HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.05.29 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 29,2007
Please note that our Council Meeting will take place on Tuesday, May 29
as City Hall will be closed Monday,May 28 in honor of Memorial Day.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Recreation Program Presentation. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) Presented
by Paul Whitemarsh, Recreation Services Manager.
(b) Parks and Recreation Advisory Council Interviews:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated May 23, 2007.
2. Applications(4) (Council packets only).
(c) Regional Facilities Study:
1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community & Economic Development Director
dated May 22, 2007.
2. Oversight Committee Conclusion and Recommendations.
3. Amendment#1 to Interlocal Agreement,
4. Phase 2 Scope of Work.
S. Study of Potential Regional Centers(study is in Council packets only; copies available for
public review in the Community Development office, at the Pasco Library or on the City's
webpage at www.ci.pasco.wa.us).
(d) Solid Waste Management Plan:
1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community & Economic Development Director
dated May 17, 2007.
2. Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Brief Introduction.
3. Interlocal Agreement.
4. SWAC Membership.
(e) Swimming Pool Costs/Alternatives:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
May 10,2007.
2. Pool Costs/Alternates Comparison,
3, Aquatic Needs Study (Council packets only; copies available in Administrative and
Community Services Office and the Pasco Library for public review).
(1) City Website Redesign:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
May 23,2007.
2. Cost Comparison.
3. Proposed Professional Services Agreement and Scope of Work.
4. Proposed Scope of Services for Software Training.
4. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Reminders:
1. 10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 31, Pasco Red Lion — Sons of Italy Conference Welcome Address
(COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council May 23, 2007
FROM: Gary Crutch a Manager Workshop Mtg.: 05/29/07
SUBJECT: Parks and Recr ation Advisory Council Interviews
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Applications (4) (Council packets only)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05/29: Council to conduct brief interviews with Michael Mathews, Lynda Salgado,
Curt Shaw and Kevin Williams.
III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Parks and Recreation Advisory Council is composed of seven members; terms
are three years. The board meets on the 1 st Thursday of every month at 5:30 p.m.
B) The Parks and Recreation Advisory Council advises the City Council on recreation
activities and facilities needed in the community.
C) At the present time there are four positions requiring appointment, three of which
have expired terms and one is vacant:
• Position No. 2
• Position No. 4
• Position No. 6
• Position No. 7
D) General consensus of the Council Screening Committee that Duane Taber, Position
No. 4, should be reappointed without interview.
E) After Council Screening Committee review of all applications, the following have
been selected to interview for possible appointment:
1. Michael Mathews...................................................4303 Santa Anna Loop
2. Lynda Salgado ............................................................916 N. 24`t' Avenue
3. Curt Shaw...................................................................4010 Horizon Drive
4. Kevin Williams..............................................................8121 Sunset Lane
IV. DISCUSSION:
A) After conduct of interviews at the May 29 Workshop meeting, it is proposed that
appropriate appointments be made by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the
Council, at the June 4 meeting.
3(b)
AGENDA REPORT NO. 45
For: City Counci+anEconomic May 22, 2007
To: Gary Crutch Manager Workshop: 05/29/07
Regular: 06/04/07
From: Richard J. Srector V4�
Community Development
SUBJECT: REGIONAL, FACILITIES STUDY
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Oversight Committee Conclusion and Recommendations
B. Amendment#1 to Interlocal Agreement
C. Phase 2 Scope of Work
D. Study of Potential Regional Centers (Study is in Council packets only; copies available
for public review in the Community Development office, at the Pasco Library or on the
City's webpage at www.ci.pasco.wa.us.)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/29/07: Workshop: Discussion,
6/04/07 Regular: Motion: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal
Agreement between the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland for Joint
Planning for Regional Centers.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
1/3 of cost of study not to exceed$10,000.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In May, 2006, Pasco entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Kennewick and Richland
regarding joint planning for regional facilities such as an aquatic center or performing
arts center. Under the terms of the Agreement, Pasco was designated as the "Contracting
Agency"responsible for entering into a contract with a consultant who would provide the
Oversight Committee with technical assistance.
B) On May 23, 2006 the City entered into a contract with E.D Hovee and Company on
behalf of the Oversight Committee. Hovee has completed a study of potential regional
centers and submitted a final Report(see Attachment D).
C) The Oversight Committee has reviewed the Final Report and met with E.D Hovee. At
their last meeting on April 2, the Committee reached agreement on conclusions and
recommendations (see Attachment A).
D) The Committee decided that Matt Watkins, in his capacity as Committee Chair, would
present the conclusions and recommendations to each of the City Councils at workshops.
The presentation schedule is as follows:
1. Pasco May 29
2. Kennewick June 5
3. Richland June 19 (tentative)
V. DISCUSSION
A) One of the Oversight Committee recommendations is that E.D Hovee, the consultant,
undertake additional work (see Attachment C Phase 2 Scope of Work). The cost for this
additional work will be $27,500 (with some possible additional costs for extra meetings
that the Committee may feel are needed). Each City will be responsible for one-third of
the cost with a cap of$10,000 for each city (see Attachment B).
B) If the Council wishes to proceed with the recommendation of the Oversight Committee,
an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement can be acted on the June 4 Regular Meeting.
3(c)
Attachment "A"
REGIONAL FACILITIES
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND
While the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland have worked together on regional
issues for a number of years, there have been no mechanisms available to the
communities to work together on special purpose, regional capital projects. In 2006, the
respective Councils of each community determined that a special committee, made up
of two Councilmember from each Council and the City Managers of each City, could
identify these issues and develop a path forward that would allow communities the
ability to work together, and more importantly, jointly share in the cost, of regional
special purpose projects, regardless of location. This committee became the Regional
Oversight Committee.
In late 2006, the Cities entered into an interlocal agreement to hire E.D. Hovee and
Company, LLC, to perform the following:
• Identify potential "regional center" projects together with an assessment of the
community need for each of the identified projects.
• Recommend a process for project and site selection.
• Identify multiple mechanisms whereby the community could accomplish capital
funding, operations, maintenance and ownership of the identified projects.
• Assess community support for each of the identified potential projects.
The work consisted of interviews with community leaders, research of similar projects,
and a series of public meetings in each community. The resulting report from that work
is provided in Attachment A.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings within the report, the public meetings, and other information, the
Oversight Committee makes the following conclusions.
• There is public interest and public support for the Cities to collectively work together
on development, construction and operation of regional, special purpose projects
which are not otherwise likely to be realized.
• While there are a number of ideas for regional, special purpose projects, the only
projects developed to the extent necessary to move forward are the proposed
Aquatic Center and the proposed Performing Arts Center. Both projects have active
champions who have done a significant amount of pre-design and pre-planning
work.
z
9
• Columbia Basin College's plan to replace it's performing arts theatre presents a
unique and timely opportunity for CBC and the community to realize a larger, more
versatile facility than it alight otherwise construct while providing the community with
a financial partner for both construction and long-term operations.
• The Aquatic Center can be located in any of the three communities.
• While there are certainly opponents to any new tax neither tax project can
realistically be realized in the region without voter approval. Therefore the cities
should present to the voters the most viable plan for financing these projects.
• Both Metropolitan Park District (MPD) and Public Facility District (PFD) based
funding mechanisms were seriously considered. The MPD is an option for a multi-
jurisdiction approach to funding public facilities with a voter approved property tax
base. On 'the other hand, the MPD would not have direct access to sales tax funding
and would add a new layer of regional government. A PFD based funding
mechanism would require voter approval in three jurisdictions but would have
access to sales taxes for funding.
• The Committee believes that use of sales tax is the most equitable and best funding
mechanism in that all visitors to the Tri-Cities would contribute to funding by making
retail purchases. Thus, the PFD option is preferred over the MPD. Moreover, the
creation of another new special purpose district reliant on property tax, like the MPD,
would unnecessarily consume a portion of the limited property tax capacity upon
which several local entities (schools, hospitals and libraries) rely upon for delivery of
essential public services and facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the conclusions provided above. The Oversight Committee makes the following
recommendations:
• The Cities adopt the following vision:
In 2008, the Cities shall put forward to the voters of this region a
proposal to construct and finance regional public facilities, including,
but not necessarily limited to, an Aquatics Center and a Performing Arts
Center
• The Cities take the necessary steps to prepare the projects for the ballot:
1. Perform due diligence with existing PFD's regarding the funding mechanism and
how the organization will be structured (i.e. a regional PFD or an interlocal
between the existing PFD's).
