The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.08.12 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA City Council Committee Meetings Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds August 12, 2008 6:00 p.m. The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. 1. Community/Development Services Committee Meeting Location: Council Chambers A. AM-1712 (10 Minutes) Discussion on the consultant selection process for projects at the Treatment Plant. B. AM-1707 (30 Minutes) Review proposed amendments to Edmonds City Code Title 6 regarding property nuisances. C. AM-1716 (30 Minutes) Discussion on Townhouse Subdivisions. 2.Finance Committee Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room A. AM-1717 (15 Minutes) Fiber optic recommendations - update and next steps. B. AM-1714 (5 Minutes) Court improvement funds/judicial salary. C. AM-1718 (10 Minutes) Discussion on the consultant selection process for projects at the Treatment Plant. D. AM-1676 (10 Minutes) Promotion of Human Resources Assistant to Human Resources Analyst. E. AM-1709 (5 Minutes) Penalty adjustments on Utility Billing Accounts. F. AM-1710 (10 Minutes) 2008 Second Quarter Budget Report. G. AM-1713 (10 Minutes) 2008 Second Quarter Budget Amendment. 3.Public Safety Committee Meeting Location: Police Training Room A. AM-1715 (5 Minutes) Court improvement funds/judicial salary. B. AM-1683 (5 Minutes) FY 2008/2009 Interlocal Agreement for the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force. C. AM-1685 (15 Minutes) Red light cameras. Packet Page 1 of 201 D. AM-1705 (10 Minutes) Request to advertise for bids to purchase two new aid cars. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 201 AM-1712 1.A. Discussion on Consultant Selection for Treatment Plant Projects City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Steve Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Time:10 Minutes Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Discussion on the consultant selection process for projects at the Treatment Plant. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to design an Odor Control Improvement System at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant and allow CH2M HILL the ability to respond to this RFQ. Staff requests that this item be forwarded to full Council consent agenda with a recommendation to approve. Previous Council Action None. Narrative CH2M HILL completed an evaluation and recommendation report in 2007 for improving the odor control system of the Treatment Plant. The intent at that time was to hire a consultant in 2008 to design and implement the recommendations in the 2007 study, with construction to follow in 2009. In the spring of 2008, the Mayor approved the Treatment Plant Manager (Steve Koho) to take an unpaid leave of absence for 3 to 4 weeks to assist CH2M HILL in the startup of an incinerator in Puerto Rico. Staff wishes to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest in regards to awarding engineering consulting work at the Treatment Plant. Since it is time to begin the consultant selection process, staff proposes that Mr. Koho recuse himself from the consultant selection committee. Staff will follow standard practice in advertising a Request for Qualifications for designing the Odor Control project, but will not include Mr. Koho on the consultant evaluation committee. Once the committee selects a firm and a contract is finalized, Mr. Koho will administer the contract and project as he does all others. The City Attorney advises that this situation is not addressed by the recently enacted ethical provisions of Chapter 3.70 ECC and that this approach will comply with state law if Mr. Koho recuses himself from any process considering a proposal submitted by CH2M Hill. Given the Council's concern about the appearance of impropriety or irregularity in such situations, he suggested that this proposed approach be reviewed with this Committee prior to any RFQ, and the full Council if the Committee so recommends. Staff requests that the CSDS Council Committee forward this item to full Council consent agenda with a recommendation to approve. CH2M HILL already has a thorough knowledge of the Plant's Packet Page 3 of 201 with a recommendation to approve. CH2M HILL already has a thorough knowledge of the Plant's processes and has significant experience in the wastewater industry. It would be a disservice to disqualify them from future consideration based upon an unrelated project with a City employee. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:59 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 03:01 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 03:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho Started On: 08/06/2008 02:57 PM Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 4 of 201 AM-1707 1.B. Amendments to Edmonds City Code Title 6 Regarding Property Nuisances City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:30 Minutes Department:Development Services Type:Action Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Review proposed amendments to Edmonds City Code Title 6 regarding property nuisances. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Give staff direction on whether or not the revised ordinance should be moved forward to the full Council review and approval. Previous Council Action On February 26, 2008, the City Council held a work session on the code rewrite update. A briefing regarding the nuisance regulations occurred at that meeting. A public hearing was held on June 3, 2008 by the City Council. The matter was continued to July 15, 2008 to allow additional public testimony. The City Council directed the City Attorney and staff to make revisions and submit the changes for review by the CS/DS committee. Narrative As directed by the City Council, the City Attorney and staff have made revisions to the draft nuisance regulations. The memorandum from the City Attorney outlines the changes made. One issue that received a lot of discussion by the Council was the junk vehicle definition. The concern centered on the age of the car being a factor. Staff notes that this is the one section that presently works well. However a three year old car with expired license tabs could fall under the definition. Staff will be available to go over the draft ordinance with the committee. --------------------------------------- *Note: Councilmember Bernheim prepared a memorandum with attachments regarding this topic which is attached as Exhibit 3. Please note that the exhibit has not been reviewed or endorsed by City staff members. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Memo from City Attorney Link: Exhibit 2 - Revised Nuisance Ordinance Link: Exhibit 3 - Councilmember Bernheim Memo and Attachments Form Routing/Status Packet Page 5 of 201 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/04/2008 11:42 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/04/2008 11:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2008 03:56 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman Started On: 08/01/2008 11:25 AM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2008 Packet Page 6 of 201 A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 Web: www.omwlaw.com {WSS701764.DOC;1/00006.900000/} MEMORANDUM DATE: August 1, 2008 TO: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Edmonds City Council Members Edmonds Community Services Committee City of Edmonds FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Revisions to Nuisance Ordinance Attached is a redlined copy of revisions to the nuisance ordinance. (Exhibit A). I integrated the suggestions previously made to the Council along with a number of other changes suggested by the Council and public. The changes that are incorporated include: 1. Revisions to Section 6.20.041 Delete the reference to boxes among the aesthetic nuisances. As we discussed boxes are covered under subsection E and the reference in A is confusing given the other problems addressed in that subsection. 2. Expanding the Exceptions ECDC 6.20.041(G) In 6.20.041, I expand the exception for storage in the rear yard. I added provisions which permit a screening by a vegetative barrier that is between six and eight feet in height and affords the same screening as a fence. Based on a brief discussion after the meeting with Ms. Petso, I have also addressed another situation which can arise: corner lots. Corner lots have no rear yard. Accordingly, I have added a provision that corner lots (there are four on every block!) can establish screening areas in side yards. 3. ECDC 6.20.042(B)(2) I dropped the word “rusted.” This addresses the concern of a citizen regarding rusted “lawn art.” Packet Page 7 of 201 Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Edmonds City Council Members Edmonds Community Services Committee August 1, 2008 Page 2 {WSS701764.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4. ECDC 6.20.042(C)(1) In this subsection regarding breeding ground for vermin and insects, I provided an exception for compost heaps or facilities that are maintained in side and rear yards in accordance with standard composting practices established by the US Composting Council, which provides extensive on- line material and advice to composters. 5. Deletion of ECDC 6.20.043. After discussions with the Mayor and staff, I deleted the provisions regarding garbage, recycling and compost facilities. We received no comments pro or con regarding this section and received no direction from the City Council. As staff has stated to the City Council, these draft provisions were created to encourage discussion of where the line should be drawn. Since the draft provisions already address odor, insect breeding grounds, litter and piles of junk, this provision seemed to be regulating an area where there is not yet a perceived problem. If the City Council wishes to address the maintenance of garbage cans, etc., please advise and I can reinsert provisions in the nuisance ordinance or provide for them in the upcoming ordinance regarding performance standards. 6. Three year old vehicles. ECDC 6.20.020(E). Council Member Wambolt expressed concern with the definition of junk vehicles contained at Section 6.20.020(E). As public comment and Council discussion indicated, "junk vehicle" as defined in that section means a vehicle that meets at least two of five criteria. The first criteria is that the vehicle be three years or older. The other criteria addressed are damage to the vehicle, the vehicle being inoperable, lack of current tags, and/or the vehicle having a fair market value equal to the scrap content. As I noted in staff comments, this definition parallels Chapter 46.55 RCW, establishing state-wide towing and impoundment requirements. RCW 46.55.240(2) authorizes cities to adopt ordinances establishing procedures for abatement and removal of “public nuisances of junk vehicles or parts thereof from private property.” RCW 46.55.240(3) lists provisions which local public nuisance ordinances must contain. The definition is not included. Interestingly, it requires cities to exempt junk vehicles that are “completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property…” On review, it would be possible to delete the requirement that the junk vehicle provision not apply to cars that are three years or older. If the City Council directs, I would remove the three-year provision. In that case, I request City Council’s direction. Do you want to set a higher threshold -- that is, five years or older, ten years or older? Or remove that provision entirely? If the provision is limited should we require two of four of the remaining requirements? Packet Page 8 of 201 Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Edmonds City Council Members Edmonds Community Services Committee August 1, 2008 Page 3 {WSS701764.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 7. Mediation - ECDC 6.20.050 In draft Section 6.20.050, I added a new Section F regarding mediation. In the draft, I provided that the Development Services Director may decline to pursue abatement or prosecution if: (a) there is no significant risk of harm to any individual and (b) the Director in his discretion believes that the interests of the neighborhood would be best served by mediation. I have attached materials to the memo regarding the Dispute Resolution Center for Snohomish and Island Counties. This non-profit organization provides low-cost neighborhood mediation and other dispute resolution procedures and it is a United Way organization. As additional policy direction, I would ask the Council whether you wish: A. To provide funding for mediation. For example, permit fees could be raised to include an amount sufficient to create a pool for the payment of either all or some portion of the cost of mediation. The cost is $50 per mediation, with both parties required to pay half. B. Defer the cost to the parties and require that they undergo mediation before the staff would proceed with abatement or prosecution. That is, they would have to go through that step at their cost before the staff was forced to choose sides. As I’m sure you are aware, neighborhood disputes often begin with one complaint but escalate with both sides making complaints about the other party. Staff is often placed in the position of either ignoring disputes or filing violations against all parties to a dispute. The difficulty with this option will be bringing both parties to the table - a violator may see no benefit in cooperation. Mediation is a voluntary process and both parties must agree to participate. 8. Frivolous Complaint - ECDC 6.20.050(B). A new section has been added making it a civil infraction to file a frivolous complaint. Paragraph G makes this civil infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $500. Please note that your ordinances currently incorporate state statutes which make it a gross misdemeanor to make a false or misleading statement to a public employee, make a false swearing or make a false reporting. See ECC 5.40.020 adopting state statutes to that offense. These offenses are more serious in nature; for example, the provision regarding false reporting deals with reports of emergencies, fire or other disasters, and is really aimed at false alarms. RCW 98.76.175 makes this offense a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or a year in jail. A civil infraction is a less significant offense and the fine of from $100 to $500 allows the judge discretion to set a penalty equal to the situation. A civil infraction is not a criminal offense. In more serious situations, individuals could be charged with making false or misleading statements under the criminal rather than a civil infraction statute. Packet Page 9 of 201 Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Edmonds City Council Members Edmonds Community Services Committee August 1, 2008 Page 4 {WSS701764.DOC;1/00006.900000/} The thoughts and direction of the Community Services Committee will be much appreciated. WSS:gjz Attachment Packet Page 10 of 201 6.20.040 Types of nuisances. The actions and/or conditions enumerated as public nuisances pursuant to Chapter 7.48 RCW are hereby designated as public nuisances for purposes of this chapter. Each of the actions and conditions enumerated in 6.20.041, 6.20.042, 6.20.043 and 6.20.044 are additionally designated as public nuisances for enforcement under the provisions of this chapter. 6.20.041 Aesthetic nuisances. The following nuisances are aesthetic in nature and can negatively impact neighborhood property values and foster blight. The following actions and/or conditions shall be a public nuisance when located in any front, side or rear yard or vacant lot. A. Any junk, trash, litter, boxes, salvage materials or lumber not neatly stacked. B. Any broken, soiled or discarded furniture, household equipment or furnishings. C. Any vehicle parts or other articles of personal property which are stored, discarded or left in a state of partial construction or repair. D. Any accumulation, stack or pile of building, landscaping or construction materials which are exposed to the elements or are in disarray and which are not directly associated with a project on the premises for which a current building permit has been obtained; or, with respect to a project which does not require a permit, that is in progress or which is scheduled to begin within ten (10) business days. Construction materials include but are not limited to metal, wood, wire, drywall, electrical components, and any supplies, equipment or other items utilized for painting, landscaping, logging, roofing, masonry or plumbing. E. Any shopping carts, except where such shopping carts are owned and/or utilized for their designated purpose upon the underling premises. F. Exceptions. The nuisances enumerated in subparagraphs A through D shall not apply to items or materials when: 1. Wholly enclosed within a building; or 2. Located in a rear yard and screened from view from adjacent properties and the public right of way by a six-foot opaque fence. 6.20.042 Health and safety nuisances. The following actions or conditions have a direct impact on public health and are declared to be public nuisances. {WSS699652.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 11 of 201 A. Vegetation. The following actions and/or conditions shall be public nuisances: 1. Any dead, dying or other hazardous tree which is in danger of falling and endangers the traveling public on a street, alley, sidewalk or other public right of way. The word “tree” shall have the same meaning as is provided in ECDC 18.45.040. 2. Any violation of the noxious weed provisions of Chapter 6.30 ECC and/or any uncultivated berry vines and Class B or Class C noxious weeds (as classified by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board) which exceed an average of three feet in height and any portion of which are located within five feet of an adjacent property. B. Attractive nuisances. Any attractive nuisances dangerous to children are declared to be public nuisances, including but not limited to the following items when located outside of a fully enclosed building: 1. Abandoned, broken or neglected equipment; 2. Rusted, jagged, sharp or otherwise potentially dangerous machinery; 3. Household or commercial appliances, including but not limited to refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, dishwashers, ovens, hot water tanks, or toilets; 4. Unpermitted excavations; and or 5. Unprotected or open wells or shafts. C. Breeding grounds for vermin or insects. The following actions and/or conditions are public nuisances: 1. Any accumulations of perishable matter, including but not limited to food stuffs, that may harbor or attract the infestation of mold, insects and/or vermin. 2. Any stagnant, pooled water in which mosquitoes, flies or other insects may reproduce. 3. Any stacks or accumulations of newspapers, cardboard, or other paper, cloth, plastic, or rubber left or stored in a manner which poses a substantial risk of combustion, a threat of fire, or that may harbor, serve as an attraction for or promote the infestation of mold, insects and/or vermin. D. Hazardous conditions, substances or materials. The following conditions or actions are declared to be public nuisances. 1. Any structure or other constructed object not governed by the International Building Code that is decayed, damaged, or in disrepair and poses a substantial threat of collapse, structural failure of falling. 2. Any unstable embankment, fill or other accumulation of rock and/or soil which poses a substantial threat of collapse. {WSS699652.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 12 of 201 3. Any storage or keeping of any toxic, flammable, or caustic substance or material except in compliance with applicable requirements of state or federal law. 4. Any unpermitted obstruction of any street, alley, crossing or sidewalk, and any unpermitted excavation therein or thereunder. 6.40.043 Garbage, recycling and compost facilities. The accumulation, maintenance and collection of refuse, garbage, recycling material and the composting of waste is a necessary part of urban life. Unless properly maintained and screened, such facilities may negatively impact both the aesthetics of a neighborhood or the health of its residents. The following actions and/or conditions shall be public nuisances except as provided below: A. Any garbage stored outside of a fully enclosed building that is not kept in a fully contained receptacle with a tight-fitting lid. B. Any recyclable materials which are stored outside and which are not regularly disposed of on a scheduled disposal cycle not to exceed thirty (30) days. C. Any garbage or recycling materials when located in a front or side yard, except when: 1. Screened from view from adjacent properties or the public way by an opaque building or fence. 2. Garbage and recycling containers may be placed in the front yard set back during a 24-hour period, commencing twelve (12) hours prior to scheduled pick up and twelve (12) hours after. D. Any compost heap or composting structure when located in a front or side yard, except when screened from view from adjacent properties or the public way by an opaque fence. {WSS699652.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 13 of 201 Community Services Committee August 12, 2008 Memo To: Members of the Edmonds City Council Community Services Committee From: Steve Bernheim Date: August 7, 2008 Subject: Nuisance Ordinance re-write I attach a proposed code revision for the nuisance ordinance, currently codified at ECDC 6.20. My proposal would replace the current ordinance and ECDC 20.110 with what is attached here. This section deals with all “nuisances” except junk cars. I suggest giving junk cars and old auto bodies their own system of standards, regulation, enforcement and penalties. I prefer not to mix up junk cars with other abateable nuisances. This version retains a lot of the code we currently have, which might help avoid unexpected missteps from drafting completely new code. We might also focus attention on changing what’s is actually wrong with the current code rather than trying to draft a new code. If there are nuisances you want to add (compost piles, mosquito ponds, lumber in disarray, shopping carts, perishable matter, etc.), section 6.20.010, has plenty of room for adding more restrictions on what people can do or have on their property. The items listed in my 6.20.010 are all in the current code in different places. I just brought them together. Of course, this is not a final version because there likely are many technical as well as substantive changes. A definitions section might be added for words that have specialized meanings, but hopefully most words requiring definition are already defined in the City Code’s general definitions section. The organization is simple: 1) what nuisances are, 2) how they’re abated, and 3) penalties criminal and civil. Review the brief table of contents for an overview, and then enjoy! August 7, 2008 Bernheim draft 1 Packet Page 14 of 201 Community Services Committee August 12, 2008 Chapter 6.20 Nuisances (Table of Contents) 6.20.010 Nuisances defined. 6.20.020 Procedure for Abatement of Nuisance. A. Order to Correct. 1. Contents. 2. Service. B. Notice of Civil Violation. 1. Contents. 2. Service. C. Appeal to Hearing Examiner. 1. Conduct of Hearing. 2. Findings D. Appeal to Superior Court. E. Abatement by the City. 1. Notice. 2. Costs. 3. Summary abatement authorized. 4. Standard of care 5. Liability for Abatement Expenses. 6.20.030 Penalty for violations. A. Misdemeanor. B. Monetary Penalties. 1. Violations of Section 6.20. 2. Violations of Chapter 17.95 and 20.110.030(I). 3. Collection. 4. Extension of Time. August 7, 2008 Bernheim draft 2 Packet Page 15 of 201 Community Services Committee August 12, 2008 Chapter 6.20 Nuisances 6.20.010 Nuisances defined. No person or legal entity who owns, rents or otherwise has a possessory interest in real property, or other persons as set forth herein, shall suffer or permit on his property any of the following nuisances or attractive nuisances dangerous to children, which are deemed to be injurious to the public health: A. Any accumulation of garbage, dead animals, decayed vegetation, manure, ,junk, trash, litter, boxes, discarded lumber, salvage materials, broken or discarded furniture, broken or discarded household equipment and furnishings, abandoned, broken, or neglected equipment, vehicle parts or other articles of personal property which are left in a state of partial construction or repair, potentially dangerous machinery; refrigerators and freezers (unless doors have been removed or equipped with a magnetic catch which does not pose a hazard), excavations, wells or shafts, whether located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard or vacant lot or in the street, alley or other public place adjacent to the property, B. All obstructions to streets, alleys, crossings or sidewalks of the city, and all excavations in or under the same, which are by ordinance prohibited, or which may be made without lawful permission, C. Graffiti on the exterior of any building, fence or other structure in any front yard, side yard, rear yard or on any object in a vacant lot; D. Utility trailers or unmounted camper tops located in any front yard, except the driveway, or located in any vacant lot; E. Any noxious weeds, thistles or nettles; trees or shrubbery of any kind which have become infested with caterpillars; hazardous trees; or any other vegetation which is dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare, located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard, or vacant lot; F. Defective or overflowing septic or sewage systems; G. Escape of any foul or putrid liquid or substance from the person's property onto any adjacent property, public street or right-of-way; H. Hauling or transporting wet garbage, swill or waste over the city streets unless said wet garbage, swill or waste is placed in a closed, watertight container, and properly covered so as to prevent the escape of any wet garbage, swill or waste or the drainage therefrom. I. Casting, throwing or keeping in or adjoining any street, alley, square or other public place, or in any yard, lot or block, grounds or premises, any bones, August 7, 2008 Bernheim draft 3 Packet Page 16 of 201 Community Services Committee August 12, 2008 putrid, unsound, unwholesome or refuse flesh of animals, whether salted or otherwise, or any hide or skin of any kind, or the whole or any part of any dead animal or fish, or any unsound, putrid, unwholesome substance, or the offal, garbage or any offensive part of any animal, J. Any other act, thing or substance that becomes, from any cause, so foul, offensive or nauseous such that it is injurious to the public health. K. Violations of Chapter 17.95 ECDC relating to development and implementation of commute trip reduction (CTR) programs; and L. Violations of the provisions of ECDC 18.40.020, Prohibited rockeries. 6.20.020 Procedure for Abatement of Nuisance. A. Order to Correct. If any person, including but not limited to the property owner or any person causing, allowing or participating in the creation or maintenance of the nuisance, shall violate this section prohibiting nuisances detrimental to public health, the Nuisance Officer shall order such person to correct the violation. 1. Contents. The Order to Correct violation shall contain: a.. The name(s) and address(es) of the property owner or other person to whom the order to correct violation is directed; b. The location of the subject property by address or other description sufficient for identification of the building, structure, premises or land upon or within which the violation has occurred or is occurring; c. The code section that has been violated and a description of the violation; and d. A statement of action required to be taken to correct the violation, including a date by which compliance is required to avoid monetary penalties, which date shall be no less than 24 hours from the date and time of service of the order. 2. Service. The Nuisance Officer shall serve the Order to Correct upon the person to whom it is directed, either by posting a copy conspicuously on the site or by serving a copy of the notice in the same manner as is required for service of a summons in a civil action in Superior Court. Service may also be by U.S. Mail to the last known address to the person responsible for the violation, in which case three calendar days shall be added to the time period after which compliance is required. August 7, 2008 Bernheim draft 4 Packet Page 17 of 201 Community Services Committee August 12, 2008 B. Notice of Civil Violation. If any person so ordered shall fail, neglect, or refuse to correct the violation, or where an emergency exists or a repeated violation occurs, the Nuisance Officer shall issue a Notice of Civil Violation to each person to whom the order to correct violation was directed. 1. Contents. The Notice of Civil Violation shall include: a.. A copy of the Order to Correct notice previously given with proof of service; b. A statement that the order to correct has not been complied with; c.. A statement that a monetary penalty in an amount per day is assessed against the person to whom the violation is directed for each and every day or portion of a day during which the violation continues; and d. The date by which compliance is required to avoid abatement by the city, which date will be no less than 10 days from the date of the order to correct violation; and e. A statement that the person to whom the notice of civil violation is directed must correct the violation and may pay the monetary penalty imposed to the city of Edmonds planning division or may appeal the notice of civil violation to the city of Edmonds hearing examiner. 2. Service. The Nuisance Officer shall serve the notice of civil violation upon the person to whom it is directed, either by sending a copy by U.S. Mail to the last known address of the person responsible for the violation, or by posting a copy conspicuously on the site or by serving a copy of the notice personally on the person responsible for the violation. C. Appeal to Hearing Examiner. A person to whom the notice of civil violation is directed may appeal the notice of civil violation by filing a written notice of appeal with the community services director within 10 days of the date the notice is placed in the mail, or seven days from the date the notice is posted conspicuously on the property or served personally. Notice of the appeal hearing shall be sent by mail to the address provided in the written notice of appeal no less than ten calendar days before the time fixed for the hearing. 1. Hearing. At the time stated in the notice, the hearing examiner will hear all relevant objections, protests and shall receive testimony under oath. Said hearings may be continued from time to time. If continued to a date certain, no new posting is required. August 7, 2008 Bernheim draft 5 Packet Page 18 of 201 Community Services Committee August 12, 2008 2. Findings.. If the hearing examiner finds that a nuisance exists and that there is sufficient cause to abate the same, the hearing examiner will prepare findings and an order and serve the same to all parties by U.S. Mail within 24 hours of the close of the hearing, which findings and order shall specify the nature of the violation, the amount of fine per day, the method of abatement, and the time by which abatement is to be completed. D. Appeal to Superior Court. A decision rendered by the hearing examiner shall be appealable only to the Snohomish County Superior Court; provided that any petition for review shall be filed no later than 10 working days after the service of the written order of the hearing examiner. E. Abatement by the City. The City may seek a warrant of abatement from the Snohomish County Superior Court authorizing City personallel and/or contractors to enter any premises containing a public nuisance and abate set nuisance at the violator’s expense. In lieu of action in the Superior Court, If the violation has not been corrected by the date set forth in the notice of civil violation, or, in the event of an appeal, by the time ordered by the Hearing Examiner or subsequent appellate court, the City may abate the nuisance. 1. Notice. The Nuisance Officer shall serve an abatement notice by U.S. Mail to the person responsible for the violation at their last known address, by posting in a conspicuous location on the site or by personal service as in the manner of service of a summons in a civil case on the person responsible for the violation no less than 10 working days prior to abatement by the city. The city, its employees or agents are expressly authorized to enter said property for the purposes of abatement of said violation. 2. Costs. The actual cost of abatement, including any incidental cost such as, but not limited to: staff time; legal costs; cost of postage or service; and any other reasonable, incidental cost shall be calculated and added to the monetary penalties. The city may employ third parties to abate the nuisance and may pass through all costs of such contractors as incidental costs of abatement. 3. Summary abatement authorized. When any nuisance is of such a character and is so situated that the same can be abated without the invasion or destruction of private property and the further continuance thereof is likely to result in expense to the city or injury to any person, the chief of police or any police officer shall be authorized to abate and remove the same summarily. 4. Standard of care In any case where the City abates a nuisance, it shall be the duty of the City and its agents to proceed with due care or without any unnecessary destruction of property, and he shall in all cases be authorized to employ such assistance and adopt such means as may be necessary to effect the entire abatement of the nuisance in question. August 7, 2008 Bernheim draft 6 Packet Page 19 of 201 Community Services Committee August 12, 2008 5. Liability for Abatement Expenses. Every person guilty of any nuisance shall be liable for all costs and expenses of abating the same and, when such nuisances have been removed by any city officer, the said costs and expenses shall be taxed as a part of the costs of any prosecution against the party liable and be recovered as other costs are recovered after the same shall have been ascertained when done by the city under the authority of the chief of police. 6.20.030 Penalty for violations. A. Misdemeanor. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter, or shall neglect or refuse to obey any notice issued by the health officer, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished as set forth in ECC 5.50.020. B. Monetary Penalties. 1. Violations of Section 6.20. In addition to costs as set forth in 6.20.020(E)(5), violations of nuisances defined in Section 6.20 shall be assessed at the rate of $100.00 per day, or portion of day thereof, for each and every day after the service of the notice of civil violation; provided, however, that if an appeal is made to the hearing examiner, violations shall be assessed at the rate of $100.00 per day, or portion of the day thereof, for each and every day after the violations hearing examiner finds that a violation exists and the hearing order has been served. 2. Violations of Chapter 17.95 and 20.110.030(I). Violations of the provisions of Chapter 17.95 ECDC and ECDC 20.110.030(I) shall be assessed at a fine of up to $250.00 per day or a portion thereof following notice of civil violation or order of the violations hearing examiner as provided above. 3. Collection. Collection of Monetary Penalties. The monetary penalties constitute a personal obligation of the persons to whom the order to correct is directed. Any monetary penalty must be paid to the city of Edmonds planning division within 10 working days from the date of service of the hearing examiner order or as ordered by Superior Court if the hearing examiner's decision is appealed. 4. Extension of Time. The hearing examiner may grant an extension of the date upon which fines begin in order to allow for a reasonable period of abatement. Such an extension shall not exceed 10 calendar days. August 7, 2008 Bernheim draft 7 Packet Page 20 of 201 AM-1716 1.C. Discussion on Townhouse Subdivisions City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:30 Minutes Department:Development Services Type:Action Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Discussion on Townhouse Subdivisions. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Refer the matter to the Planning Board for review and recommendations. Previous Council Action On August 5, 2008, the City Council upheld an appeal of a permit applicant regarding a Hearing Examiner decision to deny a townhouse subdivision that was based upon a 2003 staff interpretation. Concerns over setbacks and guest parking were expressed by the Council. The Council asked that the matter be reviewed by the CS/DS committee and the matter be referred to the Planning Board for review and recommendations for changes. Narrative The Edmonds Community Development Code does not specifically deal with townhouse subdivisions. In 2003, the staff issued an interpretation regarding townhouse subdivisions and established standards of review (Exhibit 1). Since that time, four applications have been constructed using that interpretation. Staff will display photographs of those projects at the meeting. Clearly the code needs to be updated to reflect the design standards that the City wishes to use in processing these types of developments. Subdivisions on a multiple family zoned property are entirely different from that of a single family zoned property. Primary issues are building design, setbacks, open space, fire lanes and guest parking. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Townhouse Subdivision Interpretation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:19 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 02:21 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:46 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman Started On: 08/07/2008 11:27 AM Packet Page 21 of 201 Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 22 of 201 Packet Page 23 of 201 Packet Page 24 of 201 Packet Page 25 of 201 AM-1717 2.A. Fiber Optic Network Update and Recommendations City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Carl Nelson, Administrative Services Submitted For:Carl Nelson Time:15 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Fiber optic recommendations - update and next steps. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative For several years the City of Edmonds has been working on establishing a fiber optic network whose primary use to date has been to reduce municipal telecommunications costs while increasing functionality. The City has also examined two other uses for this network: providing high speed broadband access to other local governmental and educational entities, and eventually expanding the network to provide ultra high speed communications capabilities to businesses and residents. Our recommendation is to continue moving ahead in the development of the Edmond’s fiber optic network for internal and intergovernmental uses and to thoughtfully invest in such a way that incremental expansion of the network can be achieved economically if deemed in the best interest of the City. Attached is the current draft of proposed next steps. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: The attached proposal includes investments to replace water meters that are currently past their useful service life, and to couple that necessary investment with a technology package that will enable the meters to be read remotely via a wireless connection. The technology investment will provide direct payback in labor and equipment costs within 10 years, and if other public/private uses of the technology can be found and quantified, the payback period could be significantly shorter and may provide an on-going source of general fund revenue. Attachments Link: Fiber Optic Recommendations Packet Page 26 of 201 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 02:55 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:59 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 03:01 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 03:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 08/07/2008 02:02 PM Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 27 of 201 City of Edmonds BROADBAND ISSUE PAPER Administrative Services Department May 12, 2008 L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0010_1717_Fiber Optic Network Recommendations-FINAL.doc FIBER OPTIC NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS For several years the City of Edmonds has been working on establishing a fiber optic network whose primary use to date has been to reduce municipal telecommunications costs while increas- ing functionality. The City has also examined two other uses for this network: providing high speed broadband access to other local governmental and not-for-profit entities, and expandingthe network to pro- vide fiber to the premesis services for residents and businesses. This background paper will present staff recommendations in the three business areas of internal, intergovernmental, and general public access. Recommendation Summary From a broad overview perspective, our recommendation is to continue aggressively moving ahead in the development of the Edmond’s fiber optic network for internal and intergovernmen- tal uses. With respect to fiber to the premises for City residential and commercial use, our analysis con- cludes that, at present, simple economics do not justify a full fiber to the premesis deployment. However, as will be discussed shortly, it may make financial sense to offer surplus broadband capacities to various content providers and users on a selected basis. Additionally, if the plan being presented is adopted, two of the four City locations identified for major major fiber optic switching locations will be up and operational. If and when finances and policy justicy a full fiber to the premesis deployment, much of the “backbone” needed will al- ready be in place. Specific recommendations being proposed now are: 1.) Issuance of one or more Water/Sewer Revenue Bonds of just over $4.0 million for the acquisition of “smart” water meters, associated fiber runs, radio towers, and related system expenses; 2.) Adoption of a policy requiring installa- tion of fiber optic conduit when streets are either reconstructed, dug-up for water/sewer/storm replacement or other major infrastructure improvements. Fiber Network Justification Why should the City of Edmonds continue to develop and expand its fiber optic network? We believe the justification for expanding the network falls into four areas: financial, environ- mental, economic development and policy. Packet Page 28 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Financias Looking at finances, currently 37% of the City’s meters are over 20 years old, and a full 66% are over ten years old. In order to reduce operating costs, staff is rec- ommending replacement of these manually read meters with “smart” meter tech- nology that can be read electronically from a central location. To read meters centrally, several radio reception points are needed to be located in various parts of the City. These reception points would be connected to the central office via an expansion of the City’s fiber optic backbone into a fiber ring. The base cost of meter replacement is estimated at just under $2.0 million. Mov- ing to smart meters adds just over $2.0 million. Table 1 below summarizes these costs. FIGURE 2: SMART METERING COSTS ITEM BASE METER REPLACEMENT SMART METER COSTS TOTAL COST Replacement Water Meters $ 1,776,299 $ 1,776,299 Meter Radios 1,254,875 1,254,875 Base Station 180,700 180,700 Tower and Base 50,000 50,000 Fiber Extensions 100,000 100,000 Switching Equipment 75,000 75,000 WiFi Communications 300,000 300,000 Sales Tax 135,887 149,984 285,857 Grand Total $1,912,186 $2,110,559 $4,022,731 This cost summary assumes that all City water meters are replaced as part of this proposal. The rational is that crews can visit a neighborhood, replace all meters, and “touch” an installation at one time. For some newer meters, it may make sense to simply install meter reading radios, as opposed to replacing the entire meter. This would reduce the above costs. These added costs are off-set by three utility and one public safety factor in a nine to ten year amortization period. These off-sets are described below. 1.) Annual reductions in personnel, vehicle, and equipment costs of approxi- mately $92,600 per year in current dollars if all meters are replaced; 2.) Increased water system revenue due to more accurate meters. This recovery is estimated at 1% of metered revenue, or $37,000 in 2007 dollars on meterd sales of $3,735,600; 3.) By allowing public works crews to remain in the field longer by using a mu- nicipal wifi system to log into central City servers for information on “as- built” plans, utility locations, storm and sewer video, and building permit in- formation, additional personnel, vehicle, and fuel reductions would occur. At this juncture no value has been assigned these productivity increases. 4.) The wireless network connections used by the Public Works crews can also be used by Law Enforcement and Fire Department personnel. In the case of Law Enforcement, Seattle PD conducted a study that identified three key facts: Page 2 Packet Page 29 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network a. It costs just over $200/hour to put a police officer on the streets in Se- attle (2004 dollars). This cost included salary & benefits, equipment, training and support costs b. The average Seattle PD officer spent 53% of his/her time on patrol, and 47% of their time at the preceinct performing administrative, re- cord keeping and non-patrol related tasks. c. By having computers in their patrol cars with wireless network access, patrol time could increase to 70% by having the officers spend some time parked in consipciuos areas of their patrol area performing some of their administrative duties. It was estimated that the added police visibility was equivalent to a 15% increase in patrol officers. At this time, no values has been assigned this added capability with regards to Edmonds PD, but it seems reasonable that the City’s savings would be some- what proportional to Seattle’s based on the number of FTE officers. 5.) By moving to video arraignment for our Court, police prisoner transport time, vehicle costs, and fuel expenses are reduced by $47,700 annually the first year of operation. These figures are summarized in Table 1 below. Note that the added costs of Smart Metering are paid back over a relatively short 10 year span. Increasing fuel and personnel costs will accelerate this payback. The Water Utility would need to be reimbursed for non-utility related broadband uses such as prisoner transport. FIGURE 1: SMART METERING SAVINGS AMORTIZATION Year Water Costs1 Water Revenue2 PD Transport Savings1 Public Works Productivity Police Productivity Cumulative Savings 1 92,600 37,000 47,700 $???.00 $???.00 177,300 2 97,230 37,370 50,085 $???.00 $???.00 361,985 3 102,092 37,744 52,589 $???.00 $???.00 554,409 4 107,196 38,121 55,219 $???.00 $???.00 754,945 5 112,556 38,502 57,980 $???.00 $???.00 963,983 6 118,184 38,887 60,879 $???.00 $???.00 1,181,933 7 124,093 39,276 63,923 $???.00 $???.00 1,409,225 8 130,297 39,669 67,119 $???.00 $???.00 1,646,310 9 136,812 40,066 70,475 $???.00 $???.00 1,893,662 10 143,653 40,466 73,998 $???.00 $???.00 2,151,780 Notes: 1.) Assumes 5% annual cost escalator 2.) Assumes 1% annual cost escalator. Page 3 Packet Page 30 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Environment The second rationale for expanding the City’s broadband network are environmentally related. By using electronic systems for such tasks as reading water meters, and conduct- ing in custody hearings via video conferencing, the City is able to reduce vehicle use and fuel consumption. The two uses that have been examined for cost reductions, smart metering and video ar- raignments, would result in annual mileage savings of approximately 17,000 miles, and result in a carbon footprint reduction of 8.34 tons (see Appendix 5). As we are able to further quantify the advantages of Police, public works and utility crews being able to utilitize governmental wifi networks to remain in the field, rather than return to central offices for information, these transportation cost savings and carbon reductions will grow considerably. Economic Development Different than the financial justification above which focuses on direct costs reductions to City operations, Economic Development justifications come from added revenue to the City either directly from user fees, subscriptions and utility taxes on those services , or indirectly from additional tax revenue generated from activity attributed to the presence of the network. Sales Tax revenue in the City is an important part of the City’s revenue stream, but compared to access charges, user fees, subscriptions and other direct revenue sources, sales tax is difficult to forecast and incrementaly attribute as a network benefit. Areas where Sales tax is easily attributable would come from new business’s locating within the city because of the availability of its ultra high speed network. Some if not many of the employees of this business will choose to live in Edmonds and some fraction of the company and employee spending will add to the retail sales of the City. Addition- ally, individuals who currently commute to work in Seattle or elsewhere, can effectively “telecommute” if they had access to a network that could support the bandwidth require- ments of 2-way video conferenceing. This would reduce transportation costs and pollu- tion and would make Edmonds very attractive to the upscale high tech work force cur- rently locating on the Eastside of King County. The more direct revenue streams will occur when users connect to the network and utilize its services. Currently, The City has three Public, Educational and Government (PEG) users contracted to use the network, and these three entities will bring the City nearly $54,000 per year in direct revenue. It is not unrealistic to believe that 100 similar entities or more exist in South County that could benefit from the ultra high capacity of the net- work. Page 4 Packet Page 31 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Policy The final justification for expanding the City’s broadband network relates to a policy on open infrastructure. The vision is that, in an ideal world, there should be a single munici- pal fiber network open to all qualified information and content providers. This is sup- ported by the work Packetfront prepared for the City. “One of the core competencies of a city is building infrastructure for common use—such as roads, water lines, wastewater treatment, and in some cases electric utilities. In many cities, telecommunications is now considered the “fifth utility,” because cities can implement such infrastructure ubiquitously, often better than any private entity. The benefits of a municipal network; include better connec- tions for utility monitoring, mobile government services, education, healthcare, library services, and social networking and communication.” “Cities are equipped to understand and accept long-term financing scenarios, because the primary motivator for cities is to serve the public good rather than to appease stockholders. These facts place municipalities in an ideal position to de- ploy fiber projects and makes municipal ownership of these networks easier to support. Conversely, it would be inadvisable for any city to hand over ownership of its network to any private firm, because it would then lose the ability to make decisions regarding the deployment, use, or operation of that network.” Judging future needs by today’s municipal and business imperatives is a good starting point in establishing an open network that is technology agnostic and provider neutral. Policy should further encourage participation and competition by as many players as pos- sible and allow for growth of capacity to meet future demand. The policy acknowledges the trend to make digital forms of communication easily available over a single high speed fiber pipe by lowering the capital requirement to provide this capability and capac- ity to all of Edmonds. Ease of information delivery facilitated by City provided fiber would allow anticipated uses described above to arise easily over time such as real time delivery of water, gas, and electric usage information to consumers, educational learning materials, classes, and healthcare. A fiber connection that is open and not limited to a single purpose or pro- vider, opens possibilities for new information and content while lowering the capital and operational costs of delivering digital information. The shared infrastructure model has several compelling advantages: 1. The cost of providing services over a shared network will be substantially less than providing the same services over a privately owned network. Assuming for example that Verizon builds its fiber network for 28 million (Edmonds cost esti- mate) and Comcast builds theirs for 28 million, and each earns 50% of the Ed- monds market share, or 10,000 connections. Debt service and operations costs will exceed $35/month/customer. On a shared network, where they pay access charges based on the number of customers they have, their network costs would be only half as much, with the savings being passed on to the citizens of Ed- Page 5 Packet Page 32 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network monds. Additionally, the service providers are not subject to the financial risks associated with not achieving their target market share and the contingency costs of those risks are not passed on to the consumers. 2. The shared network model will allow more than 2 competitors to provide service on the network. This added competition will allow market forces to shape the price, variety and quality of the service offerings that will better serve the Ed- monds market. In Europe, service providers allow customers to chose which TV stations they receive on an a la carte basis. Fifteen dollars ($15) per month gets you your local programming plus 10 “cable” channels with additional channels available for $0.10 - $0.50 / month apiece. The more you buy the less they cost on a per channel basis. Every citizen member of the CTAC committee has stated they would sign up for a service like that if it were available in Edmonds. Creating and promoting the use of a shared network also avoids the cost, incon- vience and aggrevation associated with the City roads and family front yards be- ing dug up for every content providerswho wants to install their network. In the absence of a City owned shared network, this is the only approach available to those providing digital television, internet, and phone services, so it will likely continue unless action is taken. The City has spoken with both Verizon and Comcast about the possibility of providing services over an open network, and neither local provider has expressed an interest thus far. Verizon is in the process of completing its FIOS fiber to the premesis program in southwest Snohomish County, and have chosen the proprietary network approach. While the Verizon approach will provide greater bandwidth and speed than they currently pro- vide in our area, it is not at all comparable to the bandwidth and speed being proposed for the Edmonds network and that is already available in a growing number of regions in the US and many parts of Europe and Asia. At some point Comcast will need to up-grade their network connections to fiber speeds in order to remain competitive. It seems prudent policy to try and avoid a duplication of dug up streets and impaired views resulting from the recent overhead stringing of fiber cable and splice boxes on overhead lines a second or third time. Staff will continue to reach out to Comcast in hopes of encouraging them to consider the more progressive shared network model, and will continue our discussions with other service providers who have expressed interest in using the Edmonds shared network. Attachments & References Attached are five appendices that were used as the foundation for the recommendations con- tained in this paper. These attachments will provide much indepth background relating to the recommendations discussed earlier. These appendices are: Appendix 1: Flexnet Meter and Radio Cost Estimate Appendix 2: Underground Fiber Specifications Appendix 3: Water Meter Radio Propagation Study Appendix 4: Fiber to the Premesis Business Plan Appendix 5: Cost and Carbon Off-Set Calculations Page 6 Packet Page 33 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network In addition to these five appendices, Edmonds used a great deal of methodology and information contained in an “Automatic Water Meter Reading Study” prepared by Grant and Osborne Engi- neering for the City of Marysville. This study has not been included in this report, but is avail- able from the City of Edmonds or Marysville. Questions or Comments We hope the information and material contained in this report will be of assistance in under- standing what we feel are the next steps for expansion of the City’s broadband network. Staff look forward to responding to any questions, comments, or concerns you may have. Page 7 Packet Page 34 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 8 APPENDIX 1: FLEXNET METER & RADIO ESTIMATE Packet Page 35 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 9 APPENDIX 2: UNDERGROUND FIBER SPECIFICATIONS Recommend installation of (4) conduit in 1.25” or 2” diameter (4 x 1.25” or 4 x 2”). Conduit shall be SDR-11 HDPE , schedule 80 PVC or equivalent, meeting ASTM-3035 specifications. Conduit shall be connected using compression couplers or heat fusion. Recommend installation of 10-12AWG solid trace or locate wire in trench. At no time shall the pipe be deformed to make any bend. The minimum radius for any bend or sweep in the conduit shall be thirty-six inches (36"). Packet Page 36 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 10 APPENDIX 3: WATER METER PROPAGATION STUDY RESULTS Packet Page 37 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 11 Page 11 Packet Page 38 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 12 Packet Page 39 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 13 APPENDIX 4: FIBER TO PREMISES BUSINESS PLAN Broadband Business Plan for CCCiiitttyyy ooofff EEEdddmmmooonnndddsss Feburary 2008 1805 Shea Center Dr Suite 240 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129-2251 603.888.5100 fax 603.888.5101 www.packetfront.com Packet Page 40 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network City of Edmonds Broadband Business Plan Table of Contents Introduction and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 15 Benefits of Municipal Broadband—Looking Beyond the Triple Play ..................................................... 15 Scope of this Document ........................................................................................................................... 17 Network Options ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Designing the Network ............................................................................................................................ 19 Building the Network ...............................................................................................................................22 Operating the Network ............................................................................................................................ 23 Operational Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Who should run the network? City? Partners? Vendors?....................................................................... 27 How should the services be marketed?.................................................................................................... 29 How will customer service be provided?................................................................................................. 30 How should billing be done?................................................................................................................... 31 What types of service level agreements need to be developed?............................................................... 31 Organizational Plan ................................................................................................................................... 32 What type of organization or "entity" should build/own/operate the network?...................................... 32 What does the staffing model of the entity look like at the City level, regional level and who is responsible for recruiting, training and supervision of the staff?........................................................... 32 How would the staff levels be expected to grow?.................................................................................... 33 Financing ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 Who owns the assets once constructed?.................................................................................................. 34 What are the costs of financing and associated risks of the various financing options?........................ 34 What are various cash flow alternatives in a best case, worst case, as well as a thoughtful likely case scenario?................................................................................................................................................. 34 Services ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 UTOPIA ................................................................................................................................................... 36 Västerås, Sweden ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Nuenen, the Netherlands.......................................................................................................................... 37 Network Finances ....................................................................................................................................... 38 Capital Expenses ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Operating Expenses ................................................................................................................................. 48 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 59 Page 14 Packet Page 41 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 15 IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn aanndd SSccooppee • Benefits of Municipal Broadband—Looking Beyond the Triple Play The core competency of communities is in building infrastructure for common use—such as roads, water lines, and in some cases electric utilities. In many states and cities, telecommunica- tions is now considered the “fifth utility,” because cities can implement such infrastructure ubiq- uitously, often better than any private entity. In addition, there are many community-wide bene- fits of a municipal network, including better connections for utility monitoring, government ser- vices, education, healthcare, library services, and social networking and communication. Cities are also much better equipped to understand and accept long-term financing scenarios, be- cause the primary motivator for cities is to serve the public good rather than to appease stock- holders. These facts place municipalities in an ideal position to deploy fiber-to-the-premise pro- jects, and makes municipal ownership of these networks easier to support. Conversely, it would be inadvisable for any community to hand over ownership of its network to any private firm, be- cause it would then lose the ability to make decisions regarding the deployment, use, or operation of that network. While a community can and should own its FTTH network, not many cities are experts in broad- band telecommunications or in operating networks. That’s where a third party operator can be employed to provide critical expertise. The success of the network in terms of subscriber take rates, service provider management, and construction management is reliant upon the experience of the project management team. A third party team that is experienced in the deployment of FTTH networks can help ensure the network’s success. There are other management decisions to be made when building a municipally-owned fiber net- work. One of the most important is whether the network will be open or closed in terms of how services are offered. An open network is open for more than one service provider to use to offer service. A closed network is contractually exclusive to just one service provider. In order to meet community goals of competition and to preclude it from competing directly with the private sector, our recommendation would be that the City of Edmonds build an open access network. Building an open network doesn’t happen as a simple coincidence of an overall build plan, but should be used as one of the core principles of the design, ownership, build and on- going operations of the network. Characteristics of a truly open fiber network include: • Offers multiple services from multiple service providers—and can also be available for new advanced services to run on the City-owned network, including community de- veloped services, healthcare and educational services. • Operates without prejudice—so that any qualified service provider can serve users on the network without financial or operational barriers • Provides carrier-class reliability—demonstrable 99.99% uptime • Built on widespread industry standards—Ethernet is a standard that has been widely adopted by both network applications and network devices, worldwide • Uses easily scalable technology—so that an end user can easily make the jump from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps bandwidth without affecting the other users on the network; open net- Packet Page 42 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network works will often use specialized hardware and software to make self-provisioning of ser- vices possible, while supporting the service needs of service providers as well • Provides an environment of bandwidth abundance—network electronics should never be in the business of managing scarcity, but rather in providing optimum capacity to all end users When a city or municipality deploys an open access broadband network built on these principles, the following benefits can be achieved: • Supports economic growth—the vast capacity of an active fiber network will enable businesses, educational facilities and health care facilities to improve their own service offerings and internal operations. The availability of a world-class network will also be very inviting for new businesses to locate to your community. • Supports government applications—the ubiquitous deployment of an open network provides a ready means to provide automated meter reading and automated meter intelli- gence, as well as traffic monitoring, emergency response and law enforcement applica- tions. • Reduces the city’s carbon emissions—the availability of an advanced broadband net- work has the potential to greatly encourage less driving through more innovative network services, including— o More telecommuting. Employers and their staff have a greater incentive to work from home when they can rely on a network infrastructure with enough capacity to meet their needs. Individuals and entities that transmit large amounts of data will benefit even more. o More teleconferencing. Instead of driving or flying to attend a meeting, one could start a teleconferencing session. An active Ethernet fiber network provides enough bandwidth to support very high quality visual communications applica- tions by enabling high capacity and symmetrical upload and download speeds. o More innovation leading to better services. Superior bandwidth will encourage the growth, proliferation and better consumer use of e-services, including e- commerce, entertainment, automated meter reading, e-government, etc. This would lead to less driving and therefore fewer carbon emissions. • Supports improved quality of life—high resolution visual communications, lower cost true broadband connectivity, distance education, telemedicine, telecommuting (which is made more viable with better-than-T1 capacity to each home), local community video channels, home security, smart home technology and other services are direct results of the availability of a true broadband open fiber network. • Encourages innovation—large businesses, small businesses, educational entities, health care institutions and residents alike benefit from the minimum 100 Mbps dedicated sym- metrical capacity offered by an active fiber network. Businesses and “power users” can subscribe to a 1 Gbps service, increasing the size of the ‘pipe’ they can access 24x7, without affecting other users on the network. No longer limited by bandwidth scarcity, this high bandwidth capacity can unleash creative forces to provide new and exciting ser- vices and applications on the network. Consumers continue to increase the amount of bandwidth they need and use, and will immediately see the benefits of the truly ‘fat pipe’. • Encourages competition—the ability for multiple service providers to offer services on the network encourages competition on price, service availability, and support. This is good for residents and businesses, as it provides them with more choices and the ability to change providers if they wish. Page 16 Packet Page 43 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network • Scope of this Document As part of its due diligence in regard to its conceived municipal broadband project, the City of Edmonds contracted with DynamicCity (now PacketFront) to develop a Business Plan which would cover several key areas of the project. The Network Finances section of this document represents a financial framework with multiple options that can be used by the City and the network stakeholders to understand the effects that different choices will have on the financial outcome of the network. Once these choices are made by the City (for example, the funding level contributed by the other stakeholders) PacketFront can help Edmonds progress the business model and create a financing structure. This Business Plan is designed to provide the following information: • A review of the different options for the design, build and operation (DBO) of a munici- pal network • A recommended plan of operations o Who should run the network? City? Partners? Vendors? o How should the services be marketed? o How will customer service be provided? o How should billing be done? o What types of service level agreements need to be developed? • Organization Plan o What type of organization or "entity" should build/own/operate the network? Public Corporation; City Utility; Public Private Partnership; Private Industry? o What does the staffing model of the entity look like at the City level, regional level and who is responsible for recruiting, training and supervision of the staff? o How would the staff levels be expected to grow? • Financing o How should the network be financed? o Who owns the assets once constructed? o What are the costs of financing and associated risks of the various financing op- tions? o What are various cash flow alternatives in a best case (rapid construction, enthu- siastic consumer conversion rate), worst case (delayed construction, tepid con- version rate), as well as a thoughtful likely case scenario? • Services o What services should be provided on the network? o POTS, Internet access, video entertainment (broadcast & on-demand), mobile In- ternet service (Wi-Fi), two-way interactive video (distance learning, remote healthcare). o What assumptions are built into the financial model regarding customer demand and conversion rates for these services? o What are the one-time costs to set-up and deliver the service? o How much bandwidth does the service consume? As the technology continues to evolve, what impact would the likely changes have on available bandwidth? o What are the assumed gross margins of the possible services? o What can the service provider expect to charge for the service? o What would the network entity need to charge the service providers to cover the costs of providing the particular service? Page 17 Packet Page 44 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network o Based on the above, what are the various ROI assumptions for each service based on various conversion rates? Page 18 Packet Page 45 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 19 NNeettwwoorrkk OOppttiioonnss • Designing the Network As provided in the technological analysis submitted to the City previously, we believe that the best solution for Edmonds’ purposes would lie in an open access, active Ethernet fiber network. Any discussion of technological choices in networking needs to be anchored in the stated goals of the network: 1. Generate replacement revenues for municipal government. 2. Create cost savings for residents, businesses, and municipal government. 3. Create a framework for competitive communications service providers to provide more relevant service offerings and better customer service than is currently available today, or will be available in five years. 4. Create a communications infrastructure that will attract for revenue-enhancing economic development. 5. Create an open access platform capable of accommodating significant growth and inno- vative communication services that will enhance the Edmonds civic experience. To support these goals, the following decision factors should be used to help determine the cor- rect network topology for Edmonds: • Capital and Operational Expenses The upfront cost to build, and the long-term cost to operate will influence the financial outcome of the network and its ability to generate replacement revenue for the city. • Global Standards Open access platforms require compliance with common standards to support multiple service providers. • Bandwidth Capacity The current and future need for bandwidth and advanced services for an increasing num- ber of subscribers must be anticipated in the original design of the network. • Scalability The network should be easily expandable with little to no downtime and for the lowest possible cost. • Carrier Class Reliability A network built for advanced services and multiple service providers must adhere to the highest standards of reliability. To summarize our main findings in regards to the Active Ethernet vs. GPON analysis: Capital and Operational Expenses Packet Page 46 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network • The cost of the fiber plant is relatively comparable between active and passive designs. The cost of construction management and contractors are far more significant in the total cost of the plant than the active/passive decision. • The active electronics are less expensive than passive electronics by about $100 per sub- scriber. • The engineering of an active network is less complex than a GPON. Global Standards • The Active Ethernet solution is based on a standard that has been stable for decades with multiple deployments and enjoys a global market to support future cost reduction. • Global and multi-vendor interoperability is immediate and continual for native Ethernet solution. • The current GPON standard has only been in use for a short period of time and there have been multiple standards within that time period. • It is likely that the current GPON standard will also be improved, making the current so- lutions out of date and potentially unavailable. Bandwidth Capacity • The active solution delivers almost three times the bandwidth capacity to a given area for a lower cost than a PON. • The active solution allows the network to provide Gbps services to individual subscrib- ers, increasing the ability to service high-end businesses and key end-users without im- pacting the surrounding users. • The ability to attract service providers is dependent on the network’s ability to offer the provider access to a high bandwidth and a lower cost. An active network provides more bandwidth at a lower cost that is more scalable. Scalability • Scaling bandwidth for all users is less complicated and dramatically less expensive in the active environment than the PON. For example, reducing the split count on the PON re- quires the purchase of additional expensive electronics. • GPON networks require downtime to upgrade. Carrier Class Reliability • Because the distribution layer is closer to the subscriber, an active network is more reli- able than a passive network with respect to cable cuts by approximately 10 times. • In a PON design, the failure group size in the event of a cable cut is typically several times larger than an active network. We have completed some preliminary design work for the Edmonds network for the purposes of estimating the construction costs for building. As the network plans proceed, more detailed engi- neering work will be necessary in order to design the exact construction specifications for the fiber plant, location of the cabinets, etc. We anticipate that Edmonds would use its prescribed procurement process to issue an RFP for network engineering services for this purpose. It may be possible to use a local firm for this work, if a qualified local firm exists; this would keep the reve- nue from the project in the city or surrounding area. Page 20 Packet Page 47 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 21 The City of Edmonds network as designed by the PacketFront GIS team. Packet Page 48 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network • Building the Network Many contractors are experienced with building FTTH networks. A private firm may be con- tracted to assist in this procurement process to help assess the proposals and the vendors’ suitabil- ity in regards to the overall project. Selecting the right construction firm can have an enormous impact on the overall project—both in the quality of the work completed and the reliability of that work, as well as the financial out- come of the network. Bids solicited from construction firms should include reference sites as well as anticipated build- ing timelines for sample footprints as well as for the network as a whole. There are many elements in managing a network construction project; here are a few of the tasks that should be completed by your construction manager. Your construction manager can be a qualified local staff member or a contracted third party. Construction Tasks – Implementation 1. Deliver project data to local ‘one call’ service (Blue Stakes, USA, etc.) 2. Oversee the procurement of the field engineering contractors. Identify experienced candi- dates and initiate and manage bidding processes. 3. Field Engineering Management—contract with outside plant engineering subcontractors to take the GIS line work done by PacketFront and engineer the construction plan in detail. a. Identify and secure rights of way b. Identify infrastructure running lines c. Design fiber optic splice matrices d. Design aerial pole attachment details e. Generate and submit pole attachment requests (pole permits) f. Provide to the owner and to the construction company/contractor the actual construc- tion prints for building 4. Procurement of, and contract negotiations with, outside plant contractors a. Excavation crews b. Buried/underground crews c. Aerial/overhead crews d. Electrical crews e. Structural crews 5. Provide construction standards to outside construction contractors 6. Host pre-construction meetings with the network owner, governing agencies (city/state/federal), all construction crews 7. Obtain necessary permits for construction. 8. Construction Inspection a. Ensure job site safety b. Build community support and management c. Act as public interface regarding construction process Page 22 Packet Page 49 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network d. Provide as-built documentation to network operator to update the infrastructure data- base daily e. Use inspection reports (as-built data) to reconcile invoicing from contractors 9. Fiber splicing and testing a. Supervise the testing of each fiber and span to ensure that it complies with network standards b. Review and accept/reject fiber optic testing data as provided by contractors 10. Quality assurance and control a. Production tracking—document the progress of each construction crew on a daily ba- sis b. Incident management—manage and resolve issues such as foreign utility damage, property damage, etc. that may arise during the course of construction 11. Billing support a. Validate contractor invoices on behalf of network owner, based on as-built data from field inspectors 12. Final project inspection a. Examine the entire network holistically by involved field governing agencies, the net- work owner and the construction management team b. Verify that all installations are complete, documented accurately and all work areas have been cleaned and restored Construction Management – Operations 1. Change control and management a. Manage and monitor installed infrastructure b. Identify and manage network elements as needed due to ongoing changes in the field (road widening, pole changes, moving aerial to buried, etc.) 2. Network Expansion a. Follow all the above steps for additional communities or footprints added to the origi- nal network. 3. Manage engineering and construction of large scale residential, commercial and business in- stallations. • Operating the Network While Edmonds can and should own its network, we recommend that a third party network opera- tions firm be contracted to manage the operations of the network. A third party network opera- tions firm will lend crucial expertise to the day to day operation of Edmonds network, helping to ensure its success. Some of the tasks required for network operations include: Service provider integration, interconnection, and management 1. Service Provider Recruitment a. Target, recruit and develop prospective service providers, and enhance or increase re- tail services of existing service providers. Page 23 Packet Page 50 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network b. Enter into discussions with and negotiate service provider contracts on behalf of the network owner. 