HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.05.22Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 22,2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Street Name Change for Road 68 Place and Convention Place (MF#INF006-001):
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated May 18, 2006.
2, Vicinity Map.
3. Letter from AmeriSuites.
(b) First Night Tri-Cities:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 1.6, 2006.
2. Agenda Report dated March 9, 2006.
3. Proposed Agreement.
(c) Sewer Connection Fees:
1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated May 18, 2006.
2. UL1D Graph.
3. Ordinance.
4. Resolution.
(d) Parks and Recreation Facility Improvements. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA)
Presented by Stan Strebel,Administrative& Community Services Director.
4. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Reminders:
1. 4:00 p.m., Monday, May 22, Port of Benton — Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Board
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS, Rep.;JOE JACKSON, Alt.)
2. 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 23, 4725 Road 68 — Columbia River Bank Ribbon Cutting Ceremony.
(MAYOR JOYCE OLSON)
3. 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 24, Marriott, Richland—Washington State Transportation Commission
Meeting. (MAYOR JOYCE OLSON)
4. 7:30 a.m., Thursday, May 25, Pasco Red Lion — Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau Board
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Rep.; TOM LARSEN, Alt.)
5. 4:00 p.m., Thursday, May 25, Three-Rivers Convention Center — TRIDEC Board Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON,Rep.; TOM LARSEN,Alt.)
6. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, May 25, 710 W. Court Street — Community Action Committee Board
Meeting. (MAYOR JOYCE OLSON, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK,Alt.)
7. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, May 25, 800 W. Canal Drive — Benton-Franklin District Board of Health
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK and MATT WATKINS)
8. 3:30 p.m., Friday, May 26, Pasco Red Lion — Lions Club Convention Welcome Address.
(COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK)
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PASCO CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD MONDAY,JUNE 5,2006.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 44
FOR. City Council Date: May 18, 2006
TO: Gary Crutchfi t Manager Workshop: 5/22/06
Richard J. Sm , Director /� Regular:
Community &. conomic Development
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner YL-,--
SUBJECT: Street Name Change for Road 68 Place and Convention Place (MF# INFO
06-001
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Vicinity Map
B. Letter from AmeriSuites
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/22/06: DISCUSSION
III. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The owners of several parcels of land near the northwest corner of
Burden Blvd and Road 68 Place submitted a request to change the name
of Road 68 Place. The name change was requested to avoid confusion
with Road 68.
B. The City Council discussed the matter at the May 8th workshop and
discussed the matter further at the regular meeting of May 15th. As a
result of further discussions and comments from business owners, the
Council tabled the matter for further discussion regarding impacts on
existing businesses.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The business owners that commented at the May 15th Council meeting
were primarily concerned about the possible costs (for reprinting
stationary, promotional materials, business carts, etc.) they may incur as
the result of changing the name of Convention Place. The attached letter
from the Manager of the AmeriSuites explains some of the impacts
changing the name of Convention place will have on the motel. The
manager estimates the cost of the impact to be over $10,000. Staff has
been unable to obtain cost estimates from the other businesses.
Upon further review, the Council may wish to consider the following
options:
1. Extend Convention Place north of Burden
Pro: Changing Road 68 Place to Convention Place would create
one continuous street name from the south end of Convention
Place to the north City limits. Exiting businesses would not need
to change addresses or order new stationary and advertising.
Con: The Street naming policy suggests the Place suffix be used
for numbered streets where the numbering sequence is out of
order, hence, the name Road 68 Place. In the past, the "Place"
suffix has also been used to designate short segments of roads
3(a)
that cannot be extended to any great length. There is no
convention center on Convention Place nor on Road 68 Place.
Convention Place bears no relationship to planned commercial
development and existing residential development located north of
Burden Blvd. Road 68 Place currently extends a half-mile north of
Burden Blvd. It is planned to extend north to the north City limit
line and perhaps beyond as the City grows.
2. Leave Convention Place south of Burden Blvd and Change Road
68 north of Burden Blvd
Pro: Existing businesses would not need to change addresses or
order new stationary and advertising. The confusion with Road 68
would be eliminated.
Con: This would continue to leave a street fragmented with two
names creating possible confusion for motorists and public safety
personnel. It would be more difficult to correct the fragmented
street names in the future when additional businesses are located
south of Burden Blvd.
3. Change both Road 68 Place and Convention Place to Baseline
Drive
Pro: Would eliminate fragmentation of the street names and
replace two names with one continuous street name. It would also
conform to the baseball theme that exists in the neighborhood
(Sunny Meadows, Clemente Lane, Home Run Road and the Ball
Stadium).