2. Perform due diligence with the Tri-Cities Regional Aquatic Center Task Force
and the principles of the former Corporate Council for the Arts and Columbia
Basin College to update facility plans, capital costs, operating costs, and
management plans.
3. At this point, it is anticipated that the Oversight Committee will recommend to the
respective city councils and PFD's the scope and timing of the ballot issue based
on a review of the consultant's work.
4. Hold a series of public workshops to inform the voters regarding the projects.
• To assist the Oversight Committee in carrying out these tasks, the Committee
recommends extending the Interlocal Agreement and increasing the funding
provided by the Cities an additional $10,000 per City. The Oversight Committee
shares the desire of the public, and likely the desire of the Councils, that we should
just get on with it, but utilizing Hovee ensures that no single City's resources are
overtaxed in performing this work and maintains a layer of neutrality fostered by the
Oversight Committee and will best assure the necessary work is completed in a
timely manner.
I
Attachment "B"
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF
KENNEWICK, PASCO, AND RICHLAND FOR
JOINT PLANNING OF REGIONAL CENTERS
WHEREAS, the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland entered into an
Interlocal Agreement on May 23, 2006, with respect to Joint Planning for
Regional Centers; and
NOW THEREFORE, this Agreement is amended to allow the City of Pasco, as
contracting agent, to arrange for the consultant to expand the scope of work as
described in Attachment A
1. Scope of Work
Task A - Prepare a report containing a proposed Regional Center
funding and organizational program together with meeting to discuss
results with the Oversight Committee
Task B - Second interim report containing Aquatic Center/Performing
Arts Center proposals and consultant due diligence evaluation
together with Oversight Committee meeting to discuss results and
recommend next` steps leading to a Public Facility District funding
measure for 2008 voter consideration.
2. COSTS
A_- Pay one-third of the actual cost of additional consulting services
secured for the preparation of the Regional Centers Plan, provided the
share of each party shall not exceed ten thousand dollars. ($10,000)
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Task 1 A & B - The consulting services shall be completed for the
project on or before September 30, 2007.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2007
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the
day and year first above.
CITY OF PASCO
Joyce Olson, Mayor
CITY OF KENNEWICK
James R. Beaver, Mayor
CITY OF RICHLAND
Robert A. Welch, Mayor
Attachment "C"
PHASE 2 REGIONAL CENTERS SCOPE OF WORK
(REVISED DRAFT -- MAY 10, 2007)
The focus of this Phase 2 regional centers Scope of Work is intended to facilitate the
recommendation of the Oversight Committee that.
In 2008, the Cities shall put forward to the voters of this region a proposal to construct
and finance regional public facilities, including, but not necessarily limited to, an
Aquatics Center and a Performing Arts Center.
A preliminary draft Scope of Work was presented and discussed by E. D. Hovee & Company,
LLC with the Oversight Committee at its meeting of May 2, 2007. This proposal has been
revised based on direction received from the Oversight Committee discussion.
Centers Regional - . Proposed
Phase 2 Work Task Schedule Budget
Task 1. Regional Center PFD / Sales Tax Funding & Organizational Proposal
• Preparation of a recommended funding package July—August $17,500
pursuant to a Public Facility District and sales tax
funding mechanism as recommended to the Cities by the (to be refined in
Oversight Committee. conjunction
• Preliminary contacts and follow-up meetings with local with Task 2)
jurisdiction legal and outside bond counsel together with
selected area legislators and statewide organizations
such as the Association of Washington Cities regarding
current statutory authorization with PFD mechanisms
and potential for amendments to enabling statutes with
the 2008 legislative session.
• Meetings with representatives of each Tri-Cities/County
PFD to identify critical issues to address and potential
approaches including agreement templates appropriate
to assure continuity of existing funding and services.
• Follow-up detailed tax and funding analysis, procedural
and governance requirements associated with a
proposed PFD sales tax funding proposal.
• Preparation of draft proposals to amend to state enabling
legislation for PFD mechanisms consistent with
Oversight Committee direction in conjunction with
input from legal/bond counsel and legislative advice.
Deliverable: First interim report containing a proposed Regional Center funding and
organizational program together with meeting to discuss results with Oversight Committee.
I
i
Regional Centers Estimated Proposed
Phase 2 Work Task Schedule Budget
Task 2. Aquatics Center& Performing Arts Center Proposals & Due Diligence
• Contact and consultation with representatives of both July-September $10,000
proposed Regional Center projects to confirm interest in
proceeding and mechanisms for preparing formal (with schedule
project and site submittals. subject to
• Oversight Committee issuance of a formal request for possible
project proposals from the Aquatics Center(AC) and modification if
Performing Arts Center(PAC)—at a minimum expected requested from
to cover refined project/facility plans, proposed sources project
and uses of capital funding,projected operating budget, proponents and
and management plan together with authorization for agreed to by
submittal from each proponent's board of directors. Oversight
• Follow-up to clarify or seek added information from Committee)
Regional Center proponents as needed to complete Task
1/2 due diligence and funding proposals related to
potential tax sources pursuant to proposal and siting
criteria outlined with the Phase 1 Study of Potential
Regional Centers.
Deliverables: Second interim report containing AC/PAC proposals and consultant due diligence
evaluation together with Oversight Committee meeting to discuss results and recommended next
steps leading to a PFD funding measure for 2008 voter consideration.
Proposal Notes:
• Scope of Work covers near-term strategic planning for an Aquatics Center and
Performing Arts Center only. Planning will also address long-term consideration of future
additional regional centers as part of a preferred community-driven approach to on-going
regional centers development. If other facilities such as existing PFD projects are
included during the process for near-term strategic planning, this Scope of Work together
with project budget and schedule may be revised accordingly as is mutually agreeable
between the parties.
• Covered by this Scope of Work are two meetings with the Oversight Committee, one
each at the conclusion of Tasks 1 and 2. Participation in additional meetings with the
Oversight Committee or other entities by consultant E. D. Hovee can be provided, if
requested, at an added budget cost of$1,200 per meeting including professional time and
travel expenses.
• Scope of Work does not include potential tasks or costs of lobbying with the 2008 or
subsequent sessions of the Washington State Legislature. Also not covered are costs of a
potential survey, additional public involvement activities and related services as may be
directed in the future by the Oversight Committee and participating Cities. Any or some
2
combination of these services, if desired from the consultant, could be considered with a
supplemental Scope of Work and associated project budget as may be mutually agreeable
between the parties.
• Scope of Work assumes primary responsibility for project proposals is to Regional
Center project proponents and not project consultants or Oversight Committee.
• All deliverables produced by consultant team will be provided to the Oversight
Committee or its designee in electronic (Word or pdf) format, for reproduction and
distribution by the Committee.
• Consultant will invoice for each task upon completion pursuant including Oversight
Committee acceptance of deliverables. If the schedule is extended beyond what is
indicated with this Scope of Work at the direction of the Oversight Committee, progress
payments may be made as is determined by agreement of the consultant and Oversight
Committee.
• Budget and schedule are subject to modification as may be mutually agreed between the
parties. The proposed schedule assumes ability to obtain rapid response and approvals or
revisions of work products from the Oversight Committee and other project participants.
3
AGENDA REPORT NO. 43
For: City Council May 17, 2007
To: Gary Crutchfie anager. Workshop: 05/29/07
Regular: 06/04/07
From: Richard J. Smit , Director
Community and Economic Development
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Plan
1. REFERENCE(S):
A. Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Brief Introduction
B. Interlocal Agreement
C. SWAC Membership
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/29: Workshop: Discussion.