2. Service Provider Management a. Work collaboratively with the network owner to develop and implement a service pro- vider strategy that creates value for the network owner. b. Provide day-to-day management of service provider relationships and agreements and for supporting the network owner’s service providers. c. Monitor and report on the performance of the service providers against their contract deliverables. 3. Service Provider Integration a. Facilitate and monitor the physical and logical network interconnection of service pro- viders to the network owner. Design, implement and monitor such interconnect point(s) and provision virtual connections within the network in response to order ful- fillment requests. b. Provide necessary services to connect new service providers on the network. 4. Wholesale Services Pricing a. Develop, recommend adoption of, and maintain pricing schema for wholesale services. 5. Service Provider Billing a. Calculate applicable charges for each service provider and generate and send invoices of such charges to service providers on behalf of the network owner. b. Respond to and resolve billing and payment inquiries from service providers. Select and manage sub-contractors 1. Administer contracts and manage relationships with network subcontractors on behalf of, and in conjunction with, the network owner. 2. Monitor and report on subcontractor performance against the performance metrics found in their contracts. Work order fulfillment 1. Receive and validate works orders from service providers for retail services for adding, modi- fying, or changing services for existing subscribers. 2. Receive and validate work orders for the report and maintenance of the network. 3. Allocate the work generated by work orders to the contractors for fulfillment. 4. Oversee work performed by subcontractors. 5. Ensure and verify billing to service providers. 6. Review and approve billing from contractors to network owner. Fault & performance monitoring 1. Maintain EMS (element management system) to isolate, identify and resolve network alarms. Page 24 Packet Page 51 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network 2. Provide support desk for service providers for tier 2 & 3 issues. 3. Monitor and report on SLA performance. 4. Monitor network utilization. Network element repair & maintenance 1. Manage equipment warranties and current maintenance contracts. 2. Repair / replace core distribution switches. 3. Repair damaged outside plant as necessary (accidental fiber cuts, damaged cabinets or hubs). 4. Provide mobile generator support in the case of power outages. 3. Install necessary firmware and software updates/upgrades. 4. Manage contractors for other repairs. 5. Verify contractor billing. 6. Maintain documentation on network configurations. 7. Act in the capacity of technology advisor. 8. Utilize lab to test and validate new firmware/software. Capacity planning and network engineering 1. Continuously monitor performance, utilization and capacity of the network’s physical and logical network inventory. 2. Maintain a testing facility. 3. Test and certify the compatibility of firmware and software maintenance updates prior to de- ploying them to the network. 4. Create and maintain documentation of the physical and logical topology and configuration of the network. 5. Act as a technology advisor; provide background and insight into changing technologies that could affect or benefit the network owner. 6. Analyze and recommend upgrades and changes to the network where reasonable, including recommendations for additional physical and logical network inventory and capacity. Procurement & inventory management 1. Track physical and logical inventory of network elements and resources. Page 25 Packet Page 52 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Policy development and administration 1. Administer network technology and business policies for the network: a. Network security b. New service introduction c. Addition of service providers d. Escalation procedures e. Wholesale pricing 2. Assist network owner is reviewing and revising such policies to reflect changes based on in- dustry and economic trends, technology evolution, the acquisition of new products, services and the like. 3. Define and recommend operational policies applicable to the network, including a. Network addressing b. Schema c. Quality of service parameters d. Network resource allocation schema e. Network resource naming conventions f. Approved product and services models Page 26 Packet Page 53 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 27 OOppeerraattiioonnaall PPllaann • Who should run the network? City? Partners? Vendors? We can answer this question in part by defining what sorts of firms should not be enlisted to run the City’s network. Once the characteristics and principles of an open network are understood, issues regarding own- ership and operations of that network become clear. A service provider or a construction firm cannot build and provide network services on its own, if the network is to meet the criteria for openness: • Carrier-class reliability • Uses widespread industry standards • Uses easily scalable technology • Provides an environment of bandwidth abundance • Operates without prejudice A service provider is in the business of providing services on a network. If such a firm builds and operates a network, the service provider can and will build the network in such a way that makes it very difficult—if not impossible—for other service providers to compete with them on the net- work they built and operate—regardless of the city’s wishes. The network owner/operator is em- powered to make operational decisions on the network, as it is their own bottom line that the ser- vice provider needs to manage. On a network it owns, a service provider can and will set up tech- nological or procedural road blocks for other service providers in order to protect their source of revenue—the service retail fees. A construction firm can be contracted to build the network, but a construction firm’s expertise isn’t in designing, operating, or supporting a world-class fiber network. A bid from such firms should be considered when the time is right to hire contractors to build the network, but such a firm is not typically qualified to operate the network if the City wishes to implement a world- class network infrastructure. While service providers are necessary for network services, revenue and healthy competition, and construction firms are needed to build the network, neither should be in a position to own or op- erate the City’s network, if the City truly wishes the network to adhere to the principles of open- ness on its network. In order to help foster healthy competition and to ensure that the network is operated efficiently and expertly, we highly recommend that the City utilize an experienced network operations firm that is not in a position to collect direct revenue from the network. The City may also choose to operate this network itself using qualified staff. Some of the major facets of network operations include: • Network design and planning • Service provider recruitment, selection, ongoing management and billing • Customer acquisition and marketing • Network monitoring • Policy development and management • Construction management • Finance Packet Page 54 of 201 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 2 8 Ne t w o r k O p e r a t i o n s Fi r m In t h i s o p e r a t i o n a l m o d e l : • Th e C i t y / C o m m u n i t y f i n a n c e s a n d o w n s t h e p h y s i c a l n e t w o r k i n f r as t r u c t u r e – a n d o f f e r s w h o l e s a l e t r a n s p o r t s e r v i c e s t o t h e r e t a i l service pr o v i d e r ( s ) • Se r v i c e p r o v i d e r s b r i n g c o n t e n t / a p p l i c a ti o n s a n d d e v e l o p r e l a t i o n s h i ps w i t h t h e r e t a i l s u b s c r i b e r s ( r e s i d e n t i a l a n d b u s i n e s s ) • Th e N e t w o r k O p e r a t i o n s F i r m m a n a g e s t h e d e s i g n , d e p l o y m e n t an d o n g o i n g o p e r a t i o n o f t h e w h o l e s a l e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e n e t w o r k ow n e r , a n d m a n a g e s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h s e r vi c e p r o v i d e r s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s TV & H D T V Ph o n e In t e r n e t Te l e m e d i c i n e Ed u c a t i o n Te l e c o n f e r e n c i n g Ga mi n g Mu l t i p l e S e r v i c e s a n d P r ov i d e r s Su b s c r i b e r s Wh o l e s a l e Le a s i n g Ci t y O w n e d N e t w o r k I n f r a - st r u c t u r e Ne t w o r k A u t o m a t i o n an d O p e r a t i o n s Sy s t e m s ( B S S / O S S ) Se r v i c e P r o v i d e r B i l l i n g Se r v i c e P r o v i d e r M a n a g e m e n t Ti e r 2 a n d 3 T e c h S u p p o r t Ma r k e t i n g S u p p o r t Pa c k e t Pa g e 55 of 20 1 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 29 • How should the services be marketed? The success of the network is reliant upon sufficient take rates to make the network self- sustain- ing over time. It has been our experience that service providers typically do not market their ser- vices to their best advantage; they are not as motivated to do so as the network owner, because they don’t undertake the same financial risks as the network owner. This is a good reason for the network owner—Edmonds—to market and brand its network sepa- rately from the service providers, to create a brand awareness for the network itself. There are several good examples of this currently, including the municipal network in Vasteras, Sweden. The MalarNet City network in Vasteras has a distinct identity, including a user self-service portal that links the user to community resources, service providers, local medical resources, gaming, and social networking applications. Users on the MalarNet City network can click a link that takes them directly to a listing of all the available services and providers on the network, including user ratings for those services, price structures, etc. Packet Page 56 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 30 This approach to community network marketing makes it easier for consumers to immediately understand the benefits of an open access network, because the competition between service pro- viders is healthy and extremely evident. In short, we recommend a combined approach to marketing; service providers can and should market their own services to network customers, but the network itself should also be marketed separately. It is for this reason that marketing expenses have been included in the operational costs of the network, as shown in the Services and Network Finances sections of this document. • How will customer service be provided? Tier 1 customer service—that is, customer service to the end users—should be performed by the service provider(s) on the network. This can also be one of the competitive and differentiating factors among service providers on the network; good service will reduce churn on the network; bad service will increase it. Customer service metrics should also be included as part of the ser- vice level agreement (SLA) with the network’s service providers in order to ensure that only qualified, functioning service providers operate on the network. Consumers don’t always make the distinction between the service provider and the network, and when a service provider under- performs, it can reflect poorly on the network in the minds of the users. Tiers 2 and 3 customer service should be performed through the network operations firm. This would primarily be a resource for the service providers as they troubleshoot consumer issues. The network operations firm ultimately chosen by Edmonds should be able to demonstrate ex- perience and expertise in providing Tier 2 and 3 network support. Packet Page 57 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network • How should billing be done? Typically, billing of the consumers should be responsibility of the service provider(s) on the net- work; this allows the service providers to maintain a direct link to its own customers and to allow them to create and manage their own business practices. Inserting the network owner into the end user billing process would be cumbersome and would create an unnecessary filter between the service provider and their customers. Billing the service providers would be the responsibility of Edmonds through its network opera- tions firm. Part of the responsibility of the network operations firm would be to track service pro- vider usage and bill accordingly on behalf of the City. • What types of service level agreements need to be developed? Essentially, there are two categories of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that need to be devel- oped. One outlines the responsibilities of the Network Owner/Operator to the Service Provider, and the other outlines the responsibilities of the Service Provider to the Network Owner/Operator. The intent is to structure and implement the SLAs in such a way that creates a well defined framework for the two parties to operator under, and not necessarily a penalty book for collecting fines when problems arise. In Appendix A, we have included sample SLAs which map out the specific terms of these agreements. Page 31 Packet Page 58 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 32 OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnaall PPllaann • What type of organization or "entity" should build/own/operate the network? This is based primarily on the goals, resources, and risk level the City is comfortable with – and the additional resources and skills that may be available through the private sector. Simply put, there is not one size that fits all. However, one core principle that we do believe strongly in is the creation of a Public/Private Partnership (PPP). The overall success of a community broadband effort will improve by including the various skills and resources from the private sector, and by incorporating a model that shares risk across multiple parties. We advise against a business model where the City is the sole party responsible for – and at risk for – all of the aspects of building, operating, and maintaining the network. That being said, a PPP can be created through two basic structures. In one model, the public and private sector entities share overall ownership of the network, and together comprise the decision making body for all business issues, policy creation, day-to-day operations, network construction, writing of commercial contracts, and so on. The other PPP model is one that is structured purely through commercial contracts and there is no shared ownership. This creates clear separation of power for all decisions that impact network ownership, writing policies, and other various busi- ness decisions. Based on our discussions with the City of Edmonds, we feel that the most appropriate model is one where the network ownership is held solely by the City, through the creation of a special use entity or enterprise fund, and private sector partners are engaged through commercial contracts to provide services to, or purchase services from the network. In this model, an efficient board level structure is created, comprised of municipal representatives who make the final decisions on the overall community broadband plan, business model, messaging, implementation plan, and finance structure. Private sector partners are engaged through commercial contracts for such arrangements as pro- viding services on the network, network operations and maintenance agreements, market- ing/advertising efforts, and providing an additional capital source and revenue stream for the city. However, the private sector would not fill any seats on the municipal telecom board of directors. This keeps a clear separation of power between the public and private sector, while still benefit- ing from a public/private partnership model that leverages the strengths of both entities – and shares risk across multiple parties. PacketFront, in partnership with our municipal telecom counsel, is qualified to provide the legal expertise to help guide our clients through the organization and governance processes, make spe- cific recommendations on what the most appropriate structure would be, and draft the legal doc- uments to create the operating entities and commercial agreements. • What does the staffing model of the entity look like at the City level, regional level and who is responsible for recruiting, training and su- pervision of the staff? With the aforementioned model in mind, the broadband entity at the City level would be staffed primarily by a board of directors, of approximately 4 to 8 members. This staff would have exper- Packet Page 59 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network tise in areas such as City Administration and Planning, Finance, Legal, Infrastructure and Com- munications, and Economic Development. Furthermore, this staff would serve as a technical steering committee for decisions that impact infrastructure design and implementation – and manage the private sector partners through commercial agreements for such services as network operations and maintenance, triple-play applications, and finance/lending. If there are additional municipal bodies that would benefit the community broadband initiative, they can be organized on a regional level through Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGAs). • How would the staff levels be expected to grow? Whether the City chooses to operate and maintain the network themselves, or contract with a pri- vate sector partner to operate it on their behalf, we see moderate to no growth of the staff levels. This reasoning is based on one of the unique aspects of the PacketFront FTTH solution, which is a set of advanced software applications that automate the business processes for managing the network and delivering services. Therefore, if the City chooses to operate the network them- selves, there would be little to no staff level changes as the network grows in scale. If the City decides to outsource the operational responsibilities to a private sector partner, then there would be no staff changes over time, as this would be the responsibility of the party operating the net- work on behalf of the City. Page 33 Packet Page 60 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 34 FFiinnaanncciinngg • Who owns the assets once constructed? In the organization model recommended previously, the assets would be owned by the City. • What are the costs of financing and associated risks of the various financing options? The two main municipal financing options are bonding and leasing. Both rates are primarily set by market conditions, transaction size, and credit rating. Municipal bonds traditionally have a slightly lower cost of capital, higher legal fees, and a higher level of risk as the bonds are typi- cally backed by the full faith and credit of the municipality, and in some cases, require a tax pledge. Municipal leasing has a slightly higher cost of capital, lower fees, less complexity and time intensive, and a lower level of risk, as these programs typically include a non-appropriation clause in the event that monies are not allocated for the lease payments. In both financing options, the City owns the assets. The recommendation on which financing approach is a better fit (bond- ing vs. leasing) will be determined by understanding the City’s credit rating, lending require- ments, and risk appetite. In support of the City’s financing activities, PacketFront works with a broad array of financial partners who provide these types of lending programs, and can offer its services to conduct a cap- ital raise. • What are various cash flow alternatives in a best case, worst case, as well as a thoughtful likely case scenario? As part of the financial planning steps, PacketFront will work with the City on determining what the various cash flow projections would look like, under best case, worst case, and likely case scenarios – and collectively make a decision on which model the City is comfortable planning for. All of those variables were not forecasted in this document, only the likely cash flow case. We would propose to hold that exercise in a workshop environment. In the event that there is a financing need to cover operational losses or debt services, these funds can be capitalized in both financing structures mentioned above. What follows are some of the risk categories for a munici- pal network, including increased capital costs and lower than anticipated revenue. Risk: Higher than anticipated capital costs Possible reasons for higher capital costs include difficult construction conditions, less-than- anticipated aerial plant, and higher overall footage than estimated. Possible Mitigation Strategies: • Increase bond size • Issue additional bond(s) • Identify source of contingency funds Risk: Lower than anticipated take rate Packet Page 61 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Possible reasons for lower than anticipated take rates include incumbent competition and service provider issues (poor marketing, poor customer support, etc.). Possible Mitigation Strategies: • Increase marketing expenditures • Identify additional provider(s) • Increase bond size Risk: Lower than anticipated Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) Possible reasons for lower than anticipated ARPU includes price competition, provider-related circumstances, substitution and innovation (such as Skype and Vonage being used in place of a voice product on the network). Possible Mitigation Strategies: • Improve bundling incentives and cross-selling • Identify new products, services, and revenue streams • Increase/change prices • Increase business marketing & sales Page 35 Packet Page 62 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 36 SSeerrvviicceess An open access, active Ethernet fiber network is capable of bandwidth capacity that is superior to any other network infrastructure currently available. As such, it will accommodate all of the ser- vices mentioned by Edmonds: telephone service, Internet access, video entertainment (broadcast & on-demand), mobile Internet service (Wi-Fi), two way interactive video (distance learning, re- mote healthcare). Wi-Fi service has not been modeled into these design-build-operate scenarios, but could be done upon request. However, a fiber backbone installed by Edmonds would support the addition of Wi-Fi services. We believe it is somewhat preliminary to engage in discussions with specific service providers at this juncture, before the network has been approved or funded, but there are several qualified ser- vice providers who may be interested in providing services on an Edmonds network. Edmonds’ projected subscriber counts would likely draw at least one triple-play provider to its network, and 1 or 2 smaller providers. An Edmonds network also has the potential to draw the interest of lo- cally-created or managed niche providers, such as gaming services, social network services, co- location services, etc. In order to demonstrate the possibilities regarding services on a municipally-owned open access network, following are a few examples of services available on similar networks. • UTOPIA The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) is a consortium of Utah cities engaged in deploying and operating a fiber optic network to every business and household in its member communities. Recognizing the need to provide their residents with superior com- munications technology infrastructure—and the reality that current service providers in the mar- ketplace were not delivering first-tier services—the communities banded together to create a world-class, 100% fiber optic network for member communities. The ultra-broadband UTOPIA Community MetroNet is open to multiple service providers to offer innovative and exciting ser- vices to citizens in the UTOPIA cities. Four service providers currently serve subscribers on the UTOPIA network • 1 Triple Play provider • 2 Voice and Internet providers • 1 Internet provider (soon also to be adding voice services) Three of the service providers also provide business-class services. • Västerås, Sweden Mälarenergi Stadsnät's business model is based on a system whereby the network owner and the service providers share the revenue generated by the network, with the service providers offering their services direct to the users instead of running their own broadband connections to the cus- tomers they want. The service providers pay for gaining access to customers who are already connected to the network. Packet Page 63 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network The users connect to the system via a normal data socket, then buy the services they want directly from the relevant providers, thus gaining access to Internet, email, music, films, etc. The model has been well received by many service providers, including major firms such as Tele2 and Tis- cali. Västerås' community network has 29 service providers offering more than 100 unique services. These services are suited to different categories of user, such as landlords, companies or house- holds, and include voice, video, data, alarms, surveillance, support and operation, training, gam- ing etc. As an open network, all those who so desire can also offer a service on the network, in which case they sign a contract with Mälarenergi to become a service provider. Because of the popularity of the network in the community, approximately 70% of all network communication is local and does not go out via the Internet. It is much faster to transfer a file be- tween two connections in the community network than to send it over the Internet, and the capac- ity thus saved can be used for much more bandwidth hungry traffic, such as video-on-demand, IP telephony, TV or radio, which are transmitted with much poorer quality on the Internet. Users who wish to use the Internet also benefit from being connected to the community network since the network is connected to the Internet via the Internet service providers that offer their services on it. The Västerås community network offers connections at speeds no less than 10 Mbps, and has the capacity to offer 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps. • Nuenen, the Netherlands The city of Nuenen in the Netherlands has become the epicentre of some very exciting innovation in the telecommunications industry, and PacketFront’s technology is making it all possible. A Dutch cooperative, Ons Net (Our Network) has organized Nuenen’s roughly 8,000 households, offices, schools, and shops into a purchasing cooperative with enough power to demand state-of- the-art communications services. A very high level of consumer commitment has guaranteed a critical mass of customers and project financing. Volker Stevin Telecom recognized this opportunity and stepped in to build and operate a network providing access to triple-play services: TV/video, telephony, and Internet. As a method for quick growth, this network offered free voice service for one year and reached 90% penetration, and largely kept that penetration rate once the promotion period was over. Volker Stevin Telecom has chosen to remain strictly an access provider, hosting the conduit in Nuenen for a variety of service providers to compete for customers. Via the start-up user interface on the network a variety of service providers are presented to Nuenen residents. Volker Stevin Telecom and Ons Net believe that more flexibility in the business model leads to more choice, higher quality services, and lower prices to consumers. Page 37 Packet Page 64 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 38 NNeettwwoorrkk FFiinnaanncceess This section seeks to provide information regarding capital expenses, operating expenses, and the take rates necessary to produce a cash positive network over time. • Capital Expenses 19,00018,988156 174 170 296 180158 166 169 17,519 Total 9090 Mobile home 2,3172,31720+ units 1,4071,407 10 to 19 units 1,9081049269153686977901,1865 to 9 units 6,550 829410010153907783 or 4 units 390221266663502 units 6266261-Unit Attached 12,450 11,4214672991219180747310,7651-Unit Detached ModeledTotal20072006200520042003200220012000Census 19,00018,988156 174 170 296 180158 166 169 17,519 Total 9090 Mobile home 2,3172,31720+ units 1,4071,407 10 to 19 units 1,9081049269153686977901,1865 to 9 units 6,550 829410010153907783 or 4 units 390221266663502 units 6266261-Unit Attached 12,450 11,4214672991219180747310,7651-Unit Detached ModeledTotal20072006200520042003200220012000Census MDU Single Family Avg of 168 new homes/year Figure 1 — Residential unit counts were estimated using 2000 Census data com- bined with new housing building permit data. In order to estimate capital expenses, one needs to determine how many total units are planned to be connected to the network. For the purposes of this business plan and based on feedback from Edmonds, we have designed this business plan as a complete city build out. In order to determine how many units there were to be connected, we started with the 2000 cen- sus data, which projected 17,500 units broken down by unit size. To that number we added new home construction permitting data up through mid-summer in 2007. Combining the census data with the additional new home permitting data since that time, we arrived at roughly 19,000 units. We further broke that number down into two sub-categories: single family units, of which there were 12,450 homes; and multi-dwelling units (MDUs), of which there were 6,550. Typically, ARPU in MDUs is lower by 25-30%. However, we modeled the same amount on capi- tal costs to get to the MDUs because there is often a need to bore underneath asphalt, so the fiber drop will be more expensive than a single family residence. However, the same fiber drop would be able to connect multiple units, so we modeled it relatively consistently with the single family unit. There could also be some savings regarding the electronics in the MDUs. Packet Page 65 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 39 5602,722Total Ignored2250+ Ignored5100 to 250 3350 to 99 5525 to 49 17410 to 24 560 2985 to 9 Residential1,0832 to 4 Ignored1,0721 Count# of Employees 5602,722Total Ignored2250+ Ignored5100 to 250 3350 to 99 5525 to 49 17410 to 24 560 2985 to 9 Residential1,0832 to 4 Ignored1,0721 Count# of Employees Side and hobby businesses that would never contract for services independently from the home. Small businesses that possibly are home based but could have commercial presence. Take residential products Businesses with commercial presence likely to take different class of service from residential products. Large businesses with enterprise needs. Assumed to remain with current incumbent provider. Figure 2 — Business unit counts are derived from Dunn & Bradstreet data, but only the medium-sized businesses have been counted as business units. This figure represents a summary of the range of businesses in Edmonds. According to Dunn & Bradstreet, there are approximately 1,000 businesses registered in Edmonds that have only one employee. We have ignored those businesses for the purposes of this business plan; we assumed that those single-employee businesses by and large consist of residents who have a business li- cense for convenience and/or those who run a business out of their home. For the most part, these types of business have no commercial presence (office space, etc.) separate from their homes. These types of businesses would mostly be taking residential services, not business services. As we examined the group of businesses with between 2 and 4 employees, we understood that some of these businesses may actually have an office or place of business outside of the resi- dence—but again, most of these are more likely home-based. For the purposes of this business plan, we included these into the residential numbers under the assumption that they would also take the residential suite of products. There is also a chance that their place of work will be the same as their place of residence, and so will not be taking services separately from their resi- dence. For the purposes of the Edmonds broadband network, the most vital part of he business commu- nity are those businesses with between 5 and 99 employees, of which there are approximately 560. These businesses generally have an actual commercial presence. These businesses will also subscribe to various levels of services, including Internet, and depending on the nature of the business they may subscribe to a voice and video product as well. For the businesses between 100 and 250 employees, and 250+; we assumed that they are already well served by the incumbents, and they would not be likely to initially take service from provid- ers on the Edmonds network. If any of these businesses do switch to the Edmonds network, it would most likely be in 2-3 years, when their current contracts with the incumbents come up for renewal. Some of these businesses could also take service on the Edmonds network as a backup to their current communications services. Packet Page 66 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 40 CAPEX/UnitTotal Capital 19,560Units Passed $ 906.25$ 17,726,208Plant 19.12373,970Electronics $ 925.37$ 18,100,178Total Fixed $ 279.23$ 2,579,825Electronics $3,080.20 $ 1,121.10 219.51 243.82 378.53 9,239Subscribers (47% penetration) $ 10,357,215Total Variable $ 28,457,993Total CAPEX 3,497,250Drops 2,253,670CPE 2,028,070IP Set tops CAPEX/UnitTotal Capital 19,560Units Passed $ 906.25$ 17,726,208Plant 19.12373,970Electronics $ 925.37$ 18,100,178Total Fixed $ 279.23$ 2,579,825Electronics $3,080.20 $ 1,121.10 219.51 243.82 378.53 9,239Subscribers (47% penetration) $ 10,357,215Total Variable $ 28,457,993Total CAPEX 3,497,250Drops 2,253,670CPE 2,028,070IP Set tops Capital Expenses % of Total CAPEX Plant 62% Electronics 11% Drops 12% CPE 8% Set tops 7% Variable capital 37% Fixed capital 63% Source: PacketFront Figure 3 — Total capital required for the project is ~$28M, of which 64% is fixed plant regardless of the number of subscribers. The plant can be built in phases according to demand to allow for some variability. The approximately 19,000 residential units, plus the 1,000 very small businesses counted in the residential numbers, in addition to the 560 mid-size businesses equals 19,560 potentially servable units in Edmonds. With this number in mind, we estimate that the total capital expenditure required for the project is $28.4 million, or approximately $3080 per unit at 47% penetration This includes $925.37 per home passed (that is, the cost to get the fiber to the ‘curb’), plus $1,121 to connect each home that subscribes to service on the network. The 47% estimated penetration rate equals approximately 9,239 subscribers. If you divide $28.4 million by 9,239, this equals approximately $3,080 per user to build the network. A large percentage of that capital expense is in the outside plant. . We believe that while this 47% penetration rate will not be gained passively by the network, it can be reached through a tightly integrated implementation, operations and aggressive marketing, as described later in this document. Packet Page 67 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 41 196 miles access plant 39 miles underground 157 miles aerial 23 miles of distribution 0.7 miles underground 4.3 miles aerial 17.9 miles of potential Blackrock Fiber Source: PacketFront Figure 4 — In order to estimate capital costs, PacketFront modeled the running line routes past every address in the city using GIS software (see the larger map on page 6). When we modeled the Edmonds network using available data, it appeared that more than 80% of the network could be deployed aerially. This provides a large cost advantage over some networks; it is much less expensive to deploy the network aerially than underground. We acknowledge Edmonds’ preference for underground deployment; however, note that doing so would increase the $18M fiber plant costs seen on Figure 3 to more than $35M. Deploying the network entirely underground would make the financial success of the network extremely chal- lenging. However, as the electric utility buries lines throughout the city, the fiber cables could be buried at the same time to take advantage of shared costs. PacketFront did investigate possibly using some of the existing fiber routes owned by private par- ties to deploy part of the Edmonds’ plant; however, the fee for using their fiber plant is more cost- ly than Edmonds deploying its own fiber. Should those fees drop substantially, this option may be worth revisiting. Packet Page 68 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 42 Density HHP / Mile Outside Plant Cable Placement Aerial vs. Underground HH P / M i l e 196 miles of running line 19,560 HHP Underground Aerial 100 117 135 87 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Edmonds City Washington Community 2 Washington Community 1 UTOPIA 80% 36% 52% 35% 20% 64% 48% 65% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Edmonds City Washington Community 2 Washington Community 1 UTOPIA Source: PacketFront Figure 5 — The large portion of aerial plant placement significantly reduces the cost of the project. Edmonds’ density is also favorable. Edmonds has some significant cost advantages when compared to other similar projects and ar- eas. As shown on Figure 4, the Edmonds network can be constructed 80% aerially, which is a great cost savings. Edmonds also has approximately 100 homes per square mile; this is also fa- vorable, although is less dense relative to other cities in surrounding area. These, however, are good metrics that will result in lower overall capital expenses. Packet Page 69 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 43 Outside Plant Cable Placement Aerial vs. Underground 101% 113% 12%15% 15% -16% -6% 6% -5% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Pneumatic Drilling Directional Drilling Pull Fiber Place Strand Lash Fiber Splice <12 Splice 13 to 72 Splice 73 to 215 Splice 216+ 196 miles of running line Sources: UTOPIA, Local Edmonds Construction Firm Figure 6 — The price of underground construction in Edmonds is double that ex- perienced in Utah, perhaps due to less favorable ground conditions and the effect of Prevailing Wage laws. Aerial Construction seems to reflect the impact of Pre- vailing Wage laws alone. As part of this process, we asked a construction firm local to Edmonds to provide quotes on labor rates for network installation. We found that the cost relative to UTOPIA construction on some of the main underground units were 100% more in Edmonds. In other words, the labor costs are roughly double than what we’ve historically seen in our experience with the UTOPIA network project in Utah. We attribute a portion of that to prevailing wage laws in Washington State, and also a portion to unfavorable construction conditions for buried cable; combined, these factors result in higher construction expenses. Prevailing Wage laws do also impact the aerial portions of the network, which is consistent with research that says that prevailing wage laws increase costs by 15%-20%. We believe that at least a 15% increase in costs over those witnessed on the UTOPIA project would be proven no matter which construction firm is selected. It should be noted that the splicing costs were more comparable to average rates found for the UTOPIA project. While our research did not include soliciting bids from multiple construction firms, this should be the next step for Edmonds. Packet Page 70 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 44 $28.00 $18.17 $18.10 $17.61 $15.15 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 Edmonds City UTOPIA Phase I UTOPIA Phase II TCS Beltw ay $7.25 $6.91 $5.96 $6.06 $3.21 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 Edmonds UTOPIA Phase 1 UTOPIA Phase II Beltway Cable Aerial Construction Costs 157 miles Underground Construction Costs 39 miles $/ f o o t $/ f o o t Sources: UTOPIA, Local Edmonds Construction Firm, Dean & Company Figure 7 — Although the underground construction costs could be significantly higher in Edmonds, the large amount of aerial construction can minimize the im- pact on the total capital cost of the project. When examining the costs-per-foot for construction in Edmonds, the underground costs are sig- nificantly more expensive than what has been experienced with other projects. The aerial costs are less expensive but still higher than what have been experienced on a per-foot basis in other areas of the country. Packet Page 71 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 45 Construction Costs % of Total Plant 48.62950,915Distribution Rings 72.001,408,251Inspection $906.25$17,726,208Total 43.46850,000Cabinets 77.621,518,251Engineering 76.691,500,000Management 236.864,632,903Construction Materials $351.02$ 6,865,888Construction Labor Cost / HHPConstruction Cost Construction Cost Cost / HHP 48.62950,915Distribution Rings 72.001,408,251Inspection $906.25$17,726,208Total 43.46850,000Cabinets 77.621,518,251Engineering 76.691,500,000Management 236.864,632,903Construction Materials $351.02$ 6,865,888Construction LaborDistribution Rings 5% Inspection 8% Cabinets 5% Engineering 9% Management 8% Construction