HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.06.11 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. June 11, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Public Facilities District Board Interview:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 5, 2012.
2. Application (1) (Council packets only).
(b) Ambulance Service Contract with Fire District #3:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 5, 2012.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Letter to Fire District #3 dated 12/14/11.
(c) Interlocal Annexation Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 7, 2012.
2. Map, Annexation Options, 2011.
3. Incorporation Process.
4. Map, Annexation Options, 2012.
5. Profile of 2012 Annexation Options.
(d) Medical/Dental Benefits Premium Co -Pay:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 6, 2012.
2. Resolution No. 2629.
3. Proposed Resolution.
(e) Legislative Consultant Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 4, 2012.
2. Proposed Agreement.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a) Collective Bargaining Proposal
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, June 11, Pasco Red Lion - Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membershif
Luncheon. ( "Life of Minor League Baseball" presented by Darrell Ebert, Vice President and
General Manager for the Tri-City Dust Devils.)
2. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 12, Senior Center - Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
( COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN, Alt.)
3. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, June 14, Cousins' Restaurant - BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee
Meeting. ( COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, June 14, Transit Facility - Ben - Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR
MATT WATKINS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
5. 11:30 a.m., Friday, June 15, Kennewick City Grill - Benton - Franklin Council of Governments Board
Meeting. ( COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
6. 11:00 a.m., Saturday, June 16, Pasco's Highland Park - Juneteenth Parade (check in at 10:00 a.m.).
(MAYOR MATT WATKINS, COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK and TOM
LARSEN)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Counci June 5, 2012
FROM: Gary Crutch � .t i Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/11/12
SUBJECT: Public Facilities DiVrict Board Interview
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Application (1) (Council packets only)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/11: Council to conduct brief interview with Mark Morrissette.
III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Public Facilities District Board is composed of five members; terms are for
four years. The Board meets quarterly.
B) The Public Facilities District Board oversees operation of the Pasco Public
Facilities District and payment of Pasco's share of a special state grant intended
for regional public facilities. It also may acquire, construct, operate and maintain
any qualified regional public facilities.
C) There is one position whose term is expiring:
1. Position No. 2 (Mark Morrissette)
D) After Council screening committee review of all applications, only the incumbent
is recommended for interview.
IV. DISCUSSION:
A) After conduct of the interview at the June 11 Workshop meeting, Mayor Watkins
intends to reappoint Mr. Morrissette, subject to confirmation by the Council, at
the June 18 Business meeting.
4(a)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager
SUBJECT: Ambulance Service ontract with Fire District #3
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter to Fire District #3 dated 12/14/11
June 5, 2012
Workshop Mtg.: 6/11/12
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/11: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See below.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city created its ambulance service in the late 1970s due to the cessation of
such services from the private sector (funeral homes and hospitals). At that time,
the city extended ambulance service to Fire District #3 for a nominal contract fee.
In the late 1990s the city required a contract fee of about $24,000 per year, which
has grown via an annual CPI factor to about $30,000 annually.
B) Conversion of the city's ambulance service to a utility function (and associated
accounting) requires an accurate assessment of costs, per state law. The most
recent cost of service analysis (required by the state auditor's office) resulted in an
"availability" fee of $5.85 per month (scheduled to increase to $6.25 /month in
January 2013). That monthly fee is paid by each residential and business unit in
the city, but such a monthly fee is not paid by units in Fire District #3. The other
element of ambulance cost is assigned to the "transport" fee. That fee is $660 for
city residents but $990 for non - residents (including Fire District #3). The higher
fee for non- residents is a reflection of the fact that the city uses its own tax funds
to subsidize (substantially) the ambulance operation. If Fire District #3 were
subject to the same monthly availability fee that city residents pay, the annual
contract fee would amount to about $180,000 (2450 housing units x $6.25 x 12)
for 2013.
C) State law provides limited options for fire districts to fund ambulance services.
The most common method used by districts around the state is the Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) levy. This requires voter approval of an additional
property tax within the fire district to raise dollars necessary to pay for ambulance
service. In the case of Fire District #3, an EMS levy of approximately
$0.20 /thousand would be sufficient to offset the estimated 2013 "availability" fee
(assuming the same rate as city units). An EMS ballot measure could be included
on the November 2012 ballot if the District acts to place the question on the ballot
by August 7, 2012.
D) Other "options" for the District include seeking a change in current state law
(RCW 52.12.135) so that any fire district can contract directly with an adjoining
city for the provision of ambulance services and apply the same ambulance utility
rates in the fire district that are used in the adjacent city. That law currently
permits "rural" fire districts to do so but defines "rural" as less than 10 persons
per square mile — Fire District 43 is about 50 persons per square mile (the donut
4(b)
hole alone is over 1,000 persons per square mile). Changing state law will require
at least one year and the outcome of such an effort is uncertain — at best. Another
option is for Franklin County to enter into an interlocal annexation agreement
with Fire District #3 and the city; such an agreement could provide a negotiated
contract fee as part of the financial mitigation plan desired by Fire District #3 in
association with an annexation plan. That option, however, requires participation
by Franklin County.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) After notice to Fire District #3 (December of last year) and completion of the
ambulance utility cost of service study, staff advised the District (in April) that
Council expects the District's contract fee to reflect, at the very least, the same
rate paid by city residents. A recent meeting with Fire District #3 representatives
indicated they needed to know with certainty the Council's position in this matter,
as their actions must be based on the city's formal position.
B) Council should confirm its posture that the District's contract fee at least reflect
the rate paid by city residents (unless it believes otherwise). Another
consideration could be the timing of that change. Since the city notified the
District late last year, it is not unreasonable to expect change in January 2013 (one
year notice). However, given the magnitude of the change and the desire of the
District to seek an expedient means of fulfilling the revised contract fee
requirement, Council may wish to stage the increase. For example, perhaps 50%
of the new fee be required for 2013 and 100% in 2014; this would reduce the
immediate financial impact to the District while they attempt to change state law
or present an EMS levy to district voters sometime in 2013, for effect in 2014.
W
Q Z y
i
96C AMN
pp
O
O
W
r, s�
u
Y
M
m U LL
J
I �
I` i
MANAGER (509) 545 -3404 / Fax (509) 545 -3403
P.O. Box 293, (525 North 3rd Avenue) Pasco, Washington 99301 / www.pasco- wa.gov
December 14, 2011
Todd Blackman, Chairman
Franklin County Fire District No. 3 Board of Commissioners
2108 N. Road 84
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Ambulance Service Contract
Dear Chairman Blackman:
Please be advised that the Pasco City Council will consider an updated cost of service analysis
for its ambulance utility early next year. It is certain to increase the availability charge paid
monthly by Pasco residents and the transport fee may be adjusted as well. As those changes are
implemented, the annual fee for ambulance service to your district must also be adjusted.
The current agreement does not provide for adjustment of the contract fee, other than through the
annual CPI factor. As that will not allow the kind of adjustment expected, the only option for
Pasco is to advise the District now that it must terminate the contract effective December 31,
2012 (the current agreement requires one -year written notice for termination). Termination can
be avoided, however, if the District and Pasco can agree on a revised contract fee prior to the
termination date. To that end, please also consider this letter an invitation to discuss the revised
costs as soon as the Pasco City Council has adopted its changes (expected in February or March
2012).
Please feel free to contact me or Chief Gear to advis
GC /tlz
cc: City Council
Chief Gear
Finance Manager
preference.
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Counci June 7, 2012
FROM: Gary Crutch Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/11/12
SUBJECT: Interlocal Annexation Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Map, Annexation Options, 2011
2. Incorporation Process
3. Map, Annexation Options, 2012
4. Profile of 2012 Annexation Options
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/11: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In summer of 2011, Council was advised of its ability to annex two large portions
of the unincorporated Pasco Urban Growth Area (reference #1), using the utility
agreements signed by individual property owners over the many years the water
system has been owned by the city. At the same time, Council was advised of a
2009 state law which allows a city, county and fire district to enter into an
agreement to spell out an annexation plan for an Urban Growth Area; that
agreement would permit annexation without requiring commitments from
individual property owners. City staff had met previously with Franklin County
Fire District #3 officials and determined there was probability of an appropriate
agreement with Fire District #3; the other step in the agreement process would
require negotiation with Franklin County Board of Commissioners.
B) Upon invitation by the city, the Franklin County Commission agreed to enter such
discussions in September 2011. Suggested provisions of an agreement were
provided by the city to Franklin County in October but no revisions or alternative
provisions were offered by Franklin County. Through meetings in January and
February, Franklin County made it clear it would not entertain discussion of an
agreement until a "matrix" was completed to compare the regulatory and cost
considerations for affected residents. The matrix required four months to complete
(explanation provided to City Council via separate memorandum). Once
completed (in early May), the matrix clearly reflects no meaningful difference in
regulatory matters (except dog control), very similar annualized household costs
and (arguably) improved service levels (police, fire, garbage, etc.) would result
from annexation. Franklin County has yet to provide any substantive response to
the city's proposed interlocal agreement provisions offered last October.