6/04: Regular: Motion: I move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with Franklin
County for development of the 2008 Integrated Franklin County Solid Waste
Management Plan and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The 2008 Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will be
updated in accordance to RCW 70.95, the Solid Waste Management-Reduction and
Recycling Act. The law requires the county, in cooperation with the cities within the
county, to prepare a solid waste management plan. The updated document will
replace the 1994 Benton-Franklin Regional Solid Waste Management Plan and
Program. The recommendations of the 2008 plan will guide local decision makers
and substantiate the need for local funds and state grants to underwrite solid waste
projects.
B) Under state law, each city in a county may fulfill its solid waste management
planning responsibilities in one of three ways: prepare it's own solid waste
management plan for integration into the comprehensive plan; participate with the
county in preparing a joint city-county plan for solid waste management; or,
authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for
inclusion in the comprehensive county plan.
C) The plan update will be prepared under the direction and guidance of the Franklin
County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). The SWAC draws its
membership from elected county and city officials, other public and private entities
within the Franklin County area. (See Attachment C)
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The county has contracted a consultant to assist in development of the plan. The cost
of hiring the consultant will be covered by a Department of Ecology grant received
by the county in January 2007.
B) The Interlocal Agreement commits the City to participate with Franklin County in
preparing a joint city-county solid waste management plan. It should be noted that
the proposed Agreement states that the "County may provide funding to the cities to
implement....." There is no guarantee that any funding will be provided, nor do the
���cities have any means to reject or modify the plan.
D) Staff believes that there are a number of questions which the County should address
prior to the City Council taking official action. More specifically:
1. Can the County Solid Waste Management Plan be made subject to the
approval of all affected cities prior to adoption?
2. Can the County prepare a separate City Solid Waste Management Plan,
subject to City Council approval, for inclusion in the comprehensive County
Plan?
3. If the City chooses to do its own Solid Waste Management Plan, would
additional State funds be available to pay costs or could a portion of the
Department of Ecology grant funds awarded to Franklin County be made
available to the City for this purpose?
4. Could a member of City Council be included on the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee?
D) Jack Clark, representing SWAC, will attend the workshop to explain the proposal and
answer any questions members of the Council may have.
ATTACHMENT A
FRANKLIN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
BRIEF INTRODUCTION
1.10 BACKGROUND
The 2008 Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update wi I1 present an
ample, long-term approach to solid waste management in the region. The 2008 Plan will be updated in
accordance with The Solid Waste Management- Reduction and Recycling Act(Chapter 70.95
RCW). This law requires the county,in cooperation with the cities within the county,to prepare a
solid waste management plan. This document updates the 1994 Benton-Franklin Regional Solid
Waste Management Plan and Program. It is intended to provide citizens and decision makers in
Franklin County with a guide to implement, monitor,and evaluate future solid waste activities in the
planning area for a 20-year period. The developed recommendations for the 2008 Plan will not only
guide local decision makers, but substantiate the need for local funds and state grants to
underwrite solid waste projects. Although the plan addresses a 20-year timeframe, it will be necessary
to revise and update the plan periodically.
The format of the 2008 Plan will follow that recommended in the Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions(March
1990).The introductory chapter discusses the history of the Plan, its legislative mandate, reviews the
history of solid waste planning in Franklin County, and describes the current planning process. Chapter
I will also discuss features of the natural and human environment of Franklin County. Chapter 2 will
describes the types and quantities of wastes produced and disposal methods used in the county. Chapter
3 will address the handling methods and systems used in the County. Chapter 4 will incorporate the
Moderate Risk Waste management into this plan. Chapter 5 will discuss a summary of problems
encountered in the past,anticipated in the future and will address recommendations and implementation
schedules for solid waste programs. Appendix A will show the costs associated with various solid waste
programs planned and anticipated.
An Executive Summary will provide an overview of the Plan while focusing on the recommendations.
The planning process, including participation of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee(SWAC)and the
public, is also described in the Executive Summary.
1.20 PLANNING AUTHORITIES
The Ptan Update will be prepare([ under the direction and guidance of the Franklin County
SWAC. The Franklin County SWAC will be reestablished in 2007. The SWAC draws its
rttembership from elected[ county an([ city officials,other public and private entities within the
Franklin County area. The cities represented within Franklin County are Pasch, Connelt, Idlesa,
and Kahlotus.
1.21 Role of Local Governments
t.f uder state law,each municipality in a county may fulfill its solidi waste management planning
responsibilities in one of three ways-
- Frepare its own solid[ taste management plait for integration into the comprehensive
comity plait
Participate with the county in preparing a joint city-county plan for solid waste
management `
Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion
in the comprehensive county plan.
Subsequent to development of the 1994 Plan,all participating jurisdictions(Richland, Kennewick,
Pasco,West Richland, Benton City,Prosser,Mesa,Kahlotus and Connell)signed an Interlocal
agreement that established roles and responsibilities in the solid waste management planning
process. The participating,jurisdictions chose to prepare a joint city-county plan,giving the
Benton-Franklin Regional Council authority as the lead initial planning agency.
1.22 Role of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
According to Chapter 70.95 RCW, "each county shall establish a local solid waste advisory committee
to assist in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal and
to review and comment upon proposed rules, policies or ordinances prior to their adoption." In fact,a
citizen oversight committee will guide the development of the 2008 Plan. Participating jurisdictions in
Franklin County are represented by these SWAC. SWAC" members include representatives from
citizen groups, recycling and environmental interests, business,agriculture,and local government.
Two primary responsibilities of the SWAC are to advise on the 2008 Plan development anti to
assist in the plan adoption process. The SWAC will participated in 2008 Plan development by
reviewing draft reports,providing input and comment on all issues covered by the 2008 Plan,acting as a
liaison to their constituencies,and assisting in public involvement. The SWAC. members will also
review the complete draft anti final Plans,and will be asked to recommend the 2008 Plan for
adoption by the counties and municipalities. After the 2008 Plan is adopted,the SWAC will routinely
evaluate implementation of recommended programs, and will help to promote waste reduction and
recycling throughout the region. SWAC members will also participate in amending the 2008 Plan if
necessary. The Plan will be reviewed every five years and revised as needed.
1.30 REGULATORY REVIEW
The primary law guiding the planning effort is the Solid Waste Management Reduction and Recycling
Act(Chapter 70.95 RCW). This statute and Chapter 431, Laws of 1989(which amended Chapter 70.95
RCW),the Hazardous Waste Management Act,the Clean Washington Act,and the Minimum
Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling(MFS).
1.31 Solid Waste Management Act
This 2008 Plan will be developed in response to the Solid Waste Management-Reduction and Recycling
Act,
Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of Washington(RCW),passed in 1969. This act states that:
bitch colmo 10thin the state, in cooperation with the rarious cities located i0thin such
eounti', shall prepare a c'oordittated, comprehensive solid►vaste management plan (RC N'
70 95.080).
The primary reason for plan development is the local(county and municipal)need for a
coordinated,comprehensive solid waste program based on established goals and policies. Local
decision makers need a context for evaluating proposed programs, facilities,or policies that directly or
indirectly affect any element of the solid waste system. The Solid Waste Management-Reduction and
Recycling Act(RCW 70.95.165)also specifies the formation,membership,and role of the SWACs.
Furthermore,the statute requires the plan be maintained in a current condition through periodic review
and updating, if necessary,at least once every five years(RCW 70.95.110).
1.32 Waste Not Washington Act-Chapter 431,Laws of 1989
In 1989,the Washington State Legislature amended the Solid Waste Management Act. This action
resulted in the Waste Not Washington Act, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1671. The revised
legislation addresses two significant issues relevant to the development of solid waste management
plans: (l)solid waste management priorities,and(2)specific elements of local waste reduction and
recycling programs.
The Legislature determined that the fundamental priorities for collection, handling,and management of
solid waste should be: (1)waste reduction;(2)recycling, with source separation of recyclable materials
as the preferred method; (3)energy recovery, incineration or landfilling of separated waste; (4)energy
recovery, incineration,or landfilling of mixed waste.
