The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - 2005 - City Council - 01/31/2005 - Joint ~ l. 2. ~ THE CITY OF EAGLE ~ Joint Meeting Minutes 0* City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission/Design Review Board January 31, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Council: Present: SEDLACEK, NORDSTROM. Absent: BASTIAN, GUERBER. P&Z: Present: BANDY, MARKS, ASPITARTE, PIERCE. Absent: LIEN A quorum is present. Design Review Board: Present: MC CULLOUGH, STANGER, BOWEN, GRUBB, ZASTROW, BARNES. Absent: FLOEGEL Nordstrom moves to add for an executive session to discuss pending and/or threatened litigation. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRRIES. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Introduction of new committee members - Mayor Merrill Mayor introduces Dave Aspitarte and Jason Pierce. Both give brief biographies on themselves. B. Impact Area Infrastructure plan nine. - Planner III, Baird Spencer Bastian arrives at 6:55 p.m. City Planner Baird Spencer provides handouts regarding the impact area infrastructure. Discussion. Nordstrom encourages staff to proceed forward and maybe evaluate the idea of incorporating the idea of some utility mechanism to be able to have the ability to have fiber optic or other options in terms of communication construction planning so that the future developments might include them. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL A YE....MOTION CARRIES. C. Update on Western Area of Impact. - Planner III, Baird Spencer Mayor introduces the item. City Planner Baird Spencer gives an update on recent activities. Eagle has requested an Committee of Nine to negotiate the area of impact between Eagle and Star. Discussion. D. Report on water issues. - Holladay Engineering, Vern Brewer. Mayor introduces the item. Guerber arrives at 8:05 p.m. Discussion regarding municipally owned water system and future planning. E. Review of proposal by Eagle Chamber of Commerce to hang banner signs for Customer Appreciation Day. - Cliff Marks & Teri Bath Mayor introduces the item. Marks reviews the Chamber's request. Page 1 of 2 K\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaICC-O1-31-05mln doc ~ THE CITY OF EAGLE ~ Joint Meeting Minutes 0* City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission/Design Review Board January 31,2005 Discussion regarding the Design Review Boards action regarding the Chamber's request. The Chamber is also requesting Council's permission to place banner signs on municipally owned property at specified location. Bastian moves to approve the placement of Chamber signs for Customer Appreciation on municipally owned property. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRU:S. F. Update on park comprehensive plan and public opinion survey. Mayor introduces the item. Guerber gives an update on the progress on Hill Road Park phase 1. Phone surveys began last week on the public opinion survey. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Sedlacek moves to go into executive session to discuss pending/threatened litigation as allowed by I.c. §67-2345(t). Seconded by Nordstrom. BASTIAN, AYE. SEDLACEK, AYE. NORDSTROM, AYE. GUERBER, AYE. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES. Council discusses pending or threatened litigation. Council leaves Executive Session. Bastian moves to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL A YE....MOTION CARRIES. ADJOURNMENT: Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: ~~ ~ ~~----l '- SHAR N K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER APPROVED: ~?; NAN Y C. M RILL MAY R ~ ""I",n...." !i."" Û LE '###, .." ~.t'- ........ * ".. :Or.V.. 'fE.. .. : 0:0. JI. ¡..' ... *.:. ~ 10<1;- --.0. = >-<. .Q" ~~ .... : :.......a:- ""').~A- .""'. . Yc::.~~- ......0 ~ ~L~": . . \. Ù "'. \ 1-." 'ì . ~ "'" .. "',,' ~-."'~: .. . (;, "..""'.. ~ .. ~ ..\""" ~ :- ~ .. n'C, ,.' c. .." "'.. * ....."". .:, .. ...." "" ST !>- \ " ~~~ ""'", II ." ", ~ Page 2 of 2 K\CQUNCIL\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC.O1.31-05mln doc »c;c 143)165 Ashland, OR In the city of Ashland, Oregon, tourism constitutes a critical part of the local economy. As home of the world-renowned Oregon Shakespeare Festival, the city attracts nearly 125,000 visitors each year. Still, while tourism does provide the city with regular revenues, it does not provide many new opportunities for employment. Population 19,770 Households 9,050 Type of Government Mayor and Council Annual City Budget $90.4M For this reason, Ashland decided to create an advanced telecommunications network. By doing so, the city hoped to attract new high-tech businesses not otherwise likely to relocate to Ashland. Similarly, it also hoped to provide local businesses with the competitive edge they needed to compete in today's market. "Without an advanced telecommunications infrastructure, our growing high-tech community would be unable to remain competitive with urban areas like Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco," said Mike Freeman, Ashland's City Administrator. Process Similar to other communities, Ashland's network began in 1996 as a way to prepare the city's utility company, Ashland Utilities, for the possible effects of deregulation. The city adopted the goal of building out a fiber optic ring in 1997 to improve utility efficiency through automatic meter reading and load control. Ashland began the process of building out its network by conducting extensive analysis of other "wired" cities, including Glasgow, KY and Cedar Falls, IA. In 1998, the city council approved a business plan for the project and proceeded to invest approximately $5 million into the initial buildout of an existing 12 -mile fiber optic ring. The city financed this buildout through a bank loan (quicker and easier to obtain than a municipal bond while available at similar interest rates) as well as through revenues generated from the municipal electric utility. Throughout the process, Ashland generated community support for the network by inviting residents to attend various public meetings and encouraging them to share their input. In addition, the city also sponsored two open houses—attended by more than 600 people—at which it demonstrated to residents the services that it proposed to provide over the network. Challenges At present, Ashland's network passes 90% of all households in the community, and officials expect to complete the final 10% of the buildout by the end of 2002. Getting to this point has required the city to overcome significant challenges. At the end of 2001, Ashland was forced to revise its business plan due to several issues: revenues were not meeting projections, capital expenditures were exceeding the amount originally financed, the buildout was taking longer than anticipated, and some managerial problems were identified. An advisory committee was appointed to (1) revise the business plan, (2) develop a communication system with the council, and (3) evaluate ways to enhance the network's performance. Ashland's revised business plan called for : Achieving a positive net income by the end of the system's 9th year of operation Reducing net gain from $3.8 million (10 years) to $1.13 million (15 years) Generating $735,000 in advertising revenue (15 years) No telephone revenue (loss of $508,000) Internal borrowing capped at $8.9 million the ninth year The report also proposed various improvements in the area of marketing. Specifically, the report called for implementing a direct sales team, revising the pricing structure, developing targeted marketing campaigns, promoting bundled cable TV and Internet packages, and marketing the advantages of a publicly owned advanced telecommunications network. Ashland Network Summary Technology Hybrid Fiber/Coax (IFC) Cost Initial Buildout $5M Full Buildout Unknown Financing Bank loan, electric utility revenues, revenue bonds, system revenues Services cable tv, high-speed data, high speed internet (various providers) Penetration Rates cable tv 30% internet 40-45% Subscribers (2001) Cable TV projected 1,894 actual 2,003 High-speed Internet projected 1,893 actual 1,974 High-speed data projected 48 actual 94 Revenues projected $552,970 actual $515,000 Expenses projected $1,624,775 actual $1,527,998 Services High -Speed Data Ashland provides advanced high-speed data service at either 10 or 100 Mbps to local businesses through direct fiber links (Fiber To The Business). High -Speed Internet For private residents, Ashland offers high-speed (3-5 Mbps) Internet access through cable modems. Internet service on the network operates via an open -access (wholesale) business model. Currently, nine competing Internet Service Providers offer services over Ashland's HFC network, enabling residents to choose from a variety of services. Benefits of a wholesale model include fewer staffing requirements and fewer legal hassles. In addition, a wholesale model prevents monopolies and provides local businesses with the opportunity to compete against the incumbent. Penetration rates for Internet access vary by neighborhood and average around 40- 45% of potential customers. Cable Television Ashland offers retail cable television service to the community and now serves over 30% of the market. Community involvement throughout the MetroNet's various stages of development has resulted in a cable television channel lineup that is "as unique as Ashland," said Michael Ainsworth, CATV Specialist for the Ashland Fiber Network. "That's one of the greatest features of the service. It was created by Ashland residents for Ashland residents." Results Notwithstanding its various challenges, Ashland's network has still managed to have a positive impact on the community. It provides local schools and businesses with vital services they could not otherwise access or afford. In addition, competition from the network has forced the local incumbent, Charter Communications, to cut cable TV rates in Ashland by 25%. While residents in neighboring cities continue to pay full price, Ashland residents save a total of $500,000 on services each year. Furthermore, while Charter's relationship with the @Home network (which declared corporate bankruptcy in early 2002) has raised serious concerns regarding its credibility, AFN customers remain confident that the city's open system won't fall victim to the financial problems that currently plague the telecommunications industry. Who Pays for Wireless Cities? By Deborah Asbrand ,r .. Technonlogyreview.com Earlier this month, Philadelphia became the latest municipality to throw its hat in the Wi-Fi ring and enjoy an image bounce that would be the envy of any presidential candidate. Civic interest in Wi-Fi makes municipalities look sexy and modern. Less certain, however, are their chances for success as providers of emerging communications technology. Offering wireless broadband is a new course for cities and towns, say observers, and one that may not be quite as easy to navigate as the idea's popularity implies. Indeed, the City of Brotherly Love was not announcing a successful trial, or even a timeline for wider deployment—but merely the formation of an executive committee to study wireless networking options. These days, Wi-Fi is shorthand for wireless mesh networking technology. Instead of connecting to the Internet through a cable or telephone line, users are free to roam while their PDAs and laptops ferry data packets through radio waves and across a series of fixed access points. The average range is about 50 meters. Airports, shopping malls, coffee houses, and even campgrounds are actively courting the digital crowd by offering Wi-Fi service. One reason cities and towns appear eager to leap into the wireless fray is the inclination—and pressure—to serve their constituents. "Local govemments very much want to be more citizen -friendly," says Joe Pisciotte, professor of public administration at Wichita State University and former council member and vice mayor for Wichita. That reality is why residents can now accomplish online just about any task for which they once had to traipse to city hall, from renewing drivers' licenses to obtaining building permits. "Pair that with the reality that cities are always passing the tin cup," Pisciotte says, "and why not provide a legitimate technological service like Wi-Fi to citizens and perhaps also get new revenue sources?" The wrinkle in the public-service spin on Wi-Fi is who will bear the cost for the service. The answer splits proponents into two camps, and both are problematic. On one side are those who see wireless broadband as a public amenity— a basic service that cities and towns should provide free to residents as they do, say, trash pickup. Missing from this scenario is consensus on how municipalities, perennially short on funds, will pay the Wi-Fi tab. Among the models being considered are a payout from the general allocation fund, or, for larger municipalities, the sale of bonds. Philadelphia officials are considering the imposition of new tourist fees to defray the city's Wi-Fi costs. In the other camp are those who eye Wi-Fi as a potential revenue generator. Proponents of this model say cities and towns could negotiate affordable residential Wi-Fi rates as part of the bundle of wireless broadband services they purchase for local government departments, such as fire, police, and schools. A more hands-off approach, already being tried in some places, is to contract out the installation and management of local Wi-Fi in exchange for franchise fees paid by the contractor. Among the factors luring municipalities to consider citywide Wi-Fi networks are the low capital costs. When St. Cloud, FL, expands its wireless network next year to cover 30 square kilometers, the tab for deploying 300 access points and eight to 10 wireless links to the network backbone will come to a little more than $1 million. That's 'unbelievably cheap in the scheme of municipal projects, far less than the cost to build a mile of road," says Jonathan Baltuch, president of MRI—the consulting firm that is managing St. Cloud's economic development programs, including the wireless project. The network will be paid for from an economic development fund jointly created by the Orlando Utility Commission and St. Cloud, a suburb 25 minutes south of downtown Orlando. "The bigger question is how to pay for the ongoing costs," says Baltuch. He estimates that the city's yearly expense for the wireless service (including customer service) will be $150,000 to $200,000. He says St. Cloud is still undecided on whether it will pay for that through user fees or as an allocation from the city's general fund. Most likely, says Baltuch, St. Cloud will put the question to its residents on a ballot referendum. While wireless broadband may be a tantalizing prospect to local governments, not all may be suited to capitalize on the technology, suggests Sharon Eisner Gillett, director of MIT's Communications Futures Program. Gillett studied cities and towns offering public wired broadband service—typically in the form of hybrid systems combining fiber-optic and coaxial cable. She found distinct harbingers for success that may portend who will be the winners and losers among municipalities that offer the wireless counterpart. For one thing, nearly all operated municipal electric utilities. That means these cities and towns were already in the service -provider business and thus had the appropriate infrastructure in place, such as monthly billing processes and customer support. For another, the most successful at it had tested the waters of advanced wired communications with earlier, smaller scale deployments for internal town services, such as utility management or public -safety communications by fire and police officials. Some see the municipal push into wireless as a haphazard technical solution, erecting Wi-Fi access points in localities that already have plentiful coverage from hot spots and spillover from homeowner connections. Dirk Trossen, a principal scientist who studies wireless networking at Nokia Research Center in Burlington, MA, says he maintains wireless coverage on his PDA along the one -mile walk from his Cambridge, MA, home to the subway station—all courtesy of surplus coverage emanating from the wireless connections of local residents along the way. But there's a world of difference between wireless coverage and wireless networks, says Trossen, "You have an awful lot of wireless coverage already in cities. The problem is it's not budding up a wireless network." His proposed solution? A field trial that would bring together city officials, DSL and cable carriers that operate the network backbones, and regulatory agencies to explore the possibility of carving a cohesive citywide network from existing coverage. The carrot for carriers, he suggests, would