HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 Wireless Network 5a r � aF a
Staff Report
To: Board of Directors
From: Alan Harry, Director of Telecommunications Services
Date: October 11, 2002
Subject: Pros and Cons of a Wireless Network
On October 2"d, after hearing a presentation of Wireless Telecommunications Services, the
Board directed me to prepare a brief"pro and con" report for your review, and possible
discussion at your October 160 Regular Meeting. As such, I have summarized information
below.
In order to provide the Board with information pertinent to the October 2"d presentation I
have used information received from Mr. Devin Koch for the "Pros", and information
received from Mr. James Salter as the "Cons". As an introduction, Mr. Koch is the President
and C.O.O. of CLOUDX, a new wireless telecommunication venture in the Truckee Tahoe
region, and the presenter of the wireless report on October 2Id, and Mr. James Salter, P.E.,
is President of Atlantic Engineering Group. I received Mr. Salter's information at a session
entitled "Making the Right Decision: How to choose between HFC, FTTH and Wireless",
held at the recent APPA Community Broadband Conference. During that session equal
time and weight was given to each technology.
BANDWIDTH
Pro—Wireless won't be the bottleneck in delivering bandwidth. With 802.11 a which is
now commercially available and within a month or so can be inside our antenna/routers,
we will have the ability to transport almost 54 megabits per second between homes or
the equivalent of 36 T-1 lines. We will be able to carry packetized (streaming) video
over our network as easily as any other. It's just not yet implemented over commercial
wireless networks yet.
Con —Wireless Bandwidth, Capacity, is limited by Physics. You may be able to send out
54Mbps, however the last user in line may receive speeds that are equal to the telegraph.
0 Page 1
Con — Unlike Multicast Video, Streaming video requires the use of bandwidth for each user
watching video programming. That means that if one household had 2 television sets, and
were watching both of them, that household could use up to half of the bandwidth available
to the area being served.
Con —The Wireless Spectrum is subject to politics. Congress can give and Congress can
taketh away.
Con — It is estimated that up to 40.064 Mbps will be required for Voice, Video and Data
services in the coming years. Wireless will not be capable of guaranteeing the provision of
that much Bandwidth to each user. Especially at an economical cost.
SECURITY
Pro— "Security: You can find lots of people who say that wireless networks are insecure
just like you can find lots of people who say the earth is flat. If you don't want to believe
it you can't be made to. The president of Intel is our first client. His information is VERY
valuable to him and to Intel yet it runs across lake Tahoe, twice, on our network. There
are lots of stories and every one I've ever seen are about networks that have not been
built or configured correctly.
Con —Wireless systems are easy to "hack". Recently articles have been written about the
young people who used Pringles Potato Chip cans as antennas to get on a 802.11 wireless
system.
Con — Medical Institutions will not use a wireless Broadband system due to the inability of
service providers to guarantee the security of the systems.
CLIMATE, GEOGRAPHY AND FOLIAGE
Pro - Radio signal doesn't penetrate water or metal well. Rain and falling snow,
however, do not impact these antennas over the short distances we are transmitting --
and actually not even over the long distances we are transmitting (up to 15 miles) to
deliver bandwidth to neighborhoods. Build-ups of snow and ice on the antennas can
impact them. After one year of running antennas on people's homes in Tahoe Donner
however, I believe there was not one instance of an antenna problem as a result of
snow or ice. There are some homes that would be difficult to serve and, as a matter of
fact, it may be these homes that are the first you would want to serve by cables instead
of wireless. Trees do impact signal strength and we have to plan for trees when we
install an antenna - not a problem, just a consideration.
Con —Wireless systems are sensitive to weather, hills, valleys and foliage. In many
heavily forested areas problems occur. Oak trees have not been found to be the cause,
however Pine trees, especially wet Pine trees have. Studies have been conducted to
ascertain why this is the case and have discovered that a needle from a Pine tree
0 Page 2
carries the same frequency as many of the 802.11 wireless systems in use today, thus
interfering with clear transmission.
