HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.09.26 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 P.M. September 26,2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPOW17S FROM COUNCILIVIEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Oregon Avenue Corridor Enhancement Concept Presentation. (NO WRITTFN
MATERIAL ON AGENDA) Presented by Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director.
(b) Pasco Bicycle&Pedestrian Master Plan (MF#INFO 2011-002):
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated September 20.2011.
2. Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (Council packets only; copy available for public
review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at
http://www.nasco-wa.gov/citycouncilrcport.$).
3. Planning Commission Memo dated 9/15/11.
4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated 8/18/11 and 9/15/11.
(c) Cable Franchise Renewal Services:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated September 20, 2011.
2. Proposed Tnteriocal Agreement.
3. Proposed Consulting Services Agreement.
(d) Accountant Reclassification:
1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
September 20,2011.
(e) Draft Boundaries for Legislative Districts:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated September 22,2011.
2. Draft Legislative Plan 1, Commissioner Ceis.
3. Draft Legislative plan 1,Commissioner poster.
4. Drag Legislative Plan 1,Commissioner Gorton.
5. Draft Legislative Plan 1,Commissioner Huff.
6, Newspaper Article on Redistricting Proposals.
(f) Community Survey Policy Questions:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 22, 2011.
2. Community Survey Questions from Prior Years.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
L 1:30 p.m., Monday, September 26, TRIDEC - Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Media
Conference. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY)
2. 4:00 p.m., Monday, September 26,Ben-Franklin Transit Office-Hanford Area Economic Investment
Fund Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YF.NNF,Y,Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ,Alt.)
3. 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 26, Three-Rivers Convention Center, Kennewick - Association of
Washington Cities Regional Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, COUNCILMEMBERS
REBECCA FRANCIK, BOB HOFFMANN, TOM LARSEN, SAUL MARTINEZ and AT.
YENNEY)
4. 9:30 a.m., Thursday, September 29, Ellensburg - Columbia River Policy Advisory Group Meeting.
(MAYOR MATT WATKINS)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 20, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 9/26/11
Rick White,
Community &f Economic Development Director X4
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (MF# INFO 2011-002)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (Council packets only; copy available for
public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at
htili://www.pasco-wa.gov/ciVcouncilrgports).
2. Planning Commission Memo 9/15/2411
3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated 8/18/11 & 9/15/11.
II, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9126: DISCUSSION
laI. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. In 2007, Council approved Resolution 3021 adopting a "Bikeway Plan"
developed by an ad hoc committee formed in 2006. The Bikeway Plan together
with various efforts from other sources, including the Benton Franklin Council of
Governments, created the need to consolidate existing information related to
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Pasco.
B. This Draft Master Plan: 1) consolidates previous efforts addressing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in Pasco; 2)provides an action plan for improving bicycle and
pedestrian travel; and 3) analyzes the costs and potential funding sources of
implementation.
C. On August 18, 2011 the Planning Commission held a workshop to discuss the
Plan and to provide feedback to improve the Plan.
D. On September 20, 2011 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive
input from the public about the Plan. During that meeting one individual
addressed the Commission with supportive comments and emphasized the need
for safe bicycle travel on Road 68 north. of Argent Road. The Planning
Commission has recommended adoption of the Plan.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The Draft divides the City into six (6) "Areas" based on geography and similarity
of right-of-way development conditions. Each Area contains recommended
bicycle and pedestrian improvements and an estimate of costs.
B. The Plan identifies "Key Routes" within each Area which are functionally
significant in creating logical corridors for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Maps of
each Key Route are provided to clearly illustrate their locations. Although not all
Key Routes connect to one another, other proposed routes do create continuity.
C. An adopted bicycle and pedestrian plan that is incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Plan will facilitate implementation of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities in conjunction with the City's Capital Improvement Plan process.
4(b)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 15, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (MF# PLAN2011-002)
Attached is a draft of the proposed Pasco Bicycle/Pedestrian Master
Plan. The intent of the Plan is to: 1) consolidate previous efforts related
to bicycle/pedestrian facilities planning in Pasco; 2) provide goals,
policies and objectives for improving bicycle/pedestrian circulation; and
3) provide information useful in assigning priority to certain roadway
improvements.
Since the workshop on August 181h, changes to the Plan have been
made. The Plan was changed in the following ways: 1) the ranking
criteria have been pared down in number and the point scoring system
was modified. 2) Language and maps identifying Key Routes for each
Area have been included. 3) The structure of construction costs have
been altered to identify Area sub-projects with individual costs that are
at an implernentable scale. 4) Additions to the City-Wide Challenges
section have been included. These changes primarily identify physical
barriers to bicycle and pedestrian facility continuity.
Planning Commission Minutes
8-18-2011
A. Workshop Bicvcle and Pedestrian Master Plan
(MF# PLAN2011-0021
Chairman Cruz read the master file number opened the hearing and
asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, presented the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan to the Planning Commission explaining its purpose and potential
costs and funding sources. In 2006, the City Council formed an ad hoc
Bikeway Advisory Committee, which created a plan. A consolidated
version of that plan is included in the current plan with some changes.
Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, stated that
the plan consolidates previous plans and is to be used in conjunction
with the yearly Capital Improvement Plan process. Staff will be corning
back to the Planning Commission with a revised funding table and the
next steps would be to set up a public hearing to receive public
comments prior to the Planning Commission developing a
recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes
9-15-2011
A. Planning Bicy-cle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
IMF# PLAN2011-002)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for
comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, summed up the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan which was originally presented at the August 18, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting. Revisions were incorporated into the plan as a
result of Planning Commission comments from the last meeting. Mr.
O'Neill explained the ranking system, the revised construction estimate
costs and reviewed key bicycle routes throughout the city. The
identification of bicycle routes using pavement marking such as
"sharrows" was also discussed.
Community and Economic Development Director, Rick White, stated the
plan would act as a blueprint to help identify where bike paths would
need to be included when road projects take place. The plan would also
provide guidance for the review of new developments. With the Plan in
place developers could be asked to include bikeways on streets that have
been identified as bike routes.
Commissioner Anderson discussed the challenges for funding and
pointed out Spokane has implemented "sharrows" for bike lane
identification. However there have been a lot of bicycle and car accidents
in Spokane and no matter how many public service ads are run or
education is implemented there are still problems.
Shane O'Neill, stated he spoke with a Planner in Spokane that explained
Spokane has had limited success with the "sharrows" and that they can
create a false sense of security for the bicyclist.
Commissioner Greenaway asked whether or not Pasco would want to use
"sharrows" if they have been used with limited success in Spokane.
Rick White answered the "sharrows" would simply add another tool in
the "tool box"; they wouldn't work in every scenario, but would have to be
evaluated case by case.
Commissioner Levin asked staff if there have been public requests for
more bike paths, if the current paths are used, and if studies have been
done to support spending the money on a bike path in this financial
climate.
Rick White answered that he sees many bicyclists on the current paths
in Pasco, although there aren't many paths in Pasco. Additional bike
paths within the community add to the quality of life, however there isn't
proof that people will use the proposed paths.
Commissioner Kahn commented that she rides on Sandifur and notices
there is not enough room on the road for bicyclists to ride with traffic nor
is there room on the sidewalks.
Commissioner Greenaway asked about the legal liability the City would
have if the "sharrows" were implemented due to accidents caused by lack
of public education on the meanings.
Rick White answered that it wouldn't increase the City's liability as long
as they were installed to meet State standards.
Commissioner Kahn asked what type of education would the community
receive on the "sharrows" and would the education add to the costs of
the plan.
Rick White said that public service ads, pamphlets, websites, etc. could
be used to educate the public with minimal costs.
Brent Thompson, 1711 W. Henry St., wanted to applaud the Bike Plan.
He stated that he bikes all over town; to and from work. He said that
people who do use the roadways to get around have a very hard time,
especially getting from north to south. Mr. Thompson uses the paths that
exist but stated more are needed. He suggested painting bike lanes even
when there might not be enough width in the road because it makes the
drivers more aware.
