Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.10.03 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. October 3,2011 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated September 19, 2011. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) I. `1'o approve General Claims in the amount of $1,502,332.00 ($123,490.47 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 7324 and 7373; and $1,378,841.53 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1121, 1122, 1125 through 1129; and Claim Warrants numbered 184246 througli 194453). 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of$2,036,551.22, Voucher Nos. 43310 through 43450 and 80070 through 80079; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30047087 through 30047648. (c) Accountant Reclassification: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Tcrway, Administrative & Community Services. "rector dated September 20,2011. To authorize reclassification of the Accounting Supervisor and Senior Accountant position to Lead Accountant at Grade 54. (RC') M+13'1'I{)MN: 1 move to approve the Cnnsent..2genda as react. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) "Yard of the Month" Awards. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco residents have been invited to attend the Council mecting to receive Certificates of Appreciation from the City Council for"Yard of the Month," September 2011 1. Manuel and Magdalena Estrada, 325 W. Shoshone Street 2. Ron and Mary Horn, 3821 W. Park Street 3, Keith and Sharon Clark, 4003 Valencia Drive 4. Daryl and Ione Bruce, 10401 W. Maple Drive (b) "Business of the Month" Appearance Award. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco business has been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive a Certificate of Appreciation from the City Council for "Business of the Month Appearance Award" for September 2011. 1. The Crossings at Chapel Hill, 6626 Chapel Hill Blvd (c) Presentation of Proclamation for "Domestic Violence Awareness Month, October 2011." Mayor Matt Watkins to present Proclamation to Bob Metzger, Chief of Police, Pasco Police Department. 5. VISITORS-OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) (c) Regular Meeting 2 October 3,2011 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL, ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (None) 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) Resolution No._, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pasco supporting Draft Legislative Plan l by Commissioner Dean Foster of the Washington State Redistricting Commission. 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated September 28,2011. 2. Proposed Resolution. 3. Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Ceis. 4, Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Foster. 5, Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Gorton. 6. Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Huff. 7. Newspaper Article on Redistricting Proposals, MOTION: I move to aplxmvc:Rc,,oli,4.4in No. supp ort.hig I)raft Legislative Plan 1 by C oninyissioner Dean F'oster of the Washington State Redistricting Commissd(rn. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Cable Franchise Renewal Services: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated September 20,2011. 2, Proposed Interlocal Agreement. 3. Proposed Consulting Services A±�eement. MOTION: 1 move to approvo the: Intorlocal Agrc:c;rnent with Elie City of Ricliland. 4br Coll aborative Local C'ablc'Videe-r la ranch i- Renewal process and, turtlier, authorize the:Mayor to sAgn the Agreement. (b) Community Survey Policy Questions: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated September 28, 2011.. 2. Community Survey Questions from Prior Years. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required Item not previously discussed MF# -Master File#...." Q Quasi-Judicial Matter REMINDERS: 1. 1:30 p.m., Monday, October 3, KGH - Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; AL YENNEY,Alt.) 2. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 5,2601 N. Capitol Avenue----Franklin County Mosquito Control District Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) 3. 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 5, Columbia Park West - Hanford Reach Interpretive Center Groundbreaking Ceremony. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) 4. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, October 6, Parks & Rec. Classroom - Parks & Recreation Advisory Council Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER SAUL MARTINEZ, Rep.;MIKE GARRISON, Alt.) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7;00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: CounciImembers present; Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present, Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; and Bob Gear, Fire Chief. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated September 6, 2011. (b) Bills and Communications, To approve General Claims in the amount of$923,012.85 ($82,726.16 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer Nos, 7121, 7165-7167, 7186, 7190 and 7201; and $840,286.69 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1120, 1 123 and 1124; and Claim Warrants numbered 184055 through 184245). To approve bad debt write-offs for utility billing, ambulance, cemetery, general accounts, miscellaneous accounts, and Municipal Court (non-criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of$256,891.35 and, of that amount, authorize $179,203.60 be turned over for collection. (c) Comprehensive Sewer Plan: To approve the Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc., authorizing professional services with respect to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, not to exceed $449,936.00 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. (d) Northwest Commons Lift Station Design: To approve the Professional Services Agreement with CH2MH111 Engineers, Inc., authorizing consulting services with respect to the Northwest Commons Lift Station Design, not to exceed $64,500 and, further, authorize the City,Manager to sign the agreement after receipt of the developer's reimbursement agreement, (e) Right-of-Way Dedication for a Portion of Clara Street (MF #DEED2011- 003): To accept the deed from Joscph and Julie Roach for a portion of the Clara Street right-of- way. (f) Final Plat (MF #FP2011-008) Ranger Heights (Basswood LLC): To approve the final plat for Ranger Heights. Removed from Consent Agenda and moved to Item 10(b). 1 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 19, 201 1 (g) Resolution No, 3341, a Resolution approving Federal NSP Work Plan Allocation for Program Year 2012. To approve Resolution No. 3341, approving the City's 2012 NSP Allocations and Annual Work Plan. (h) Resolution No. 3342, a Resolution amending the 2010 Federal HOME Investment Partnerships Grant Annual Work Plan Allocation. To approve Resolution No. 3342, amending 2010 HOME Annual Work Plan Allocations, (i) Resolution No. 3343, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington supporting House Bill 2124 and Senate Bill 5964 which narrow the requirement for utilities to purchase eligible renewable energy resources or credits when not needed to serve customer loads. To approve Resolution No. 3343, supporting legislation narrowing the requirement for utilities to purchase renewable energy resources or credits when not needed to serve customer loads, Removed from Consent Agenda and moved to Item 10(c). 0) Resolution No. 3344, a Resolution amending the 2011 Federal CDBG Annual Work Plan and Allocations. To approve Resolution No. 3344, amending the CDBG Annual Work Plan and Allocations. Removed from Consent Agenda and moved to Item 10(d). (k) Resolution No. 3345, a Resolution declaring the city's legislative priorities for the 2012 session of the Washington State Legislature. To approve Resolution No. 3345, declaring the city's legislative priorities for the 2012 session of the Washington State Legislature. Removed from Consent Agenda and moved to Item 10(e). MOTION; Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.Mr. Garrison seconded.Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Yenney attended the Benton Franklin Council of Governments meeting, the All- Senior Picnic in Richland, a Public Meeting on the Road 69 Corridor and a Public Meeting on the Lewis Street Corridor. Mr. Martinez commented on the improvements to the eastern portion of Argent Roadrecently completed by the Port of Pasco. Mr. Hoffmann commented on the General Fund Operating Statement through August 2011. NEW BUSYNESS: Franklin County Affordable Housing Interlocal Agreement (MIT #AGRMT2011- 012): Mr. White explained the details of the Interlocal Agreement. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Franklin County, Connell, Mesa and Kahlotus for the purpose of administering HB2060 generated surcharge funds for housing programs and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 201 1 Final Plat (MF#FP2011-008) Ranger Heights (Basswood LLC): Council and staff discussed the timing of the plat application with respect to school impact mitigation. MOTION; Ms. Francik moved to approve the final plat for Ranger Heights.Mr. Garrison seconded.Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3343, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington supporting House Bill 2124 and Senate Bill 5964 which narrow the requirement for utilities to purchase eligible renewable energy resources or credits when not needed to serve customer loads. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution, MOTION; Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3343, supporting legislation narrowing the requirement for utilities to purchase renewable energy resources or credits when not needed to serve customer loads.Mr. Garrison seconded.Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3344, a Resolution amending the 2011 Federal CDBG Annual Work Plan and Allocations. Council and stali'discussed the details of the allocations. MOTION: Ms, Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3344, amending the CDBG Annual Work Plan and Allocations.Mr. Garrison seconded.Motion carried 6-1. No — Larsen. Resolution No. 3345, a Resolution declaring the city's legislative priorities for the 2012 session of the Washington State Legislature. MOTION- Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3345, declaring the city's legislative priorities for the 2012 session of the Washington State Legislature. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried 6-1. No— Larsen. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7;25 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L, Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this :3rd day of October, 2011. 3 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: October 3,2011 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington We, the undersigned,do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished,the rvices rendered or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just,due and unpaid obliga' ainst the city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Gary Crutghfie , ity Man r Dunyele Mas , Finance Services Manager v We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington,do hereby certify on this 3rd day of October, 2011 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received: Check Numbers and 184246- 184453 In The Amount Of: $1,378,841.53 Electronic Funds Transfers: 1121 - 1122, 1125- 1129 In The Amount Of: $123,490.47 Electronic Funds Transfers: 7324,7373 (Journal Entries) Combined total of $1,502,332.00 Councilmember Councllmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERALFUND: Legislative 0.00 Judicial 4,403,60 Executive 2,052.84 Police 164,986,09 Fire 23,416,91 Administration&Community Services 62,255.06 Community Development 1521.74 Engineering 3,529.29 Non-Departmental 39,108.79 Library 94,657.04 TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 415,933.36 STREET 178,861.70 ARTERIAL STREET 0.00 STREET OVERLAY 0.00 C. D. BLOCK GRANT 41,640.75 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 2,284.01 AMBULANCE SERVICE 20,377,76 CEMETERY 1,727.72 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 684.09 GOLF COURSE 63,786,40 SENIOR CENTER OPERATING 4,807.49 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 3,556.30 RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 476.10 SPECIAL ASS ESSMNT LODGING 0.00 LITTER CONTROL 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 2,398.30 TRAC DEVELOPMENT&OPERATING 19,663.00 PARKS 0.00 STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER 8,73436 GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 200,582.80 WATER/SEWER 248,410.15 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERAI"ING GOVERNMENTAL 31,451.53 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING BUSINESS 2,549,03 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL 15.96 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS 219.60 MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE 155,589,24 CENTRAL STORES 118.41 PAYROLL CLEARING 47,527.42 LID CONSTRUCTION 0.ff PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 0.00 TRI CITY ANIMAL CONTROL 50,936.52 SENIOR CENTER ASSOCIATION 0.00 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 1,502,332.00 3(b),1 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: Payroll Approval October 3, 2011 The City Council City of Pasco Franklin County, Washington The following is a summary of payroll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of September 20 hich are pre ted herewith for your review and approval. Gary Crutchfield, ager Rick Terway,Administrative&community Services Director l We,the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington,do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received and that payroll voucher No's. 43310 through 43450 and 80070 through 80079 and EFT deposit No's. 30047087 through 30047648 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of $2,036,551.22 are approved for payment on this 3rd day of October 2011. Zouncilmem aer Councilmember SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND GENERAL FUND: Legislative $ 7,655.52 Judicial 79,127.75 Executive 64,252.61 Police 582,371.45 Fire 267,852.02 Administrative & Community Services 298.126.64 Community Development 74,483.32 Engineering 92,023.27 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,465,892.58 CITY STREET 45,111.53 BLOCK GRANT 12,748.45 MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER 5,857.59 AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND 151,360.00 CEMETERY 11,487.80 ATHLETIC FUND 1,374.31 SENIOR CENTER 13,775.82 STADIUM OPERATIONS 0.00 MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 0.00 BOAT BASIN 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 0.00 TASK FORCE 0.00 WATER/SEWER 294,497.93 