be a revenue-sharing arrangement in which they'd receive additional fees for increased bandwidth. The scenario is similar to that of the late 1980s, when municipalities considered offering cable TV services, recalls William Frezza, a general partner with Adams Capital Management in Cambridge, MA. Cable couldn't survive as a low-cost public service, he says, and he finds public Wi-Fi equally misguided. He has read several dozen business plans from entrepreneurs looking to make money from public Wi-Fi. No model can succeed because the annual maintenance costs are likely to be exorbitant, he says. Moreover, he argues, performance will degrade as more users log on, which won't necessarily stop municipalities from casting themselves as Wi-Fi service providers. "A town can make any argument it wants," says Frezza. "It has as much money as it can pull out of its taxpayers." Police. Electricity. Schools. Trash collection. Road maintenance. Parks. Wireless connectivity. Wireless connectivity??? ' http://www.thefeature.com/article?articleid=101181&sh=werbach At first glance, wireless connectivity seems out of place in a list of municipal services. Think again. A growing number of city governments believe that city-wide wireless Internet access should be provided, at least in part, as a public utility. Upon further examination, the spate of municipal wireless plans offer both Tess and more than meets the eye. They just might, however, become the missing link that makes possible an alternative infrastructure for the mobile Internet. The city governments are generally proposing to deploy some version of Wi-Fi throughout their entire municipal area. Wi-Fi meshes have been deployed on corporate and university campuses, and in the downtown shopping areas of cities such as Palo Alto. A few relatively small communities, such as Chaska, Minnesota and Cerritos, California, announced citywide Wi- Fi projects earlier this year. None of these, however, generated the attention of the recent spate of announcements. Philadelphia kicked off the municipal Wi-Fi avalanche with the formation in late August of Wireless Philadelphia, a committee responsible for developing a proposal to cover all 135 square miles and 1.5 million residents of the city with Wi-Fi. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom responded this month with a commitment to free Wi-Fi access for every city resident. And if that wasn't enough, the government of Taiwan announced plans to begin deploying a billion -dollar Wi-Fi wireless mesh next year that would cover the entire island. What do governments hope to get out of their efforts? Philadelphia CIO Dianah Neff emphasizes the importance of making the benefits of wireless Internet connectivity available to all, just as the Web took the Internet beyond the small community of scientists, military personnel and academics. Like many big cities, Philadelphia is struggling to reinvigorate inner-city neighborhoods and to bring the benefits of technology to all residents. For example, the city is working to give all 265 Philadelphia schools Internet access, but the full educational benefits of that connectivity will only be realized when students and their parents can access the same online resources at home. With wired broadband connections still too sparse or expensive in lower-income neighborhoods, a municipal wireless broadband network could help fill the gaps. Neff ticks off other usage scenarios. A cheap webcam in a store window could use the wireless connection to provide remote video surveillance for small shops confronting theft problems. City building inspectors, who already save two hours per day using handheld PDAs to fill out forms, could become even more efficient with the ability to send documents and access information in real time. With the same real-time capabilities, the city could shorten its ongoing process of revaluing more than half a million real-estate parcels for tax purposes from five years to two. Tourists are tired of paying repeatedly for wireless connections in the airport, hotels and other areas, and still receiving coverage only in limited fixed locations. As more handheld devices and mobile phones incorporate Wi-Fi connectivity, the city or private parties could create personal "tours" of city landmarks, including major historical sites and local attractions like Philadelphia's hundreds of public murals. Of course, none of this comes for free. Philadelphia estimates ubiquitous coverage will require eight to sixteen base stations per square mile, depending on topography and obstacles like buildings. That works out to approximately $60,000 per square mile in capital costs, or $7 to $10 million for the City of Philadelphia. The city estimates ongoing annual maintenance costs of $1.5 million per year. That may sound significant, but keep in mind that Philadelphia already spends $50 million per year for 800 MHz wireless networks to support public safety radios for the police and fire department. Neff emphasizes that the city is seeking a public-private partnership, rather than building and operating the entire project itself. It is considering various funding mechanisms, including charging for some services. That's where the analogy to parks and road maintenance comes in. As Neff points out, municipalities and other government entities are good at providing foundational infrastructure, which the private sector builds upon. "It's like when [the government] built roads, they brought you to a destination. They didn't get you inside the building or the office. If you have the infrastructure there, you provide the opportunity for building to provide services," she explains. Cities have two unique assets: physical infrastructure such as light poles that can make ubiquitous coverage possible, and a willingness to provide baseline connectivity in areas where there might not be positive return on investment for a private service provider. The private sector can do the rest. Cities can't, however, overcome the laws of physics. Wi-Fi is still Wi-Fi, a short-range technology designed for local area networks, and it still uses unlicensed frequencies where there is no legal protection against interference. As a result, municipal wireless networks won't be a direct substitute for either wired broadband connections to the home or wide -area 3G wireless data networks. Reception in buildings will be spotty to non-existent, coverage will be far from perfect, and speeds will likely be relatively low due to limited backhaul at the other end. Nonetheless, municipal wireless networks may turn out to be a significant enabler for commercial mobile wireless services. Given the low costs of equipment, there are reasonable business models for deployment of Wi-Fi hotspots in high -traffic locations like hotels, parks, and cafes. More and more handsets will be able to tap in to those wireless networks, for both data and voice over IP connectivity. The missing link is coverage elsewhere. Municipal Wi-Fi networks, enhanced with indoor repeaters which will reflect outdoor signals into homes and buildings, could fill that gap. Service won't be perfect, but it could be much cheaper than the licensed 3G alternatives. If this scenario pans out -- and it will take a few years -- there could be two forms of wireless connectivity competing in major cities. One would be the carrier 3G infrastructure, offering reliability but involving high prices and limited flexibility for users. The other would be rougher around the edges, but cheaper and serving as a platform for more diverse applications. Both can probably thrive, but one depends on a helping hand from cities. It's looking more and more likely that cities will extend that hand. SFGov: Office of the Mayor: Wi-Fi Services in Union Square . ter, �.,�•.;r; .:.4,,. _C. •`,.`!c.'