Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.11.28 Council Workshop Packet s AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. November 28,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Hanford Communities Overview of Activities for 2005 and Overview of Hanford Cleanup. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA.) Presentation by Pam Larsen,Hanford Communities Executive Director. (b) 2006 Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services: 1. Agenda Report from Denis Austin, Chief of Police dated November 15, 2005. 2. Proposed Agreement. (c) Purchase of 5.95 Acre Property on E. Lewis Street: 1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community & Economic Development Director dated November 22, 2005. 2. Site Map. 3. Assignment Agreement. 4. Purchase and Sales Agreement (Council packets only; copy available for public review in Planning Office). 5. Resolution Approving Assignment Agreement. (d) Accepting Credit Cards for Payment of City Services and Fees: 1. Agenda Report from Jim Chase,Finance Manager dated November 21, 2005. (e) Appointment of Municipal Court Judge: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated November 17, 2005. 2. ESSB 5454. 3. Proposed Resolution. (f) Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County and Cities Regarding Homeless Housing: 1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community & Economic Development Director dated November 22, 2005. 2. November 18, 2005 letter from County Commission and Draft Interlocal Agreement. 3. Resolution. 4. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) S. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) Collective Bargaining Proposals (b) (c) 6. ADJOURNMENT. Reminders: 1. 4:00 p.m., Monday, November 28, Port of Benton — Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS) 2. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, December 1, Parks & Rec. Classroom — Parks & Recreation Advisory Council Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council I Date: 11/15/05 TO: Gary Crutchfi I. anager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/05 FROM: Denis Austin, Police Chie Regular Mtg.: 12/05/05 SUBJECT: 2006 Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services I. REFERENCE(S): A) Proposed Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 12/05 MOTION: I move to approve the 2006 Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County for Emergency Dispatch Services and, further, to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Ill. FISCAL IMPACT: A) $464,635 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City's 2006 Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Service is similar to the 2005 contract. The attached tentative agreement represents a consensus of the parties who have worked to develop it. B) The total 2006 Dispatch budget is $736,862. There is no increase from the 2005 budget. The City of Pasco's portion of the 2006 budget has not been increased. The Police Department costs will be $388,908. The Fire Department costs will be $75,727. V. DISCUSSION: A) Part of our responsibilities, as a member of the Dispatch Oversight Committee, is for the Chief of Police and staff to meet with the Franklin County Sheriff to develop the 2006 Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services. The new agreement: • Continues the equitable distribution of costs to Dispatch Users via use of a base fee/user fee method of cost assessment and; • Continues to provide the Sheriff with input on the management and administration of the Dispatch Center; • Continues to provide a mechanism for resolution and review of Dispatch service complaints; • Provides for resolution of Dispatch Center issues, if necessary, by binding arbitration; • Provides for more complete and timely fiscal reporting concerning the dispatch operation; • Provides the Dispatch Oversight Committee with the authority to accept or reject new dispatch users. We believe that the 2006 Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services continues to improve the quality of service provided to citizens and allows the City adequate input to the Dispatch Operation. 3(b) 2006 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICE THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this day of 2005 by and between Franklin County, State of Washington, and the Sheriff of Franklin County, Washington acting jointly, hereinafter referred to as "County" and the undersigned municipal corporations hereinafter referred to as "Dispatch Users" or individually as the "Dispatch User," WITNESSETH; THE PURPOSE of this agreement is to establish a modem, fully equipped, adequately trained and staffed, Emergency Dispatch Center to assist Dispatch Users in providing emergency response for the benefit of its citizens residing in the Dispatch User jurisdictions who are served by the Dispatch Center. This Interlocal Cooperation Agreement will replace and supersede all prior Interlocal Dispatch Service Agreements between the Dispatch Users and Franklin County, except for the "Supplemental Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services," dated the 181h day of December 2000, a copy of which is attached and hereby incorporated by reference as a supplement to this 2006 Agreement. WHEREAS, County has developed and is presently maintaining and operating an Emergency Dispatch Center capable of receiving emergency telephone messages from the public in need of emergency police, fire or ambulance service, and of dispatching Dispatch User personnel to such calls, as well as providing on line BI-PIN computer information, and information from State of Washington ACCESS Systems to such users, and WHEREAS, each Dispatch User has a responsibility to provide a means for the receipt of, as well as the dispatch of, appropriate emergency equipment and personnel in answer to said emergency calls from persons living within the geographic boundaries of the "Dispatch User", and WHEREAS, it is agreed by the parties that a modem, fully equipped, adequately staffed, Emergency Dispatch Center would promote efficiency and provide for greater cooperation and coordination in the delivery of emergency services to the public at a reasonable cost, Now, Therefore, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 39.34 RCW, it is hereby agreed by the parties as follows: 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 1 of 9 I OPERATIONS A. Emergency Dispatch Center. County will provide, maintain and operate an emergency dispatch center to include the furnishing, maintenance, repair and replacement of all facilities, phones, radios, teletypes, hearing impaired phones, fax machines, language line, M%IDT System, Access to CAD system via mobile data terminal interface, computer aided dispatch, and other required electronic equipment as well as qualified personnel necessary to courteously, efficiently and effectively receive and dispatch emergency calls for service 24 hours per day, seven days per week,365 days per year. Dispatcher Requirements and Qualifications. All dispatchers shall be required to attend and successfully complete dispatch-training courses to certify them to "Dispatcher II" standards as developed by the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission. County shall have at least one bilingual Dispatch Center staff member assigned to each shift in order to more effectively communicate with the Spanish-speaking residents who are served by the Dispatch Center. B. Professional Service. County agrees to provide professional quality dispatch service that is free from rude or unprofessional conduct toward the public or employees of the Dispatch Users and operates in strict compliance with established radio procedures. In the event of complaints which are appropriately documented and provided to them, County agrees to provide to Dispatch Users unedited taped cassette copies of all questioned service interchanges as well as a written report of the action taken in response to each complaint. Such service reviews shall be completed and responded to within 15 days of receipt from a Dispatch User agency. As part of an ongoing quality service review a brief summary of all complaints and their dispositions shall be made available to the Dispatch Oversight Committee at their quarterly meetings. C. Dispatch User Operations. Dispatch Users agree to have adequate staffing immediately available to receive information about, and to respond to, such emergencies. Dispatch Users shall in no way have direct supervision or control over the personnel or equipment owned and operated by the Dispatch Center. The sole responsibility and function of Dispatch User shall be to receive and respond to such calls in a timely manner. Dispatch Users shall defend, indemnify and hold the County harmless from Dispatch User caused delay in handling said emergency calls, or for negligent, misfeasant or malfeasant acts of Dispatch User personnel in answering said calls or performing any of their official functions associated therewith. Dispatch Users shall avoid rude or unprofessional conduct toward employees of the Dispatch Center and operate in strict compliance with established radio procedures. D. Additional Services. In addition to the receipt and dispatch of said emergency calls, County shall provide to Dispatch Users access to information available through W.A.S.I.S., D.O.L., BI-PIN Computer Systems, Mobile Data Terminals and the Computer Aided Dispatch System. The provisions of the supplemental agreement between the City of Pasco and Franklin County for dispatch services, dated 18`h day of December 2000, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this agreement by this reference (See Appendix "C"). 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 2 of 9 E. Systems Support. County agrees to provide back up dispatch systems necessary to assure that such center remains operational in all circumstances. In the event such operating systems or backup systems become inoperative through damage by fire, casualty or act of God, County shall use temporary systems to assure continuing dispatch service. County shall use all reasonable means to return said dispatch center to full operational capacity within 24 hours. II MAINTENANCE A. Equipment Costs and Maintenance. Each Dispatch User agrees to provide, at its own expense, all radio and electronic equipment required to receive and respond to County Dispatch Center communications. Such radio and electronic equipment shall be of good quality and capable of receiving and broadcasting upon such frequencies as shall be licensed for use by the F.C.C. Such equipment shall be maintained and operated by Dispatch User personnel in a manner that will minimize interference with other Dispatch Users of the County Dispatch Center. In the event such operating systems or backup systems become inoperative, Dispatch User shall employ all reasonable means to return said system to full operation within 24 hours. III ADMINISTRATION A. Dispatch Oversight Committee. A Dispatch Oversight Committee shall be organized to manage and administer the operations of the Emergency Dispatch Center. The Dispatch Oversight Committee shall be comprised of: 1. Two members representing and selected by Pasco Police Department, 2. One member representing County Law Enforcement, 3. One member representing the Pasco Fire Department, 4. One member representing the Connell Police Department. Each member of the Oversight Committee shall have one vote and all representatives shall be appointed by their Dispatch User or Users no later than the I" day of January of each year for the term of this agreement and can only be removed by the appointing authority. B. Administrative Responsibilities. It shall be the responsibility of the Oversight Committee to oversee the operations and management of the Emergency Dispatch Service. Additionally, the Oversight Committee shall provide the County Commissioners with appropriate observations and recommendations pertaining to the operation and administration of the Dispatch Service. County shall be responsible to implement the policies, contracts and the annual budgets approved by the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions. C. Administrative Procedure. The Oversight Committee shall meet quarterly with and provide guidance to the Dispatch Manager, who is selected by the County Sheriff, concerning matters to include, but not limited to, the following issues: 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 3 of 9 1. Budget, to include capital outlay expenditures; 2. Staffing levels, training and selection criteria for dispatchers; 3. Dispatch equipment(primary and backup); 4. Operating policies of the Dispatch Center; 5. The addition of new Dispatch Users; 6. The assignment and allocation of radio frequencies. The Dispatch Oversight Committee shall also forward all appropriate recommendations for the operation and management of the Dispatch Service to the County Commissioners for approval. This process will require a simple majority vote. All non-voting Dispatch Users may attend oversight meetings and provide input concerning operation of the Dispatch Center. When making recommendations, the Dispatch Oversight Committee will have voting power concerning all matters related to Dispatch Center operation, to include those issues mentioned above. D. Dispute Resolution. In the event that disputes arise over any issue concerning the Dispatch Center, all parties agree to utilize the services of a