C) In May, a group of "donut hole" residents advised the Franklin County
Commission of its desire to incorporate all of the donut hole, as a new individual
city rather than be annexed by Pasco. RCW 35.02 permits such an effort, with
certain procedures and provisos (reference #2 is an outline of the steps and key
provisos). The law explicitly requires the incorporation proposal to have at least
3,000 inhabitants in order to be eligible for a public vote. The law also explicitly
recognizes the potential interests of an adjacent city, by allowing the adjacent city
to initiate annexation of any portion of the proposed "new city" area; if such
4(c)
annexation reduces the population of the new city area below 3,000 inhabitants,
the incorporation proposal dies entirely. If not, the matter may go to a vote of the
residents within the donut hole sometime in 2013.
D) Staff has reviewed the potential annexation areas which could be accomplished by
the city presently (using current utility agreements) and concludes four separate
portions of the donut hole could be annexed immediately (see reference #3).
Given an estimated population of slightly less than 4,000 currently in the donut
hole, the city would need to annex more than 1,000 residents to terminate the
incorporation process.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Though the city has not been clearly informed by the county, it appears evident
that the Commission is not inclined to enter into an interlocal annexation
agreement. Filing of an incorporation effort does not require Franklin County to
withdraw from meaningful discussions toward an interlocal agreement, but the
county has provided no meaningful indication of its desire or intent to pursue an
agreement (indeed, one could interpret their determination to avoid it).
B) Given the filing of the incorporation effort, coupled with lack of substantive
progress in negotiating an interlocal agreement with Franklin County, Council
should immediately focus on the incorporation effort. Though the concept of a
new city clearly has not been thoroughly evaluated by the proponents (cost will be
much higher than current), the prospect of voter approval based on emotional
reaction to a myriad of "annexation myths" (which persist despite the factual
information in the matrix) should not be dismissed. Obvious problems for Pasco
created by such a scenario include:
• Perpetuation of gross inefficiencies in Pasco's daily operations (police,
utilities, parks and streets) associated with the requirement to drive
through another city to serve portions of Pasco west and north of the donut
hole;
• Potential dead - ending of the city's utility systems (water and sewer) and /or
exorbitant franchise fees /onerous conditions required by the new city;
• Relocation of city Fire Station #3 (Road 68 and Argent) so that it is not on
the edge of Pasco;
• Continued impact on the city's traffic system without contribution by new
development in the new city via traffic impact fees;
• Use of Pasco facilities created and maintained at Pasco taxpayer expense
without financial participation by residents of the separate city (senior
citizens' center, Chiawana Park, etc.).
C) Staff advises that Council should initiate annexation of that portion of the donut
hole identified as "Area 2" on the map in reference #3. That area contains an
estimated population of about 1400 (see reference 44), reducing the remainder of
the donut hole well below the 3,000 population threshold and, thus, terminates the
incorporation process before further emotional commitment grows (Council
should not wait for a petition to be circulated and filed — residents should know as
soon as possible what is the city's intention). This option is recommended with
the additional hope that once the incorporation option is no longer possible,
Franklin County will realize the benefit of an interlocal agreement. If that proves
futile, the city can initiate the process to annex all or part of the other annexation
areas reflected in reference 43.
D) With Council concurrence, staff can prepare the appropriate document to initiate
annexation of the first (or more) area necessary to terminate the incorporation
process, for Council action on June 18. Such an effort could result in an
ordinance annexing the selected area by August /September.
1 m IGv11
.11
•
■iilRo��f�r
111;i1■Orr
1191 i11T
Incorporation Process
1. Notice filed with County Commission.
2. Within 30 days of filing, Commission holds public meeting (scheduled for 6/13).
3. Within 180 days of meeting, ep tition equal to 10% of voters must be filed with auditor.
4. City Annexation maybe initiated anytime prior to or 90 days following filing of
incorporation petition.
5. Within 30 days of receipt of petition, Auditor determines petition validi .
6. Within 60 days of notice of publication validity by Auditor, County Commission holds
public hearing.
7. Election at next special election date that is more than 60 days following public hearing.
CA
N
n
• O
O
O
�1
I,
1 �A.
I
i
_
a � ! r it
I
t _
- -4
-r`-
1 r
1 F �
1 � i
r
it r :J
-
"
�r IL. p I41�r; 1 u r�f41{��H)Mhf'I a / Lh1 J i 'r -
jl r ' r/ i}F
l Yu r ff /1 r r
It
n t!I
M
ANNEXATION AREA OPTIONS
AREA #1
• Total Assessed Valuation .. ............................... ...................$86,332.200
• Assessed Value of Utility Agreements ............ ....................$55,953,900
• Percentage ............................ ............................... .........................64.81%
• Dwelling Units ......................... ............................... ...........................317
• Population ............................... ............................... ............................897
AREA #2
• Total Assessed Valuation ............................... ...................$116,538,600
• Assessed Value of Utility Agreements ............ ....................$72,935,800
• Percentage ............................ ............................... .........................62.58%
• Dwelling Units ........................ ............................... ............................511
• Population .............................. ............................... ..........................1,446
AREA #3
• Total Assessed Val uation ... ............................... ....................$9,196,200
• Assessed Value of Utility Agreements ............. ..................... $5,694,500
• Percentage ............................. ............................... .........................61.91%
• Dwelling Units ........................................................ .............................61
• Popul ation ................................ ............................... ...........................172
AREA #4
• Total Assessed Valuation .. ............................... .....................$5,632,200
• Assessed Value of Utility Agreements ............. .....................$4,391,700
• Percentage ............................................................. ............................78%
• Dwelling Units ........................................................ .............................28
• Population.......... ...................................................... .............................79
TO: City
FROM: Gary
AGENDA REPORT
1
SUBJECT: Medical /Dental Benefits Premium Co -Pay
I. REFERENCE(S):
I. Resolution No. 2629
2. Proposed Resolution
June 6, 2012
Workshop Mtg.: 6/11/12
Regular Mtg.: 6/18/12
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/11: Discussion
6/18: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , amending the medical /dental
premium co -pay policy.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City has long provided medical /dental benefits for its employees (as do all other
cities of comparable size). Prior to 1987, the city purchased a standard insurance
package in the private marketplace. Since 1987, the city has elected to continue
providing the medical /dental benefits through a self - insured program which minimizes
administrative and overhead costs. Experience in cost of claims over the past several
years has required increases in the monthly premium required to be paid by the operating
funds to the Medical/Dental Benefits Fund.
B) The Council adopted Resolution No. 2629 (attached), in 2001 which established a
phased implementation of premium co -pay obligation for non - represented employees
(premium co -pays for bargaining unit employees are established by contract). The
resolution required a premium co -pay of 4% beginning in 2002; rising to 10% in 2004.
C) Council's recent decision and action to implement a COLA for non - represented
employees beginning July 1, 2012 was accompanied by a staff recommendation to
increase the premium co -pay for non - represented employees from 10% to 12% beginning
August 1, 2012. The attached resolution will implement that change.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Council has increasingly expressed its desire to see employees provide a larger share of
the premium cost for health insurance (particularly as the plan covers all dependents, not
just employees). The immediate change for non - represented employees will initiate such
an effort. Further increases should be considered in conjunction with annual COLAs and
collective bargaining agreements.
RESOLUTION NO. 2629
A RESOLUTION requiring medical /dental premium co -pay
by all participating non - represented employees.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco provides medical /dental benefits for its
employees through the operation of a self- insured fund, called the
Medical /Dental Benefits Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Medical /Dental Benefits Fund receives a monthly
premium /assessment for each employee, paid by the operating fund
responsible for paying the wage or salary of the respective employee; and
WHEREAS, the majority of employees represented by bargaining groups
are already obligated by their bargaining agreement to share in said monthly
premium /assessment but non - represented employees have not—been so
obligated; and
WHEREAS, the Medical /Dental Benefits Fund has experienced a
significant rise in claims for medical /dental expenses over the past three years;
NOW,THEREFORE
The City Council, City of Pasco, Washington DO RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Eligible non - represented employees who avail themselves to
the medical /dental benefits program offered by the city shall share in the
monthly premium /assessment effective not later than February 1, 2002.
Section 2. The premium co -pay obligation established herein shall be
phased in as follows:
• CY2002: Four percent (4 %) of the monthly premium;
• CY2003: Seven percent (7 %) of the monthly premium;
• CY2004: Ten percent (10 %) of the monthly premium.
Section 3. In no case shall the premium co -pay obligation established
herein exceed 2 °/o of the employee's monthly base wage.
Section 4. The City Manager is hereby directed to take all steps
necessary and appropriate to effect this policy with regard to all employees
eligible for medical /dental benefits.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at a.regular meeting this
3'° day of December 2001.
OF
arrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
Catherine D. Seaman, Deputy City Clerk
APPR S TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.
A Resolution amending the medical /dental premium co -pay obligation by all participating
employees, except those under collective bargaining agreements.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco provides medical /dental benefits for its employees
through the operation of a self - insured fund, called the Medical/Dental Benefits Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Medical /Dental Benefits Fund receives a monthly premium/assessment
for each employee, paid by the operating fund responsible for paying the wage or salary of the
respective employee; and
WHEREAS, the Medical /Dental Benefits Fund has continued to experience a significant
rise in claims for medical /dental expenses over the past several years; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2629, the City Council implemented a premium co -pay
obligation for eligible employees, except those under collective bargaining agreements, which
obligation must be increased; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. All employees, who are eligible for the medical /dental benefits program,
who avail themselves of the benefits offered by the city shall share in the monthly
premium/assessment at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) of the monthly premium effective
August 1, 2012, unless specified otherwise by collective bargaining agreement.
Section 2. In no case shall the premium co -pay obligation established herein exceed
2% of the employee's monthly base wage, unless specified otherwise by collective bargaining
agreement.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby directed to take all steps necessary and
appropriate to effect this policy with regard to all employees eligible for medical /dental benefits.
Section 4. Resolution No. 2629 is hereby repealed.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting
dated this 18`h day of June, 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutchfiel Manager
SUBJECT: Legislative Con ulta Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Agreement
June 4, 2012
Workshop Mtg.: 6/11/12
Regular Mtg.: 6/18/12
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/11: Discussion
6/18: MOTION: I move to approve the agreement with Gordon Thomas Honeywell
Governmental Affairs for state legislative consultant services and, further,
authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Total: $41,000 maximum
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city has employed the services of a legislative consultant for each of the past seven
years. In doing so, the city has realized the following accomplishments that would likely
not have happened if not for the particular services of the consultant work:
$5.2 million legislative appropriation for construction of the Ainsworth Overpass
Project;
$400,000 legislative appropriation for construction of the Court Street Pedestrian
Overpass of SR395;
$3 million legislative appropriation for Lewis Street Overpass project.
Amendment of the ambulance utility statute.
B) GTH has offered to continue services for Pasco, at their standard rate of $3,150 per month,
with a contract term of one year; the resulting cost is $37,800 (plus $3,000 in
reimbursables). While the consultant will perform the general legislative duties listed, the
greatest value will be the consultant's effort to obtain additional state funding assistance
for the Lewis Street overpass, a priority project of the city which is simply too costly for
the city to construct on its own.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The value of an effective legislative consultant is clear when measured by the success the
city has realized over the past five years. Continuing such a relationship is imperative if
the city desires to continue to seek assistance via the state legislature (whether by
appropriation or statutory language).
B) GTH accomplished no small feat in the 2009 session by helping obtain the legislative
appropriation of $3,000,000 for the Lewis Street Overpass. In addition, GTH was
instrumental in guiding the regional PFD legislation through the 2010 legislature and the
ambulance utility statute amendment in 2011. While our legislators were also instrumental
in these endeavors, they were aided greatly by the effort of GTH coordinating with many
other legislators to assure the local objective was not lost in the details of the process.
C) GTH has the advantage of a Washington D.C. office; thus, the opportunity to pursue a
coordinated effort (state and federal) to obtain the funding assistance necessary for
construction of the Lewis Street Overpass project. The proposed scope of work will
address the city's 2013 legislative agenda.
D) In view of the potential 2013 legislative benefits, staff recommends approval of the
proposed contract.
4(e)
CITY OF PASCO
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into by and between City of Pasco and Gordon Thomas Honeywell
Governmental Affairs (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), upon the following terms and
conditions:
A. Scope of Work. Consultant will advise and assist the City of Pasco in accordance with
Consultant's Scope of Work, described in Attachment "A" hereto and incorporated herein, and
Consultant will do and produce such other things as are set forth in the Scope of Work (the
"Services "). Consultant's Services will be in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, rules,
orders, licenses and permits, now or hereinafter in effect, and Consultant shall furnish such
documents as may be required to effect or evidence such compliance.
B. Compensation; Expenses. The City of Pasco will pay Consultant for satisfactorily rendered
Services in accordance with the specific terms set forth in Attachment "A."
C. Invoices; Payment. Consultant will furnish the City of Pasco invoices at regular intervals, as
set forth in Attachment "A."
D. Term. Consultant shall promptly begin the Services hereunder on the date set forth in
Attachment "A" and shall terminate same on the date set forth in Attachment "A," unless earlier
terminated by mutual agreement. The City of Pasco or consultant may terminate consultant services
for convenience at any time prior to the termination date set forth in Attachment "A," provided that
either party provides 30 -days notice.
E. Ownership of Work Product. The product of all work performed under this agreement,
including reports, and other related materials shall be the property of the City of Pasco or its
nominees, and the City of Pasco or its nominees shall have the sole right to use, sell, license, publish
or otherwise disseminate or transfer rights in such work product.
G. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing contained
herein shall be deemed to make Consultant an employee of the City of Pasco, or to empower
consultant to bind or obligate the City of Pasco in any way. Consultant is solely responsible for
paying all of Consultant's own tax obligations, as well as those due for any employee /subcontractor
permitted to work for Consultant hereunder.
H. Release of Claims; Indemnity. Consultant hereby releases, and shall defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the City of Pasco from and against all claims, liabilities, damages and costs arising
directly or indirectly out of, or related to, Consultant's fault, negligence, strict liability or produce
liability of Consultant, and /or that of any permitted employee or subcontract or Consultant,
pertaining to the Services hereunder.
I. Assignment. Consultant's rights and obligations hereunder shall not be assigned or
transferred without the City of Pasco's prior written consent; subject thereto, this Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' heirs, and successors.
J. Governing Law; Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Washington, U.S.A. (excluding conflict of laws provisions). If any term or provision of this
Agreement is determined to be legally invalid or unenforceable by a court with lawful jurisdiction
hereover (excluding arbitrators), such term or provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability
of any remaining terms or provisions of this Agreement, and the court shall, so far as possible,
construe the invalid portion to implement the original intent thereof.
K. Arbitration.. Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement, breach or
interpretation of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith attempt to resolve the
dispute. In the event such dispute cannot be resolved by agreement of the parties, such dispute
shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, and the Mandatory
Rules of Arbitration (MAR); venue shall be placed in Pasco, Franklin 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.
L. Entire Agreement; Etc. This Agreement, and its incorporated attachments hereto, state the
entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersede any prior
agreements or understandings pertaining thereto. Any modification to this Agreement must be made
in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties. Any provision hereof which may
be reasonably deemed to survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall so survive,
and remain in continuing effect. No delay or failure in exercising any right hereunder shall be
deemed to constitute a waiver of any right granted hereunder or at law by either party.
Consultant: City of Pasco:
Gordon Thomas Honeywell
Governmental Affairs
Tim Schellberg, President Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
Date:
Date:
2012 -2013 Legislative Services Agreement
Page 2
ATTACHMENT "A" TO
CITY OF PASCO CONSULTING AGREEMENT
A. Scope of Work: Consultant shall provide the City of Pasco with the following
governmental affairs services:
General Washington State Legislative Services
• Identify and track all relevant legislation.
• During the legislative session, provide the City with weekly reports and tracking
lists.
• Attend all relevant legislative hearings.
• Attend all relevant legislative meetings.
• Coordinate City officials to testify at relevant legislative hearings.
• Lobby to amend, defeat or pass legislation or budgets that directly affect the
City's interests.
• Strengthen relevant legislative relationships between the City, state legislators,
and executive offices.
• Work with the City to develop a state budget request and lobby the Legislature to
fund the request.
Specific Legislative Issues:
• Obtain specific allocations for the Lewis Street Overpass within the Capital
and /or Transportation budgets and assist in related grant/loan applications.
• Pursue reforms to the Public Records Act.
• Defend the City's authority to issue business licenses.
B. Compensation/Expenses: The City of Pasco shall pay Consultant a monthly fee of
$3,150 for the services listed above. Consultant shall only bill communication expenses,
such as travel to Pasco. The expenses shall not exceed $3,000 for the term of the
contract.
C. Invoices/Payments: (a) Consultant shall furnish the City of Pasco with invoices for
services performed on a monthly basis, and (b) the City of Pasco shall pay each of
Consultant's invoices within thirty (30) days after City's receipt and verification of
invoices.
D. Term of Agreement: Consultant's services shall commence on July 1, 2012 and shall
terminate on June 30, 2013.
2012 -2013 Legislative Services Agreement
Page 3