�•!. i�J:_•:�G�� Tr Page 1 of 2 sfgov 1 residents 1 business 1 government 1 visitors 1 online services 1 search Mayor's Homepage » News & Releases - January 2005 Wi-Fi Services in Union Square FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 Contact: Mayor's Press Office 415-554-6131 City and County of San Francisco Office of the Mayor *** PRESS RELEASE *** MAYOR NEWSOM LAUNCHES Wi-Fi SERVICE IN UNION SQUARE Free Wireless Broadband Internet Access Now Available to the Public San Francisco, CA - Mayor Gavin Newsom will announce a new free wireless broadband Internet service in Union Square today. Visitors with a wireless - enabled laptop computer, or other wireless device, and a web browser can access the Internet anywhere in the Union Square public park area. The service uses widely available "wireless fidelity" or "wi-fi" technology. "I am very pleased to launch this service in Union Square," said Mayor Newsom. "San Francisco is one of the most technically -savvy, connected cities in the world. I believe technology can improve the lives of all citizens, especially through the tremendous amount of information available on the Internet," Newsom continued, "Now, even more citizens have convenient, free access to that information in one of San Francisco's vibrant public areas." San Francisco offers the service on a test basis in partnership with the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development, the Department of Telecommunications (DTIS) and Information Services, the Recreation and Parks Department, UnwireNow, a San Francisco wireless service provider, and Terabeam Wireless, a world leader in providing extended range, license -free wireless data equipment. The service will encourage more visitors to the Union Square area and demonstrate how wireless broadband technologies can support economic development and increased public access to high-speed Internet service. Starting with this pilot project, the Mayor's Office has directed DTIS to work with city departments to develop a citywide wireless broadband policy and explore other opportunities to use wireless broadband services throughout San Francisco. Wi-Fi (pronounced "why-fye") is a wireless technology using unlicensed radio spectrum based on international technical standards (IEEE 802.11b). Originally developed for wireless networks in offices, Wi-Fi is now commonly used throughout the world for wireless internet access in public areas, businesses and hotels. Visitors to Union Square with a Wi-Fi compatible device and a web http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_page.asp?id=27481 1/31/2005 SFGov: Office of the Mayor: Wi-Fi Services in Union Square Page 2 of 2 browser can access the service by designating "unionsquarenetwork" in the device's network configuration settings. ### http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor page.asp?id=27481 1/31/2005 May 2004 banville's Fiber Optic Broadband iiDaa► lle Municipal Area Network Introduction: The City of Danville is constructing Network Danville ("nDanville" for short), a sophisticated fiber optic broadband network over which digital data, voice, and video signals can be transmitted from point to point in Danville at very high speeds, as well as to and from world- wide locations via the internet. Construction will be completed by the end of the summer. The municipal area network is anchored at the eDan Multimedia Service Access Point (MSAP) located at the Galileo Magnet High School at 230 South Ridge Street. nDanville will connect there to MCI's high -tier national internet backbone. Fiber optic cables will radiate from the MSAP to schools, municipal buildings and facilities, and utility infrastructure components at approximately 100 locations over a 70 -mile route. nDanville will share cabling with the Future of the Piedmont's "eDan" to the north and with the Mid -Atlantic Broadband Coalition's "e58" to the east and west. nDanville will enable distance learning in schools. Who Will Use nDanville? During its initial phase, nDan- ville will serve only the municipal government and public school system. The City and Schools will use nDanville to improve multi -media communications and data transmis- sion, support shared use of computer applications and data files, enable distance conferencing and learning, expand internet access, monitor and control equipment, and improve the reliability of utility and traffic control systems. nDanville will allow increased service efficiency and effectiveness to the benefit of citizens and utility customers and expand educational opportunities for Danville's students. Additionally, a limited number of pilot projects will be undertaken during nDanville's initial deployment to demonstrate the potential application of nDanville's technical capabilities for broader community and commercial use. What About Commercial Use? The City is undertaking a step-by-step process wherein each Council -approved nDanville element is designed to improve municipal and school operations, but also open opportunities for economic development. Accordingly, nDanville has been designed to serve not only local government needs, but function as a platform from which net- work access and services could be extended to businesses, institutions, and households. Minimally, nDanville's point-to-point network and internet access capabilities could be made available to private sector telecommunications businesses at charges sufficient to cover costs and provide a reasonable return on investment. Several firms now doing business in Danville may wish to access nDanville, including Verizon and Adelphia, local internet services providers (ISPs) such as Gamewood, GCR Online, eDanville Online, D&K Custom Electronics, and national and regional ISPs like America Online, Earthlink, Mindspring, and nTelos. Access to nDanville could attract other telecommunications businesses to Danville. The City itself could additionally provide telecommunications services over nDanville. These services are being provided in hundreds of other "public power communities" across the nation. The City has its Virginia Competitive Local Exchange Carrier telephone certification and is authorized to provide a complete range of broadband services. State law requires a confirming public referendum before an eligible local government may provide for -pay television services. Q Fiber Optic Network Legend ammini e58 / MSC eDan nDanvige What is broadband? In a broadband network, computer data, music, and video are all con- verted to "digital bits" and transported in packets over copper wires, radio spectra, coaxial cables, and/or optical fibers. Sophisticated electronics separate and track billions of data packets flowing over common paths. The federal government currently defines "broadband" as a system that supports transmission speeds of 200 kilobits per second (Kbps) or faster. By comparison, a standard dial-up computer modem functions at 20 - 64 Kbps. Wireless computer modems use radio waves to send information at 500 Kbps and cable TV modems transmit at 500 Kbps to 5 million bits per second (Mbps). True high definition TV requires digital transport speeds of 20 Mbps. nDanville transmission rates will be as high as 1,000 Mbps (a billion bits per second), known as a gigabit per second (Gbps). The larger the number of packets to be transported, the more important transmission speed becomes. Users with many computers accessing a network at the same time, or who transport large documents, video files, or graph- ics, find high-speed broadband connections essential to their operations. Why is broadband important? Availability of broadband service is important to businesses, schools, institutions, and individuals. These days, it is just as essential to some businesses as are other, more traditional water, sewer, gas, and electric utilities. This is especially so for high- tech and knowledge-based industries. It is also the case for conventional manufacturing indus- tries that use broadband to coordinate management and share business functions across dis- persed facilities. Virginia Tech's "eCorridors Report" argues that access to broadband is essential for Southside Virginia if it hopes to revitalize its economy. Danville cannot expect to attract or retain industries it needs for economic development unless broadband services are readily available. -- 2 -- Broadband infrastructure and services characterized as follows will be required in Danville if the City expects to be competitive in industrial recruitment and business expansion. • Affordably priced business Internet service packages extending from 500 Kbps to over 500 Mbps of dedicated bandwidth; • Network fiber leasing options ranging from unserviced "dark fibers" to fully serviced "lighted fibers;" • Direct and redundant access to high -tier national Internet backbones; • High quality, high reliability connectivity; and • Adequate support services and business packages priced and ready for delivery on demand. Current Broadband Availability: Perhaps more than any other state in the Union, Virginia suffers from a "digital divide" separating urban and rural communities in availability of broad- band infrastructure and services. Site Selection magazine refers to Virginia as the "Information Technology State" and "Silicon Dominion" due to its attraction of high-tech companies, universi- ties, and information technology infrastructure. Virginia is rated among the top ten states in terms of broadband deployment. By contrast, Southside Virginia is among the most under- served regions of America when it comes to broadband infrastructure and services. '�= Standard business connections in areas like Northern INTERNET Virginia are DSL (digital subscriber line) service, 1.5 Mbps (T-1 or DS -1 lines), 45 Mbps (T-3 or DS -3 lines), and higher -speed offerings. A wide variety of service options are available. Unfortunately, Dan- ville's residents and businesses have few Internet options universally available in all areas. Verizon does not offer widespread DSL service in Danville. Gamewood has recently announced DSL service and is now extending wireless Internet service in some areas that accommodates speeds of approximately 500 Kbps. Adelphia offers cable modem broadband service, but not all areas are served and speeds vary from 500 Kbps to 3 Mbps. Verizon, Adel- phia Business Systems, and nTelos provide customized business internet services, but not with offerings priced and ready to install on demand. nDanville provides point-to-point and internet connectivity. Just as important as Internet connectivity per se, are the issues of traffic congestion. Internet speeds degrade when increasing numbers of users share lines and/or messages move across one network to another. Local Internet service providers tend to offer shared rather than dedi- cated bandwidth. They do not provide direct connections to high -tier networks owned by AT&T, MCI, Adelphia, and Williams, even though these networks actually run through or near Danville on their way to Northern Virginia. Affordable access to these telecommunications resources is not readily available. This is an all too familiar pattern in America's rural or isolated metropolitan areas. Historically, new technologies initially enter only the largest urban markets. This occurred with the advent of the telegraph, electricity, telephone, and television and the same pattern appears true of broad- band technologies. Infrastructure investments per potential customer in high-density areas like Northern Virginia are much lower than in rural or remote areas such as Southside Virginia. Vendors are reluctant to enter low profit tertiary markets like Danville. The recession and rash of bankruptcies in the telecommunications industry are aggravating the problem in the case of broadband deployment. The Future of the Piedmont Foundation's report, "Learning. Working. Winning. Bringing the New Economy to the Dan River Region," called upon the community to move ahead and construct the kind of broadband communication network needed for economic devel- opment. Bandwith C parisons • SS Kbps Tete one line1 Gbps nDanville Point -to -Point Connectivity 410 1.i , pill Une What Role Should the City Play? Use of nDanville could be limited to satisfying the needs of the municipal government and public schools, or it could be used to leverage significant expan- sion of broadband services to support transformation of the community's economic base. Cen- tral to reaching a decision on use of nDanville is determining to what degree the municipal gov- ernment should influence, or even enter, the telecommunications marketplace. Is the following set of principle statements appropriate? If not, how should the City of Danville define its role? • Danville's businesses, institutions, and households should have broadband services on par with those available elsewhere in Virginia in order to ensure equal access to entertainment, cultural, health, and especially to education and economic opportuni- ties. ■ The private sector should take the lead in deployment and operation of broadband networks and services in Danville. The City should facilitate and support this through policies and regulations that encourage private sector investment, competition, and innovation. • Where the private sector is unable or unwilling to adequately serve the community in a manner comparable to other areas of Virginia, the City of Danville should unhesi- tatingly assume the lead role in broadband network services, as it has historically done in providing electric power and natural gas services. After carefully examining unmet community needs and considering public input, the Danville City Council will consider opening nDanville for broader use. The Danville Utility Commission, one of Danville's citizen advisory boards, will oversee informing and involving the public on these matters and will recommend a course of action for nDanville. In preparing its recom- mendations, the Utility Commission will be assisted by municipal staff and a team of experienced consultants. The group will complete the process this fall. Public input on this subject is welcome. Contact: Joe King, Assistant City Manager for Utilities 1040 Monument Street Danville, Virginia 24541 Telephone: (434) 797-8963 Fax: (434) 799-6583 E-mail: kingjc@ci.danville.va.us Website updates available at http://www.danville-va.gov PUBLICLY -OWNED COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS Page 1 of 1 PUBLICLY -OWNED COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS The following is a partial list of communities that have (1) already built a publicly -owned communications network that is capable of being used to offer cable, telecommunications, information or enhanced services to the public, or (2) have had a affirmative referendum or city council vote to develop such a network, or (3) have begun a feasibility study or issued an RFI, RFP, Request for Strategic Partners, etc., concerning such a network. This list does not include communities that have an Institutional Network owned by a cable operator. AL: Lincoln, Opp, Foley, Scottsboro AK: Angoon, Kake, Kiana, Kotlik AR: Conway, Lockesburg, Paragould CA: Anaheim, Alameda, Burbank, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Pasadena, San Bruno CO: Brighton, Center, Copper Mountain, LongmontFL: Gainesville, Key West, Leesburg, Newberry, Ocala, Valparaiso GA: Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (+32 municipal electric utilities) IA: Akron, Algona, Alta, Bancroft, Cedar Falls, Carroll, Coon Rapids, Danbury, Dayton, Denison, Grundy Center, Harlan, Hartley, Hawarden, Hull, Independence, Indianola, Lake View, Laurens, Lenox, Manilla, Manning, Mount Pleasant, Muscatine, New London, Orange City, Paulina, Primghar, Rock Rapids, Sac City, Sanborn, Sibley, Spencer, Storm Lake, Tipton, Traer, Wall Lake, Waterloo, Webster City, Westwood, Woodbine IL: Batavia, Evanston KS: Altamont, Baxter, Cawker, Columbus, Courtland KY: Bardstown, Barbourville, Bellevue, Bowling Green, Crescent Springs, Dayton, Edgewood, Elsmere, Erlanger, Fort Thomas, Fort Wright, Frankfort, Glasgow, Lakeside Park, Murray, Newport, Taylor Mill, Williamstown MD: Easton MA: Berkshire County, Braintree, Chicopee, Holyoke, Shrewsbury MI: Coldwater, Crystal Falls, Hillsdale, Holland, Lowell, Negaunee, Norway, Wyandotte MN: Bagley, Coleraine, Elbow Lake, Fosston, Jackson, Marble, Westbrook, Windom MO: Newburg, Sikeston, Springfield, Unionville NB: Lincoln, Omaha NC: Morganton NH: Keane OH: Archbold, Bedford, Brunswick, Butler County, Celina, Cuyahoga Falls, Garfield Heights, Hamilton, Lebanon, Niles, Oakwood, Orange Village, Shaker Heights, Wadsworth OR: Ashland, Cascade Locks, Lexington, Lincoln County (CoastNet Project) PA: New Wilmington, Pitcairn SD: Beresford TX: Lower Colorado River Authority, several municipalities considering implications of the FCC's failure to preempt PURA95 and D.C. Circuit's affirmance in the Abilene case VA: Lynchburg WA: North Bonneville, Sumas, Tacoma WV: Phillipi WS: Oconto Falls, Two Creeks WY: Lusk, Bailroil http://www.townofcary.org/agenda/specialcoms/Fiber/pocn.htm 1/31/2005 City of Eagle Water System — Mission Statement The City of Eagle Shall provide for and maintain a water supply and delivery system within its service area to meet the health and safety needs of the City as anticipated by the land uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Water