution establishes telecommunications as an economic development priority of the City and directs implementation of the priority work plan developed through Phase 1 of the Project.