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING 26,312.44 OLD FIRE PENSION FUND 8,132.77 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 2,036,551.22 Payroll Summary Net Payroll 941,610.65 Employee Deductions 571,961.66 Gross Payroll 1,513,572.31 City of Pasco Contributions 522,978.91 Total Payroll $ 2,036,551.22 3{b}.2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Counci September 20, 2011 TO: Gary CrutcliI Manager Workshop Mtg.: 9126/11 _ Regular Mtg,: 1013/11 FROM: Rick Terway, irector Administrative and Con unity Services SUBJECT: Accountant Reclassification I. REFERENCE(S): (none) II, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9126: Discussion 1013: MOTION: I 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, 1-luman 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. 3(c) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Counci September 28, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchf t anager Regular Mtg.: 10/3111 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Draft Boundaries for Legislative Districts I. REFERENCE(S): I. Proposed Resolution 2. Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Ceis 3. Draft Legislative Plan l Commissioner Foster 4. Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Gorton 5. Draft Legislative Plan 1 Commissioner Huff 6. Newspaper Article on Redistricting Proposals 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/3 MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , supporting Draft Legislative Plan 1 by Commissioner Dean Foster of the Washington State Redistricting Commission. 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 of 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) tinder a single legislative district provide better representation of community interests. V. DISCUSSION: A) Based on discussions by Council at the meeting of September 26, staff offers the attached resolution for discussion and consideration. 8(a) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Pasco supporting Draft Legislative Plan l by Commissioner Dean Foster of the Washington State Redistricting Commission. WHEREAS, the Washington State Redistricting Commission (WSRC) has released draft plans for redistricting statewide legislative districts pursuant to the 2010 US Census; and WHEREAS, the public has been invited to submit comments on the various alternative draft plans and the Pasco City Council has reviewed the plans; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council finds that it is preferable for legislative districts to be easily defined, compact and representative of idcnt.ifiabie community interests; and WHEREAS, while Pasco has socioeconomic links to the Tri-Cities metropolitan area, the division of the City into separate districts, each containing a significant rural area and another City miles removed from Pasco will effectively render Pasco citizenry as a whole, unrepresented; and WHEREAS,the draft plan prepared by WSRC Commissioner Foster appears to meet the above criteria while maintaining the entire City and all of Franklin County within a single legislative district; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the plan prepared by Commissioner Foster will best foster appropriate political representation of Pasco citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Pasco community should be wholly contained within a single legislative district, and Section 2. Does hereby encourage the WSRC to adopt the Draft Legislative Plan 1 as prepared by Commissioner Dean Foster. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this day of 2011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney i Washington State Redistricting Commission - PO Box Olympia,WA WA 98504-0948 (360)785-4770 Fax-(350)585-0433 contact@re d is tricting.wa.Qov www.redistricting.wa.gov 40 slevelis r 9 L 44 45 3 l_ 4 36 43 Lhoolin 26 41 3d I '35 30 jr i 31 13 r Y 4 Deviation kom target population of 137,238: I. 31 13. 45 25; 1 37: is 2: •73 M. •26 26: 17 38: 33 3: .3 13: X47 '27: •59 39: 60 4: 19 24; -12 20; 26 40: -•T3 8. n 38 17: 6 �: 0: •6 Draft Legislative Plan 1 6; •22 18: .15 30: .26 Q: 7 7: •19 19: 38 31: 30 43: A 6: 1 20: -42 32-. 36 W: •63 Commissioner Tim Ceis 9: 11 li• 17 33' 15 1s: 41 18: 26 Z2; 41 34: -28 48: ] 24' L9 35: -13 September 13, 2011 X12� so 24- 19 36: -13 ae� -58 49: 3 waTen CEIE 2011 I Counh Royal. I i l 4a7ttie o 6 Hatton Washtucna 9 . � 4 t l< hlotus Tj Franklin County 4 41 �f I M Benton } 3unn ide o yy ( Ri Prescistt I----- i Baton f �ti '1 walla Walla i P County rosser 1 f alla Walla College �^- _ - --. 30 Place Draft Legislative Redistricting Plans 2011 Tim Ceis: District 9 Adams County Othello Benton County Benton City Prosser Franklin County (All) Grant County Mczttawa Yakima County Grandview Mabton Washington State Redistricting Commission PO Box 46948 _ _ Olympia,WA 98504-0948 (360)786-0770 Fax:(360)586-0433 Ip contacl@redistricling.wa.gov www.red Islricling.wa-gov 1 L 39 Si 1 30 12, 24 32 Srnk'T,0 21 46 1 jf 37 41 Ur-coff, 34 11 35 29 ju 13 25 Grant 14 t 19 16 1 Deviation from target population of 137,236. 1 -26 13- 20 25: -16 37; -9 }: 11 14: -10 26: 3 36: 9 3: .6 15 -3 27: -2 39: -22 4: .24 16 -21 22: 3 b: -14 5: " 14 29. 3 41: 3 Draft Legislative Plan 1 6: 26 1a -15 30: -16 42: 2 k I 7: -4 19� -14 31� -17 43: -]3 5 •24 32: 16 1 Commissioner Dean Foster 9: 23 21. 26 31: 25 45: 26 18 A 10: fi 22: 23 34: •28 46i 11 11: 16 23; 10 36: A 47 September 13, 2011 12 -4 24: •4 36: -5, 40: -2 19:' -73 26 Hatton Wach tuuia 6, Co ell• 6 otus Mesa 6 Franklin County 4 t l l' Benton 1 side {J J Rrescott Co u l v1 L ty/ Ber ton 2 Grandy iew Walla Walla tbton - I'rasse. County Colleges, 1A?alla Place 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 Redisipcting Commissiop PO Box 40948 Olympia.WA 98504-0948 (360)7136-0770 ' Fax!(360)586.0433 conta cl @re dis t ncl i n g.w a,g ov www.red i striali n g.wa.gov . 1 Ferry Stevons I 1' 2 32 24 35 1 3 48 37 41 a dwtcoin 35 30 25 31 29 13 1 un 19 Devlation from target population of 137,23$; 1 -34 13 -49 251 -16 31: 93 2: -6 14- -19 26: •120 39: % 5: -8 15: 1S 27: 44 39: -49 4: 19 16: 53 as: -% 4D: •24 51 -10 17: -12 22: -52 41: 6: 2 19: 7, 31: 115 42: Draft Legislative Plan 1 7: •23 19. 10 11: -]5 43: 17 66 2z' 95 32: -62 "" 21 Commissioner Slade Gorton 8 75 21: 2e 33: 83 a• L9 10: 65 12; d6 34; •136 46: •% 11 -43 33: -1a 35: 97 p: r September 13, 2011 11: -23 34: -123 16; 3 �; "'1 b4A8rn Ro. in �a E, Me /11177 xii)j Grunt / County - Rlu�l Lte. favor on I 4�k �=- Adams WI11t112G11t County ! End rnre Coil)2 fy al�,�n Al6km L/i6ino � Was u M riewe � 14 �14jh s i 1Tnn Garfield Franklin County !r , - Bento Columbia A Co1111ty County °Y. Walla Walla _ F Asotin County County 16 ]lege` E Place 2 G rtor. 7()ll I / } a � o p i 1 - S f ' Gorton Option 2011 16 . Draft Legislative Redistricting Plans 2011 Slade Gorton: Split District 9 Adams County (AIl) Asotin (All) Franklin County All except City of Pasco south and east of 395, except a section as described below: East of 200h Ave from south of Highway 39511-182 to.Pearl St; North of Pearl to 13th Ave; West of 10h Ave to Riverview Dr; North of Riverview to 10th Ave; East of 10th Ave to Pearl St; North of Pearl St to Sth Ave; West of 5th Ave to Highway 39511-182 Garfield County (AIl) Whitman County (All) Split District 16 Benton County All except Kennewick and Richland Columbia County (AIl) Franklin County Only that part of the City of Pasco south and east of 395 Walla Walla County (AIl) Washington State Redistricting Commission PO Box 40948 Olympia,WA 98504-0948 (360)786-0770 Fax;(360)686-0433 contact@redisthctrtg.wa.gov www.redisWcfing.wa.gov 4 Pend Ofed.4 1 39 7 38 12 24 21 43 48 31 41 35 27 29 25 28 3 1 Daylation from target population of 137,236: 1: -1$7 31 -60 2s: SS 17: -y 16 4 2: -36 14 98 26: -U8 38: -I4 4: -10 is 96 27! is 39: 48 4: 33 16 .93 18: 132 40: 74 IS: 52 12 32 29: 85 41 -90 74 14 a7 30 2 42 110 18 15 Draft Legislative Plan 1 7• -18 19: 105 31 .(d 43 -58 `40 20 176 32 44 71 Commissioner Torn Huff 9: 40 21: 37 33:. 22 41: 72 10: .99 22: 32 34 -125 46: -91 It 102 23: -14 35 +10 47: 68 September 1 3, 2011 12 93 24� 117 36 10 49; 39 48; -1M In• � M ¢nl Liricolrr � �•� County f Colt SP. h418m �J Grant Cofrl4ti� Re.I 6 ' t�ni J wI Adams ! 1�Vhitrrrnr� + ' Coun tt/ gym„ • Cocerr#it \ ARE- -__ RAW IM r i + f"K+nines t � Gal field nU ,o � Franklin Corn 5 �k County ! County Columbia11 y R a� 4a ws I —rte.: -•-�� County !'A Walla Walla sotin --- County t County Benton 16 County ja t Pilo,. r' Pill FUFF 2Oil I OZ uoi4do :gn H -R 0 a j k c t� � ca b _ J N ;ti E 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 1182 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 Sandifur Pkwy; South of a line projected along the eastward path of Sandifu' r Pkwy to the City Limits Line, Generally south of the City Limits line 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 (All) 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 1-182 Freeway South of I--182 Freeway to Road 68; West of Road 68 to the City Limits Iine; 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 Sandifu' r Pkwy to the City Limits Line; Generally south of the City Limits line to the Snake River. Walla Walla County (A 11) Redistricting proposal: Pasco could move districts - Mid-Columbia News I Tri-City Herald : Mid-... Page 1 of 1 Published Monday,Sep.19,2011 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 intact,but Pasco 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, Dean 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 amepting public comments on the four pkeim:, w4 well as 21 independent"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 pien 1 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 just 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 151h 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 K 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 91h 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 91h 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 4,446 