Con: Three existing business would need to change addresses
and absorb the cost of the address change (ranges from a couple
hundred dollars to as much as $10,000).
4. Select a street name more palatable for the existing businesses on
Convention Place
Pro: This would address the fragmentation issue and concern
over the confusion created by Road 68 Place.
Con: Same effect as #3.
5. Do Nothing
Pro:
Con: Does not address the concerns of new business owners
north of Burden Blvd. The section of the street in question will
eventually extend one mile north of Burden (perhaps beyond when
the City grows to the north), and will eventually provide access to
numerous businesses. This option perpetuates the fragmented
street name problem, and it makes it more difficult to resolve it in
the future.
6. Select a common street name for both Road 68 Place and
convention Place and provide financial reimbursement to the three
businesses required to change addresses.
Pro: This would address the fragmentation issue providing a
continuous street name for the full distance of the street. It would
also eliminate much of the financial impact on the businesses that
need to order new stationary and advertising materials.
Con: Would require expenditure of public funds. However, in the
long run it may be money well spent to address a confusing street
naming situation.
B. The confusion associated with the fragmented street name (separate
name north and south of Burden Blvd.) will never be revolved without a
name change creating one continuous name from the south end of
Convention Place to the northern City limits. As new businesses are
established it will become increasingly difficult to effectuate a change.
The Council needs to decide whether it is worth a relatively small
expenditure to assist the current businesses with the costs associated
with changing the street name. Once the remaining TRAC parcels are
developed (they are for sale now) the cost of changing the street name
will become so significant that there will be no practical choice other
than to retain the name of Convention Place.
VICINITY MAP
. i Placo
I PF I : FairchilJ, Paqlq Mullen
FIL� # : OI 00
ON
Bonn-
r.r�_■■ 11■r ww
wrrrw ■ www .
. ■r �r 11■1)�■�■ ■w w
��i s.r :� = i■■■■r���'■■■■■■i■i■ 11111111111111! 'x, � �� s�
■■ . � i■■ii■ii■■■■■11■■■/ 1111 �� C'�; i ii
■* � � � - �-,�1�■I,�1■■■■-�� � ram .�w.� ■ ■■ �
� / 11111111►� � �� ��
!■ '��� iiiilii■:■■■■■■■/ /1■■■■■■■ go Mongol ■ r■ .■
%/ 111■iiii ■olio f ■■■■■i■■■ !■■foil!■ �■ ii ■
■■ ' : 111 ��ii��l 11-1//% mill ���f�f/� ■ ■■ ■
■ �� r_r� I.: ..r_ ��_/IIIIIIIIf1111111-„ ■ ■ ■■ ■
■;■ :�, . Ii111111/,rte:' • ■��■NIN■�1■■■■ _C ■ ■■ .■
-4lown MAN -m oil
■1 ■-� %,,, �, r ■ ■■
on son il■■l ll/■■liiiiil ■ ■■ r■/i
Kl�r I r ♦ ♦ iI/. I \� t , /
all
=iU"s
�,,, a��c+ccccoccco�
•cko z
�� � � � '4�`Lt�►�fS�CY1
^AA4ERISUITES'
May 15, 2006
City of Pasco City Council
525 N. 3rd
Pasco,Washington 99301
Dear Council Members,
As the Director of the AmeriSuites Pasco and as a personal representative for the owners and partners of
the Hotel,we want to officially protest the ill-advised proposed name change to the street Convention
Place to "Baseline Road". We base our objection on three points; a) economic impact to the Hotel and
surrounding businesses SW of Burden Blvd., b) lack of due diligence to date and, c)conceptual hurdles to
the proposed new name.
A) Economic Impact for the Hotel
The cost of changing the address to the Hotel is problematic at best. The process is expensive and
cumbersome as we would incur extreme expense. Here is a partial list of items that would bring undo
hardship and expense to the ownership of this Hotel:
• Logo-based marketing materials and collateral
• Telephone face plates (in all guestrooms)
• Shuttle-Van re-lettering
• Envelopes(multiple styles)
• Letterhead & business cards for all managers
• Registration cards and express check-out folios
• Yellow page advertising changes(unchangeable for 18 months)
• System references to our Hotel address
• Internet website design/GDS for travel agents
• In-room guest service manuals
• In-room tent signs for all guest suites
• Airport duratran signage advertising
• Map quest,Yahoo and GOGGLE maps changes
The expenses would run well-over$10,000 dollars for our hard costs alone. The immeasurable cost to our
business is the loss of revenues and the marketing advantage to our Hotel the present address affords.