System Goals of the City of Eagle. • Acquire adequate groundwater rights for municipal needs for the planning area. • Construct a full service distribution system for potable and fire protection needs of residents and businesses as anticipated by the latest Comprehensive Plan. • Secure redundant system components at startup. • Design for cost-effective long-term efficiency. • Maintain a water system protective of the health and safety of the public. • Protect groundwater quality in lower aquifer by reducing risk imposed by multiple, small points of diversion. • Design for a cost-efficient control and maintenance of the groundwater wells. • Protect property values through compatible design and landscaping of visible infrastructure. • Negotiate agreements with adjacent water purveyors to provide for mutual aide in the event of catastrophic system failure caused by third party attack of system components. Specific Needs anticipated by City of Eagle based on Comprehensive Plan • Four wells each with standby power capable of supplying a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute. • One water storage tank of 700,000 gallon capacity on the east side of the system capable of supplying water by gravity. • One water storage tank of 1,500,000 gallon capacity on the north side of the system capable of supplying water by gravity. • A loop water system network for major trunk lines for safety and maintenance. • Sub -system network for secondary supply to individual developments. • A Public Works Water Department of licensed water system operators and qualified staff. December 1, 2004 City Council Review EAGLE SYSTEM — WESTERN EXPANSION DOMESTIC WATER DEMANDS (Without a Storage Facility) Alternative 1 Expansion to 4,000 homes without storage facility Separate surface water irrigation 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 4,000 homes x 800 gpd = 3,200,000 gpd = 2,222 gpm = 4.95 cfs Fire demand: 3,000 gpm = 6.68 cfs Total: 5,222 Qpm = 11.63 cfs Alternative 2 Segregation by Developments (1) Legacy Development 1,250 homes (approx. 512 acres) Separate surface water irrigation No storage facility 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 1,250 homes x 800 gpd = 1,000,800 gpd = 695 gpm = 1.55 cfs Fire demand: 1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs Total: 2,195 Qpm = 4.89 cfs (2) Unnamed Development No. 1 395 home (approx. 142 acres) Separate surface water irrigation No storage facility 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 395 homes x 800 gpd = 316,000 gpd = 220 gpm = 0.49 cfs Fire demand: 1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs (added fire demand for higher density development) Total: 1,720 Qpm = 3.83 cfs (3) Unnamed Development No. 2 750 homes added to above developments Separate surface water irrigation No storage facility 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 750 homes x 800 gpd = 600,000 gpd = 416 gpm = 0.93 cfs Fire demand: Included in (1) and (2), above Total: 416 Qpm = 0.93 cfs Grand Total: 4.331 Qpm = 9.65 cfs I:\ENGR\EG10421041EAGLE SYSTEM EXPANSION demand calc rev2.doc EAGLE SYSTEM -- WESTERN EXPANSION DOMESTIC WATER DEMANDS (Including a Storage Facility) Alternative 1 Expansion to 4,000 homes with 1.5 MG storage facility Separate surface water irrigation 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 4,000 homes x 800 gpd = 3,200,000 gpd = 2,222 gpm = 4.95 cfs Fire demand: 3,000 gpm = 6.68 cfs Storage credit: -3,000 gpm = 6.68 cfs Total: 2,222 qpm = 4.95 cfs Alternative 2 Segregation by Developments (1) Legacy Development 1,250 homes Legacy development (approx. 512 acres) Separate surface water irrigation 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 1250 homes x 800 gpd = 1,000,800 gpd = 695 gpm = 1.55 cfs Fire demand: 1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs Storage credit: -1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs Total: 695 qpm = 1.55 cfs (2) Unnamed Development No. 1 395 home development (approx. 142 acres) Separate surface water irrigation 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 395 homes x 800 gpd = 316,000 gpd = 220 gpm = 0.49 cfs Fire demand: 1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs (added fire demand for high density development) Storage credit: -1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs Total: 220 Qpm = 0.49 cfs (3) Unnamed Development No. 2 750 homes added to above developments Separate surface water irrigation 800 gpd per home (IDAPA 58.01.08.522.01) Domestic demand: 750 homes x 800 gpd = 600,000 gpd = 416 gpm = 0.93 cfs Fire demand: 1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs Storage credit: -1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs Total: 416 qpm = 0.93 cfs Grand Total 1.330 Qpm = 2.97 cfs I:IENGR\EG10421041EAGLE SYSTEM EXPANSION demand calc rev2.doc CITY OF EAGLE WATER SUPPLY HANDOUT January, 2005 DRAFT This handout includes information related to the evaluation and assignment of water rights for lands annexed and developed within the City of Eagle • Introduction and information on water issues • Sample — Well Site Agreement • Sample — Water Rights Deed • Ordinance No. 479 • Ordinance No. 479 Questions and Answers Information for Evaluatin' Water Needs for Annexation and/or Development An Owner may elect to only annex property into the City of Eagle and may postpone the process of providing water rights until development plans are defined. However, once a development type and plan has been decided upon and water supply needs can be determined, the following information must be supplied by the Owner for review by the City. • A description of the property to be annexed and/or developed • A description of potable water and irrigation water needs of the development • An IDWR Water Right Report on water rights associated with each parcel included in the annexation and/or development, if applicable • For parcels without adequate appurtenant water rights, a statement describing water rights available for transfer from a different location and/or the amount of water that must be appropriated • For parcels included in the annexation and/or development located within the boundaries of an irrigation entity with jurisdiction over said parcel, a statement by such entity describing available water supply/shares • For existing water systems, a map or drawing of the system indicating location of all easements, pipes and other system infrastructure Assistance with Water Rirhts Acquisition The IDWR maintains an extensive file of water records, water rights, and forms that are available on its website: www.idwr.id.state.us and at its state and regional offices. The overall procedure for identifying water rights and completing a transfer or a new appropriation can be time consuming, so it is important to begin as early in the process as the water needs for the development can be identified. Attention to detail on this matter cannot be overstressed. The City of Eagle will work closely with the Owner to assist with technical and legal assistance in this process to protect against the loss of time. If requested by an Owner in writing, the City will use its engineering and legal staff versed in water right matters to assist through research and preparation of agreements. A'reement to Supply Water and Operate System(s), The City of Eagle Planning and Zoning Department working with the City legal staff, will draft an agreement with the Owner covering, but not limited to, the following items if applicable to a proposed annexation and/or development: • Provision for the transfer of water rights to satisfy the needs of the development. • Construction and dedication of potable water facilities. City of Eagle — Water Supply Handout 1/31/2005 Draft Page 3 of 4 • Agreement by City to Operate and Maintain potable water facilities. • Ownership, construction, and maintenance of surface water facilities. • Costs of construction including City connection fees and Late Comer's provisions for reimbursement. • A copy of any agreement with any entity supplying irrigation water with jurisdiction over property to be annexed and/or developed. The agreement concerning water matters will be considered by the City of Eagle at the Preliminary Plat phase of development. Applicable City of Eagle Ordinances and Guidance The City of Eagle has ordinances in place that address water matters and these may be accessed at its website: www.citvofeagle.org . These ordinances include, but are not limited to, the following: • Title 6, Chapter 5, Water System • Title 9, Chapter 4, Required Improvements • Irrigation Water Guidance (Reference: ECC 9.4.1.9.C) City of Eagle — Water Supply Handout 1/31/2005 Draft Page 4 of 4 • (Name of Business Entity and/or Representative) (Address) , Idaho Phone: Facsimile: , 2005 Idaho Department of Water Resources Western Regional Office 2735 Airport Way Boise, ID 83705 RE: Confirmation of Dedication of Well, Well -Site, and Access thereto to the City of Eagle, Idaho To Whom it May Concern: This letter serves as confirmation of the City of Eagle, Idaho's (the "City") legal right of access to construct and operate a municipal well within the (insert legal description) and for ingress and egress thereto. The City hereby has permission to construct, operate, and access a municipal well and well site located within the above-described '4 1A. The exact location of the well site shall be determined by the mutual agreement of the parties. The municipal well and well site shall be dedicated to the City upon recording of final plat and thereafter shall be in the ownership of the City. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me. STATE OF IDAHO County of Ada ) ) ss ) Sincerely, (insert name) On this day of , 2005, before me, the undersigned notary public in and for said state, personally appeared , known or identified to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that s/he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the date and year in this certificate first above written. Department of Water Resources , 2005 Page 2 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at My Commission Expires WATER -RIGHTS DEED KNOW ALL MEN BE THESE PRESENTS, that whose address is , , for good and valuable consideration, hereby grants and conveys unto the City of Eagle, Ada County, State of Idaho, a municipal corporation, the GRANTEE, whose address is 310 East State, Eagle, Idaho 83616, the water rights associated with the following described real property: Parcel 1 Parcel (additional) Consisting of approximately acres. The water rights being conveyed are a portion of Water Right No. SAID WATER RIGHTS ARE BEING CONVEYED UPON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: GRANTEE agrees to allow GRANTOR the continued right of use of those water rights at no cost to the GRANTOR to irrigate the above-described real property for so long as said real property is being actively used for purposes. SAID WATER RIGHTS ARE BEING CONVEYED SEPARATE FROM THE REAL PROPERTY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this instrument to be executed this day of , 2004. (name) (address) By Its WATER RIGHTS DEED - 1 - STATE OF IDAHO :ss County of Ada On this day of , 20_, before me, a Notary for the state of Idaho, personally appeared known, or identified to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my official seal the date and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for the state of Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires: WATER RIGHTS DEED - 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 479 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 5, OF THE EAGLE CITY CODE, AMENDING SECTION 6-5-23, PROVIDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AS A CONDITION OF ANNEXATION AND/OR APPROVAL OF NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO; AND ESTABLISHING AN 1ik'F i CTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Eagle wishes to safeguard and conserve the public water supply and provide a safe and sufficient water supply to its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle desires to provide water service to its citizens at the most economical cost; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle desires to foster optimum land use and development within the City of Eagle and equitably allocate costs of development; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle finds and determines that a single, interconnected municipal water system owned by the City is in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF TIM CITY OF EAGLE, Ada County, Idaho; Section 1. Title 6, Chapter 5, Section 23 of the Eagle City Code is hereby amended with new Section C to read as follows: 6-5-23 C. As a condition of annexation into the City and/or as a condition of approval of new development within the City, the landowner and/or developer shall: 1. Secure suitable surface water rights adequate to satisfy all irrigation, aesthetic, amenity, or recreation needs of the proposed development and/or property proposed to be annexed and transfer or assign said water rights to the City for inclusion into the City's municipal water supply system. Said water rights must be valid, existing water rights recognized by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (the "Department"). If any transfer, amendment or other proceedings are required under Idaho Code or Department Rule or Regulation for the City's use of such water, the owner and/or developer shall be solely responsible for the City's costs of completing the same and the City's costs of obtaining all necessary approvals from the Department as a condition of annexation and/or development, including costs associated with mitigation; and I:IENGR\EG104210410rd 479.doc 2. Secure suitable groundwater rights adequate to satisfy all groundwater needs of the proposed development and/or property proposed to be annexed and transfer or assign said water rights to the City for inclusion into the City's municipal water supply system. Said water rights must be valid, existing water rights permitted or licensed by the Department. If any transfer, amendment or other proceedings are required under Idaho Code or Department Rule or Regulation for the City's use of such water, the owner and/or developer shall be solely responsible for the City's costs of completing the same and the City's costs of obtaining all necessary permits and approvals from the Department as a condition of annexation and/or development, including costs of mitigation; and 3. Pay for the City's costs of construction of municipal supply well(s) necessary to meet the demands of the proposed annexed property and/or new development. The City Engineer shall determine the necessary location, number, and capacity of well(s) based upon the proposed development or other improvements. Said wells shall be constructed to City standards. The owner and/or developer shall be solely responsible for the City's costs of obtaining all necessary permits and approvals for such wells as a condition of annexation and/or development, including the costs of any required mitigation. The design and construction of municipal supply wells shall be reviewed and inspected by the City Engineer; and a. At the option of the City, demands arising from more than one development may be served by a single well or centralized well with the costs thereof apportioned to the participating developments in proportion to their water demands. 4. Any well construction or development of groundwater resources shall be prohibited within the City's municipal water service area except as may be set forth in a development agreement or by a special-purpose permit issued by the Building Official and approved by the City Council. 5. The requirements for obtaining surface water rights for irrigation, aesthetic, amenity, or recreation, needs may be waived if the City determines that the landowner and/or developer is entitled to a waiver under Eagle City Code 9-4-1- 9C(2) and that the landowner and/or developer cannot secure surface water rights by appropriation or transfer to the proposed development and/or property proposed to be annexed. I:IENGR\EG10421041Ord 479.doc Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, approval, and publication as required by law. In lieu of publication of the entire Ordinance, a summary thereof in compliance with Section 50-901A, Idaho Code, may be published. DATED this day of , 2004. CITY OF EAGLE Ada County, Idaho Nancy C. Merrill, Mayor ATTEST: Sharon K. Bergman, City Clerk/Treasurer I:\ENGR\EG\042104\Ord 479.doc City of Eagle Fact Sheet Ordinance No. 479 — Requirements for the Provision of Water Supply as a Condition of Approval of New Development The City of Eagle adopted Ordinance 479 on the 24th of July, 2004 to respond to the concerns of the City that ground and surface water, vital to the continued growth and development of the City, may be transferred to areas outside the City and its expected area of future growth as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The following Question and Answer format was prepared to address questions that have arisen since that ordinance adoption. Q. Why was Ordinance No. 479 adopted? A. The City of Eagle presently owns a municipal water system that serves a portion of the city. United Water Idaho and Eagle Water Corporation also serve within their Public Utility Commission (PUC) certificated areas. The City sees the development of the area north and west of the existing city as presenting special needs for prompt and well -coordinated service in order to expedite the special visions for growth and development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Q. Why does Ordinance No. 489 require adequate water be made available when property is developed? A. As more area is developed, more water will be required to serve added customers. Ordinance No. 479 requires only sufficient water rights to meet the new service demands of a proposed development. Q. Is the intent of Ordinance No. 479 to annex property without consent to obtain the water right? A. No. Ordinance No. 479 was adopted to insure an adequate water supply is available to new users. Q. If annexation is requested but the property remains in undeveloped, agricultural use, can I retain ownership and control of my water? A. Yes. Q. If developed in phases, can the transfer of water rights be accomplished in phases? A. Yes. However, in the overall plan for development, it may be more cost-effective for an owner to make one transfer or assignment of water with a master development agreement with the City describing phasing and setting forth the owner's retention of use until development plans are prepared for the phase. Ordinance No. 479 1 FACT Sheet, January 31, 2005 Q. How are the potable and irrigation water system needs of the development determined? A. The potable water needs are determined by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) in their published Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems. If property is developed for commercial or industrial purposes, those uses are generally defined by the owner and checked against known similar uses. Irrigation uses are based on the amount of greenscape and amenities with their associated water demands (Eagle City Code 9.4.1.9.C, Pressurized Irrigation Standards). These are generally defined by the owner's engineer and reviewed by the City. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) will review water demand during the application for appropriation of water or transfer. Q. A. What happens to water rights in excess of development needs? Any water rights in excess of the needs for the proposed development will remain the property of the owner to sell or transfer as determined by rules set forth by the IDWR. Q. Is the City of Eagle willing to purchase excess groundwater and/or surface water rights? A. Yes. If an owner has water rights in excess of the demands of their development, the City is willing to negotiate for the acquisition of those water rights. Q. What financial options are available for selling water rights to the City of Eagle? A. The owner and the City may agree on any of several options including: a. an outright purchase based on fair market value as determined by recent sales, or b. an offset for impact fees or connection fees, or c. a donation in exchange for a charitable contribution statement, or d. a combination of the above options. Q. If my development is in a PUC certificated area for United Water Idaho (UWI) or Eagle Water Corporation (EWC), do I still need to transfer water rights to the City of Eagle? A. Not necessarily. The Ordinance specifically addresses the transfer of water rights to the City's municipal water system to meet the demands of development. The City has plans to expand its service in accordance with the Water System Master Plan. If you are in an area outside the City's planned service area or in an area already being served by UWI or EWC, a transfer may not be required. For the reasons previously stated, if a development is to be served by the City, transfer is necessary. The City is willing to negotiate for the purchase and transfer of any Ordinance No. 479 2 FACT Sheet, January 31, 2005 excess groundwater and irrigation water rights to serve the City generally in its parks and greenbelt system. Q. Can an existing domestic or irrigation well be incorporated into a new development? A. No, except in special cases. For potable water, an existing well must meet all the requirements for a public drinking water supply as defined by IDEQ. For irrigation purposes an existing irrigation well may be capable of being utilized as determined by the design engineer for the owner and the IDWR. Q. If the development consists of a few lots, or the lot sizes are less than one-half acre, is the transfer process applicable? A. A public water system has less impact on the groundwater resource than individual wells and therefore the development of public water systems is strongly encouraged. Where it can be demonstrated that a development does not meet the IDEQ criteria for a public water system (IDAPA 58.01.08) and/or where it can be demonstrated that any well serving a single home meets the IDWR criteria for a domestic use (42-111 Idaho Code), no transfer procedure or separate approval may be required for issuance of a building permit. Q. What is the legal process and timing for transfer of groundwater and irrigation water rights from agricultural use to municipal use and for the appropriation of new water rights? A. If the property proposed for annexation/development has a valid existing water right(s) sufficient to serve the proposed development, the owner would need to work with the City to make application to the IDWR to change the purpose of use of the water right(s) to municipal use in accordance with Title 42, Chapter 2, Idaho Code and the IDWR rules and regulations. If there are inadequate water rights appurtenant to the property proposed for annexation/development and no water rights reasonably available for transfer, the owner would need to work with the City to make application to the IDWR to appropriate new water rights in accordance with Title 42, Chapter 2, Idaho Code and IDWR rules and regulations. The general procedure is summarized in the Water Supply Handout available from the City. For detailed instructions and forms please contact the state or regional office of the IDWR or log on to wtivw.idwr.id.state.us. The timelines for transfers and new appropriations are established by the IDWR and will vary with the Department's workload. Q. A. Does the City of Eagle have water system and well standards? The City of Eagle has adopted the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction that govern water system standards for construction. IDEQ has standards for water system and well design. IDWR has standards for well design. Each of these agencies must grant approval for construction. The City of Eagle will Ordinance No. 479 3 FACT Sheet, January 31, 2005 review and evaluate any design package an owner's engineer submits for suitability for the City's operation of the system. Q. If an owner constructs a well with water capacity in excess of the needs of the development, is there a mechanism for reimbursement for the additional cost? A. Yes there is. There are provisions for "late comers" to buy into a system that has surplus capacity. For example, if owner A develops a well that will serve 200 residents and only develops a 150 resident unit subdivision, with a "late comers" agreement in place prior to development of the well, that property owner has well capacity that may be sold to owner B. The matter of appropriation and transfer of water rights will have to be determined in accordance with IDWR governing rules. Q. Does a water transfer have to meet certain conditions? A. Yes, please consult Idaho Code § 42-222 and the IDWR for more information. It is very important to consider the time frame for applications that might be complicated or contested in planning for the development of public water systems. Filing a carefully prepared application at the earliest date is the best guard against delay. Ordinance No. 479 4 FACT Sheet, January 31, 2005