Public information,education campaigns,commercial incentives and reduction in product packaging are
all presented in Chapter 431, Laws of 1989 as policy options that may be available to local jurisdictions
as a means to meet waste reduction goals. Recycling program elements are also discussed. Specifically,
public education to promote recycling and the collection of source separated materials from residents in
urban and rural areas are emphasized. The programs established in local plans are designed to help
Washington State achieve a 50%recycling goal by 1995. However,no specific recycling goals for
counties are set by the legislation.
1.33 Hazardous Waste Management Act
In 1985,the Washington State Legislature amended the Hazardous Waste Management Act to require
all cities and counties in the state to develop plans for improving moderate risk waste management in
their jurisdictions. Moderate risk waste,as defined by the Act, includes:
— Any household wastes identified by Ecology as hazardous household substances
Any hazardous waste conditionally exempt from regulation because the waste is generated
or accumulated in quantities below the threshold for state or federal regulation (typically 220
pounds per month or per batch or accumulate less than 2,200 pounds on site).
Management of the moderate risk waste stream is closely associated with the management of other solid
wastes. Proper management of moderate risk waste is important, since such wastes pose a threat to
public health,worker safety,and the environment. Moderate risk waste management plans,therefore,
support solid waste management plans by discouraging indiscriminate dumping and diverting hazardous
waste from solid waste handling and disposal facilities,and wastewater treatment facilities. In 1992,
Benton and Franklin Counties completed their moderate risk waste management plan as required by the
Hazardous Waste Management Act. The findings and recommendations of the Benton and Franklin
Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan will be integrated into the Plan as an ongoing effort to
streamline the planning process in Solid Waste.
1.34 The Clean Washington Act-SSSB 5591
The Second Substitute Senate Bill 5591,also known as the Clean Washington Act,was passed by the
Washington State Legislature in April 1991. The Act amends or repeals different sections of several
Washington State laws, including Chapters 70.93, 70.95,43.31 and 19.114 RCW. The primary focus of
the Act centers on new packaging regulations,establishment of the Clean Washington Center,and used
oil recycling. The packaging legislation requires that all plastic containers be labeled with a code that
identifies the materials used to produce the container. In addition,the Act sets limits on specific heavy
metals in products, packages,or packaging components.
The Clean Washington Center(CWC)was created as a new program within the Washington Department
of Trade and Economic Development. Because the supply of many recycled commodities far exceeds
demand, local governments cannot adequately address problems associated with market development.
The mission of the CWC is"to direct service to businesses that transform or remanufacture waste
materials into usable or marketable materials or products..."(RC W 70.93.030). In recognizing the
private sector has the greatest ability to create and expand upon existing markets,the Clean Washington
Center's purpose is to provide or facilitate business assistance,research and development, marketing,and
public education. In 1997 the CWC was given private sector status by the State Legislature and its
funding curtailed.
The Act also requires that each local government,or combination of contiguous local governments,
amend its local hazardous waste plan to include a used oil recycling element. This was done in the
Benton Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Plan(1992)recommendations that emphasis be given in
the educational activities to promoting recycling of used oil.
1.35 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling
Ecology established the Minimum Functional Standards(MFS)(Chapter 173-304 WAC)as required by
the Solid Waste Management-Reduction and Recycling Act. The MFS,originally adopted in 1972,
stipulate performance and operational criteria for storing and disposing of solid waste. Among these
criteria are requirements for preventing environmental contamination related to solid waste storage and
disposal. In particular,the MFS require steps be taken to prevent leachate from contaminating soils,
surface water,and groundwater. The MFS also require that systems, such as groundwater monitoring
wells, be installed near certain solid waste management facilities for early detection of environmental
contamination.
MFS for Solid Waste Handling were revised in 1988 and again in 1993. Revisions in 1993 are reflected
in Chapter 173-351 WAC and are specific to those facilities that dispose,or co-dispose any household
waste. In addition,the Department of Ecology is in the process of revising the solid waste permitting
system for various types of facilities.These changes are likely to include land application of organic
material for beneficial use,new recycling and reuse methods for woodwaste and demolition wastes,the
movement of select wastes into the solid waste system from the hazardous waste system through
deregulation,and the increasing emphasis on different facilities,such as compost facilities, rather than
landfills. Ecology and the State Solid Waste Advisory Committee are developing a strategy for revision.
An internal work group has prioritized the areas for permit revision,and will be the focus of work over
the next year. Areas of concern include:
1. Woodwaste and Demolition Landfills
2. How Clean is Clean?- Inert Definitions
3. Land Application and Industrial Landfills
4. TIM's and Guidance
5. Moderate Risk Waste
6. Boundary Conditions
7. Organization and Readability
8. Other Solid Waste Facilities
9. Other Permitting Issues: Air Quality and Water Quality
1.52 Plan Amendment,Review,and Revision
During the 2008 Plan's implementation,changes may occur in planned activities,assigned roles and
responsibilities,and budget requirements. Changes may occur as new information is gathered,as state
legislation or regulations are revised or adopted,and as other events occur that influence planned
activities. Changes that the SWAC determines to be minor and consistent with the Plan will not require a
Plan amendment. Such changes will be documented, however,and provided for each of the cities and
towns and both counties. If any questions arise concerning the significance of a change to the Plan,the
staff implementing the Plan will consult with the Commissioners of Franklin County and other
appropriate,affected parties.
Before any significant changes in planned activities are undertaken,an amendment to the Plan will be
prepared by the local government agency initiating the change. The proposed amendment will be
presented to the SWAC for review and comment. In addition,the SWAC will consider which local
governments are affected by the proposed amendment,and which of the jurisdictions should be asked to
adopt it. Only entities significantly affected by the proposed change will be asked to adopt the
amendment.
The SWAC will act upon the amendment proposed by the initiating local government and form their
recommendations in a timely manner. The proposed amendment will then be revised as necessary and
presented for adoption by the appropriate elected officials of the affected counties or municipalities.
Subsequent to adoption,the proposed amendment will also be subject to public review and comment.
At a minimum,one public hearing will be held to allow citizens and other interested parties the
opportunity to present their views.
Before the amendment is adopted, it will be submitted to Ecology for review, comment, and final
approval. Approval will be coordinated through Ecology's Eastern Regional Office. Certain internal
decisions by individual jurisdictions may not require a Plan amendment. For example, changes in
disposal rates or operational practices at Basin Disposal Inc. will not require a Plan amendment. The
2008 Plan update process will begin in May 2007. Beginning the update in 2007 will allow
sufficient time to have an adopted plan in place by mid-2008.
ATTACHMENT B
1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This agreement is executed by and between Franklin County ("County") and the
Cities of Pasco, Connell, Mesa and Kahlotus ("Cities") (hereinafter jointly referred
to as "the parties") for the purposes of establishing an integrated solid waste
management plan for Franklin County; fulfilling the Cities and County's
obligations under Chapter 70.95 RCW, and other state and federal laws and
regulations governing solid waste management; and contributing to the health and
safety of all Franklin County residents. The parties make and enter into this
lnterlocal Agreement ("Agreement") effective the day of , 2007, for
the purposes and under terms contained herein.
Definitions
For the purposes of this agreement and any related agreement, contracts and
documents executed, adopted, or approved to this Agreement, the parties shall use
the definitions found in RCW 70.950.030; 70.138.020, WAC 173-304-100 and
WAC 173-350-100, unless the context indicates otherwise.
Recitals
WHEREAS, the parties recognize the need and obligation to meet federal and state
mandates for solid waste management planning; and
WHEREAS, the parties believe that the integrated solid waste management plan
("Plan") can best be accomplished under the leadership of Franklin County in
cooperation with the Cities, and;
WHEREAS, programs of solid waste reduction and recycling can be most effective
when carried out pursuant to a coordinated Plan; and
WHEREAS, the County has secured adequate grant funding to meet the financial
obligations for solid waste planning as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the parties are authorized and empowered to enter into this agreement
pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW.
lnterlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Planning -2007
THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises and covenant herein, it is
hereby agreed:
Franklin County:
Prepare and submit for approval on behalf of the Cities and County a
comprehensive integrated solid waste management plan as provided in RCW
780.95.080 and related provision of law. Such plan as finally prepared,
amended or modified shall be binding upon the parties in its solid waste
management.