Being a convention Hotel,attached to TRAC, a convention facility, we have found that the present name
supports our image of being a preferred meeting and accommodations Hotel for groups coming to the Tri-
Cities.As well,the Hotel and address are associated in much of our marketing to our potential clients.The
address alone is a statement in our advantage to clients who not only solicit bids from us but are also
considering Hotels in surrounding cities. Every advantage that our Hotel and TRAC can gain means
revenues to our neighboring entertainment and food & beverage businesses on Road 68 and tax revenues
for the City of Pasco. We believe that the name change may actually contribute to a loss of revenues for
potential business to the community at large.
The known and unknown cost and loss of revenues resulting from changing the address to the Hotel is
extensive and real.
4525 Convention Place • Pasco,Washington 99301
509-543-7000
AMERISUITES
B) Due Diligence
While we appreciate and respect the rights of the business owners NW of Burden Blvd and 681b Place to
submit a request to change the name of 68th Place,as stated in the Agenda Report No.43,A-1 Hospitality,
dba:AmeriSuites Pasco at TRAC, does not request nor desire change to the name of Convention Place.
An economic impact study has not been completed on our Hotel or the adjacent businesses located on
Convention Place and Homerun Road. As this study has not been initiated, we take exception to the
Agenda Report No. 43,which states, "FISCAL IMPACT: NONE".
Q Conceptual Challenges
The Agenda Report No. 43 states, "The owners of the proposed new buildings feel it will be less confusing
for their customers and clients to have their access street renamed to something other than Road 68
Place." The owners and management of the AmeriSuites Pasco at TRAC feel the same about changing the
name of the street platted and known as Convention Place to "Baseline Road".
The Ordinance proposed states, "WHEREAS,street names are the principal means for the public to
reference and locate properties in the city;"
In principle, we agree with this statement and believe that the 2 1/2 years of promoting our Hotel at 4525
Convention Place, Pasco,Washington 99301, has fostered the development of the clientele we have
attracted to date - our guests and clients identify us as being on Convention Place. Map Quest,Yahoo
Maps,Streets 06"and Google Earth show us at the present address. To change the address will cause
months and possibly years of confusion for individuals attempting to locate us on the Internet. This will
cause revenue loss.
Also,the concept that baseball and softball are the premiere business for our Hotel and the area is a
misnomer. The name change infers that these two sports are the primary activities. They are not, but they
are seasonal.While we are proud of and applaud our community appropriately on the sports facilities built
near the Hotel and TRAC, it should be noted that conferences and corporate business meetings, along with
soccer, leisure travelers, horse groups,weddings and reunions make up the majority of revenue
generation to the Hotel and businesses on Road 68 and Burden Blvd.
Also, to link our business with a residential area (the 'baseball addition' built by AHO Homes) may
negatively impact our Hotel, potentially giving the implication that we are not located strategically for the
independent business traveler.
When looking at the roads on this tract of land surrounding all entities impacted (SW of Burden and
Convention Place), we find the following names; Rodeo Drive, Convention Place and Homerun Road. All 3
reflect the general nature of the businesses and activities of our immediate location. However,the
concept of taking one bent and accentuating it is ill-conceived - it will be a missed opportunity. If the
Council wishes to change only Rd 68 Pl.to Baseline,as stipulated in Section 1 of the new Ordinance,we
have no objections. However,to distinguish and maintain Convention Place is prudent. In the same spirit
in which the owners of the land NW of Burden and 68th Place have requested to change the name of their
road,we, in the same reasoning, request Convention Place be kept for our purposes. We request that
Section 2 of the Ordinance be stricken from the City ordinance before you today.
4525 Convention Place• Pasco,Washington 99301
509-543-7000
AMERISUITES"
We strongly urge the Council to amend or defeat this measure at this time and leave the name of
Convention Place as is.Thank you for taking the time to consider our plea and assisting our Hotel and all
businesses on Convention Place in avoiding unnecessary expenses and potential loss of revenues. We
believe that the name "Baseline Road" does not represent the whole of what this area has to offer, but
limits the conceptual vision to a minute part - specifically speaking, a baseball field,and misses the global
concept already effectively in place.