people. Its population is 132,786, 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 Geis 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 in 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. http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/09/19/v-print/1646700/redistricting-proposal-pasco-could.html 9/21/2011 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 20, 2011 TO; Gary Crutchfi l anager Workshop Mtg.: 9/26/11 Regular Mtg.: 10/3/11 FROM: Stan Strebel, Derputy 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 TCI 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 Charters 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. Staff 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. Fallowing 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.. 10(a) Please return recorded Document to: Contract No. Richland City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Richland, WA 99352 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT COLLABORATIVE LOCAL CABLENIDEO 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 benefitting 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 Interiocal 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. Termination.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. S. 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 Intertocal 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, o 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, o 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 Iiterlocal Agreement pg,5 I 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 P9 6 Contract No. AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 20" 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 all 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 fQrty 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. 8) 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) V2rk rs' Cpmpensation 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 Gen_aral Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. (iii) Professional Liability 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 I 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 u nenforce ability, 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 BUSKS 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 0. LAMPSON City Attorney "A/1 11 X Request for Proposals Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services RFP 11-08 ADMIN City of Pasco, Washington City of Richland, Washington PROJECT SUMMARY 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: 1. 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 be conducted for the cities jointly, while other services may be 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 RFP, 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 perforted, including address and phone number, 5. Provide a description of prior work experiences that were similar to the project described in this RFP. 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 performance, franchise compliance, and matters that may he in default. I 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 (1-diet), 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 Page 2 7. Generally manage and guide the renewal process by working together with city personnel to complete Phase I and Phase 1I, 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 I-'het 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 cablc 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 Services Page 3 "Request for Proposal" to Charter Communications. The report will include a draft regulatory ordinance and franchise agreement. ■ Prepare each City for Phase I1 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 11, Phase 11: 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 FRAIV>!ES 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 DATES/TI_VIEFRAME Request for proposal issued ........................................................................................June 1, 2011 Deadline for submittal of questions..........................................................................June 10, 2011 Proposals due .................................................................................... June 24, 201 1, 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, 2011 BeginPhase 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 I, 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 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.as A or �vww.Masco-wa.,aov/bids.asraxl. 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 mcharboneaurd;c.i.richland.wa.us) or Jon Funfar, Pasco Communication Specialist (509-545-3485 or funfar ?txasc -rva. oy . 