Implement, in cooperation with the Cities, waste reduction and recycling
programs within such Cities, as well as in unincorporated areas, all as
enumerated in the Plan. Where appropriate and agreed, the County may
provide funding to the Cities to implement such waste reduction and
recycling programs.
Cities:
Cooperatively help prepare the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
(ISWMP) for Franklin County by participating in the Franklin County Solid
Waste Advisory Committee. Where appropriate and agreed, receive funding
from the County to implement such waste reduction and recycling programs
as outlined in the ISWMP.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized governing authorities as of the day and year first
above written.
Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Planning -2007
ATTACHMENT C
Deborah Barnes
From: Sally McKenzie [smckenzie@co.franklin.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:40 AM
To: Deborah Barnes
Subject: RE: SWAC
Debbie,
As per state law (and our "not yet adopted" bylaws), the SWAC committee "shall be composed
of a minimum of nine (9) and no more than twelve (12) merribers representing a balance of
interests among the following groups: citizens, public interest groups, business, the waste
management industry, and local elected public officials. Members shall provide on-going
public input, coordination and information exchange between the groups. Nine (9) of the
members shall be representatives of the cities and towns of the county and shall be
recommended by their respective councils."
At this time we have not yet filled all the positions. We are still seeking a citizen and a public
interest group representative.
Debbie Barnes - City of Pasco Planner (cities)
Jim Bruce - Lamb Weston (business)
Darrick Dietrich - Basin Disposal (waste industry)
Tim Fife - Franklin County Public Works (county)
Sharon McCaleb - City of Kahlotus Clerk/Treasurer (cities)
Rick Miller - Franklin County Commissioners (elected public official)
Cade Scott - City of Mesa (cities)
Art Tackett - City of Connell (cities)
Candy Thornhill - Ray Poland & Sons (waste industry/business)
Guy Walters - Franklin County Public Works (county)
Others who will be present at SWAC meetings and provide guidance in the update process
include the following:
Jack Clark - HDR Engineering, Inc. (paid consultant)
Sally McKenzie - Franklin County Solid Waste (staff)
Mike Murray - HDR Engineer, Inc. (paid consultant)
Kay Rottell - Benton Franklin Health District
Jim Wavaday - Department of Ecology
Sally McKenzie, Coordinator/Educator
Franklin County Solid Waste
3416 Stearman Ave
Pasco WA 99301
509-545-3551
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Barnes [ma ilto:BARN ESD @ci.pasco.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Sally McKenzie
Subject: SWAG
5/23/2007
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 10, 2007
TO: Gary Crutchft y onager Workshop Mtg.: 5/29
FROM: Stan Strebel, strative and Community
Services Dir
SUBJECT: Swimming Pool Costs/Alternatives
I. REFERENCE(S):
X Pool Costs/Alternates Comparison
B. Aquatic Needs Study (Council packets only; copies available in Administrative
and Community Services Office and the Pasco library for public view.)
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/29: Discussion, Direction From Council
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In March, Council authorized the ORB Organization to prepare a study
updating/developing construction and operational cast estimates for various
swimming pool alternatives. A copy of the study report is attached.
B) In addition to the information prepared by ORB in the report, staff has added
some additional alternatives based on input from the Park and Recreation
Advisory Council. Staff has prepared a summary which includes the ORB work
and added alternatives organized by facility in ascending order of construction
cost for ease of comparison (Numbers have been rounded for simplification.)
C) While the City has been anticipating the possibility of the three cities cooperating
on a regional aquatic facility, the development of a plan for our existing facilities
has been delayed. If Council is ready to give direction for these facilities, staff
can begin to prepare specific proposals for inclusion in the next 6 year capital
improvement plan.
3(e)
SWIMMING POOL ALTERNATIVES COST ESTIMATES
Est.Annual
Capital Cost Net Revenue*
KURTZMAN POOL ALTERNATIVES
1. Required Renovation, 2008 Code Compliance 5,100 (15,000)
2. Demolish, Restore Site 125,000 -
3. Complete Renovation, As Is (20 yard) 750,000 (15,000)
4. Replacement, As Is(20yard) 1,100,000 (15,000)
5. Replacement, Expanded 25yard 2,600,000 # (10,000)
6. Replacement, 25 yd Indoor, Competition 5,600,000 (109,000)
800sf Training (see dwg K6)
7. Replacement, 25yd Indoor, Competition 7,530,000 21,000
2500sf Leisure (see dwg K7)
RICHARDSON POOL ALTERNATIVES
1. Required Renovation, 2008 Code Compliance 5,100 (15,000)
2. Should Complete
Heater Replacement 10,000 (15,000)
Deck Replacement 35,000
3. Demolish, Restore Site 125,000 -
4. Complete Renovation 750,000 (15,000)
5. Replacement, As Is 1,100,000 (15,000)
6. Demolish, Replace with Sprayground 650,000 (6,600) --
(water re-use)
7. Demolish, Replace with Sprayground 400,000 (7,800) **
(flow through)
MEMORIAL POOL ALTERNATIVES
1. Required Renovation, 2008 Code Compliance 14,600 (50,000)
2. Complete Renovation, As Is (50yard) 3,030,000 (45,000)
3. Renovation, Add Rapids Channel, 3,300,000 (30,000)
Interactive Features (see dwg M3)
4. Replacement, Add Interactive Features 5,400,000 (35,000)
5. Renovate Pool, New Bathhouse, Add Leisure Pool,
Interactive Features (see dwg M5) 7,500,000 80,000 ***
6. Replacement, Indoor Facility (see dwg M6) 12,000,000 (278,000)
w Operational costs estimated including program/admission revenues
Best Case Scenarios
**Sprayground costs based on 25,000 gal per day, 8hr/day, 120 days.
Labor, electrical, water, sewer, chemicals; No revenue assumption
www Costs updated from 2002 Study
#Cost estimate provided by ORB, 5/8/07
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 23, 2007
TO: Gary Crutchfi I y-Panager Workshop Mtg.: 5/29/07
U Regular Mtg.: 6/4/07
FROM: Stan Strebel, �i'3�strative & Community Services Director
SUBJECT: City Website Redesign
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Cost Comparison
2. Proposed Professional Services Agreement and Scope of Work
3. Proposed Scope of Services for Software Training
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/29: Discussion
6/4: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Delphia
Consulting for website design and platform and, further, to authorize the
City Manager to sign the agreement.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
$44,004; General Fund supplement necessary.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Council adopted City website redesign "to reflect a contemporary style and take advantage
of"portal" technologies" as a goal for 2006 - 2007. Staff assigned a team to research and
review several options to determine the most suitable method to implement this goal.
B) The current site is out of date and lacks the functionality and ease of use and maintenance
that is now available. The comparison of multiple vendors suggested three possible
methods to achieve website design and functionality. One method is a totally customized
site that ranges in price of upwards of $120,000. The major drawback is reliance on
consultants to design, implement and subsequently, make changes to the site, resulting in
ongoing costs for such revisions. The second method is to purchase a module for each type
of function to be performed (i.e. online job applications, events calendar, make payments
etc.) This method is limiting in ability and flexibility and ranges in price from $44,000 to
upwards of$73,000. The third method is to purchase a design and platform that is flexible
and can be expanded to meet City/citizen demands as they increase over time. Staff found
prices from $48,000 and upwards of$68,000 for this approach. Delphia Consulting will
provide services via this method, using Refresh software, and is the recommended vendor.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff requested assistance from Lockheed Martin Information Technologies in reviewing
the proposed approach and received positive comments. Delphia offers the following,
which are notable City priorities and/or in some cases not available through other
alternatives:
• Portal technology.
• Ability to navigate to any subject matter on the website with three mouse clicks.
• Navigation system providing multiple ways to move around the site.
• Flexibility to grow as the needs of our internal and external customer needs expand.
• Content management software providing for multiple layers of work flow approval.
• Activation and expiration dates of material to be published.
• Version history required to meet the Records Retention Schedule for the State.
B) Delphia has provided services for a number of municipalities including the City of
Bellevue, the City of Las Vegas and Mesquite, NV. Representative examples of sites
employing the recommended Refresh software include: American Institute of Architects
(www.aia.ora); Janus (www.janus.com); and MyNevada.gov (a multi jurisdictional
website).
C) Staff recommends Council approve the agreement with Delphia Consulting.
V)
Cost Comparison
Civieplus Delphia Consulting
Price $31,300 $44,170
(plus annual fee) (plus annual fee)
Annual Maintenance $12,900 $ 3,834
(3% increase/yr) (flat fee)
Advanced Training n/a $ 6,000
Less Pre-order Discount n/a ($10,000)
Total 1St Year Cost $44,200 $44,004
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
,nw a
DELPHIA CONSULTING * r iF
X
6
�n
City of Pasco, WA
Engagement Agreement & SOW:
Website Package
Jared Dinsmore
May 1, 2007
Tel 518.693.7347 1 Mobile 518.488.7944 1 Corporate 888.421.2000
jinsmore(a�delphiaconsulting.com
http://www.delRhiaconsultinr c� om/
Delphia Consulting LLC 1 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
This agreement is executed between Delphia Consulting, LLC,445 King Ave, Columbus, OH 43201,
hereinafter referred to as Delphia, and the City of Pasco, 525 N 3'd Ave, Pasco, WA, 99301, hereinafter
referred to as Client.
The purpose of this agreement is to define the terms and conditions for consulting services to be provided
by Delphia to Client. This agreement is defined in general terms and is intended to cover a variety of
consulting engagements as well as requests for consulting services and on-going support. The current
project and related software purchase, if any, is included as Appendix B.
A separate statement of work is not required under this agreement for each request by Client. This is a
continuing Engagement Agreement. However, if requested by Client,the specific scope, objectives, and
estimated hours for a specific engagement and/or request for consulting services under this agreement
can be defined in a separate statement of work.
I. General Assumptions
Delphia has made the following assumptions for all engagements and or requests for consulting services
relating to Client:
1. Delphia will assume the role of project manager; however Client will have overall responsibility for
the respective projects. Client will assemble a project team and appoint a project team leader. It
is understood that the implementation of any of the recommendations made by Delphia will be at
Client's sole discretion.
2. Client and Delphia's personnel will establish the time frame for project completion. A project-
planning meeting will be conducted with Delphia project team members to identify the scope and
timing of Delphia involvement.
3. If assumptions change or a change in scope is required, Client will be advised of the impact on
the timing and project fees by Delphia.
II. Staffing
Delphia views projects under this agreement as joint efforts led by Client, combining the skills and
resources of Client and Delphia. This approach will accomplish several goals. First, the fee payable to
Delphia will be lower as the result of utilizing efforts of Delphia personnel only where necessary. Second,
Delphia can transfer implementation and product knowledge to Client that will allow its organization to
effectively and efficiently operate and support the systems internally.
III. Timing and Fees
Work undertaken by Delphia will be on a fixed fee or on a time and materials basis(see Appendix B),
including reasonable direct expenses. Consultants record their time to the nearest quarter hour. Our
standard billing rates for this work ranges from $90 to$187.50 per hour. Specific fees/rates for services
will be agreed upon for each statement of work as requested(see Appendix B).
Actual traveling time between Client's premises and the professional service employee's point of
departure will be billed at 50% of the normal billable rate for on-site services delivered outside of the
consultant's home area.
Delphia Consulting LLC 2 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
Fees do not include any reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for items such as training materials,
telecommunication charges incurred during conference calls, air and train travel, hotel accommodation,
car rental, car service or taxi, and a per diem meal allowance for engagements outside our employees'
home city in an amount in accordance with IRS publication 1542. These will be separately itemized and
charged.
Fee estimates do not include contingencies for unknowns,which will be discussed as they arise. Delphia
will work proactively with Client to continually monitor the level of Delphia participation. Delphia will
provide client weekly status reports. As noted in Appendix A,the consulting fees and expenses will be
invoiced semi-monthly, and are due upon receipt.
IV. Terms and Conditions
Attached to this letter as Appendix"A"are the terms and conditions under which Delphia will render the
consulting services described in this Engagement Agreement and as may be further described in a
subsequent statement of work.
V. Engagement Acceptance
Signing in the space indicated and returning a copy to Delphia confirms acceptance of this agreement
with the terms outlined. Any questions regarding any portion of this agreement should be directed to
Brian Delphia at(614)421-2000 ext 335.
Agreed and Accepted:
Delphia Consulting, LLC
By:
Joseph P. Rotella Date
Its: Chief Technical Officer
City of Pasco, WA
By:
Date
Its:
Delphia Consulting LLC 3 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL.
City or Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
APPENDIX A
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
These terms and conditions pertain to, and are hereby incorporated in, the agreement, dated May 1,
2007, between Delphia Consulting, LLC, hereinafter referred to as Delphia, and the City of Pasco, 525
N 3`d Ave, Pasco, WA, 99301, hereinafter referred to as Client.
1. Consulting Fees• Expenses. Client shall pay to Delphia the fees as set forth in the Engagement
Agreement. The minimum charge for consulting services shall be one quarter of one hour.
Delphia shall invoice Client semi-monthly in arrears, for fees incurred as a result of performing the
services described in the Engagement Agreement ("Services"). All invoices shall be due upon
receipt by Client. Any amounts payable by Client, which are not paid within 30 days after they
are due, shall bear interest at a rate of 1 1/2% per month from the date due until such amount is
paid. Client shall reimburse Delphia for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred
by Delphia in performance of the Services, which include but are not limited to training materials,
telecommunication charges incurred during conference calls, air and train travel, hotel
accommodation, car rental, car service or taxi, and a per diem meal allowance for engagements
outside our employees' home city in an amount in accordance with IRS publication 1542. These
will be separately itemized and charged. Client understands that services provided by Delphia
consultants will be billed at the rates specified in Section III of the Engagement Agreement.
2. Warranties. Delphia warrants that it has full power and authority to enter into the Engagement
Agreement and perform the Services contemplated therein. Delphia warrants that all Services will
be performed in a manner consistent with generally accepted industry standards. This warranty
shall be valid for 90 days from performance of the Services. Delphia DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH
RESPECT TO THE SERVICES.
3. Confidentiality.
(a) Because of the nature of the services to be performed pursuant to the consulting engagement,
each party may have access to confidential information about the other ("Confidential
Information"). "Confidential Information" means nonpublic information that the disclosing party
designates as being confidential or which under the circumstances surrounding disclosure ought
to be treated as confidential. "Confidential Information" includes, without limitation, information
relating to the disclosing party's software or hardware products which may include source code,
API data files, documentation, specifications, databases, networks, system design, file layouts,
tool combinations and development methods as well as information relating to the disclosing
party's business or financial affairs, which may include business methods, marketing strategies,
pricing, competitor information, product development strategies and methods, customer lists and
financial results. Confidential Information also includes information received from others that the
disclosing party is obligated to treat as confidential and oral information that is identified by the
disclosing party as confidential. Confidential Information disclosed by a subsidiary or affiliate of
the disclosing party and/or its agents is covered by this Agreement. Confidential Information
includes all tangible materials which contain Confidential Information whether written or printed
documents, computer disks, or tapes, whether user or machine-readable. Confidential
Information shall not include any information that (1) is already known to the receiving party or its
affiliates, free of any obligation to keep it confidential; (2) is or becomes publicly known through
no wrongful act of the receiving party or its affiliates; (3) is received by the receiving party from a
Delphia Consulting LLC 4 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
third party without any restriction on confidentiality; (4) is independently developed by the
receiving party or its affiliates; (5) is disclosed to third parties by the disclosing party without any
obligation of confidentiality; or (6) is approved for release by prior written authorization of the
disclosing party. The parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information
and to protect as a trade secret any portion of the other party's Confidential Information by
preventing any unauthorized copying, use, distribution, installation, or transfer of possession of
such information. Each party agrees to maintain at least the same procedures regarding
Confidential Information that it maintains with respect to its own Confidential Information. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither party shall permit any of its personnel to remove
any proprietary or other legend or restrictive notice contained or included in any material provided
by the disclosing party and the receiving party shall not permit its personnel to reproduce or copy
any such material except as expressly authorized hereunder, One party may only use the other
party's Confidential Information in order to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement.
(b) Both parties acknowledge that any use or disclosure of the other party's Confidential
Information in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Engagement Agreement may
cause the non-disclosing party irreparable damage for which remedies other than injunctive relief
may be inadequate, and both parties agree that the non-disclosing party shall be entitled to
injunctive or other equitable relief restraining such use or disclosure, in addition to such damages
and other relief to which the non-disclosing party may be entitled by law.
(c) The terms and provisions of this Section 3 shall survive any termination of the Engagement
Agreement for any reason for a period of 5 years following such termination.
4. Custom Developed Software. In the event Delphia develops modifications or custom software
("Developed Software"), such Developed Software shall be and remain the sole and exclusive
property of Delphia, but Delphia hereby grants to Client a non-exclusive, fully paid license to use
the Developed Software. The use of the Developed Software may be subject to the server and
concurrent user limitations contained in the License Agreement with the software vendor. The
Developed Software shall be licensed on an "AS IS" basis and is not subject to the maintenance
and support plan with the software vendor. Maintenance and support for the Developed Software
may be obtained from Delphia on a time and materials basis.
5. Intellectual Property Rights. In the course of the consulting engagement, Delphia may use
enhancements, discoveries, processes, methods, designs and know-how, whether or not
copyrightable or patentable, which Delphia conceived during the course of other consulting
engagements, and Client shall not thereby acquire any ownership or other rights therein other
than as provided in Section 4. In addition, Delphia may independently develop enhancements,
processes, methods, designs, or know-how during the term of this consulting engagement and
Client acknowledges that Delphia may use such enhancements, processes, methods, designs,
and know-how in its business operations with other customers, free of any rights or claims by
Client.
6. Term and Termination. The term of the Engagement Agreement(which term expressly includes
these terms and conditions) shall commence on the date hereof and, unless earlier terminated as
provided below, shall continue for any and all engagements and ongoing support until such time
as a separate Engagement Agreement is signed which specifically replaces the present one or as
otherwise stated herein. In the event of any breach of any term or provision of the Engagement
Agreement by either party, the other party may cancel the Engagement Agreement by giving
thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof; provided, however, that the Engagement Agreement
shall not terminate at the end of the thirty (30) day notice period if the party in breach has cured
the breach to the satisfaction of the other party prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) day period.
In addition, either party shall have the right to terminate the Engagement Agreement without
cause upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. In such case, Client shall be
responsible for payment of all Services rendered prior to the date of termination. Also, Delphia
Delphia Consulting LLC 6 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
may terminate the Engagement Agreement without notice if any consulting invoice is unpaid for a
period greater than 30 days following its due date.
7. Limitation of Liability. Delphia's entire liability to Client or any other party for any loss or
damage resulting from any breach by Delphia of the Engagement Agreement or any performance
of or failure to perform the Services on the part of Delphia (including any partner, employee,
contractor or agent of Delphia) or any failure of any feature of the Developed Software shall not
exceed the fees paid to Delphia for the Services under the Engagement Agreement,
notwithstanding any failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy.
8. No Liability for Consequential Damages. In no event shall Delphia be liable for any indirect,
incidental, consequential, special, or exemplary damages whatsoever (including, without
limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business
information, or other pecuniary loss) arising out of the Engagement Agreement or the
performance or failure to perform Services, or for acts of negligence that are not reckless or
intentional in nature, even if Delphia has been advised of the possibility of such damages, and
notwithstanding any failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy.
9. Independent Contractor. Delphia is an independent contractor. Neither Delphia nor Client is, or
all be deemed for any purpose to be, an employee or agent of the other and neither party shall
have the power or authority to bind the other party to any contract or obligation. Delphia shall
retain the right to perform work for others during the term of the consulting engagement.
10. Governing Law. The consulting engagement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Ohio.
11. Entire Agreement; Modifications. Each party acknowledges that it has read the Engagement
Agreement and the Appendix attached thereto, and further agrees that the Engagement
Agreement and this Appendix A are the complete and exclusive statement of the parties and
supersede and merge all prior proposals, understandings, and agreements, oral or written,
between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, including, without limitation, the terms of
any customer request for proposal or the terms on any Client purchase order. No modification,
amendment, supplement to or waiver of the Engagement Agreement or this Appendix A shall be
binding upon the parties to be charged therewith unless made in writing and signed by such
party.
12. Severability. In the event any one or more of the provisions of the Engagement Agreement or of
this Appendix A is held to be invalid or otherwise unenforceable, the enforceability of the
remaining provisions shall be unimpaired.
13. Dispute Resolution. With the exception of claims for injunctive relief, any dispute between
parties hereto involving the breach, construction, or application of any of the terms, covenants, or
conditions of the agreement or any other dispute between the parties shall be settled by
arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Arbitration
Rules, provided that there shall be only one arbitrator, and judgment on the award rendered by
the arbitrator may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
14. Hiring of Delphia Personnel. Client acknowledges that Delphia provides a valuable service by
identifying and assigning personnel for Client work. Client further acknowledges that Client would
receive substantial additional value and Delphia would be deprived of the benefits of its work
force, if Client were to directly hire Delphia's personnel after Delphia has introduced them to
Client. Accordingly, without the prior written consent of Delphia, Client shall not recruit or hire any
personnel of Delphia who are or have been assigned to perform work pursuant to the
Engagement Agreement until the expiration of one (1) year after the termination of the
Engagement Agreement. In the event that Client hires any personnel of Delphia who are or have
been assigned to perform work for Client, during the engagement or within one year after the
Delphia Consulting LLC 6 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
termination of the Engagement Agreement, Client shall pay Delphia within one (1) year of the
date of such hiring, an amount equal to ninety-five percent (95%) of the total first-year
compensation Client pays to such personnel, which shall be deemed a fee for the additional
benefit obtained by Client. Any bonus or other compensation paid in respect of the first year's
services by such personnel, regardless of when paid, shall be deemed part of total first year
compensation,
15. Force Maleure. Delphia shall not be responsible for failure to perform in a timely manner under
The Engagement Agreement when its failure results from any of the following causes; Acts of God
or public enemies, civil war, insurrection or riot, fire, flood, explosion, earthquake or serious
accident, strike, labor trouble or work interruption, or any cause beyond its reasonable control.
16. Notices. Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given by either party to
The other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the day of service if
served personally or by facsimile transmission with confirmation, or three (3) days after mailing if
mailed by First Class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, and addressed to the
respective parties at their principal place of business or at such other addresses as may be
specified by either party.
17. Promotion. Each party authorizes the other to indicate in its advertising, marketing and other
promotional materials and undertakings that the Client uses the software licensed in conjunction
with this agreement.
18. Reference. Client will act as a client reference for Delphia on an as needed basis. As well, Client
agrees that they will participate in a success story for the software to be published on Delphia's
web site.
19. On-site Workspace. Client shall provide Delphia suitable office accommodations and access to
computers so as to enable Delphia to perform the Services pursuant to the Engagement
Agreement.
Delphia Consulting LLC 7 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City or Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
APPENDIX B
Statement of Work
This Statement of Work outlines our fees to complete the project defined below and serves as your
authorization for Delphia Consulting to proceed with the project.
Project Name;City of Pasco'eGov Website Package
WESSITE IMPLENTATION SERVICES:
Includes:
Project Planning&Management
Establishing Baseline&Expected Metrics
Establishing Marketing&Branding Guidelines
Site Navigation&Page Type Design
Site Map Creation
Visual Design(1 Iteration),CSS Creation,Graphics&Artwork Production
Complete Website Development(Database,User Interface, Business Logic,Asset Type)
Development of two web based forms for capturing and passing data to eTrack It application
Linking to all existing 3`d party applications
Quality Assurance Testing
System Integration and Support(Up to 4 hours)
SR2 Super User Training(includes: One 4-hour remote training session for 5 users)
Super User Support(Up to 5 hours or remote support)
SR2 CONTENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE:
Includes:
1 Content Domain
o Includes 5 Named Users for Content Management System
o 6—Additional on Users
P 1 Year of Standard Support&Maintenance
FEES:
Licensed Product: $19,170
Licensed Product Support&Maintenance: $3,834
Website Implementation Services: $15.00
Total Fees: $38,004
Terms:
• $23,004(for license products&maintenance/support)will be invoiced upon receipt of signed Engagement
Agreement and Statement of Work.