In general, I have found that Wireless technology is quite appropriate to deliver residential
Data services, especially in areas that have an unmet need. Systems that have been
deployed over the last 24 months have been economical to build and operate, and deliver
only Data services. Service level reliability has been an issue. Cellular phone service in our
region is an excellent example.
In that the District has been evaluating the provision of Video, Data and possibly Voice
services to it's customers, a wireless technology has had cursory evaluation due to its
inability to provide all services to all customers in a secure, equal manner.
Mr. Koch has provided me with two proposals for the use of wireless technology in place of
FTTH. It is my recommendation that the District thanks Mr. Koch for his input, and advises
him of its plans to continue on the path of providing services over a FTTH infrastructure.
• Page 3
Agenda Item # 4qb
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: Alan Harry, Director of Telecommunications Services
Date: October 11, 2002
Subject: Consideration of an agreement for services related to the sale or lease of
District owned conduit
On October 2°d I submitted to the Board for consideration an Agreement with Aggregate
Network for the Brokerage of District owed "conduit.
As part of the Williams Communication project, completed approximately two years ago, the
District was to receive 16.5 miles of two 2" conduits. In May of this year the District received
a Bill of Sale from Williams, deeding over the conduit to the District.
At the meeting the Board directed me to seek input from additional parties so as to compare
experience and compensation. Staff has advertised such a request in the Sacramento Bee
and Reno Gazette-Journal and has not received a response.
In the past when the District required assistance of an outside contractor, and at that time
was utilizing the services of a contractor that held the expertise necessary to conduct the
additional work, the District added the additional work to the contractors scope of work.
In that the District has not received a response form the ads placed, and that Aggregate
Networks has the expertise needed to market and negotiate the sale of District owned
conduit, it is staffs recommendation that the Board direct its General Manager to approve
the attached Brokerage Agreement, approved by Legal Counsel, for the sale and or lease of
a portion of the District's Broadband Conduit.
• Page 1
Brokerage Agreement
This Brokerage Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated this day of September
2002 is entered into by and between the Truckee Donner Public Utility District
("TDPUD"), and Aggregate Networks, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company
("Aggregate"). TDPUD and Aggregate may hereinafter be referred to individually
as a "Party", or collectively as the "Parties".
Recitals
WHEREAS, the TDPUD is the owner of certain facilities, which include certain
conduit, ducts, manholes pull boxes and splice cases (collectively the "Facilities")
which were obtained from Williams Communications, LLC, d/b/a Vyvx, Inc. in
California, which cover lands extending approximately sixteen and one half (16.5)
miles along the route in Truckee, California described and depicted in Exhibit
attached hereto (the "Route").
WHEREAS, Aggregate is in the business of brokering, structuring and
negotiating transactions to lease, sell, swap or provide indefeasible rights of use
(IRU's) of conduit(s), duct(s), and dark and lit fiber.
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set out their rights and obligations with respect
to the disposition of some or all of the TDPUD's assets along the Route.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual
promises of the Parties and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which being hereby acknowledged, each Party consents to
Aggregate being appointed the exclusive Broker of Record for the disposition of
the Facilities under the conditions set forth herein:
TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be for six (6) months from the date of
execution. If negotiations, evidenced by written documentation, involving
the Facilities have commenced during the Initial Term and are continuing
at the time that the Initial Term would otherwise expire, then the Term
shall be automatically extended until the earlier of: 1) the termination of
such negotiations or the consummation of the transaction, or 2) ninety (90)
days from the date of the original expiration of the Initial Term, as
indicated above.
Either Party shall have the option to terminate this Agreement after ninety
(90) days from commencement of this Agreement, upon fifteen (15) days
written notice to the other.