Respectfully submitted,
David L Deeney
General Manager
4525 Convention Place + Pasco, Washington 99301;
509-543-7000
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council May 16, 2006
FROM: Gary Crutchf ty anager Workshop Mtg.: 5/22/06
Regular Mtg.: 6/5106
SUBJECT: First Night Tri Cities
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Agenda Report dated March 9, 2006
2. Proposed Agreement
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5122 Discussion
615 MOTION: 1 move to approve the agreement between First Night Tri-Cities and the
cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland and, further, authorize the City Manager to
sign the agreement.
ill. FISCAL IMPACT:
$3,500 annually
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Please refer to the statement of history in the attached agenda report dated March 9.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The City Council of each of the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland has
discussed independently the notion to commit to an annual share of the local
sponsorship required by First Night Tri-Cities in order to continue with the event on
the scale desired. The City Councils of Kennewick and Richland have already
passed motions authorizing the three-year, $3,500 annual commitment to First Night
Tri-Cities. Staff recommends the Pasco Council authorize its City Manager to sign
the proposed agreement along with Pasco's counterparts, so as to memorialize the
understanding.
B) First Night Tri-Cities representative (Tom Powers) has reviewed the proposed
agreement and endorses its approval.
3(b)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council March 9, 2006
FROM: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 3/13/06
SUBJECT: First Night Tri-Cities
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Letter to City Manager from First Night Tri-Cities President dated 2/14/06
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
3/13: Discussion toward consensus
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See below
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The "First Night Tri-Cities" event was initiated by a group of citizens in conjunction
with the City of Kennewick about 10 years ago. The event is an alcohol free, family
event conducted on New Year's Eve each year. It includes a variety of elements of
the arts, etc.
B) The event has been conducted principally in Kennewick over the 10 years, although
it has rotated to Richland a couple of times and Pasco once. The event is typically
conducted in a "downtown" setting to have sufficient venues for the variety of
activities involved in the event. It also is intended to reinforce the vitality of the
downtown areas. The event requires a substantial budget, provided largely by
sponsorships. However, the "host city" has traditionally been required to provide
$10,000 financial support in addition to a variety of logistical support for the event.
C) The Pasco experience occurred in 2001 in downtown. The city provided $5,000 and
the Downtown Association provided the other half of the financial commitment.
Both provided logistical support for the event. A subsequent request by First Night
Tri-Cities for a Pasco event was declined by the City Council, as the Downtown
Association was not enthusiastic at the time and the Council felt the funding
obligation exceeded the value of the event. Thus, Pasco has not been involved in the
event for several years in any way.
D) Tom Powers, current president of First Night Tri-Cities (the non-profit association
which conducts the event each year), met with the three city managers recently to
discuss some way of establishing a three-year commitment to the event on the part of
the cities. The group discussed two options: first, each of the cities could commit to
host the event over the three-year period (rotating "host" responsibilities) and
provide the financial and logistical support in accordance with tradition; second, the
three cities could each commit to an equal financial commitment each of the three
years, the location of the event to be determined by the cities and First Night. The
city managers generally felt the second option was preferable, as it would reflect the
notion that the event is a "regional" event (it is available and used by a sizeable
number of residents of each of the three cities, regardless of location) and the annual
commitment of a smaller sum would be easier on each of the cities (rather than
$10,000 the year you host the event).
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff urges Council to regard"First Night Tri-Cites"as a regional event, to which the
city should commit an annual stipend for its support (to assure that it exists each
year). The alternative is to conduct a New Year's alternative for Pasco alone or not
at ail; the relative value would not justify the expense and would detract from the
larger regional event(essentially,a"lose-lose").
B) If Council concurs that it should support such a regional event on an annual basis,
staff urges that it commit to a three-year agreement with First Night Tri-Cities and
Kennewick and Richland,providing $3,500 financial support each year. In addition,
staff urges Council not to require the event to be conducted in downtown Pasco,
unless the Pasco Downtown Development Association commits to provide the
logistical support necessary to host the event in downtown. Lastly, the city's
commitment (if approved) should be contingent on the cities of Kennewick and
Richland likewise committing to the regional event for three years.
Q If Council concurs in the proposed concept, an appropriate formal agreement can be
developed and brought to Council for its review and formal action (assuming
concurrence of the other two cities).
This Agreement is made between First Night Tri-Cities, a Washington non-profit
association, and the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland, each a Washington
Municipal Corporation,this day of 2006 for the purposes
set forth herein.