Following little additional discussion Commissioner Hay moved seconded
Commissioner Anderson to adopt the findings, the facts and conclusions
and recommend staff move forward with the Plan. The motion passed
unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 20, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi 1 Manager Workshop Mtg.: 9/26/11
Regular Mte.: 10/3/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, Dgputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Renewal Services
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Interlocal Agreement
2. Proposed Consulting Services Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/26: Discussion
1013: MOTION: I move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Richland for Collaborative Local Cable/Video Franchise Renewal
Process and, further, authorize the mayor to sign the agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Pasco's share, approximately $70,000
IV. .HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City's cable TV franchise agreement with Charter Communications expires
in 2013. The franchise, originally granted to TC1 in 1998 was subsequently
assumed by Falcon and later by Charter. Charter filed and was in/out of Chapter
I 1 bankruptcy protection in 2009.
B) Federal law closely governs the process and parameters within which cable
television franchise agreement may be negotiated. Of importance to the City are:
1) insuring that the cable system is properly maintained and not a problem for
citizens or other public infrastructure; 2) providing the best service possible to the
community (including local channel access); and 3) providing reasonable fees to
support government access and to compensate the City for use of its rights-of-
way.
C) Based on discussions with other communities regarding their franchise renewals
and, due to the complexities of the law and the franchise itself, staff recommends
that the City employ the services of a cable franchise consultant to assist in
conducting a community survey of cable needs and services; an audit of Charter's
payments to the City; as well as developing other background information needed
for negotiations, in addition to conducting negotiations for agreement renewal.
D) The City of Richland also has a franchise with Charter that expires in 2013. Stall'
has worked to develop an interlocal agreement which will allow the two cities to
share in the cost of some of the basic services needed for franchise renewal and
negotiation. Richland has agreed to take the administrative responsibility of
working directly with the consultant.
E) Staff from both cities received proposals from five consultants. Following an
evaluation process, the Buske Group, was determined to be the preferred
consultant. The firm has extensive experience in evaluating cable service
providers and franchise compliance as well as drafting and negotiating franchise
agreements.
F) The agreement with the Buske Group is intended to complete initial work and
negotiations prior to the franchise expiration in the spring of 2013.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff recommends approval of the interlocal agreement.
4(c)
Please return recorded Document to: Contract No.
Richland City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Richland, WA 99352
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
COLLABORATIVE LOCAL CABLE/VIDEO FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this day of , 2011, by and
between the CITY OF RICHLAND, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called
"Richland," and the CITY OF PASCO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called
"Pasco".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Richland and Pasco wish to work in a collaborative and joint
franchise renewal process whose cable franchises with Charter Communications will
expire in 2013; and
WHEREAS, Richland and Pasco wish to obtain specialized services in order to
facilitate the cable television franchise renewal process; and
WHEREAS,Richland and Pascohave selected The Buske Group("the
consultant") for facilitating the renewal process; and
WHEREAS,Richland and Pascoare willing to share in overall project
management and negotiations with Charter; and
WHEREAS, Federal law governing cable television franchise renewal requires
the cities to determine local needs in regard to cable television services, and the cities
have determined that a joint process to determine those needs and to negotiate
successor franchise agreements is appropriate and in the best interests of the
community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34, et seq., two
or more public entities by agreement may jointly exercise any powers common to both
parties, including exercise of such powers in each other's jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS,Richland and Pasco therefore desire to enter into an agreement
whereby Richland and Pasco shall be responsible for obtaining cable television
Cable Franchise Renewal Interlocal Agreement Pg. 1
franchise renewal consulting services for Richland and Pasco, through a contract with
The Buske Group,
IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Purpose of Agreement. Richland and Pasco agree to share in services as
stated in the scope of services herein, pertaining to the local cable franchise renewal
process.A summary of the services that will be shared by Richland and Pasco is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
2. Term of Agreement.This Agreement will continue in full force and effect until
the approval by each City Council of a franchise agreement with Charter
Communications or successor company, unless terminated earlier by any party as
outlined in Section 6.
3. Amount and Manner of Payment by Richland and Pasco.Richland and
Pasco agree to share all costs of a consultant selected pursuant to Section 1. The cost
of The Buske Group's services is to be shared equally between the cities with the
following exceptions;
a. In the event that one City has need of consultant services for review of
Charter's performance, due to conditions of the current franchise which are
not common to both cities, and to the extent that such review results in costs
that are identifiable and attributable solely to one City, the benefitting City
agrees to pay 100% of such costs.
b. In the event that one City has need of consultant services for negotiation of
new franchise terms which are not common to both Cities, and to the extent
that such review results in costs that are identifiable and attributable solely to
one City, the benefiting City agrees to pay 100% of such costs.
The total cost of the consultant shall not exceed $144,000. Richland will contract with
and make payment to the consultant and invoice Pasco for reimbursement of their
portion. If additional funds are required (unless required by the exceptions a. and b.
above), Richland and Pasco will negotiate a proposed amendment to this Agreement,
stating the required additional funds and each party will have an opportunity to continue
with the project pursuant to the Agreement as amended, If a party chooses not to
continue its participation due to the need for additional funds, such party may cease to
participate by following the termination procedure in Section 6, but will be responsible
for its proportionate share of costs to date.
Cable Franchise Renewal Interlocal Agreement pg. 2
4.Timely Performance.-Richland and Pasco agree to meet and confer with
regard to services as set forth herein as may be required to insure timely and adequate
performance of this Agreement.
5.Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Richland and Pasco shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless each other as well as their respective officers, officials, agents,
employees and volunteers from any liability, suit, cause of action, or other legal
proceedings (including reasonable attorney fees and costs) which may be brought or
claimed against Richland and Pasco as a result of performance of or failure to perform
under this Agreement.
6. Term ination.Either signatory to this Agreement may terminate this
Agreement by giving no less than fourteen (14) days' written notice of the intent to
terminate this Agreement. Provided however, neither party may terminate this
Agreement prior to completion of the needs assessment except upon the mutual
consent of both parties evidenced by both Councils` approval of termination of this
Intergovernmental Agreement. Notice shall be considered given when deposited in the
United States mail, and addressed as provided in Section 11 below. In the event of
termination of this Agreement by eitherCity prior to completion and final payment by that
City, the terminating City will pay the other City its share of the costs for all services
performed up to that City's total proportionate share of the project costs which were
actually and satisfactorily rendered up to date of termination.
7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement
between the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral
or written, relating to the subject matter thereof. Any modification of this Agreement will
be effective only if it is in writing and signed by both parties hereto.
8. Severability. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will
continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
9. Execution of Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in multiple
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.
10. Applicable Law. Both parties agree that in the performance of this
Agreement, each will comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and
regulations. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Washington.
11. Notices. The point of contact for Richland on matters pertaining to this
Agreement shall be Jon Amundson, Deputy City Manager. The point of contact for
Pasco on matters pertaining to this Agreement shall beStan Strebel, Deputy City
Manager.
Cable Franchise Renewal Interlocal Agreement pg. 3
12. Interlocal Cooperation Act Provision. Each party shall be solely
responsible for all costs, materials, supplies and services necessary for their
performance under the terms of this Agreement. All property and materials secured by
each party in the performance of this Agreement shall remain the sole property of that
party. All funding incident to the fulfillment of this Interlocal Agreement, shall be borne
by each party necessary for the fulfillment of their responsibilities under the terms of this
Agreement. No special budgets or funds are anticipated, nor shall be created incident to
this Interlocal Agreement. it is not the intention that a separate legal entity be
established to conduct the cooperative undertakings, nor is the acquisition, holding, or
disposing of any real or personal property anticipated under the terms of this
Agreement. The contacts listed Section 11 shall be the Administrators of this
Agreement. This Agreement shall be filed with the City Clerk of each City, or
alternatively, posted on the parties' respective websites as required by RCW 39.34.
13. Dispute Resolution/Venue. It is the Parties' intent to first resolve any
disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Agreement informally through
discussions at the staff level. Should those discussions fail, resolution shall be by
presentation to the City Managers, In the event the dispute is still not resolved, it shall
be resolved by bindingarbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, and the
Mandatory Rules of Arbitration (MAR); and venue shall be placed in Benton County,
Washington, the laws of the State of Washington shall apply, and the prevailing party
shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties enter into this Agreement.