• $15,000 will be invoiced upon completion and delivery of agreed services.
NOTES and ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Includes Pre-Order discount
2. Website&CMS features are detailed on page 9.
3. Included Asset Types detailed on page 11.
4. Implementation project is expected to start around mid to late May.
S. Implementation of website will take 30-60 days from the time the project begins.
6. City of Pasco will be responsible for all travel related expenses for any onsite training.
7. Fixed fee pricing includes expenses for items such as training materials&telecommunication.
8. Client is responsible for software system requirements as specified at:
http://www.refreshsoftware.com/SR2—Tech_Requirements
9. Client is responsible for website hosting and ongoing website maintenance.
Delphia Consulting LLC 8 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
Website Features
User&task oriented design Events calendar
ustomized look&feel Photo gallery
Dynamic home page News archive
User centric portals Staff directory
ccessibility features Related links
Site search Maps
Printer friendly pages Integration with P party applications
Search engine optimization
Website traffic statistics
Website Will Provide Easy Access To Information About:
Applying For: Assistance,Committees,Jobs,Licenses, Permits,&Variances
Checking Status Of: Licenses,Inspections,Traffic,Zoning
Finding: Bid Information, Businesses,Emergency Info,Events,Meetings, Parks,etc
Paying: Z-axes,Tickets,&Utilities
Registering: Classes, Pets, Programs,Vehicles,Vote
Reporting: Feedback,Problems,Tips,Violations
Requesting: Agenda Slots,Public Records,Services, Zoning Information
Seeing: Agendas,Documents,Maps,News Releases, Photo Galleries,etc
SR2 Content Management System Features
For Content Contributors:
Create,edit,approve,delete,and publish website content without any technical background
Avoid any dependencies(and delays)on technical resources for managing website content
Avoid conflicting content updates by checking in/checking out content
Create a single piece of content and display it in multiple places(within the same site or multiple sites)
For Technical Resources:
Integrates into your environment seamlessly and is compatible with other standards-based technologies
Comes with an open API,allowing you to integrate data to and from any outside application
Avoids the issue of proprietary repositories and vendor lock-in by leveraging proven Oracle and SQL
database standards for storage and publishing
Role based permissions allow you to control not only what pages users can access,but also what features
are accessible to them as well
Content versioning allows you to roll back the site at any point in time
Delphia Consulting LLC 9 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 9, 2007
Asset Types
Asset Types define what information is to be collected and associated with each content asset.They allow you to
capture the recurring structure inherent in your content,making it easy to use and repurpose the content.For
example,it is easy to recognize that all press releases share some common attributes,like title,release date and
contact information,while all job descriptions share another set of common attributes,including title,
responsibilities and salary.With SR2,you capture this structure by defining one asset type for press releases and
another for job descriptions.Asset Types,therefore,define the data and meta-data fields associated with a
particular kind of content.
Content authors create and edit individual content assets through data entry forms corresponding to a particular
Asset Type.SR2 automatically generates and deploys the appropriate entry form-providing a consistent user
interface and reinforcing the separation of content from format notion.Authors can create any number of assets
per Asset Type.
Assets
Content Management systems deal with discrete pieces of content,called content components or assets.The
assets may be anything from a chunk of text to a complete file or image.The assets are authored,stored,edited,
and versioned individually,under control of a workflow manager.Text based assets are created directly within the
Content Management system,rather than relying on external tools,giving the system complete access to the
content.
Assets can be items such as images(including buttons,banner graphics,logos,photographs,and so on),text,Flash
content,or other media.
Delphia Consulting LLC 10 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
included Asset Types
The following Asset Types(and their associated attributes)will be included as part of your implementation. This
pre-defined list is not subject to iteration as part of your implementation.
Asset T pe Qescri tiah,
album photo album
bid bid
bid5tatus Bid Status
cityCouncil city council
cityService city service
class Class
committee committee
department Info on city government departments
event event
eventCategory list of categories of events
facilityType Facility Type
file use for uploaded files
fileCategory File Category
fileFormat file format
fileType file type
generalinformation General information
image use for uploaded images
imageCategory Image Category
imageType image type
job job
jobClassification Job Classification
jobStatus Job Status
keyword keywords used in the site to group data
link various links:external,internal,etc.
IinkType info on the types of links available
location location
menu left navigation menu
news news article
newsCategory news category
page page-specific info
pagePortal portal page
pagePreview preview page wrapper
parkFacility Parks,Trails and Facilities
parkFacilityCategory parkFacility Category
person info on a person within the city hierarchy
personPosition position of person within city government structure
personType person type
portal portal
portalCategory portal category
Delphia Consulting LLC 11 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
Asset Type Description
recurrenceDay event recurrence day(s)
recurrencelnterval event recurrence interval
reportTopic report topic
serviceCategory service category
spotlight spotlight article
spotlightCategory Spotlight Category
utilityCategory Utility Category
utilityProvider utility provider
webForm web form
Delphia Consulting LLC 12 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco Engagement Agreement May 1, 2007
Engagement Acceptance
Signing in the space indicated and returning a copy to Delphia confirms acceptance of this Statement of
Work and authorizes Delphia Consulting to proceed with the project listed pursuant to the terms and
conditions outlined in our Engagement Agreement dated May 1, 2007.
Terms Option:
Agreed and Accepted By:
Date:
Delphia Consulting LLC 13 of 13 CONFIDENTIAL
City of Pasco April 11,2007
OIL
DELPHIA CONSULTING , v,"
Y " '" �
• N I� ,
City of Pasco, WA
Statement of Work
Development & Training by Refresh Software
Jared Dinsmore
April 11, 2007
Tel 518.693.7347 1 Mobile 518.488.7944 1 Corporate 888.421.2000
I dinsmorel_cbdelphiaconsulting.com
http://www.delphiaconsulting.com/
Delphla Consulting LLC Confidential
City of Pasco April 11, 2007"
Statement of Work
This Statement of Work outlines our fees to complete the project defined below and serves as your
authorization for Delphia Consulting to proceed with the project.
Project Name: Development&Training by Refrosh Software
Upon completion and delivery of the City of Pasco website by Delphia Consulting,Refresh Software will complete
and deliver:
SR 2 Content Management System Advanced Developer Training:
2 Y Day Training Includes:
SR2 Content Management Configuration Training On:
Asset Types
Content Domains
DB Replication
SR2 Content Delivery Training On:
SR2 Content Retrieval Objects
Workflow Triggers
Web Services
Additional Training On:
How the subscription was setup
The ability to create forms to capture input from citizens for departmental uses
• examples:job application, public records request,city committee application
Create new pages as requested
Understand the website navigation—how it works and how to make changes
%Day Training Preparation
Job Postings Development:
City of Pasco will be able to post job openings on the website. Users navigating the site will then be able to
submit a resume and Cover Letter which will be emailed to the appropriate person that posted the Job.
Newsletter Development:
Refresh Software will provide the interface to write the newsletters and integrate the system to email residents
that have signed up for the newsletters. The newsletters will have a subscription area on the site.
Fees:
Training&Development $6,000
Total Fees $6,000
NOTES and ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Training will be performed by a member of Refresh Software.
2. Training will be held onsite at the City of Pasco.
3. Pasco will be responsible for travel expenses for the onsite training.
Delphia Consulting LLC Confidential
City of Pasco April 11, 2007
Engagement Acceptance
Signing in the space indicated and returning a copy to Delphia confirms acceptance of this Statement of
Work and authorizes Delphia Consulting to proceed with the project listed pursuant to the terms and
conditions outlined in our Engagement Agreement dated April 10, 2007.
Agreed and Accepted By:
Date:
Delphia Consulting LLC Confidential