Materials 26% Construction Labor 39% Source: PacketFront Figure 8 — The total cost of the outside plant is projected to be $17.7M, which breaks down into Construction Labor, Construction Materials, Management, Engi- neering, Cabinets, Distribution Rings, and Inspection costs. In summary, when the $17.7M outside plant costs are broken down into its components, $6.8 mil- lion of that is the labor portion. As discussed in previous figures, while there is not a significant amount of underground construction, what exists is very costly. Construction materials comprise another major portion of the total. Other categories to account for include overall project management, engineering of the network, placing of the cabinets, dis- tribution rings, and inspection costs. It’s possible that, using the open trenches for the planned water project, approximately $3-4 mil- lion of the construction costs could be offset. This would include lower labor costs (which would be lowered but not altogether eliminated), but not lower material costs. Questions still remain around whether the management, engineering, distribution rings or inspec- tion costs could be offset if the network is built as part of the water project. How much or how little Edmonds wishes to share these expenses with other stakeholders becomes a matter for Ed- monds and the stakeholders to decide. In general, however, the more that is offset by other stake- holders, the better the financial outcome is for the network. This will be shown in upcoming fig- ures. Packet Page 72 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 46 ~1500 HHP ~900 HHP Set top box Distribution • 23 miles of plant • $373,970 of electronics • $ 19 / sub Access • 191 miles of plant • $2,579,825 of electronics • $ 279 / sub Customer Equipment (CPE) • $2,252,670 of electronics • $ 244 / sub Set tops • $2,028,070 of electronics • $219 / sub 95% of electronics capital $6,860,565 5% of electronics capital $373,970 Cabinets Source: PacketFront Figure 9 — The electronics will cost approximately $7.2M, of which 95% is the link to the customer’s premise plus set top boxes for video. This figure shows a breakdown of how the electronics are configured for the network. As seen on the bottom left of the figure, there are $373,970 in core electronics. On the right side there is $6.8 million in access electronics, with the majority of the cost providing the link from the cabinet to the home. Therefore, the access electronics portion is by far the most significant portion of the costs of de- ploying this network. We also included $2 million for set top boxes, which is about $219 per sub- scriber, but in later figures we show that the set top boxes end up being a nice revenue maker for the network. These numbers account for an average of 2.5 set tops per video subscriber. Packet Page 73 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 47 $925 $1,021 $873 $0 $300 $600 $900 $1,200 $1,500 Edmonds City Verizon FIOS 2005 Verizon FIOS 2006 $902 $880 $1,163 $220 $0 $300 $600 $900 $1,200 $1,500 Edmonds City Verizon FIOS 2005 Verizon FIOS 2006 Cost to Connect a Subscriber 9,239 subscribers – 47% Cost per Premise Passed 19,560 HHP Note:Edmond’s connection costs include set top boxes which are not included by Verizon Set top Boxes Sources: PacketFront, Verizon Figure 10 — Cost per premise passed in Edmonds is in line with the Verizon FiOS project. To ensure that our projected costs were in line with comparable projects, we compared these pro- jections with Verizon FiOS capital expenditures. Where the Edmonds network is projected to cost $925 per home passed for the fiber plant, Verizon reported approximately $1000 per home passed in 2005, and $873 in 2006. This change shows that Verizon has been able to drive down its own costs over this period. The cost to connect a subscriber on the Edmonds network is actually less than what Verizon has reported, and a little bit more if you include the set top box. Verizon’s number does not include the set top box. This review indicates that our estimates are in a reasonable range of what the Edmonds network will cost to deploy. The City would still need to solicit bids to finalize pricing. Packet Page 74 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 48 • Operating Expenses $6.34 $9.53 $9.55 $10.87 $9.35 $9.79 $5.01 $7.74 $9.63 $9.25 $10.28 $13.97 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 Edmonds City ILEC Qwest BellSouth Verizon AT&T $ / S u b / M o n t h Network Operating Expenses Per subscriber Field Operations Network Operations $17.27 $19.18 $20.12 $19.66 $23.76 $11.35 Sources: PacketFront, FCC Figure 11 — Edmonds community fiber network is expected to be less expensive to maintain in the field than the ILEC’s copper plant. Operational costs for Edmonds are approximately $11 per subscriber per month, which is far lower than the operational costs for the ILECs. The operational costs for a typical ILEC reflect aging copper plants and old legacy systems that require more upkeep and repair. A typical ILEC also maintains a much larger overhead cost due to their large corporate structures. The Edmonds network will have a much leaner overhead and slimmer operational costs due to the newer and more adaptable fiber infrastructure. Packet Page 75 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 49 Total Network Operating Expenses Agency Operations Network Operations Marketing $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: PacketFront Figure 12 — Annual operating expenses are approximately $1.5M annually. Sig- nificant marketing dollars will be required early in the project to generate aware- ness and subscribers. The total network operations expenditure is thought to increase very gradually over time due to the increased number of subscribers. This operational model allows for agency costs, including staff. There will likely also be other similar overhead. Initial marketing costs are estimated relatively high in order to help drive demand for services initially—to get the word out and kick start the project. Over time marketing costs begins to taper off into maintenance mode over a period of some years. Network Operations and Agency costs assumed in this model include: Network Operations: • Asset Management – to operate the network • Field Maintenance – to maintain the infrastructure in the field • Collocation Fees – to locate core electronics • Interconnects – to connect the Edmonds network to the rest of the world Agency: • Advertising – marketing cost for the network assumed at $200/sub • Salaries & Benefits – $12,000/month is allocated, but not designated for specific staffing • Professional Fees – to cover legal and other professional fees • Rent – no money allocated for rent. Assumed to share city space Packet Page 76 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 50 • Insurance • Other expenses $63.91 $31.95 $21.30 $7.10$7.99$9.13$10.65 $15.98 $12.78 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Operating Expenses Per subscriber per month $ / S u b / M o n t h Take Rate Source: PacketFront Figure 13 — The operating overhead of the project will require take rates above 40% to bring the unit economics to a reasonable cost. There are some variable costs on the operations side; however, most are fixed so as the take rate goes up, those costs can be spread across a greater portion. This figure also shows that at the 28-38% penetration range, even so high as 42% penetration, the network will be in a range similar to what is currently being paid by the ILECs in terms of opera- tional costs (which run typically $15-20 per user per month). The assumption is that the Edmonds network would be closer to the 45-50% range for network penetration, and therefore have lower operational costs than the ILECs. PacketFront anticipates that the 45%-50% take rate would be eventually reached after approxi- mately 6-8 years. Packet Page 77 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 51 ($10,000,000) $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 Present Value of Net Operating Income By take rate and ARPU Pr e s e n t V a l u e * ARPU (Average revenue per user) 60% Take Rate 50% Take Rate 40% Take Rate 30% Take Rate *Assumes discount rate of 5.5% for 25 years Figure 14 — The present value of the project—or the amount of capital that can be raised—depends on the average revenue per user (ARPU) at a given take rate. The ARPU for a user is derived by the service(s) subscribed to by each user. For example, a tri- ple-play subscriber would have a higher APRU than an Internet-only subscriber. This figure looks at one way to estimate the net value of the project for purposes of financing and private capital. The value can be calculated by taking the ARPU combined with the take rate. In other words, if we assume that the network can achieve a $34 ARPU and a 30% take rate, this project would be worth about $10 million. If we believe that the network can get a $50 ARPU and a 50% take rate, the project’s worth $55 million. This is one way to value the network for the purposes of obtaining private equity. Packet Page 78 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 52 All costs required to light the network and make it fully capable of carrying meter traffic. Includes all plant cost as well as the premise drop to connect the meter to the electronics. Direct labor and materials but associated project overhead such as engineering, management, & inspection. Only direct labor and materials to install fiber. $21,200,000 $21,223,458 3,497,250 $17,726,208 1,408,251 950,915 850,000 1,518,251 1,500,000 4,632,903 $ 6,865,888 Plant + Drop $26,400,000 $26,429,923 2,262,670 2,579,825 373,970 3,497,250 $17,726,208 1,408,251 950,915 850,000 1,518,251 1,500,000 4,632,903 $ 6,865,888 Lit transport Drops Core electronics Cabinet electronics Customer electronics $17,726,208$12,449,706Total $17,700,000$12,400,000Round to $100k 950,915 950,915Distribution Rings 1,408,251Inspection $17,726,208$12,449,706Total Plant 850,000Cabinets 1,518,251Engineering 1,500,000Management 4,632,9034,632,903Construction Materials $ 6,865,888$ 6,865,888Construction Labor All PlantMinimal All costs required to light the network and make it fully capable of carrying meter traffic. Includes all plant cost as well as the premise drop to connect the meter to the electronics. Direct labor and materials but associated project overhead such as engineering, management, & inspection. Only direct labor and materials to install fiber. $21,200,000 $21,223,458 3,497,250 $17,726,208 1,408,251 950,915 850,000 1,518,251 1,500,000 4,632,903 $ 6,865,888 Plant + Drop $26,400,000 $26,429,923 2,262,670 2,579,825 373,970 3,497,250 $17,726,208 1,408,251 950,915 850,000 1,518,251 1,500,000 4,632,903 $ 6,865,888 Lit transport Drops Core electronics Cabinet electronics Customer electronics $17,726,208$12,449,706Total $17,700,000$12,400,000Round to $100k 950,915 950,915Distribution Rings 1,408,251Inspection $17,726,208$12,449,706Total Plant 850,000Cabinets 1,518,251Engineering 1,500,000Management 4,632,9034,632,903Construction Materials $ 6,865,888$ 6,865,888Construction Labor Minimal All Plant Figure 15 — A number of cases can be made for the amount of network capital that could be carried by the other network stakeholders. The chart above illustrates four scenarios by which the water utility may value the existence of the fiber network for their own purposes. As is shown above, there is great variation in the value, from a minimal amount to nearly the cost of the full buildout. Packet Page 79 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 53 $ 36,258,929Total 884,3642.5%Cost of Issuance 2,210,9841 yearDebt Service Reserve 3,505,5872 yearsCapitalized Interest 1,200,000Start up Operations $ 28,457,993Capital $ 36,258,929Total 884,3642.5%Cost of Issuance 2,210,9841 yearDebt Service Reserve 3,505,5872 yearsCapitalized Interest 1,200,000Start up Operations $ 28,457,993Capital Note: Assumed financing structure is 25 year revenue bonds at 5.5% Figure 16 — An additional $8M of financing and operating overhead will likely be required to fully fund the project. This table categorizes the total project costs. $28.4 million in capital expenses will be required to build the network. In addition, we estimate that the network will need $1.2 to initially support operations until the network generates enough revenue to cover it. This business plan also as- sumes the capitalization of two years of interest. In addition, the plan should account for one year of reserve funds out of bond proceeds. Lastly, with the inclusions of the cost of bond issuance at a little under $1M, the total project is antici- pated to require slightly over $36 million. Packet Page 80 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 54 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 20%30%40%50%60%70% Required Take Rate & ARPU By water utility contribution AR P U Take Rate $12.4M $17.7M$21.2M $26.4M $6.0M $0.0M Figure 17 — Depending on the amount of capital carried by the other network stakeholders, the required combination of take rate and ARPU can be determined. Factoring in the required debt service on a bond issue, the capital costs and the operational ex- penses of the network, this graph shows what would be required, in terms of take rate and ARPU, in order to have the network’s total revenue cover all of the debt service and operations—at vari- ous levels of funding from the other network stakeholders. If you expect a 30% take rate and a $31 ARPU, the water utility would need to contribute $26.4M to the project in order to make the network viable. Likewise, if the network stakeholders put for- ward $6M, then the network would need to sustain a $38 ARPU and a 45% take rate. Packet Page 81 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 55 $15 $20 $10 $5 $10 $30 $5 $40 $30 Retail Rate* (Estimated) 1.5.5.5$ 10.00PVR 1.5222$ 5.00Set Top 30%30%30%30%$ 6.00HD 50%0%50%50%$ 5.00Phone 20%10%10%10%$ 5.00Gaming/Other $37.34 100% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% C $46.15 100% 50% 100% 100% 0% 100% D 100%100%5.00CPE Rental $32.34$37.34ARPU 100%100%$ 6.00Base Transport 30%30%Video 25%75%25.00Speed 2 75%25%$ 15.00Speed 1 100%100%Data BAWholesale Rate Service $15 $20 $10 $5 $10 $30 $5 $40 $30 Retail Rate* (Estimated) 1.5.5.5$ 10.00PVR 1.5222$ 5.00Set Top 30%30%30%30%$ 6.00HD 50%0%50%50%$ 5.00Phone 20%10%10%10%$ 5.00Gaming/Other $37.34 100% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% C $46.15 100% 50% 100% 100% 0% 100% D 100%100%5.00CPE Rental $32.34$37.34ARPU 100%100%$ 6.00Base Transport 30%30%Video 25%75%25.00Speed 2 75%25%$ 15.00Speed 1 100%100%Data BAWholesale Rate Service *Note: Retail Rates will be set by the service provider(s). These are listed for review purposes only. Figure 18 — Residential ARPU can be approximated by multiplying the wholesale rate of a service by the % of subscribers taking that service. This table describes various wholesale rates, service combinations and ARPU scenarios to be considered by Edmonds. Historically, of the subscribers who take UTOPIA services for broadband, 50% also take phone service, and 30% take video. The table represents scenarios of service mixes that are largely based on the performance of UTOPIA. Set top boxes have been included in the above scenarios for two reasons.—there’s a high likeli- hood that the service provider(s) who are contracted to provide service on the network won’t be able to fund the set top boxes required. The network will therefore be required to provide the capital. Secondly, set top boxes are a profitable source of revenue, and so it’s more advantageous for the network to provide them. The above scenarios assume that everyone subscribing to the network takes data service. There are two levels of wholesale rates: $15 and $25 (per subscriber per month) for data, to account for two different levels of data service. In addition, Scenario D charges the equivalent of a cable modem fee—both Comcast and Verizon typically charge such fees, so there is some precedent for it. Packet Page 82 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network For video, the scenarios assume a base transport fee of $6, as well as an option for a $6 upgrade to HD. The scenarios charge $5 for a regular set top and $10 for a PVR set top. Based on ex- perience, the scenarios assume an average of 2 set tops per home and .5 of a PVR. (Scenario D is a little more optimistic and assumed more people would take the PVR.) The scenarios also assume that in most cases about half the people would take phone at a whole- sale rate of $5. Charging for phone service can be tricky; you can charge something, but charging too much will encourage people to run the voice through their data pipe (i.e. with Skype or Vo- nage), and then the network will receive no additional revenue. $5 seems to be about the maxi- mum you could charge without pushing people to run their voice through their high speed data line—which is a temptation if the network offers a 20Mbps or 50 Mbps product. Scenarios A and B examine what happens when consumers are more or less price sensitive to the data speed price. At speed 1, at $15 wholesale, the data service would retail for around $30, and speed 2 (at $25 wholesale), data service would retail for around $40. Scenario A assumes a better penetration of the $40 higher end speed. Scenario B assumes that people are a little more price sensitive and more subscribe to the $30 speed. The impact of consumer’s price sensitivity is re- flected in the ARPU for each scenario. Scenario C offers only the higher data speed and then adds on for video, but assumes that the us- ers go elsewhere (Skype, Vonage, etc.) for their phone services. This scenario would produce an ARPU of $37.34. Scenario D is the most aggressive of the 4 scenarios by offering only the high-end data speed. This scenario also shows more consumers subscribing to HD, and more people taking a PVR as opposed to a regular set-top box, better penetration of video overall, and the same phone penetra- tion as the other scenarios. This scenario could be supported by very aggressive joint marketing efforts between the network and the service providers. Scenario D would result in a $46 ARPU. Page 56 Packet Page 83 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 57 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 20%30%40%50%60%70% Required Take Rate & ARPU By water utility contribution AR P U Take Rate $12.4M $17.7M$21.2M $26.4M D A+C B $6.0M $0.0M Figure 19 — There are a number of reasonable combinations of stakeholder capi- tal contributions and required take rate & ARPU to make the network viable. Based upon the service mixes seen in the previous figure, assuming that the network achieves a $37 ARPU as seen in Scenario A, and that with a stakeholder contribution of $12.4 million, the network will require a 38% take rate to cover its operations and debt service requirements. Packet Page 84 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 58 Tacoma, WA % of Units Passed Telecom Projects Subscriber take-rate by year Orem, UT Alameda, CA Verizon FIOS FIOS Projection Edmonds 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Figure 20 — A take rate forecast growing to 45% is reasonable compared to the performance of other networks. This is a look at the performance of some other projects, including FiOS and Orem, Utah (part of UTOPIA). Orem has many elements similar to an Edmonds, although it’s generally a younger city demographically. There are also cities that represent a range of experiences. We excluded those cities providing retail services. Packet Page 85 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 59 CCoonncclluussiioonn aanndd RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss As we examine this data, we can conclude that there is a reasonable business case for building out fiber to the premise in Edmonds, and to serve residents and businesses with triple-play services. However, we do recommend that this business plan be combined with the separate work that the City has undertaken regarding government and city facilities, in order to discern the full financial and business outcomes of an Edmonds network. Overall, this plan should recognize that the chances of success for this network will increase greatly when there is an integrated approach that incorporates the city telecom services, public utilities, education, health care, residential and busi- ness involvement. In addition, we wish to acknowledge the risk that the Verizon FiOS project poses to the Edmonds network. Verizon is a solid service provider and they are delivering a good product with FiOS. We do not yet know what impact the FiOS project will have on the competitive landscape in Ed- monds. However, we believe that an open access fiber network has much to offer over the FiOS project, specifically: • The Edmonds network is envisioned to cover the entire city; it is highly unlikely that FiOS will be deployed throughout the entire city. • The Edmonds active Ethernet network will have greater capacity, and be quicker and less expensive to upgrade in the future, than Verizon’s FiOS, which is built using a GPON to- pology. • The Edmonds network will be an open access network offering the freedom of choice to its users; Verizon’s users will be locked into only Verizon services. • The Edmonds network will have the capability to offer far more advanced services to its users due to its superior capacity. With aggressive marketing and the right message to the community, it is possible to mitigate the threat that the FiOS project poses to the Edmonds network. Specific recommendations for Edmonds include the following: 1. Involve other governmental entities and community stakeholders and create an integrated business plan. Edmonds should also explore the possibilities that other governmental and nonprofit entities may be willing to join in the business model by putting forth funds to fi- nance the network; these entities would directly benefit from the existence of the network, and therefore may be willing to participate in the financial risk and potential outcome of the network. For example, if one of the specific uses of the network is to serve the water utility, then the water utility may be willing to allocate more funds to a network that allows it to attain its goals. Likewise, other entities that have a direct need for the network, and will benefit from it, may be willing to place funds into the network to help guarantee its existence and success. These public or private funds could be used as part of the capital outlay for the network build. Some or all of these invested funds could also be held in reserve to serve as a guarantee in case the network does not perform as expected. This reserve fund could be used to finan- cially secure the network, but would not otherwise be touched unless certain performance thresholds were reached. The more funding the City is able to secure from public and private entities, the better the financial outlook for the network. Edmonds should complete an integrated business plan that includes all targeted network Packet Page 86 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network stakeholders, including the government and utility aspects. All the work done separately by Edmonds needs to be integrated to provide a fuller picture of the network strengths, benefits, costs and risks. 2. Conduct a governance and legal review to ensure an entity is created that can properly and legally share the contributions of the joint public and private organizations. An organiza- tional and governance structure needs to be created for the legal broadband entity. This proc- ess involves drafting all required legal papers and agreements, formation of an appropriate operating entity incorporated under state law, and preparing the broadband entity to accept cash and asset contributions 3. Develop a financing plan that: • meets the project’s goals • fits within the constraints set by local and/or federal regulations • fits within the business plan created during the planning phase Ultimately, the financing plan will present options to pay for the community network. The end result of the financing plan will be a customized financing solution for the community that maximizes the ability to finance the network while minimizing risk to the stakeholders. 4. Develop a marketing plan and market the network aggressively. Gather grassroots support and local champions for the initiative. The financial success of Edmonds’ network is reliant upon a solid take rate and ARPU performance. History has shown that many municipal net- works have not been as successful as planned, in part because they have not allocated the marketing dollars necessary to build community awareness of the benefits of the community network. Appropriate marketing will create a much better response in terms of take rates, and must be used as part of the overall strategy for network success. 5. Construct and implement the network. Hire experienced engineering, construction, and in- spection firms to be sure that that the network is deployed within scope and budget. Use an experienced project manager to guide the project to successful completion. 6. Make use of an experienced third-party firm to take on the daily operations of the network; such a firm should be deeply experienced in open access networks, governance and organiza- tional issues, network planning, service provider management, network monitoring and trou- bleshooting, and general operations. Page 60 Packet Page 87 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Appendix A—Sample Service Level Agreements Page 61 Packet Page 88 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network EXHIBIT D Service Level Agreements 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 This Exhibit D provides detailed descriptions of the Performance Metrics for the [PROJECT] net- work, and is the basis for certain service level agreements between Service Provider and [PROJECT]. All Performance Metrics will apply to [PROJECT]’s Network. For the purpose of these Performance Metrics, [PROJECT]’s Network can be viewed as a carrier network to which Service Provider hands off/accepts traffic (1) for voice services; (2) for data services; and (3) for video services; collectively (“Services”). 1.2 In addition to any other rights under this Agreement, if any given Retail Subscriber (1) experi- ences an Outage that continues for a period of more than five (5) Business Days after delivery of written notice thereof by Service Provider to [PROJECT], or (2) experiences three (3) or more Outages of the same Service, whether or not for the same reason, in any thirty (30) calendar day period, then Service Pro- vider may terminate the Service(s) for the Retail Subscriber without liability for cancellation or termination charges. 1.3 Each Metric as defined in Section 3 of this Exhibit, measurement, report, reporting tool, or other datum is Service Provider’s “Protected” information subject to the requirements set forth in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 in the body of this Agreement and [PROJECT]’s Confidential Information subject to the require- ments set forth in Section 8.4 in the body of this Agreement. 1.4 [PROJECT] will: 1.4.1 Use commercially reasonable efforts to remedy any delays, interruptions, omissions, mistakes, accidents or errors (“Defect” or “Defects”) and restore the Services as soon as possible after any Defect is reported to [PROJECT] using receipted electronic mail, fax or other documen- tation. 1.4.2 Collect, measure, and report data to Service Provider for service, network and opera- tional Performance Metrics described in Section 3. [PROJECT] will provide Metrics upon writ- ten request, using a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet or other format mutually agreed to by [PROJECT] and Service Provider. [PROJECT] is responsible (at its expense) for providing any equipment, systems, and software necessary to collect and report such Metrics. 1.4.3 Analyze and improve processes, as necessary, to achieve Performance Metric Objectives set forth in Section 3. 1.4.4 Establish, maintain, and use quality improvement teams (“QITs”) that meet at least quarterly, and which consist of [PROJECT] process representatives, subject matter experts, and Service Provider, as well as potentially other of [PROJECT]’s service providers, suppliers and subcontractors, to conduct root cause analysis on data indicating inferior performance, act on results and implement im- provement plans for those Metrics that fail to meet or exceed the Objectives set forth in Section 3. 1.5 Service Provider will: Page 62 Packet Page 89 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network 1.5.1 Measure Quality Metrics by means of Service Provider’s regularly scheduled Retail Sub- scriber satisfaction surveys which randomly sample Retail Subscribers for their opinions of Ser- vice Provider service quality. 1.5.2 Collect Retail Subscriber complaint information on Services through its customer care center(s). Based on the first twelve (12) months’ of operations, a base- line number of Retail Subscriber complaints will be established. Following that, Service Provider will establish a performance metric for measurement during the term of the Agreement. 1.5.3 Measure performance metrics and work with [PROJECT] to resolve discrepancies, if any, between the parties’ results. 1.5.4 Use commercially reasonable efforts to meet Service Provider SLAs as speci- fied in Exhibit E. 2 DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1 “Metric” or “Service Metric” means the performance measures for specific [PROJECT] functions and includes the Description, Measurement Method, Objective and Service Credit, if any, that define the capitalized term that is used throughout this Exhibit D. 2.2 “Description” means the specific [PROJECT] function to be measured. 2.3 “Measurement Method” means the tools, process and algorithms for determining [PROJECT]’s performance and the frequency of the measurement. 2.4 “Objective” means the level of performance that Service Provider expects [PROJECT] to achieve. 2.5 “Service Credit” means the amount [PROJECT] owes to Service Provider, where applicable, if the Objective is not met for that month. The amount of any Service Credit shall be calculated as set forth in Section 3. 2.5.1 Service Provider will not receive Service Credits for any Service interruption or other transmission problem (including, without limitation, any inability of [PROJECT] to maintain Per- formance Metrics commitments contained herein) that is in whole or in part caused by or attrib- uted to Service Provider or its Retail Subscriber, or other event defined under Article XI – Force Majeure in the body of this Agreement. [PROJECT] will nevertheless use its reasonable efforts to seek a prompt resumption of Service and/or resolution of transmission problems in those circum- stances where such efforts have a reasonable likelihood of promptly achieving the cited results. 2.5.2 In the event that Service Credits are issued for missing Network Availability Objectives, Service Credits shall not be issued for Packet Loss or Roundtrip Delay/Latency for the same inci- dents. In the event that Service Credits are issued for missing Network Core Average Availability Objectives, Service Credits shall not be issued for missing Network Edge Average Availability Objectives for the same reporting month. 2.5.3 Service Credits expressed as a percent of “Services affected”, “recurring charges”, etc. refer to amounts charged to Service Provider by [PROJECT] unless otherwise explicitly stated. 2.6 “[PROJECT]’s Network” or “Network” means the “Network” as defined in Article I of the body of this Agreement. Page 63 Packet Page 90 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network 2.6.1 “Network Core” means that portion of the Network for which a higher degree of redun- dancy and reliability is provided (see diagram 4.1), including Regional Core Switch (RCS) and Distribution Core Switches (DCS) and Provider Access Switches (PAS) 2.6.2 “Network Edge” means that portion of the Network for which a lesser degree or no re- dundancy is provided (see diagram 4.1), including Access Distribution Switches (ADS) and Ac- cess Portals (AP) 2.6.3 ”Network Connection Point (NCP)” means the point(s) of Service Provider connectivity ingress and egress deployed at multiple Points of Presence providing access to the [PROJECT] Network for service providers. 2.6.4 “Access Portal (AP)” means the switches deployed at the subscriber premises where the fiber network terminates into service ports. 2.6.5 “On Premises Back-Up Battery” means the sealed lead acid component of the uninterrup- tible power supply deployed on the Retail Subscriber’s premise. 2.6.6 “Quality of Service (QoS)” means the direct measure of quality for the services delivered over [PROJECT]’s Network. 2.6.7 “Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)” means the equipment, such as, but not limited to, Access Portals and video gateways, that will be installed at the Retail Subscriber’s premise. 2.7 “Business hours” means 8:00 am to 5:00 PM Pacific Time on a Business Day. “Business Day” means Monday through Friday, excluding public holidays recognized in Utah. 2.8 “Outage” means Service(s) is/are interrupted such that there is a loss of continuity (unable to transmit or receive traffic to the Retail Subscriber Access Portal), or when [PROJECT] and Service Pro- vider agree that Service is unfit or unavailable for use. Each Service affected is counted separately (e.g. if the Access Portal of a Retail Subscriber who has video and data Services fails then it is counted as two (2) Outages.) 2.8.1 The following are excluded from Outages: • failure of components for which Service Provider and/or its Retail Subscriber(s) are re- sponsible and are therefore not part of [PROJECT]’s Network (e.g., to the network side of the interconnecting Service Provider router). • time that corrections cannot be made because the Service Provider, Retail Subscriber, or access to the facilities necessary for making the repair, are inaccessible • problems caused by Retail Subscribers’ negligence or misconduct, or by the negligence or misconduct of others authorized by the Retail Subscribers • problems resolved as “No Trouble Found” • scheduled network upgrades and maintenance periods. The upgrades and maintenance will be scheduled when customer services are impacted minimally, typically between 12 AM to 6 AM local time. Furthermore, [PROJECT] will notify the Service Provider of such scheduled upgrades or maintenance periods as per 3.9.7. • Circumstances defined in Section 2.5 above. 2.9 “Outage Duration” is the time in minutes that an Outage has occurred. An Outage begins when Service Provider notifies [PROJECT] and [PROJECT] opens a trouble ticket and ends when service has been restored. 2.10 “Availability” means percentage of time [PROJECT]’s Network is available for service. Network Average Availability is measured performance of [PROJECT]’s Network. Even though [PROJECT]’s Page 64 Packet Page 91 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 65 Network Core Switches deliver 99.99% Network Average Availability, a Service Provider is not be as- sured 99.99% availability unless its equipment is appropriately configured and connected over redundant paths to [PROJECT]’s Network (see Diagram 4.1) Availability for the Network Core and Network Edge are computed separately. Network Average Availability is: 100__ __1 ×⎥⎦ ⎤⎢⎣ ⎡−∑ TimeAvailableTotal durationsoutageNetwork Sum of Network_outage_durations = the total of the outage time, in minutes, of all Retail Subscribers’ Services in service affected by network outages during the reporting calen- dar month. Total_Available_Time = (number of Services in service on the last day of the calendar month pre- ceding the reporting month) * ((days in the reporting calendar month) * (minutes per day)). 2.11 “Delay / Latency” means the time it takes a packet to traverse the distance between two points on the Network (note: every 50 miles (one-way) increases the allowable roundtrip delay by 1 millisecond). Specifically, roundtrip delay/latency means the interval of time, in milliseconds, it takes a sixty-four byte (64-byte) test packet of data to travel from the Regional Core Switch (RCS) which the service provider uses to aggregate and distribute their services to a QoS specific AP connected to each ADS via [PROJECT]’s Network and back. Any unsuccessful ping will be counted at 20 milliseconds. Delay/Latency will be monitored and tested as follows: [PROJECT] will make at least 20 roundtrip delay measurements each hour. Measurements will be taken from RCS elements that distribute and aggregate subscriber services through all ADSs to dedicated, management-specific APs for each QoS. Delay will be measured to the nearest mi- crosecond. The “Average Monthly Round Trip Delay” is calculated as the average of all measurements taken during a given calendar month. Objectives for round trip delay are given in Section 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1. In the event of Delay/Latency problems. [PROJECT] will respond to the specific Delay/Latency problem when notified and documented by Service Provider on behalf of any individual Retail Subscriber. [PROJECT] will perform end-to-end performance measurements and other tests and take necessary correc- tive action to restore Retail Subscribers Service to levels specified for Delay/Latency in Section 3. 2.12 “Packet loss” means a maximum percentage of data packets that [PROJECT]’s Network may drop (sent and not received) through the [PROJECT] Network. [PROJECT] will track the number of dropped packets by QoS level on the egress of all [PROJECT] switch ports that are connected to other [PROJECT] switch ports. On the ingress of [PROJECT] switch ports, dropped packets are not categorized by QoS. [PROJECT] will count all ingress port dropped packets and prorate dropped packets across QoS levels based on bandwidth of each QoS level. [PROJECT] will only monitor dropped packets which will not be part of the SLA calculation on service provider NCP ports. Packet loss is calculated as a percent as follows: 100ports specified allon QoSgiven afor packets All ports specified allon QoSgiven afor packetsLost ×⎥⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ∑ ∑ Packet Page 92 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network [PROJECT] fails to meet the service level agreement when the percent packet loss for any Service exceeds the Objective. 2.13 “Installation” means [PROJECT] will provide Committed Due Dates for installation of Service in less than or equal to the intervals from order date as shown below. For pre-configured Services (voice, video, ISP data) to Residential Subscribers • Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required: two (2) business days • Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required: seven (7) business days • Full install fiber and Access Portal installation is required: twelve (12) business days For pre-configured Services (e.g., voice, video, ISP data) to Business or MDU Subscribers • Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required: two (2) business days • Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required: seven (7) business days • Access Portal installation is required, premise construction has been previously Installed, no inside wiring required: twelve (12) business days • Building entry not complete or Access Portal, conduit and/or inside wiring installation are re- quired: case-by-case basis For custom services case-by-case 2.13.1 A delayed installation credit will not be applied under the following circumstances: • Installation is delayed at Service Provider’s request • Due to events described under 2.5 • Installation is delayed with the approval of Retail Subscriber • [PROJECT] has not been given necessary access to facilities required for installation or Retail Subscriber is not ready or not available to accept the Service until after the com- mitted due date • Retail Subscriber facilities are unsuitable or unfit for installation • [PROJECT] has: • made reasonable efforts to consult with the appropriate Service Provider work center (or such other contact specified by Service Provider) by telephone; and • taken such further reasonable and prudent actions in an attempt to make instal- lation as Service Provider may direct in the course of such consultation. • If [PROJECT]’s reasonable efforts to consult with Service Provider as required above are unsuccessful, [PROJECT] shall notify Service Provider of the reason for the delay as soon as reasonably possible. 2.14 For installations, [PROJECT] will: • Maintain sufficient CPE to fill Retail Subscriber order • Attempt to contact Retail Subscriber prior to the scheduled appointment • twenty-four (24) hours prior (up to 2 attempts) • 30 minutes prior to the schedule appointment • Arrive on site at Retail Subscriber premises within the appointment window • Install Service(s) as ordered, including CPE. • Update Retail Subscriber’s order status within 1 business day after the installation 2.15 [PROJECT] will collect and meet following inventory Performance Metrics: • Notify Service Provider to replenish fulfillment materials (if applicable) within thirty (30) ca- lendar days of anticipated depletion of its inventory • Maintain its Homes Passed / Marketable database with a minimum of ninety-nine percent (99%) accuracy. (The inaccuracy is measured by the number of installations that are cancelled Page 66 Packet Page 93 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network by [PROJECT] due to service not being available to a particular address after providing a Committed Installation Date to Service Provider.) 2.16 “Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises” means that a [PROJECT] techni- cian or [PROJECT] sub-contractor visits the Retail Subscriber Premises to perform needed, requested and scheduled work on Services and associated [PROJECT]-provided equipment. For Repair and Maintenance visits, [PROJECT] will: • Maintain sufficient CPE to complete necessary repairs • Attempt to contact Retail Subscriber prior to the scheduled appointment • twenty-four (24) hours prior (up to 2 attempts) • 30 minutes prior to the schedule appointment • Arrive on site at Retail Subscriber premises within the appointment window • Repair Service(s) as ordered • Update Retail Subscriber’s order status within 1 business day after the installation Any Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises that do not take place in accordance with the foregoing requirements will be performed in a reasonable timeframe and in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration the relevant circumstances. 2.17 [PROJECT] will provide a sufficient number of qualified staff to answer and respond to all tech- nical support calls and direct trouble ticket system inputs from Service Provider to meet the Objectives. The Performance Metrics specify Objectives that include: (1) the target time for answering/responding to calls, and (2) the percentage of calls that shall meet the target [PROJECT]’s telephone support and trouble ticket system shall be available twenty-four (24) hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five (365) days a year. During normal Business Hours, [PROJECT] shall accept calls from Service Provider on all valid topics. Outside of normal Business Hours, [PROJECT] shall re- spond to calls relating to Network and Service defects. The target time or duration is measured from the time Service Provider’s telephone call enters the [PROJECT]’s help desk routing queue until the time Service Provider speaks to a technician who is capa- ble of resolving the trouble or answering the question. 2.18 “Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)” means the average time of the actual repair needed to restore Ser- vices. MTTR is measured in each reporting calendar month. Number of Outages = Count of Outages (Defined in Section 2.8) less Outage Exclusions (Defined in Section 2.8.1) SLA Response Window = time allowed under the specific SLA to begin repair service (e.g. Next Business Day, Same Day, 4 Hour, etc). The SLA Response Window is subtracted from each Outage Duration. Unless otherwise specified in a separate service agreement, SLA response window is by the end of the next business day. MTTR is calculated as follows: ⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜ ⎝ ⎛∑ Outages ofNumber Durations Outage A separate MTTR is calculated for each committed SLA Response Window. The MTTR is measured in the same units as the SLA Response units (i.e. days or hours). Page 67 Packet Page 94 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 68 2.19 [PROJECT] will strive to resolve trouble tickets as quickly as possible. The Direct Measures of Quality (DMOQs) addressing this are the percentage of ser- vice outage trouble tickets that are resolved within either one or two days – the concern being those that remain open for longer periods. This metric has two measures: (1) the total number of occurrences, and (2) the corresponding per- centage that the total number reflects. SLA Response Window and Repair Time are defined in Section 2.18. DMOQ Period = 24 hours or 48 hours, depending on the metric The percentage is calculated as follows: ()100 monthcalendar in the tickets troubleofnumber Total hrs 48 (2)or hrs, 24 (1)ithin month calendar ain resolved ticketstrouble ×⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜ ⎝ ⎛∑w Packet Page 95 of 201 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k 3 [ P R O J E C T ] P E R F O R M A N C E M E T R I C S Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Me a s u r e m e n t M e t h o d Service Credit 3. 1 Ne t w o r k A v a i l a b i l i t y 3. 1 . 1 Ne t w o r k C o r e - A v e r a g e A v a i l a b i l - it y ( S e e D i a g r a m 4 . 1 ) 99 . 9 9 % a v a i l a b l e Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 0 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 0 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve the Network Average Availability Ob-jective, [PROJECT] will issue a Service Credit to Service Provider for an amount equal to 5% of the total monthly recurring charges for Services impacted by outages. 3. 1 . 2 Ne t w o r k E d g e - A v e r a g e A v a i l a b i l - it y ( S e e D i a g r a m 4 . 1 ) 99 . 9 % a v a i l a b l e Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 0 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 0 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve the Network Average Availability Ob-jective, [PROJECT] will issue a Service Credit to Service Provider for an amount equal to 5% of the total monthly recurring charges for Services impacted by outages. 3. 2 Co m m i t t e d I n f o r m a t i o n R a t e ( C I R ) – Q o S 6 3. 2 . 1 Ro u n d - t r i p D e l a y / L a t e n c y < 3 m i l l i s e c o n d s R T d e l a y + 1 ms f o r e a c h 5 0 m i l e s ( o n e w a y ) . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 2 . 2 Pa c k e t l o s s <0 . 0 2 % Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 2 Vo i c e – R e s i d e n t i a l / B u s i n e s s – Qo S 5 Pa g e 6 9 Pa c k e t Pa g e 96 of 20 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 7 0 Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Me a s u r e m e n t M e t h o d Service Credit 3. 2 . 1 Ro u n d - t r i p D e l a y / L a t e n c y < 3 m i l l i s e c o n d s R T d e l a y + 1 ms f o r e a c h 5 0 m i l e s ( o n e w a y ) . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 2 . 2 Pa c k e t l o s s <0 . 0 2 % Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 3 Vi d e o – Q o S 4 3. 3 . 1 Ro u n d - t r i p D e l a y / L a t e n c y <3 m i l l i s e c o n d s R T d e l a y + 1 ms f o r e a c h 5 0 m i l e s ( o n e w a y ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 3 . 2 Pa c k e t l o s s <0 . 1 % Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 4 Da t a – Q o S 3 3. 4 . 1 Ro u n d - t r i p D e l a y / L a t e n c y <4 m i l l i s e c o n d s R T d e l a y + 1 ms f o r e a c h 5 0 m i l e s ( o n e w a y ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 4 . 2 Pa c k e t l o s s 0. 3 % Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Se e Se c t i o n 2 . 1 2 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. Pa c k e t Pa g e 97 of 20 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 7 1 Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Me a s u r e m e n t M e t h o d Service Credit 3. 5 Da t a – Q o S 2 3. 5 . 1 Ro u n d - t r i p D e l a y / L a t e n c y <5 m i l l i s e c o n d s R T d e l a y + 1 ms f o r e a c h 5 0 m i l e s ( o n e w a y ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 5 . 2 Pa c k e t l o s s 0. 5 % Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Se e Se c t i o n 2 . 1 2 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 6 Da t a – Q o S 1 3. 6 . 1 Ro u n d - t r i p D e l a y / L a t e n c y <8 m i l l i s e c o n d s R T d e l a y + 1 ms f o r e a c h 5 0 m i l e s ( o n e w a y ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 6 . 2 Pa c k e t l o s s <1 % Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 For each reporting month in which the Network fails to achieve this Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a 2% credit on the Service Provider monthly recurring charges for all applicable Services. 3. 7 Da t a – Q o S 0 3. 7 . 1 Ro u n d - t r i p D e l a y / L a t e n c y < 2 0 m i l l i s e c o n d s S ee S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Not applicable 3. 7 . 2 Pa c k e t l o s s < 2 % Se e S e c t i o n 2. 1 2 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Not applicable Pa c k e t Pa g e 98 of 20 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 7 2 Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Me a s u r e m e n t M e t h o d Service Credit 3. 8 In s t a l l a t i o n 3. 8 . 1 On - t i m e i n s t a l l a t i o n 97 % o f a l l i n s t a l l a t i o n s s h a l l me e t C o m m i t t e d I n s t a l l a t i o n Du e - d a t e s Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 3 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 3 Each month that [PROJECT] fails to meet the Objective by the amount indicated below, [PROJECT] will issue the following Service Credit to the Service Provider: (1) Below 98% but not below 95% then $45 per incident which missed the Commit-ted Due-date; (2) Below 95% then $90 per incident which miss the Committed Due-date. 3. 9 Se r v i c e M e t r i c 3. 9 . 1 Te c h n i c a l S u p p o r t R e s p o n s e Ti m e 85 % o f S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r ’ s t e l e - ph o n e c a l l s ( f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n an d / o r m a i n t e n a n c e ) c o n n e c t e d to [ P R O J E C T ] ’ s N e t w o r k O p - er a t i o n s C e n t e r w i t h i n 5 m i n - ut e s . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 Not applicable 3. 9 . 2 Te c h n i c a l S u p p o r t R e s o l u t i o n N o t i - fi c a t i o n t o S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r 10 0 % o f S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r ’ s tr o u b l e t i c k e t r e s o l u t i o n ( i . e . , ti c k e t c l o s e d ) w i l l b e n o t i f i e d t o SP w i t h i n 3 0 m i n u t e s o f a t i c k e t be i n g c l o s e d v i a a n a g r e e d u p o n no t i f i c a t i o n m e t h o d . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 Not applicable 3. 9 . 3 Me a n T i m e t o R e p a i r S e r v i c e O u t - ag e Me a n T i m e t o R e p a i r s h a l l n o t ex c e e d t h e t i m e s s p e c i f i e d i n th e S L A s . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 8 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 8 Not applicable 3. 9 . 4 % T r o u b l e T i c k e t s R e s o l v e d > 2 4 Ho u r s Le s s t h a n f i v e p e r c e n t ( < 5 % ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 DM O Q P e r i o d – 2 4 h o u r s Not applicable 3. 9 . 5 % T r o u b l e T i c k e t s R e s o l v e d > 4 8 Ho u r s Le s s t h a n t h r e e p e r c e n t ( < 3 % ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 DM O Q P e r i o d – 4 8 h o u r s Not applicable Pa c k e t Pa g e 99 of 20 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 7 3 Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Me a s u r e m e n t M e t h o d Service Credit 3. 9 . 6 Mi s s e d Ap p o i n t m e n t s Ze r o ( 0 ) To t a l n u m b e r o f t i m e s a n d r e a s o n s f o r [P R O J E C T ] ’ s t e c h n i c i a n f a i l i n g t o ke e p a s c h e d u l e d a p p o i n t m e n t w i t h an y R e t a i l S u b s c r i b e r w i t h i n t h e a p - po i n t m e n t w i n d o w . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 3 On a n i n d i v i d u a l S u b s c r i b e r p e r Se r v i c e b a s i s , t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f ti m e s a n d r e a s o n s f o r [ P R O J E C T ] fa i l i n g t o k e e p s c h e d u l e d a p - po i n t m e n t s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l i n - st a l l a t i o n o r t e c h n i c i a n d i s p a t c h ap p o i n t m e n t s w i t h a n y R e t a i l Su b s c r i b e r , w i t h i n a c a l e n d a r mo n t h c o u n t e d e a c h r e p o r t i n g ca l e n d a r m o n t h . In the event [PROJECT] fails to appear at a Retail Subscriber’s Prem-ises for a scheduled installation or repair/maintenance appointment within the appointment window , [PROJECT] will, upon Service Pro-vider’s request, either (a) issue Ser-vice Provider $60 Service Credit, or (b) cancel the affected order without any cancellation charges. 3. 9 . 7 No t i f i c a t i o n o f S c h e d u l e d N e t w o r k Up g r a d e o r M a i n t e n a n c e 10 0 % N o t i f i c a t i o n t o S e r v i c e Pr o v i d e r c o n t a c t s v i a e l e c t r o n i c ma i l o r o t h e r a g r e e d u p o n m e - th o d f i v e ( 5 ) d a y s i n a d v a n c e th e s c h e d u l e d e v e n t Nu m b e r o f t i m e s [ P R O J E C T ] p e r - fo r m s s c h e d u l e d n e t w o r k u p g r a d e s o r ma i n t e n a n c e i n a c a l e n d a r m o n t h d ef i n i t i o n o r n a t u r e o f O u t a g e p la n n e d o u t a g e t i m e d ef i n i t i o n o f a f f e c t e d s e r v i c e a r e a t ro u b l e t i c k e t n u m b e r Nu m b e r o f t i m e s s c h e d u l e d n e t - wo r k u p g r a d e s o r m a i n t e n a n c e im p a c t i n g R e t a i l S u b s c r i b e r s ’ Se r v i c e s o c c u r d u r i n g a c a l e n d a r mo n t h . T h i s n u m b e r i n c l u d e s a n y an d a l l o f [ P R O J E C T ] ’ s N e t w o r k or n e t w o r k s e r v i c e s . Not applicable 3. 9 . 8 No t i f i c a t i o n o f U n s c h e d u l e d U p - gr a d e , M a i n t e n a n c e e v e n t 10 0 % N o t i f i c a t i o n t o S e r v i c e Pr o v i d e r c o n t a c t s v i a e l e c t r o n i c ma i l o r o t h e r a g r e e d u p o n m e - th o d w i t h i n t e n ( 1 0 ) m i n u t e s o f th e s t a r t o f a n u n s c h e d u l e d ev e n t Nu m b e r o f m i n u t e s b e t w e e n [P R O J E C T ] ’ s n o t i f i c a t i o n t o S e r v i c e Pr o v i d e r a n d a n u n s c h e d u l e d n e t w o r k up g r a d e o r m a i n t e n a n c e e v e n t a n d t h e re s p e c t i v e i n c i d e n t d ef i n i t i o n o f n a t u r e o f O u t a g e p la n n e d o u t a g e t i m e n um b e r o f S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r Re t a i l S u b s c r i b e r s i m p a c t e d t ro u b l e t i c k e t n u m b e r Nu m b e r o f m i n u t e s f r o m [P R O J E C T ] ’ s n o t i f i c a t i o n t o S e r - vi c e P r o v i d e r t o a f t e r t h e b e g i n - ni n g o f a n u n s c h e d u l e d n e t w o r k up g r a d e , m a i n t e n a n c e e v e n t , o r Ma j o r N e t w o r k I n c i d e n t . T h i s nu m b e r i n c l u d e s a n y a n d a l l o f [P R O J E C T ] ’ s N e t w o r k . o r n e t - wo r k s e r v i c e s Not applicable Pa c k e t Pa g e 10 0 of 20 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 7 4 4 N e t w o r k D i a g r a m s 4. 1 N e t w o r k C o r e a n d E d g e Pa c k e t Pa g e 10 1 of 20 1 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network EXHIBIT E Service Provider Service Level Agreements 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 This Exhibit E provides detailed descriptions of the Performance Metrics for Service Provider perform- ance, and is the basis for certain service level agreements between Service Provider and [PROJECT]. All Perform- ance Metrics are expectations of Service Provider’s performance and quality of customer services directly related to and in consideration of the use of [PROJECT]’s Network. For the purpose of these Performance Metrics, [PROJECT]’s Network can be viewed as a private carrier network to which Service Provider hands off/accepts traf- fic (1) for voice services; (2) for data services; and (3) for video services; collectively (“Services”). 1.2 In addition to any other rights under this Agreement, if any given Retail Subscriber (1) experiences an Out- age that continues for a period of more than five (5) Business Days after [PROJECT] delivers written notice to Ser- vice Provider of such Outage, or (2) experiences multiple Outages of the same Service, whether or not for the same reason, in any thirty (30) calendar day period, then upon written request from the Retail Subscriber, [PROJECT], in its sole discretion, may transfer the service connections to an alternate provider without the Retail Subscriber or [PROJECT] having any liability of any kind whatsoever for cancellation, termination or any other charges. 1.3 Service Provider will: 1.3.1 Use commercially reasonable efforts to remedy any delays, interruptions, omissions, mistakes, accidents or errors (“Defect” or “Defects”) and restore the Services as soon as possible after any Defect is reported to Service Provider. 1.3.2 Collect, measure, and report data to [PROJECT] for service, and operational Perform- ance Metrics described in Section 3. Service Provider will provide Metrics upon written request, using a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet or other format mutually agreed to by [PROJECT] and Service Provider. Service Provider is responsible (at its expense) for providing any equipment, systems, and software neces- sary to collect and report such Metrics. 1.3.3 Analyze and improve processes, as necessary, to achieve Performance Metrics set forth in Section 3. 1.3.4 Measure Quality Metrics by means of Service Provider’s regularly scheduled Retail Sub- scriber satisfaction surveys which randomly sample Retail Subscribers for their opinions of Service Pro- vider service quality. 1.3.5 Collect Retail Subscriber complaint information on Services through its customer care center(s). Based on the first twelve (12) months’ of operations, a baseline num- ber of Retail Subscriber complaints will be established. Following that, [PROJECT] will es- tablish a performance metric for measurement during the Term of the Agreement. 1.3.6 Provide [PROJECT] with necessary customer information to allow [PROJECT] the opportunity to perform a similar survey of customer opinion as a comparative benchmark to evaluate Service Provider’s performance on the Network. Page 75 Packet Page 102 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network 2 DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1 “Metric” or “Service Metric” means the performance measures for specific Service Provider functions and includes the Description, Measurement Method, and Objective that define the capitalized term that is used through- out this Exhibit E. 2.2 “Description” means the specific Service Provider function to be measured. 2.3 “Measurement Method” means the tools, process and algorithms for determining Service Provider’s per- formance and the frequency of the measurement. 2.4 “Objective” means the level of performance that [PROJECT] expects Service Provider to achieve. 2.5 Repetitive non-compliance with any provision of this Exhibit E is a material breach of this Agreement and, in [PROJECT]’s sole discretion, may result in the termination or non-renewal of thereof. 2.7 “Retail Quality of Service (RQoS)” means the direct measure of quality for the Retail Services delivered over [PROJECT]’s Network. 2.8 “Retail Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)” means the equipment, such as, but not limited to, premise wiring performed by Service Provider, Service Provider routers, hubs or switches or other Service Provider equipment that will be installed by the Service Provider at the Retail Subscriber’s premise. 2.8 “Business hours” means 8:00 am to 5:00 PM Mountain Time on a Business Day. “Business Day” means Monday through Friday, excluding public holidays recognized in Utah. 2.9 “Outage” means Service(s) is/are interrupted such that there is a loss of performance (unable to properly utilize the Retail Services), or when [PROJECT] and Service Provider agree that Service is unfit or unavailable for use. 2.9.1 The following are excluded from Outages: • failure of components for which [PROJECT] and/or the Retail Subscriber(s) are responsible and are therefore not part of Service Provider’s Platform. • time that corrections cannot be made because Retail Subscriber, or access to those facilities are necessary for making the repair, are inaccessible • problems caused by Retail Subscribers’ negligence or misconduct, or by the negligence or mis- conduct of others authorized by the Retail Subscribers • problems resolved as “No Trouble Found” • scheduled Service Provider network upgrades and maintenance periods. The upgrades and main- tenance will be scheduled when Retail Subscriber Services are impacted minimally, typically from 12 AM to 6 AM local time. Furthermore, Retail Service Provider will notify [PROJECT] of such scheduled upgrades or maintenance periods as per 3.7.4 and 3.7.5 • any Service interruption or other transmission problem that is in whole or in part caused by or at- tributed to [PROJECT] or Service Provider’s Retail Subscriber unless Service Provider could have reasonably been able to avoid such Service interruption • other event defined under Article XI – Force Majeure in the body of this Agreement. Following a Force Majeure Event, Service Provider will use commercially reasonable efforts to promptly re- sume Services. 2.10 “Outage Duration” is the time in minutes that an Outage has occurred. An Outage begins when Service Provider opens a trouble ticket and ends when Service Provider notifies [PROJECT] that the problem has been re- solved and Retail Services are available to Retail Subscribers. Page 76 Packet Page 103 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 77 2.11 “Availability” means percentage of time RQoS meets defined performance metrics. Retail Services Aver- age Availability is measured performance of Service Providers Retail Services. Availability for each of the Retail Services are computed separately. Retail Services Average Availability is: 100__ ___Re1 ×⎥⎦ ⎤⎢⎣ ⎡−∑ TimeAvailableTotal durationsoutageServicetail Sum of Retail_Service_outage_durations = the total of the outage time, in minutes, of the Retail Subscribers’ Services during the reporting calendar month. Total_Available_Time = (days in the reporting calendar month) * (minutes per day). 2.12 Service Provider shall have an oversubscription rate at a level to provide Retail Subscribers with off-net throughput commensurate with Services purchased. Throughput demand on Service Provider connection shall not exceed available throughput except during infrequent moments of unusually high demand. It is anticipated Service Pro- vider will offer a 100 to 1 oversubscription, however this ratio will be adjusted to ensure throughput is commensu- rate with Services purchased. To monitor Throughput, the Service Provider will make at least 24 throughput measurements each day from [PROJECT]’s test access portals (“Access Portals”) to Speakeasy, MegaPath or other mutually agreed speed test site. 2.13 “Installation” means Service Provider will provide Committed Due Dates for scheduling of Service in less than or equal to the intervals from order date as shown below. {The following could be modified in conjunction with definitions contained within Service Provider install commitments} For pre-configured Services (voice, video, ISP data) to Residential Subscribers • Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required: two (2) business days • Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required: seven (7) business days • Full install fiber and Access Portal installation is required: twelve (12) business days For pre-configured Services (e.g., voice, video, ISP data) to Business or MDU Subscribers • Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required: two (2) business days • Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required: seven (7) business days • Access portal installation is required, premise construction has been previously installed, no inside wiring required: twelve (12) business days • Building entry not complete or Access Portal, conduit and/or inside wiring installation required: case-by-case basis Packet Page 104 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network For custom services: case-by-case 2.13.1 A delayed installation will not counted under the following circumstances: • Installation is delayed at [PROJECT]’s request; or • Installation is delayed at the request of Retail Subscriber. • Retail Subscriber has not given [PROJECT] necessary access to the premises where installation is to be made or Retail Subscriber is not ready or not available to accept the Service until after the committed due date. • Service Provider has: • made reasonable efforts to consult with Retail Subscriber by telephone from the prem- ises where installation is scheduled to be made (or from a location near such premises); and • taken such further reasonable and prudent actions in an attempt to make installation as Service Provider may direct in the course of such consultation. • If Service Provider’s reasonable efforts to consult with Retail Subscriber as required above are unsuccessful, Service Provider shall notify [PROJECT] of the reason for the delay as soon as rea- sonably possible. • During a Force Majeure Event. 2.13.2 Voice installations requiring Local Number Port (“LNP”) should be coordinated closely with [PROJECT] and the prior voice provider to avoid telephone service disruption to the Retail Subscriber. Service Provider must have a backup plan in place in case of LNP failure. Backup plan must provide Retail Subscriber with telephone ser- vice until number can be ported. 2.14 For installations, Service Provider will: • Maintain sufficient CPE to fill Retail Subscriber order • If the Service Provider is managing and installing their own inside wiring, contact Retail Subscriber prior to the scheduled appointment • twenty-four (24) hours prior (up to 2 attempts) • 30 minutes prior to the schedule appointment • Arrive on site at Retail Subscriber premises within the appointment window • Install Service(s) as ordered • Update Retail Subscriber’s order status within 1 business day after the installation 2.15 Service Provider will collect and meet the following inventory Performance Metrics: • Notify [PROJECT] to provide additional [PROJECT] provided CPE materials within thirty (30) calen- dar days of anticipated depletion of its inventory. 2.16 “Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises” means that a Service Provider technician visits the Retail Subscriber Premises to perform needed, requested and scheduled work on Services and associated Service Provider equipment. For at least ninety-five percent (95%) of all Repair and/or Maintenance appointments at the Retail Subscriber Prem- ises, Service Provider will: • Maintain sufficient CPE and supplies, as applicable, to complete necessary repairs • Contact Retail Subscriber prior to the scheduled appointment twenty-four (24) hours prior (up to 2 at- tempts) • Arrive on site at Retail Subscriber Premises within the appointment window • Repair/maintain Service(s) as ordered Page 78 Packet Page 105 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Any Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises that do not take place in accordance with the fore- going requirements will be performed in a reasonable timeframe and in a reasonable manner, taking into considera- tion the relevant circumstances. 2.17 Service Provider should provide quality support and technical assistance as follows: 2.17.1 Service Provider will provide a sufficient number of qualified staff to answer and respond to all technical support calls and direct trouble ticket system inputs from Retail Subscribers to meet the Objectives. The Perform- ance Metrics specify Objectives that include: (1) the target time for answering/responding to calls, (2) the percent- age of calls that shall meet the target and (3) the trouble resolution notification time to Service Provider. Service Provider’s telephone support and trouble ticket system shall be available twenty-four (24) hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five (365) days a year. During normal Business Hours, Service Provider shall accept calls from Retail Subscribers on all Service-related topics. Outside of normal Business Hours, Service Provider shall respond to calls relating to Service Provider Network and Service defects. The target time or duration is measured from the time Retail Subscriber’s telephone call enters the Service Pro- vider’s help desk routing queue until the time Retail Subscriber speaks to a technician who is capable of resolving the trouble or answering the question. 2.17.2 All employees of Service Provider are expected to be courteous, knowledgeable and helpful and to provide effective and satisfactory service in all contacts with Retail Subscribers. 2.17.3 Service Provider shall provide telephone coverage adequate to meet metrics outlined in 3.6.6, 3.6.7 and 3.6.8. 2.17.4 The Service Provider’s customer service representatives (“CSR”) shall have the authority to provide credit for interrupted service, for any violation of these Standards, to waive fees, to schedule service appointments and to change billing cycles, where appropriate. Any difficulties that cannot be resolved by the CSR shall be referred to the appropriate supervisor who shall contact the Retail Subscriber by the end of the next business day and shall at- tempt to resolve the problem within forty eight (48) hours or within such other time frame as is acceptable to the Retail Subscriber and Service Provider. 2.17.5 Bills will be clear, concise and understandable. Bills must be fully itemized, with itemizations including, but not limited to, basic and premium service charges and equipment charges. Bills will also clearly delineate all activ- ity during the billing period, including optional charges, rebates and credits. In case of a billing dispute, Service Provider shall respond to a written complaint from a Retail Subscriber within thirty (30) days. 2.17.6 Credits for Services will be issued no later than the Retail Subscriber’s next billing cycle following the de- termination that a credit is warranted. Refund checks (if applicable) will be issued promptly, but no later than ei- ther the Retail Subscriber’s next billing cycle following resolution of the request or thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier, or the return of the equipment supplied by the Service Provider (if applicable) if Service is terminated. 2.17.7 Service Provider shall provide clear instructions in written form (other forms are possible in addition to writ- ten) regarding use of the Retail Services. Service Provider must provide such written instructions to [PROJECT] prior to use in the field and work with [PROJECT] to create and accurate and mutually agreed upon Retail Sub- scriber documents. 2.17.8 Retail Subscribers will be notified of any changes in rates, Services, support hours or contact information, charges or channel positions (as applicable) as soon as possible in writing. Notice must be given to Retail Sub- scribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of such changes if the change is within the control of the Service Provider. Page 79 Packet Page 106 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 80 2.17.9 Service Provider shall establish written procedures for receiving, acting upon, and resolving Retail Sub- scriber complaints, and crediting Retail Subscriber accounts and shall publicize such procedures through printed documents at Service Provider’s sole expense. Said written procedures shall prescribe a simple manner in which any Retail Subscriber may submit a complaint by telephone or in writing to Service Provider that it has violated any provision of this Exhibit E, any terms or conditions of the Retail Subscriber's contract, or reasonable business prac- tices. 2.18 “Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)” means the average time of the actual repair needed to restore Services. MTTR is measured in each reporting calendar month. Number of Retail Outages = Count of Retail Outages (Defined in Section 2.9) less Retail Outage Exclu- sions (Defined in Section 2.9.1) Retail SLA Response Window = time allowed under the specific RSLA to begin repair service (e.g. Next Business Day, Same Day, 4 Hour, etc). Unless otherwise specified in a written RSLA, the re- sponse window is Next Business Day. The RSLA Response Window is subtracted from each Out- age Duration. MTTR is calculated as follows: ⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜ ⎝ ⎛∑ Outages Retail ofNumber Durations Outage Retail A separate MTTR is calculated for each committed RSLA Response Window. The MTTR is measured in the same units as the RSLA Response units (i.e. days or hours). 2.19 Retail Service Provider will strive to resolve trouble tickets as quickly as possible. The Retail Direct Measures of Quality (RDMOQs) addressing this are the percentage of trouble tickets that are resolved within either one or two days – the concern being those that remain open for longer periods. This metric has two measures: (1) the total num- ber of occurrences, and (2) the corresponding percentage that the total number reflects. RSLA Response Window and Repair Time are defined in Section 2.18. RDMOQ Period = 24 hours or 48 hours, depending on the metric Packet Page 107 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 81 The percentage is calculated as follows: ()100 monthcalendar in the tickets troubleofnumber Total hrs 48 (2)or hrs, 24 (1)ithin month calendar ain resolved ticketstrouble ×⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜ ⎝ ⎛∑w 2.20 Retail Service Provider will endeavor to provide quality services achieving Retail Subscriber retention rates below the industry average at an annual average of no more than 12%. This will be measured monthly, as described in 3.6.1 as follows: 1% monthcalendar theofday last theon ssubscriber ofnumber Total ______<=⎟⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎜⎝ ⎛monthcalendarinonsCancellatiSubscriberofNumber Packet Page 108 of 201 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 8 2 3 S E R V I C E P R O V I D E R P E R F O R M A N C E M E T R I C S Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Meas-ure-ment Meth od 3. 1 Se r v ic e Av a i l - ab i l i t y 3. 1 . 1 Re t a i l S e r v i c e - A v e r a g e A v a i l - ab i l i t y 99 % a v a i l a b l e Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 1 3. 2 In t e r - ne t Tr a n s i t Da t a - Qo S x 3. 2 . 1 Up l o a d a n d D o w n l o a d Th r o u g h p u t c o m p a - ra b l e t o a d v e r t i s e d pr o d u c t s Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 2 3. 3 Re t a i l Se r - vi c e In s t a l - la t i o n 3. 3 . 1 On - t i m e p r o v i s i o n i n g 97 % o f a l l i n s t a l l a - ti o n s s h a l l m e e t Co m m i t t e d I n s t a l l a - ti o n D u e - d a t e s Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 3 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 3 3. 4 Re t a i l M a r k e t i n g M e t r i c 3. 4 . 1 Re t a i l M a r k e t i n g R e s p o n s e Ti m e Wi t h i n 2 w e e k s o f ma r k e t r e a d y n o t i f i - ca t i o n S e r v i c e P r o - vi d e r w i l l l a u n c h ma r k e t i n g e f f o r t s . Pa c k e t Pa g e 10 9 of 20 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 8 3 Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Meas-ure-ment Meth od 3. 4 . 2 Re t a i l M a r k e t i n g F r e q u e n c y At l e a s t e v e r y 6 mo n t h s S e r v i c e P r o - vi d e r s h a l l c o n t a c t a l l no n - s u b s c r i b i n g ma r k e t a b l e a d d r e s s e s to o f f e r S e r v i c e s 3. 5 Re t a i l S u b s c r i b e r R e t e n t i o n Me t r i c 3. 5 . 1 Re t a i l S u b s c r i b e r R e t e n t i o n Me t r i c Se r v i c e P r o v i d e r s wi l l r e t a i n R e t a i l Su b s c r i b e r s a t o r be l o w i n d u s t r y a v e r - ag e c h u r n r a t e s . Se e s e c t i o n 2 . 2 0 Se e s e c t i o n 2 . 2 0 3. 6 Re p a i r M e t r i c s 3. 6 . 1 Me a n T i m e t o R e p a i r S e r v i c e Ou t a g e Me a n T i m e t o R e p a i r sh a l l n o t e x c e e d t h e ti m e s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e RS L A s . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 8 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 8 3. 6 . 2 % R e t a i l T r o u b l e T i c k e t s R e - so l v e d > 2 4 H o u r s Le s s t h a n f i v e p e r - ce n t ( < 5 % ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 RD M O Q P e r i o d – 2 4 h o u r s 3. 6 . 3 % R e t a i l T r o u b l e T i c k e t s R e - so l v e d > 4 8 H o u r s Le s s t h a n t h r e e p e r - ce n t ( < 3 % ) Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 9 RD M O Q P e r i o d – 4 8 h o u r s 3. 6 . 4 No t i f i c a t i o n o f S c h e d u l e d S e r - vi c e U p g r a d e o r M a i n t e n a n c e 10 0 % N o t i f i c a t i o n t o [P R O J E C T ] v i a e l e c - tr o n i c m a i l o r o t h e r ag r e e d u p o n m e t h o d fi v e ( 5 ) d a y s i n a d - va n c e t h e s c h e d u l e d ev e n t Wh e n e v e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r p e r f o r m s sc h e d u l e d s e r v i c e u p g r a d e s o r m a i n t e n a n c e no t i c e s s h a l l i n c l u d e • de f i n i t i o n o f n a t u r e o f O u t a g e • pl a n n e d o u t a g e t i m e • nu m b e r o f S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r R e t a i l Su b s c r i b e r s i m p a c t e d • tr o u b l e t i c k e t n u m b e r o r e v e n t r e f e r - en c e Nu m b e r o f t i m e s s c h e d u l e d se r v i c e u p g r a d e s o r m a i n t e - na n c e i m p a c t i n g R e t a i l S u b - sc r i b e r s ’ S e r v i c e s o c c u r d u r i n g a c a l e n d a r m o n t h . T h i s n u m - be r i n c l u d e s a n y a n d a l l s e r - vi c e s o n [ P R O J E C T ] ’ s N e t - wo r k . Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 0 of 20 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s F i b e r O p t i c N e t w o r k Pa g e 8 4 Pe r f o r m a n c e M e t r i c s Ob j e c t i v e De s c r i p t i o n Meas-ure-ment Meth od 3. 6 . 5 No t i f i c a t i o n o f U n s c h e d u l e d Up g r a d e , M a i n t e n a n c e e v e n t 10 0 % N o t i f i c a t i o n t o [P R O J E C T ] c o n t a c t s vi a e l e c t r o n i c m a i l o r ot h e r a g r e e d u p o n me t h o d w i t h i n t e n (1 0 ) m i n u t e s o f t h e st a r t o f a n u n s c h e d - ul e d e v e n t Wh e n e v e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r p e r f o r m s a n un s c h e d u l e d n e t w o r k u p g r a d e o r m a i n t e - na n c e e v e n t t h e n o t i c e s h a l l i n c l u d e : • de f i n i t i o n o f n a t u r e o f O u t a g e • pl a n n e d o u t a g e t i m e • nu m b e r o f S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r R e t a i l Su b s c r i b e r s i m p a c t e d • tr o u b l e t i c k e t n u m b e r o r e v e n t r e f e r - en c e Nu m b e r o f m i n u t e s f r o m S e r - vi c e P r o v i d e r ’ s n o t i f i c a t i o n t o [P R O J E C T ] ’ s t o a f t e r t h e b e - gi n n i n g o f a n u n s c h e d u l e d se r v i c e u p g r a d e , m a i n t e n a n c e ev e n t , o r M a j o r S e r v i c e I n c i - de n t . T h i s n u m b e r i n c l u d e s an y a n d a l l s e r v i c e s o n [P R O J E C T ] ’ s N e t w o r k . 3. 6 . 6 Te c h n i c a l S u p p o r t R e s p o n s e Ti m e 85 % o f R e t a i l S u b - sc r i b e r ’ s t e l e p h o n e ca l l s ( f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n an d / o r m a i n t e n a n c e ) co n n e c t e d t o S e r v i c e Pr o v i d e r w i t h i n 5 (f i v e ) m i n u t e s Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 3. 6 . 7 Sa l e s R e s p o n s e T i m e 85 % o f p o t e n t i a l Re t a i l S u b s c r i b e r s sh o u l d w a i t n o m o r e th a n 3 ( t h r e e ) m i n - ut e s o n h o l d b e f o r e sp e a k i n g t o a s a l e s re p r e s e n t a t i v e . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 3. 6 . 8 Bu s y S i g n a l Un d e r n o r m a l o p e r a t - in g c o n d i t i o n s , t h e Re t a i l S u b s c r i b e r wi l l r e c e i v e a b u s y si g n a l l e s s t h a n 3 (t h r e e ) p e r c e n t o f t h e ti m e . Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 Se e S e c t i o n 2 . 1 7 Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 1 of 20 1 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network APPENDIX 5: COST & CARBON OFF-SET COMPUTATION In-Custody Hearings Court 1) In reviewing the in-custody calendar, there were two vehicles per week from January 1st through Septem- ber 30th. 2) There were three Friday hearings from January 1st through September 30th. Each hearing required two ve- hicles. 3) The City borrows a van from the City of Lynnwood which holds 10 inmates. The size of the vehicle used for the second set of inmates depends on the size of the transport. 4) 9 week sample (August and September) - estimates calculated based on the number of inmates transported a. 10 hearing days b. Average hearing day data i. Two vehicles 1. One way trip from the City of Edmonds police department to the City of Lynn- wood police department to the Snohomish County jail is 18 ½ miles. Round trip is 37 miles. 2. IRS mileage rate is $.485 3. Estimated cost for two round trips = $36 ii. 3.6 Officers 1. Transport officer average hourly wage = $ 50.38 2. An average of 4.5 hours per hearing day iii. Estimated average cost per hearing day: $852 1. $36 vehicle cost 2. $816 officer cost 5) Estimated annual transport savings per year: $47,710 a. Average number of hearings per year: 56 i. 4.67 hearings per month ii. 12 months b. Average transport cost per hearing $852 6) Estimated annual mileage savings – 4,144 miles a. Average number of hearings per year: 56 b. Round trip mileage for two cars per hearing: 74 miles 7) Estimated annual CO2 (tonnes) savings: 2.67 Page 85 Packet Page 112 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Smart Metering Labor Cost 1) Meter Reader a. 62% time spent reading meters b. 21% time spent on maintenance c. 17% overhead time d. Hourly wage - $18.68, plus 30% for benefits - $24.28 e. Estimated salary savings $4,210 per month f. Estimated annual savings $50,521 2) Water Maintenance Worker II a. According to the current water maintenance technician, he spends approximately 30 to 50 % of his time on utility dispatches. In the calculation, 30% was used for the current processes. b. Hourly wage - $25.45, plus 30% for benefits - $33.09 c. Estimated current salary based on 30% equals $20,646 3) Utility Billing Technician a. According to the utility billing technician, she spends approximately 10% of her time on utility dispatch items that are associated with the actual reading of the meter. The following items are considered utility dispatches. i. Closing Bills ii. Re-reads iii. Leak Adjustments b. Hourly wage - $25.23, plus 30% for benefits - $32.80 c. Estimated current salary based on 10% equals $6,822 Equipment Rental 1) Vehicle cost per year based on July 2006-June 2007 vehicle expenditure data a. #128 WTR 2002 FORD F-250 PICK-UP (water maintenance worker II (#77) – 30% of actual ve- hicle usage) i. 381 average miles per month (10/19/2007) ii. Annual operation and replacement costs - $2,935 1. Operating costs - $2,161 2. Replacement costs - $774 b. #56 WTR 2000 GO-4 (meter reader scooter) i. 500 average miles per month (10/19/2007) ii. Annual operation and replacement costs - $5,981 1. Operating costs - $2,381 2. Replacement costs - $3,600 c. #38 WTR 1995 FORD PICKUP (meter reader) i. 541 average miles per month (10/19/2007) ii. Annual operation and replacement costs - $5,660 1. Operating costs - $3,860 2. Replacement costs - $1,800 Installation Costs 1) Cost Factors a. Radio read meter costs were obtained by Jim Waite, the Water/Sewer Manager. He obtained the cost from vendors the City currently uses. b. Labor costs are based on the number of unit installations per hour based on the size of the meter. Installation would be performed by a Water Maintenance Worker. i. Actual 2007 salary and benefits - $33.09 per hour ii. An overhead rate of $42.00 was used to calculate the labor costs. This figure was calcu- lated based on a methodology used by the water department in figuring out the amount of actual time worked during the period. c. The number of meters and the age of the meters were pulled from the Eden Utility Billing System. Page 86 Packet Page 113 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 87 2) Meters a. 29% of the City’s water meters are between 10 and 20 years old. The table below describes the estimated cost to replace these meters. Meter Size Number of Meters Number of meters between 10 and 20 years old Installation Time (number per hour) Per Unit Cost Labor Cost (10 to 20 Year Old Meters) Radio Read Meter Cost Material Cost (10 to 20 Year Old Meters) Cost to Replace (10 to 20 Year Old Meters) 5/8"9,026 2,598 3.00 14.00 36,372.00 240 623,520 659,892 1"449 127 2.00 21.00 2,667.00 300 38,100 40,767 1 1/2"201 94 1.00 42.00 3,948.00 500 47,000 50,948 2"202 74 1.00 42.00 3,108.00 1600 118,400 121,508 3"22 6 0.25 168.00 1,008.00 2000 12,000 13,008 4"55 16 0.25 168.00 2,688.00 3100 49,600 52,288 6"32 15 0.25 168.00 2,520.00 5500 82,500 85,020 8"51 30 0.10 420.00 12,600.00 9400 282,000 294,600 10,038 2,960 64,911.00$ 1,253,120.00$ 1,318,031.00$ b. 37% of the City’s water meters are greater than 20 years old. The table below describes the esti- mated cost to replace these meters. Meter Size Number of Meters Number of meters greater than 20 years old Installation Time (number per hour) Per Unit Cost Labor Cost (Greater than 20 Year Old Meters) Radio Read Meter Cost Material Cost (Greater than 20 Year Old Meters) Cost to Replace (Greater than 20 Year Old Meters) 5/8"9,026 3,403 3.00 14.00 47,642.00 240 816,720 864,362 1"449 181 2.00 21.00 3,801.00 300 54,300 58,101 1 1/2"201 50 1.00 42.00 2,100.00 500 25,000 27,100 2"202 32 1.00 42.00 1,344.00 1600 51,200 52,544 3"22 9 0.25 168.00 1,512.00 2000 18,000 19,512 4"55 3 0.25 168.00 504.00 3100 9,300 9,804 6"32 4 0.25 168.00 672.00 5500 22,000 22,672 8"51 10 0.10 420.00 4,200.00 9400 94,000 98,200 10,038 3,692 61,775.00$ 1,090,520.00$ 1,152,295.00$ c. 34% of the meters are not part of the replacement calculation Cost Comparison 1) Baseline and descriptions for meter reading at a central location a. The top portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that need to be replaced due to the fact they have exceeded their useful life, 20 years. b. The bottom portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that would benefit from replacement, 10 to 20 year old meters. Existing Baseline System Expense Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Initial Meter Replacement Program 1,152,295.00$ Bi-Monthly Meter Reading Costs 50,520.60 51,783.615 53,078.205 54,405.161 55,765.290 57,159.422 58,588.407 60,053.117 Administrative Meter Reads 27,467.33 28,154.009 28,857.859 29,579.305 30,318.788 31,076.758 31,853.677 32,650.019 Vehicle Replacement Costs 6,174.00 6,328.350 6,486.559 6,648.723 6,814.941 6,985.314 7,159.947 7,338.946 Vehicle Maintenance Costs 8,402.20 8,612.255 8,827.561 9,048.250 9,274.457 9,506.318 9,743.976 9,987.575 1,244,859.13$ 94,878.23$ 97,250.18$ 99,681.44$ 102,173.48$ 104,727.81$ 107,346.01$ 110,029.66$ Expense Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total AMR Capital Costs 1,318,031.00$ Total AMR System O&M Costs Water Cost Savings from Meter Accuracy (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) Sewer Cost Savings from Meter Accurancy Bi-Monthly Meter Reading Costs 28,532.52 29,245.84 29,976.98 30,726.41 31,494.57 32,281.93 33,088.98 33,916.20 Administrative Meter Reads 13,634.63 13,975.49 14,324.88 14,683.00 15,050.08 15,426.33 15,811.99 16,207.29 Vehicle Replacement Costs 1,315.80 1,348.70 1,382.41 1,416.97 1,452.40 1,488.71 1,525.92 1,564.07 Vehicle Maintenance Costs 3,674.04 3,765.89 3,860.04 3,956.54 4,055.45 4,156.84 4,260.76 4,367.28 1,354,667.49$ 37,815.42$ 39,023.82$ 40,262.42$ 41,532.00$ 42,833.31$ 44,167.15$ 45,534.35$ c. Current labor costs - $77,989 i. Meter Reader salary and benefits for a total of $50,521 ii. 30% of the Water Maintenance Worker II salary and benefits for a total of $20,646 iii. 10% of the Utility Billing Technician salary and benefits for a total of $6,822 Packet Page 114 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network Page 88 d. Current annual vehicle costs – $14,576 i. Vehicle used by the water maintenance technician - $2,935 ii. Two vehicles used by the meter reader - $11,641 e. Smart metering labor costs - $42,167 i. Largest cost savings is in salaries and benefits ii. 33% of the meters would not be replaced and need manual reads. Based on the current time spent reading meters, which is 62%, the time needed to read these meters is 20% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,080). iii. Maintenance would need to be continued at the same rate as the current meters – 21% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,452). iv. Some administrative reads would be needed due to resident requests as well as reads for closing bills, misreads, and leak adjustments on the remaining 33% of the manual read meters. Based on the current time spent on administrative reads, which is 30%, the time needed to read these meters is 10% of the maintenance worker’s time ($6,813). v. The change in the utility billing technician’s time is zero. Administrative tasks cur- rently performed will decrease with the offset being new administrative tasks. 10% of the utility billing technician’s time is spent on utility dispatch issues ($6,822). f. Smart metering annual vehicle costs - one vehicle used by the water maintenance technician (51%) - $4,990 2) Baseline and descriptions for meter reading via automobile a. The top portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that need to be replaced due to the fact they have exceeded their useful life, 20 years. b. The bottom portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that would benefit from replacement, 10 to 20 year old meters. Existing Baseline System Expense Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Initial Meter Replacement Program 1,152,295.00$ Bi-Monthly Meter Reading Costs 50,520.60 51,783.615 53,078.205 54,405.161 55,765.290 57,159.422 58,588.407 60,053.117 Administrative Meter Reads 27,467.33 28,154.009 28,857.859 29,579.305 30,318.788 31,076.758 31,853.677 32,650.019 Vehicle Replacement Costs 6,174.00 6,328.350 6,486.559 6,648.723 6,814.941 6,985.314 7,159.947 7,338.946 Vehicle Maintenance Costs 8,402.20 8,612.255 8,827.561 9,048.250 9,274.457 9,506.318 9,743.976 9,987.575 1,244,859.13$ 94,878.23$ 97,250.18$ 99,681.44$ 102,173.48$ 104,727.81$ 107,346.01$ 110,029.66$ Expense Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total AMR Capital Costs 1,318,031.00$ Total AMR System O&M Costs Water Cost Savings from Meter Accuracy (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) (10,520.50) Sewer Cost Savings from Meter Accurancy Bi-Monthly Meter Reading Costs 37,708.44 38,651.15 39,617.43 40,607.87 41,623.07 42,663.64 43,730.23 44,823.49 Administrative Meter Reads 13,634.63 13,975.49 14,324.88 14,683.00 15,050.08 15,426.33 15,811.99 16,207.29 Vehicle Replacement Costs 1,651.20 1,692.48 1,734.79 1,778.16 1,822.62 1,868.18 1,914.89 1,962.76 Vehicle Maintenance Costs 4,610.56 4,725.82 4,843.97 4,965.07 5,089.20 5,216.43 5,346.84 5,480.51 1,365,115.33$ 48,524.45$ 50,000.58$ 51,513.60$ 53,064.46$ 54,654.08$ 56,283.45$ 57,953.54$ c. Current labor costs - $77,989 i. Meter Reader salary and benefits for a total of $50,521 ii. 30% of the Water Maintenance Worker II salary and benefits for a total of $20,646 iii. 10% of the Utility Billing Technician salary and benefits for a total of $6,822 d. Current annual vehicle costs – $14,576 i. Vehicle used by the water maintenance technician - $2,935 ii. Two vehicles used by the meter reader - $11,641 e. Smart metering labor costs - $51,343 i. Largest cost savings is in salaries and benefits ii. 33% of the meters would not be replaced and need manual reads. Based on the current time spent reading meters, which is 62%, the time needed to read these meters is 20% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,080). iii. One employee would spend one to two days driving around the city scanning the me- ters. It would take approximately 13% of the maintenance worker’s time ($9,176) Packet Page 115 of 201 City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Network iv. Maintenance would need to be continued at the same rate as the current meters – 21% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,452). v. Some administrative reads would be needed due to resident requests as well as reads for closing bills, misreads, and leak adjustments on the remaining 33% of the manual read meters. Based on the current time spent on administrative reads, which is 30%, the time needed to read these meters is 10% of the maintenance worker’s time ($6,813). vi. The change in the utility billing technician’s time is zero. Administrative tasks cur- rently performed will decrease with the offset being new administrative tasks. 10% of the utility billing technician’s time is spent on utility dispatch issues ($6,822). f. Smart metering annual vehicle costs - one vehicle used by the water maintenance technician (64%) - $6,262 3) Carbon reduction - the following estimates are based on #56WTR and #38WTR not being used for meter reading and maintenance. a. Estimated annual mileage savings 12,492 b. Estimated annual CO2 (tonnes) savings: 5.67 c. Estimated annual vehicle cost savings $11,640 Page 89 Packet Page 116 of 201 AM-1714 2.B. Court Improvement Funds/Judicial Salary City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Time:5 Minutes Department:Municipal Court Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Court improvement funds/judicial salary. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Please see attached memorandum. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2009 Revenue: 12,700 Expenditure: 15,043 Fiscal Impact: The net expenditure for 2009 will be $2343. This is calculated by subtracting the 2005 salary ($59,000) from the proposed salary ($74,043) and then deducting the amount received from the State ($12,700). 74,043-59,000=15,043-12,700=2343 Attachments Link: 2009 judicial salary memo Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 11:22 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 11:25 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 11:56 AM APRV Form Started By: Doug Fair Started On: 08/07/2008 10:25 AM Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 117 of 201 Judicial Salary Memorandum 2008/2009 Since 2006 the City of Edmonds has received Judicial Improvement Account Funds from the State. I have attached Exhibit 1 (last year’s salary memorandum) to provide the background information regarding these funds. If the City wants to continue to receive these funds there is another salary increase due on September 1, 2008. The current salary is $70,136. The new salary will need to be $74,043. The amount of the increase is $3906. If the salary is increased it is anticipated that the City will receive $12,700 from the State for 2009. Assuming that the City did not increase judicial salary from the original 2005 level of $59,000 then the increase in judicial salary for 2009 will be $2343 less than the City receives from the State. To date, the City has received $1,144 more than it has paid out in salary increases. If we subtract that from the $2343 the City will pay for the 2009 increase then the total the City will have paid out over three years while in this program is $1199. The marginal increase in salary costs to the City over the 2005 ending salary of $59,000 represents a total 2.03% increase in salary over three years. That is approximately a .67% per year cost to the City; less than 1% per year. The City must now decide if this salary increase continues to be worthwhile. The City can stop applying for the Court Improvement Funds from the State at any time. There is no monetary penalty if the City wishes to stop receiving money from the State. However, we would need to renegotiate the contract and should probably refer this matter to the City’s elected official’s salary review process. The current salary and proposed raise is commensurate with other courts in the State and region. It is tied to the State salary guidelines which are followed by most local cities and the district courts. It would be a likely guideline that a local salary commission would look to in making a salary recommendation. In addition, since 2005, court filings have increased about 8.8%. The Court is adding one-half day of hearings to accommodate the increase. This increase has been handled without an increase in staff or salary costs to the City. While recognizing my obvious self-interest, I still recommend we stay with the program. If the City were to stop receiving funds, it would still need to pay my salary. Based on the increased court time and the established standard of salaries, the City will still likely be paying close to the current salary and proposed raise. As such, it makes sense to receive money from the State to offset the salary. Packet Page 118 of 201 EXHIBIT 1 Judicial Salary Memorandum When I first was appointed to serve as your judge in July, 2005, I finished out the contract that had been signed with Judge White. Judge White’s original contract provided that he was an independent contractor without benefits and was set at $65,000 based on a 24 hour work week. State auditors did not agree that the judicial position was an independent contractor. As a result I negotiated an annualized salary and benefit package of $59,000 for the remainder of the term (July-December 2005). This was designed to be the rough equivalent of the previous contract, taking into account the value of the benefit package. In 2006 the City Council made the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge an elected position. This qualified the City to obtain reimbursement from the State for court improvement account funds. In order to qualify for these funds the judicial position must be paid at a pro-rated salary that equates to 95% of the salary for a district court judge. The 2006 salary for the judicial position was negotiated at $63,751 for a 22 hour work week. This was exactly 95% of the district court salary pro-rated at 55% (22 hours per week). This made the City of Edmonds eligible for court improvement account funds. On September 1, 2006, the Citizen’s Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials increased the district court salary from $122,012 to $125,672 on an annualized basis. To remain eligible for the court improvement account funds (95% pro-rated salary for 2007) the contract was renegotiated to a salary of $65,664 commencing January 1, 2007. This was an increase of $1,913 from 2006. Recently the Citizen’s Commission approved a large salary increase for district court judges. The salary of a district court judge will be raised to $134,242 effective September 1, 2007. On September 1, 2008 the salary will increase to $141,708. If the City wishes to continue to receive court improvement account funds then it will require an increase in the judicial salary. The pro-rated 95% salary will need to be $70,136 starting on September 1, 2007 and $74,042 starting on September 1, 2008. Please see the email correspondence at the end of the memorandum reflecting this information. In 2006 we received $3999 from the State. It is anticipated that Edmonds will receive approximately $9200 for the calendar year of 2007 if the salary is increased. Therefore the anticipated total amount received from the State will be $13,199 for 2006-2007. If the salary is not increased then the City will receive approximately $2600 during 2007 for a combined total of $6599 for 2006-2007. Assuming that the judicial salary remained constant at $59,000 for 2006-2007 and assuming that there is a salary increase as of September 1, 2007, then the total salary Packet Page 119 of 201 increases over 2006-2007 will equal $12,055. Based on these assumptions then the net financial gain to the City over 2006-2007 will be $1,144. Based on these figures it appears that it still makes fiscal sense to keep the City eligible for court improvement funds through September 1, 2008. I also believe that it is in the City’s best interest to wait until next year to determine if it makes sense to increase the salary in September, 2008. The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates the City will receive $13,000 in 2008 if the City continues to raise the judicial salary. I respectfully request that we renegotiate the salary term of the contract commencing September 1, 2007 to set the annualized salary at $70,136.22 in order to keep the City eligible for court improvement account funds. Yes, in order to continue qualifying for 5454 contributions, your salary must be equivalent to 95% of a district court judges salary, or $127,520 for a full time position. If you are still funded at 55% then your salary at a minimum must be $70,136 ($134,232 x .95 x .55). Also note that another increase is required to meet the new salary effective September 1, 2008. -----Original Message----- From: Fair, Doug [mailto:Fair@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:02 AM To: Radwan, Ramsey Subject: RE: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution My salary at the city is reviewed on an annual basis with the calendar year. For the past two years this has been approved as meeting the 5454 criteria. Has that changed? Do I need to request that the city increase my salary in September? Thanks, Doug -----Original Message----- From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:34 PM To: pburns@auburnwa.gov; Fair, Doug; gphillips@ci.kent.wa.us; tjurado@ci.renton.wa.us; ron.mamiya@seattle.gov; james.docter@ci.bremerton.wa.us; michael.morgan@cityoffederalway.com; Gillings, Fred (TAO 7 Days); mlambo@ci.kirkland.wa.us; aemery@ci.tacoma.wa.us; todell@ci.everett.wa.us; swoodard@ci.yakima.wa.us Cc: fwebster@auburnwa.gov; Ferebee, Joan; Yetter, Margaret (internet); jmcguire@ci.renton.wa.us; yolande.williams@seattle.gov; Pettus, Yvonne (internet); Cusimano, Jeri (internet); gina.palermo@cityoffederalway.com; lmorris@ci.yakima.wa.us; selsner@ci.marysville.wa.us; Jeffries, Tracy (internet); Haake, Douglas Subject: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution As you know, one of the two qualifying criteria for 5454 contributions is the requirement that the municipal court judge be compensated at a rate of 95-100% of a district court judges' salary. You may also know that the Citizen's Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials recently established a new salary schedule for district court judges. The new rates are: $134,232 effective September 1, 2007 and $141,708 effective September 1, 2008 Packet Page 120 of 201 The entire salary schedule can be viewed at http://www.salaries.wa.gov/documents/Final2007- 08SalarySchedule.pdf. In the next few days I will be sending a letter to your city notifying them that to continue to qualify for funding municipal court judges within their jurisdiction must be compensated at the rate noted above (95-100% of a district court judges' salary) effective September 1, 2007 with an adjustment on September 1, 2008. I will copy all judges within your court as well as your court administrator. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ramsey Radwan, Director Management Services Division Administrative Office of the Courts (360) 357-2406 ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:00 AM To: Ferebee, Joan Subject: 2008 5454 Joan, Edmonds will receive about $13,000 in calendar year 2008. Ramsey Radwan, Director Management Services Division Administrative Office of the Courts (360) 357-2406 ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov Packet Page 121 of 201 AM-1718 2.C. Discussion on Consultant Selection for Treatment Plant Projects City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Steve Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Time:10 Minutes Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Discussion on the consultant selection process for projects at the Treatment Plant. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to design an Odor Control Improvement System at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant and allow CH2M HILL the ability to respond to this RFQ. Staff requests that this item be forwarded to full Council consent agenda with a recommendation to approve. Previous Council Action None. Narrative CH2M HILL completed an evaluation and recommendation report in 2007 for improving the odor control system of the Treatment Plant. The intent at that time was to hire a consultant in 2008 to design and implement the recommendations in the 2007 study, with construction to follow in 2009. In the spring of 2008, the Mayor approved the Treatment Plant Manager (Steve Koho) to take an unpaid leave of absence for 3 to 4 weeks to assist CH2M HILL in the startup of an incinerator in Puerto Rico. Staff wishes to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest in regards to awarding engineering consulting work at the Treatment Plant. Since it is time to begin the consultant selection process, staff proposes that Mr. Koho recuse himself from the consultant selection committee. Staff will follow standard practice in advertising a Request for Qualifications for designing the Odor Control project, but will not include Mr. Koho on the consultant evaluation committee. Once the committee selects a firm and a contract is finalized, Mr. Koho will administer the contract and project as he does all others. The City Attorney advises that this situation is not addressed by the recently enacted ethical provisions of Chapter 3.70 ECC and that this approach will comply with state law if Mr. Koho recuses himself from any process considering a proposal submitted by CH2M Hill. Given the Council's concern about the appearance of impropriety or irregularity in such situations, he suggested that this proposed approach be reviewed with this Committee prior to any RFQ, and the full Council if the Committee so recommends. Staff requests that the Finance Council Committee forward this item to full Council consent agenda with a recommendation to approve. CH2M HILL already has a thorough knowledge of the Packet Page 122 of 201 agenda with a recommendation to approve. CH2M HILL already has a thorough knowledge of the Plant's processes and has significant experience in the wastewater industry. It would be a disservice to disqualify them from future consideration based upon an unrelated project with a City employee. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:59 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 03:01 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 03:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho Started On: 08/07/2008 02:53 PM Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 123 of 201 AM-1676 2.D. Promotion to HR Analyst City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Debi Humann, Human Resources Time:10 Minutes Department:Human Resources Type: Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Promotion of Human Resources Assistant to Human Resources Analyst. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff As HR Director, and the supervisor of this position, I recommend this promotion for the reasons outlined in the attachment. This request is supported by the Mayor. Previous Council Action None. Narrative I am requesting that the current HR Assistant, Mary Ann Hardie, be promoted to the position of HR Analyst. By way of history, the HR Department at the City of Edmonds lost one full FTE in 2004 when I became HR Manager. As the attached memo outlines, at that time, the HR Manager took over all duties of the previous HR Director and split the duties associated with the HR Analyst position between the Manager and the HR Assistant. Mary Ann has earned her PHR (nationally recognized HR certification) and with three years of work experience at the City, is ready to take on the more complicated tasks associated with HR Analyst. More importantly to the City, with her promotion, a number of my current job responsibilities will migrate back to the HR Analyst position allowing me the opportunity to address critical HR work that, to-date, has gone undone due to the overwhelming work loads. I respectfully request your support on this matter. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Reorganization Memo Link: Outline of job duties Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status Packet Page 124 of 201 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/04/2008 11:42 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/04/2008 11:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2008 03:56 PM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 07/16/2008 01:41 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2008 Packet Page 125 of 201 DATE: July 11, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haakenson FROM: Debi Humann SUBJECT: HR Staffing Needs for 2008 and Beyond Over the last few months, we have briefly discussed several staffing needs in regards to the HR department. The two most critical needs and the ones with the most impact to the City include promoting Mary Ann Hardie from HR Assistant to HR Analyst and adding, at minimum, a part time employee to the HR staff. Please refer to the attached, “Assignment of HR Job Duties,” which details a suggested redistribution of the HR workload over three positions; HR Director, HR Analyst, and a part time clerical position (20 hours per week). It is important to note that this suggested HR staffing level is still below the level consistently applied prior to 2004. Please note the job functions boldfaced on the attachment under HR Director. Many of these functions are critical compliance issues and, through sheer good luck, have not been challenged up to this time. Because of the workload in HR and minimal staffing, the responsibilities in boldface continue to go undone. It is just a matter of time, however, before we have an issue that will be very costly to the city due to the inability of current staff to properly address these functions. PROMOTING THE HR ASSISTANT TO HR ANALYST When the HR Department went from three full time employees to two, the functions of the HR Analyst position (my previous position) were split between the Manager job and the HR Assistant. Obviously, the more complex functions remained with me and the functions predominately clerical went to Mary Ann. As a new employee to the City, Mary Ann brought many skills, including an in- depth knowledge of L&I processes, that have been very beneficial to the city. What she lacked, however, was critical HR knowledge on a wide array of issues. Over the last three years, Mary Ann has grown tremendously in her HR comprehension and in her ability to deal knowledgeably with employees on a wide variety of HR issues. In addition, last December, Mary Ann earned her Professional in HR certificate which is a significant accomplishment demonstrating a foundational knowledge of HR subject matter. City of Edmonds – Human Resources Department PHONE: 425-775-2525 FAX: 425-771-0252 E-MAIL: humann@ci.edmonds.wa.us Packet Page 126 of 201 Page 2 Mary Ann is ready to take on the more complex tasks associated with the HR Analyst position. More importantly to the City, with her promotion, a good number of my current job responsibilities (please refer to the boldfaced items under HR Analyst) will move back to the HR Analyst position allowing me the opportunity to address the critical HR work that has gone undone. PART TIME HR CLERICAL With the current HR to staff ratios utilized at the City of Edmonds, along with the escalating HR workload, it is no surprise that the more time consuming yet critical work issues are not getting done. As stated earlier, this is a cycle that will end up costing the city a lot more than the expense of staffing a part time position to help alleviate the issue. It is important to note that while HR staffing levels have remained fixed, the workload continues to grow. Our Family Medical Leave incidents, for example, increased 34.7% from 2006 to 2007. The City’s job postings increased 61% from 2006 to 2007. 2007’s record breaking number of 53 job postings will be far surpassed in 2008 as we are already at 41 as of July 1. Our advertising budget, which showed an increase of 175% in 2007, also reflects the increased workload as we work diligently to fill difficult jobs in an equally difficult environment. Mary Ann and I will continue to do the very best job we can for the City in attaining all HR goals, but it has become increasingly difficult as the work continues to grow and critical work is not addressed. With the designated job functions migrating from HR Director back to HR Analyst as detailed in the attachment, some of the tasks performed currently by Mary Ann will need to be picked up by a part time position. I am requesting the addition of a 20 hour a week, part time clerical person to perform the job duties as shown in the attachment. PROCESS I am requesting your support in the promotion of Mary Ann Hardie from HR Assistant to HR Analyst. I realize that this action will need approval by the Finance Committee as well as Council, however, our ability to accomplish the critical tasks outlined in the attachment warrants this action and will benefit the City. I would like to move forward with this request at the Finance Committee in August. In addition, I am requesting additional staffing for HR in the form of a part time clerical assistant as outlined above. I would like to move forward with this request in August also. I realize that the financial outlook of the City does not allow for movement in staffing levels, however, if the work is not done in HR, it can result in serious legal and compliance issues. Packet Page 127 of 201 Page 3 If you have alternate ideas, I am more than willing to hear them. Please let me know if I can supply additional information. Thank you for considering this request. Packet Page 128 of 201 ASSIGNMENT OF HR JOB DUTIES Due to minimal staffing in the HR Department, it is critical that each position employ cross-training and continue with the “generalist” approach to allow maximum coverage of all subject areas to better serve employees and the public. HR DIRECTOR – • Plan, organize, control and direct the HR functions, programs, and projects. • Provide internal consulting assistance to the City’s management and supervisory staff in a variety of areas including staffing, organizational changes, employee development, disciplinary problems, and other special employment needs • Plan, organize, and coordinate the city’s recruitment and selection processes to assure compliance with legal requirements, HR needs, and budgetary authority, provide staff assistance and guidance to the hiring authority in the selection of new employees and promotions • *Job Description/classification update project • *Update city policies involving Directors, union review (something not previously done), develop and recommend new or modified policies to address human resource needs within the City; direct and interpret the application of established personnel policies; develop employee communications to disseminate policy information (never been done even under Brent) • *Regularly review and administer compensation/benefit management including reclassification process • Coordinate a variety of employee recognition programs • Assist and counsel employees with confidential matters requiring internal or external resources; provide general conflict resolution assistance in employee related disputes; oversee applications of discipline; conduct/oversee pre- termination hearings. • *Create a City safety and accident program for each department (per OSHA/WISHA requirements) and administer the City’s safety and accident program city wide. • *Plan, organize and coordinate employee development and training programs including performance evaluation training and processes, educational assistance (degree or vocational related) and in-service training. • Create and administer the departmental budget • Attend, conduct and participate in a variety of committee meetings; perform special projects involving research and report writing. • Work with City Council; prepare HR related agenda memos and give presentations as needed. • Perform the city liaison functions associated with the Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials. • Prepare, conduct, and/or advise the labor negotiation process for all five unions; administer and interpret the Collective Bargaining Agreements during the term of the contracts; assist management staff with grievances and related employee concerns. *Not currently being done due to minimum staffing (HR Job Duties08) Packet Page 129 of 201 • Serve as Chief Examiner/Secretary for the Civil Service Commission; oversee all civil service assessment centers/testing processes; score and verify final results of testing processes, defend all processes at hearings as required. • Oversee and maintain responsibility for all functions of HR Analyst and any other HR staff HR ANALYST – • Participate in the development, administration, and implementation of HR policies, programs, and projects. • New employee orientations. • Administer the employee benefit programs; provide direct assistance to employees and families with their benefit programs including enrollments, filing claims, problems, changes and related matters. • Update and maintain branding and data on HR Web page • Assist the HR Director with obtaining information from other cities and jurisdictions on compensation and other personnel issues. • Responsible for all recruitment functions including the preparation of job announcements, utilization of appropriate advertising within budgetary constraints, assure proper maintenance of related files and records, perform reference checks, oversee security/driving checks as appropriate, schedule drug testing activities and medical examinations as necessary. • Serve as administrator and recording secretary for LEOFF 1 Disability Board including scheduling meetings, preparing agendas, monitor and process claims, prepare and process findings of fact and medical verifications. • Responsible for clerical functions associated with Civil Service Commission meetings; take minutes at meetings, assist Chief Examiner/Secretary. • Responsible for providing and accuracy of quarterly HR statistical tracking . • Assure proper recordkeeping and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses in accordance with OSHA and WISHA requirements; determine recordability of accidents; coordinate claim forms, time loss payments and buybacks accurately, compute leave in accordance with established requirements; assist employees with the process as needed. • Review all PSRs for accuracy and CBA compliance. Act as a liaison with Payroll on information required for an effective and accurate payroll process. • Participate in labor relations activities; assist with research and data collection as assigned related to compensation, benefits and related personnel programs/practices. • Coordinate and administer various projects and on-going programs as assigned. • Other duties as assigned. *Not currently being done due to minimum staffing (HR Job Duties08) Packet Page 130 of 201 PART TIME CLERICAL – • Maintenance of personnel and medical files in lawful and legal manner in compliance with all laws • Open and sort incoming mail in a timely and efficient manner; take -mail to mail room several times a day. • Update departmental/city forms as required. • Keep forms drawers well stocked; maintain and order office supplies used within the HR office • Process background checks as required as part of the recruitment/hiring process. • Perform clerical functions related to L&I • Perform miscellaneous filing as needed • Process purchase orders and payment requests for HR, the Mayor’s office, and Community Services in an accurate, timely and efficient manner. • Miscellaneous clerical work as required *Not currently being done due to minimum staffing (HR Job Duties08) Packet Page 131 of 201 AM-1709 2.E. Penalty Adjustments on Utility Billing Accounts City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:5 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Penalty adjustments on Utility Billing Accounts. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the attached policy. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The city has a long standing practice of waiving the late payment penalty (10% of balance due) on past due utility billing accounts once every three years. For the average residential customer the penalty ranges between $10 and $15. The State auditor recommended the City formalize this practice into a board approved policy. A draft policy is attached for your review. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Penalty Adjustments on Utility Billing Accounts Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2008 03:25 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/05/2008 03:27 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2008 03:56 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 08/05/2008 03:03 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2008 Packet Page 132 of 201 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0240 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Gary Haakenson Mayor Kathleen Junglov Director ● Incorporated August 11, 1890 ● Sister City – Hekinan, Japan Penalty Adjustments on Utility Billing Accounts If a customer has been assessed a 10% penalty due to non-payment of a utility bill, the City will allow one penalty adjustment every three years. Exceptions will only be made in the case of a new property owner, new tenant, City of Edmonds accounts, or by Director’s authorization. Adjustments will be initiated by the Utility Billing Technician and approved by the Utility Accountant. Adjustments exceeding $250.00 require the approval of the Director. Authorized and approved August 12, 2008 by the City of Edmonds Council Finance Committee. Packet Page 133 of 201 AM-1710 2.F. 2008 Second Quarter Budget Report City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Information Committee:Finance Information Subject Title 2008 Second Quarter Budget Report. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For Imformation only, no action required. Previous Council Action None. Narrative This item transmits the 2008 Second Quarter Budget Report. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2008 Second Quarter Budget Report Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2008 03:56 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/05/2008 03:58 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2008 04:02 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 08/05/2008 03:32 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2008 Packet Page 134 of 201 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (August 1, 2008) Overview Summary..........................2 Revenues..........................2 Expenditures....................2 On the Horizon ................2 Major Revenue Projections........3 General Fund Revenue Detail ...6 Expenditure Summary Status by Fund.................11 Status by Department.......11 Expenditure Detail by Fund General Fund ...................12 Street Fund.......................13 Street Construction..........13 Multi-Modal.....................13 Building Maintenance......14 Municipal Arts.................14 Hotel/Motel......................14 Employee Parking............14 Tourism Promotion..........15 Park Improve (REET 2).......15 Park Capital (REET 1).......15 Gifts Catalog....................16 Cemetery Maintenance....16 Parks Construction ..........16 Combined Utility .............17 Equipment Rental.............18 Expenditure Detail by Department City Council.....................19 Mayor...............................19 Human Resources............19 Municipal Court...............20 Economic Development...20 City Clerk.........................20 Administrative Services...21 City Attorney ...................21 Non-Departmental............21 Police Department............22 Fire Department...............23 Community Services........23 Development Services .....24 Parks & Recreation..........24 Public Works....................25 Facilities...........................25 Storm Drainage................26 Water................................27 Sewer................................28 Treatment Plant................29 L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0020_1710_2008 Q2 Report.doc Packet Page 135 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT CITY OF EDMONDS 2008 SECOND QUARTER BUDGET REPORT This report will provide preliminary information regarding the City of Edmonds’ financial operations for the quarter ending June 30, 2008. Information for July has been included when available. Revenue Variances Sales tax revenue for the quarter was $2.6 million or 43.6% of budget. Keep in mind that the budget includes approximately $370,000 in sales tax sourcing dollars (SST) which will not be received until the end of the year. For forecasting 2008 collections we removed the impact of the SST and have included July 2008 receipts. Currently the model shows sales tax receipts coming in about 5% or $282,000 under budget. Considering the overall state of the economy we have also lowered our expectations regarding SST receipts and in total are anticipating sales tax coming in $400,000 under budget. Natural Gas Utility and Electric Utility taxes are at 75.3% and 61.5% respectively of budget. At this time our forecasting model, which considers the seasonality of collections is predicting that the Natural Gas Utility tax will exceed budget by $93,000, and the Electric Utility tax will come in $46,000 over budget. Building permit fees, along with plan check fees are at 60.1%, and 63.5% of budget. Input from our Development Services Department is that they expect construction related receipts to meet budget estimates in 2008, not exceed budget as has been the case for the past couple of years. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) receipts through July 31 were $443,000. Collections for the same period in 2007 were $838,000. At this time our forecasting model is pointing towards REET receipts for the year of $775,000, or 45% under budget. Departmental and Fund Variances All departments spending appears to be in line with budget. On the Horizon The City is in the process of developing its 2009-2010 Biennial budget. For the following reasons, balancing the budget will be excessively challenging: • CPI-U for 2009 came in at 5.8%, and CPI-W came in at 6.2% • Sales tax revenue estimates have been lowered for 2008, and flat-lined for 2009 and 2010 • Assessed Valuation appears will remain level resulting in a lower than anticipated collection from the EMS levy - August, 2008 Page 2 Packet Page 136 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT 2008 BUDGET 1,400,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 6.38% 5.11% 7.57% 8.43% 7.61% 10.56% 11.51% 9.44% 9.99% 8.34% 7.99% 7.07% Cumulative Forecast % 6.38% 11.48% 19.05% 27.49% 35.09% 45.65% 57.17% 66.61% 76.60% 84.94% 92.93% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 89,269 71,514 105,947 118,067 106,473 147,883 161,157 132,173 139,906 116,757 111,894 98,959 Cumulative Forecast $ 89,269 160,783 266,730 384,797 491,270 639,153 800,311 932,484 1,072,389 1,189,147 1,301,041 1,400,000 Actual Collected $ 64,548 43,762 62,362 53,477 74,187 83,262 61,076 Cumulative Collection $ 64,548 108,310 170,672 224,149 298,336 381,598 442,674 YEAR END FORECAST 1,012,298 943,097 895,815 815,516 850,184 835,851 774,379 Projected YE Variance (387,702) (456,903) (504,185) (584,484) (549,816) (564,149) (625,621) Budget Variance % -27.69% -32.64% -36.01% -41.75% -39.27% -40.30% -44.69% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget 2008 BUDGET 5,906,511 SALES TAX SOURCING 373,125 ADJUSTED 2008 BUDGET 5,533,386 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 8.05% 9.93% 7.06% 6.88% 8.76% 7.70% 8.09% 9.09% 8.17% 8.45% 9.56% 8.27% Cumulative Forecast % 8.05% 17.97% 25.04% 31.91% 40.67% 48.37% 56.47% 65.55% 73.73% 82.17% 91.73% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 445,222 549,378 390,734 380,476 484,606 426,114 447,921 502,891 452,257 467,395 528,755 457,637 Cumulative Forecast $ 445,222 994,600 1,385,334 1,765,810 2,250,416 2,676,529 3,124,451 3,627,342 4,079,599 4,546,994 5,075,749 5,533,386 Actual Collected $ 446,465 536,467 354,960 408,780 452,217 377,496 388,386 Cumulative Collection $ 446,465 982,932 1,337,892 1,746,672 2,198,889 2,576,385 2,964,771 YEAR END FORECAST 5,548,831 5,468,472 5,343,892 5,473,414 5,406,690 5,326,349 5,250,593 Projected YE Variance 15,445 (64,914) (189,494) (59,972) (126,696) (207,037) (282,793) Budget Variance % 0.28% -1.17% -3.42% -1.08% -2.29% -3.74% -5.11% SALES AND USE TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget Page 3 Packet Page 137 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT 2008 BUDGET 800,835 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 14.08% 15.03% 13.13% 10.84% 8.70% 5.66% 4.67% 3.32% 3.22% 3.84% 6.30% 11.19% Cumulative Forecast % 14.08% 29.12% 42.25% 53.09% 61.79% 67.45% 72.12% 75.44% 78.67% 82.50% 88.81% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 112,774 120,391 105,175 86,830 69,654 45,338 37,427 26,573 25,827 30,728 50,469 89,651 Cumulative Forecast $ 112,774 233,165 338,339 425,169 494,823 540,161 577,588 604,161 629,987 660,715 711,184 800,835 Actual Collected $ 118,314 118,791 127,195 85,691 88,798 64,123 Cumulative Collection $ 118,314 237,105 364,300 449,991 538,789 602,912 YEAR END FORECAST 840,181 814,370 862,283 847,589 871,990 893,868 Projected YE Variance 39,346 13,535 61,448 46,754 71,155 93,033 Budget Variance % 4.91% 1.69% 7.67% 5.84% 8.89% 11.62% GAS UTILITY TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget 2008 BUDGET 1,435,875 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 7.33% 6.87% 10.01% 7.51% 9.18% 7.16% 9.41% 8.17% 8.26% 9.21% 7.52% 9.38% Cumulative Forecast % 7.33% 14.20% 24.21% 31.72% 40.90% 48.06% 57.47% 65.64% 73.90% 83.11% 90.62% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 105,267 98,611 143,772 107,826 131,845 102,748 135,118 117,301 118,594 132,216 107,954 134,623 Cumulative Forecast $ 105,267 203,878 347,651 455,476 587,321 690,069 825,187 942,488 1,061,082 1,193,298 1,301,252 1,435,875 Actual Collected $ 50,673 134,314 143,976 137,873 77,307 89,660 Cumulative Collection $ 50,673 184,986 328,962 466,835 544,142 633,803 YEAR END FORECAST 691,192 1,302,823 1,358,688 1,471,683 1,330,312 1,318,798 Projected YE Variance (744,683) (133,052) (77,187) 35,808 (105,563) (117,077) Budget Variance % -51.86% -9.27% -5.38% 2.49% -7.35% -8.15% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget Page 4 Packet Page 138 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT 2008 BUDGET 1,406,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 9.87% 12.16% 9.87% 10.99% 8.84% 7.76% 7.03% 6.31% 6.58% 6.06% 7.22% 7.30% Cumulative Forecast % 9.87% 22.03% 31.91% 42.90% 51.74% 59.50% 66.53% 72.83% 79.42% 85.47% 92.70% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 138,788 170,996 138,821 154,576 124,272 109,108 98,798 88,696 92,519 85,196 101,544 102,684 Cumulative Forecast $ 138,788 309,784 448,605 603,182 727,454 836,563 935,360 1,024,056 1,116,575 1,201,771 1,303,316 1,406,000 Actual Collected $ 145,799 162,979 167,756 148,361 133,575 105,831 Cumulative Collection $ 145,799 308,778 476,534 624,895 758,470 864,301 YEAR END FORECAST 1,477,028 1,401,435 1,493,532 1,456,613 1,465,947 1,452,620 Projected YE Variance 71,028 (4,565) 87,532 50,613 59,947 46,620 Budget Variance % 5.05% -0.32% 6.23% 3.60% 4.26% 3.32% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget Page 5 Packet Page 139 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 06/30//2008 Revenues Balance % Received BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2,972,617 3,614,515 (641,898) 121.6% REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,054,450 4,703,331 4,351,119 51.9% EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,446,200 1,270,754 1,175,446 51.9% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 817,373 422,836 394,537 51.7% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 5,906,511 2,576,437 3,330,074 43.6% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,065 9,639 6,426 60.0% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 649,836 313,773 336,063 48.3% GAS UTILITY TAX 800,835 602,912 197,923 75.3% CABLE TV FRANCHISE 0 38,584 (38,584) - TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,435,875 610,232 825,643 42.5% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,406,000 864,301 541,699 61.5% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 270,000 147,995 122,005 54.8% WATER UTILITY TAX 201,246 101,531 99,715 50.5% SEWER UTILITY TAX 280,000 139,027 140,973 49.7% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 107,635 58,422 49,213 54.3% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 182,000 121,022 60,978 66.5% PULLTABS TAX 55,000 40,437 14,563 73.5% AMUSEMENT GAMES 500 0 500 0.0% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES 500 0 500 0.0% TOTAL TAXES 23,630,026 12,021,234 11,608,792 50.87% FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,000 2,580 2,420 51.6% PROF AND OCCUPATION LICENSE 1,000 330 670 33.0% AMUSEMENTS 5,000 1,775 3,225 35.5% BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 1,800 1,335 465 74.2% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 56,000 48,421 7,579 86.5% FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS 549,575 287,684 261,891 52.3% OLY VIEW WATER DIST FRANCHISE 118,500 60,040 58,460 50.7% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 22,000 13,575 8,425 61.7% NON RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 22,000 15,850 6,150 72.0% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 625,000 375,431 249,570 60.1% ANIMAL LICENSES 15,000 7,085 7,915 47.2% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 100,170 50,215 49,955 50.1% OTHER/NON-BUS/LIC/PERMIT 5,000 3,035 1,965 60.7% TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,528,045 867,356 660,689 56.76% Page 6 Packet Page 140 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 06/30//2008 Revenues Balance % Received DOJ 15-0404-01-754 2006 BPV 0 2,478 (2,478) - US Dept of Justice Grant 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% DAHP Grant FY07 0 0 0 - JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT 0 9,999 (9,999) - WA ASSOC OF SHERRIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT 1,500 0 1,500 0.0% Federal WA State Traffic Comm Grant 8,000 0 8,000 0.0% DOE SHORELINE MASTER PROG G0600108 0 4,983 (4,983) - WSP-DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT OT 0 0 0 - WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% Puget Drive Walkway HLP-PB07(009) 0 3,000 (3,000) - WA STATE TRAUMA GRANT 1,290 0 1,290 0.0% GROWTH MGT INCENTIVE GRANT 0 0 0 - WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH GRANT 0 1,644 (1,644) - PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 190,000 0 190,000 0.0% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 5,600 6,713 (1,113) 119.9% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 7,290 4,046 3,244 55.5% CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 30,674 15,703 14,971 51.2% DUI - CITIES 8,860 3,675 5,185 41.5% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 172,337 97,725 74,612 56.7% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 300,278 138,031 162,247 46.0% SHARED COURT COSTS 5,000 4,092 908 81.8% POLICE FBI CONTRACTS 0 6,685 (6,685) - DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 0 4,147 (4,147) - FIRE PROTECTION - WOODWAY 327,991 168,772 159,219 51.5% FIRE PROTECTION - DISTRICT #1 228,842 295,074 (66,232) 128.9% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 41,024 30,122 10,902 73.4% WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 6,500 4,800 1,700 73.8% CITY OF MTLK TERR-ANIMAL CONTR 32,000 16,711 15,289 52.2% SNOCOM/DIRECTOR SERVICES 149,100 75,273 73,827 50.5% OTHER BEACH RANGER SUBSIDY 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% SNO-ISLE 56,000 32,896 23,104 58.7% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 1,577,286 926,570 650,716 58.74% Page 7 Packet Page 141 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 06/30//2008 Revenues Balance % Received CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS 0 91 (91) - RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,500 568 932 37.9% COURT RECORD SERVICES 400 82 318 20.5% CIVIL FEE 0 27 (27) - SALE MAPS & BOOKS 1,000 394 606 39.4% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 0 363 (363) - PHOTOCOPIES 0 3,582 (3,582) - POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 0 2,599 (2,599) - ASSESSMENT SEARCH 0 20 (20) - RESALE ITEMS/VENDING MACHINE 0 138 (138) - BIRD FEST MERCHANDISE-WHOLESALE 0 0 0 - PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 31,000 15,100 15,900 48.7% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 31,200 0 31,200 0.0% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 155,000 56,567 98,433 36.5% ELECTRONIC MONITORING 36,300 7,655 28,645 21.1% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 9,000 4,295 4,705 47.7% BOOKING FEES 4,000 3,059 941 76.5% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 15,500 6,475 9,025 41.8% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 0 4,999 (4,999) - EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES-HAZMAT 500 0 500 0.0% DUI EMERGENCY AID 0 0 0 - POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 500 95 405 19.0% CRIM CONV FEES CT 2,300 3,691 (1,391) 160.5% CRIM CONV FEES CN 1,900 1,372 528 72.2% POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 250 0 250 0.0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 109,138 119,362 (10,224) 109.4% STORM DRAINAGE FEES 800 0 800 0.0% AMIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 7,500 3,903 3,597 52.0% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 110,000 41,564 68,436 37.8% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 10,000 5,148 4,853 51.5% PLAN CHECKING FEES 380,000 241,477 138,524 63.5% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 0 1,990 (1,990) - CERT/PHOTO/RECORD SEARCH FEE 12,000 13 11,987 0.1% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 12,000 3,460 8,540 28.8% SHORELINE PERMIT 500 0 500 0.0% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 20,000 9,415 10,585 47.1% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 63,000 22,217 40,783 35.3% LOCKER FEES 1,000 240 760 24.0% SWIM CLASS FEES 56,000 37,908 18,092 67.7% PROGRAM FEES 716,108 513,232 202,876 71.7% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 0 6,194 (6,194) - BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 0 100 (100) - INTERFUND REIMB. CONTRACT SVCS 1,242,448 587,462 654,986 47.3% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 0 0 0 - TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 3,030,844 1,704,855 1,325,989 56.25% Page 8 Packet Page 142 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 06/30//2008 Revenues Balance % Received PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 4,840 3,835 1,005 79.2% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 48,400 28,190 20,210 58.2% BC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 200,000 136,248 63,752 68.1% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,800 4,464 (2,664) 248.0% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 0 872 (872) - PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 51,000 7,045 43,955 13.8% PR - HANDICAPPED 4,000 3,420 580 85.5% PARKING INFRACTION LC 300 80 220 26.7% DWI PENALTIES 5,000 2,326 2,674 46.5% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 2,500 930 1,570 37.2% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 10,000 24,745 (14,745) 247.5% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 1,000 990 10 99.0% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 8,500 5,019 3,481 59.0% COURT DV PENALTY ASSMT 0 525 (525) - CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 130,000 49,526 80,474 38.1% JURY DEMAND COST 0 109 (109) - PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 25,000 14,860 10,140 59.4% COURT INTERPRETER COST 1,000 217 783 21.7% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 20,000 12,633 7,367 63.2% TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITURES 513,340 296,034 217,306 57.67% INVESTMENT INTEREST 120,000 80,965 39,035 67.5% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 25,000 14,838 10,162 59.4% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 2,000 2,487 (487) 124.4% PARKING 4,000 2,400 1,600 60.0% SPACE & FACILITIES RENTALS 129,000 53,038 75,963 41.1% GYM & WEIGHTROOM FEES 13,400 2,821 10,579 21.1% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 0 3,900 (3,900) - LEASES LONG-TERM 124,410 66,556 57,854 53.5% VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 2,400 505 1,895 21.1% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 14,000 9,455 4,545 67.5% PARKS DONATIONS 4,675 3,685 990 78.8% POLICE CONT FROM PRIVATE SOURCES 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% BIRDFEST CONTRIBUTION 2,000 1,250 750 62.5% CONTRIBUTIONS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 500 0 500 0.0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 5,000 2,935 2,065 58.7% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 1,500 0 1,500 0.0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 0 300 (300) - POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 0 3,190 (3,190) - CASHIER OVERAGE/SHORTAGE 0 68 (68) - OTHER MISC REVENUES 10,000 87,205 (77,205) 872.0% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 0 142 (142) - NSF FEES - PARKS 0 90 (90) - NSF FEES - MUNI CT 200 261 (61) 130.3% NSF FEES - POLICE 0 0 0 NSF FEES - DEVEL SVCS DEPT 0 0 0 PLANNING SIGNAGE REVENUE 6,000 900 5,100 15.0% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 470,085 336,990 133,095 71.69% Page 9 Packet Page 143 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 06/30//2008 Revenues Balance % Received PROCEEDS FROM LONG TERM DEBT 78,000 0 78,000 0.0% SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 0 3,975 (3,975) - INSURANCE PROCEEDS 0 0 0 - TRANSFER FROM FUND 113 0 0 0 - TRANSFER FROM FUND 121 19,962 8,755 11,207 43.9% TOTAL TRANSFERS 97,962 12,730 85,232 12.99% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 33,820,205 19,780,284 14,039,921 58.49% Page 10 Packet Page 144 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES Page 11 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used All Funds 73,459,714 28,307,898 45,151,816 38.5% 001 General Fund 33,385,455 16,079,234 17,306,221 48.2% 111 Street Fund 1,411,017 579,239 831,778 41.1% 112 Street Const./Imprv. 2,820,895 532,638 2,288,257 18.9% 113 Multimodal Transportation 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0.0% 116 Building Maintenance 2,826,400 1,899,065 927,335 67.2% 117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 77,250 2,527 74,723 3.3% 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 75,206 27,594 47,612 36.7% 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 18,510 8,755 9,755 47.3% 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 21,800 3,497 18,303 16.0% 125 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 3,388,000 364,736 3,023,264 10.8% 126 Park Acquisition (REET 1) 1,816,848 806,881 1,009,967 44.4% 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 2,600 410 2,190 15.8% 130 Cemetery Maintenance 170,645 59,997 110,648 35.2% 132 Park Construction Fund 0 5,261 (5,261) - 411 Combined Utility Operation 13,361,031 5,832,798 7,528,233 43.7% 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,363,287 678,253 685,034 49.8% BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 City Council 303,846 136,825 167,021 45.0% 210 Office of Mayor 232,777 116,090 116,687 49.9% 220 Human Resources 242,649 127,503 115,146 52.5% 230 Municipal Court 695,854 328,526 367,328 47.2% 240 Economic Development 168,864 19,488 149,376 11.5% 250 City Clerk 554,186 274,921 279,265 49.6% 310 Administrative Services 1,265,529 600,945 664,584 47.5% 360 City Attorney 439,065 250,065 189,000 57.0% 390 Non-Departmental Expenses 4,322,795 1,929,374 2,393,421 44.6% 410 Police Services 9,486,681 4,739,980 4,746,701 50.0% 510 Fire Services 7,459,771 3,749,300 3,710,471 50.3% 610 Community Services 339,549 180,013 159,536 53.0% 620 Development Services 3,120,943 1,480,775 1,640,168 47.4% 640 Parks & Recreation 3,087,024 1,363,090 1,723,934 44.2% 650 Public Works 280,838 137,370 143,468 48.9% 651 Facilities Maintenance 1,385,084 644,978 740,106 46.6% 652 Storm Drainage 1,837,996 865,067 972,930 47.1% 654 Water 4,854,200 1,909,944 2,944,256 39.3% 655 Sewer 3,033,553 1,588,633 1,444,920 52.4% 656 Treatment Plant 3,635,282 1,469,151 2,166,131 40.4% Packet Page 145 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND Page 12 001 GENERAL FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 16,346,676 7,903,538 8,443,138 48.3% 120 OVERTIME 701,220 561,426 139,794 80.1% 150 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 352,547 4,997 347,550 1.4% 230 BENEFITS 5,729,594 2,546,408 3,183,186 44.4% 240 UNIFORMS 122,666 48,193 74,473 39.3% 250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 17,290 12,958 4,332 74.9% 310 SUPPLIES 505,448 222,925 282,523 44.1% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,700 249 1,451 14.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 161,540 89,850 71,690 55.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,680,533 957,151 723,382 57.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 240,487 112,631 127,856 46.8% 430 TRAVEL 81,080 25,616 55,464 31.6% 440 ADVERTISING 45,290 23,413 21,877 51.7% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 139,851 64,141 75,710 45.9% 460 INSURANCE 469,000 417,705 51,295 89.1% 470 UTILITIES 453,920 190,276 263,644 41.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 229,154 110,021 119,133 48.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 347,134 182,524 164,610 52.6% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 1,830,979 1,070,133 760,846 58.4% 530 EXCISE TAXES 5,200 4,586 614 88.2% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,425,081 707,017 718,064 49.6% 630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 875,894 0 875,894 0.0% 750 BOND PRINCIPAL 60,907 60,907 0 100.0% 790 BOND PRINCIPAL 20,956 10,478 10,478 50.0% 830 INTEREST ON LT DEBT 468,368 220,162 248,206 47.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 179 (179) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 898 602 59.9% 920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 20,217 12,514 61.8% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 40,184 17,234 22,950 42.9% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 903,894 455,868 448,026 50.4% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 91,631 37,191 54,440 40.6% 990 OTHER INTERFUND SVCS 0 343 (343) - TOTAL GENERAL FUND 33,385,455 16,079,234 17,306,221 48.2% Packet Page 146 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND Page 13 111 STREET FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 441,333 189,251 252,082 42.9% 120 OVERTIME 9,789 1,830 7,959 18.7% 230 BENEFITS 178,679 68,502 110,177 38.3% 240 UNIFORMS 7,300 3,455 3,845 47.3% 310 SUPPLIES 162,800 66,143 96,657 40.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 34,136 87 34,049 0.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,000 9,499 2,501 79.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,200 1,294 2,906 30.8% 430 TRAVEL 3,380 4 3,376 0.1% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 0 2,500 0.0% 460 INSURANCE 36,890 32,977 3,913 89.4% 470 UTILITIES 254,250 104,708 149,542 41.2% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 12,300 6,631 5,669 53.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,660 640 12,020 5.1% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 16,000 4,560 11,440 28.5% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 10,595 0 10,595 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 32,925 0 32,925 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 12,008 6,001 6,007 50.0% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 21 (21) - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 167,272 83,636 83,636 50.0% TOTAL STREET FUND 1,411,017 579,239 831,778 41.1% 112 STREET CONST/IMPRV FD # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 31,875 (31,875) - 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 222,322 (222,322) - 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,775,000 158,187 2,616,813 5.7% 790 LOAN PRINCIPAL 38,143 72,201 (34,058) 189.3% 830 LOAN INTEREST 3,061 5,568 (2,507) 181.9% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 0 42,485 (42,485) - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 4,691 0 4,691 0.0% TOTAL STREET CONST/IMPRV FD 2,820,895 532,638 2,288,257 18.9% 113 MULTIMODAL TRANS FD # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0.0% TOTAL MULTIMODAL TRANS FD 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0.0% Packet Page 147 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND Page 14 116 BUILDING MAINT FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 10,000 848 9,152 8.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100,000 141,837 (41,837) 141.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 816,700 556,624 260,076 68.2% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,899,700 1,199,756 699,944 63.2% TOTAL BUILDING MAINT FUND 2,826,400 1,899,065 927,335 67.2% 117 MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 3,200 467 2,733 14.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 600 0 600 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 57,200 750 56,450 1.3% 440 ADVERTISING 4,000 0 4,000 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 0 300 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 7,950 1,310 6,640 16.5% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% TOTAL MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND 77,250 2,527 74,723 3.3% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,323 2,938 42,385 6.5% 440 ADVERTISING 0 9,451 (9,451) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 6,000 4,000 60.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 19,883 9,205 10,678 46.3% TOTAL HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND 75,206 27,594 47,612 36.7% 121 EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 17,510 8,755 8,755 50.0% TOTAL EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD 18,510 8,755 9,755 47.3% Packet Page 148 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND Page 15 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 300 0 300 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,500 2,549 7,951 24.3% 440 ADVERTISING 2,500 0 2,500 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 8,500 948 7,552 11.2% TOTAL TOURISM PROMOTIONAL 21,800 3,497 18,303 16.0% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 0 25,318 (25,318) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 39,748 (39,748) - 450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 245 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 75,785 (75,785) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,000 35,008 (34,008) 3500.8% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,387,000 168,331 3,218,669 5.0% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 0 20,301 (20,301) - TOTAL REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3,388,000 364,736 3,023,509 10.8% 126 PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1) # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0 0 - 450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 850 (850) - 490 MISCELLANOUS 0 304 (304) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 980,436 703,066 277,370 71.7% 610 LAND 210,000 0 210,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 420,956 0 420,956 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 204,256 102,134 102,122 50.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 0 0 - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,200 527 673 43.9% TOTAL PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1) 1,816,848 806,881 1,009,967 44.4% Packet Page 149 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND Page 16 127 GIFTS CATALOG # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 2,600 410 2,190 15.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0 0 - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 - TOTAL GIFTS CATALOG 2,600 410 2,190 15.8% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 59,830 30,554 29,276 51.1% 120 OVERTIME 2,050 1,510 540 73.7% 230 BENEFITS 27,385 12,954 14,431 47.3% 240 UNIFORMS 1,000 170 831 17.0% 310 SUPPLIES 7,000 1,524 5,476 21.8% 340 RESALE ITEMS 20,000 5,257 14,743 26.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,200 470 730 39.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,200 657 543 54.8% 430 TRAVEL 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 3,000 781 2,219 26.0% 470 UTILITIES 3,700 1,247 2,453 33.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 129 371 25.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 305 695 30.5% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 - 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 - 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 0 0 0 - 790 INTERFUND PRINCIPAL 14,598 0 14,598 0.0% 820 INTERFUND INTEREST 14,305 0 14,305 0.0% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,877 4,439 4,438 50.0% TOTAL CEMETERY MAINTENANCE 170,645 59,997 110,648 35.2% 132 PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 - 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 0 5,261 (5,261) - TOTAL PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND 0 5,261 (5,261) 0.0% Packet Page 150 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND Page 17 411 COMBINED UTILITY # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 2,586,981 1,243,785 1,343,196 48.1% 120 OVERTIME 92,100 38,440 53,660 41.7% 230 BENEFITS 975,724 466,473 509,251 47.8% 240 UNIFORMS 27,640 13,839 13,801 50.1% 310 SUPPLIES 591,108 209,134 381,974 35.4% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 84,370 56,530 27,840 67.0% 340 RESALE ITEMS 1,694,000 489,522 1,204,478 28.9% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,340 10,766 5,574 65.9% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 207,690 91,423 116,267 44.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 55,656 27,403 28,253 49.2% 430 TRAVEL 14,570 1,246 13,324 8.6% 440 ADVERTISING 2,120 1,214 906 57.3% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 22,420 13,316 9,104 59.4% 460 INSURANCE 343,288 306,212 37,076 89.2% 470 UTILITIES 936,800 466,781 470,019 49.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 105,164 45,177 59,987 43.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 466,660 213,641 253,019 45.8% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 311,014 172,965 138,049 55.6% 540 EXCISE TAXES 583,333 298,981 284,352 51.3% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,250,000 650,500 599,500 52.0% 620 BUILDINGS 20,000 0 20,000 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 14,925 0 14,925 0.0% 710 GO BOND PRINCIPAL 95,891 0 95,891 0.0% 720 REVENUE BOND PRINCIPAL 774,672 0 774,672 0.0% 790 OTHER LOAN PRINCIPAL 98,975 92,602 6,373 93.6% 830 BOND INTEREST 243,895 125,761 118,134 51.6% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 16,551 (16,551) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 292 (292) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 1,242,337 527,103 715,234 42.4% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 501,858 250,929 250,929 50.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,500 2,212 (712) 147.5% TOTAL COMBINED UTILITY 13,361,031 5,832,798 7,528,233 43.7% Packet Page 151 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND Page 18 511 EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR FUND # Title Appropriation 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 256,780 124,369 132,411 48.4% 120 OVERTIME 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 108,572 49,712 58,860 45.8% 240 UNIFORMS 2,000 843 1,157 42.2% 310 SUPPLIES 170,000 53,092 116,908 31.2% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 230,000 1,881 228,119 0.8% 340 ITEMS PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY 0 195,088 (195,088) - 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 56,000 1,511 54,489 2.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,550 1,972 578 77.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,000 1,414 2,586 35.4% 430 TRAVEL 3,540 0 3,540 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 500 308 192 61.6% 460 INSURANCE 31,340 29,409 1,931 93.8% 470 UTILITIES 15,000 8,704 6,296 58.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 42,601 2,399 94.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 1,517 4,483 25.3% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 4,000 2,465 1,535 61.6% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 404,000 150,562 253,438 37.3% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 15,000 9,303 5,697 62.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 7,005 3,502 3,503 50.0% TOTAL EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR FUND 1,363,287 678,253 685,034 49.8% Packet Page 152 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 19 110 CITY COUNCIL # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 110,862 50,598 60,264 45.6% 120 OVERTIME 5,590 2,574 3,016 46.0% 230 BENEFITS 85,844 48,618 37,226 56.6% 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 767 233 76.7% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 348 (348) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66,000 26,617 39,383 40.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 41 (41) - 430 TRAVEL 4,100 3,028 1,072 73.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,500 1 1,499 0.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 28,950 4,232 24,718 14.6% TOTAL CITY COUNCIL 303,846 136,825 167,021 45.0% 210 OFFICE OF MAYOR # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 172,348 84,719 87,629 49.2% 230 BENEFITS 49,329 22,453 26,876 45.5% 310 SUPPLIES 3,000 1,834 1,166 61.1% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 265 (265) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,100 349 751 31.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,400 757 643 54.0% 430 TRAVEL 1,500 578 922 38.5% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 827 673 55.1% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100 191 (91) 190.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 4,116 (1,616) 164.6% TOTAL OFFICE OF MAYOR 232,777 116,090 116,687 49.9% 220 HUMAN RESOURCES # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 145,120 73,189 71,931 50.4% 230 BENEFITS 47,924 22,869 25,055 47.7% 310 SUPPLIES 2,500 1,396 1,104 55.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24,500 12,953 11,547 52.9% 430 TRAVEL 500 565 (65) 113.1% 440 ADVERTISING 5,000 6,575 (1,575) 131.5% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 825 495 62.5% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4,605 3,237 1,368 70.3% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 11,180 5,895 5,285 52.7% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 242,649 127,503 115,146 52.5% Packet Page 153 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 20 230 MUNICIPAL COURT # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 437,280 218,968 218,312 50.1% 120 OVERTIME 2,500 1,642 858 65.7% 230 BENEFITS 146,674 70,932 75,742 48.4% 310 SUPPLIES 16,000 7,673 8,327 48.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 190 1,810 9.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,000 19,627 43,373 31.2% 430 TRAVEL 3,000 1,670 1,330 55.7% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 822 1,678 32.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 400 567 (167) 141.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,500 2,071 3,429 37.7% 510 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 17,000 4,365 12,636 25.7% TOTAL MUNICIPAL COURT 695,854 328,526 367,328 47.2% 240 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 106,090 0 106,090 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 23,304 0 23,304 0.0% 310 SUPPLIES 2,500 282 2,218 11.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 0 800 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,000 6,717 12,283 35.4% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 3,700 (3,700) - 430 TRAVEL 4,470 0 4,470 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 7,700 0 7,700 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 550 (550) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 8,239 (3,239) 164.8% TOTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 168,864 19,488 149,376 11.5% 250 CITY CLERK # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 296,344 159,651 136,693 53.9% 120 OVERTIME 410 461 (51) 112.4% 230 BENEFITS 97,025 43,930 53,095 45.3% 310 SUPPLIES 16,260 4,437 11,823 27.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 1,214 (1,214) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,250 13,108 14,142 48.1% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 59,050 23,384 35,666 39.6% 430 TRAVEL 2,080 374 1,706 18.0% 440 ADVERTISING 20,420 9,581 10,839 46.9% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 23,810 10,943 12,867 46.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7,037 4,782 2,255 68.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 3,055 1,445 67.9% TOTAL CITY CLERK 554,186 274,921 279,265 49.6% Packet Page 154 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 21 310 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 789,340 384,320 405,020 48.7% 120 OVERTIME 6,100 2,052 4,048 33.6% 230 BENEFITS 234,975 100,720 134,255 42.9% 310 SUPPLIES 16,250 8,350 7,900 51.4% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 83,000 31,601 51,399 38.1% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,000 4,026 10,974 26.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 27,300 13,557 13,743 49.7% 430 TRAVEL 4,450 289 4,161 6.5% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 9,600 3,081 6,519 32.1% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 56,514 37,195 19,319 65.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 23,000 12,019 10,981 52.3% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 0 3,735 (3,735) - TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,265,529 600,945 664,584 47.5% 360 CITY ATTORNEY # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 436,065 250,065 186,000 57.3% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 439,065 250,065 189,000 57.0% 390 NON-DEPARTMENTAL # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 126,000 60,577 65,423 48.1% 230 BENEFITS 270,030 21,906 248,124 8.1% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 288,811 139,688 149,123 48.4% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 45,000 35,262 9,738 78.4% 430 TRAVEL 0 0 0 - 450 RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 2,100 1,500 58.3% 460 INSURANCE 469,000 417,705 51,295 89.1% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 8,143 (8,143) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 88,857 63,616 25,241 71.6% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 184,639 176,151 8,488 95.4% 540 EXCISE TAXES 5,200 4,586 614 88.2% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,414,033 707,017 707,016 50.0% 700 BOND PRINCIPAL 957,757 60,907 896,850 6.4% 800 BOND INTEREST 468,368 230,640 237,728 49.2% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 179 (179) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 898 602 59.9% TOTAL NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,322,795 1,929,374 2,393,421 44.6% Packet Page 155 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 22 410 POLICE # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 4,934,117 2,436,959 2,497,158 49.4% 120 OVERTIME 225,840 234,653 (8,813) 103.9% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 174,602 174 174,428 0.1% 230 BENEFITS 1,753,005 813,972 939,033 46.4% 240 UNIFORMS 57,790 19,646 38,144 34.0% 310 SUPPLIES 84,425 49,947 34,478 59.2% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 0 62 (62) - 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,115 40,639 (24,524) 252.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 128,269 51,797 76,472 40.4% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 21,700 5,968 15,732 27.5% 430 TRAVEL 28,520 10,792 17,728 37.8% 440 ADVERTISING 2,500 30 2,470 1.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 12,000 6,451 5,549 53.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 27,094 13,570 13,524 50.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 43,299 23,244 20,055 53.7% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 1,338,443 711,944 626,499 53.2% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 0 413 (413) - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 637,962 318,980 318,982 50.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 403 597 40.3% 990 OTHER INTERFUND SVCS 0 333 (333) - TOTAL POLICE 9,486,681 4,739,980 4,746,701 50.0% Packet Page 156 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 23 510 FIRE # Title Budget 6/30/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 4,402,733 2,230,071 2,172,662 50.7% 120 OVERTIME 416,920 306,744 110,176 73.6% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 177,945 4,823 173,122 2.7% 230 BENEFITS 1,572,048 758,746 813,302 48.3% 240 UNIFORMS 50,146 23,699 26,447 47.3% 250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 17,290 12,959 4,332 74.9% 310 SUPPLIES 102,643 31,966 70,677 31.1% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 48,300 4,371 43,929 9.1% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,223 35,477 48,746 42.1% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 36,267 11,042 25,225 30.4% 430 TRAVEL 19,590 5,336 14,254 27.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 1,002 798 55.6% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,640 9,279 8,361 52.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 37,943 25,333 12,610 66.8% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 223,647 172,673 50,974 77.2% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 11,048 0 11,048 0.0% 920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 20,217 12,514 61.8% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 40,184 16,821 23,363 41.9% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 76,042 41,942 34,100 55.2% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 90,631 36,788 53,843 40.6% 990 OTHER INTERFUND SVCS 0 10 (10) - TOTAL FIRE 7,459,771 3,749,300 3,710,471 50.3% Packet Page 157 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 24 620 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 2,026,653 436,893 1,589,760 21.6% 120 OVERTIME 29,485 1,235 28,250 4.2% 230 BENEFITS 613,397 125,592 487,805 20.5% 240 UNIFORMS 2,190 496 1,694 22.6% 310 SUPPLIES 30,700 5,984 24,716 19.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,820 1,678 142 92.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214,920 107,992 106,928 50.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 13,950 1,584 12,366 11.4% 430 TRAVEL 7,070 82 6,988 1.2% 440 ADVERTISING 3,910 757 3,153 19.4% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 27,590 3,520 24,070 12.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 15,784 0 15,784 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 51,775 4,070 47,705 7.9% 640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 33,199 8,300 24,899 25.0% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3,072,443 698,181 2,374,262 22.7% 640 PARKS & RECREATION # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,799,271 348,466 1,450,805 19.4% 120 OVERTIME 4,075 843 3,232 20.7% 230 BENEFITS 499,786 110,620 389,166 22.1% 240 UNIFORMS 6,540 2,140 4,400 32.7% 310 SUPPLIES 119,595 20,318 99,277 17.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,475 0 6,475 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 232,395 46,961 185,434 20.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 20,700 1,858 18,842 9.0% 430 TRAVEL 2,840 151 2,689 5.3% 440 ADVERTISING 3,700 848 2,853 22.9% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 50,325 15,376 34,949 30.6% 470 UTILITIES 105,750 23,201 82,549 21.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 22,380 13,218 9,162 59.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 34,650 4,121 30,529 11.9% 910 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 64,250 5,000 59,250 7.8% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 113,417 28,354 85,063 25.0% TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 3,086,149 621,475 2,464,674 20.1% Packet Page 158 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 25 650 PUBLIC WORKS # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 205,954 49,945 156,009 24.3% 120 OVERTIME 200 0 200 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 53,973 15,446 38,527 28.6% 310 SUPPLIES 5,200 1,498 3,702 28.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 21 (21) - 420 COMMUNICATIONS 480 109 371 22.7% 430 TRAVEL 960 27 933 2.8% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 4,486 1,615 2,871 36.0% 470 UTILITIES 2,500 734 1,766 29.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,100 169 1,931 8.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,200 584 1,616 26.5% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 2,785 696 2,089 25.0% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 280,838 70,844 209,994 25.2% 651 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 560,312 139,872 420,440 25.0% 120 OVERTIME 8,500 2,084 6,416 24.5% 230 BENEFITS 224,071 49,544 174,527 22.1% 240 UNIFORMS 6,000 641 5,359 10.7% 310 SUPPLIES 101,500 20,695 80,805 20.4% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,700 187 1,513 11.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,530 4,106 (1,576) 162.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 393 (393) - 420 COMMUNICATIONS 13,950 3,023 10,927 21.7% 430 TRAVEL 0 3 (3) - 470 UTILITIES 345,670 84,652 261,018 24.5% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 73,500 9,216 64,284 12.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,780 1,660 1,120 59.7% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 38,571 9,643 28,928 25.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 0 0 0 - TOTAL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,385,084 325,718 1,059,366 23.5% Packet Page 159 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 26 652 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 439,625 103,565 336,060 23.6% 120 OVERTIME 5,080 718 4,362 14.1% 230 BENEFITS 170,799 43,405 127,394 25.4% 240 UNIFORMS 6,500 1,652 4,848 25.4% 310 SUPPLIES 49,500 3,054 46,446 6.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 0 2,800 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,615 8,422 11,193 42.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 248 2,952 7.7% 430 TRAVEL 3,330 0 3,330 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 4,000 2,622 1,378 65.5% 460 INSURANCE 37,176 32,977 4,199 88.7% 470 UTILITIES 4,500 2,789 1,711 62.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4,986 7,207 (2,221) 144.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 63,540 15,642 47,898 24.6% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 14,070 9,278 4,792 65.9% 540 EXCISE TAXES 0 34,998 (34,998) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 - 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 0 1,925 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 98,701 0 98,701 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 38,412 94 38,318 0.2% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 0 0 - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 61 (61) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 388,236 117,720 270,516 30.3% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 200,333 50,083 150,250 25.0% TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 1,556,328 434,535 1,121,793 27.9% Packet Page 160 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 27 654 WATER UTILITY # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 647,183 153,190 493,993 23.7% 120 OVERTIME 24,180 4,719 19,461 19.5% 230 BENEFITS 230,897 54,654 176,243 23.7% 240 UNIFORMS 6,880 1,893 4,987 27.5% 310 SUPPLIES 117,159 10,347 106,812 8.8% 340 RESALE ITEMS 1,694,000 211,631 1,482,369 12.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,120 3,276 844 79.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74,300 10,281 64,019 13.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 39,068 5,045 34,023 12.9% 430 TRAVEL 4,850 10 4,840 0.2% 440 ADVERTISING 560 0 560 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 11,370 550 10,820 4.8% 460 INSURANCE 85,294 76,160 9,134 89.3% 470 UTILITIES 28,000 7,083 20,917 25.3% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 22,286 8,431 13,855 37.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 196,990 52,763 144,227 26.8% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 42,072 9,641 32,431 22.9% 540 EXCISE TAXES 202,698 53,537 149,161 26.4% 620 BUILDINGS 20,000 0 20,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 150,145 0 150,145 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 64,928 0 64,928 0.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 4,138 (4,138) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 82 (82) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 361,169 66,441 294,728 18.4% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 122,613 30,653 91,960 25.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 0 0 0 - TOTAL WATER UTILITY 4,150,762 764,524 3,386,238 18.4% Packet Page 161 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 28 655 SEWER # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 376,590 96,642 279,948 25.7% 120 OVERTIME 17,330 3,246 14,084 18.7% 230 BENEFITS 158,696 41,247 117,449 26.0% 240 UNIFORMS 5,170 1,766 3,404 34.2% 310 SUPPLIES 52,469 3,948 48,521 7.5% 340 FUEL CONSUMED 0 496 (496) - 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,120 577 3,543 14.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50,958 2,442 48,516 4.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,888 5,812 (924) 118.9% 430 TRAVEL 2,490 0 2,490 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 560 0 560 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,870 577 1,293 30.9% 460 INSURANCE 129,286 115,418 13,868 89.3% 470 UTILITIES 461,110 48,144 412,966 10.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 18,666 7,207 11,459 38.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 127,330 23,166 104,164 18.2% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 183,572 38,658 144,914 21.1% 540 EXCISE TAXES 273,000 71,650 201,350 26.2% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 0.0% 780 BOND PRINCIPAL 142,173 0 142,173 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 33,213 0 33,213 0.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 4,138 (4,138) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 265,706 53,198 212,508 20.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 170,105 42,374 127,731 24.9% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,500 2,212 (712) 147.5% TOTAL SEWER 3,680,802 562,918 3,117,884 15.3% Packet Page 162 of 201 JUNE 30, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 29 656 TREATMENT PLANT # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,123,583 246,626 876,957 21.9% 120 OVERTIME 45,510 11,610 33,900 25.5% 230 BENEFITS 415,332 90,267 325,065 21.7% 240 UNIFORMS 9,090 4,049 5,041 44.5% 310 SUPPLIES 371,980 83,837 288,143 22.5% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 84,370 32,236 52,134 38.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,300 0 5,300 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 62,817 20,447 42,370 32.6% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,500 1,832 6,668 21.6% 430 TRAVEL 3,900 0 3,900 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 1,000 1,006 (6) 100.6% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 5,180 863 4,317 16.7% 460 INSURANCE 91,532 81,657 9,875 89.2% 470 UTILITIES 443,190 121,556 321,634 27.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 59,226 11,520 47,706 19.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 78,800 17,618 61,182 22.4% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 71,300 43,197 28,103 60.6% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 13,000 0 13,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 513,007 0 513,007 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 41,132 0 41,132 0.0% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 149 (149) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 178,726 45,641 133,085 25.5% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,807 2,354 6,453 26.7% TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT 3,635,282 816,466 2,818,816 22.5% Packet Page 163 of 201 AM-1713 2.G. 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Debra Sharp, Administrative Services Submitted For:Kathleen Junglov Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title 2008 Second Quarter Budget Amendment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward ordinance to full Council for approval. Previous Council Action Narrative In governmental budgeting, expenditures may take place up to the amount appropriated in the current budget. Financial activity impacting appropriation levels are brought before the Edmonds City Council on a quarterly basis in the form of a budget amendment ordinance. The second quarter 2008 budget amendment contains a total of 12 proposed adjustments, five of which have previously been before council. General Fund requests total $270,372 of which $31,990 will be funded by lease fees, miscellaneous revenues, grants and an interfund transfer from the equipment rental fund. There are two major expenditures. The first is an increase to the police budget for personnel expenditures due to the union contract settlement. The second major increase is to the information services budget related to the fiber project. The net impact to the General Fund is a decrease to ending fund balance in the amount of $238,382. Non-General Fund expenditures will increase by $35,985. There is an interfund transfer from the Enterprise Replacement Fund to the General Fund to cover the cost of purchasing police laptop computers. There is an increase to the Gifts Catalog Fund for new downtown benches purchased with private donation funds. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2008 2nd Qtr Budget Amendment Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 08/07/2008 02:55 PM APRV Packet Page 164 of 201 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:59 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 03:01 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 03:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 08/07/2008 09:50 AM Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 165 of 201 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3613 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2008 Budget; and WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3613 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2008 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take L:\PRODUCTIONDB\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0022_1713_2008 SECOND AMENDING ORDINANCE.DOC Packet Page 166 of 201 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 2 Packet Page 167 of 201 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3613 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2008. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 Packet Page 168 of 201 EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND 2008 2008 FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH 001 GENERAL FUND 2,972,617 30,879,578 33,655,827 196,368 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 317,515 535,492 561,938 291,069 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 101,130 124,500 70,035 155,595 111 STREET FUND 177,990 1,260,059 1,411,017 27,032 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 694,487 2,353,047 2,820,895 226,639 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 991,746 1,906,600 2,826,400 71,946 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 167,305 65,930 77,250 155,985 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 16,447 600 0 17,047 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 137,930 65,206 75,206 127,930 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 72,174 18,600 18,510 72,264 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 7,843 2,850 3,200 7,493 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,176 17,483 21,800 17,859 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 2,005,814 1,488,808 3,388,000 106,622 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,084,052 2,070,000 1,816,848 1,337,204 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 152,269 37,700 24,792 165,177 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 11,606 373,000 384,606 0 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 240,895 265,364 170,645 335,614 131 FIRE DONATIONS 8,289 5,838 0 14,127 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0 0 211 LID FUND CONTROL 7,466 251,000 243,300 15,166 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 43,529 2,000 0 45,529 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 421,973 421,973 0 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 3,787,218 12,626,193 13,361,031 3,052,380 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 4,192,887 4,569,897 8,198,000 564,784 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 782,459 440,887 701,218 522,128 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 3,286,108 2,104,768 1,377,080 4,013,796 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 128,908 4,000 0 132,908 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 384,075 60,126 0 444,201 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 271,095 103,000 113,000 261,095 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 16,137 21,200 23,500 13,837 Totals 24,009,767 64,075,699 73,766,071 14,319,395 4 Packet Page 169 of 201 EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO 2008 FUND FUND 3613 3684 Amended NO. DESCRIPTION 11/21/2006 4/15/2008 Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 33,281,772 103,683 270,372 0 33,655,827 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 561,938 0 0 0 561,938 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 70,035 0 0 0 70,035 111 STREET FUND 1,362,403 48,614 0 0 1,411,017 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,820,895 0 0 0 2,820,895 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 193,000 2,633,400 0 0 2,826,400 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 77,250 0 0 0 77,250 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0 0 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 65,206 10,000 0 0 75,206 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,510 0 0 0 18,510 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,200 0 0 0 3,200 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,800 0 0 0 21,800 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 3,388,000 0 0 0 3,388,000 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 869,550 947,298 0 0 1,816,848 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 1,600 1,000 22,192 0 24,792 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 0 384,606 0 0 384,606 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 170,645 0 0 0 170,645 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 0 0 0 0 0 211 LID FUND CONTROL 243,300 0 0 0 243,300 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 0 0 0 0 0 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 421,973 0 0 0 421,973 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 13,023,174 337,857 0 0 13,361,031 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 5,346,000 2,852,000 0 0 8,198,000 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 552,076 149,142 0 0 701,218 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,363,287 0 13,793 0 1,377,080 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 0 0 0 0 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 0 0 0 0 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 113,000 0 0 0 113,000 621 SPECIAL LIBRARY 0 0 0 0 0 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 23,500 0 0 0 23,500 Totals 65,992,114 7,467,600 306,357 0 73,766,071 5 Packet Page 170 of 201 EXHIBIT “C”: BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL Department Category Debit Credit Description Items Previously Before Council Police Salaries 2,916 Police Salaries 3,019 Police Salaries 20,572 Police Overtime 1,189 Police Holiday Buyback 608 Police Salaries 83,122 Police Overtime 4,756 Police Holiday Buyback 3,721 Police Salaries 4,935 Police Overtime 333 Police Holiday Buyback 208 Police Salaries 4,899 Police Overtime 234 Police Holiday Buyback 210 Police Salaries 2,666 Police Overtime 100 Police Salaries 9,931 Police Overtime 368 Police Holiday Buyback 212 Non-Department Ending Cash 143,999 Equipment Rental Interfund Transfer Out 13,793 Equipment Rental Ending Cash 13,793 General Fund Ending Cash 13,793 General Fund Interfund Transfer In 13,793 Community Services Professional Services 15,000 General Fund Ending Cash 15,000 Fire Salaries 42,422 Fire Benefits 5,939 Fire Salaries 19,587 Fire Benefits 2,742 Non-Department Salaries 62,009 Non-Department Benefits 8,681 Information Services Equipment 108,120 General Fund Other Rents & Uses 7,744 General Fund Leases Long-Term 7,200 General Fund Ending Cash 93,176 New Items for Council to Consider-Reappropriations Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous 500 Parks and Recreation Parks Donation 500 Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous 896 Parks and Recreation Day Camp Reg Fees 896 Fire Department Supplies 1,644 General Fund Dept. of Health Grant 1,644 Fire Department Supplies 213 General Fund Trauma Grant 213 Parks Maintenance Overtime 3,000 Parks Maintenance Salaries 3,000 Parks & Recreation Repair and Maintenance 520 Parks & Recreation Repair and Maintenance 520 Gifts Catalog Fund Supplies 22,192 Gifts Catalog Fund Ending Cash 5,808 Gifts Catalog Fund Donations 28,000 Fire personnel retirement payout - transfer from non-departmental salary and benefits to fire salary and benefits. Purchase fiber equipment to fulfill contract agreements with Edmonds Community College, Stevens Hospital & Netriver Distribute Salary budget based on 2008- 2010 contract. Donations made to purchase downtown benches. Trip fee charged for the Senior Adventurers Educational supplies purchased with grant Transfer budget from Parks Maintenance salaries to overtime Transfer budget from Athletics Repair & Maintenance to Fitness R&M Medical tools, equipment and supplies purchased with grant Scholarship check from the Americans for the Arts Police computer purchase-transfer from equipment rental fund to general fund Interlocal & Consultant Agreement- Negotiation of Cable Television Franchise 6 Packet Page 171 of 201 AM-1715 3.A. Court Improvement Funds/Judicial Salary City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Time:5 Minutes Department:Municipal Court Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Court improvement funds/judicial salary. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Please see attached memorandum. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2009 Revenue: 12,700 Expenditure: 15,043 Fiscal Impact: The net expenditure for 2009 will be $2343. This is calculated by subtracting the 2005 salary ($59,000) from the proposed salary ($74,043) and then deducting the amount received from the State ($12,700). 74,043-59,000=15,043-12,700=2343 Attachments Link: 2009 judicial salary memo Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 11:22 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 11:25 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 11:56 AM APRV Form Started By: Doug Fair Started On: 08/07/2008 10:28 AM Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 172 of 201 Judicial Salary Memorandum 2008/2009 Since 2006 the City of Edmonds has received Judicial Improvement Account Funds from the State. I have attached Exhibit 1 (last year’s salary memorandum) to provide the background information regarding these funds. If the City wants to continue to receive these funds there is another salary increase due on September 1, 2008. The current salary is $70,136. The new salary will need to be $74,043. The amount of the increase is $3906. If the salary is increased it is anticipated that the City will receive $12,700 from the State for 2009. Assuming that the City did not increase judicial salary from the original 2005 level of $59,000 then the increase in judicial salary for 2009 will be $2343 less than the City receives from the State. To date, the City has received $1,144 more than it has paid out in salary increases. If we subtract that from the $2343 the City will pay for the 2009 increase then the total the City will have paid out over three years while in this program is $1199. The marginal increase in salary costs to the City over the 2005 ending salary of $59,000 represents a total 2.03% increase in salary over three years. That is approximately a .67% per year cost to the City; less than 1% per year. The City must now decide if this salary increase continues to be worthwhile. The City can stop applying for the Court Improvement Funds from the State at any time. There is no monetary penalty if the City wishes to stop receiving money from the State. However, we would need to renegotiate the contract and should probably refer this matter to the City’s elected official’s salary review process. The current salary and proposed raise is commensurate with other courts in the State and region. It is tied to the State salary guidelines which are followed by most local cities and the district courts. It would be a likely guideline that a local salary commission would look to in making a salary recommendation. In addition, since 2005, court filings have increased about 8.8%. The Court is adding one-half day of hearings to accommodate the increase. This increase has been handled without an increase in staff or salary costs to the City. While recognizing my obvious self-interest, I still recommend we stay with the program. If the City were to stop receiving funds, it would still need to pay my salary. Based on the increased court time and the established standard of salaries, the City will still likely be paying close to the current salary and proposed raise. As such, it makes sense to receive money from the State to offset the salary. Packet Page 173 of 201 EXHIBIT 1 Judicial Salary Memorandum When I first was appointed to serve as your judge in July, 2005, I finished out the contract that had been signed with Judge White. Judge White’s original contract provided that he was an independent contractor without benefits and was set at $65,000 based on a 24 hour work week. State auditors did not agree that the judicial position was an independent contractor. As a result I negotiated an annualized salary and benefit package of $59,000 for the remainder of the term (July-December 2005). This was designed to be the rough equivalent of the previous contract, taking into account the value of the benefit package. In 2006 the City Council made the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge an elected position. This qualified the City to obtain reimbursement from the State for court improvement account funds. In order to qualify for these funds the judicial position must be paid at a pro-rated salary that equates to 95% of the salary for a district court judge. The 2006 salary for the judicial position was negotiated at $63,751 for a 22 hour work week. This was exactly 95% of the district court salary pro-rated at 55% (22 hours per week). This made the City of Edmonds eligible for court improvement account funds. On September 1, 2006, the Citizen’s Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials increased the district court salary from $122,012 to $125,672 on an annualized basis. To remain eligible for the court improvement account funds (95% pro-rated salary for 2007) the contract was renegotiated to a salary of $65,664 commencing January 1, 2007. This was an increase of $1,913 from 2006. Recently the Citizen’s Commission approved a large salary increase for district court judges. The salary of a district court judge will be raised to $134,242 effective September 1, 2007. On September 1, 2008 the salary will increase to $141,708. If the City wishes to continue to receive court improvement account funds then it will require an increase in the judicial salary. The pro-rated 95% salary will need to be $70,136 starting on September 1, 2007 and $74,042 starting on September 1, 2008. Please see the email correspondence at the end of the memorandum reflecting this information. In 2006 we received $3999 from the State. It is anticipated that Edmonds will receive approximately $9200 for the calendar year of 2007 if the salary is increased. Therefore the anticipated total amount received from the State will be $13,199 for 2006-2007. If the salary is not increased then the City will receive approximately $2600 during 2007 for a combined total of $6599 for 2006-2007. Assuming that the judicial salary remained constant at $59,000 for 2006-2007 and assuming that there is a salary increase as of September 1, 2007, then the total salary Packet Page 174 of 201 increases over 2006-2007 will equal $12,055. Based on these assumptions then the net financial gain to the City over 2006-2007 will be $1,144. Based on these figures it appears that it still makes fiscal sense to keep the City eligible for court improvement funds through September 1, 2008. I also believe that it is in the City’s best interest to wait until next year to determine if it makes sense to increase the salary in September, 2008. The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates the City will receive $13,000 in 2008 if the City continues to raise the judicial salary. I respectfully request that we renegotiate the salary term of the contract commencing September 1, 2007 to set the annualized salary at $70,136.22 in order to keep the City eligible for court improvement account funds. Yes, in order to continue qualifying for 5454 contributions, your salary must be equivalent to 95% of a district court judges salary, or $127,520 for a full time position. If you are still funded at 55% then your salary at a minimum must be $70,136 ($134,232 x .95 x .55). Also note that another increase is required to meet the new salary effective September 1, 2008. -----Original Message----- From: Fair, Doug [mailto:Fair@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:02 AM To: Radwan, Ramsey Subject: RE: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution My salary at the city is reviewed on an annual basis with the calendar year. For the past two years this has been approved as meeting the 5454 criteria. Has that changed? Do I need to request that the city increase my salary in September? Thanks, Doug -----Original Message----- From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:34 PM To: pburns@auburnwa.gov; Fair, Doug; gphillips@ci.kent.wa.us; tjurado@ci.renton.wa.us; ron.mamiya@seattle.gov; james.docter@ci.bremerton.wa.us; michael.morgan@cityoffederalway.com; Gillings, Fred (TAO 7 Days); mlambo@ci.kirkland.wa.us; aemery@ci.tacoma.wa.us; todell@ci.everett.wa.us; swoodard@ci.yakima.wa.us Cc: fwebster@auburnwa.gov; Ferebee, Joan; Yetter, Margaret (internet); jmcguire@ci.renton.wa.us; yolande.williams@seattle.gov; Pettus, Yvonne (internet); Cusimano, Jeri (internet); gina.palermo@cityoffederalway.com; lmorris@ci.yakima.wa.us; selsner@ci.marysville.wa.us; Jeffries, Tracy (internet); Haake, Douglas Subject: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution As you know, one of the two qualifying criteria for 5454 contributions is the requirement that the municipal court judge be compensated at a rate of 95-100% of a district court judges' salary. You may also know that the Citizen's Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials recently established a new salary schedule for district court judges. The new rates are: $134,232 effective September 1, 2007 and $141,708 effective September 1, 2008 Packet Page 175 of 201 The entire salary schedule can be viewed at http://www.salaries.wa.gov/documents/Final2007- 08SalarySchedule.pdf. In the next few days I will be sending a letter to your city notifying them that to continue to qualify for funding municipal court judges within their jurisdiction must be compensated at the rate noted above (95-100% of a district court judges' salary) effective September 1, 2007 with an adjustment on September 1, 2008. I will copy all judges within your court as well as your court administrator. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ramsey Radwan, Director Management Services Division Administrative Office of the Courts (360) 357-2406 ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:00 AM To: Ferebee, Joan Subject: 2008 5454 Joan, Edmonds will receive about $13,000 in calendar year 2008. Ramsey Radwan, Director Management Services Division Administrative Office of the Courts (360) 357-2406 ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov Packet Page 176 of 201 AM-1683 3.B. Interlocal Agreement for the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon, Police Department Time:5 Minutes Department:Police Department Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title FY 2008/2009 Interlocal Agreement for the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve for Consent Agenda Previous Council Action Narrative Since January 1988, the City of Edmonds and other Snohomish County cities have been participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) with offices in Everett. Edmonds was one of the original participants, contributing a detective and equipment to the unit. In more recent years, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace established the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). Since the creation of the SSCNTF, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have chosen to continue their support of the SRDTF through financial contribution alone. Edmonds presently has a detective assigned to the SSCNTF. The SRDTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate in the SRDTF. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the participating municipalities. For fiscal year 2008-2009, nineteen municipalities, plus Snohomish County, are pledging matching funds to the SRDTF. Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 is $9,127.76, a $151.24 decrease over last year’s share. Funding for this item will be included in the 2009 Edmonds Police budget. The interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, sets forth the operational framework for the SRDTF, and has done so since 1988. The SRDTF and SSCNTF work very closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment, as needed. For example, should we encounter a drug lab locally the SRDTF can be called out to dismantle the lab. This assistance can save us literally thousands of dollars in overtime, training, and equipment expense. A more frequent area of cooperation and assistance occurs with investigations where the two task forces may assist each other with investigations involving mutual suspects. Packet Page 177 of 201 We request that the Public Safety Committee approve this matter to be placed on the consent agenda for approval by full council, authorizing the Mayor to sign the FY 2008-2009 interlocal agreement with SRDTF. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Interlocal Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/04/2008 11:42 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/04/2008 11:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2008 03:56 PM APRV Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 07/17/2008 01:35 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2008 Packet Page 178 of 201 Packet Page 179 of 201 Packet Page 180 of 201 Packet Page 181 of 201 Packet Page 182 of 201 Packet Page 183 of 201 Packet Page 184 of 201 Packet Page 185 of 201 Packet Page 186 of 201 Packet Page 187 of 201 Packet Page 188 of 201 Packet Page 189 of 201 Packet Page 190 of 201 Packet Page 191 of 201 Packet Page 192 of 201 Packet Page 193 of 201 Packet Page 194 of 201 Packet Page 195 of 201 Packet Page 196 of 201 Packet Page 197 of 201 AM-1685 3.C. Red Light Cameras City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon, Police Department Time:15 Minutes Department:Police Department Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Red light cameras. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Proceed with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) survey of selected intersections for installation of Red Light Cameras. Approval for the Mayor to sign the survey contract with ATS. Previous Council Action Public Safety Committee asked staff to determine the number of collisions at selected intersections in the City to determine where ATS would conduct their intersection survey. Narrative The City contacted ATS to determine whether red light cameras would reduce injury collisions at selected intersection. The City and the ATS agreed to contract language for the survey of selected intersections determined by our traffic engineer. The contract for the survey has been approved by our City Attorney. There is no cost to the City for the survey as long as the survey follows the recommendation of ATS. If the city does not follow the recommendations there is a $500 fee for each intersection not selected by City. The $500 fee covers the cost of the survey to ATS. If a direction does not meet the criteria installation there is no cost to the city. The average violation per day to meet the criteria is 1.2 red light violations for each direction where a camera is installed. Based on the analysis by our traffic engineer the following intersections recommended for ATS's survey are 220th St SW and SR99 four directions, 238th St SW and SR 99 north and south bound, and 100th Ave W and SR104 east and west bound. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/08/2008 10:40 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/08/2008 11:05 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/08/2008 11:24 AM APRV Packet Page 198 of 201 Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 07/22/2008 09:00 AM Final Approval Date: 08/08/2008 Packet Page 199 of 201 AM-1705 3.D. Request to Advertise for Bids to Purchase Two New Aid Cars City Council Committee Meetings Date:08/12/2008 Submitted By:Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:10 Minutes Department:Public Works Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Request to advertise for bids to purchase two new aid cars. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize request for the Fleet Devision to advertise for bids to purchase two new aid cars. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The Fire Department is on schedule to replace one (1) 2001 Aid Car and to re-chassis one (1) 2001 aid car in 2009. In late 2007, the Fire Department took delivery of one (1) new medic aid car which was approximately $15,000 under budget. Those monies were returned to the 511 replacement fund. The Fleet Division kept the old medic unit with 112,000 hard miles as our back-up. It is the Fleet Division's recommendation to purchase two (2) new aid cars and replace the back-up with one of the better lower mile units. This gives the Department a more reliable back-up vehicle. The Fleet Division feels with tightened streamlined specifications, the Department can purchase two (2) new aid cars without going over our original budgeted amount. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2008 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: 511 Replacement Fund Scheduled Agreement Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Fire Department Mark Correira 08/07/2008 01:09 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 01:11 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/07/2008 02:21 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:46 PM APRV Packet Page 200 of 201 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/07/2008 02:46 PM APRV Form Started By: Kim Karas Started On: 07/31/2008 01:11 PM Final Approval Date: 08/07/2008 Packet Page 201 of 201