CITY OF RICHLAND, WASHINGTON CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
By: By
City Manager Mayor
ATTEST- ATTEST:
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Attorney
DATE: DATE
Cable Franchise Renewal Interlocal Agreement pg.4
EXHIBIT A
Summary of Services to be Shared by Richland and Pasco
1. Richland and Pasco shall share as project coordinators and negotiators (in
conjunction with a negotiator provided pursuant to the contract with The Buske
Group) on behalf of the Richland and Pasco in negotiations with Charter regarding a
local franchise renewal process. Specifically, the matters to be considered under this
agreement would include public, educational, and government access related
matters, as well as institutional networks (I-NETs).
2. Richland and Pasco shall share professional consulting services specific to the cable
franchise renewal process through a contract with The Buske Group. Those
services shall include the following, which shall be provided as part of a joint
franchise renewal process including Richland and Pasco.
A. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
o Develop a plan for franchise renewal and strategies to implement that plan.
c Conduct an analysis of certain aspects of the past performance of Charter to
determine whether Charter (or its predecessors) has performed as required
pursuant to its franchise agreement.
o Identify franchise renewal goals, develop positions, and negotiate a renewal (or
extended and amended) franchise with Charter, within constraints imposed by
Federal law.
o If a renewal (or extended and amended) franchise is negotiated, prepare a draft
franchise agreement for action by the respective City Councilsof Richland and
Pasco.
n Meet with Charter with regard to matters related to its provision of video services
within Richland and Pasco pursuant to its video franchise.
Cable Franchise Renewal Interlocal Agreement pg.5
3. Richland and Pasco shall regularly coordinate with regard to the tasks described
herein. Richland and Pasco and The Buske Group shall meet and confer in regard
to negotiating positions to be taken during any negotiations.
4. Richland and Pasco agree to provide each other and The Buske Group timely
access to any books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to the
subject matter of this Agreement.
Cable Franchise Renewal Interlocal Agreement pg,6
Contract No.
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 201" day of September, 2011 by and between the City of
Richland, 505 Swift Ave,, Richland, WA 99352 and CONSULTANT, The Buske Group, 4808 T
Street, Sacramento, CA 95819,
WITNESSETH:
1) GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
a) The work under this Agreement includes technical review, guidance and assistance with
the cable franchise renewal process for the cities of Richland and Pasco as designated
elsewhere in this Agreement,
2) SCOPE OF WORK
a) The Consultant shall furnish all services, labor and related equipment necessary to
provide and complete ail work and services under the terms of this agreement and as
detailed in the following attached documents which are made a part of this agreement:
i. Exhibit "A" — RFP 11-08 Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services
ii. Exhibit "B" — RFP11-08 The Buske Group Response
3) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
a) The Consultant shall attend coordination meetings, progress and presentation meetings
with the City or such Federal, community, State, City, or County officials, groups or
individuals as may be requested by the City. The City will provide the Consultant sufficient
notice prior to meetings requiring Consultant participation,
4) TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION
a) The Consultant shall not begin any work under the terms of this Agreement until
authorized in writing by the City. Consultant agrees to use best efforts to complete all
work described under this Agreement by January 31, 2013.
5) PAYMENT
a) The Consultant shall be paid an amount not to exceed one hundred forty three thousand
five hundred dollars ($143,500.00) by the City to complete the services rendered under this
Agreement Such payment shall be full compensation for all work performed or services
rendered, and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to
complete the work specified in Section 2, Scope of Work. The maximum total amount
payable, by the City to the Consultant under this Agreement, shall not exceed the above
amount unless authorized by the City.
b) Invoices not in dispute by the City will be paid net thirty (30) days and shall reference the
contract number and purchase order if applicable for the work.
c) Partial payments to cover the percentage of work completed may be requested by the
Consultant. These payments shall not be more than one (1) per month.
d) Invoices shall be sent to the City of Richland, Accounts Payable, PO box 190, MS-3,
Richland, WA 99352,
6) INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
a) Any and all employees of the Consultant or other persons while engaged in the
performance of any work or services required of the Consultant under this Agreement are
independent contractors and shall not be considered employees of the City. Any and all
claims that may or might arise under any Workmen's Compensation Act on behalf of said
employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third
party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees
or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered
herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant.
7) OTHER PARTIES
a) It is mutually agreed that the City of Pasco has an interest in this Agreement through an
Interlocal Agreement with the City of Richland and is responsible for fifty percent payment
to the City of Richland. This Agreement is not transferable by either signatory to a third
party without the written consent of the other principal party and the City of Pasco.
S) OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
a) All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, reports and other work products prepared
pursuant to this Agreement, will become the property of the City of Richland and the City of
Pasco upon payment to the Consultant of his fees as set forth in this Agreement. The City
acknowledges the Consultant's plans; specifications, documents, reports and other work
products including all documents on electronic media, as instruments of professional
services. The City may make or permit to be made any modifications to the plans,
specifications, documents, reports and other work products without the prior written
authorization of the Consultant. The City agrees to waive any claim against the Consultant
arising from any unauthorized reuse of the plans and specifications and to indemnify and
hold the Consultant harmless from any claim, liability or cost arising or allegedly arising out
of any reuse of the plans and specifications by the City or its agent not authorized by the
Consultant.
9) TERMINATION
a) This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice, by
registered mail, or mailed to the other party at his usual place of business. In the event this
contract is terminated by the Consultant, the City will be entitled to reimbursement of costs
occasioned by such termination by the Consultant. In the event the City terminates this
Agreement, the City shall pay the Consultant for the work performed, an amount equal to
the percentage of completion of the work as mutually agreed between the City and the
Consultant.
b) If any work covered by this Agreement shall be suspended or abandoned by the City before
the Consultant has completed the assigned work, the Consultant shall be paid for services
performed down to the time of such termination or suspension an amount equal to the
costs incurred at the date of termination as mutually agreed upon between the City and the
Consultant.
10) DISPUTE RESOLUTION
a) The City and the Consultant agree to negotiate in good faith for a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of notice of all disputes between them prior to exercising their rights under
this Agreement, or under law.
All disputes between the City and the Consultant not resolved by negotiation between the
parties may be arbitrated only by mutual agreement of the City and the Consultant. If not
mutually agreed to resolve the claim by arbitration, the claim will resolved by legal action.
11)ACCESS TO AND RETENTION OF PERTINENT RECORDS
a) The Consultant will allow access to BCES, the State of Washington, the Federal Grantor
Agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized
representatives to any books, documents, papers, and records which are directly pertinent
to the specific contract for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and
transcriptions. Unless otherwise provided, said records must be retained for three years
from the date of receipt of final payment. If any litigation, claim, or audit arising out of, in
connection with, or relating to this contract is initiated before the expiration of the three-year
period, the records shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the
records is completed.
12) DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION
a) The Consultant certifies that neither the Consultant nor its principals are presently
debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from participating in this Contract by any Federal or State department or agency. Further,
the Consultant agrees not to enter into any arrangements or contracts related to this grant
with any party that is on the "General Service Administration List of Parties Excluded from
Federal Procurement or Non-procurement Programs" which can be found at
www.epls.gov.
13)VENUE, APPLICABLE LAW AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION
a) In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to
enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that any such
action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in Benton
County. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of
Washington law and that the parties to such action shall have the right of appeal from such
decision of the Superior Court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The
Consultant hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, situated in Benton County.
14)ATTORNEY'S FEES
a) Attorney's fees which are reasonable and costs, including those on appeal, if appeal is
taken, shall be allowed to the prevailing party by any court hearing a dispute under this
Agreement.
15)INSURANCE
a) The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents,
representatives, or employees.
b) No Limitation. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the Agreement
shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by
such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or
in equity.
Minimum Scope of Insurance
c) Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
(i) Automobile Liability insurance covering all non-owned, hired and leased vehicles.
Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a
substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall
be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. Consultant does not own
vehicles and insurance coverage shall be a part of car rental agreements.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG
00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent
contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an
insured under the Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with
respect to the work performed by the City.
(iii) Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the
State of Washington.
(iv) Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession.
Minimum Amounts of Insurance
d) Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits:
(i) Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury
and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than
$1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate.
(iii) Professional Liabilit Insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000
per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit
Other Insurance Provisions
e) The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions
for Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability
insurance;
f) The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City.
Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall
be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
g) The Consultant's insurance shall be endorsed to state that the coverage shall not be
cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified
mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
Acceptability of Insurers
h) Insurance is to be placed with insurers.with a current A.M. best rating of not less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage
i) Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory
endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured
endorsement; evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before
commencement of the work.
16)INDEMNIFICATION / HOLD HARMLESS
a) Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees
and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits
including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of
the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages
caused by the sole negligence of the City.
17)STANDARD OF CARE
a) The professional services will be furnished in accordance with the care and skill
ordinarily used by members of the same profession practicing under similar conditions at
the same time and in the same locality. The Consultant makes no warranties express or
implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with the Consultant's services.
18)SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
a) All of the terms, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns; provided,
however, that no assignment of the Agreement shall be made without written consent of
the parties to the Agreement.
19) EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGREEMENT
a) The Consultant agrees that he will not discriminate against any employee or job applicants
for work on this Agreement for reasons of race, sex, nationality or religious creed.
20) PARTIAL INVALIDITY
a) Any provision of this Agreement which is found to be invalid or unenforceable shall be
ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability, and the invalidity or
unenforceability of such provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the
remaining provisions hereof.
21) CHANGES OF WORK
a) The Consultant shall make such changes and revisions in the completed work of this
Agreement as necessary to correct or revise any errors, omissions, or other deficiencies in
the design, drawings, specifications, reports, and other similar documents which the
Consultant is responsible for preparing or furnishing under this Agreement, when required
to do so by the City, without additional compensation thereof,
b) Should the City find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily
completed work or parts thereof changed or revised, the Consultant shall make such
revisions as directed by the City. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will
be paid for as herein provided under Section 20, Extra Work.
22)EXTRA WORK
a) The City may desire to have the Consultant perform work or render additional services
within the general scope of this Agreement. Such work shall be considered as Extra: Work
and will be specified in a written supplement to this Agreement which will set forth the
nature of the scope, schedule for additional work, additional fees and the method of
payment. Work under a supplemental Agreement shall not proceed until authorized in
writing by the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF RICHLAND, WASHINGTON THE BUSKE GROUP
CYNTHIA D. JOHNSON (Signature)
City Manager
By: Sue Miller Buske
(print name)
ATTEST:
President
MARCIA HOPKINS (Title)
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: 9-21-11
THOMAS O. LAMPSON
City Attorney
N�u
X
Request for Proposals
Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services
RFP 11-08 ADMIN
City of Pasco, Washington
City of Richland, Washington
PROJECT StiAV�ZARY
The Cities of Pasco and Richland both have existing, non-exclusive, television cable franchise
agreements, which expire in 2013, with Charter Communications.
The cities are jointly seeking proposals from consultants, experienced in the field of cable
communications and franchise renewals. in general, the consultant will be expected to;
I. Provide technical review of existing cable systems to determine compliance with the
franchise agreements, applicable codes and best practices, assess system repair and
capacity.
2. Provide guidance and assistance in surveying the community regarding the services
provided by Charter, compliance with the franchise agreement, and identification of
current and future community needs.
3. Provide expertise and assistance to the cities in preparation for and throughout franchise
renewal negotiations including financial analysis, legal review, and drafting of the
franchise agreements and/or ordinances.
Some services may he conducted for the cities jointly, while other services may he provided for
each individual City separately.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Cities of Pasco and Richland are located in south central Washington and comprise two of
the three cities in the Tri-Cities SMSA. Richland, located in Benton County has a 2010
population of 48,580, while Pasco, located east of Richland across the Columbia River in
Franklin County, has a 2010 population of 59,781.
Charter Communications is the cable franchise holder in both communities, having assumed
assignment of the franchises from Falcon Cable in 1999.
PROPOSAL FORMAT
Prospective consultants shall clearly address all of the information requested herein. Since; the
written proposal will weigh heavily in the evaluation process, information submitted should be
complete and make a convincing case that the consultant can perform high quality work within
schedule and budget constraints as demonstrated by previous work history. Prospective
consultants are asked to:
1. Describe in depth the proposed strategy to be used in meeting the requirements of this .
UP, including preparation of a work plan that outlines the work to be performed, how it
will be carried out, who will be responsible for managing the work flow, and a schedule
that presents a proposed timeline for completing the work. The work plan should address
areas where a joint effort for both cities might be advantageous and areas where the work
needed for the individual cities may require separate services.
2. Describe all resources the cities will be asked to provide in order to complete this project.
City departments and staff will make every effort to provide access to available
information.
3. Provide the professional resumes of all individuals who will be assigned to this project.
The proposal should indicate the person who will serve as consultant's project manager.
4. Describe where the proposed work will be performed, including address and phone
number,
5. Provide a description of prior work experiences that were similar to the project described
in this Rl~'P.
6. Provide a specific outline of the line item costs that will be incurred during the
performance of each phase, including line item totals of consultant fees, subcontractor
fees, and all other project costs and charges.
SCOPE OF WORK
The cities and their citizens are participants in the evolution of cable and telecommunications
technologies and wish to ensure that their cable systems are ready for the future. Each City
would like to ensure during the franchise negotiation process that all future needs of the City
are considered and that its cable franchise ordinance is structured in a way that assures that a
high-quality, innovative, and versatile cable system is constructed and kept current during the
next franchise period.
The key requirements for consulting assistance include the following;
I. Evaluate Charter Communications' past perfonnance, franchise compliance, and matters
that may be in default.
2. Conduct a technical review to make sure that each cable system will be comparable with
current and future technological systems, service developments and systems of cities of
comparable size.
3. Review and make recommendations about requirements needed to upgrade the cable
systems and services to state-of-the-art fiber.
4, Provide assistance with the franchise renewal negotiations with Charter, as well as
preparation of cable franchise ordinances and agreements.
5. Provide financial analysis of franchise fee payment compliance.
6. Identify current and future community needs, cable and fiber (I-Net), incorporating
public participation as required by the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended
by the Cable Act of 1984,
Request for Proposals—Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services
Pagc 2
7. Generally manage and guide the renewal process by working together with city personnel
to complete Phase 1 and Phase 11, meeting each City's needs, and assuring that the City as
well as its citizens receive the best possible cable services as a result of the process and
the new franchise agreement.
8. For the City of Richland, review past usage of the existing 1-Net system including a
break-down by category of user types. Make recommendations associated with future
broadband system needs of the City including the needs of other public agencies, public
educational intuitions, and hospitals operating in the Tri-Cities region. Include the
possible use of broadband access as an economic driver for the City.
This project anticipates two phases:
Phase I.
Assist the cities in gathering and analyzing information to give the cities a preliminary sense of
whether Charter has met all of its franchise obligations, and if so, how well; initiate needs
assessment for a more comprehensive study; provide Franchise Renewal Report and
recommendations, including the requirements for Phase 11. Specific tasks that are anticipated:
• Provide education to participants in applicable cable law and in the specifics of the
franchise renewal process.
• Collect, review, and analyze current franchise documents and other information from the
cities and Charter.
• Assist in the design and conduct of surveys and/or interviews to assess current subscriber
services and satisfaction levels in order to identify community needs and develop a plan
to ensure that the citizens of the cities receive quality service at reasonable rates.
• Identify and make recommendations regarding Charter's responsiveness to consumer-
related information, including installation, service repair, rates, and subscriber-requested
programming.
• Identify the potential future uses of a cable communications system to include current
trends and technological changes that have and will occur in the future in video, voice,
and data, and assure that the cities will be in a position to take advantage of them.
• Conduct a technical and operational review to ensure that the cable systems are consistent
and compatible with the latest developments in cable technology.
• Identify and provide for requirements necessary to ensure the systems undergo periodic
technical reviews and upgrades.
• Undertake a franchise fee payment compliance review, if necessary.
• Assist in the design and conduct of a PEG access ascertainment survey to identify current
PEG programming, services, and facilities in each City and provide for current and Future
PEG access needs and requirements.
• Conduct legal review of federal and other applicable legal obligations.
• Complete any additional information gathering and analysis of individual City needs and
requirements.
• Draft Franchise Renewal Report for each City, containing the City's priorities,
preferences, and requirements that will provide the basis and record to support the City's
Request for Proposals—Cable TV Franchise Renewal gervices
Page 3
"Request for Proposal" to Charter Communications. The report will include a draft
regulatory ordinance and franchise agreement.
■ Prepare each City for Phase 11 with guidelines for review of Charter's Proposal response
and franchise negotiations and instructions for meeting legal requirements before the City
Council can approve or deny franchise.
■ Meet with staff in each City to discuss results of Phase I and next steps for Phase H.
Phase II:
For each City, evaluate Charter's proposal and prepare recommendations for City's
negotiations. Assist or take the lead in negotiations. Provide advice about public hearings as
well as other proceedings before final approval or disapproval by each City Council. Provide
recommended modifications to any ordinance relating to cable services and draft: new franchise
agreement with recommendations to each City's governing body for adoption. Specific tasks
that are anticipated:
• Evaluate Charter's Proposal and make recommendations for City's response to same.
• Participate, as needed, in discussions and planning with the City and negotiations with
Charter.
• Advise City as to public participation and hearing requirements.
• Complete final franchise agreement and regulatory cable ordinance.
• Advise City on final approval or disapproval of franchise renewal, including applicable
federal cable act and FCC requirements.
ESTIMATED TIME FRAMES
The following timetable outlines the anticipated schedule for the Request for Proposals and
project work. The timing and the sequence of events resulting from this Request for Proposals
may vary and shall ultimately be determined by the Cities.
EVENT ANTICIPATED DATESITIMEFRAME
Request for proposal issued ......................................................................................_ June 1, 2011
Deadline for submittal of questions ..........................................................................June 10, 201 l
Proposals due .................................................................................... June 24, 2011, 5:00 pm PDT
Invitation to short-list vendors.....................................................................................July 6, 2011
Presentations by short-list vendors.............................................................................July 20, 2011
Consultant contract signed....................................................................................August 17, 201 1
Begin Phase I .................................................................................................... September 1, 2011
Complete Phase I....................................................................................................November 201 1
BeginPhase II....................................................................................................December 1, 2011
Negotiations...........................................................................................January 2012—June 2012
Agreement approved by staff and Charter.............................................................By July 1 2012
City Council approval of new franchise agreement with Charter........No later than January 2013
Request for Proposals—Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services
Page 4
REVISIONS TO RFP
The Cities reserve the right to modify this RFP and%or cancel or reissue this Request in whole or
in part, prior to execution of a contract. In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of
the RFP, it shall be the responsibility of the interested firms to obtain a copy of the addendum.
Addenda information will be available on the cities' web sites
(www.ci.richland.wa.us/bids.aspx or wrvw, asco-wa. ►ov/bids.as x}.
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
Interested firms and individuals may obtain further information necessary to understand the
required documentation by contacting Mike Charboneau, Richland Cable Communications
Coordinator (509-942-7398 or mcharbon, as-U lei.riehland.wa,u�) or Jon Funfar, Pasco
Communication Specialist (509-545-3485 or funfar'G rypascfl-wa,gey},
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Contractor/Vendor shall submit one signed original and two (2) copies of the proposal package.
All proposals and accompanying documentation will become property of the City and will not
be returned, Fax proposals or proposals submitted by e-mail are not acceptable.
Responses to this request are due at the City of Richland (addresses below) no later than 5:00
p.m. on June 24, 2011.
Mark in lower left hand of package:
Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services
RFP 1 1-09 ADM1N
Due Date 6/24/11
Time: 5:00 pm
Send to:
John Noble, Purchasing Manager
City of Richland
Purchasing Dept., MS-I 1
P. O. Box 190
2700 Duportail St. Building 100
Richland, WA 99352
Request for Proposals—Cable'TV franchise Renewal Services
Page 5
r� �47'fJSLfv/dTFD /GS�4Ct,J
PROPOSAL
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR
THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
AND
THE CITY OF RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
J
June 15, 2011
Submitted by
THE BUSKS GROUP
4808 T STREET
J SACRAMENTO, CA 95819
CONTACT PERSON: SUE BUSKE
PHONE: (916)441-6277
-1 FAX: (360) 351-0869
J E-MAIL: sue @buskegroup.com
J
J
uske Gro
June 15, 2011
Mr. Mike Charboneau, Richland Cable Communications Coordinator
City of Richland, Washington
Mr. Jon Funfar, Pasco Communications Specialist
City of Pasco, Washington
Dear Mr. Charboneau and Mr. Funfar:
l The Buske Group is pleased to submit this proposal to the Cities of Richland and Pasco,
J offering our consulting services related to the renewal of the Cities' cable franchises with
Charter Communications.
Our proposal describes each element in detail and includes the following activities:
(1) develop a plan for franchise renewal and strategies for the implementation of that plan;
(2) conduct a technical review of the Charter cable system that serves the Cities; (3) evaluate
the past performance of Charter in the Cities; (4) identify current and future community cable-
related needs and interests; (5) identify franchise renewal goals, develop proposed franchise
provisions and draft the model franchise agreements and/or ordinances for the Cities; and (6)
participate in informal franchise renewal negotiations and draft final franchise agreements for
the Cities. -
The Buske Group is highly qualified to provide such.consu#ting assistance to the Cities for
many reasons, including.
(1) We only offer our highly-regarded cable communications consulting services to local
governments, PEG access management organizations, and other public interest
entities.
(2) We have been hired to provide a variety of cable-related consulting services to more
than 150 communities throughout the United States to date.
(3) We are widely regarded as the preeminent consulting firm with respect to PEG
access matters, having helped many communities establish or enhance their PEG
access operations during the franchise renewal process or at other times.
(4) We have extensive knowiedge of and experience in conducting community needs
assessments, which have included focus groups, survey research, evaluation of
existing PEG access facilities, and public hearings as a part of cable franchise
renewal processes.
^1 (5) We have led and participated in cable franchise renewal . negobations in many
J communities, and are able to provide the Cities with a consulting team whose work has
been tested in many franchise renewal processes and can withstand legal scrutiny.
4808 T Street ❑ Sacramento, CA 95819
` Voice: (916)441-6277 Fax: (360)351-0869 Web Site: http:/Iwww.buskegroup.com
(6) We have extensive experience in working with multi-jurlsdictional franchise renewal
processes.
`j '(7) We have conducted renewal process, franchise transfers, Institutional Network
negotiations, franchise fee audits, and other similar processes representing local
govemments in negotiations with Charter Communications in many communities.
(s) We. have been retained to conduct all tasks relative to the 'start-up and on-going
management and operation of PEG access channels and operations of Community
Media Centers.
The enclosed proposal provides additional information about the experience 'and
qualifications of the consulting team members and a detailed description of the tasks that we
propose to perform for the Cities. It is offered as a "menu" of services, so the Cities can
review each of our proposed tasks and determine the needs assessment services that best
meet its needs.
The Buske Group is a woman-owned business enterprise, originally established by Sue Burke
7 in 1987 as a sole proprietorship. The firm became a partnership (its current status) in 1991.
Sue Buske, President of The Buske Group, will be the project manager and primary contact
person for this project. She has served as a consultant in franchise renewals processes,
needs assessments, compliance reviews, transfer of ownership matters, rate regulation, and
performance audits throughout the United States. Buske is an expert in conducting needs
Jassessment; in establishing, evaluating and assessing,PEG access and community media
centers; in all aspects of cable system regulation and performance monitoring; and as a
negotiator.
Randy VanDalsen, Vice President of The Buske Group, will be responsible for the development
of the needs assessment questionnaires and survey materials, PEG access evaluation, data
analysis, and preparation of wrf#en reports_ VanDalsen had over 20 highly successful years in
the management of community media facilities in the United States. He has been directly
involved in the myriad of issues faced by community media operations on local, regional and
national levels.
Buske and VanDalsen have over 75 years of combined hands-on management and consulting
experience in the cable communication field.
J The Buske Group is pleased to include Columbia Telecommunications Corporation ("CTC") as
one of our consulting team members. CTC -- an engineering and technology consulting firm
that has worked with The Buske Group on behalf of dozens of communities — offers
incomparable expertise in the areas of independent feasibility analysis, business and
engineering assessment, and design for fiber broadband networks
Our consulting team also includes Tom Wilson, Owner/Principal of Group W
_� Communications (our telephone survey research partner).
Tillman Lay, a partner in the Washington, DC law firm of Spiegel & McDiarmid will provide
legal advice throughout the franchise renewal process. Mr. Lay has represented a host of
1 local governments across the nation on a variety of cable television and telecommunications
matters, including telecommunications and cable ordinance drafting, utility and rights-of-way
agreements, cable television franchise renewals and transfers, franchise negotiations,
franchise enforcement, franchise fee disputes,. telecommunications tax, and
telecommunications tower zoning issues.
The final member of our consulting team is Connie Cannady of J. Stowe & Company,
Ms. Cannady has served as the primary financial analyst and franchise fee auditor for The
Buske Group for the past fifteen years.
We hope this proposal meets your needs. If you require additional information, please feel
free to give me a call and I will be happy to respond.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Sue Buske
President, The Buske Group
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Page
I. Brief Description and History of The Buske Group.............................................. 1
A. Introduction and Overall Statement of Qualifications......................................... 1
S. Key Personnel ................................................................................................... 1
11. Scope of Work_.........................................................................................................7
A. Overview................................................................................................... . ...... 7.
B. Develop a Plan for Franchise Renewal and Strategies for the .......................... 9
Implementation of that Plan
C. Conduct a Technical Evaluation of the Cable System.............................. .. ........ .............. 9
D, Evaluate the Past Performance of the Cable Company. . 13
E. Identify Current and Future Community Cable-Related Needs and Interests.. 15
F. Identify Franchise Renewal Goals, Develop Proposed Franchise................... 19
Provisions and Draft Model Ordinances and Franchise Agreements
G. Participate in Informal Franchise Renewal Negotiations and Draft.................. 24
Franchise Agreements under the Requirements of the Revised
Cable Ordinances
III. PRELIMINARY TIMELINE OF CONSULTING ACTIVITIES ................................... 22
IV. CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE ................................. 24
V. COST ESTIMATE....................................................................................................28
- APPENDIX; Resumes of Consulting Team Members
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council( September 20, 2011
T0: Gary Crutch t Manager Workshop Mtg., 9/26/11
( _ Regular Mtg.; 10 13/11
FROM: Rick Terway, I3irector
Administrative and Con unity Services
SUBJECT: Accountant Reclassification
I. REFERENCE(S):
(none)
I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9126: Discussion
1013: MOTION: 1 move to authorize reclassification of the Accounting Supervisor
and Senior Accountant position to Lead Accountant at Grade 54,
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Approximately $6,000 annually
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The finance division has experienced a higher than normal vacancy rate within the
past couple of years.This has given staff the opportunity to look at restructuring
and stream lining the operations within the division. Staff is requesting that the
Senior Accountant and the Accounting Supervisor positions be combined into a
new "Lead Accountant" classification. The division could then be divided into
two sub-divisions, one for revenue and one for disbursements, each with a lead
person.
B) During the last two recruitments for both Senior Accountant and Accounting.
Supervisor, the candidates have not met the qualifications. Human Resources
office performed a comparable market analysis and found that Pasco is about six
thousand dollars per year lower than comparable cities with similar job
descriptions. This level of expertise is essential to operating an efficient finance
division.
C} Currently the Senior Accountant position is vacant and staff would like to
reclassify the position prior to recruitment.
V. DISCUSSION:
D) Staff recommends this reclassification and urges Council to authorize the
proposed upgrade of the Senior Accountant, and reclassifying both to Lead
Accountants, at Grade 54; this represents an approximate $6,000 annual increase
in finance operating costs.
4(d)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 22, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi i Tanager Workshop Mtg.: 9/26/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, D'puty City Manager
SUBJECT: Draft Boundaries for Legislative Districts
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Draft Legislative Plan I Commissioner Ceis
2. Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Foster
3. Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Gorton
4. Draft Legislative Plan I Commissioner Huff
5. Newspaper Article on Redistricting Proposals
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9126. Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Washington State Redistricting commission has released draft plans for
redrawing legislative districts in light of the 2010 census. See attached plans.
B) The Commission has invited public comment on the drafts. In order to be most
effective, comments should be submitted prior to October 11.
C) Of the four plans drafted, two plans (Ceis and Foster) contain the entire City (and
Franklin County) within one legislative district (#9). The other two plans
(Gorton, Huff) split the City into two legislative districts (#9, #16), In each of
these cases, part ul'the City would be in a district with Walla Walla and part with
the City of Pullman.
D) It appears to staff that the plans which keep the City (and County) under a single
legislative district provide better representation of community interests.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff seeks direction from Council on submitting comments to the Redistricting
Commission.
4(e)
Washington State Redistrfcting Commission —
PO Box 40946
Olympia,WA98504-0948
786-0770 k
Fax:
Fax:(380)586-
Q433 ppw-
conlact@redistdcfing,wa.gov
wwwredisiricting.wa.gov 40
Pend
t"
f C71
nj24 21
32 LJ,
3 48
2F 29 21 Grant
Adams
C�J
f
LJLI 15
Deviation from target population of 137,2x6;
1: 31 13: 45 25: 1 17 15 Benion
2: -73 14: 44 M: 17 39: 33
3: •3 1s: •47 z7: •59 j9, 60
4: is 16: 42 22 26 40. -73
5: 17: 6 30 Q 65 41: -6 Draft Legislative Plan 1
6: 42 2 1d. 35 30 46 : 7
7: -19 19: 33 37: 10 11: 4
a: -$ 20• •42 32 36 N: •63
9: 11 n: 17 33: 15 as a1 Commissioner Tim Ceis
11 10: 26 22: 4L 31; •I8 46 1
2 -60 2d 13: •19 36: • 47 14 September 13, 2011
12; 40 24: 19 36: .13 44 59
49 3
\'.1" WdTQen 1
County
LEIS 2011
R?yal, -----
q ; 9
s
E
r f9tltello
26
1
Halton
WasMacna
r
MaI&wa
f t
_J 61
Milotus
i
F
ivlesa 6
9
Franklin
County
1
,
l
,
1
i
r
Benton
5unnysi a R Prescott-_, _
CounoBenton �V
I Gran je ,s Walla Warta
`' bton
—"- .I Prosser County
I � �
I
�I
f �v calla
Cole 'e 3
30 Place
r
i
Draft Legislative Redistricting Plans 2011
Tim Ceis: District 9
Adams County
Othello
Benton County
Benton City
}Tosser
Franklin County
(All)
Grant County
Mattawa
Yakima County
Grandview!
Mabton
Washington Stale Redishicting Commission - T
PO Box 40948
Olympia,WA 98504-0948
(360)786-0770
Fair(360)585-0433
contad@redlstrictirig,wa.gov
www,red i s h i ct ing.wa.g ov
I � • Pend Oredlo
lincow
1
l
1
Deviation from target population of 137,236:
1 �25 23; 20 Z$: M 37: -9
2. 11 14: -10 26: 3 3a: 9
3. 4 13. 13 27: -2 39: .22
A.. -24 t6; .21 22; 3 40, -14
5. 11 31: 3 43 9 Draft Legislative Plan 1
6: 26 is is 30: .16 42 2
7. .4 19' dA 31: -17 93: -23
8: 3 Za: 26 31: 16 ds: 4 : Commissioner Dean Foster
9. 23 21. 2b 13: 25 45: 26
10 fi 22. 23 34: -28 46: 11
12. 16 23: 10 35: •22 47.. 23 September 13, 2011
it: fi 2•: -4 96: -]
*9. 13
r mU
Fiaiton -
N'ashtucna
M awe ---
Co ell-
}' K<hlotus
Mesa s {
�h t
Franklin
County �
i
Benton
side County Rrc�scott\
,2 Walla Walla \L-
Grandvie _
County
1 tan �. Pro ser.
� S
Co[leq al a
Place
--- -------- 30
L`�a -
FOSTER 2011
Draft Legislative Redistricting Plans 2011
Dean Foster: District 9
Adams County
Othello
Benton County
Benton City
Prosser
Franklin County
(All)
Grant County
Mattawa
Washington State Redistricting Commission
PO Box 40948 L.
aympia,WA 98504-0948
(360)786.0770
Fax:(360)586-0433
contact@redistricfing.wa.gov
www.redistricting.wa-.gov
i
t Pend s
10 3 12
46 45
36 43 48
34 37 ureolm
Mason .,
Mftitas
Deviation from target population of 137,236;
1 134 13: .49 25: •16 57: 93
2: -6 14: .18 26: -12D 30' SS
3: -8 35: Is V: 44 39: -49
1: 19 16: 53 21: -93 40: -25
5 .10 17: -31 29, -52 42• :t Draft Legislative Plan 1
6. 18; 72 3D: 126 12: -39
7� .23 14; ]0 31: •15 43: 1T
$: $6 20. 95 32: X62 44� '11 Commissioner Slade Gorton
9: 75 21: 19 33: 83 45: 19
30: 6: 22: 45 K: -136 46: -96
31: •43 Ip' -a>a 35.-
.97 .r 79 September 13, 2011
12: •23 N: -113 36; 3 48: 49
K: 27
= � t
TIM
R
J U,mont
Chant
t _ Uak aic\
\ Fam,l tort
sr � tee � sc76�mti S\/
L� Gbrlipld
Adams { Wl1lt772A17 —�.
County
County
e+irk ll ,,
r
�uo ain,w,
—C`,ar tecroR
.�
w..�w.a onu,a
7
MC GR1 f2eIL�
County
Franklin
Cou
County ,o
Be fors,
Columbia
l?
S ax' � _�-p a,l — County t
Coun� y �–
Walla VUaltr� l x�{ � Asotrn
--� Co
Cou�ity u7att� 1
16
F -
al
T7ere
�k
GorLor_ 2an
T
y
_ � 1
j
r
SAM C-
ww 1h.
LL
{f1 1 nn
►9 /
8
- 1 1
Gorton Option 2011 6
Draft Legislative Redistricting Plans 2011
Slade Gorton: Split District 9
Adams County
(All)
Asotin
(All)
Franklin County
All except City of Pasco south and east of 395, except a section as
described below.
East of 20th Ave from south of Highway 39511-182 to Pearl St;
North of Pearl to 13th Ave;
West of 13th Ave to Riverview Dr;
North of Riverview to I 01 Ave;
East of 1011,Ave to Pearl St;
North of Pearl St to 50,Ave;
West of 51h Ave to Highway 395/1-182
Garfield County
(All)
Whitman County
(All)
Split District 16
Benton County
All except Kennewick and Richland
Columbia County
(All)
Franklin County
Only that part of the City of Pasco south and east of 395
Walla Walla County
(All)
Washington State Redistricting Commission
PO Box 40948 hLI 42
Olympia,WA 98504-0948 hh
(360)788.0770
Fax:(360)586-0433 —PP-
contact@redisi,ichng.wa.gov
www.red istrictin g.wa.gov Pend Oreille
L Forty
I 39
CCJ
t
24 21 el
3 48
J7 41 Uncoin
26 30
29 2
22 28 31
2 13
JPW
y
Deviation from target population of 137,236:
41. -IS7 13: .60 25: 56 37: .49 Sort- 16
2. •36 14; " 26: •128 38; •14
3: •10 15: .98 27. 15 39; 49
4 33 16 .93 2B 132 40; 74
6 52 17: 32 30 65 41: .90 Draft Legislative Plan 1
6 74 18' -97 30 Z 42; 110
7- -16 19 105 31 -64 '41; •5E i
E: 109 2D •174 32 -1 44: -67
9: 40 11 37 33r 22 W. 72 Commissioner Tom Huff
10. •99 21: 32 34: -125 46: -91
d2: 192 23. .14 M Its 44 47: 69 September 13, 2011
12! 93 24 117 36: 10 46: 39
49: 124
.1. 1 1
4g �Y I � M lirnl
Lincoln i �»
r Co U 17 ti/
f t Co 2 I
� Namn`lon� }
V 9
t n N led
1
MY— ��f/
1 �
I>mont
C,Ya1t �y 4 i
r
aAmJ.�
CULi}9ty " I` � F.-
s�.h.ea,�` )))
1 ti
F `l`�_V Ce2ilidJ
5 l
' J � n Ltva + Adalns lti'littn�rlir �_ �'�
a I Counh/ EnJkdl COUR 7 t ttiQa�.
A1Won
`r
t XatdC+u�
M �I Garfield unb low
Franklin I CocrnttJ
County
r iJbn
\' 1 9
Columbia 4i
` Rk County
Walla Walla ' Asotin
- f County Co}rnt�,r 1
Benton 1
County
Ploee
i
r,.
xcrr• zov.
f
4.
IMMA
ww
AA
J
Huff Option 2011 16
Draft Legislative Redistricting Plans 2011
Tom Huff: Split District 9
Adams County
(All)
Asotin
(All)
Franklin County
All EXCEPT the City of Pasco as follows:
East of Road 103 to Road 100;
East of road 100 to the FDIC Canal;
South of the FDIC Canal to John Deere Ln;
South of Oliver Dr to Finnhorse Ln
East of Finnhorse Ln to Chapel Hill Blvd;
South of Chapel Hill BIvd to 1=182 Freeway
South of I--182 Freeway to Road 68;
West of Road 68 to the City Limits line;
South and west of the City Limits Line to Road 52;
East of Road 52 to Burden Blvd;
South of Burden Blvd to Road 44;
East of Road 44 to Sandifer Pkwy;
South of a line projected along the eastward path of Sandifur Pkwy
to the City Limits Line;
Generally south of the City Limits Iine to the Snake River.
Garfield County
(All)
Spokane County
Cheny
Fairfield
Latah
Rockford
Spangle
Waverly
Whitman County
(All)
Split District 16
Benton County
(No BC cities)
Columbia County
(A Il)
Franklin. County
A part of the City of Pasco, as follows:
East of Road 103 to Road 100,
East of road 100 to the FDIC Canal;
South of the FDIC Canal to John Deere Ln;
South of Oliver Dr to Finnhorse Ln
East of Finnhorse Ln to Chapel Hill Blvd;
South of Chapel Hill Blvd to 1182 Freeway
South of 1 182 Freeway to Road 68;
West of Road 68 to the City Limits line;
South and west of the City Limits Line to Road 52;
East of Road 52 to Burden Blvd;
South of Burden Blvd to Road 44;
East of Road 44 to Sandifur Pkwy;
South of a line projected along the eastward path of Sandifur Pkwy
to the City Limits Line;
Generally south of the City Limits line to the Snake River.
Walla WaIIa County
(All)
Redistricting proposal: Pasco could move districts - Mid-Columbia News I Tri-City Herald : Mid-... Page 1 of 1
Published Monday,Sep.19,201'
1 Comment
Redistricting proposal: Pasco could move districts
By Michelle Dupler, Tri-City Herald
Proposed plans to redraw the Mid-Columbia's legislative districts would leave representation in Kennewick and Richland mostly i itact, but Pascc
could move districts altogether.
And it's pretty much guaranteed that Prosser will exit the 8th District if one of four proposals unveiled this week is adopted by the state's
Redistricting Commission.
The commission's four voting members--Tim Ceis, Dear Foster, Slade Gorton and Tom Huff--each drew a proposed map using the 2010 U.S.
Census to reconfigure the state's 49 legislative districts to make them about equal in population.
The commission's fifth member--nonpartisan Chairwoman Lura Powell of Richland--does not vote.
The commission,is accepting publlr-commer ts on the lout plans, as well as 21 utdepeadlent third-party proposals,through Oct 11
The commission plans to release a final redistricting plan in early November.
The proposed maps were drawn after commission members heard from residents throughout Washington at a series of 18 public meetings that
drew about 1,000 total attendees.
"I'm pleased to say that we heard from hundreds of people who gave us very thoughtful and useful feedback,"Powell said. "It impressed me to
see the time and effort many had taken to inform their opinions about redrawing district lines in their communities. This input is important to the
work of the commission as we develop new congressional and legislative district boundaries."
The goal of each plan was to get each district as close to 137,236 residents as possible, Gorton said.
"I am very pleased to present a redistricting proposal that I believe first and foremost follows the requirements laid out for the commission In the
redistricting law,"Gorton said. "For example, the law requires us to make districts'population'as nearly equal as is practicable.'The plan I
presented makes every attempt to achieve this goal.
"We are also required to draw the district lines dividing as few counties and cities as possible.We achieved that goal, reducing the number of
divided cities on the legislative map from 49 to 17,and on the congressional map from 23 to lust three."
The state overall grew by 830,419 people from 2000-10,and a lot of that growth was in the Mid-Columbia and in the south Puget Sound region.
The four districts representing the Mid-Columbia in the Legislature all grew in population, but only two of them grew enough to exceed the
average population of 137,236 per district that will make them all equal.
The 8th and 16th districts will have to shrink,while the 9th and 15th districts need to add people.
Since the last census, the 8th District,covering part of Benton County, grew by 29,185 people, or about 24 percent, putting it 12,238 people
above the target.
The 16th District,covering Walla Walla and Columbia counties, as well as Pasco, Finley and part of Kennewick, added 34,542 people, or an
increase of about 29 percent. It will have to lose 17,594 people.
The 9th District, covering Adams,Asotin, Garfield and Whitman counties, plus part of Franklin and Spokane counties, also grew, but not enough
to meet the target and likely will pull territory from other districts to make up the difference.
The 9th District will have to gain enough ground to add 1,070 people to bring its 2010 population of 136,166 up to the redistricting target.
The 15th District,covering Klickitat and Skamania counties, as well as part of Clark County and the Lower Yakima Valley,will have to be redrawn
to add 4,448 people. Its population is 132,788, according to census data.
The maps drawn by Gorton and Huff,both Republican appointees to the commission, leave at least some of Pasco within the 16th District, while
the maps drawn by Ceis and Foster move the entire Ninth District west to encompass Franklin County, and parts of Grant and Benton counties.
Under Ceis and Foster's plan,Prosser would become part of the 9th District, which would acquire entirely new legislative representation in the
2012 election. The current 9th District legislators live ir, Pullman, Colfax and Ritzville,which all would leave the district under their proposal and
become part of the 16th District.
That move potentially would pit the current 9th and 16th District lawmakers--all Republicans--against each other in the 2012 election to see
who ends up representing the redrawn 16th.
Gorton's plan would bring Prosser into the 16th District, while Huffs plan would add Prosser to the 15th District.
htt p://wwr A'.tri-city herald,com/2011109/19/v-print/1646700/redistricting-proposal-paseo-could.html 9/21/2011
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Councils September 22, 2011
`1'O: Gary Crutcl ,
i
t Manager Workshop Mtg.: 9/26/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manage
SUBJECT: Community Survey Policy Questions
I. REFERENCE(S):
I. Community Survey Questions from Prior Years
Ii. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/26: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City is contracting again with the National Research Center (NRC) to conduct
the National Citizens Survey, a biennial community survey consisting primarily of
standard questions regarding the availability and quality of municipal services.
Additionally, the City may include up to three "policy" issues to be included as
questions in the survey.
B) The City has contracted for the survey to be completed in 2005, 2007 and 2009, In
each case, policy questions were asked. Attachment 1 includes the questions asked in
prior survey rounds.
C) The City will have to provide NRC with draft policy questions/topics by mid-October
in order to have them included in the survey this fall.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff offers the following for Council consideration:
Council Districts;
There are seven members of the City Council; five positions require a candidate to
reside within a geographical area within the City and two positions are elected "at
large" without regard to district residency. How do you feel about this system of
representation?
Do you:
a) Favor the current system;
b) Prefer more districts and fewer at large representatives;
c) Prefer fewer districts and more at large representatives, or
d) Favor a system with three districts, two representatives each district; one
representative at large?
$min arbitration:
In Washington cities and counties, public safety (police and fire) employees may
form unions, but cannot strike. Balancing the "no strike" restriction is a law
requiring "binding arbitration," which permits an independent arbitrator to decide
issues of"wages, hours and working conditions" where a city employer and public
safety union cannot reach agreement. Arbitration standards provide that decisions be
based on comparisons with jurisdictions of comparable size but without consideration
of the jurisdiction's "ability to pay," typically due to tax base.
Should the City seek legislation that would require consideration of a
jurisdiction's ability to pay in binding arbitration decisions?
4(f)
Bike Lanes & Trails:
Over the past several years, the City has attempted to construct new bike lanes in
conjunction with major street improvement projects, where applicable. It has also
been a focus of the City to build bike paths in suitable locations.
Do you feel that the City's efforts for bike lanes and bike paths have been;
a) Too little
b) Too much
c) About right
Medical Marijuana;
While federal law considers marijuana as a controlled substance, Washington law
allows possession of "medical marijuana" under certain conditions. The state
legislature enacted law in 2011 which provides a new option for marijuana
production in the form of collective gardens — serving up to 10 marijuana patients per
garden. Unless restricted by City zoning regulations, collective gardens could be
located in residential zones. To what extent to you agree or disagree with the
proposition that collective gardens for growth of medical marijuana should be
allowed in residential zones?
Do you think such gardens should be allowed in residential zones:
a) Strongly agree
b) Somewhat agree
c) Somewhat disagree
d) Strongly disagree
School Impact Fees:
New residential units constructed in Pasco must pay a "park development fee" and
"traffic impact fee" to share the cost of new park and transportation facilities partly
needed because of the average population represented by each new residential unit.
The school district has requested the city require a "school impact fee" to share the
cost of new schools. The building industry contends that impact fees increase
housing costs, thereby reducing affordability and demand, To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the school district's request for an impact fee on new housing
construction?
Do you agree with the school district's request for impact tees:
a) Strongly agree
b) Somewhat agree
c) Somewhat disagree
d) Strongly disagree
Community Survey Questions
2005 Survey:
1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The City of Pasco
should assume all the cost of maintaining and operating Chiawana Park"?
2. To what extent do you support or oppose an increased sales tax of 1110 of one percent (one
extra penny on each $10 purchase) to have a regional aquatic center in the Tri-Cities?
3. The City has a history of supporting Pasco School District programs and facilities with City
funds. To what extent do you support or oppose the City of Pasco continuing to support Pasco
School District programs and facilities with City funds?
2007 Survey:
1. To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking a more active role in working to
improve the downtown business area?
2. To what extent do you support or oppose the City installing and maintaining landscaping along
select major street corridors to improve the appearance of the community?
3. As you may know, the three public pools in Pasco are in need of complete renovation. As an
alternative, to what degree would you support or oppose the City building a now water park
(including a pool slide and other water features) that would replace one (or possibly two)
existing swimming pools?
2009 Survey:
I. To what extent do you support or oppose establishing curbside recycling service, if it requires
an increase to your garbage pickup service cost of$4 to SS dollars per month'?
2. To what extent do you support or oppose the City continuing to add fluoride to the City's
drinking water system?
3. A committee, consisting of representatives of the cities of Kennewick, Richland and Pasco, has
been studying the feasibility of developing regional centers (e.g., aquatic center, performing
arts center, etc.) that could be used by all residents in the region and considering voter
approved sales tax and property tax options to finance them. Because a sales tax would be paid
by visitors as well as residents and would be paid in much smaller increments throughout the
year, among other reasons, the committee has tentatively concluded that a sales tax increase
would be preferable to a property tax increase, To what extent do you agree or disagree with
this conclusion?