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 duc at the Cite 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 1-08 ADM1N Due Date 6/24/11 Time: 5;00 pm Send to: John Noble, Purchasing Manager City of Richland Purchasing Dept., MS-11 P. O. Box 190 2700 Duportail St. Building 100 Richland, WA 99352 Request for Proposals—Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services Page 'ex R it �isrSC.Ev�e rFp — rlrS��.t PROPOSAL CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON J AND THE CITY OF RICHLAND, WASHINGTON June 15, 2011 Submitted by THE SUSKE GROUP 4808 T STREET y� SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 CONTACT PERSON: SUE BUSKE PHONE: (916) 441-6277 U FAX: (360) 351-0869 E-MAIL: sue@a buskegroup.--om J J J The uske Grou,_ June 15, 2019 Mr. Mike Charboneau, Richland Cable Communications Coordinator City of Richland, Washington J Mr. ,ion 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,consulting assistance to the Cities for many reasons, including: (1) We only offer our highly-regarded cable communications consulting services to local govemments, 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. J (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 knowledge 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. i (5) We have led and participated in cable franchise renewal negotiations 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 0 Sacramento, CA 95819 ` Voice: (916)441-6277 Fax; (360)351-0869 Web Site: littp://www.buskegroup.com (6) We have extensive experience in working with multi-jurisdictional franchise renewal processes. J (7) We have conducted renewal process, franchise transfers, Institutional Network `J negotiations, franchise fee audits, and other similar processes representing local governments 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 Buske 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 renewal 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 assessment; 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 J analysis, and preparation of written 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. 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 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. ^l We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, I � = f Sue Buske President, The Buske Group TABLE OF CONTENTS P, age I. Brief Description and History of The Buske Group....................:......................... 1 A. Introduction and Overall Statement of Qualifications.._-.................................... 1 B. Key Personnel —,............................................................................................... 1 II. 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 Renewai Negotiations and Draft.................. 20 Franchise Agreements under the Requirements of the Revised Cable Ordinances III. PRELIMINARY TIMELINE OF CONSULTING ACTIVITIES .........................I......... 22 IV. CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE .................................24 4J V. COST ESTIMATE.................................................................................................... 28 -•, APPENDIX: Resumes of Consulting Team Members AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 28, 201 1 1'O: Gary Crutchlje t anager Regular Nltg.: 10/3/11 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy .ity Manager. SUBJECT: Community Survey Policy Questions 1. REFERENCE(S): I. Community Survey Questions from Prior Years II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1013: Direction to staff 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) At the meeting of September 25, Council seemed to find possible interest in three questions, which are presented for Council consideration: Council Districts: There are seven members of the City Council; five positions require a candidate to reside within a geographical district within the City and two positions are elected "at large" without regard to district residency. The purpose of having some districts is to assure reasonable geographic representation of Council members throughout the city. How do you feel about this system of representation? Do you: a) Favor the current system; b) Prefer fewer at large representatives; c) Prefer more at large representatives. Binding 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" (not all ,jurisdictions have the same level of financial resources). Should the City seek legislation that would require an arbitrator to consider a jurisdiction's"ability to pay" in making a binding arbitration decision? 10(b) School Imiiact 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 (such fees can only be used for new school construction). 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? 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 1/10 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 Survev: I. 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 new water park (including a pool slide and other water features) that would replace one (or possibly two) existing swimming pools? 2009 Survey: 1. To what extent do you support or oppose establishing curbside recycling service, if it requires an increase to your garbage pickup sere ice cost of$4 to $5 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?