The term "transaction" as used herein shall include any arrangement
acceptable to the TDPUD which grants to a third party the right to
purchase, lease, IRU, use, occupy, possess, swap, or barter for some or
all of the Facilities.
SERVICES
Aggregate shall perform the following services on behalf of the TDPUD:
1) Assessment of the Network Assets to be disposed of
2) Definition of which Network Assets are to be disposed of
3) Marketing of the Network Assets to the appropriate parties
4) Conduct negotiations with interested parties
5) Structuring the transaction(s)
6) Facilitating and finalizing the transaction(s)
7) Any other services reasonably necessary to close the
transaction(s)
COMPENSATION TO AGENT
TDPUD agrees to pay Aggregate a fee in accordance with the Fee
Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, under the following circumstances:
a) The Network Assets or any part thereof is leased, sold, IRU'd, swapped,
used, occupied or bartered for prior to the expiration of the Initial Term as
a result of Aggregate's efforts; or
b) Within ninety (90) days after the expiration of the Term, or if a Transaction
is consummated beyond the ninety (90) day period with a party Aggregate
had already negotiated with during the Initial Term, either: 1) the Network
Assets or any part thereof is transferred to any person or entity with whom
Aggregate has negotiated regarding the Network Assets, or: 2) TDPUD
enters into any negotiations which lead to the execution of a Transaction
within ninety (90) days after the expiration of the Initial Term to any person
or entity previously negotiating with Aggregate.
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
a. Cooperation With Agent. TDPUD agrees to provide Aggregate
with any and all information reasonably necessary to consummate the
proposed transaction. In addition, TDPUD agrees to refer to Aggregate all
inquiries of any party interested in obtaining some or all of the Network
Assets.
b. Independent Contractor. Aggregate is and shall remain at all
times an independent contractor. It shall be the sole responsibility of
Aggregate to pay any and all expenses, taxes, fees and wages of its
employees or agents who participate in any way in the disposition of the
Network Assets, unless specifically agreed to in writing by the TDPUD.
2
C. Assignment. Aggregate shall not have the right to assign its rights
or delegate its duties under this Agreement unless consented to by
TDPUD. Aggregate shall have the right, upon reasonable notice, to
assign, convey or otherwise transfer its rights, title, interest and obligations
under this Agreement to any entity controlled by, controlling or under
common control of Aggregate, or any entity which Aggregate may be
merged or consolidated or which purchases all or substantially all of the
assets of Aggregate.
d. Notices. Any notice of communication to be given relating to this
Agreement shall be given by personal delivery in writing, nationally
recognized overnight carrier, or by United States Mail, registered or
certified, postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed and
overnight carrier notices shall be addressed to each party at the
addresses set forth below:
If to TDPUD:
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
11570 Donner Pass Road
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 96160
Attention: Alan Harry
If to Aggregate:
Aggregate Networks, LLC
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 103
Lisle, IL 60532
Attention: Laurance Lewis
e. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
f. Successors. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be
binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
g. Governing Law & Venue.This Agreement shall be governed and
construed in accordance with California law. Any action or arbitration
arising out of this Agreement shall occur in, or any claim brought in,
Nevada Count, CA.
h. Entire Agreement. Each of the Exhibits to this Agreement is incorporated
into this Agreement in its entirety by this reference as if set forth in full.
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and
supercedes any prior oral agreements. No amendment, modification, or
extension of this agreement shall be binding unless made in writing and
signed by both Parties.
3
The undersigned Parties hereby agree to all of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and of said Fee Schedule. Executed as of the date first written
above.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
By:
Its:
Date:
Aggregate Networks, LLC
By:
Its:
Date:
4
EXHIBIT A
Commission Schedule
Upon successful completion of a transaction or transactions, Aggregate shall
have earned and be entitled to receive a commission equivalent to four percent
(4%) of the total value received* by the Sublessor**. The fee is to be paid as
follows:
i. If the Transaction is a purchase or a lump sum IRU, then the entire
four percent (4%) fee shall be paid to Aggregate out of the closing
proceeds.
ii. If the Transaction involves a lease or an IRU with scheduled
payments, then Aggregate shall be paid four percent (4%) of the
total lease or IRU obligation upon execution of the contract. The
Sublesee shall be responsible for depositing an amount equivalent
to the 4% fee in escrow prior to execution of the contract.
In the event the Transaction is a lease or IRU with renewal options,
then Aggregate shall be paid a commission equivalent to 4% of the
total value of the exercised option, payment shall be made to
Aggregate at the time written notice from the Sublessee is given to
Sublessor of its intent to renew.
iii. In the event the Transaction is a swap or barter where no actual
monies are required to change hands, then the Sublessee shall be
required to deposit an amount equivalent to the 4% commission
payable to Aggregate upon execution of the contract. The
Sublessor may then credit the Sublessee back for this amount in
Network Assets or services, at the Sublessor's sole discretion.
Sublessor shall also have the option of paying the 4% commission
directly to Aggregate upon execution of the agreement.
* Total Value Received is defined as the total amount of the benefit derived by the TDPUD
from the Transaction. In the event of a barter or swap, the value received by the TDPUD would
be equivalent to what those products or services received would cost on the open market. That
value will be determined by obtaining quotes from reasonably similar companies offering
reasonably similar products or services in the Truckee region. If available, a minimum of two
quotes for similar products or services will be obtained, and the assigned value will be the
average of the two quotes. If no agreement can be reached by the Parties as to the Total Value
Received within 30 days from execution of the Transaction Agreement, then each party hereto
agrees to submit to binding arbitration, by a neutral third party regarding the Total Value
Received.
** Under the Co-Occupancy Agreement between TDPUD, Williams, 360 Networks, and
Sierra Touch America, any transfer of the Network Assets is deemed to be a Sublease.
SAJERS ENGINEERING ES0 2SS 6S34 10/10J02 04:04pm F. 001
A leyl do -* 4e.
San.ers Fn.gineering, Inc.
Civil & Environmental Engineers
Memorandum
October 10, 2002
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Keith Knibb, Consulting Engineer
SUBJECT: FIBER OPTIC INSTALLATION PROJECT- CEQA REVIEW
As of October 10, 2002, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review period is
closed for the Fiber Optic Installation Project negative declaration. Two comment letters were
received during the comment period. The Board of Directors is held a Public Hearing on
September 18, 2002. No comments were received during the public hearing. Along with this
memo are the final documents for the CEQA environmental review.
The final CEQA documents included with this memo are:
► Comments and Responses
► Final Negative Declaration
► Notice of Determination
► Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend the Board of Directors take the following actions:
P. Adopt the Final Negative Declaration.
► Approve the project for purposes of CEQA.
► Authorize the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Office of the Nevada County
Clerk, the Office of the Placer County Clerk, and the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research.
► Adopt the De Minimis Impact Finding and authorize the filing of the Certificate of Fee
Exemption with the Nevada County Cleric.
► Adopt a finding that the draft documents as circulated and the negative declaration reflect
the District's independent judgement.
SAUERS ENGINEERING SS0 266 6S34 10/10/02 04:04pm P. 002
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Fiber Optic Installation Project
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The following are responses to comments received during the circulation and review of the
proposed negative declaration and initial study for the Fiber Optic Installation Project." Copies
of each of the comment letters are attached.
Letter from Placer Local Agency Formation Commission dated September 17, 2002:
Comment: Although this action may affect Placer County,the activation of latent power
comes under the jurisdiction of Nevada LAFCO.
Response: Comment acknowledged. No response necessary.
Letter from Department of Toxic Substances Control received October 7, 2002:
Comment: After reviewing our hazardous substance database (Calsites), we have identified
five sites in the immediate area(list enclosed). DTSC recommends that if any of the installation
work requires digging around these locations that proper precautions to protect the public and
workers be taken.
Response: The areas identified on the Calsites list are currently served by overhead wire
utilities. These areas are proposed to be served broadband by overhead fiber optic cable.
Therefore, no digging is expected in these areas.
SAVERS ENGINEERING S50 28S 6854 10f10/02 04:04pm P. 008
PLACER
LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION
175 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn, California 95603
530,889.4097 FAX: 530,886.4671
DATE: September 17, 2002
TO: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
FROM: Deborah Cubberley, LAFCO Executive Officer
SUBJECT: TDPUD Activation of Fiber Optic Powers
Thank you for the opportunity to review this action. Although this action may
affect Placer County, the activation of this latent power comes under the
jurisdiction of Nevada LAFCO.
SAUERS ENGINEERING 580 2S5 6684 10/10/02 04:04pm P. 004
Oct-09-2002 12.53pn From-TRUCKEE DONNER PUD +530567i199 T-576 P OD2/004 F-669
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
88D0 Cal Center Drive
Winston H. Hickox Sacramento, California 95826-3200 Gray Davis
Agency Secretary Governor
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
General Manager
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, California 96160-0309
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FIBER OPTIC
INSTALLATION PROJECT, TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA (SCH #1999092032)
Dear Mr, Holzmeister: ,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the document
referenced above and has the following comment_ After reviewing our hazardous
substances site database (Calsites),we have identified five sites in the immediate area
(list enclosed). DTSC recommends that if any of the installation work requires digging
around these locations that proper precautions to protect the public and workers be
taken. DTSC has not done an evaluation to determine whether any of these sites could
impact the subject project, DTSC had-referred these sites to the Lahontan Regional
Water quality Control Board (LRWQCB) prior to the mid-1990s. LRWQCB has also
been sent a copy of this document.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Tim Miles at (916) 255-3710 or by email
at tmiles disc ca gov,
Sincerely,
Megan Cadge, Chief
Expedited Remedial Action Program Unit
Enciosure
cc: See next page.
The energy chadanQe fidng C201fria Is real, Every cwiternien needs to take irnmediate acebn to redeae energy cvnsumpgon.
Fora list of aimpAs ways you can mduto domaind and out your energy casts.see our Weo-sltn ar wwwdlac.ca.vov.
a Printed an Recycled Paper
SALTERS ENGINEERING S90 2SS GBa4 10/10/02 04a04pm P. 006
Oct-08-20OZ 12=53pm From-TRUCKEE DONNER PUD +53058T1180 T-576 P 003/004 F-86a
1 .Y1]/MJfj
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
Page 2
cc: Planning & Environmental Analysis Section (PEAS)
CEQA Tracking Center
1001 "I" Street, 22nd Floor
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
Ms, Gregoria Garcia
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Research
1400 10th Street, Room 121
Sacramento, California 95814.0613
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
Attention: CEQA Review
2501 Lake Tahoe Boulevard
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150
Mr. Tim Miles
Hazardous Substances Scientist
Expedited Remedial Action Program Unit
Northern California-Central Cleanup Operations Branch
Department of Toxic Substances Control
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826-3200
P
0
y
10/Ol/02 CALIFDRNLA ERVIROMMIAL.FROTBCWM AGERCY PAGE 1
DEPARTMENT OF TOEICS M521SCES CORTROL
CALSITES
SHORT SUMMARY REPORT
6IY "
R m sm RARE SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY CODE )IDND11 STATUS a w
D
1 29 SEANEVA 10655 SwmvA ROAR TRMIXXE 95134 2916000/ BZMH m
1 29 MRTRSON AM URRCRIR❑ YARD 11036 NEST RIVER &MET `TUCKER 95734 292/0507 EE£RN � N
1 29 TRUCKER SOUTHERN PACIFIC ROUNDHOUSE EAST OF CORNER OF SCEDDL AND CEURCR STE TRUCKEE 95734 29400DOI REMN y 1 29 EIRSCSDALE AUTO NREC M OLD HIGM&Y 44 NEAR UIRSCRDALR TRUCKER 95134 2950DOO2 R.SvRH m m
1 29 TAYLOR'S TIES FACILITY 11464 DDUMRR PASS ROAD TAUCKRR 95134 297SUD66 REPHA
m Z
m m
m
TOTAL RUMRER OF RECORDS FOR TRLS REPORT - 5
Z
a G)
c
UI
w
D
01
w
N
m
w
w
a
m
µ
V
to 0
b �
b
o l]
❑ � m 0
O7
SAUERS ENGINEERING 630 26S 8834 10/10102 04:04pm P. 007
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
To:_ Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044 From: Truckee Donner PUD
1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 P.O. Box 309
Sacramento, CA 95814 Truckee,CA 96160-0309
X County Clerk
County of Nevada
201 Church Street
Nevada City,CA 95959
Subject:
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Fiber 012tic Installation Project
Project Title
1999092032 Peter L. Holzmeister (530)587-3896
State Clearinghouse Number Responsible Agency Area Code/Telephone
Contact Person
Truckee Nevada County and Placer County ---
Project Location(include county)
Project Description:
Construction and operation a network of fiber optic cables along with electronic equipment to provide
broadband telecommunications services for the District's existing water and electric facilities and for
residential, commercial, and public agency customers.
This is to advise that the Truckee Donner Public Utility District has approved the described project on Oct 16,2002 and
N Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency Date
has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:
1. The project[❑will Nwill not]have a significant effect on the environment.
2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures [❑were 0 were not]made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations[❑ was ® was not]adopted for this project.
5. Findings [N were ❑were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General
Public at:
Truckee Donner Public Utility Dist. P.O. Box 309 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee CA 96160-0309
Peter L. Holzmeister,General Manager Date
DFG Fee $ 0.00
Date received for filing at OPR:
SAUERS ENGINEERING 680 26S 6854 10/10/02 04;04pm P. 005
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
( ) Proposed
( X) Final
NAME OF PROJECT: Fiber Optic Installation Project
LOCATION: Truckee, California
Entity or Person Undertaking Project:
(XX) Truckee Donner Public Utility District
It 570 Donner Pass Road
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, CA 95959
Other( ) Name:
Address:
Phone:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Construction and operation a network of fiber optic cables along with electronic equipment to provide
broadband telecommunications services for the District's existing water and electric facilities and for
residential, commercial, and public agency customers.
Finding: It is hereby found that the above named project will not have a significant effect upon the
environment.
Initial An initial study of this project was undertaken and prepared in accordance with Article V
Study: of the District's local environmental guidelines and Section 15063 of the EIR Guidelines
for the California Environmental Quality Act for the purpose of ascertaining whether this
project might have a significant effect upon the environment. A copy of such initial study
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Such initial study documents
reasons to support the above finding.
Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been included in the project to avoid potentially
Measures: significant effects:
None.
Date: By:
Peter L. Holzmeister, General Manager
SAUERS ENGINEERING 530 255 SBS4 10/10/02 04:04pm P. 009
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location, Name and Address of Project Proponent (including county):
Fiber Optic Installation.Project, Truckee, Nevada County and Placer County.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, Nevada County, CA 96160-0309
Project Description:
Construction and operation a network of fiber optic cables along with electronic
equipment to provide broadband telecommunications services for the District's existing
water and electric facilities and for residential, commercial, and public agency customers.
Findings of Exemption:
An initial study has been conducted by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District so as
to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impact.
When considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before the Truckee Donner
Public Utility District that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse effect
on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
The Truckee Donner Public Utility District has, on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14,
Code of California Regulations.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the Truckee Donner Public Utility District has made the above
findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will
not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined
in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Peter L. Holzmeister
Title: General Manager
Lead Agency: Truckee Donner PUD
Date:
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Fiber Optic Installation Project
REVISED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
(Reprised 10-15-02)
The following are responses to comments received during the circulation and review of the
proposed negative declaration and initial study for the Fiber Optic Installation Project." Copies
of each of the comment letters are attached.
Letter from Placer Local Agency Formation Commission dated September 17, 2002:
Comment: Although this action may affect Placer County, the activation of latent power
comes under the jurisdiction of Nevada LAFCO.
Response: Comment acknowledged. No response necessary.
Letter from Department of Toxic Substances Control received October 7, 2002:_
Comment: After reviewing our hazardous substance database(Calsites), we have identified
five sites in the immediate area (list enclosed). DTSC recommends that if any of the installation
work requires digging around these locations that proper precautions to protect the public and
workers be taken.
Response: The areas identified on the Calsites list are currently served by overhead wire
utilities. These areas are proposed to be served broadband by overhead fiber optic cable.
Therefore, no digging is expected in these areas. Potential impacts associated with work in areas
identified in the hazardous substance database is considered less than significant.
Letter from Colin Gilboy,PE dated October 7, 2002:
Comment: This letter contains a lengthy discussion of the District's business plan, types of
services to be made available, marketing issues, and broadband technologies. Comments
relevant to the CEQA environmental review are summarized on page three of the letter under
Summary Item 1.
The PUD Broadband Proposal will have substantial economic impact on existing local
businesses, and uses public money and public borrowing capacity to enter a market sufficiently
served by private companies.
Response: Most of the items discussed in the letter are considered outside of the scope of the
CEQA environmental review. Issues associated with the District's marketing plan, assumptions
1
8
made in the business plan, cost of services, estimates of market share, and public agency
involvement in broadband services are all considered outside the scope of this review.
Economic impacts are a consideration under CEQA, however, CEQA focuses on physical
changes to the environment associated with the economic effects of a project. Economic effects
of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment, according to the CEQA
Guidelines. Economic effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical
changes caused by the project. The comment letter offers no substantial evidence that the
economic effects of the project will result in any significant changes in the environment.
Physical changes in the environment associated with the economic effects of the project are
considered less than significant.
2
r
Colin 1l
PE
10581 Heather Road Truckee CA 96161
FAX: 530.579.3202 Colin@4specs.com
call me at: 530.582.8008
Or;T Uu��
October 7, 2002 _
TO: Truckee Donner Public Utility District
cc: Sierra Sun Editor
Sauers Engineering, Inc.
Town of Truckee
RE: Initial Environmental Study for Broadband
Gentlemen,
I missed the September 18' meeting as I had other plans that evening and could not
attend.
I disagree with the findings in this EIR that there will be minimal impact of the
Broadband Project. I propose that Item XIIb must be changed from "Less than
Significant" to "Potentially Significant Impact."
The EIR states that:
Construction of the fiber optic cable system and provision of the broadband
telecommunication services will not affect the listed utilities.
I have no financial relationship with Pacific Bell or USA Media other than as a paying
subscriber. I propose the following:
1. It is inappropriate for a public agency, using public agency money, to enter into
competition with existing suppliers of the same service provided by privately held
companies. Not only will the PUD be competing with existing suppliers, but also
competing with local dealers selling and installing satellite cable and Internet
equipment. The Broadband Proposal may even be against your charter requiring that
profits be returned to the ratepayers. The PUD profits should not be spent in
litigation and or invested in new business ventures where there are already reliable
and competent suppliers of these communication needs.
11 know of no complaints about the cable TV services provided by USA Media. I
know of no complaints about the high-speed Internet access provided by PacificBell
through their DSL and faster lines. Most of the few complaints about the USA Media
cable modem service will be resolved by their upgrade to 2-way cable Internet from
the telco-return system in use now.
3. Using the May 2001 PUD business plan, by the middle of the third year, the first
year of profitability, the PUD projects having 3,822 cable TV subscribers. In my
opinion, the PUD projection calls for an unrealistically high number of cable-tv
subscribers to use the PUD service. Further, to reach this number of subscribers, the
PUD will significantly reduce the revenues of the existing suppliers, and may cause
layoffs through staffing reductions.
4. As there is virtually no TV in Truckee from an antenna, of the estimated 10,000
potential homes, Truckee has a high cable TV penetration estimated to be about 80%
for cable TV plus another 15% for satellite TV subscribers. There is only an estimated
5% non-subscribers, primarily for second homes used on an infrequent basis. I
project the current TV access market share to be:
USA Media - 8,000 subscribers
Satellite TV - 1,500
No TV - 500
Total Homes - 10,000
The PUD cannot achieve the required market penetration projected (and required for
profitability) from new home construction alone. The PUD will need to convert
existing customers and new residents to their cable-tv service. The end result, if the
PUD meets the projections in their business plan in the third year, this is the
probable market shares:
PUD - 3,822 subscribers
USA Media - 5,000
Satellite TV - 1,188
No TV - 500
Total Homes - 10,500
For USA Media to lose 3,800+ customers can only be considered as a major
economic impact on the current cable TV provider and not the "will not affect listed
utilities" appraisal in the EIR.
5. A similar case can be made for the broadband Internet access. To have 25% of the
homes in Truckee as $40 per month broadband subscribers is unrealistically high,
and is above many optimistic projections for total broadband usage by residences in 3
years. This does not consider that the 25% will be divided among 4 providers - PUD,
USA Media, PacBell and satellite.
I expect that the majority of the local businesses and home-based offices already have
either high-speed connectivity from Pacific Bell through ISDN (or faster connections)
or the USA Media cable Internet system or a direct connection through an Internet
supplier such as UUNet.
The next group of high-speed Internet users will have to come from residences where
cost plays an important role in decisions. While some cable systems are providing a
restricted-access Internet program for around $20 per month to be competitive with
dial-up services, this type of offering has significantly reduced income potential from
these users combined with high-support costs.
v .
USA Media currently has about 400 high-speed Internet access subscribers after 2
years. I would expect this increase to 1,000 or so once USA Media upgrades their
telco-return system to full-time two-way access over the next 12 months. This is
about the time that the PUD's system will go online, and the PUD will have to
convert users to their system.
6. Much of the projected PUD SCADA savings can achieved by leasing fiberoptic
lines from USA Media or Pacific Bell, or the PUD can string a limited amount of fiber
optic for their own use if that is more economical.
7. The PUD proforma business plan projects$137,000 in advertising revenues from
broadband for the third year. I must question where this advertising is going to come
from. Most Internet businesses are having difficulty in selling Internet advertising,
and where is the PUD going to display these ads. I sell advertising on the Internet
and am very familiar with the problems and rates.
Summary:
1. The PUD Broadband Proposal will have a substantial economic impact on existing
local businesses, and uses public money and public borrowing capacity to enter a
market sufficiently served by private companies.
2. The PUD's business plan has unrealistically high projections for number of
subscribers for both cable TV and high-speed Internet access.
3. I propose that the PUD be required to make a detailed market study of the
conversion of Truckee's existing customers to their service. The expenditure of
$100,000 (or even $250,000) for a detailed survey would not be inappropriate for a
$14 million project. A survey costing $10-25 per household will prove or disprove the
viability of the PUD's business plan and the impact on existing businesses. This
study must include identifying, and getting commitments, from local business for the
$550 per month ethernet subscriptions.
4. Before starting the survey, I propose that the survey questions and methods be
reviewed by the existing competitors (Pacific Bell, USA Media and a satellite TV
provider) to reduce any pro-PUD bias of the questions and methods which could
distort the survey results.
Sincerely,
Colin Gilboy, PE 7