Whereas, First Night Tri-Cities, a non profit entity dedicated to the annual production of a
non-alcoholic New Years Eve event suitable for family attendance, has fulfilled its mission in the
Tri-Cities for 10 consecutive years but requires a financial commitment from the cities to assure its
continuation; and,
Whereas, the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland find the First-Night Tri-Cities event
fulfills a need within the region to provide a family-oriented event associated with the traditional
celebration of the new year; and,
Whereas, each of the City Councils desire to assure existence of the event in the Tri-Cities
over the next three years and have authorized the respective City Manager to enter into an
agreement with the other cities and First Night Tri-Cities to effect that purpose; NOW
THEREFORE the parties named hereinabove agree as follows:
Section 1: First Night Tri-Cities will be responsible to provide a family-oriented, non-
alcoholic event on December 31 of 2006, 2007 and 2008. Said event shall be located in the
downtown of one of the sponsoring cities each year and shall be available to the public at large.
Section 2: The cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland shall each pay to First-Night Tri-
Cities the amount of$3,500 not later than July 15 of the respective event year of this agreement, in
partial sponsorship of the annual event.
Section 3: This agreement will expire on January 1, 2009.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by the duly
authorized officers on the day and year first written above.
City of Kennewick First Night Tri-Cities
Robert Hammond, City Manager Date Tom Powers, President Date
City of Pasco
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Date
City of Richland
John Darrington, City Manager Date
AGENDA REPORT NO. 16
FOR: City Council DATE: 5/18106
TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop: 5/22/06
�J Regular: 615106
FROM: Robert J. Albs or, Public Works
SUBJECT: Sewer Connection Fees
I. REFERENCES :
1. ULID Graph
2. Ordinance
3. Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/5106: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending
Chapter 3.07.170, Sewer Stub-out Connection Fees.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , which sets a
maximum cost of$8,000 per assessment for sewer ULIDs in a
typical residential neighborhood.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The extension of sewers into existing neighborhoods is typically done either through a
Utility Local Improvement District(ULID) or a City C.I.P. project. The City of Pasco has
a long history of extending sewer pipelines into neighborhoods using the ULID means of
financing the improvements. In a ULID, the property owner's pay for the costs over a
fifteen (15) year period, which includes engineering, construction of pipelines,
resurfacing of the street, and the current system fee. By including the system fee, the
owner is not subject to any increases when they decide to connect. Financial assistance is
also available for those who qualify to have their ULID assessments paid.
The City extends sewer pipelines through neighborhoods as part of major pipeline
projects or when a ULID is not applicable. The cost to connect to these pipelines is based
on the lot size and the City's current fee structure. The City has strived over the years to
make the connection fees equitable to ULID costs.
In 1996, the typical connection fee to connect to a City installed sewer was $2,500 and
$6,000 in a ULID. The City adjusted the connection fees by adding a $3,000 stub fee that
increased a typical connection cost to $5,500. The adjustment acknowledged that the
ULID participants had the benefit of having their streets resurfaced and ULID financing.
The fee structure was again adjusted in 2004 due to rising costs reflected both in City
projects and ULID projects. In 2005 the ULID costs had risen to approximately$7,000 to
$7,500. The connection fees were adjusted to approximately $6,700 per connection. The
rising costs were again made apparent in 2005 with the formation of ULID 142 where the
preliminary assessment was approximately $9,000. Staff anticipates the final costs to be
between $8,000 and $8,500 which would be consistent with past ULID history as shown
in the attached graph. This also reflects the need to make adjustments again to better
reflect actual costs and parity between connection fees and ULID costs.
The majority of ULID projects are in neighborhoods with streets built to the old county
standards. As part of the ULID, the streets are resurfaced to City standards and become
eligible for the City's annual overlay problem. This is ,a good benefit to both the
neighborhood and the City. Sewer projects built through the C.I.P. programs that include
resurfacing the street, increases the cost of the project. The connection fees do not cover
the resurfacing costs. Staff believes a sewer extension program needs to balance costs, 3(c
l
recognizes the general benefit to the City and identify the City's responsibilities in cost
participation.
Staff believes the ULID program needs to be promoted where applicable but the rising
costs will make this program less attractive. Staff recommends that the ULID cost for a
typical lot be limited to $8,000 with the City absorbing any costs above $8,000. Since
every ULID has a hearing before the City Council, it would easy to evaluate this
recommendation as time goes on. Staff would also recommend raising the stub fee from
$3,000 to $4,000. This would help account for street resurfacing costs and raise (for a
typical lot)the connection fees to approximately$7,700.