mutually agreed upon third party arbitrator to help the parties resolve such issues. Any one Dispatch User or Users may request resolution by arbitration. In the event that an Arbitrator cannot be agreed on within fifteen (15) days all parties agree to utilize an Arbitrator chosen by the American Arbitration Association or the FMCS. The aggrieved parties shall share payment for the services of such arbitrator equally. Such costs shall not be paid for from the Dispatch Service budget. The findings of the Arbitrator will be binding on all parties. E. Supervision and Control. County shall in no way have supervision or control over the responding personnel, vehicle or equipment owned and operated by any Dispatch User, nor shall County in any manner be responsible for or determine the number or adequacy of emergency vehicles or personnel provided by any Dispatch User. The sole responsibility and function of the County shall be to receive emergency calls from the public, to timely dispatch equipment and personnel in accordance with the Dispatch User provided priority call system and to provide requested information to Dispatch User personnel, all in an expeditious manner. F. Hold Harmless. County shall defend, indemnify and hold Dispatch Users harmless for any claims or damages caused by the Dispatch Center caused delay in answering said calls, and for the negligent, misfeasant or malfeasant acts of any Dispatch Center personnel in answering or delivering said dispatch or performing any of their official functions whatsoever. IV FINANCE A. The budget for Dispatch Center operation for year 2006 shall not exceed $736,862. B. Dispatch Service Funding. Funding for dispatch services shall be apportioned to Direct Dispatch Users and Contract Users based on the formula described below: 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 4 of 9 1. Base Fees/Contract Fees. Each Direct Dispatch User shall pay a base fee and each Contract Dispatch User shall pay a contract fee which is collectively intended to pay for the minimum staffing and equipment necessary to effectively operate the Dispatch Center 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year(See Appendix "A"). 2. Direct Dispatch. A "Direct Dispatch User" agency is defined as a Dispatch User who relies on the Dispatch Center to answer emergency calls for them, who has the ability to use all other dispatch services including radio communications and has access to all dispatch provided information systems. 3. Contract Dispatch User. A "Contract Dispatch User" agency is defined as an agency that utilizes some, but not all, of the services that are provided to Direct Dispatch Users. The contract fee for such agencies is set by the Dispatch Oversight Committee and is based on a minimum contract fee plus the actual cost attributed to the level of use of dispatch services. 4. Usage Fee. Beginning January 1, 2000, each Direct Dispatch User shall pay a usage fee equal to the percentage of calls documented for their agency by the incident numbering system in use for their agency for the prior calendar year. All calls to the Dispatch Center requesting Law Enforcement, Fire and Ambulance services from the Dispatch User, as identified on Appendix `B" attached herein and incorporated by reference, are to be counted using said system. Only fire calls that result in an actual emergency response will be counted. This usage fee shall be applied to that portion of the Dispatch Center budget that remains unpaid after application of the base and contract fees that have been agreed upon by each agency. For purposes of continuity the 2006 usage percentage for the Direct Dispatch Users may not exceed the 2002 usage percentage. An audit will be performed to compare methods for future assessments. 5. Paylnen . Each Direct Dispatch User shall pay one-quarter (1/4) of the base and usage fees quarterly on or before February 28th, May 31St, August 31" and November 30th of the current contract year. 6. Estimated Fees and Annual Report. Estimated Direct Dispatch User and Contract Dispatch User fees for the upcoming year shall be established and communicated to each Dispatch User by September 1St of each contract year. Copies of the final Dispatch Center budget for the coming year will be provided to each Direct Dispatch User by December 15th. An annual report of all revenues and expenditures for the preceding calendar year shall be provided to each Direct Dispatch User by March 15th. 7. Budget Increases. The County agrees to allow City input on salary and benefits negotiations for dispatch personnel prior to reaching final approval. 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 5 of 9 C. Coital Outlay and Maintenance Fund. The County agrees to budget no less than $5,000 as capital outlay each year for replacement and improvement of the central dispatch system for each year this agreement is in effect. Any money that is not spent during said year shall be deposited into the "Radio Maintenance Fund" which is a fund for capital expenditures related to dispatch center operation. Capital outlay costs shall be considered a part of the total cost of operation and maintenance of the dispatch system. All capital outlay expenditures shall require recommendation or approval by the Dispatch Oversight Committee prior to expenditure. The County shalt administer all funds created by this agreement. D. Equipment Use and Ownership. It is understood by all parties to the InterlocaI Agreement that some Direct Dispatch Users may have some of their own communication equipment housed at the Franklin County Public Safety Building or at a joint use facility used by the Dispatch Center. It is understood that acquired or loaned equipment used under a joint use agreement with the Dispatch Center shall be covered for loss and maintained in working order by the Dispatch Center. If such user chooses to remove such equipment or terminate this agreement, County shall be given a 180-day advance written notice of such intent. Under such circumstance it shall be the responsibility of the Dispatch Center to replace such equipment as necessary to assure continuing operation of the Dispatch Center. All capital assets acquired after the effective date of this agreement shall be owned proportionately by all Direct Dispatch Users based on the percentage of the Dispatch Center budget each paid in total user costs. V DURATION A. Duration of A eement. This agreement shall be effective when signed by the participating jurisdictions. It shall be reviewed annually but will remain in effect until all Dispatch Users who are a party to this agreement have signed a new agreement. B. Termination or Withdrawal. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until canceled by the parties hereto. A Dispatch User may terminate its part of the agreement by written notice to the County 90 days before the end of the calendar year, at which time it shall announce the intended removal of its communications equipment at the end of the year. The County shall terminate services to any user if payment of Dispatch User Fees is not received within 90 days after the due dates outlined in this agreement. VI NEW DISPATCH USERS A. Additional Dispatch Users. The addition of Dispatch Users shall be subject to a majority vote of acceptance by the Dispatch Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee shall recommend the fee to be assessed to the New Dispatch User. Within 60 days following acceptance of an additional Dispatch User, County shall provide a revised schedule of Dispatch User fees and shall credit or refund to Dispatch Users any refund that is due as a result of this action. 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 6 of 9 VII MODIFICATION A. Modification. Final approval for all modifications to the Interlocal Agreement shall remain with the agency head that is authorized to sign this document. Any clause or provision of this agreement can be modified or renegotiated without the execution of the entire agreement. 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 7 of 9 DATED at Pasco, Washington this day of , 2005. Attest: Franklin County, Washington, a Municipal Corporation Clerk of the Board of County Chairman,Board of County Commissioners Commissioners of Franklin Co. Franklin County Sheriff User Agency Representative City of Pasco User Agency Representative Pasco Police Department User Agency Representative Pasco Fire Department User Agency Representative City of Connell User Agency Representative Connell Police Department User Agency Representative 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 8 of 9 i DATED at Pasco, Washington this day of , 2005. Attest: Franklin County, Washington, a Municipal Corporation Clerk of the Board of County Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Commissioners of Franklin Co. Franklin County Sheriff User Agency Representative City of Pasco User Agency Representative 2006 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES Page 9 of 9 o o in rA G9 tj c o m o° CO tlCJ cc) "t to r- -'r ti O U C co a M n V N N p 00 N W LO 7 fD G1 Q7 Q7 N N N pip pip .�- a 4fl 64 69 6M4 69 � N O M N 4N9 r- m M lVf FO- o a d9 69 F- 11 II I1 c o y N O CO c�c�� N � FO- F m M 4 cu UJ a N I � O NV co O O cn LL Z LL N CO t44 10 N N M C C (..) yr u> F» O O N F- U N m CO Lr) co 10 tO co 0 0 4 N N N N N N U n N Co LL a m a) a� rn as m Vo N C d h (14 O Q N N 4)i 4 M N C D ^ N Q X_ G C N O N C1 LL M V F` ti O LL (> (O N N 00 N O) il) cU cU ^ ti U Q 1~ M t-`-'" N co N o0 M t � LS O K7 69 K3 fR fH EA E9 N C C m U �j U U C a �L a) o N U LL � � o ° � o ° aJ N N U) a �N m V V u7 ui tp O N4A to 6 a B O � U N lid a0i r�n0LO u> Lno o U m {0j} w LL Z) nv Ct bU V) N M M n -sr U LL m fR 69 V�Efl E9 cL6 LL O O N N CD F6 th N ti N 63 0 0 2 w c N M m CM ai w ? y Q) in y m n m m m m < a) a) 0 v ai U � � iv a m m a� a� m v o Q izi% V w � a ii Z, �a � o e c c c c o Q O o N C Q 0 0 0 0 II� y .0 O O N U 4 c c c o U a L L Y Y Y X E pp N fll m o m c� co ro c c c a Z ii It LL LL () � 4L U Q U 2006 Dispatch Fee Schedule Appendix "B" Contract Agencies Contract Fee Pasco Airport Police $ 2,768.40 Franklin Co. Hospital Dist. #1 $ 8,724.00 Franklin Co. F.P.D. #1 $ 2,775.00 Franklin Co. F.P.D. #2 $ 1,387.00 Franklin Co. F.P.D. #3 $ 8,724.00 Franklin Co. F.P.D. #4 $ 1,387.00 Columbia Basin College $ 675.00 Sub-total $ 26,440.00 I Direct User Agenicies Base Fee % of use Use Fee Total cost Pasco Police Dept. $ 131,265.00 74.00% $ 257,643.00 $ 388,908.00 Franklin Co. Sheriff $ 131,265.00 23.76% $ 82,715.00 $ 213,980.00 Connell Police Dept. $ 17,515.00 2.24% $ 7,808.00 $ 25,323.00 Pasco Fire Dept. $ 17,515.00 79.00% $ 58,212.00 $ 75,727.00 Contract Agencies (FCSO Paid) $ 17,450.40 21.00% $ 15,474.00 $ 32,924.00 Subtotals $ 315,010.00 200.00% $ 421,852.00 $ 736,862.00 Base Fees $ 315,010.00 Useage Fees $ 421,852.00 Total Budget $ 736,862.00 FR�k KLIN COUNTY RESOLUTION 2000- 5l "fig 01.. - BEFORE THE BOARD OF CO[NTY COi,IyIISSIONERS. FRANKLIN CO WASHINGTON i y IL !u R.E: SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEI�IE OR F�1vIER NCY DISP.�T H ROES FOR 2000 BETWEEN FRANKLW COUNIYAON THE CITY 0 A CO FOR JOINT PURCHASE OF MOBILE DATA COMMUNICATIONS IN MODULE FOR CAD LINK CHIEF 0 WHEREAS, Franklin County Resolution Number 99-342 approved the 2000 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Service between Franklin County, the Sheriff of Franklin County and"Dispatch Users"; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco instituted the installation of Mobile Data Communications terminals in its police cares and desires to upgrade the Ievel of services; and WHEREAS, the county also desires utilization of this upgrade for the benefit of the Sheriff Department's patrol units and is best achieved by the joint utilization of this electronic equipment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to R.C.W. 36.01.010 and R.C.W. 36.32.120 the legislative authority of each county is authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of the County and have the care of County property and management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, the Board of Franklin County Commissioners constitutes the legislative authority of Franklin County and desires to enter into this arrangement as being in the best interest of Franklin County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the attached Supplemental Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services for 2000 between Franklin County and the City of Pasco for the joint purchase of Mobile Data Communications interface module for CAD link presently operated by the County as part of the Emergency Dispatch Center. APPROVED this I3th day of December, 2000. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FRANILIN COUNTTY,,�WASHINGTON Sue er, Cha' .;4�— Attest: Fr Brock, Me ber Clerk to a Board (Neva J. Co , Member Originals: Auditor cc: Dispatch Minutes Prosecutor City of Pasco Sheriff SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES This Supplemental Agreement is entered into this eo) �day of 0�<5er, 2000, between Franklin County (hereinafter referred to as "County") and the City of Pasco (hereinafter referred to as "City") for the purpose of supplementing that Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services, dated the 1". day of November, 1999, wherein the County and City, together with other dispatch users are parties. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, it is agreed as follows: SECTION I PURPOSE The Citv has instituted the installation of Mobile Data Communications terminals . in its police cars, and desires to upgrade the level of services incident to that system to provide for digital dispatch displays and communication which requires the installation of additional electronic hardware to the existing emergency dispatch equipment utilized by the parties under the existing Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services, dated November 1, 1999, and the County likewise desires utilization of this upgrade for the benefits of the Sheriff Department's patrol units which is best achieved by the joint utilization of this electronic equipment and its associated software components and to further share the cost of the implementation, maintenance and utilization of this service. SECTION H RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY The City shall procure, deliver and install the Intergraph I/MDT interface module and all necessary associated equipment for its integration into the Intergraph CAD link presently operated by the County as part of the Emergency Dispatch Center. The City dces hereby sublicense to the County all rights for the use of the software, its update and supplements incident to the interface module. The City grants to the County joint use of the electronic equipment and software incident to the I/1NiDT interface module. SECTION III . RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY The County shall pay the sum of FORTY FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE DOLLARS and 00/100 ($44,373.00), plus tax, as.part of their contribution for the purchase of equipment and the operation of the UMDT interface module. The County shall integrate the I/NIDT interface module and its supporting software as a part of the Emergency Dispatch Center providing all additional power, wiring, protection, maintenance and operation for the system. Supplemental Agreement Emergency Dispatch Services-Page I of 3 SECTION IV NO ALTERATION OR 1IODIFICATION OF SYSTEIM Neither the Counry nor City shall modify, alter, disconnect, or supplement the system, other than manufacturer's recommendation upgrade, without written prior agreement of the other. Should the parties be unable to agree on any modification, utilization, or operation of the system, the dispute shall be submitted to arbitration. In the event an arbitrator cannot be mutually determined by the parties, each party shall select an arbitrator, and the two selected arbitrators shall select a third arbitrator and hear the dispute as an arbitration panel. Decision of the arbitrator or majority of arbitrators shall be binding upon the parties. SECTION V AFFECT ON INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY DISPA'T'CH SERVICES Except as specifically supplement by this Agreement, all terms of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Emergency Dispatch Services, dated November 1, 1999, not inconsistent herewith, shall remain in full force and effect. -A' DEL. DATED this day of gg-Wber,2000 CITY OF PASCO: FRANKLIN COUNTY: Michael L. Garr n Sue IVIWer Mayor Chairman Air Denis Austin Vva o m C hief of police Commissio r ATTEST: /cJ . Catherine D. Seaman Frank H.Brock Deputy City Clerk Commissioner Supplemental Agreement Emergency Dispatch Services-Page 2 of 3 APPROVED AS TO WORN[ Leland B. Kerr chard Lathim City Attorney, Franklin County eriff ATTEST: Mary Withers Clerk to the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steve Lowe Franklin County Prosecutor Supplemental Agreement Emergency Dispatch Services-Page 3 of 3 AGENDA REPORT NO. 93 FOR: City Council Date: November 22, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi i Manager Workshop: 11/28/2005 Regular: 12/5/2005 FROM: Richard J. Smit , Director Community & Economic De e opment SUBJECT: Purchase of 5.95 Acre Property on E Lewis Street I. REFERENCE(S) A. Site Map B. Assignment Agreement C. Purchase and Sales Agreement (Council Packets Only) D. Resolution approving Assignment Agreement 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28/2005: DISCUSSION 12/5/2005 MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. authorizing approval of an assignment agreement for the purchase of a 5.95 acre parcel fronting on E Lewis Street. 111. FISCAL IMPACT $65,000 plus closing costs. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. In order to enhance the marketability of the industrial area located on the south side of "A" Street in East Pasco, a direct connection to the East Lewis/US-12 Interchange is needed. B. A 5.95 acre parcel fronting on East Lewis Street is directly in the path of the proposed truck route. The property, which is vacant, has an assessed value of$59,600. C. A real estate agent, under contract with the City, has entered into an agreement with the owner to purchase the property for $65,000. The agreement can be cancelled at the discretion of the purchaser for any reason within 90 days. An environmental review is currently underway. D. If the environmental review is acceptable, the contract purchaser will assign the contract to the City for the agreed upon purchase price plus closing costs, a commission, and reimbursement for the cost of the environmental review. E. Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution and authorize the City Manager to sign all documents necessary to consummate the purchase of the land. 3(c) Exhibit A , do-mo-d" I (1) ROPFRTY FOR" i (2) w Cs) TRUCK ROUTE _.a. 2 f- 2. 4 19 5 18 14 7 - 7 5 14 ! HELENA Sr I 32 1 32 1 SUNRISE ESTATES -'_ — 2. 2 4 -�1----4 - I 4 { w rro 7 2 7 23 7 9 D 2��i.,.� I .�.�-A�ry 22$—' 9 EF j-•wr w �w sne LD 8 10 23 1 23 10 11 22 1 9 12 21 12 12 l 14 20 19 I —' 13 I I4 15 E 14 15 ' 18 i 15 tB IS 16 17 18 lT 16 17 I 16 ...-.._.._..� ra sw a 20 - _. _ _ TRUCK ROUTE •e, rs 2 --I 2 3 27 26 25 24 23 22 4 ., 29�- _ �-�-- 4 ;•ly 4 28�-- I , 28= a n 8 27 8 i e_ � e z 9 9 24 9 24 ' n 1 21 �. 13 2D X13 20= 1 • 11 19 I Y•�, 1� 19 15 !8 18 1 a, A' er i Exhibit B ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASER'S INTEREST Date of Purchase and Sale Agreement: October 28 _, 20 05 Seller: Howard& Kathy Hall Purchaser: Ercy A Morse, III Property Address: NKA E Lewis Street (113-900-020) Legal Description: The West 6 Acres of the North East 1/4 of the North West 1/4 of the South East 1/4 of Section 28 Township 9 North Ranze 30, EWM, recorded in Plats of Franklin County, WA FOR VALUE RECEIVED, $65,000 ("Assignor"), as Purchaser under the Purchase and Sale Agreement noted above, hereby assigns to the City of Pasco a Washington Municipal Corporation ("Assignee") all of its right, title and interest in the above-referenced Purchase and Sale Agreement, and Assignee hereby assumes all of Purchaser's obligations and duties, under the above-referenced Purchase and Sale Agreement. ASSIGNOR: ASSIGNEE: ERCY A. MORSE III CITY OF PASCO By: By: Its: Its: Date: Date: Agent: ADAMS REALTY 8836 Gage Boulevard, Suite 201B Kennewick, WA 99336 (509) 783-1394 C,Workgroup-21cammdev 1j08.0 Proposals and Projects%Proposals-Projects\2005 Purchase ofE Lewis Lot(HO)NAssignmem Fonn.doc Exhibit D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE PURCHASE OF A 5.95 ACRE VACANT PROPERTY FRONTING ON EAST LEWIS STREET. WHEREAS,the City of Pasco wishes to encourage industrial development in East Pasco which will enhance the City's tax base and increase employment opportunities; and WHEREAS, direct access for trucks to the East Lewis Street/SR-12 Interchange will enhance the marketability of industrial land in East Pasco; and WHEREAS, the owners of NKA East Lewis Street (113-900-020) have agreed to sell, for$65,000, a 5.95 acre site in the path of the proposed truck route to Ercy A. Morse III; and WHEREAS, Ercy A. Morse, III has agreed to assign his rights in the property to the City for$65,000 plus costs,Now,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That the City Council authorizes the purchase of that tract of land particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof for $65,000 and authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to consummate the purchase. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of 2005. Michael L. Garrison Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council Date: November 21, 2005 Workshop Mtg.: November 28, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Stan ebel, a and Community Services Director FROM: Jim Ch nance Manager i SUBJECT: ACCEPTING CREDIT CARDS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY SERVICES AND FEES I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28/05 Discussion—Toward council consensus and give direction to staff III. FISCAL IMPACT: Dependant upon the course of action selected. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF; The Finance and Parks and Recreation Departments have accepted credit cards for payment of services and fees for the past 5 years. Finance has charged a convenience fee (as a percentage of the transaction amount) to offset the discount fees the credit card companies charge for each transaction. Parks and Recreation increased its program fees to cover the discount fee and have not charged a convenience fee. We were notified by NOVA Information Systems, Inc. (US Bank's VISA/MasterCard service provider) that we were in violation of the operating regulations by imposing a convenience fee on face to face credit card transactions. Those regulations do, however, allow a charge for non-face to face (telephone, internet) credit card transactions; but only a flat $ rate charge (not a percentage of the charge) can be collected as a transaction fee. The discount fee (the amount charged by the credit card companies to the vendor) is based on several variables. The discount fee is less if the customer is able to swipe their card through the equipment at the point of purchase, and more if a customer calls on the telephone and wishes to make a payment (1.10% plus a 40 cent transaction fee vs. 2.60% and a 25 cent transaction fee). (There are no discount fees for debit card transactions where the card is swiped and the PIN number is entered by the customer, however, there is a 45cent transaction fee.) While the overall percentage of credit card transactions is relatively small at present (less than 3% by volume for utilities and almost 11% for building permits), if the volume continues to grow, as has been seen in our short historical experience, there could be a significant effect on net revenues. For Example, if discount fees averaged 2% of the cost of all transactions, and if card use constituted 50% of all transactions by volume, net revenues overall would be reduced by 1%. 1% of the projected $12 million of budgeted revenue for the Water and Sewer Utility would be $120,000. Also, since card use is currently the choice of a minority of users there is the appearance that costs are being incurred (or net revenue reduced) for the convenience of a few, unless the credit card user actually pays for the convenience. The Finance Department ceased accepting credit card payments on July 15 after receiving the violation notification from NOVA. Since that time the customer service window continues to receive many inquiries and complaints (20 to 30 per week) regarding the City's non acceptance of credit cards. We have continued to accept debit cards at the payment counter. 3{d} V. DISCUSSION: Non acceptance of credit cards is in conflict with the Council's Goal of improving internet services and increasing convenience for our citizens. There are several alternatives that can be considered to satisfy the objective of providing internet services and improving customer service. 1. Accept credit cards at the window, over the telephone and via the internet (through US Bank) for some or all fees for services and charges, and absorb all costs associated with these types of payments. The credit card discount and transaction fees paid to the bank from the time we began accepting them follows: 2000 $ 201 2003 $5,662 2001 $2,187 2004 $9,454 2002 $2,976 2005 $8,234 (for transactions through July) If the Council chooses to accept credit cards without a convenience fee, more customers would undoubtedly choose to pay their bills using credit cards. Many cards feature awards programs (i.e., air miles with each dollar spend and such other reward programs) to promote the use of the cards. Based on our history of card usage, the amount of discount fees will undoubtedly rise in the future. It is difficult to determine the increase in card usage and the amount of resulting discount fees. VISA now offers lower fees for non-business credit card transactions for utility payments, which were the most common use of credit card payments during the first half of 2005. In order to secure these rates, the city cannot charge a convenience fee on any VISA transactions, however. While this low fee would be for VISA cards only, our experience is that VISA is used by customers about 80 % of the time. The primary question is still whether the city should absorb the cost of these convenience transactions. Following is a breakdown of the Finance Department volume of payments where a credit card was used during the first half of 2005; % of Total Revenue Revenue CC $ Volume CC %Volume for the Particular Sector Utility bills $179,778 53.5% 2,8% Building Permits 105,145 31.3% 10.8% AIR billing (Cemetery, Ambulance)12,393 3.7% less than 1.0% Business Licenses 10,396 3.1% 3.8% Other 29,332 8.4% During the first half of 2005 there were a total of 2,415 credit card transactions at the Finance Department payment counter. 57% of those transactions were received over the telephone and 43% were in person transactions. This indicates that customers want the payment convenience without having to come to city hall to make their payments. If this alternative, to accept credit cards without restriction and absorb the bank fees, is preferred by Council, it may be wise to review all City rates and charges to decide if any or all should be increased to help offset the transaction costs that would be absorbed. 2. Accept credit cards at the payment counter with no convenience fee but do charge a convenience fee to recover the costs for the more expensive telephone and internet transactions. See next paragraph for telephone and internet transactions. We would not be able to take advantage of the lower discount fees for non-business utility VISA payments. Note that nearly 60% of card transactions for the first half of 2005 were by telephone. We do not yet have experience with allowing utility payments online, therefore the appeal of this type of transaction is unknown. 3. Accept credit cards only for internet and telephone transactions and charge a convenience fee to recover discount charges. Our financial institution, US Bank, now has the ability to allow a customer to log onto the internet, access the City's internet web site, click on"Pay a bill" or "Make a Payment" (or however we may wish to define the function) and be automatically taken to the US Bank payment website site or reach them by telephone to pay whatever kind of fee, charge or bill that the City would allow to be paid by credit card. US Bank also has the ability to collect a convenience charge for transactions. While this approach may be confusing to some, it has the advantage of allowing the customer the choice of payment methods without the City absorbing any of the costs of the transaction. By directing those who prefer the use of a credit card to the internet or telephone it may have some potential to limit growth in staff workload due to the processing of transactions. Staff has contacted various cities around the state and asked if they accepted credit cards. Those who were contacted and do not collect a convenience fee are; Marysville, Port Angeles, Puyallup, Richland, and Tacoma. Kennewick currently does not accept credit cards. Moses Lake accepts credit cards but excludes utility payments. Benton and Franklin County each have a convenience charge for credit card transactions over the internet and by telephone. They use a third party company for those transactions. They do not accept credit cards at the County offices for face to face transactions. VI. OTHER COMMENTS: There are benefits for accepting credit cards. • Better cash flow thanks to online receipt of fund, faster posting of payments, and the ability to offer customers more options in how and when to pay their bills. • Reduced expenses resulting from collection and check handling costs. • Guaranteed payment— because authorized card transactions are paid promptly by a financial institution, which assumes any financial risk • Improved customer service. It would be difficult to encourage internet use for bill paying without the acceptance of credit cards. Nominal fees will likely not discourage users because of the convenience. In addition, the city benefits by providing citizens with improved service. We could offer, say, a $1 to $2 convenience fee per $100 charged on a credit card to help offset our fees, but keep the fee low enough to still make it an attractive alternative. The City also provides automatic payment services where the customer allows our access to a bank account for payment of a utility bill. City staff would realize a time savings benefit by using a third party company for credit card transactions. It would also help relieve the city of increased liabilities surrounding the safekeeping of customer information. Most commercial banks offer an internet bill paying service at no charge to their customers. Recommendation: The fundamental questions come down to convenience and cost. By choosing the third alternative, accepting cards for internet and telephone transactions only, the city provides a convenient alternative for those who wish the convenience of a credit card while it avoids the unpleasant necessity of raising rates and service fees on all to extend that convenience. AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council November 17, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchfi 1 y anager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/05 Regular Mtg.: 1215105 SUBJECT: Appointment o Municipal Court Judge I. REFERENCE(S): 1. ESSB 5454 2. Proposed Resolution. 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11128: Discussion 12/5: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. confirming the Mayor's reappointment of Mary Ramirez as Municipal.Court Judge. 1QI. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City has long operated its own municipal court, in accordance with RCW Chapter 3.50. State law requires a Municipal Court Judge to be appointed to four- year terms by the Mayor, subject to confirmation of the City Council. B) The state legislature approved ESSB 5454 during the 2005 session, relating to operation of district and municipal courts. The most notable change relating to municipal courts is the state's decision to include municipal court judges as eligible for partial salary support from the state. Unfortunately, the legislation ties three significant strings to the eligibility: • The municipal court judge must be elected (not appointed by the City Council). • The municipal court judge salary must be at least 95% of the district court salary (set by the state) or, if part time judge, then it must meet the same standard on a pro-rata basis. • All payments received by the city from the state for judicial salary support must be deposited in a separate account and expended only on "court improvements" (more staff, indigent defense contract improvements, facility improvements, etc.). C) The benefit of the new funding assistance is indeterminable at this point in time, since the 2005-2007 state budget estimates approximately $2.4 million for the two- year period statewide for district and municipal court judicial salaries. That allocation, however, is dependent on the total revenue to the "equal justice account" exceeding $13.5 million (an uncertainty). Since payments during the state budget biennium cannot exceed actual revenue, the salary payments from the state will not be well established until 2007. Also, as more courts choose to utilize the new funding assistance, the annual share for each court will decline. The best estimate from AWC is between $9,000 (early) to $25,000 (later) annually. V. DISCUSSION: A) If the city were to comply with the eligibility requirements to take advantage of the state funds, the municipal court judge salary must increase to $94,254 for 2006 (and be subject to increase every year thereafter); this represents an annual increase of more than $12,000 over the current annual salary. Ordinary employment costs would push the increment of additional cost to about $15,000 yearly. Thus, most of the state 3(e) funding assistance available through ESSB 5454 would simply be allocated to the additional salary expense for the municipal court judge. B) The Pasco Municipal Court has historically operated on a part-time basis and handles a substantial caseload. As the population has dramatically grown over the past 10 years, so have municipal court filings. Five years ago the filings ranged between 4,000 and 5,000 annually; the past three years, filings have ranged from 7,000 and 9,000. The caseload is likely to be sustained in the area of 5,000 to 10,000 cases annually. As that continues and potentially grows, there is greater potential for need of a full-time judge (or an additional part-time judge). In the meantime, however, it is important that the municipal court judge see that the court operates in a manner which minimizes waste and duplication to assure an efficient, yet effective,judicial function; Judge Ramirez has certainly demonstrated that ability during her 20-year tenure. C) The opportunity for the city to recoup a portion of the municipal court judge salary may be attractive on the surface; however, given the notable strings and uncertainties associated with the opportunity at this point in time, staff recommends the city forego the modest financial benefit for at least one additional appointment term. By 2009 (the year the reappointment would expire), the city will be much better able to discern the financial benefit associated with the state's salary contributions. Page 1 of 10 CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5454 Chapter 457, Laws of 2005 59th Legislature 2005 Regular Session COURTS--FUNDING EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/24/05 Passed by the Senate April 24, 2005 YEAS 40 NAYS 7 CERTIFICATE BRAD OWEN I,Thomas Hoemann, Secretary of the Senate of th State of Washington, do hereby certify that the President of the Senate attached is ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE Passed by the House April 24, 2005 SENATE BILL 5454 as passed by the Senate and the YEAS 84 NAYS 11 House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. FRANK CHOPP THOMAS HOEMANN Speaker of the House of Representatives Secretary Approved May 13, 2005. FILED May 13, 2005 - 3:13 p.m. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE Secretary of State Governor of the State of Washington State of Washington ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5454 http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/HtmBills/Session%2OLaw%20200515454-S... 11/21/2005 I Page 2 of 10 i AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature- 2005 Regular Session State of Washington 59th Legislature 2005 Regular Session By Senate Committee on Ways &Means(originally sponsored by Senators Hargrove,Kline, Delvin, Thibaudeau,Johnson, Shin, Stevens, Rockefeller and Kohl-Welles; by request of Board For Judicial Administration) READ FIRST TIME 03108105. AN ACT Relating to court operations; amending RCW 3.62.050, 2.56.030, 43.08.250, 3.62.060, 4.12.090, 10.46.190, 12.12.030, 12.40.020,26.12.240,27.24.070, 36.18.012, 36.18.016, and 36.18.020; adding a new section to chapter 3.46 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 3.50 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 3.58 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35.20 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 3.62 RCW; creating a new section; and making appropriations. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NEW..SECTION,. Sec. 1 The legislature recognizes the state's obligation to provide adequate representation to criminal indigent defendants and to parents in' dependency and termination cases. The legislature also recognizes that trial courts are critical to maintaining the rule of law in a free society and that they are essential to the protection of the rights and enforcement of obligations for all. Therefore, the legislature intends to create a dedicated revenue source for the purposes of meeting the state's commitment to improving trial courts in the state,providing adequate representation to criminal indigent defendants, providing for civil legal services for indigent persons, and ensuring equal justice for all citizens of the state. NEW SECTION, Sec. 2 A new section is added to chapter 3.46 RCW to read as follows: Any city operating a municipal department under this chapter for which the state contributes to district or municipal court judges' salaries under section 7 of this act shall create a city trial court improvement account. An amount equal to one hundred percent of the state's contribution received by the city for the payment of the city's proportionate share of the district or municipal court judges' salaries shall be deposited into the account. Money in the account shall be used to fund improvements to the municipal department's staffing, programs, facilities, or services, as appropriated by the city legislative authority. NEW SECTION. Sec.3 A new section is added to chapter 3.50 RCW to read as follows: Any city or town operating a municipal court under this chapter for which the state contributes to municipal court judges' salaries under section 7 of this act shall create a city or town trial court improvement account. An amount equal to one hundred percent of the state's contribution for the payment of the city's or town's municipal court judges' salaries shall be deposited into the account. Money in the account shall be used to fund improvements to the municipal court's staffing, programs, facilities, or services, as appropriated by the city or town legislative authority. NEW SECTION. Sec.4 A new section is added to chapter 3.58 RCW to read as follows: Any county with a district court created under this title shall create a county trial court improvement account. An amount equal to one hundred percent of the state's contribution received by the county for http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/bilIinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%2OLaw%202005/5454-S... 11/21/2005 Page 3 of 10 the payment of district court judges'salaries under section 8 of this act shall be deposited into the account. Money in the account shall be used to fund improvements to superior and district court staffing, programs, facilities, or services, as appropriated by the county legislative authority. NEW SECTION. Sec. 5 A new section is added to chapter 35.20 RCW to read as follows: Any city operating a municipal court under this chapter that receives state contribution for municipal court judges' salaries under section 7 of this act shall create a city trial court improvement account. An amount equal to one hundred percent of the state's contribution for the payment of municipal judges' salaries shall be deposited into the account. Money in the account shall be used to fund improvements to the municipal court's staffing,programs, facilities, or services, as appropriated by the city legislative authority. Sec.6 RCW 3.62.050 and 1987 c 202 s 114 are each amended to read as follows: The total expenditures of the district courts,including the cost of providing courtroom and office space, the cost of probation and parole services and any personnel employment therefor, and the cost of providing services necessary for the preparation and presentation of a defense at public expense,except costs of defense to be paid by a city pursuant to RCW 3.62.070 a nd the portion,of district court,judges' salaries distributed by the.administrator.for the courts.pursuant,to_section.7.of this_act, shall be paid from the county current expense fund. Sec. 7 RCW 2.56.030 and 2002 c 49 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: The administrator for the courts shall,under the supervision and direction of the chief justice: (1) Examine the administrative methods and systems employed in the offices of the judges, clerks, stenographers, and employees of the courts and make recommendations,through the chief justice, for the improvement of the same; (2)Examine the state of the dockets of the courts and determine the need for assistance by any court; (3)Make recommendations to the chief justice relating to the assignment of judges where courts are in need of assistance and carry out the direction of the chief justice as to the assignments of judges to counties.and districts where the courts are in need of assistance; (4) Collect and compile statistical and other data and make reports of the business transacted by the courts and transmit the same to the chief justice to the end that proper action.may be taken in respect thereto; (5)Prepare and submit budget estimates of state appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of the judicial system and make recommendations in,respect thereto; (6)Collect statistical and other data and make reports relating to the expenditure of public moneys, state and local,for the maintenance and operation of the judicial system and the offices connected therewith; (7) Obtain reports from clerks of courts in accordance with law or rules adopted by the supreme court of this state on cases and other judicial business in which action has been delayed beyond periods of time specified by law or rules of court and make report thereof to supreme court of this state; (8) Act as secretary of the judicial conference referred to in RCW 2.56.060; (9) Submit annually, as of February Ist, to the chief justice, a report of the activities of the administrator's office for the preceding calendar year including activities related to courthouse security; (10)Administer programs and standards for the training and education of judicial personnel; (11)Examine the need for new superior court and district judge positions under a weighted caseload analysis that takes into account the time required to hear all the cases in a particular court and the amount of time existing judges have available to hear cases in that court. The results of the weighted caseload analysis shall be reviewed by the board for judicial administration which shall make recommendations to the legislature. It is the intent of the legislature that weighted caseload analysis become the basis for creating additional district court positions, and recommendations should address that objective; http://www.l eg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%20Law%20200515454-S... 11/21/2005 i Page 4 of 10 (12)Provide staff to the judicial retirement account plan under chapter 2.14 RCW; (13) Attend to such other matters as may be assigned by the supreme court of this state; (14) Within available funds, develop a curriculum for a general understanding of child development, placement, and treatment resources, as well as specific legal skills and knowledge of relevant statutes including chapters 13.32A, 13.34, and 13.40 RCW, cases, court rules,interviewing skills, and special needs of the abused or neglected child. This curriculum shall be completed and made available to all juvenile court judges, court personnel, and service providers and be updated yearly to reflect changes in statutes, court rules, or case law; (15)Develop, in consultation with the entities set forth in RCW 2.56.150(3), a comprehensive statewide curriculum for persons who act as guardians ad litem under Title 13 or 26 RCW. The curriculum shall be made available July 1, 1997,and include specialty sections on child development, child sexual abuse, child physical abuse, child neglect,clinical and forensic investigative and interviewing techniques, family reconciliation and mediation services, and relevant statutory and legal requirements. The curriculum shall be made available to all superior court judges, court personnel, and all persons who act as guardians ad(item; (16) Develop a curriculum for a general understanding of crimes of malicious harassment, as well as specific legal skills and knowledge of RCW 9A.36.080, relevant cases, court rules, and the special needs of malicious harassment victims. This curriculum shall be made available to all superior court and court of appeals judges and to all justices of the supreme court; (17)Develop, in consultation with the criminal justice training commission and the commissions established under chapters 43.113,43.115, and 43.117 RCW, a curriculum for a general understanding of ethnic and cultural diversity and its implications for working with youth of color and their families. The curriculum shall be available to all superior court judges and court commissioners assigned to juvenile court, and other court personnel. Ethnic and cultural diversity training shall be provided annually so as to incorporate cultural sensitivity and awareness into the daily operation of juvenile courts statewide; (18)Authorize the use of closed circuit television and other electronic equipment in judicial proceedings. The administrator shall promulgate necessary standards and procedures and shall provide technical assistance to courts as required; (19)Develop a Washington family law handbook in accordance with RCW 2.56.180; (20)(a).Administer.and distribute amounts appropriated_from the equal justice.subaccount.under RCW 43.08.250(2)for district court judges'.and.qualifying elected municipal court judges' salary. contributions. The administrator for the courts shall develop a distribution formula for.these amounts that does not differentiate between district and elected municipal court judges, (b).A city..qualifies for state contribution.of elected municipal court.judges'.salaries under(a) of this subsection if. (i)The judge is serving in an elected position; .(ii)The city has established.by ordinance.that a.full-time judge is compensated at_a_rate equivalent to at least ninety-five.percent,but.not more.than_one huncired_percent,.of a district court_judge salary or for apart-time judge on_a pro rata bass_the same_equivalent.;_and (iii)The city..has certified to the office ofthe administrator for the courts that-the conditions.in.(b)(i) and(ii)of this subsection have been met. Sec. 8 RCW 43.08.250 and 2003 1st sp.s. c 25 s 918 are each amended to read as follows: (1)The money received by the state treasurer from fees, fines, forfeitures,penalties, reimbursements or assessments by any court organized under Title 3 or 35 RCW, or chapter 2.08 RCW, shall be deposited in the public safety and education account which is hereby created in the state treasury. The legislature shall appropriate the funds in the account to promote traffic safety education,highway safety, criminal justice training, crime victims'compensation,judicial education, the judicial information system, civil representation of indigent persons,winter recreation parking, drug court operations, and state game programs. During the fiscal biennium ending June 30,2005, the legislature may appropriate http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%20Law%202005/5454-S... 11/21/2005 Page 5 of 10 moneys from the public safety and education account for purposes of appellate indigent defense and other operations of the office of public defense,the criminal litigation unit of the attorney general's office,the treatment alternatives to street crimes program, crime victims advocacy programs,justice information network telecommunication planning,treatment for supplemental security income clients, sexual assault treatment, operations of the office of administrator for the courts, security in the common schools,alternative school start-up grants,programs for disruptive students,criminal justice data collection, Washington state patrol criminal justice activities, drug court operations, unified family courts, local court backlog assistance, financial assistance to local jurisdictions for extraordinary costs incurred in the adjudication of criminal cases, domestic violence treatment and related services, the department of corrections'costs in implementing chapter 196, Laws of 1999,reimbursement of local governments for costs associated with implementing criminal and civil justice legislation, the replacement of the department of corrections'offender-based tracking system, secure and semi-secure crisis residential centers, HOPE beds, the family policy council and community public health and safety networks, the street youth program,public notification about registered sex offenders,and narcotics or methamphetamine-related enforcement, education,training, and drug and alcohol treatment services. (2)(a).The equal.justice subaccount_is_created as a subaccount of the public safety.and education account. The money received by the state treasurer from the increase in lees imposed by sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,17,.and 19,chapter... . (this act), Laws of 2005 shall be deposited in the equal justice subaccount and.shall.be appropriated only for: (i) Criminal indigent.defense.assistance.and enhancement.at the trial_court_level,_ ncluding a criminal. indigent defense pilot program;. .___ (ii.}.Representation of parents_in dependency and-termination proceedings; . iii .Civil_legal.representation_of. ndigent.persons; and .. (iv) Contribution to district.court.judges',salaries and to eligible.elected.municipal court judges' salaries. (b)For the 2005-07 fiscal biennium, an.amount equal to twenty-five-percent of revenues to the equal justice subaccount, less one million dollars, shall be appropriated from the equal.justice subaccount to the administrator for the courts for.purposes of(a)(iv) of this subsection. For the 2007-09 fiscal biennium and subsequent fiscal_biennia,an amount equal.to,f ftx percent.of revenues.to the equal justice subaccount shall appropriated_from the equal justice subaccount-to the.administrator for the courts for the purposes of(a)(iv) of this subsection. Sec.9 RCW 3.62.060 and 2003 c 222 s 15 are each amended to read as follows: Clerks of the district courts shall collect the following fees for their official services: (1) In any civil action commenced before or transferred to a district court, the plaintiff shall, at the time of such commencement or transfer,pay to such court a fling fee of((thirly-ene)) forty-three dollars plus any surcharge authorized by RCW 7.75.035. Any party filing a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third- party claim in such action shall.pay..to_the_court_a_filing fee..of forty-three_dollars plus any-surcharge authorized.by RCW..7.75.035. No party shall be compelled to pay to the court any other fees or charges up to and including the rendition of judgment in the action other than those listed. (2)For issuing a writ of garnishment or other writ, or for filing an attorney issued writ of garnishment, a fee of((sim)) twelve dollars. .(3)For filing a supplemental proceeding a fee of((twelve))twenty dollars. (4)For demanding a jury in a civil case a fee of((f fly)) one hundred twenty-five dollars to be paid by the person demanding a jury. (5)For preparing a transcript of a judgment a fee of((si*)) twenty dollars. (6)For certifying any document on file or of record in the clerk's office a fee of five dollars. (7)For preparing the record of a case for appeal to superior court a fee of forty dollars including any costs of tape duplication as governed by the rules of appeal for courts of limited jurisdiction (RAU). (8)For duplication of part or all of the electronic ((ttpe-er-tapes))recording of a proceeding ten dollars per tape or other electronic storage.medium. http://www.le.g.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%20Law%20200515454-S... 11/21/2005 Page 6 of 10 The fees or charges imposed under this section shall be allowed as court costs whenever a judgment for costs is awarded. NEW SECTION. Sec. 10 A new section is added to chapter 3.62 RCW to read as follows: Upon conviction or a plea of guilty in any court organized under this title or Title 35 RCW, a defendant in a criminal case is liable for a fee of forty-three dollars. This fee shall be subject to division with the state under RCW 3.46.120(2), 3.50.100(2), 3.62.020(2), 3.62.040(2),and 35.20.220(2). Sec. 11 RCW 4.12.090 and 1969 ex.s. c 144 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: (1) When an order is made transferring an action or proceeding for trial, the clerk of the court must transmit the pleadings and papers therein to the court to which it is transferred and charge a fee as provided in.RCW 36.18.016.. The costs and fees thereof and of filing the papers anew must be paid by the party at whose instance the order was made, except in the cases mentioned in RCW 4.12.030(1), in which case the plaintiff shall pay costs of transfer and, in addition thereto, if the court finds that the plaintiff could have determined the county of proper venue with reasonable diligence, it shall order the plaintiff to pay the reasonable attorney's fee of the defendant for the changing of venue to the proper county. The court to which an action or proceeding is transferred has and exercises over the same the like jurisdiction as if it had been originally commenced therein. (2) In acting on any motion for dismissal without prejudice in a case where a motion for change of venue under subsection(1) of this section has been made, the court shall, if it determines the motion for change of venue proper, determine the amount of attorney's fee properly to be awarded to defendant and, if the action be dismissed, the attorney's fee shall be a setoff against any claim subsequently brought on the same cause of action. Sec. 12 RCW 10.46.190 and 1977 ex.s. c 248 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: Every person convicted of a crime or held to bail to keep the peace shall be liable to all the costs of the proceedings against him or.her,including,when tried by a jury in the superior court or.befor.e a committing.magistrate, a jury fee as provided for in civil actions((, and when tried by ttjwy before a ,))for which judgment shall be rendered and (( ))collected. The jury fee, when collected for a case tried by the superior court, shall be paid to the clerk((,to r)) and applied as the jury fee in civil cases is applied. Sec. 13 RCW 12.12.030 and 1981 c 260 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: After the appearance of the defendant, and before the(( iee))judge shall proceed to enquire into the merits of the cause,either party may demand a jury to try the action, which jury shall be composed of six good and lawful persons having the qualifications of jurors in the superior court of the same county,unless the parties shall agree upon a lesser number: PROVIDED,That the party demanding the jury shall first pay to the((jtee))clerk of the court the sum of one hundred twenty-five dollars, which shall be paid over by the((*s+iee))clerk of the court to the county, and ((saw)) such amount shall be taxed as costs against the losing party. See. 14 RCW 12.40.020 and 1990 c 172 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: A small claims action shall be commenced by the plaintiff filing a claim, in the form prescribed by RCW 12.40.050, in the small claims department. A filing fee of((ter)) fourteen dollars plus any surcharge authorized by RCW 7.75.035 shall be paid when the claim is filed. Any.party filing.a counterclaim,cross-claim,or third-party claim in such action shall pay to the court a filing fee of fourteen dollars plus any surcharge authorized by-RCW 7.75.035. Sec. 15 RCW 26.12.240 and 1993 c 435 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: A county may create a courthouse facilitator program to provide basic services to pro se litigants in http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/HtmBills/Session%2OLaw%202005/5454-S... 11/21/2005 Page 7 of 10 family law cases. The legislative authority of any county may impose user fees or may impose a surcharge of up to ((tert))twenty dollars on only those superior court cases filed under Title 26 RCW, or both, to pay for the expenses of the courthouse facilitator program. Fees collected under this section shall be collected and deposited in the same manner as other county funds are collected and deposited, and shall be maintained in a separate account to be used as provided in this section. See. 16 RCW 27.24.070 and 1992 c 54 s 6 are each amended to read as follows: In each county pursuant to this chapter, the county treasurer shall deposit in the county or regional law library fund a sum equal to ((tie)) seventeen dollars for every new probate or civil filing fee, including appeals and for every fee for filing a.counterclaim, cross-claim,.or third-party claim.in any civil action,collected by the clerk of the superior court and((qix))seven dollars for every fee collected for the commencement of a civil action and for the_f iing_of a counterclaim,..cross-claim. or third-party claim in any.civil action in district court for the support of the law library in that county or the regional law library to which the county belongs: PROVIDED,That upon a showing of need the ((tie)) seventeen dollar contribution may be increased up to ((€t€ieett))twenty dollars or in,counties.with multiple library sites up to,thirty dollars upon the request of the law library board of trustees and with the approval of the county legislative body or bodies. Sec. ]7 RCW 36.18.012 and 2001 c 146 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: (1)Revenue collected under this section is subject to division with the state for deposit in the public safety and education account under RCW 36.18.025. (2)The party tiling a transcript or abstract of judgment or verdict from a United States court held in this state, or from the superior court of another county or from a district court in the county of issuance, shall pay at the time of filing a fee of((€i€teen))twenty dollars. (3)The clerk shall collect a fee of twenty dollars for: Filing a paper not related to or a part of a proceeding, civil or criminal, or a probate matter, required or permitted to be filed in the clerk's office for which no other charge is provided by law. (4) If the defendant serves or files an answer to an unlawful detainer complaint under chapter 59.18 or 59.20 RCW,the plaintiff shall pay before proceeding with the unlawful detainer action ((ei ))one hundred-twelve dollars. (5) For a restrictive covenant for filing a petition to strike discriminatory provisions in real estate under RCW 49.60.227 a fee of twenty dollars must be charged. (6)A fee of twenty dollars must be charged for filing a will only, when no probate of the will is contemplated. (7) A fee of((+we)) twenty dollars must be charged for filing a petition, written agreement, or written memorandum in a nonjudicial probate dispute under RCW 11.96A.220, if it is filed within an existing case in the same court. (8)A fee of thirty-five dollars must be charged for filing a petition regarding a common law lien under RCW 60.70.060. (9)For certification of delinquent taxes by a county treasurer under RCW 84.64.190, a fee of five dollars must be charged. (10)For the filing of a tax warrant for unpaid taxes or overpayment of benefits by any agency of the state of Washington, a fee of five dollars on or after July 22, 2001, and for the filing of such a tax warrant or overpayment of benefits on or after July 1, 2003, a fee of twenty dollars, of which forty-six percent of the first five dollars is directed to the public safety and education account established under RCW 43.08.250. Sec. 18 RCW 36.18.016 and 2002 c 338 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: (1)Revenue collected under this section is not subject to division under RCW 36.18.025 or 27.24.070. (2)For the filing of a petition for modification of a decree of dissolution or paternity,within the same http:/lwww.l eg.wa.gov/pub/bil linfo/2005-06/Htm/Bi l I s/Session%20Law%20200515454-5... 11/21/2005 Page 8 of 10 case as the original action, a fee of((+went)) thirty-six dollars must be paid. (3)(a)The party making a demand for a jury of six in a civil action shall pay, at the time, a fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars; if the demand is for a jury of twelve, a fee of two hundred fifty dollars. If, after the party demands a jury of six and pays the required fee, any other party to the action requests a jury of twelve,an additional one hundred twenty-five dollar fee will be required of the party demanding the increased number of jurors. (b)Upon conviction in criminal cases a jury demand charge of((€i )) one hundred.twenty-.five dollars for a jury of six, or((eite))two hundred fifty dollars for a jury of twelve may be imposed as costs under RCW I0.46.190. (4)For preparing((, ftonseribing, or eertifying))a_certified copy of an instrument on file or of record in the clerk's office, (( ,))for the first page or portion of the first page, a fee of((tea)) five dollars,and for each additional page or portion of a page, a fee of one dollar must be charged. For authenticating or exemplifying an instrument, a fee of((em))two dollars for each additional seal affixed must be charged. For_preparing a copyof an instrument on file or of record in._the..clerk's_office without a seal, a fee of f fty cents per page must be charged. When copying a document.without a seal or file that is in an electronic_format,_a.fee of twenty-.five cents.per.page.must_be charged._For copies made on.a compact disc, an additional fee.of twenty for each compact disc must.be charged. (5) For executing a certificate, with or without a seal, a fee of two dollars must be charged. (6) For a garnishee defendant named in an affidavit for garnishment and for a writ of attachment, a fee of twenty dollars must be charged. (7)For filing_a_supplemental proceeding, a fee of twenty.dollars must,be_charged. _..(8.)For approving a bond, including justification on the bond, in other than civil actions and probate proceedings, a fee of two dollars must be charged. ((f8-))) (9) For the issuance of a certificate of qualification and a certified copy of letters of administration,letters testamentary, or letters of guardianship, there must be a fee of two dollars. (((9))}(10) For the preparation of a passport application, the clerk may collect an execution fee as authorized by the federal government. ((f4$))) (11.)For clerk's services such as processing ex pane orders,performing historical searches, compiling statistical reports, and conducting exceptional record searches, the clerk may collect a fee not to exceed twenty.dollars per hour or portion of an hour. ((f}43))(12)For duplicated recordings of court's proceedings there must be a fee of ten dollars for each audio tape and twenty-five dollars for each video tape or other electronic storage medium. (((12) For the filing of omhs &4 ttffimtkfiem tinder ehapter 5.28 RGAA', tt fee eRweftty dOliftrS mmi'O be eherged.)) (13) ((For filing ft diselaimer of interest tinder RG)A' 11.86.031(4), tk fee of two dollars must (4 4)))For registration of land titles, Torrens Act, under RCW 65.12.780, a fee of((fie)) twenty dollars must be charged. (({+9)) (14)For the issuance of extension of judgment under RCW 6.17.020 and chapter 9.94A RCW, a fee of((em))two hundred((tee))dollars must be charged. ((f46)))(15)A facilitator surcharge of((teri))up.to twenty dollars must be charged as authorized under RCW 26.12.240. ((f4a)))(16)For filing a water rights statement under RCW 90.03.180, a fee of twenty-five dollars must be charged. (17) For filing a claim of frivolous lien under RCW 60.04.081, a fee.of thirty-five dollars must be charged. (18)For preparation of a change of venue, a.fee of twenty dollars must be charged by the originating court in_addition_to the per_page_charges_in subsection_(4)_of ths_section.. (l9)A service fee of three dollars for the first page and one dollar for each additional page must be charged for receiving faxed documents,pursuant to Washington state rules of court, general rule 17. (20) For preparation of clerk's papers under RAP 9.7,a fee of fifty cents per page must be htty://www.lea.wa.szov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%2OLaw%20200515454-S... 11/21/2005 Page 9 of 10 charged. For copies and reports produced at the local level as permitted by RCW 2.68.020 and supreme court policy, a variable fee must be charged. (((2}))) (22) Investment service charge and earnings under RCW 36.48.090 must be charged. (({ )) (23) Costs for nonstatutory services rendered by clerk by authority of local ordinance or policy must be charged. (((230) (24)For fling a request for mandatory arbitration, a filing fee may be assessed against the party fling a statement of arbitrability not to exceed two hundred twenty dollars as established by authority of local ordinance. This charge shall be used solely to offset the cost of the mandatory arbitration program. (((24}))(25) For filing a request for trial de novo of an arbitration award, a fee not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars as established by authority of local ordinance must be charged. (26) For the filing of a will or codicil under the provisions of chapter 1.1.12 RCW, a fee of twenty dollars,must be charged. The revenue to counties.from the fees established in this section shall be deemed to be complete reimbursement from the state.for the state's_share._of benefits paid to the superior_court.judges of the state prior to the effective date of this section,and no claim shall lie_against_the state for such benefits. Sec. 19 RCW 36.18.020 and 2000 c 9 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: (1)Revenue collected under this section is subject to division with the state public safety and education account under RCW 36.18.025 and with the county or regional law library fund under RCW 27.24.070. (2) Clerks of superior courts shall collect the following fees for their official services: (a)The party filing the first or initial paper in any civil action, including,but not limited to an action for restitution, adoption, or change of name, and.any._party filing a counterclaim,.cross-claim, or.third- party.claim in.any..such..civil_action, shall pay, at the time the paper is fled, a fee of((ette))two hundred ((fm))dollars except, in an unlawful detainer action under chapter 59.18 or 59.20 RCW for which the plaintiff shall pay a case initiating filing fee of{(trty)}forty-five dollars, or in proceedings filed under RCW 28A.225.030 alleging a violation of the compulsory attendance laws where the petitioner shall not pay a filing fee. The((tJzi )) forty-five dollar filing fee under this subsection for an unlawful detainer action shall not include an order to show cause or any other order or judgment except a default order or default judgment in an unlawful detainer action. (b)Any party, except a defendant in a criminal case, filing the first or initial paper on an appeal from a court of limited jurisdiction or any party on any civil appeal, shall pay,when the paper is filed, a fee of ((etre))two hundred((#err))dollars. (c) For filing of a petition for judicial review as required under RCW 34.05.514 a filing fee of((eft)) two hundred((#err))dollars. (d)For filing of a petition for unlawful harassment under RCW 10.14.040 a filing fee of((Fet4y @tie)) fifty-three dollars. (e)For filing the notice of debt due for the compensation of a crime victim under RCW 7.68.120(2) (a) a fee of((erte)) two hundred((+ett)) dollars. (f)In probate proceedings,the party instituting such proceedings, shall pay at the time of filing the first paper therein,a fee of((er}e))two hundred((tent)) dollars. (g) For filing any petition to contest a will admitted to probate or a petition to admit a will which has been rejected, or a petition objecting to a written agreement or memorandum as provided in RCW 11.96A.220,there shall be paid a fee of((errs)) two hundred((#err))dollars. (h)Upon conviction or plea of guilty, upon failure to prosecute an appeal from a court of limited jurisdiction as provided by law, or upon affirmance of a conviction by a court of limited jurisdiction, a defendant in a criminal case shall be liable for a fee of((&W)) two hundred ((+et3)) dollars. (i)With the exception of demands for jury hereafter made and garnishments hereafter issued, civil actions and probate proceedings filed prior to midnight, July 1, 1972, shall be completed and governed http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%2OLaw%202005/5454-S... 11/21/2005 I Page 10 of 10 by the fee schedule in effect as of January 1, 1972: PROVIDED, That no fee shall be assessed if an order of dismissal on the clerk's record be filed as provided by rule of the supreme court. (3)No fee shall be collected when a petition for relinquishment of parental rights is filed pursuant to RCW 26.33.080 or for forms and instructional brochures provided under RCW 26.50.030. NEW SECTION. Sec. 20 (1) The sum of two million three hundred thousand dollars, or as much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the equal justice subaccount of the public safety and education account to the office of public defense for the fiscal biennium ending June 30, 2007, solely for the purpose of criminal indigent defense assistance and enhancement in the trial courts. Of this amount, one million dollars is provided solely for a criminal indigent defense pilot program for persons charged with felony or misdemeanor offenses. The pilot program shall include the following: Effective implementation of indigency screening; enhanced defense attorney practice standards; and use of investigative and expert services. (2)The sum of five million dollars,or as much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the equal justice subaccount of the public safety and education account to the office of public defense for the fiscal biennium ending June 30, 2007,solely for the purpose of representation of parents in dependency and termination proceedings. (3)The sum of three million dollars, or as much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the equal justice subaccount of the public safety and education account to the office of civil legal aid for the fiscal biennium ending June 30, 2007, solely for the purpose of civil legal representation of indigent persons. (4)The sum of two million four hundred thousand dollars is appropriated from the equal justice subaccount of the public safety and education account to the administrator for the courts for the fiscal biennium ending June 30, 2007, solely for the purposes of district court judges' and elected municipal court judges'salary contributions. Passed by the Senate April 24,2005. Passed by the House April 24,2005. Approved by the Governor May 13,2005. Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 13, 2005. http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%2OLaw%202005/5454-5... 11/21/2005 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION confirming the re-appointment of Mary Ramirez as Municipal Court Judge and regulating the operation of the Pasco Municipal Court. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco operates a Municipal Court governed by Chapter 3.50 RCW; and WHEREAS, the Mayor has determined to re-appoint Mary Ramirez as Municipal Court Judge for that term of office beginning January 1, 2006, upon the confirmation by the City Council and the written acceptance by Mary Ramirez of the terms and conditions of the appointment stated herein; and WHEREAS, the operation of the Pasco Municipal Court is an important matter to the citizens of Pasco and its local government; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The re-appointment of Mary Ramirez as Pasco Municipal Court Judge is confirmed and her present appointment ratified upon her written acceptance of the terms and conditions of her appointment set forth herein for a four-year term of office effective January 1, 2006. Section 2. The salary for the Municipal Court Judge position is to be set by Ordinance as required by law. The position is part-time with an expectation of 30 hours per week being required to fulfill the duties of the position. Benefits will accrue on a pro-rata basis except that the position shall be eligible for coverage under the city's health benefits program. Section 3. The Municipal Court shall operate in those facilities prescribed by, and in accordance with a schedule approved by the City Manager, Section 4. The Municipal Court Judge shall have regular weekly office hours at the Municipal Court for the performance of her administrative responsibilities and other necessary business of the court at such times as agreed upon between the Municipal Court Judge and the City Manager. Section 5. It shall be the duty of the Municipal Court Judge to maintain local court rules not inconsistent with the court rules for justice courts in the State of Washington reasonably necessary to fulfill the duties and obligations of the office and to otherwise promote the efficient and judicious operation of the Pasco Municipal Court, and to revise the same from time to time as circumstances dictate. Section 6. Cases involving the Municipal Prosecutor shall be given a preferential setting and hearing over other cases. Cases involving the Municipal Prosecutor shall be in blocks of time so as to make the most effective use of the Municipal Prosecutor's time. Section 7. (1) The Municipal Court Judge shall accept her duties as Judge as her first priority and in cases of conflict or potential conflict shall give first priority to Municipal Court matters. Whenever, because of illness or other sufficient reason approved by the City Manager, the Municipal Court Judge cannot be on the bench, then a judge pro-tem approved by the City Manager shall preside in her absence. (2) In order to avoid conflicts or the appearance of impropriety, no past, present or future law partner or associate of the appointee, shall accept the defense of cases filed in Pasco Municipal Court. (3) The appointee shall not participate in any criminal defense panel or contract for indigent defense in any court. Section 8. Time pay agreements for the payment of penalties, fines and costs totaling Fifty Dollars ($50) and less, shall not be granted by the Municipal Court, unless specifically ordered by the Municipal Court Judge when exceptional circumstances of financial hardship are found by the Judge to exist. Time payment agreements for fines, penalties and costs shall be consistent with standards determined jointly between the Judge and City Manager. Section 9. The enforcement of city regulatory ordinances in the areas of environmental regulation, animal control, nuisance abatement and the like are important to the city and the Municipal Court Judge shall accept her responsibility for working for the effective enforcement of ordinances in the areas of sentencing and case disposition. Nothing in this section should be construed to infringe upon the Municipal Court Judge's discretion in fact finding, the application of the law to the facts and the fair administration of justice. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting dated this 5th day of December, 2005. Mike Garrison, Mayor ATTEST: Sandy Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT NO. 94 FOR: City Council Date: November 22, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi I i Manager Workshop: 11/28/05 Regular: 12/5/05 FROM: Richard J. Smi , Director l Community 8v Economic Development SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County and Cities Regarding Homeless Housing 1. REFERENCE(S): letter from County A. November 18, 2005 ette Commission and Draft Interlocal Agreement B. Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28/05: DISCUSSION 12/5/05 MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. approving an Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County and other Cities regarding local homeless housing programs/plans. III. FISCAL IMPACT None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. HB 2163 authorizes a $10.00 document surcharge which will be used to address homeless issues. Counties began collecting the surcharge on August 1, 2005. Under the State regulations, 60% of the surcharge goes to the County in which it is collected to be used for preparing a homeless plan (goal to reduce homeless population by 50% in 10 years) and funding assistance programs. The rest of the money goes to the state or is used to offset collection costs. B. In April 2002, the State Legislature approved by HB 2060 which authorized a similar surcharge to be used for housing programs for people earning below 50% of area median income. In August 2005, the City Council reviewed and commented on a draft Interlocal for the use of these funds. City comments were sent to the County by staff. To date the County has not formally responded to the City's comments and the draft Interlocal for this program is still under review. C. The programs addressed by HB 2060 and HB 2163 are somewhat interrelated in that both deal with housing, but are, nevertheless, distinct and different. D. The County Commissioners are now asking Pasco and other Franklin County cities to approve, by resolution, an Interlocal Agreement regarding the homeless program created by HB 2163. Upon approval, the County will formally contract with the Benton Franklin Community Action Committee (CAC) which will prepare a homeless plan by the State imposed deadline of December 31, 2005. The State goal is to reduce the homeless population by 50% in 10 years. 3(f) V. DISCUSSION: A. Staff has reviewed the draft Interlocal. Points of note are as follows: (1) The Agreement shall be in force for a period of 10 years. Any party, however, may terminate their membership upon 90 days written notice. (2) The County can be expected to collect approximately $80,000 annually through imposition of the surtax. The funds would be allocated as follows: a) 2% collection fee b) 60% local homeless assistance fund C) 6% administrative costs d) 32% state homeless assistance fund. (3) The County's 6% administrative cost will be used to compensate the CAC for organizing a local homeless task force and creating the 10 year plan. (4) The Interlocal specifically states that the Agreement "does not provide for the acquisition, holding, or disposal of property." B. The Interlocal is silent on the composition of the task force and the process that will be used to develop the homeless plan. The State imposed plan completion date of December 31, 2005 leaves little time for CAC to complete the plan. C. Given the fact that the CAC must complete the plan by the end of this year, staff recommends that the Council approve the Interlocal so that work may begin. As the Agreement is now structured, Pasco or any of the other Franklin County cities have the ability to terminate the Agreement with 90 days notice. Neva J. Corkrum Fred H. Bowen District 1 A County Administrator Robert E. Koch Tiffany Coffland District 2 l � � � : ,�-, Human Resources Director 4.1 Frank H. Brock ` ,. Patricia Shults District 3 Executive Secretary PASCO CITY HALL Board of County Commissioners PIECEIVEd FRANKLIN COUNTY 110V 2005 CITY MANAGER'S November 18, 2005 OFFICE Mayor Michael Garrison City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 Pasco,WA 99301 Re: Interlocal Agreement between Franklin County and the Cities in Providing for Local Hom91tss Housing and Assistance Programs/Plans AVA Dear MayorC. or In an effort to expedite final approval of the subject interiocal agreement,the Franklin County Board of Commissioners would appreciate your approval/signature for your respective city, for a return date of November 30, 2005. This date is requested, as we need to contract with the Community Action Committee and approval for the homeless program needs to be completed for the state by December 31, 2005. Enclosed please find one complete agreement, with five additional signature pages for your respective city. Upon final approval, each signature page will be placed with an original contract and recorded, with an original returned to each city. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY';-H4.Vrock COUNTY,WASHINGTON c.� Fr Chairman cc: Ryan E. Verhulp, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor File/LB Enclosures 1016 North Fourth Avenue, Pasco,Washington 99301 -Phone(509)545-3535-Fax(509)545-3573-web site www.co.franklin.wa.us lip, i WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Pasco City of Connell City of Mesa City of Kahlotus 525 North 3rd PO Box 1200 PO Box 146 PO Box 100 Pasco,WA 99301 Connell,WA 99326 Mesa,WA 99343 Kahlotus,WA 99335 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY, THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL, THE CITY OF MESA, AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSIPLANS This Interlocal Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement," is entered into as of the day of , 20_, between Franklin County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," with its principal offices located at 1016 North 4th Avenue, Pasco Washington; and the City of Pasco, a municipal corporation with its principal offices located at 525 North Third, Pasco, Washington 99301; and the City of Connell, a municipal corporation with its principal offices located at 104 E Adams Street, Connell, Washington 99326-1200; and the City of Mesa, a municipal corporation with its principal offices located at 103 Franklin Street, Mesa, Washington 99343; and the City of Kahlotus, a municipal corporation with its principal offices located at E 130 Weston, Kahlotus, Washington 99335; hereinafter all the aforementioned cities referred to as "CITIES." This Agreement is entered into by the COUNTY under the authority of RCW 36.32.120, RCW 36.22.179, and Chapter 43.185C RCW. This Agreement is entered into by the CITIES under authority of RCW 36.22.179 and Chapter 43.185C RCW. This Agreement is in conformity with Chapter 39.34 RCW, the I nterlocal Cooperation Act. To carry out the purposes of this Agreement and in consideration of the benefits to be received by each party it is agreed as follows: Sec. 1. Purpose: The purpose of this Agreement shall be to provide for the collection, administration, and expenditure of RCW 36.22.179 funds to accomplish the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL, THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSIPLANS PAGE 1 OF 10 purposes of chapter 484, Laws of 2005, RCW 36.22.179, and Chapter 43.185C RCW in the COUNTY'S and CITIES' providing of local homeless housing programs/plans. Sec. 2. Parties: The parties to this Agreement shatl be Franklin County, the City of Pasco, the City of Connell, the City of Mesa, and the City of Kahlotus. Sec. 3. Term: This Agreement shall be for ten (10) years from the date of execution unless any party elects to terminate the Agreement. Renewal of this Agreement shall be by separate written agreement of the parties. Sec. 4. The COUNTY shall: 1) By resolution approve and operate a homeless housing program/plan as authorized per Chapter 43.185C RCW. 2) File the homeless housing program/plan with the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. 3) Collect all RCW 36.22.179 funds. 4) By ordinance create a Homeless Housing and Assistance Fund or Account for deposit of the specified percentage of RCW 36.22.179 funds detailed in Section 4(5xii) of this Agreement. 5) Administer all collected RCW 36.22.179 funds in the following sequential order as follows: i) Retain two percent (2%) of all collected RCW 36.22.179 funds as a COUNTY collection fee. ii) Deposit sixty percent (60%) of the remaining balance of collected RCW 36.22.179 funds into a created Homeless Housing and Assistance Fund or Account to be used by the COUNTY and CITIES to accomplish the purposes of chapter 484, Laws of 2005. iii) Shall have the discretion to use six percent (6%) of the balance of the Homeless Housing Assistance Fund or Account for COUNTY administrative costs related to the homeless housing program/plan. iv) After satisfaction of the requirements of Sec. 4(5)(i)-(iii) of this Agreement, shall use the remainder of the Homeless INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 2 OF 10 i Housing Assistance Fund or Account balance to accomplish the goals of the homeless housing program/plan per the requirements of RCW 36.22.179, Chapter 43.185C RCW, and this Agreement. v) Remit the remaining portion of collected RCW 36.22.179 funds not deposited in the Homeless Housing Assistance Fund or Account to the state treasurer for deposit in the state homeless housing account. 6) As permitted by Section 4(5)(lii) of this Agreement and RCW 36.22.179, shall enter into a separate Professional Services Agreement with the Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee (CAC) to organize and support a local homeless housing task force to facilitate the creation of the local ten (10) year homeless housing program/plan. Compensation to CAC in the Professional Services Agreement shall be a COUNTY administrative cost in an amount not to exceed six percent (6%) of the balance of the Homeless Housing and Assistance Fund or Account as determined by the COUNTY. 7) Abide by the terms of this Agreement. Sec. 5. The CITIES' shall: 1) Each by resolution shall individually elect to join and support the COUNTY approved homeless housing program/plan as authorized per Chapter 43.185C. The CITIES shall each provide a copy of their resolution to the COUNTY on or before December 15, 2005. 2) By executing this Agreement, agree with the use and compensation of CAC per Section 4(5)(v) of this Agreement to organize and support a local homeless housing task force to facilitate the creation of the local ten (10) year homeless housing program/plan. 3) Abide by the terms of this Agreement. Sec. 6. Mutual Cooperation: All parties to this Agreement agree to provide mutual cooperation and make good faith efforts to assist one another in fulfilling the terms of this Agreement. Sec. 7. No Property Acquisition or Joint Financing: This Agreement does not provide for the acquisition, holding, or disposal of property. Nor does this Agreement contemplate the financing of any joint or cooperative undertaking. There shall be no budget maintained for any joint or cooperative undertaking pursuant to this Agreement. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 3 OF 10 Sec. 8. Termination: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, any party may terminate this Agreement anytime upon ninety (90) days written notice of intent to terminate, with the termination to become effective upon expiration of ninety (90) days from the notice of termination date. Such notice of termination shall be by appropriate action of the elected governing body of the terminating party and shall be provided to all parties subject to this Agreement. Termination date shall be the date upon which the elected governing body of the terminating party took formal action to terminate this Agreement. Sec. 9. Notice: Any formal notice or communication to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed properly given, if delivered, of if mailed postage prepaid and addressed: To: Franklin County To: City of Pasco Attn: County Administrator 525 North Third 1016 North 4th Avenue Pasco, WA Pasco, WA 99301 To: City of Connell To: City of Mesa 104 E Adams Street/ 103 Franklin Street/ P O Box 1200 P O Box 146 Connell, WA 99326-1200 Mesa, WA 99343 To: City of Kahlotus E 130 Weston/P O Box 100 Kahlotus, WA 99335 Sec. 10. Independent Contractors: The parties and their employees or agents performing under this Agreement are not deemed to be employees, officers, or agents of the other parties to this Agreement and shall be considered independent contractors. Sec. 11. Record Keeping: All parties to this Agreement shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence that properly reflect all costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement. Such records shall reflect financial procedures and practices, participant records, statistical records, property and materials records, and supporting documentation. These records shall be subject at all reasonable times to review and audit by the parties to this Agreement, the Office of the Washington State Auditor, and other officials so authorized by law. Sec. 12. Non-Discrimination: All parties to this Agreement certify that they are equal opportunity employers. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 4 OF 10 Sec. 13. Liability: Each party to this Agreement shall assume the risk of, be liable for, and pay all damage, loss, cost and expense of its officers, officials, and employees arising out of any duty performed, or not performed, while acting in good faith within the scope of this Agreement. Sec. 14. No Third-Party Beneficiaries: The parties to this Agreement do not intend by this Agreement to assume any contractual obligations to anyone other than the parties to this Agreement. The parties do not intend that there be any third-party beneficiaries. Sec. 15. Assignment: No parties to this Agreement shall have the right to transfer or assign, in whole or in part, any or all of its obligations and rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the other parties. Sec. 16. Amendments or Modifications: This Agreement may be amended, altered, or changed in any manner by the mutual written consent of all parties. Sec. 17. Waiver: No waiver by any party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Sec. 20. Severability: If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. Sec. 21. Administrator Designee For This Interlocal Cooperation Agreement: The Board of Franklin County Commissioners is designated as the administrator responsible for overseeing and administering this Agreement which provides for a joint and cooperative undertaking. Sec. 22. Filing: Copies of this Agreement, together with the resolutions of all the parties' governing bodies' approval and ratification of this Agreement, shall be filed with the Franklin County Auditor and the Secretary of the State of Washington after execution of this Agreement by all parties. Sec. 23. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed by facsimile and in any number of current parts and signature pages hereof with the same affect as if all parties to this Agreement had all signed the same document. All executed current parts shall be construed together, and shall, together with the text of this Agreement, constitute one and the same instrument. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 5 of 10 Sec. 24. Effective: This Agreement shall become effective upon approval by the parties and recording with the Franklin County Auditor. DATED this day of , 20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON Frank H. Brock, Chairman Neva J. Corkrum, Chairman Pro Tem Robert E. Koch, Member Attest: Clerk of the Board Approved As To Form: Ryan E. Verhulp Deputy Prosecuting Attomey INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 6 OF 10 CITY OF PASCO Name: Title: Approved As To Form: Attest: Clerk of the Board 1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSIPLANS PAGE 7 OF 10 CITY OF CONNELL Name: Title: Approved As To Form: Attest: Clerk of the Board INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 8 OF 10 CITY OF MESA Name: Title: Approved As To Form: Attest: Clerk of the Board INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 9 OF 10 CITY OF KAHLOTUS Name: Title: Approved As To Form: Attest: Clerk of the Board INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY,THE CITY OF PASCO, THE CITY OF CONNELL,THE CITY OF MESA,AND THE CITY OF KAHLOTUS IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS PAGE 10 OF 10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRANKLIN COUNTY AND THE CITIES LOCATED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY IN PROVIDING FOR LOCAL HOMELESS HOUSING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS/PLANS. WHEREAS, the Washington State Homeless Housing and Assistance Act of 2005 (HB 2163) authorizes a document surcharge which will be used to address homeless issues, and WHEREAS, Franklin County desires to contract with the Benton Franklin Community Action Committee for the preparation of a plan to address local homeless problems by not later than December 31, 2005, and WHEREAS, the City supports County efforts to identify the scope and nature of homelessness in Franklin County,Now Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That the City Council approves the Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County in providing for local homeless housing and assistance programs and plans, and authorizes the Mayor to sign the Agreement. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2005. Michael L. Garrison Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney