Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.11.07 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. November 7,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: 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 October 17, 2005. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) 1. To approve General Claims in the amount of$1,654,933.50 ($116,414.02 being in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 4415, 4421 and 4424 and, $1,538,519.48 consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 151425 through 151719). 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $1,350,826.28, Voucher Nos. 33715 through 33835; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30006841 through 30007304. (c) Tourism Promotion Area: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated November 3, 2005. To approve the 2006 operating budget for the Tourism Promotion Area in the total amount of $875,278.43. (d) Waiver of Utility Service Requirement—Tharen and Shelly Woody,PMC Chapter 16.06: 1. Agenda Report from Doug Bramlette, City Engineer dated October 20, 2005. 2. Petition for Utility Service Waiver. 3. Vicinity Map. To approve the sewer utility service waiver as requested by Tharen &Shelly Woody. (e) Waiver of Utility Service Requirement — Gerard & Roxanne Van Houdt, PMC Chapter 16.06: 1. Agenda Report from Doug Bramlette, City Engineer dated October 20, 2005. 2. Petition for Utility Service Waiver. 3. Vicinity Map. To deny the sewer utility service waiver as requested by Gerard & Roxanne Van Houdt for 1415 Road 77 with the commitment that the city extend sewer service to the subject property. (f) Water Rights Management MOA: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 19, 2005, 2. Proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). To approve the Memorandum of Agreement for management of the "Quad Cities" Water Right for the cities of Pasco, Kennewick, Richland and West Richland and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. (g) Snow Removal Assistance Agreements: 1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated November 1, 2005. 2. Snow Removal Standby Letter Agreement. To authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Ray Poland & Sons for snow removal assistance. (h) Water Reservoir Aesthetics: 1. Agenda Report from Elden Buerkle, Management Assistant dated November 4, 2005. 2. Resolution No. 2878. To appoint Jocelyn Berriochoa, Andrea Goforth and Gene Holland to the Water Reservoir Aesthetics Committee as citizen members, and Councilmember Watkins as Chair of the Committee. Regular Meeting 2 November 7,2005 (i) Resolution No. 2908, a Resolution adopting regulations for the Community Housing Improvement Program. 1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community & Economic Development Director and Cruz R. Gonzalez,Urban Development Coordinator dated October 20, 2005. 2. CHIP Summary and Regulations (Council Packets only; copy of regulations available in Community Development Department for public review). 3. Map of Target Areas. 4. Resolution Adopting Regulations. To approve Resolution No. 2908, adopting Community Housing Improvement Program Regulations. *(j) Resolution No. 2909, a Resolution accepting work by Scholten Roofing Inc., under contract for the Martin Luther King Center roofing project. 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated October 24, 2005. 2. Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 2909, accepting the work performed by Scholten Roofing Inc., under contract for the Martin Luther King Center Roofing Project. (k) Resolution No. 2910, a Resolution requesting that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) establish a maximum wholesale power rate of$27 per average megawatt hour, inclusive of all costs, for the 2007-2009 rate period. 1. Agenda Report from Elden Buerkle, Management Assistant dated October 21, 2005. 2. Proposed Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 2910, requesting the Bonneville Power Administration maintain a maximum rate of$27 per megawatt hour. ttrcl MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) (b) (c) 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers. (b) (c) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (a) Public Hearing on the Final Assessment Roll for ULID 141: 1. Agenda Report from Doug Bramlette, City Engineer dated November 2, 2005. 2. Ordinance. 3. Vicinity Map. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, relating to Utility Local Improvement District No. 141, approving and confirming the assessments and assessment roll of Utility Local Improvement District No. 141 created for the purpose of carrying out a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the waterworks utility of the city, including the sanitary sewage system and the system of storm or surface water sewers of the city specified, adopted and ordered to be carried out by Ordinance No. 3656, and levying and assessing the cost and expense thereof against the several lots, tracts, parcels of land, and other property as shown on the assessment roll. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , confirming the Final Assessment Roll for Utility Local Improvement District No. 141 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Regular Meeting 3 November 7, 2005 (b) Setting the 2006 Property Tax Levy: 1. Agenda Report from Jim Chase,Finance Manager dated November 1, 2005. 2. Tax Levy Rate History Chart. 3. Assessed Value History Chart. 4. Prior Years Tax Preservation-"Banking"Chart-Option I & 2. 5. Copy of Ordinance for the 2006 Ad Valorem Tax-Option 1 &2. 6. Copy of Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity-Option 1 &2. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING S. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Ordinance No. 3377. 1. Agenda Report from Jim Chase, Finance Manager dated October 19, 2005. 2. Proposed Ordinance (Council packets only; copy available in Finance Manager's Office for public review). 3. Cover sheet of original Official Statement dated September 28, 1999, MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3377. Q*(b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending the Zoning classification of Lot 24 Coles Estates, located in the Northeast quarter of Section 8, Township 9 North,Range 29 East from R-T(Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business). 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated November 3, 2005. 2. Proposed Rezone Ordinance. 3. Planning Commission Report: dated 10/20/05. 4. Planning Commission Minutes: dated 9/15/05 and 10/20/05. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , granting a rezone in Coles Estates from R-T to C-1 as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (none) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Consultant Assistance for Administration of the Community Housing Improvement Program(CHIP): 1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community & Economic Development Director and Cruz R. Gonzalez, Urban Development Coordinator dated October 19, 2005. 2. Creative Housing Solutions Statement of Qualifications. 3. Map of Target Areas. 4. Professional Services Agreement. MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Creative Housing Solutions in an amount not to exceed $695,000 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement. (b) Contract for Services with The Building Department,Inc.: 1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community &Economic Development Director dated October 17, 2005. 2. Contract for Services between the City of Pasco and The Building Department, Inc. MOTION: I move to approve the Contract for Services with The Building Department, Inc., to provide plan review and inspection services and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the Contract. (c) Ainsworth Overpass Project Funding: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 26, 2005. 2. Proposed letter of Agreement. MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to commit up to $415,000 for relocation of water and sewer lines in association with the Ainsworth Overpass Project. *(d) Ainsworth Overpass Railroad Crossing (SR 397): 1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated November 1, 2005. 1 Bid Summary. (RC) MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the Ainsworth Overpass Railroad Crossing (SR 397) to Apollo, Inc., in the amount of$5,572,276.50, including applicable taxes. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) Regular Meeting 4 November 7,2005 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, November 7, KGH Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN,Rep.;EILEEN CRAWFORD,Alt.) 2. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, November 8, Senior Center -- Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN) 3. 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 8, TRAC Facility — TRAC Advisory Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBERS EILEEN CRAWFORD and REBECCA FRANCIK) 4. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, November 10 — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK) 5. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, November 10, Transit Facility — Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS,Rep.;EILEEN CRAWFORD. Alt.) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Michael Garrison, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Joe Jackson, Eileen Crawford, Rebecca Francik,Matt Watkins and Michael Garrison. Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director; Richard Smith, Community & Economic Dev. Director; Denis Austin, Police Chief; and Elden Buerkle, Management Assistant. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated October 3, 2005. (b) Bills and Communications: To approve General Claims in the amount of$1,672,635.41 ($58,163.94 being in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 4410 and 4412 and, $1,614,471.47 consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 151187 through 151424). To approve bad debt write-offs for utility billing, ambulance, miscellaneous, code enforcement and Municipal Court non-criminal, criminal and parking accounts receivable in the total amount of$184,956.54 and, of that amount, authorize $150,830.39 be turned over for collection. (c) Relocation and Sale of Cemetery House: To authorize staff to proceed with the relocation of the cemetery house and the disposal of the same as surplus property. (d) Final Plat— Casa Del Sol Phase 2 (Desert Sunset LLC) (MF#05-68-FP): To approve the final plat for Casa Del Sol Phase 2. (e) Final Plat— Casa Del Sol Phase 3 (Desert Sunset LLC) (MF#05-75-FP): To approve the final plat for Casa Del Sol Phase 3. (f) Resolution No. 2905,a Resolution awarding 2005 HOME CHDO Funds totaling $101,907 to La Clinica. To approve Resolution No. 2905, awarding 2005 HOME CHDO funds of$101,970 to La Clinica. (g) Resolution No. 2906, a Resolution accepting work performed by Gamache Landscaping, Inc., under contract for the Broadmoor Reservoir Site Imp rovement/Landscaping Project No. 04-2-16. To approve Resolution No. 2906, accepting the work performed by Gamache Landscaping, Inc., under contract for the Broadmoor Reservoir Site Improvement/Landscaping, Project No` 04-2-16. I 1 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17, 2005 MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: Mike Thien, 9021 Colby Ct., Doug Gould, 8917 Sunset Trail, Dean Bushey, 8714 Maple Dr., and Marion Hughes, 3608 Rd 84, expressed concerns to Council about the possible annexation of their West Pasco neighborhood. Ms. Lynn Price, 101 Augusta Way, voiced a concern about who is on the Board of the Housing Authority of the City of Pasco &Franklin County and how to access those members. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Hoffmann and Mayor Garrison noted they attended the Post-Audit Conference and reported the City's finances are being managed well. Mayor Garrison noted he represented the City in the `Walk Across Washington' from the PUD facility to the Lewis & Clark Encampment at Sacajawea State Park. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: Resolution No. 2907, a Resolution stating the intended uses of the two-tenths local sales tax increase if approved by voters. Frank Brock, Chairman, Franklin County Commission, addressed Council on the details of the County's proposed sales tax increase. Judge Bob Swisher, representing Franklin County Superior Court Judges, and Prosecutor Steve Lowe explained the importance of the tax for Criminal Justice programs. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 2907, stating the intended uses of local sales tax increase if approved by voters in the general election. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes — Watkins, Francik, Garrison, Jackson, Crawford, Hoffmann. No —Larsen. NEW BUSINESS: Water System Upgrades/Additions: MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award a contract to S & B, Inc., in the amount of $109,000 including sales tax for the upgrade/additions to the City's Water System. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried. Wireless Modem Radios for Re-Use Facility: MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the low quote from Spectrum Communications in the amount of$28,420.09 including sales tax. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Ms. Crawford asked for an alternate Councilmember to attend the Good Roads Association Board Meeting Wednesday evening. Mayor Garrison, Ms. Crawford and Mr. Larsen all reported missing campaign signs to the police department. 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17, 2005 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to executive session at 8:19 p.m. to discuss litigation or potential litigation with legal counsel. Mayor Garrison called the meeting back to order at 8:35 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Michael L. Garrison, Mayor Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of November, 2005 i 3 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: November 7, 2005 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington We,the d rsigned by certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished,the services dered the labo performed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligatio agains the city a that we are authorized to authenticate and certify-to said claim---) Gary rutc d, ity Manag r James W. C h Pld, Finance Manager We,the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington, do hereby certify that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received;that Wire Transfer No.s 4415,4421 and 4424 in the amount of$116,414.02, have been authorized;that Check No.s 151425 through 151719 are approved for payment in the amount of$1,538,519.48,for a combined total of$1,654,933.50 on this 7th day of November, 2005. Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMSIWIRE TRANSFERS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND: Legislative 657.36 Judicial 6,186.60 Executive 8,157.11 Police 161,340.46 Fire 71377.68 Administration &Community Services 74,054.18 Community Development 54,308.43 Engineering 4,381.97 Non-Departmental 182,432.12 Library 71,209.28 TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 570,105.19 STREET 195,097.37 C. D. BLOCK GRANT 19,107.54 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 3,660.38 AMBULANCE SERVICE 7,411.66 CEMETERY 12,324.25 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 1,401.29 SENIOR CENTER 4,742.27 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 3,068.56 RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 103.24 LITTER CONTROL 2,006-18 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 1,026.00 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 15,037.00 PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 23,764.50 STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER 7,789.90 SUN WILLOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 4,588.23 METRO DRUG TASK FORCE 20,195.73 METRO DRUG FORFEITURE FUND 920.65 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 71,875.97 WATER/SEWER 405,942.93 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING 31,088.14 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT 71,544.09 MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE 143,996.20 CENTRAL STORES 1,558-58 FIRE PENSIONS 4,825-18 PAYROLL CLEARING 31,444.67 LID CONSTRUCTION 307-80 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 1,654,933.50 3(b).1 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: Payroll Approval November 7,2005 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 October 2005pu ich opr ed h erewith for your review and approval. Gad rutc ie d, City 11A nager James W. ase, Finance Manager /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.33715 through 33835 and EFT deposit No's. 30006841 through 30007304 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of$1,350,826.28 are approved for payment on this 7th day of November 2005. Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND GENERAL FUND: Legislative $ 5,434.97 Judicial 49,286.60 Executive 30,979.27 Police 404,387.15 Fire 192,009.20 Administrative&Community Services 203,570.45 Community Development 51,559.44 Engineering 62,498.74 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 999,725.82 CITY STREET 29,507.34 BLOCK GRANT 10,497.12 MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER 4,457.54 AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND 86,792.45 CEMETERY 3,871.95 ATHLETIC FUND 0.00 SENIOR CENTER 8,954.99 STADIUM OPERATIONS 0.00 MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 22.78 BOAT BASIN 22.81 REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 0.00 TASK FORCE 7,748.56 WATER/SEWER 179,711.46 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING 19,513.46 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 1,350,826.28 Payroll Summary Net Payroll 771,158.06 Employee Deductions 323,956.90 Gross Payroll 1,095,114.96 City of Pasco Contributions 255,711.32 Total Payroll $ 1,350,826.28 3(b).2 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council November 3, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchfi anager Regular Mtg.: 11/7/05 SUBJECT: Tourism Prom do Area 1. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/7: MOTION: I move to approve the 2006 operating budget for the Tourism Promotion Area in the total amount of$875,278.43. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) was formed in late 2004 to generate and administer the proceeds of a "per night room assessment" on hotels/motels in the Tri- Cities. B) The interlocal agreement (between Pasco, Kennewick and Richland) that created the TPA requires the annual budget from the TPA to be approved by the City Council_ V. DISCUSSION: A) The TPA "assessment" is remitted by the hotels to the state which, in turn, distributes it to the city in which it was collected. The city is obligated to pass it to the TPA, for use in accordance with the approved budget. The 2006 budget will increase the marketing effort of the hotel industry, to the ultimate benefit of the community. Staff recommends approval of the TPA 2006 budget. 3(c) AGENDA REPORT NO. 33 FOR: City Council DATE: 10/20/05 TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop: 10/24/05 Robert J. Albe s, Public Works Director Regular: 11/07/05 FROM: Doug Bramlette, City Enginee SUBJECT: Waiver of Utility Service Requirement--Tharen& Shelly Woody P.M.C. Chapter 16.06 T. REFERENCE(S): I. Petition for Utility Service Waiver 2. Vicinity Map H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/24: Discussion 11/07: MOTION: I move to approve the sewer utility service waiver as requested by Tharen & Shelly Woody. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In September of this year, Tharen & Shelly Woody applied for a utility service wavier to build an addition to the existing single family home at 2104 Road 72 without the benefit of City sewer service, but with an engineered septic tank and drain field. P.M.C. 16.06 requires new homes to connect to the utility system unless such requirement is waived by action of the City Council. Since there are no sewers at the property, the applicant is requesting permission to install a larger septic tank system than the system that is currently on the property, to support the larger home. Staff will require a letter from the Benton-Franklin Heath Department as to the adequacy of the septic tank and drain field system. P.M.C. Sections 16.06.030 and 16.06.040 provide the City Council with a process to waive utility requirements where deemed appropriate. V. DISCUSSION: A. Any determination or decision by the City Council to waive utility requirements is to be based upon the waiver criteria provided in P.M.C. 16.06.040 as follows: (1) Special circumstances applicable to the property in question or the intended use that do not generally apply to other properties or classes of uses in the same vicinity or zoning classification. The length of the sewer main to serve this lot may require a lift station and approximately 5700 linear feet of sewer main. Extension of the sewer main by the City is not expected in the near future. 3(d) (2) A waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and the same zoning classification, which because of special circumstances is denied to the property in question. Other properties with the same zoning were developed with septic systems prior to annexation. A waiver is necessary for this property unless the City commits to extension of the sewer main in 2006. (3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property improvements in such vicinity and zoning classification, which the subject is located. All other developed properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district are developed with septic systems. In the past, the Council has approved utility waivers with conditions that: (a) Require the applicant to participate in future L.T.D. or U.L.I.D. activities commenced by petition or resolution that would involve the property in question; (b) Require the applicant to pay an equitable share of any private utility extensions abutting the applicant's property. (4) The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the general intent of this chapter. The International Building Code requires permanent structures to be provided with adequate health and sanitation facilities. The intent of P.M.C. 16.06 appears to support the International Building Code. A building with a septic tank/drain field would temporarily meet the sanitation requirements of the International Building Code and would, therefore,meet the intent of P.M.C. 16.06. In the long term, health and sanitation requirements for this property would be better served by a sanitary sewer line. To insure the property will be contributing to the sewer system in the future, the property owner should be required to connect to services and participate in the cost of extending water and sewer to the property by an L.I.D. or any other means. B. Based upon review of the criteria above, staff would recommend a waiver be granted provided the applicant signs the standard Utility Service Waiver Agreement prior to council meeting (to assure acceptance of standard conditions). CITY OF PASCO PETITION FOR UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER PLEASE COMPLETE THE APPLICATION CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY Al E 1A/ V S h ell of (Name of Owner/Applicant)(lst fiarty) (Name of O ner/Applican (2nd party) �01LI (Address) (Address) (Phone) (Phone) General Location of Property: �1 64we-01 (give location relative to streets, intersections, etc.) Legal Description of Property for which the Utility Waiver is requested: Current Land Use of Property: 1) Type of utility waiver requested? Water X Sewer_X 2) Describe the reason for requesting a waiver from the requirement to connect to the municipal water and/or sewer system? i. p Y f#- i r 3) Describe alternative method of utility provision from which a waiver is requested? r 4) Special circumstances applicable to the property in question or intended use? S) What changed or changing conditions warrant the proposed Utility Waiver? 6) What other properties in the same vicinity and within the same zoning district have received a Utility Waiver or are not connected to one of both or the municipal utility systems? 7) How will the public health and welfare be protected by granting the Utility Service Waiver? I 2104 ROAD 72 REQUEST FOR SEWER WAIVER (2) M (3) a SP 80 15 r a av r m aw r R tivv a ~ yes SP 78-2 a � c2) Aw B (2) SP 81-25 $ i i t R 07 SP 78-3 (2) C e (1) Is 4 I i s m mr a {1} —17 00 (2) (1) f cc } (2) bt t SP 75-1 sr r � ov 10 A € 21 2 2 2 AGENDA REPORT NO. 32 FOR: City Council DATE: 10/20/05 TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager Workshop: 10/24/05 Robert J. Albe Works Director Regular: 11/07/05 FROM: Doug Bramlette, City Engineer SUBJECT: Waiver of Utility Service Requirement—Gerard &Roxanne Van Houdt P.M.C. Chapter 16.06 I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Petition for Utility Service Waiver 2. Vicinity Map II. ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/24: Discussion 11/07: MOTION: I move to deny the sewer utility service waiver as requested by Gerard &Roxanne Van Houdt for 1415 Road 77 with the commitment that the City extend sewer service to the subject property. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The applicant has requested a sewer waiver in order to build a new home on a vacant lot at 1415 Road 77 (Riverview Homes Addition, Block 2, Lot 5). P.M.C. 16.06 requires new homes to connect to the utility system unless such requirement is waived by action of the City Council. Since there are no sewers at the property, the applicant is requesting permission to build a septic tank system. There are other parcels in this area that would benefit from an extension of the sewer system. It is only a matter of time that others will be needing sewer service or will also want a waiver. The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan calls for extension of collector sewer extending north from the river into all residential areas in the Riverview area within the City limits. A sewer pipeline that will service this lot is in the sewer plan. A waiver in this particular area of the City would go against the overall goal of providing sewer service in that area. In October 2004, a similar request was made for a vacant lot adjacent to Road 68 South of Court Street. In that case, Council denied the sewer waiver request with the commitment that the City would extend the sewer pipeline to the property. As properties connect to the pipeline over time the city would recapture the cost through the collection of the sewer fees. The request made by Gerald &Roxanne Van Houdt raises the same questions regarding the extension of sewer pipelines. Staff has observed an increase in inquires by individuals with failing septic tanks, or with vacant lots in the established neighborhoods. In most cases, there is not enough support to create a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID). Staff believes that a more comprehensive approach needs to be taken in the sewer extension policies that can address both providing sewers in the neighborhoods within the City limits, and street overlay in these neighborhoods. There are approximately ten (10) miles of streets in the City limits which are candidates for future sewers. Staff recommends a sewer extension program be implemented with an annual budget of $600,000.00 to $800,000.00 for a five (5) year period of time at which time the program should be re-evaluated. The Utility Fund can support this program. One of the first projects would be the installation of sewers on Road 77. 3(e) V. DISCUSSION: A. Any determination or decision by the City Council to waive utility requirements is to be based upon the waiver criteria provided in P.M.C. 16.06.040 as follows: (1) Special circumstances applicable to the property in question or the intended use that do not generally apply to other properties or classes of uses in the same vicinity or zoning classification. All of the property in this vicinity is zoned for residential use; no special circumstances are apparent. The subject parcel and all others east of Road 68 are zoned for RS-12 (12,000 minimum lot size), while those west of Road 68 are zoned RS-20 (half-acre minimum). (2) A waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and the same zoning classification, which because of special circumstances is denied to the property in question. Connection to the sewer system will not deprive use of the subject property for residential purposes, if the City extends the collector in Road 77. (3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property improvements in such vicinity and zoning classification, which the subject is located. Unless properly conditioned, granting a waiver would be detrimental to the public welfare in so far as it would tend to discourage extension of the sewer system. In the past, the Council has approved utility waivers with conditions that: a) Require the applicant to participate in future L.I.D. or U.L.I.D. activities commenced by petition or resolution that would involve the property in question; b) Require the applicant to pay applicable fees when utility services do become available. c) When the City commits to a timetable to install the sewer line, the applicant has paid associated utility fees at time of Building Permit, and connected at time of sewer installation. (4) The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the general intent of this chapter. In the long term, health and sanitation requirements for this property and the surrounding neighborhood would be better served by extending and utilizing the city sewer service. B. Based upon a review of the criteria above, staff would recommend that the sewer waiver be denied with the understanding that the City will construct the sewer pipeline to Court Street as part of the 2006 Capital Improvement Program; thus accommodating extension/connection to the subject property. C. If timing of construction is deemed a problem, the waiver could be granted with certain conditions to assure participation in the extension and connection to the new sewer line, as follows: (1) Payment of subject property's standard "front-footage and area charges" at time of issuance of building permit. (2) Connection of any inhabited building on the property to the new sewer line within 90 days of written notice that the sewer line is available. CITY OF PASCO PETITION FOR UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER PLEASE COMPLETE THE APPLICATION CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY y�f rl N �i^n 1104,rfil A'Okeriwe 4t" (Nance of Owner/Applicant)(lst party) (Name of Owner/Applicant) (2nd party) (Address) (Address) (Phone) (Phone) General Location of Property: 1 1 W 72 (give location relative to streets, intersections, etc.) Legal Description of Property for which the Utility Waiver is re uested: Current Land Use of Property: 1) Type of utility waiver requested? Water Sewer _ 2) Describe the reason for requesting a waiver from the requirement to connect to the municipal water and/or sewer system? A)b -/ s dv ei'' 3) Describe alternative method of utility provision from which a waiver is requested? Hems✓ S'�E> �l C- 5 f � 4) Special circumstances applicable to the property in question or intended use? 1 5) What changed or changing conditions warrant the proposed Utility Waiver? 6) What other properties in the same vicinity and within the same zoning district have received a Utility Waiver or are not connected to one of both or the municipal utility systems? 77 7) How will the public health, an welfare�e prot cted by granting the Utility Service Waiver? ���� `" �� � 1415 ROAD 77 REQUEST FOR SEWER WAIVER 21 W. COURT ST 25 26 �a �a 7 18 1 2 3 0 7e1e 71M 4 5 1 2 � oo um £9vr 1a 1p' 3 6 U� 12 11 28 ° 5 14 27 R I ~ R 6 a d ^ 4 15 g 8 °a R � g $ a 5 T 32 $ R rroa O 1�o 11 12 w 'b cn Q 0 w 4 4 r '' 0 0'�� 1 'A00 Fyy�R It 2 3H 0 M E 3 3 SEWER PIPELINE PER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ro \` (TYP) 88 4 0 o � .cR `. 6 Ilk 7 _ _ _ Fx, nN s��� I I ' ! E i 7617 I 7517 C-O V T o W. COURT ST f'lll I 58-0 i I i INV 350 I I ; 7M 7812 7800 1 4 5 I ......_.... ..X i 7720 7704 1 1 k_ 10. U71L fSMT I f / ,�-"_..(� �..� /D. I � ! Z ---•- T-'---� i6$6 -" �76t0'....��_.....1 I L 1+26 it 6 i II 4 I 0+ L4 ! \ II 1t to © INV INV y ICI c@ �: � � i yte4 Rid f I I f k. 7703 1' �.I 7723 4Y714 I 61p it I 12 yepo PL),j, l I r 59-092 `o 0 1 I y>OO I I I Fy► 981.1 1NV 351: �,4 �O H m � j I 30. , ¢ year I !I t 1D �F roe •0�r I � F u aka 3 i s � to LID 354.09 INV 344.05 spg-OP bq k Q430. 4 I i i �o e4 o 4`h GO- LID 353.64 *31'Opp r I I I INV 343.83 lays 30. 8g'1�05 oQ 0ex b 6o-eo4 I I LID 355.74 INV 343.49f1 132' CONO - I I I 6 / i 0.08% LID 354.00 INV 343.58 \\ O�xpZO��P 18e col 6 -8345 LI 354.75 IN! 343.41 I AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council October 19, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchfi t anager Workshop Mtg.: 10/24105 Regular Mtg.: 11/7105 SUBJECT: Water Rights Management MOA I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10124: Discussion 1117: MOTION: I move to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for management of the "Quad Cities" Water Right for the cities of Pasco, Kennewick, Richland and West Richland and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The "Quad Cities" Water Right, issued by the state to provide sufficient water right capacity for the "Quad Cities" (Pasco, Kennewick, Richland and West Richland), required the development of a memorandum of agreement between the four cities to spell out how the new water rights and the use of municipal water systems would be monitored and reported. V. DISCUSSION: A) The attached memorandum spells out the monitoring requirements to which each of the cities will be obligated to adhere to fulfill the "Quad Cities" Water Right permit obligations. All three of the partner cities have already approved the MOA and staff now recommends City Council authorize the City Manager to commit Pasco to the same understanding and obligations. 3(f) August 18,2005 Appendix F Memorandum of Agreement for Management of Quad Cities Water Right and Related Progra-m 1. Purpose and Objective This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is for the purpose of managing the area's water resources and Quad Cities water rights required to meet the public water supply needs of the Urban Growth Area and related water service areas. The primary objectives are: 1. To provide for regional management and supply development strategies, joint supply projects, and system interties that ensure that the Urban Growth Area water needs and water rights are planned and developed in a coordinated manner. 2. To define the criteria, development schedule, place of use, water use efficiency objectives, and procedures to be followed by the four Cities in developing the Quad Cities water rights required to meet the Urban Growth Area needs. 3. To manage the withdrawal and return of water resources to the Columbia River and area aquifer consistent with the conditions associated with the Quad Cities water rights and other local plans. 11. Parties to Agreement This MOA is between the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland hereafter referred to as the "Cities,"and the "Parties" to the MOA. 111. Urban Growth Area — Place of Use For the purposes of this MOA and to establish in all future urban area water right applications, a place of use of the Quad Cities' water right is generally defined as the Urban Growth Area and adjacent iural service areas, as jointly defined by the four Cities under the provisions of the State Growth Management Act in 1997, and as subsequently amended. The place of use shall include as a minimum the area shown on Figure 1 on the Quad Cities Water Right Permit, or as amended by the Cities State approved Water System Plans. If the Cities' water resources management and supply development plan utilizes land application or aquifer recharge areas located in rural areas adjacent to the Urban Growth Area, the expanded resource management area shall be considered integral to this Agreement's definition of Place of Use. IV. Urban Growth Area Demand Projection For the purposes of this MOA, the projected average day, maximum day, and instantaneous demand for water right purposes shall be based on the current "Regional Water Forecast and Appendix F-Memorandum of Agreement F-1 Interim Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan August 18,2005 Conservation Plan (RWFCP) for the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland prepared to be consistent with the Quad Cities water rights condition. The RWFCP shall be incorporated by the four Cities into their State-approved Water System Plans and their Comprehensive Plans as the water supply element. The four Cities agree to update the RWFCP at least every six years and to project their water supply needs for a minimum of 5, 10, 20, and 50 years. The Department of Health has established 2009 as the required next update to the individual Water System Plans. The June 2000 Regional Water Supply Plan projections shall be used until a new RWFCP is approved by the Cities except as modified by the MOA. V. Water Use and Water Conservation The Cities agree to jointly develop a regional conservation plan and incorporate in their individual Water System Plans a demand management and water conservation plan that meets the condition of the Quad Cities water right and the criteria established jointly by the Department of Ecology(Ecology) and Department of Health. The Cities agree to organize their common data collection system in 2004 and begin to collect the data in 2005. The 2005 data through 2007 will be used to update the RWFCP in 2008 for use in the 2009 Water System Plan Update. The State required six-year update cycle will then guide future updates. VI. System Interties and System Reliability The Cities will outline a regional supply development and intertie program to optimize use of existing supply systems. Where surface and ground water continuity exists a conjunctive use strategy will be outlined to minimize localized impacts on instream uses. To accomplish maximum system flexibility and reliability, a system of interties between the four Cities will be evaluated and expanded if found to be beneficial for the objectives of this MOA. The Cities will define prior to the next update to their WSP, an intertie program that would enable the Cities to wholesale/transfer supplies between the four systems and the irrigation districts. VII. Water Right Allocation — Quad Cities Water Right Each of the Cities currently holds water rights that partially meet their long-term needs. The Cities agree to allocate the Quad Cities water rights based on updated and projected demands (base allocation), with the balance placed in an unallocated "Quad-Cities Water Reservation Account." The original projected demands were established in the Regional Water Supply Plan, June 2000. The June, 2000 demand projection shall be considered the base allocation until a revision is accepted by the MOA Water Committee. The June, 2000 base allocation will be revised in the 2008 RWFCP approved by the Cities using the information referenced in Section V and in subsequent RWFCP demand forecasts. Future RWFCPs will establish the six-year and 20-year Appendix F-Memorandum of Agreement F-2 Interim Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan August 18,2005 water demands for each City and will define how much Quad Cities water right is required to meet the City's needs. The first 10 cfs of Quad Cities' water right appropriation has been mitigated by the State, with each City receiving 2.5 cfs of mitigation credit. When additional Quad Cities' water right (greater than 10 cfs) is required, and additional mitigation cost is assigned, the City that requires the mitigated water right is responsible for the mitigation cost. The demand projections of the Cities will be based on the same methodology and reviewed and approved by the MOA Water Committee. If the water rights in the Water Reservation Account are fully committed and one of the other Cities' base allocation is not committed, the MOA Water Committee may, by unanimous vote, direct that a portion of the base allocation water right from S4-30976P be reallocated to meet the City's newly documented demand. The four Cities will jointly manage the urban area water resources and seek additional water rights for the area identified as the place of use for the Quad Cities water right in the future if existing rights are not adequate to meet the Urban Growth Area needs. Vill. Accumulative Water Rights — Applications and Use Consistent with the objectives of this MOA, the Parties to this MOA will seek to manage the existing and future municipal and industrial water rights held by the four Cities for the collective use of the Urban Growth Area. The water rights of each City will be held by that City for their use. The accumulative instantaneous and annual quantities for the four Cities for the Urban Growth Area will be used by Ecology to monitor the water use authorized by water right documents in common, prior to the use of the Quad Cities water right that may require mitigation. The Quad Cities water right is held in the name of the four Cities, and therefore, this MOA is the management document to allocate mitigation cost and reallocate use of the Quad Cities water right as use patterns and needs may change. Once a City's demand and supply plan is accepted by the MOA Water Committee and the Water System Plan is approved by the State, the allocation of the initial 2.5 cfs to each of the Quad Cities' water right and any subsequent allocations to a City will continue indefinitely, unless the City has determined for itself that it no longer has a need for the water right. IX. MOA Water Committee The public works director of each City or their designee shall represent their City on the MOA Water Committee. The Water Committee shall meet at least quarterly to coordinate the regional water supply program, monitor projections,prepare the RWFCP, and implement this MOA. The Water Committee shall consider requests for reallocation of water rights held in the Water Reservation Account. The request from any participant City for an additional allocation or reallocation of water shall be based on documented water demands that will meet growth needs, create new jobs, and that are reflective of the economic and growth management strategies incorporated in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Appendix F-Memorandum of Agreement F-3 Interim Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan August 18,2005 If an unresolved conflict occurs, the parties agree to select an independent party to review and mediate the debate and recommend a non-binding solution. If any recommendation or proposal would change ownership or the planned use of any portion of the Quad Cities water right, such change shall be presented to the City Councils for approval prior to approval by the Water Committee. The vote of the Water Committee shall be presented to Ecology as a unanimous finding if the request is consistent with this MOA and related State laws. X. Cost Sharing The Cities agree to share the cost equally for the preparation of the RWFCP and future updates. The Cities will individually be responsible for collecting and assembling the specified data for the RWFCP. Implementation of the common programs of the RWFCP will be allocated by the MOA Water Committee based on the benefits received by each City, including any joint staffing plan. The mitigation cost associated with the use of the Quad Cities water right will be allocated annually to the benefiting City after adjusting for the 10 cfs mitigated water right assigned equally to each City. XI. Application and Changes Processed The Cities agree to prepare the necessary documents for approval by the State to process all necessary changes and applications in a timely manner in accordance with State law. XII. Modification and Term of MOA The MOA will continue unless terminated by mutual agreement by all signators. It is the intent of all parties that if one City wished to have the MOA terminated the remainder of the unassigned water in Permit S4-30976 will be assigned to the Water Reservation Account and will remain with the Cities continuing to participate in the MOA. City of Kennewick Date City of West Richland Date City of Pasco Date City of Richland Date Appendix F-Memorandum of Agreement F-4 Interim Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan U) Cl a vo � �- � LL ca b 4 Op A p � U Q N CL-1 id Ty (�-�+ a) 7-, PC to M1r) ^ R QyC N Ut GJ W U 'C C _ U ZQ 00 [- 1-- C C tr, N N N F A F O 41 4 cY oG [� N N A 7 -v y It W) �° a o � U M N oa N ^F N a► BOA � � A r.r a v Z. c� 4 � w o Q a) v 0 00 C cl a ro P. iO Ut N •C y G w0 A m 'G cn O ev d a A ° N 3 c ed oo oc .� N N N ca O .❑ R.�" •� ° m ,'�'' O ca � � v O � P4 F c - o � w A ° o U w c kl o- � 00 gu nOo .E E 0 F� airs (.7 d lu } > al r- D v q 3 V = C p�. .� � � G � •�-O 'D ° M 4 � 9 G �O ~ T Cd OA r�• N p .b Y ply ,fir aEq 10 .G N go. 3 N w w F « C "• i O 9 14 to IW A .� G C low ow x Q< O a cN+j = '� cs L6 M CU M a C4 C Ni— Q v F- 3 m C G C. 01 F U U U y CL �n ip °o u. N Cd O 6J 00 0 0 0 O 0 O Q O C O O 0 O O O Q 00000 O O O q 000p 00000 O O O � O 0p0 S ppQ �" OPOO O O O O Q# 000 O O �j. 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 4 O J O O O q O O O O O O C O O 0 0 o p q o 0 ze ;F 00000 O O O OOOq O 00000 d O p � QOOp O OOO 001700 0 0 Q 0000 O 00000 O O O O 0000 O # X O 000 p p p pp O 00 O O 0000 O O S q J O O O O O O O G C O C O O O O O O # t.is. 00000 0 0 0 ° 000gq o 0 4 4 0 0 O O O Ci 0 0 0 G G O G 0 0 0 0 0 Q O Q Q 000 . C { 0 0 0 0 6 O O O 7 p 0 4 0 O O q Q pp # 0 0 0 0 5 O O O S O Oq S S 0 0 0 O CJ o C? O O O O O 00. 0 # d 00006 O p p 1 OOOS S 000 'p ocicio 0 0 0 o O 006 0 o m u � �r c O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 q q C 00000 q q p � 0000 O 000 ymj �- 00000 O O O � OdOp p m Y � q q ° °o °o o° > o°°,°o,o g °o 0 0 0 0o o o 0 000 0 o d o 0000 o v C o 00000 0 0 0 > o�o0 0 000 d 000c d > i d1 V c c 4) C ' + x a n E d R e. m W -' `- is m ♦ m oc m m x K fq cm m R amc mm a {4 �Dm o_� ° E0_ w V c = E O „ E m Z+ U c°<j'3U 4 m U v n d +"� U C> O m V •c �w ` mE m c -" gytm$ m EKw y c3 C dl d . ai D co o O S'a'o-i; E m r m o D my r ~ a' mvdo� Eyj ` ? ij- m m m m'S v a.= m m§t o r w _ m lb E= mU• = n n mo limm � m 3rgp : �' QQ m i9 �m m m 5 � u E �i E u1 C - c m c 5� c � 0. �� E.� o .2 t `w w v2 gf¢a �3c°AE a - LL m o o y a a+ � 5 LO C p v.o k :f\ J cc .■� �\\ 'A% ■ 2 tn . �c U tn� ƒ � tu tA o . � & � � 2 § �• « � g v .�§ \� � ■ s ........ tA� a@ % 2 � ■ & - - - k LL.� ■ < ƒ ■ § & a ■ ■ e § / AGENDA REPORT NO. 37 FOR: City Council November 1, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi 4ky"Imanager Regular Meeting: 11/7/2005 FROM: Robert J. A1bc4l�UHC Works Director SUBJECT: Snow Removal Assistance Agreements I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Snow Removal Standby Letter Agreement IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/7/05: MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Ray Poland& Sons for snow removal assistance. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Street Fund: $6,000 annually(minimum) IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In 2004, Council authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Lampson International LLC and Ray Poland and Sons (Poland) to provide road graders and operators on call to assist with snow removal for that year. The annual standby change was $6,000 plus the monthly cost of a grader and the hourly cost of an operator when requested by the City. Staff proposes for 2005 to contract with Poland for two (2) graders to be on standby. Poland has medium size graders which could be used in residential neighborhoods. Poland is willing to have two (2) graders on standby for $2,000 per month ($6,000 total), $4,800 per month, per grader upon activation. The operators cost would be the $65.00 per hour for normal hours and $85.00 per hour for overtime hours. The minimum cost for both graders to be"on standby" is $6,000.00 for the winter; additional costs would occur only if used. As such, the proposed arrangement represents a form of insurance; the annual "premium" of $6,000.00 appears acceptable for having the capacity of two additional graders (more efficient than plows). With general concurrence of City Council, staff will bring an agreement back to Council as described. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING Project File 3(9) SNOW REMOVAL STANDBY LETTER AGREEMENT November 1, 2005 Mr. Dennis Poland Ray Poland & Sons, Inc. Post Office Box 6772 Kennewick, Washington 99336 RE: Snow Removal Standby Dear Mr. Poland This letter agreement is between the City of Pasco (City) and Ray Poland& Sons,Inc. (Poland) for Snow Removal Standby. Poland agrees to provide on standby two(2) graders and operators for the purpose of snow removal for the months of December, January and February. The City shall pay to Poland a fee of$6,000 for standby for the three months. Payment will be made to Poland prior to December I". Poland agrees to provide operators within two(2)hours notice at a rate of$65/hr for regular time and $85/hr for off hours. The City has the discretion of when to activate one or both graders. The first call for an operator will activat e a gra d er at a charge of$4,800 per month for a 30 day period. If the City calls for an operator after the first 30 days,the activation fee of$4,800 will be added. The operator fee shall be paid for the actual hours worked. The operator shall take direction for the routes to be plowed from the Field Division Manager. Both parties agree to the terms of this Letter Agreement by signing below: Sincerely, Gary Crutchfield Date Dennis Poland, President Date City Manager Ray Poland& Sons, Inc. jv xc: File \\Workgroup•2\engineering\Secretary II\Profess.Svcs Agreements\Snow Removal Letter Agreement-Ray Poland 11- o5,doc AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council November 4, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfie t anager FROM Elden Buerkl , Management Assistant Regular Mtg.: 11/7105 SUBJECT: Water Reservoir Aesthetics I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Resolution No. 2878 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: un: MOTION: I move to appoint Jocelyn Berriochoa, Andrea Goforth and Gene Holland to the Water Reservoir Aesthetics Committee as citizen members, and Councilmember Watkins as Chair of the Committee. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In Resolution No. 2878 (July 5, 2005), the Council established the Water Reservoir Aesthetics Committee to help select the paint design(s) for the current and new water reservoirs at Road 76 and Sandifur. The Committee was to be made up of four citizen members and one Councilmember. B) Staff placed two advertisements in the "Tri-City Herald" soliciting applications for the Committee. Five applications were received. The criteria for selection included that an applicant either live or work in Pasco. The three candidates named all met at least one of these criteria; the other two applicants did not. C) Another criterion is that at least one member of the Committee have substantial knowledge of fine or commercial art, which is met by Ms. Berriochoa, who has retired after thirty years of teaching art with the Kennewick School District. V. DISCUSSION: A) With the appointment of these three citizen members and one Councilmember, the Committee will be able to evaluate the paint designs submitted for the reservoirs and make a recommendation to Council. 3{h} RESOLUTION NO.2878 A RESOLUTION defining the community process to select the paint designs for the current water reservoir and the water reservoir to be constructed at Road 76 and Sandifer. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to maintain and improve Pasco's aesthetic environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council considers it important that as much as possible city facilities and installations complement the appearance of the community and its neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, an additional water reservoir will be constructed on the site of the current reservoir at Road 76 and Sandifer; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the paint designs for the water reservoirs will improve the aesthetic appearance of the surrounding neighborhood and the Pasco community; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council hereby establishes the Water Reservoir Aesthetics Committee to serve until a paint design(s) for the water reservoirs is determined. Section 2: The Committee shall consist of five persons appointed by the Mayor. One member shall be a Councilmember of the city, who shall serve as chair. At least one member shall have substantial knowledge of fine and/or commercial art. The remaining members shall be appointed from the community. Section 3: Through a public information/involvement process, the Committee shall solicit from the community designs for painting the water reservoirs. A prize of$1,000 will be offered for the design selected by the City Council. Section 4: The criteria for selection shall be: 1. Appropriateness for the communty and the neighborhood. 2. Subject matter. 3. Artistic merit. 4. Aesthetic quality. 5. Cost of painting and maintaining the design. 6. The design(s) as painted on the reservoir(s)shall be unsigned. Section 5: The deadline for submission of designs shall be October 28, 2005. Section 6: All designs submitted shall become the property of the City. Section 7: By December 1, 2005, the Committee shall, in its sole discretion, recommend one or more designs,or combination of designs,to the City Council. Section 8: By January 16, 2006,the City Council shall choose a recommended design or any other design, whether recommended or not, whether or not submitted as part of the community process or choose to reject all designs and/or develop a new design selection process. Any such decision shall be solely at the discretion of the City Council. Passe y the City Conn it of the City of Pasco this 5th day of July 2005. t chael Gams n, ayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: QJ Sandy Kenikorthy,Deputy City 12lerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT NO. 85 FOR: City Council Date: October 20, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi 1 y Manager Workshop: 10/24/05 Regular: 11/7/05 FROM: Richard J. Smi h, Director Community & Economic Deve pment Cruz Gonzalez, Urban Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Adoption of Regulations for the Communit Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) I. REFERENCE(S1: A. CHIP Summary and Regulations (Council packets only; copy of regulations available in Community Development Department for public review) B. Map of Target Areas C. Resolution adopting regulations II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/24/05 DISCUSSION 11/7/05: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. o:�70? adopting Community Housing Improvement Program regulations. III. FISCAL IMPACT $695,000 Federal HOME funds. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. As of today, the City has approximately $695,000 available in new HOME funds and program income from the sale of homes in the Henry Street project. Under Federal regulations these funds need to be under contract with a third party by December 31, 2005. B. At the March, 2004 City Council Retreat, "Neighborhood Redevelopment" was listed as a goal for 2004-2005. The Redevelopment Strategy Plan, accepted by Council in 2004, recommends that assistance programs be concentrated in two neighborhoods in the vicinity of Longfellow School and the Franklin County Historical Museum (see Exhibit 13). C. Key elements of the Revitalization Plan are providing financial assistance for the rehab of existing homes and providing down payment assistance to encourage owner occupants to move into the area. D. At the September 6, 2005 meeting, the City Council approved a contract with Creative Housing Solutions to develop detailed program regulations for the neighborhood revitalization program. V. DISCUSSION: A. A summary of the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) regulations developed by Creative Housing Solutions is attached as Exhibit A. B. Staff from Creative Housing Solutions will be available at the Workshop to answer questions members of Council may have. 3(i) $ , Exhibit H / ' ® ` \ z + � a. naA� mnrA« \ a 4 w ~ « M a M * f ® mm .V~ « f n \ik 2 a $ ^ 4 in ,# f N. am AVE AVE � t r § § Lu N. 7m AVE ,m AVE w f \ f ¥ gw AVE N. sm AVE / m N, 4TH AVE ¥ * f f W + k & 461 S w° ^ % s s *; % ® ` S C, CITY OF PA/CREIGHBORHOOD FIGURE REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AREA LOCATION MAP Reference C RESOLUTION NO. Q-� A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco entered into an Agreement with Kennewick and Richland in 2004 continuing participation in a Consortium originally formed in 1996 under the Home Investments Partnership (HOME) Program; and WHEREAS, at the March, 2004 City Council Retreat, "Neighborhood Redevelopment was listed as a goal for 2004-2005; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Strategy Plan, accepted by Council in 2004, recommends that assistance programs be concentrated in;two neighborhoods in the vicinity of Longfellow School and the Franklin County Historical Museum; and WHEREAS, key elements of the Revitalization Plan are providing financial assistance for the rehabilitation of existing homes and providing down payment assistance to encourage owner occupants to move into neighborhoods near the downtown. WHEREAS, Creative Housing Solutions has prepared regulations for the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP); Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. The Commu ni ty Housing Improvement Program regulations (attached) are hereby adopted. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2005 CITY OF PASCO: Michael L. Garrison Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City CIerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 24, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Regular: 1117/05 FROM: Stan Strebel, Dire Wministrative and Community Services Direct SUBJECT: Martin Luther King Center Roofing Project I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/7/05: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. - , accepting the work performed by Scholten Roofing Inc., under contract for the Martin Luther King Center Roofing Project. Ill. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) On July 5, 2005 the City Council awarded the Martin Luther King Center Roofing Project, in the amount of$86,466.72, including tax, to Scholten Roofing Inc. The final cost of the contract is $75,806.70, including tax. B) The final project was less costly than the bid amount because it was discovered, after removal of the old roof membrane, that much of the prior existing roof insulation was in good condition and did not need replacement, as had been previously anticipated. C) Work is now complete and staff recommends acceptance of the project. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING Project File 3(j) RESOLUTION NO. GW A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK BY SCHOLTEN ROOFING INC., UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER ROOFING PROJECT. WHEREAS, the work performed by Scholten Roofing Inc., under contract for the Martin Luther King Center Roofing Project has been examined by Administrative and Community Services and been found to be in apparent compliance with the applicable project specifications and drawings, and WHEREAS, it is Administrative and Community Services' recommendation that the City of Pasco formally accept the contractor's work and the project as complete; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That the City Council concurs with Administrative and Community Services' recommendation and thereby accepts the work performed by Scholten Roofing Inc., under contract for the Martin Luther King Center Roofing Project as being completed in apparent conformance with the project specifications and drawings, and Be It Further Resolved, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Washington State Department of Revenue of this acceptance, and Be It Further Resolved, that the final payment of retainage being withheld pursuant to applicable laws, regulations and administrative determination shall be released upon satisfaction of same and verification thereof by the Administrative and Community Services Director and Finance Manager. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7th day of November, 2005. Michael L. Garrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council Workshop Mtg: October 24, 2005 Regular Mtg: November 7, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi �anager FROM: Elden Buerkl , Management Assistant SUBJECT: Request to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for a Maximum Rate of$27 Per Megawatt Hour DATE: October 21, 2005 I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/24 PRESENTATION BY PUD REPRESENTATIVES. 11/7 MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. /0 requesting the Bonneville Power Administration maintain a maximum rate of $27 per megawatt hour. HI. FISCAL IMPACT: If the BPA wholesale electrical rate is kept to a maximum of$27 per megawatt hour, the p p g city will realize savings on electrical costs; in addition, the city goal of expanding private industrial investment will not be frustrated by high electrical rates. III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Prior to the 2001 West Coast energy crisis, BPA average wholesale rates were less than $23 per megawatt hour. The BPA is contemplating a power rate structure that will increase wholesale rates above current high levels for the upcoming 2007-2009 rate period. Today's current average wholesale rate of $31 per megawatt hour far exceeds historical averages for power rates in the Northwest and represents an increase of almost 50 percent in less than five years. IV. DISCUSSION: Representatives from the Franklin County PUD will explain to the Council their reasons for requesting that the BPA maintain a maximum wholesale rate of $27 per megawatt hour and request the Council's support in the effort to achieve BPA agreement to the request to limit wholesale rates. 3(k) RESOLUTION NO. �O A RESOLUTION requesting that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) establish a maximum wholesale power rate of$27 per average megawatt hour, inclusive of all costs,for the 2007-2009 rate period. WHEREAS, the ability of the BPA to deliver low cost power has been a cornerstone to the economic success of the Northwest region; and WHEREAS, the BPA is contemplating for the 2007-2009 period a rate structure that would increase wholesale power rates above current high levels; and WHEREAS, the economic stability of the Northwest region depends upon reliable and affordable power; and WHEREAS, a rate structure above current record high levels will have a significant negative impact on the economy, employment and competitiveness of the Northwest region; and WHEREAS, economic development objectives of the City of Pasco are being frustrated by current high electrical rates; and WHEREAS, prior to the 2001 West Coast energy crisis, BPA average wholesale rates were less than $23 per megawatt hour; and WHEREAS, today's current average wholesale rate of $31 per megawatt hour far exceeds historical averages for power rates in the Northwest and represents an increase of almost 50 percent in less than five years; and WHEREAS, a $27 per megawatt hour rate target is reasonable based on BPA data and would represent an approximate 10 percent reduction from today's record rates; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: That the Pasco City Council supports the establishment of a maximum wholesale power rate of$27 per average megawatt hour, inclusive of all costs, for the BPA 2007-2009 rate period; and further, that the Pasco City Council joins the request to the BPA of the Public Utility District No. 1 of Franklin County and their partners in the Northwest Coalition for Affordable Power to establish a rate of$27 per megawatt hour for 2007-2009. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7th day of November 2005. Michael Garrison,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Kenworthy,Deputy City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT NO. 35 FOR: City Council DATE: 11/02/05 TO: Gary Crutchf.i Manager Regular: 11/07/05 Robert J. Albe fi Ctor, Public Works FROM: Doug BrainIette, City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the Final Assessment Roll for U.L.I.D. 141 I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Ordinance 2. Vicinity Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1117: Public Hearing 1117: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. confirming the Final Assessment Roll for Utility Local Improvement District No. 141 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: U.L.I.D. No. 141 was created by Ordinance No. 3656 to install sanitary sewer on West Marie, West Brown &West Octave Streets between Road 44 and Road 52. The Preliminary Assessment Roll amount was $634,470.00 ($8,030.00 per lot). The Final Assessment Roll amount is $632,790.00 (8,010.00 per lot). Staff believes the property owners have benefited from their assessment. An error was discovered in the preliminary assessment and final assessment for 4409 Octave Street. This property had connected to the sewer pipeline located on Road 44 in 1997 and paid the applicable fee at that time. Staff recommends approval of the final assessment roll with the condition the City account for the assessment for 4409 Octave Street. The complete Final Assessment Roll is available for review at the City Clerk's office. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING Project File 7(a) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO UTILITY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 141, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS AND ASSESSMENT ROLL OF UTILITY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 141 CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT A SYSTEM OR PLAN OF ADDITIONS TO AND BETTERMENTS AND EXTENSIONS OF THE WATERWORKS UTILITY OF THE CITY, INCLUDING THE SANITARY SEWAGE SYSTEM AND THE SYSTEM OF STORM OR SURFACE WATER SEWERS OF THE CITY SPECIFIED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED TO BE CARRIED OUT BY ORDINANCE NO. 3656, AND LEVYING AND ASSESSING THE COST AND EXPENSE THEREOF AGAINST THE SEVERAL LOTS, TRACTS, PARCELS OF LAND, AND OTHER PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL. WHEREAS, the assessment roll levying the special assessments against the property located in Utility Local Improvement District No. 141 in the City of Pasco, Washington (the "City"), has been filed with the City Clerk as provided by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of hearing thereon and making objections and protests to the roll was published at and for the time and in the manner provided by law fixing the time and place of hearing thereon for the 7th day of November, 2005, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., local time, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Pasco, Washington, and further notice thereof were sent by Certified Mail by the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the roll; and WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed and designated in the notice, the hearing was held, all written protests received were considered and all property owners who submitted such protests or their representatives appearing at the hearing who wished to be heard were heard, and the City Council, sitting and acting as a Board of Equalization for the purpose of considering the roll and the special benefits to be received by each lot, parcel, and tract of land shown upon such roll, including the increase and enhancement of the fair market value of each such parcel of land by reason of the improvement, overruled all such protest. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The assessments and assessment roll of Utility Local Improvement District No. 141, which has been created and established to carry out the system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the waterworks utility of the City, including the sanitary sewage system and the system of storm or surface water sewers of the City specified, adopted and ordered to be carried out by Ordinance No. 3656, as the same now stand be and the same are in all things and respects approved and confirmed in the total amount of$634,470.00. Section 2. Each of the lots, tracts, parcels of land, and other property shown upon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially benefited by this improvement in at least the amount charged against the same, and the assessment appearing against the same is in proportion to the several assessments appearing upon the roll. There is levied and assessed against each lot, tract, or parcel of land and other property appearing upon the roll the amount finally charged against the same thereon. Section 3. The assessment roll as approved and confirmed shall be filed with the City Finance Manager for collection and the City Finance Manager is authorized and directed to publish notice as required by law stating that the roll is in his hands for collection and that payment of any assessment thereon or any portion of such assessment can be made at any time within thirty days from date of first publication of such notice without penalty, interest or cost, and that thereafter the sum remaining unpaid may be paid in fifteen (15) equal annual .installments. The estimated interest rate is stated to be 6.0% per annum, with the exact interest rate to be fixed in the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the water and sewer revenue bonds authorized to be issued by Ordinance No. 3656. The first installment of assessments on the assessment roll shall become due and payable during the thirty-day period succeeding the date one year after the date of first publication by the City Finance Manager of notice that the assessment roll is in his hands for collection and annually thereafter each succeeding installment shall become due and payable in like manner. if the whole or any portion of the assessment remains unpaid after the first thirty-day period, interest upon the whole unpaid sum shall be charged at the rate as determined above, and each year thereafter one of the installments, together with interest due on the unpaid balance, shall be collected. Any installment not paid prior to expiration of the thirty-day period during which such installment is due and payable shall thereupon become delinquent. All delinquent installments shall be subject to a charge for interest at the rate as determined above and for an additional charge of 6% penalty levied upon both principal and interest due upon such installment or installments. The collection of such delinquent installments shall be enforced in the manner provided by law. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof, this 7th day of November, 2005. Michael L. Garrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk City Attorney iy s WWI now on milli Imam r AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council DATE: 11/1/05 REGULAR: 11/7/05 TO: Gary Crutch e y Manger Stan Strebel, mi istrative & Community Services Director FROM: Jim ase nance Manager i SUBJECT: SETTING THE 2006 PROPERTY TAX LEVY I. REFERENCE(S): (A) Tax Levy Rate History Chart (B) Assessed Value History Chart (C) Prior Years Tax Preservation---`Banking" Chart—Option 1 &2 (D) Copy of Ordinance for the 2006 Ad Valorem Tax—Option 1 &2 (E) Copy of Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity— Option 1 & 2 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/7/05 Public Hearing 11/21/05 Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No ,providing for the 2006 Ad Valorem Tax Levy, a levy for the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds and the 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds. Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. �p reservin gproperty tax levy capacity for fiscal years after 2006 in accordance with state law. III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The maximum allowed levy rate, per state statute, that a City can levy per $1,000 of assessed value is $3.60. The last time the City of Paso's levy rate was at that level was in 1992. From 1992 to 1999 the City reduced the levy rate by not taking any of the allowable percentage increase, which before 2002 was 6%, and preserved the unused levy capacity in case it were needed in the future. In November 1999, the voters approved Initiative 695, which eventually was ruled unconstitutional. The legislature, however, reduced the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) to $30 per vehicle, which they determined to be the voter's intent of the initiative. To make up for the loss of future MVET revenues, Council elected to use $450,000 of the unused, preserved, levy capacity. The levy rate for 2000 taxes was set at $3.071 per$1,000 of assessed value, still well below the $3.60 maximum. In 2001 the voters approved Initiative 747, which limits the amount a taxing district can raise property taxes over the previous year by the lesser of 1% or the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), without a vote of the people. IPD for the 2006 calculation is 2.541 % (July 2005) so the allowable levy increase calculation will use 1%. IPD is a national inflation index. Pasco's bargaining unions typically include wage increases tied to the West Coast (Seattle/Tacoma Area) Consumer Price Index (CPI). CPI for the year ending July 2005 is 2.9%. Despite the above challenges the Council has been a good steward of taxpayer dollars, as the 2005 property tax levy rate is down to $2.4157, or 67 % of the maximum rate allowable and 21.34% less than the $3. 071 rate set in 2000. 7(b) Pasco has certainly enjoyed the effects of growth within the city limits. Sales tax from new construction and the population growth contributing to higher utility taxes and higher building permit fees have certainly helped to maintain a balanced budget and keep our property taxes low. The property tax levy for 2006 will be comprised of the following three elements: 1. General Property Tax Levy. 2. 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Fire Station/Library Bonds Debt Service. 3. 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding (1993)Bonds Debt Service. The City is directed to set property tax levies with the county in November of each year. IV. DISCUSSION: The Franklin County Assessor has advised that the City will have an assessed valuation (preliminary figure) of $1,989,593,313 which is used to calculate 2006 taxes. This amount includes new construction of $187,695,900. There were no annexations of property before the cutoff date of March 31St. The County did not re-assess any properties within City limits in the past year. GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY Option 1: The amount of the property tax estimated and used in the preparation of the Preliminary 2006 Budget is $4,800,000. The following figures are from numbers provided by the Franklin County Assessor, adding the 1% increase and adding the value of new construction and annexations at last year's rate and adding those numbers to last year's total levy. 2005 Total General Property Tax Levy $4,299,469 1% increase in the levy rate based on the allowable maximum levy 53,899 New Construction Values of$187,695,900 at the 2005 rate of$2.4157/$1,000 Assessed Value 453,417 Annexation Values of$0 at the 2005 rate of$2.4157/$1,000 Assessed Value 0 Increase in the State Assessed Utilities at the 2005 rate of$2.4157/$1,000 Assessed Value 0 $4,806,785 A 2006 General Levy of $4,806,785 using the estimated assessed value of $1,989,593,313 calculates to a levy rate of$2.4160 per $1,000 of assessed value. This is virtually the same levy rate as 2005's rate of$2.4157. Option 2: By not including any of the 1% as shown in Option 1,but including the tax resulting from new construction, the actual levy rate will decline slightly from 2005 to $2.3889 per $1,000 of assessed value. The 2006 General Property Tax Levy would beat$4,752.886. Option 3: If the City were to levy all of the tax available in Option 1 and choose to levy all the banked levy capacity, the general Levy would increase to $5,897,210. The levy rate would calculate to $2.9640, still well below the maximum allowed levy rate, per state statute rate of$3.60. Any or all of the Banked Capacity could be levied. It was previously mentioned the City had used some of the previously preserved, or "banked", levy capacity. The money is not is a bank account. It is merely left in the pockets of the taxpayers. The purpose of RCW 84.55.092 allowing a governmental entity to preserve future levy capacity is to "remove the incentive for a taxing district to maintain its tax levy at the maximum level permitted under this chapter, and to protect the future levy capacity of a taxing district that reduces its tax levy below the level that it otherwise could impose under this chapter, by removing the adverse consequences to future levy capacities resulting from such levy reductions." In plain English this means if the tax is not needed a City does not have to set the levy at the maximum amount. It can reserve that resource for future use — when the Council determines (by a super-majority vote) that it is needed. Whatever the amount the levy is set for 2006, the council can preserve the right to levy the unused amount. A separate ordinance has been prepared to preserve the unused portion of the current levy and any remaining past unused levy capacity. Ordinances for each option have been prepared. 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE The 2006 debt service requirement for the 1999 UTGO Bonds issued for the purpose of the Library Remodel and Fire Station Relocation is $77,382 and $99,018, respectively. Staff recommends the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond tax levy be set at those amounts. The two numbers are not combined because they appeared on the official ballot separately when voted upon. The county assessor's office requires we set these levies separately. The estimated assessed value for properties subject to the tax is $1,750,689,715; this will result in levy rates of$0.0442 and $0.0560, respectively, or a combined levy rate of $0.1002. 2005's levy rates were $0.0504 and $0.0638, respectively, or $0.1142 combined. The schedule of payments calls for principal payments of $100,000 each year for the remaining 13 years. This should reflect in decreased levy rates for the remaining payment schedule as the interest portion declines. 2002 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS The 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds were issued to refund the 1993 General Obligation Bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates available and save the taxpayer's money. The debt service requirements in 2006 for the 2002 UTGO Refunding Bonds is $384,263 and staff recommends the 2002 Unlimited General Obligation Refunding Bonds tax levy rate be set at that dollar amount. This equates to a levy rate of approximately$0.2500 per$1,000 of assessed value. This is down from the 2005 levy rate of$0.2748. Unlike the 1999 Bonds,the principal payment amounts will increase over the remaining life of these bonds but the interest portion will decrease keeping the annual payments at approximately$380,000. V. OTHER: The Franklin County Assessor uses a four year rotation to assess all the property in the County. No portion of the City was re-assessed this year to calculate next year's property taxes. In 2006 the Assessor will re-assess the portion of the City west of 20th Avenue for the calculation of taxes for 2007. ill Z' CO (y M O N N E 69 � C1- LO O O N O O N Z M o_ N 0 O. N 0 0 Z N D LL J o a ° N W LU N LIJ 0 _ o0 W La CL 0 a LO O O O O 0 Co O 00 00 00 0 00 0 0 0 00 O CD co M M M N N N N N r 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 61? 69 an-ivA 03SS3SSH d0 000 6$213d i ° 0 N 1 ° 0 N v 0 N N I 0 1 N I i N O N O N w ° a N 0 w N w cn a ° ° ° ° Ln ° I � i 0 0 0 0 ° CZ 0 CL C 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o Lq o LO N N r .- Prior Years Tax Preservation - "Banking" Option 1 Maximum Taxes Not Accum. Taxes Year Actual Levy Levy Poss. Levied Not Levied 1993 154851669 1,487,731 25062 2,062 1994 1,622,004 156281204 6,200 8,262 1995 196725943 1,796,154 1235211 131,473 1996 1,770,000 2,011,814 241,814 373,287 1997 15950,024 2,44004 490,780 864,067 1998 29040,391 25,6971,123 656,732 1,520,799 1999 2,198,771 3,0175,324 818,553 2,339,352 2000 25922,491 3,306,595 3841104 297231456 2001 3,1401484 3,679,704 5399220 392629676 2002 3,452,906 4,057,763 6045857 3071533 2003 3,500,021 4,52611695 1,026,674 4,8945207 2004 3,825,048 49891,377 1,066,329 51960,536 2005 4,299,469 5,389,894 1,090,425 7,050,961 2006 406,785 55897,210 1,090,425 8,141,386 Prior Years Tax Preservation - "Banking" Option 2 Maximum Taxes Not Accum. Taxes Year Actual Levy Levy Poss. Levied Not Levied 1993 1948509 154875731 21,062 2,062 1994 1,622,004 1,628,204 69200 8,262 1995 1,672,943 117961154 123,211 131,473 1996 1,770,000 2,011,814 241,814 3735287 1997 1,950,024 25440,804 490,780 8645067 1998 2,040,391 2,697,123 656,732 195205799 1999 2,198,771 35017,324 8189553 2,339,352 2000 29922,491 3,306,595 3 84,104 2,7231456 2001 3,140,484 3,679,704 539,220 312623676 2002 3,452,906 4,057,763 6045,857 3,867,533 2003 355001021 455261695 1,026,674 4,8941207 2004 35825,048 498919377 11066,329 5,960,536 2005 452991469 553895894 190901,425 7,050,961 2006 45752,886 5,897,210 1,144,324 8,195,285 i ORDINANCE NO. Option 1 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE 2006 AD VALOREM TAX LEVY, A LEVY FOR THE 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND A LEVY FOR THE 2002 UNLIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS IN THE CITY OF PASCO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: §1. The City Council of the City of Pasco has met and considered its budget for the calendar year 2006; The City Council of the City of Pasco after hearing and after duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, determined that the City of Pasco requires a regular levy in the amount of $4,806,785, which includes an increase in property tax revenues from the previous year, and includes amounts resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state-assessed property, and amounts authorized by law as a result of any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the district. The increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby authorized for the 2006 levy in the amount of$53,899 which is a percentage INCREASE of 1% from the previous year, This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made. §3. A tax for the following sums of money which includes new construction and annexations to defray the expense and liabilities of the City of Pasco, be and the same is hereby levied for the purposes specified against all taxable property in the City for the fiscal year 2006: General Expense, including Councilmanic Bond Debt Service $4,806,785 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Library Remodel 77,382 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Fire Station 98,018 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds 384,263 i $5,366,448 §4. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Pasco, on this day of November, 2005. City of Pasco: Michael Garrison, Mayor Attest: Approved As To Form: Webster Jackson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney i ORDINANCE NO. Option 2 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE 2006 AD VALOREM TAX LEVY, A LEVY FOR THE 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND A LEVY FOR THE 2002 UNLIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS IN THE CITY OF PASCO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: §l. The City Council of the City of Pasco has met and considered its budget for the calendar year 2006; §2. The City Council of the City of Pasco after hearing and after duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, determined that the City of Pasco requires a regular levy in the amount of$4,752,886, which does not include an increase in property tax revenues from the previous year, and does include amounts resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increases in the value of state-assessed property, and amounts authorized by law as a result of any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the district. The increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby authorized for the 2006 levy in the amount of$0 (ZERO)which is a percentage INCREASE of 0% (ZERO) from the previous year. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made. §3. A tax for the following sums of money which includes new construction and annexations to defray the expense and liabilities of the City of Pasco, be and the same is hereby levied for the purposes specified against all taxable property in the City for the fiscal year 2006: General Expense,including Councilmanic Bond Debt Service $4,752,886 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Library Remodel 77,382 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Fire Station 98,018 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds 384.263 $5,312,549 §4. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Pasco, on this day of November , 2005. City of Pasco: Michael Garrison, Mayor Attest: Approved As To Form: Webster Jackson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. Option 1 AN ORDINANCE PRESERVING PROPERTY TAX LEVY CAPACITY IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER 2006 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. WHEREAS, to provide the property tax revenues required by the general operating budget of the City for fiscal year 2006, City Council of the City of Pasco levied property taxes on all taxable property in the City for collection in fiscal year 2006 in the total amount of$4,806,785, which dollar amount is the sum of(a) $4,299,469, which is the amount of property taxes levied by the City in fiscal year 2005, plus (b) $53,899, the lesser of 1% or the Implicit Price Deflator, which for this calculation, is 2.541%, (c) $453,417, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2005 levy rate of 2.4157 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City, property annexed into the City during fiscal year 2005, and any increase in value of state-assessed property in the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City desires to preserve in accordance with state law (including but not limited to Chapter 84.55 RCW) the capacity of the City to levy property taxes in future fiscal years after 2006 calculated as if the City in fiscal year 2006 had levied the full amount allowed by state law upon a finding of substantial need therefore; and WHEREAS, upon a finding of substantial need and based upon limit factors of the lesser of 101% or IPD (102.541%) for the previous year and limit factors of 106% for previous years as provided by RCW 84.55.0101 and $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value by RCW 84.52.043 and 41.16.060, the City would be permitted to levy property taxes for fiscal year 2006 in a total amount of$5,897,210 (the "full amount allowed by law"), which dollar amount is the sum of(a) $5,443,793 (the lesser of the amount calculated by multiplying the allowable 2005 property tax levy of $5,389,894 times the limit factor of the lesser of 101% or lPD or the $3.60 per $1,000 statutory limitation), plus (b) $453,417, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2005 levy rate of 2.4157 cents per$1,000 of assessed value resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City,property annexed into the City during fiscal year 2005, and any increase in value of state-assessed property in the City; and WHEREAS, the full amount allowed by law for fiscal year 2005 of $5,897,210 is $1,090,425 greater than the actual property tax levy of the City for fiscal year 2006 of$4,806,785 and such excess of $1,090,425 represents the unused 2006 property tax levy capacity that the City desires to preserve for future fiscal years after 2006; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City finds and determines that there is substantial need for the City to preserve for future fiscal years after 2006 the capacity to levy property taxes on all taxable property in the City in the amount of$1,090,425, which is equal to the unused levy capacity of the City for fiscal year 2006. This substantial need includes, without limitation, the anticipated future requirements for additional property tax revenues that will be needed for the construction and/or maintenance of roads, streets, bridges and other transportation facilities of the City; to satisfy anticipated and unanticipated new regulatory requirements applicable to the City; to provide for potential excess costs of capital facilities; and generally to meet other substantial future financial requirements of the City. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. ADOPTED by the City Council by the affirmative vote of a majority plus one vote of the members thereof and APPROVED by the Mayor of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof, this day of November, 2005. Michael Garrison, Mayor ATTEST: Webster Jackson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. Option 2 AN ORDINANCE PRESERVING PROPERTY TAX LEVY CAPACITY IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER 2006 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. WHEREAS, to provide the property tax revenues required by the general operating budget of the City for fiscal year 2006, City Council of the City of Pasco levied property taxes on all taxable property in the City for collection in fiscal year 2006 in the total amount of$4,752,886, which dollar amount is the sure of(a) $4,299,469, which is the amount of property taxes levied by the City in fiscal year 2005, plus (b) $0 of the allowable increase of the lesser of 1% or the Implicit Price Deflator, which for this calculation, is 2.541%, (c) $453,417, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2005 levy rate of 2.4157 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City, property annexed into the City during fiscal year 2005, and any increase in value of state-assessed property in the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City desires to preserve in accordance with state law (including but not limited to Chapter 84.55 RCW) the capacity of the City to levy property taxes in future fiscal years after 2006 calculated as if the City in fiscal year 2006 had levied the full amount allowed by state law upon a finding of substantial need therefore; and WHEREAS, upon a finding of substantial need and based upon limit factors of the lesser of 101% or IPD (102.541%) for the previous year and limit factors of 106% for previous years as provided by RCW 84.55.0101 and $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value by RCW 84.52.043 and 41.16.060, the City would be permitted to levy property taxes for fiscal year 2006 in a total amount of$5,897,210 (the "full amount allowed by law"), which dollar amount is the sum of(a) $5,443,793 (the lesser of the amount calculated by multiplying the allowable 2005 property tax levy of $5,389,894 times the limit factor of the lesser of 101% or 1PD or the $3.60 per $1,000 statutory limitation), plus (b) $453,417, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2005 levy rate of 2.4157 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City,property annexed into the City during fiscal year 2005, and any increase in value of state-assessed property in the City; and WHEREAS, the full amount allowed by law for fiscal year 2005 of $5,897,210 is $1,144,324 greater than the actual property tax levy of the City for fiscal year 2006 of$4,752,886 and such excess of $1,144,324 represents the unused 2006 property tax levy capacity that the City desires to preserve for future fiscal years after 2006; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City finds and determines that there is substantial need for the City to preserve for future fiscal years after 2006 the capacity to levy property taxes on all taxable property in the City in the amount of$1,144,324, which is equal to the unused levy capacity of the City for fiscal year 2006. This substantial need includes, without limitation, the anticipated future requirements for additional property tax revenues that will be needed for the construction and/or maintenance of roads, streets, bridges and other transportation facilities of the City; to satisfy anticipated and unanticipated new regulatory requirements applicable to the City; to provide for potential excess costs of capital facilities; and generally to meet other substantial future financial requirements of the City. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. ADOPTED by the City Council by the affirmative vote of a majority plus one vote of the members thereof and APPROVED by the Mayor of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof, this day of November, 2005. Michael Garrison, Mayor ATTEST: Webster Jackson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council Date: October 19, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi 1� Manager Workshop: October 24,2005 Stan Strebel, tive and Community Services Director i Regular: November 7, 2005 FROM: fi Ch mance Manager SUBJECT: CO CTION OF 1999 UTGO BOND ORIDNANCE I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Ordinance. (in Council packets only-copy available in Finance Manager's Office) 2. Cover sheet of original Official Statement dated September 28, 1999 R. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 10/24/2005 DISCUSSION: 11/7/2005 MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3377. III. FISCAL IMPACT: The correction will increase interest on the bonds by$300 per year. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) City Ordinance#3377 was adopted in September 1999 to authorize the issuance and sale of$1.7 million worth of voter approved bonds for financing the renovation of the City Library and construction of the Fire Station on Oregon Avenue. B) The original ordinance was prepared by Foster Pepper & Sheffelman PLLC, bond counsel for the issue. The original ordinance contains an error with respect to the interest rate for the bonds maturing in 2019. The rate was incorrectly stated at 5.5% instead of 5.6% as stated in the Official Statement prepared for the bond sale. The attached proposed ordinance makes the correction. VI. DISCUSSION: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. VIL OTHER FACTS: 8(a) OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 9999 ' BOND-ENTRY ONLY MOODY'S RATING: Aaa ., NEW ISSUE (See"BOND RATING"and "MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE" herein) NEGOTIATED MBIA Insured In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing federal law and assuming compliance with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended(the'Code'),that must be satisfied subsequent to the issue date of the Bonds,interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tar applicabie to individuals. However, while intafest on the Bands also is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the altemadve minimum tax applicable to corporations,interest on the Bonds received by corporations is taken into account in the computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on Bonds received by certain s corporations may be sutyect to tax,and interest on the Bonds received by foreign corporations with United States branches may be subject to a foreign branch profits tax. Receipt of interest on the Bonds may have other federal tax consequences for certain taxpayers. See the captions`TAX EXEMP77ON'and 'CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL_TAX CONSEQUENCES'herein. CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON $11700s000 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 1999 DATED: October 1, 1999 DUE: December 1,as shown below The City of Pasco's Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1999 (the "Bonds"), are issued in fully registered form, and will be fully registered in the name of Cede& Co., as bond owner and nominee for The Depository Trust Company("DTC"), New York, New York. DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. The Bonds will be initially issued in book-entry form only in the denomination of$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in the Bonds purchased. The Bonds bear interest payable on June 1,2000, and semiannually thereafter on December I and June 1 of each year to the date of maturity or prior redemption, whichever occurs first. The principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable by the fiscal agency of the State of Washington,currently The Bank of New York, New York, New York and Wells Fargo Bank, NA,Seattle,Washington(the"Fiscal Agent'). For so long as the Bonds remain in a'book-entry only"transfer system,the Fiscal Agent will make such payments only to DTC, which in turn is obligated to remit such payments to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursement to Beneficial Owners of the Bonds as described herein udder the caption"DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS-Book-Entry Only System." MB64 MATURITY SCHEDULE Due Yield or Due Yield or December 1 Amount Rate Price December 1 Amount Rate Price 2002 $ 35,000 5.25% 4.40 2010 $ 100,000 5.20% 100 2003 65,000 5.15 4.50 2011 100,000 5.25 100 2004 100,000 5.15 4.60 2012 100,000 5.30 100 2005 100,000 5.15 4.70 2013 100,000 5.35 100 2006 100,000 5.20 4.80 2014 100,000 5.40 100 2007 100,000 5.25 4.90 2015 100,000 5.45 100 2008 100,000 5.30 5.00 2016 100,000 5.50 100 2009 100,000 5.40 5.10 $300,000 5.60%Term Bonds due December 1,2019 @ 100. (Plus accrued interest from October 1, 1999) The Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2010, are subject to redemption prior to their stated dates of maturity on or after December 1, 2009, as more fully described herein. See'OPTIONAL REDEMPTION"herein. The Term Bonds maturing on December 1,2019 are subject to mandatory redemption. See"MANDATORY REDEMPTION'herein. The Bonds are general obligations of the City. For as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to levy taxes annually without limitation as to rate or amount on all of the taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient,together with other money legally available and to be used therefor,to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds,and the full faith,credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of those taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest. See "SECURITY"herein. The City has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. See "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES"herein. The Bonds are offered by the Underwriter when, as,and if issued,subject to the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper&Shefelman PLLC, Bond Counsel, Seattle, Washington, which opinion will be delivered with the Bonds. The Bonds, in book-entry form,will be available on or around October 7, 1999,through the facilities of DTC in New York,New York. This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of this issue_ Investors must read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision. Banc of America Securities LLC AGENDA REPORT NO. 86 FOR: City Council DATE: November 3, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager,R WORKSHOP: Richard J. Smi , irector (( REGULAR: 11/7/05 Community an Economic Development FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner"�� SUBJECT: Rezone from R-T (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business) Northeast corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 92 (Gary Wiley)(MF# 05-119-Z) I. REFERENCE(§): A. Proposed Rezone Ordinance B. Planning Commission Report: Dated 10/20/05 C. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 9/ 15/05 & 10/20/05 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. granting a rezone in Coles Estates from R-T to C-1 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and, further to authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On September 15, 2005 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a rezone from R-T to C- 1 for a vacant parcel located at the northeast corner of Road 92 and Sandifur Parkway. B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend a change in zoning for the property in question. C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. V. DISCUSSION: VI. ADMINSTRATIVE ROUTING: 8(b) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending the Zoning Classification of Lot 24 Coles Estates, Located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 9 North, Range 29 East from R-T lResidential Transition to C-1 (Retail Business). WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification and (D) the request for change in zoning classification is categorically exempt under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from to R-T Residential Transition to C-1 (Retail Business) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: Lot, 24 Coles Estates Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this 7th day of November 2005. Michael L. Garrison Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney CITY OF PASCO SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE NO. , rezones Lot 24, Coles Estates from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business). The full text of Ordinance No. , is available free of charge to any person who requests it from the City Clerk of the City of Pasco (509) 545-3402, P.O. Box 293, Pasco, Washington 99301. Sandy Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk exhibit # Fozono orJ , o _ __ o 0 1 cl� SITE ILI SANDJFUR PARKWAY ---- -------- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: 05-119-Z APPLICANT: Gary Wiley HEARING DATE: 9/ 15/05 1896 S. Wilbur ACTION DATE: 10/20/05 Walla Walla , WA. 99362 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 24, Coles Estates General Location: Lying north of Sandifur Parkway, west of Road 90 and East of Future Road 92. Property Size 1.8 Acres 2. ACCESS: The property abuts Sandifur Parkway and future Road 92. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available from adjoining streets and/or will be extended from said streets. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and has been vacant since annexation in 1982. Property to the south contains Broadmoor Outlet Mall and is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). The property to the north is zoned RT (Residential Transition) and is vacant. The property to the west is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and contains office buildings as well as the Desert Ice building. The property to the east is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and is vacant. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-3-D encourages the development of employment clusters. Policy LU-4-13 encourages the concentration of commercial activities, which are functionally and economically beneficial to each other. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of nonsignificance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS Currently the property is zoned RT (Residential Transition) which allows one dwelling unit per five acres. The RT zone serves as a holding zone until the property is ready for development. Substantial infrastructure improvements have been constructed within the vicinity of the proposed rezone site. Sandifur Parkway, a five-lane arterial has been constructed on the south side of the site and is capable supporting traffic generated by C-1 type uses. Additionally, utilities have been installed within the general area of the rezone site. The proposal is consistent with the Commercial land use designation established in the land use map (Volume II, page 41). The site abuts Sandifur Parkway and is located north of the Broadmoor Factory Outlet Mall. The proposed rezone supports the commercial nodal concept encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan (LU-4 A, Volume I, page 31). The properties to the south, east and west are currently zoned C-1 and are developing with retail and office uses. The proposal would prohibit the development of a residence on this 5+ acre site. A residence would be incompatible with surrounding development patterns. This site abuts a five lane arterial and has close proximity to a 6-lane freeway interchange; therefore development under RT zoning would not be the highest and best use for a property. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: All properties to the east, west, and south are now developed and or zoned as C-1 (Retail Business District). Sandifur Parkway has been constructed and several thousand new houses have been built in the I- 182 corridor. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The character of the area will be maintained by grouping like uses together. Sandifur Parkway is a major arterial and designed to support commercial businesses 2 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. The integrity of the comprehensive plan would be upheld. 4. The effect on the property owners or owners if the request is not granted. The owners would have no opportunity or very limited opportunity to sell or develop the land in its present zoning. 5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property. The comprehensive plan designates the site for commercial uses INTIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is currently zoned RT. 2) The site has been zoned RT for over 20 years 3) The site has been vacant since annexation over 20 years ago. 4) The site abuts Sandifur Parkway and future Road 92. 5) Properties to the south, and west are zoned C-I and developed with commercial businesses. 6) Properties to the east are zoned C-1 and currently vacant. 7) The applicant has petitioned to rezone the lot to C-1. 8) The property is in the I-182 corridor 9) Considerable numbers of residential dwellings have been built in the 1-182 corridor over the last 5 years. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows- 3 (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The proposal is consistent udth the land use designations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will be materially detrimental. The proposal would have a positive effect on the surrounding areas by grouping tike uses together. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. The proposal would increase or maintain local commercial property values and be beneficial to the community. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposal would not need special conditions to negate adverse impacts because the proposal would be compatible with surrounding zoning. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. No agreement would be required. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone Lot 24 of Coles Estates from RT (Residential Transition) to C-I (Retail Business) 4 VICINIfY MAP I�M: pezone from Pf to C-I MPL SCANT: ferry Pianken5hip N FILE # ; 05-119-z i 1 Nlmlp/R ; --- 3 � - � SITE' - a ' — 182 •' — 3 -- ZONIN6 MAP IT�M; P,,e zone from P\ftoC-1 APPL iCAW: ferry 1 imkcm5hip FIL� R -1 T R T a s c4 R -3 C-1 RT C - 1 lm� Rv~ C -1 _1 1 1-18 LAN12 U5 MAP It* P\ezomc from KtoC-1 M P�I CANE, ferry Pianketighip 05-119-z SFR a c a r i t I I I I I III I I I Vacant SITE °" E D Ele sE- r t cant Vacant B olmoor Vacant 1- 182 0 et mat .............. REGULAR MEETING September 15, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 A. Public Hearing: REZONE: R-T to C-1 at Sandifur Parkway and Road 92, (Terry Blankenship) (MF# 2005-119-Z) Chairman McCollum read the master file number and asked for the Staff report. Staff stated the applicant (Gary Wiley) was requesting approval of a Rezone from R-T to C-1 for property at the corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 92. Staff explained the site in question was currently zoned R-T. The site contained 1.8 acres and was adjacent C-1 zoning on the South and West. Chairman McCollum asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Smurthwaite asked staff if any of the surrounding property owners had contacted the Planning Office. Staff responded that one of the property owners had contacted them to find out what was allowed in a C-1 zone. Staff also noted the property owner that contacted them was present at the hearing. CHAIRMAN MCCOLLUM OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY ONE PRESENT THAT WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. Terry Blankenship, SK Real Estate 111 Mesa Drive Richland, stated his client was looking to buy the property but had no immediate plans to build on the land. Mr. Blankenship stated he had received some phone calls regarding the property. Mr. Blankenship stated that there are no plans to put a veterinary clinic on the property. Mr. Blankenship also stated one of the neighbors contacted him about wanting to put restrictions on the land pertaining to Adult Bookstores, Adult Entertainment, etc. Mr. Blankenship noted that was already a restriction according to PMC 25.70.050. Following three (3) calls from Chairman McCollum for comment from the floor, either for or against, the public meeting was declared closed. Commissioner Anderson moved the Planning Commission close the public hearing on the Rezone. Initiate deliberations, and schedule adoption of findings of facts, conclusions and a recommendation for the Planning Commission meeting October 20, 2005. Commissioner Smurthwaite seconded, motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Mosebar abstained since he was not present for the entire hearing. Staff explained the process and stated this item would come back to the Planning Commission on October 20, 2005 and then go to the City Council the first Monday in November. REGULAR MEETING October 20, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 2005 A. Old Business: REZONE: R-T to C-1 at Sandifur Parkway and Road 92, (Terry Blankenship) IMF# 2005-119-Z) Chairman McCollum read the master file number and asked for the Staff report. Staff reported that the applicant (Gary qqp psting approval of a Rezone from R-T to C-1 for property on ndff`0 day. Staff explained a public hearing was held at the last regular `meettre public input was provided. The public hearing was closets a!d dellr�x ;the development of a recommendation were set for Octob0 > Z Chairman McCollum asked if there were^a a �etions of Staff . ..::.. There were none. Commissioner Smurthwaite moved the PlanniA adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the,, a1~- 6, 2005 f#,;x'0port. Commissioner Hay seconded, MO tlh"I";,. Witg nanimously.'' Commissioner Smurthwaite mot,,�df, •based on �e fndngs of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission record t ��City CQ�n�il rezone Lot 24 of Coles Estates from R-T to C-1. M Commissioner Hay second+�a��e motioqt�h rii Lion carried unanimously. explained the appe Staff al,pr+�cess and stall.°;phis item would go before the City Council at the next reg €lar meting. ..:sii{si;;;i is''i�:ii;�-��._ i:�€ii�;::;!i}���%i:i':irii:•.. li> = ...issf• ;.y^ sai£a:S£^.• ;rx:r��.� �:i£;:z 51, NE �..`isx:,•..,a.:i..,r : ^,.,:<: ii};:,a: _ ::s;l i:. ^�ti^��;,:"•yi,,-:.,iirsis•.iiiiis. ,y;,i��s:: .;.x.;',a"ii;:l.:i,: :•�r:�;.:;ar33::xu; ....... IM ••ii:iieis�siRiiiJ^Ift.':�:wn i�P'�i^f'� i'£ii;..::i:i:G3�,j�;33i;i:i7P�:ti:s�til�i:..Y:•'�...' f=:}si:•:si'siii::si:isis:'siiii:' �lss:• ��w' AGENDA REPORT NO. 84 FOR: City Council "6"�4anager Date: October 19, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfie Workshop: 10/24/05 1 Regular: 11/7/05 FROM: Richard J. Smith, Director !`� Community 8s Economic Development Cruz Gonzalez, Urban Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Consultant Assistance for the Administration of the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) I. REFERENCE(a A. Creative Housing Solutions Statement of Qualifications B. Map of Target Areas C. Professional Services Agreement I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/24/05 DISCUSSION 11/7/05: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Creative Housing Solutions in an amount not to exceed $695,000 and authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT $695,000 Federal HOME funds. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1995 making the City eligible for Federal HOME funds. In April 2005, this Agreement was extended to 2007. B_ Pasco has utilized its share of HOME funds for a new construction program in the vicinity of 24th Avenue and Henry streets. Under the terms of this program the City built 23 new homes and sold them at a write-down that was affordable to lower income families. This project is now completed. C. As of today, the City has approximately $695,000 available in new HOME funds and program income from the sale of homes in the Henry Street project. Under Federal regulations these funds need to be under contract with a third party by December 31, 2005. D. At the March, 2004 City Council Retreat, "Neighborhood Redevelopment' was listed as a goal for 2004-2005. The Redevelopment Strategy Plan, accepted by Council in 2004, recommends that assistance programs be concentrated in two neighborhoods in the vicinity of Longfellow School and the Franklin County Historical Museum (see Exhibit B). E. Key elements of the Revitalization Plan are providing financial assistance for the rehab of existing homes and providing down payment assistance to encourage owner occupants to move into the area. 10(a) F. In August 2005, the staff solicited proposals from qualified consultants to both develop and administer neighborhood revitalization programs. The City received one response from Creative Housing Solutions of Yakima.. G. On September b, 2005, the City Council contracted with Creative Housing Solutions to prepare program regulations for the housing rehabilitation and down payment assistance programs. V. DISCUSSION: A. The City has only one full-time staff member dedicated to the administration of CDBG, HOME, downtown and neighborhood revitalization programs. Additional staff is needed to administer these programs. Due to uncertainty regarding the amount of funds available in future years, it is recommended that consultant services be used for program administration. B. Staff believes that Creative Housing Solutions is well qualified to perform this work and would recommend that a contract for the administration of housing rehab and down payment assistance programs be entered into. C. A standard professional services agreement is attached. The consultant will bill the City at the rate of $75.00 per hour for actual administrative costs incurred in an amount not to exceed 20% of the total grand funds allocated for the project. D. It is estimated that with the funds now on hand, we will be able to process four down payment assistance applications, five elderly grants and 17 owner occupied rehab projects. All work is to be completed in 12 months. Exhibit A Creative Housing Solutions Statement of Qualifications Creative Housing Solutions is a private for-profit corporation. The company is licensed by the State of Washington and holds the status of being a Certified Women Owned Business. The company has been established as a consultant for the State of Washington to assist small communities in their need to identify, assess and implement community based programs_ The company also has the same designation as a national representative to assist communities and agencies in the arena of housing and urban development. Our company provides technical assistance for compliance with federal requirements. WHAT WE DO: • Administer federally funded housing programs for small cities • Provide technical assistance to communities involved in start up housing programs • Facilitate partnerships for community housing benefit • Develop farmworker housing projects for growers + Provide community housing needs assessments + Write or update any Comprehensive plan • Assist in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act WHAT WE CAN DO FOR YOU: • Staff training • Regulation research&advisement • Program design • Project implementation • Housing assessment + Housing condition survey • Agency liaison + Financial packaging • Organization meetings • Develop policies and plans for organizations making fimding requests for resources • Consult for governments WHY WE DO IT: We have made a commitment to the development of safe,adequate housing for all the residents in our communities. Our plan includes: • A strong belief that decent, affordable housing is the basis of neighborhood stability, the economic development of the community, and will support basic family strengths and values • Improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods • And finally the rewarding experience of assisting communities to become self-reliant Creative Housing Solutions presently has a four member staff. They have a combined experience in Community and Governmental programs at Federal, State and local government exceeding fifty or more years. Dixie Kracht-President Jean Vickers-Staff Cheryl Miller-Staff Christina Aubrey-Staff In addition Creative Housing Solutions contracts with people as needed to facilitate projects. At this time we have two people under contract; one certified building inspector and one Spanish interpreter. Some of the government agencies that have been assisted by our company are as follows: Kennewick,WA: Creative Housing Solutions designed and implemented a housing rehabilitation program. This program rehabilitated in excess of thirty-eight homes. Then we provided training for the staff at Kennewick to continue the program in the future. Pasco,WA: Creative Housing Solutions trained the city staff in the development of a fair-housing plan for their community. The design allows for the establishment of programs based on the results of this plan annually. Tri-Cities,WA: A contract was established to provide technical assistance for the Consortium to meet the federal requirements under the lead based paint mandates. Nacbes,WA: Our office monitors the Town of Nacbes rehabilitation program to insure program compliance with all Federal regulations. Sunnyside, WA: Creative Housing Solutions contracted with an agency to put together a housing fair held at the Mid-Valley Mall. We also facilitated a community advisory group to establish a mission and goal statement and assisted them in outlining their primary objectives. Trained the group in the solicitations and evaluations of project submissions. San Juan,WA: Creative Housing Solutions researched and wrote a housing needs assessment for their use in both the Growth Management requirements and to understand and implement needed housing programs. Union Gap,WA: Creative Housing Solutions has assisted the City in securing a planning grant from the State of Washington to do a housing needs assessment. We then researched and wrote the housing needs assessment. We will continue to work closely with the city to assist them in implementing any housing projects or programs resulting from the assessment. Toppenish,WA: We have established a contract to implement and problem solve their housing rehabilitation program and provide grant close out to the State. As well as maintain the escrow files from completed rehabilitation projects. Mattawa,WA: The Town of Mattawa has contracted with our company to provide a housing survey and assess the housing need in their community. This information will be used to update their Comprehensive Plan. Pacific County,WA: Pacific County has contracted with our company to provide a housing survey and assess the housing need in their community. This information will be used as a tool for strategic planning for their Housing Authority. State of Washington: A contract was established to design and implement the Farmworker Housing One Stop Center to assist the flow of information and provide continuity regarding communication and regulatory enforcement for farmworker housing. Our office wrote and published a technical assistance manual to assist farmers through the regulatory maze of requirements. Our company is presently implementing the Rural Infrastructure Loan Program for the State. Approximately two million dollars have been given to more than 50 farmers, providing 2,500 beds for farmworkers in our state. There are many private persons who have received technical assistance from our company regarding regulatory issues, project planning, site design,and project oversight. ■ * 7 6 ( Exhibits � imA� # iriA 9 k \ ) . � , N. 10TH AVE W ®� A § s + � ® ` X Ln N. ■m AVE N. ■m AW A X k � N. ,m AVE N. i AVE � > 4 � y � ^ w f ¥ 5m AVE N. 5m AVE # k \ R % 2 R In r . IA- N. 4m AVE 6 � * � ~ . $ K f a o G f ¢ � s � \ . CI ƒY OF PASCOI LIGHBORHOOD FIGURE REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AREA LOCATION MAP ] Exhibit C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into between the City of Pasco,hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Creative Housing Solutions,Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide consulting services with respect to the administration of the Community Housing Improvement Program(CHIP). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: I. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the scope of work which is attached as Exhibit A. 2. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant,copy any work product. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost, if the contract is terminated through default by the contractor. If the contract is terminated through convenience by the City; the City agrees to pay contractor for the preparation of the summary of work done. 3. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and material basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit A, provided, in no event shall the payment for all work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $695,000. No more than $139,000 (20%) of the total contract amount shall be paid to the consultant for administrative costs. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant, Contractors, or other third parties as directed by the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City monthly during the progress 'of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly and within twelve(12)months of execution of this Agreement. 5. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, the Consultant agrees to defend the City, their officers, agents, servants and employees (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), from all suits, claims, demands, actions or proceedings, and to the extent permissible by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees from A. all damages or liability of any character including in part costs, expenses and attorney fees, based upon, any negligent act, error, or omission of Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, and arising out of the performance of professional services under this Agreement; and B. all liability, loss, damage, claims, demands, costs and expenses of whatsoever nature, including in part, court costs and attorney fees, based upon, or alleged to be based upon, any act, omission, or occurrence of the Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, arising out of, in connection with, resulting from or caused by the performance or failure of performance of any work or services other than professional services under this Agreement, or from conditions created by the Consultant performance or non-performance of said work or service, regardless of whether or not caused in part by the party indemnified hereunder. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to this contract a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $500,000 per occurrence and$1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; $500,000 per occurrence and aggregate for property damage; and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. Such general liability policies shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. The City shall be named as the certificate holder on the general liability insurance. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. Creative Housing Solutions, Inc. 2 Community Housing Improvement Program 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. S. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractor during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten(10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and the Consultant's proposal attached hereto. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 13. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 14. Covenant against contingent_ fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage,brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 15. General Provisions. For the purpose of this Agreement,time is of the essence. Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement,breach or interpretation of this Agreement, venue shall be placed in Franklin County,Washington,the laws of the State of Washington shall apply, and the prevailing parties shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Creative Housing Solutions,Inc. 3 Community Housing Improvement Program 16. Notices. Notices to the City of Pasco shall be sent to the following address: COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PASCO P. O.BOX 293 PASCO,WA 99301 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: CREATIVE HOUSING SOLUTIONS,INC. ATTN: DIXIE KRACHT,PRESIDENT 8 EAST WASHINGTON AVE, SUITE 110 YAKIMA,WA 98903 (509) 454-2668 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U. S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF , 20 CITY OF PASCO CONSULTANT: By: By: Michael L. Garrison, Mayor Title: r ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Creative Housing Solutions, Inc. 4 Community Housing improvement Program CONTRACT, Exhibit A CITY OF PASCO CHIP Community Housing Improvement Program SCOPE OF WORK The City of Pasco as a participating member of the Home Consortium will be implementing a homeownership down payment assistance program and an owner occupied rehabilitation program. The implementation of the Program will be through a third party contractor Creative Housing Solutions (CHS). It will be the responsibility of the contractor to develop partnership agreements and implement the CHIP program. This will be accomplished using the following criteria • Working with other members of the consortium: This will include compliance with all of the consortium program guidelines, and participation with those parties as a representation of Pasco. • Developing HOME program partners: This will include working with local financial institutions in their participation with the homeownership program. Identifying other local entities as being potential beneficial participating partners. • Securing participating entities for program operations: This will include the solicitation and pre-qualification of construction contractors, appraisers and other related trades. • This will include record keeping and reporting data for program compliance to document benefits, costs and other related regulatory requirements. • Provide program Reports, that will include monitoring the program progress and providing written reports to all entities involved as required and established by the Consortium. The second stage of the Contractor's responsibility would be the implementation of the CHIP. This will include the following activities: • Taking the applications for the program. This will include the formal application, with the verification of income, property ownership and eligibility in accordance with the Federal guidelines. • Inspecting the property. This will include the inspection of the property, doing the environmental review and ordering the lead based paint evaluation. Recording the code and housing deficiencies and preparing the deficiencies as written bid specifications and reviewed with the homeowner. • Construction bidding process. This will include the solicitation of bids from pre- qualified contractors, bid comparisons, review with the homeowner and recommendation of bid award. • Loan Process. This will include an appraisal of the property, working with established financial institutions, preparing a cost affordability worksheet and the loan closing documents. The loans will be closed and then recorded with a title company. • Construction process. This will include preparing all of the construction documents, holding a pre-construction conference with the contractor and homeowner for signing all of the documents. The construction will be monitored to ensure that all permits are secured. The work will be monitored; change orders negotiated and payments processed. Upon construction completion all of the final reports and documents will be signed, including the lead based paint certification. The work as outlined will be billed by itemization of activities within each project at $75.00 per hour. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to make recommendations. The City of Pasco will be the final authorizing body for all loans, contracts and applicant approvals. The geographical area of the program will be located within City limits of Pasco with priority given to Census Tract 202 Area#1 and #2. AGENDA REPORT NO. 83 FOR: City Council Date: October 17, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi I anager Workshop: 10/24/05 Regular: 11/7/05 FROM: Richard J. Smi h, Director Rk, Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Contract for Services with The Building Department, Inc. I. REFERENCE(S): A. Contract for Services Between the City of Pasco and The Building Department, Inc. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/24/05: DISCUSSION 11/7/05: MOTION: I move to approve the Contract for Services with The Building Department, Inc., to provide plan review and inspection services, and further, authorize the City Manager to sign the Contract. III. FISCAL IMPACT IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. In 1996, the City entered into a contract with "The Building Department, LLC," a private company located in Richland which provides plan review and building inspection services. The use of contracted services allows the City to quickly increase or decrease levels of service based upon need. B. This contract was last amended in January 2003. The Building Department, Inc., is now asking that the contract fees be adjusted to reflect their increased operating costs, primarily health insurance and fuel costs. V. DISCUSSION: A. The proposed contract is unchanged from the 2003 contract with the exception of the below listed fee changes. (1) Paragraph 7(a)(c) the hourly rate for inspection and consulting services will increase from $32.00 to $33.20 a 4 percent increase over the 2003 rates. (2) Paragraph 7(c) the mileage reimbursement will increase from 32 cents per mile to 48 cents per mile, the City's current reimbursement rate. B. Staff believes that these increases are reasonable and recommends approval. 14(b) CONTRACT FOR SERVICES .BETWEEN CITY OF Pasco,WASHINGTON and THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT,INC. THIS CONTRACT is entered into this day of , 2005,by and between the CITY OF PASCO,WASHINGTON(hereinafter"the City")and THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, INC., a Washington Corporation(hereinafter"TBD"). WHEREAS, the City intends to regulate the process for construction and improvements within its boundaries to ensure compliance with its comprehensive plan and with its pertinent ordinances, laws, and regulations and to assure the overall operation of said enforcement; and WHEREAS, TBD possesses knowledgeable and experienced persons familiar with the building permitting process,building codes,abatement procedures,and other such related activities ordinarily performed by a jurisdiction's building and code enforcement departments; and WHEREAS,the City wishes to assure itself of the availability of such qualified experts to assist in the administration of the City's building and code enforcement activities and TBD is willing to provide such expertise to assist the City in this regard; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1.TBD accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established between it and the City by this Contract.TBD covenants with the City to furnish its best skill and judgment and to cooperate with the City in furthering the interests of the City. It agrees to furnish efficient business administration and superintendence and to use its best efforts to complete the review and administration of the building permit application process and administration of the City's laws, ordinances, and regulations relating to the building and code enforcement processes in an expeditious and economical manner consistent with the interests of the City. 2. The City agrees to provide staff needed for the initial permit intake and the final issuance of permits at some pre determined location in the city. 3. The City has the options of exercising any or none of the provisions set forth below at their discretion. 4. The City agrees to forward the initial applications,plans and specifications to TBD by fax and/or mail. 5. TBD agrees to provide an ICC/ICBO certified building inspectors on Monday through Fridays of each week, as needed, to conduct inspections for Washington State Building Code compliance of building permits covered under this agreement. Inspectors will not be provided on Pasco services contract, cont. November, 2005 holidays recognized by the City. 6.TBD agrees to act as consultant to the City's officials in matters concerning the operation of the City's building and code enforcement activities when requested by the City. Such activities may include, but are not necessarily limited to, review of building plans building inspections abatement of dangerous buildings code enforcement drafting of ordinances Activities may also include working with the City's attorney in enforcing and prosecuting individuals charged with violation ofthe building codes and related regulations adopted by the City. 7. TBD shall be reimbursed by the City for services as follows: (a)For consulting to the City for matters not covered under Subparagraphs(b)and (c)below, TBD shall receive the sum of Thirty-three dollars twenty cents($33.20) per hour. (b) For performing plan reviews for projects TBD shall receive forty-five percent (45%)of the permit fees.For such projects,TBD's portion of the permit fees shall be paid on a regular payment schedule to be agreed upon between the parties on a project-by-project basis. (c)For calculating valuations and finalizing building permits applications and IBC inspections for projects TBD shall receive Thirty-three dollars twenty cents($33.20) per hour plus forty-eight cents (.48) a mile for each mile travel while performing work for the city. (d)Project valuations shall be calculated pursuant to The City of Pasco's Building Valuation Data. When this method is not practical,valuations will be established by TBD pursuant to industry standard practices. The City of Pasco reserve the right adjusts the valuations on specific projects when needed to address special construction circumstances. 8. TBD shall provide the City with a monthly invoice which contains true and accurate references for each service performed and all time billed including,but not limited to,the name of I Page 2 of 4 Pasco services contract, cont. November, 2005 each plan examiner or inspector, dates and hours worked and mileage accrued performing their duties. 9. The City shall pay TBD's invoices not later with-in thirty day of receipt of TBD's billing. 10. TBD will carry errors and omissions insurance coverage in the minimum amount of$1 million,as well as liability insurance. TBD will name the City as additional insured on the liability policy. 11.This contract may be terminated by either party by giving thirty(30)days'written notice to the other party. If this contract is terminated, TBD's final invoice shall be paid on the regular scheduled payment date. 12.It is understood and agreed that TBD is an independent contractor and is not employed by the City and TBD shall make no claims for benefits for employment against the City including,but not limited to, sick leave, medical insurance, coverage under the City's State Department of Labor and Industries policy, vacation benefits, retirement, or unemployment benefits. 13. The term of this Contract shall be for a period of one (1)year commencing this day of ,2005,and shall automatically renew each year absent notice of one party to the other of intent to cancel pursuant to Paragraph 13. 14. Any notice required to be given under this Contract shall be given by certified mail addressed as follows: To the City: 525 North 3rd. Pasco, Washington 99301 To TBD: 2530 Tilden Ct Richland, Washington 99354 1.5.This Contract is made and entered into the State of Washington and shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Washington. Should any dispute arise concerning the breach, enforcement, or interpretation of this Contract, venue shall be placed in Franklin County,Washington,and the prevailing parties shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs and additional judgment against the other party. 16. Time is of the essence of this Contract, and there are no other agreements between the parties, either oral or in writing, concerning the subject matter herein. Page 3 of 4 Pasco services contract, cont. November, 2005 17. TBD shall indemnify the City and its officers,employees and/or agents and hold them harmless from and against any and all claims,suits,and/or actions,loss or damages resulting form or arising out of the services provided under this Agreement,or from negligent acts or intentional acts or omissions of TBD. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this Instrument to be executed by their duly authorized representatives the day and year first above written. CITY OF Pasco, WASHINGTON THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, INC. By: By: Title: Richard R. Mumma Jr. Vice President, TBD Inc. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorney for City of Pasco Page 4 of 4 Q. AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council October 26, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchf'e +anager Regular Mtg.: 11/7/05 SUBJECT: Ainsworth Ove ass Project Funding I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed letter of Agreement IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/7: MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to commit up to $415,000 for relocation of water and sewer lines in association with the Ainsworth Overpass Project, III. FISCAL IMPACT: Up to $415,000 (Water/Sewer Fund) IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Ainsworth Overpass project will construct an overpass across the railroad tracks at Ainsworth Avenue. The project was designed several years ago and was only recently made possible by a $5.2 million grant from the State of Washington. The project was put out to bid with the low bid being $315,000 more than the available funding for the project. Since there were seven bids and the current construction market has reflected higher than expected costs, staff believes the low bid is acceptable and the project should proceed. B) The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has agreed to provide $150,000 of additional funding from the state, leaving$165,000 to make up to meet the low bid. C) The construction project includes relocation of certain water and sewer pipelines owned by the city; the low bidder's estimate of those costs are $430,000. D) Even if the low bid is fulfilled at the contract award stage, there is nothing left in the budget for contingencies (certainly, the project is likely to find some unanticipated expense before it is done). V. DISCUSSION: A) It is proposed that the city commit to paying for the first $165,000 of relocating the water and sewer lines associated with this project. Doing so will fill the immediate gap needed to allow the project to go forward. In addition, it is recommended the city commit to as much as an additional $250,000 to cover possible contingencies during the construction of the project. The total additional commitment by the city would be about $415,000, somewhat less than the estimated cost for relocating the water and sewer lines if the city were to do that by separate contract. B) Although somewhat unusual, staff believes the proposed action by the city is warranted in view of the benefit of the overall project to the community and the fact that the city is not contributing any substantial portion of the construction cost. Staff recommends Council concurrence in the proposed funding solution. 10(c) ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (509)543-5738/ Scan 726-3444 ! Fax(509)543-5737 nq • P.O.BOX 293, 525 NORTH THIRD AVENUE, PASCO,WASHINGTON 99301 October 20, 2005 Jim Toomey, Manager Port of Pasco PO Box 769 Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Ainsworth Overpass Project Letter Agreement Dear Jim: On October 6,2005 the City opened bids on the Ainsworth Overpass Project. The City received seven(7) bids with the low bidder submitting a bid of$5,572.277. The low bid was approximately$1.2 million more than the Engineer's estimate. The City believes, however,that the bids received do represent the fair market value for the project and re-bidding the project is not justified. The total funding for the project is $5,963,277 (see attachment A). Based on the low bid,the project is short$315,277. The Transportation Improvement Board(TIB)has committed an additional $150,000 bringing the shortfall to $165,277. In the bid proposal,there were bid items to relocate City water and sewer pipelines. The relocation costs in the low bidder's proposal for these utilities are approximately $430,000. The City will commit to paying$165,277 of the relocation cost and up to an additional $250,000 if needed to cover contingency costs during construction. Based on the discussion above, the City and Port of Pasco agree to proceed with the project and award the contract to the low bidder. The foregoing represents the mutual understanding between the parties, as evidenced by the signatures below. Gary Crutchfield,City Manager Jim Toomey,Manager City of Pasco Port of Pasco EXHIBIT A Funding for Ainsworth Overpass Project October 19, 2005 Ori rnal, ;: 1�1#1ii , :tiM, , Port of Pasco 133,000 BNSF 80,000 WSDOT City of Pasco FMSIB 4,435,000 TIB 1,000,000 Total Funds Available 5,648,0QQ Apollo Low Bid 5,572,277 Construction Admin, AP 341,000 Construction Testing, WSDOT 40,000 Construction Inspection, WSDOT 10,000 Contingency 0 Total Costs 5,963,277 Surplus/Deficit - 315,277 TIB 150,000 City 165,277 Total Additional Funds 315,277 Surplus/Deficit 0 Icity 250,000 Total Contingency 250,000 AGENDA REPORT NO. 38 FOR: City Council Date: November 1, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager Regular Meeting: 11/7105 FROM: Robert J. Al lic Works Director SUBJECT: Ainsworth Overpass Railroad Crossing(SR 397) 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Bid Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/7/05: MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the Ainsworth Overpass Railroad Crossing(SR 397)to Apollo, Inc., in the amount of $5,572,276.50, including applicable taxes. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Arterial Street Fund N. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On October 6, 2005 staff received seven(7) bids for the Ainsworth Overpass Railroad Crossing(SR 397)project. The low bid was received from Apollo, Inc. for $5,572,276.50. The second lowest bid was received from Cascade Bridge in the amount of$5,728,197.58. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $4,372,277.00. The bids received do represent the fair market value for the project and re-bidding the project is not justified. The total construction funding for the project is $5,963,277. Based on the low bid,the project is short$315,277. The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has committed an additional $150,000 bringing the shortfall to $165,277. In the bid proposal, there were bid items to relocate City water and sewer pipelines. The relocation costs in the low bidder's proposal for these utilities are approximately $430,000. In accordance with the Letter Agreement discussed at Council, the City will commit to paying$165,277 of the relocation cost and up to an additional $250,000 if needed to cover contingency costs during construction. Staff recommends award of the contract to Apollo, Inc. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING Project File io(d) City of Pasco Project Name Ainsworth Overpass Rail Road Crossing (SR 397) Project No. 99-3-04 Bid Date 1 0/6/05 BID SUMMARY Engineer's Estimate $4,372,277.00 1. Apollo, Inc. $535721276.50 2. Cascade Bridge $5,728,197.58 3. Weaver Construction $51,7379,285.71 4. Inland Asphalt $5,950,998.06 5. Ray Poland & Sons $519695094.05 6. Pacific Roads & Bridge $691545284.95 7. N.A. Dergerstrom $65773,773.00