Staff did inquire with the other cities regarding costs and sewer connection policies. The
City of Pasco is the only city locally that has had an active ULID or sewer extension
program in recent years. There are no cost comparisons. The vast majority of
connections in the other cities are in new subdivisions, where the developer installs all of
the improvements. In these cases, the City of Pasco's connection fee is approximately
$1,700 compared to $3,000 to $4,000 per lot in the other cities. Staff recognizes that all
cities are different and fees are unique to each jurisdiction. Staff believes the City of
Pasco's fees appear to be very fair and equitable.
With Council concurrence, staff will prepare a resolution for a ULID policy and will
revise the current Sewer Ordinance on connection fees to be brought back for Council
approval.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING
Project File
N
T O
N
4a Cl)
I T
y u^
Q J
cc
E _M
Q V
E �
o
J
co
m 1
Cl) T o
� J
V �
O r
U) M
r
_ O
I I �
I
O
co
W
_� rn
r
Q O O O O O O O O O
O O Q O O 0 O O O a
O O O O O O O O O O
O W 00 t` O in 't co N r
r Hi 6a Uf3 69 ER Efl Efl 69- &!Y
6F}
sanIen;u8wssassd
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Amending Section 3.07.170 Entitled "Sewer Use Fees"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, it has been determined that to provide for the equitable assessment of costs
that sewer stub-out connection fees should be increased commensurate with the actual costs
sustained by the City,NOW, THERFORE,
Section 1. That Section 3.07.170 entitled "Sewer Use Fees" Subsection C) "Sewer Stub-
out Connection Fee" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read
as follows:
3.07.170 SEWER USE FEES:
Fee/Charge Reference
C) Sewer Stub-out Connection Fee $3,000.00 4,000.00 13.42.025
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 day of , 2006.
Joyce Olson
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Webster U. Jackson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Section 3.07.170 Q- 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION expressing certain policies of the City Council
regarding extension of the municipal sewer system.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that extension of the municipal sewer system within
the City is highly desirable to achieve the community benefits of public health for citizens,
economic health of the municipal utility system and financial efficiencies by timely installation
of utilities prior to or in conjunction with street improvement projects; and
WHEREAS, extension of the municipal sewer system has principally occurred by way
of Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULIDs), but only when half or more of the benefiting
property owners have concurred in respective neighborhood projects; and
WHEREAS, extension of the municipal sewer system to serve homes with failing or
impaired septic systems is often frustrated or simply made impossible by intervening
homeowners whose septic systems have not yet failed or become impaired, to the detriment of
the homeowner whose septic system has shown signs of impending failure or impairment; and
WHEREAS, extension of the municipal sewer system to such areas by the city will
assure the opportunity to connect to the municipal sewer system is readily available when an
individual septic system fails or shows signs of impending failure, thus improving the
opportunity to assure public health and environmental standards as well as financial efficiencies
associated with utility extensions and street improvements; and
WHEREAS,the cost of sewer extension projects financed by ULIDs have escalated over
the past several years to the point that an average residential lot of 10,000 to 15,000 square feet is
assessed more than $$,000 for its fair share of the sewer extension project; and
WHEREAS, whether by ULID or City extension, the cost of sewer extension for the
homeowner, excluding street improvements and sewer system development charges, should not
greatly differ; and
WHEREAS, much of the recently annexed neighborhoods are of more recent
development and are less likely to request sewer extension by ULID, thereby frustrating
extension of the sewer system and leading to financial inefficiencies and duplicative street
improvement projects in the future; and
WHEREAS, extension of the municipal sewer system to those areas of the city now
lacking sewer can be accomplished over a five-year time period if a deliberate and focused effort
is executed through the Capital Improvement Plan(CIP); NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Any ULID to extend sewer and including street improvement and sewer
system fees will be subsidized by the City, to the extent necessary to limit the assessment to
$8,000 for an average residential parcel. The subsidy may take the form of contributed
engineering fees, contributed street or overlay funds and/or sewer funds. The amount and form
of the subsidy shall be identified at the time of preliminary assessment and be subject to approval
of the City Council, whether prior to or in conjunction with approval of the preliminary
assessment roll.
Section 2: The City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) should include proposed extension
of the municipal sewer system in such locations within the City and in such annual increments as
to result in all areas of the city being served by the municipal sewer system by 2011. Such
extensions should first be considered for those areas with failing septic systems and with
deteriorating streets.
Section 3: The sewer system connection fee required of property owners connecting to a
sewer line extended outside a ULID shall be adjusted by the City Council as necessary over time
to assure that it is comparable to the ULID assessment for an average residential parcel at the
time of such adjustment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of ' 2006.
Joyce Olson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandy Kenworthy,Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney