Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 01/09/1995 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JANUARY 9, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark May Miller Don Wickstrom Robert Taylor, MCI Metro Gary Gill Brian Lauler, MCI Metro ABSENT: Jim Bennett MCI Metro Franchise Agreement Brubaker introduced Robert Taylor and Brian Lauler as the representatives from MCI Metro. Brubaker stated that MCI Metro is a subsidiary of MCI and they have come to us to seek a city-wide street franchise for construction of a fibre optic cable loop a portion of which will pass thru the City of Kent. He said that the City has granted two similar franchises in the past to ELI and to MCI and those franchises are for 10 years. Brubaker explained that he has drafted a similar franchise for 10 years; it was presented to this committee in November and at that time Tim Clark posed a number of questions which the Committee felt should be directed specifically to the MCI Metro representatives. Brubaker explained that under State law, we are not allowed to impose a franchise fee for the operation of a telephone business and right now MCI Metro meets that definition. Therefore, he said, we cannot impose a franchise fee; the only thing that we can impose at this point in time is our reasonable costs for getting this franchise together and passed. Brubaker stated that the main concern, as he understands it, is that nobody really knows exactly how comprehensive or what opportunities will arise under this information highway concept; nobody really knows in the future what form or what product this business of fibre optic loops may deliver. He said that Tim Clark's concern is that if their business operation takes on a form that is other than a telephone business, that the City should have an opportunity to either revisit or renegotiate the franchise and possibly require a franchise fee or some other consideration for operation of that business in the City of Kent. Brubaker noted that we have a clause in our franchise that roughly addresses that issue however, having talked with Tim Clark, we might want to 'one-tune" it somewhat and take on two forms: one would be that it's a franchise that grants MCI the authority to lay fibre optic cable for the purpose of conducting a telephone business solely, therefore, if you came to do another type of business or expand your business beyond telephone business than you would have to come back for a separate franchise; or, we could grant it on a more expansive basis but include a clause that says "as soon as you upgrade anything other than a statutory telephone business than you must provide notice to the City of Kent". 1 i Brubaker said that another item that has come up, which he has dicussed with the City's Cable TV consultant, is, because this is such an unknown area, he (the consultant) suggested that we shorten the franchise term to 3 to 5 years. After discussing this with Brian Lauler and reviewing franchise they have with other cities, the terms came up to between 5 to 20 years. Brubaker said he would recommend changing the franchise term to 5 years with an automatic renewal provision for one additional 5 year term. He noted that prior to the automatic renewal that MCI Metro provide notice to the City that the time is coming due for renewal. Tim Clark stated that he would like an affirmation of what the type of business that MCI Metro intends to run off the franchise. Brian Lauler explained that MCI Metro is setting up a series of three loop networks in the central Puget Sound area and the purpose of those is to provide the high volume and high quality service for voice and data transmission; their customers will be essentially businesses that need a high quality and high volume transmission service. In response to Clark's question on data transmission, Laufer explained that it is electronic information that businesses send over the phone lines. Clark commented that there is a difference between trying to transmit bits which actually require a different type of machinery to try and translate data. He said that clearly, fibre optics allows for the transmission of some things that are not possible to transmit over copper wire, the least of which is images. He said the question becomes, what type of data are you attempting to transmit. Lauler again stated that it is business data; electronic information that banks, engineering firms etc. that have computer networks are sending data across their computer network. Clark stated that there is a big difference between using a phone modem to try and translate things that are basically characters within a particular system as opposed to trying to transmit things which are visual, i.e., an image. Clark asked where we are on this issue. Robert Taylor of MCI Metro explained that MCI Metro is really providing a service to its customers and its customers determine what their communication needs are. He reassured Clark that MCI is only providing the service of a communication link between our customer and whoever our customer is contacting. Clark stated that MCI Metro is asking for a right of way based on an industry that is undergoing change at this point in time - before we were talking about being a telephone competitor-now we are into the realm of trying to run a wide variety of businesses which are not possible under the old protected phone lines because, particularly fibre optics is clearly a different ballgame. Clark stated that MCI Metro is asking for the right for a franchise based on being competitive with other telephone companies which are protected under state law as telephone companies; but, in fact what you are describing as your service does not involve a telephone, it requires entirely different types of machinery because it is an entirely different set of services. Lauler responded by saying they are providing an alternative to service that is existing now and it is a transmission service. Clark stated that transmission service for phone is not the same as what it is over fibre optic cable and the franchise 2 N R you're asking for is to compete with the phone company. Lauler stated that this franchise request is coming out of the authority granted by the UTC last spring to be a competitive access provider which is the linkage between a business and the long distance carrier without going thru US West. Further discussion followed relating to competitive business and service needs in different locations, and whether or not this is something that is in fact, not an exclusive service. Clark stated that it doesn't fit the definition of a telephone company -however, Brubaker stated that the exclusive monopoly aspect is not part of the statutory definition. It was the Committee's recommendation that Brubaker reconstruct this franchise agreement as was discussed and present it again at the next Public Works Committee meeting (January 23rd). Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement/King County Wickstrom explained that Clark Springs, is 13 miles east; (Kent Kangley goes thru there for approximately 1 mile) - several years back our attorneys told us that it was our road. This road needs an overlay and the County is doing both the east end and the west end in their project and they want us to do our portion -we budgeted money however their cost estimate is above what we had anticipated. The County has estimated high and hopefully, with good bids we will be within our budget plus it gives us the option to drop out if after the bids open, we determine we don't have enough money. Wickstrom said we are asking for the Mayor to sign the Agreement for this. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement with King County, upon the City Attorney's review and approval. Carnaby Street Sidewalks -Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this is a completed construction project and it is before the Committee because the actual cost ran slightly over 10% of the original bid amount primarily due to more extensive restoration of the properties than was anticipated. Wickstrom stated that there isn't any problem with funding - there are adequate funds in the overall project fund. Mann noted that the following items for acceptance are all over budget. Wickstrom explained that if a project is over 10%, they are presented to Committee for approval which has become a "rule of thumb" on project acceptances - under 10% they go directly to Council. He also noted that all of the projects have adequate funding. 3 s h Committee unanimously recommended that the Carnaby Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I-Accept as Complete Wickstrom noted that this project has similar conditions - in this case it was a rehab project. In this project an old sidewalk was found under the existing sidewalk which became a cost item to the contractor. He said the downtown area is old and it was difficult to anticipate many conditions. This lead to a higher cost for the project than was anticipated. Committee unanimously recommended that the Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase ( project be accepted as complete. Derbyshire Watermain Replacement -Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that on this project, the material was extemely poor and we ended up using more asphalt. The County wanted us to overlay the entire road and to avoid that, they restricted us to 3' of the shoulder and more imported material was required. As a result, this increased the cost of the project. Committee unanimously recommended that the Derbyshire Watermain Replacement project be accepted as complete. LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks -Accept as Complete VVickstrom stated that this project exceeded the bid amount primarily due to landscaping problems which we felt we could remold the landscape area. However, there were significant trees involved and the end result was that it was necessary to build a retaining wall which we felt would preserve the landscaping as well as keep the public relations with the neighbors. Committee unanimously recommended that the LID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Added items: 4 Storm Drainage Code - Revision Brubaker said that he has received a request from the Construction Engineer to amend the Surface Water and Drainage Code wherein we would require a one year maintenance bond rather than a two year maintenance bond. Brubaker stated that the City typically requires a one year maintenance bond on almost all improvements; the two year maintenance bond requirement causes problems within the City staff and also, some developers try to get one bond to cover all their bonding requirements. Also it has been the City's experience that a one year bond is sufficient. Committee unanimously recommended that Chapter 7.07 of the Kent City Code be amended dealing with bonds, and to change it from a two year maintenance period to a one year period. LID 327 & LID 330 Segregations - Resolution Revision Brubaker stated that a flaw was discovered in the City's communication with Birtcher Frank Properties (Van Doren's Landing) on the recent segregation of assessments on LID 327 and LID 330. He explained that the method used for computing the segregation used by Birtcher Frank was different from the method that the City understood them to be using. Therefore, there is a disparity in the numbers. Brubaker requested permission to present to Council two separate Resolutions - one for LID 327 and one for LID 330 that would essentially fix the flaw and in the process, combine the existing assessments applicable to this Birtcher Frank Property since it is under one ownership now, into one assessment. As a result, from this point forward, there will be a very clear formula to use. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the City Attorney to draw up two Resolutions clarifying the recent segregation of assessments on LID 327 and LID 330. Meeting adjourned: 5:20 p.m. 5