Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.10.09 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. October 9,2006 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Tourism Promotion Area: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated October 5, 2006. 2. 2007 TPA Budget Summary. (b) Tri-Cities Visitor& Convention Bureau Contract Amendment: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 5,2006. 2. Proposed Addendum. (c) Study of Columbia River Crossings: 1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts,Public Works Director dated October 4,2006. (d) Chiawana Park: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October S,2006. 2. Map. 3. Memorandum to City Manager from Administrative& Community Services Director dated 10/2/06. (e) Professional Services Agreement for Indigent Defense Services: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dared October 4,2006. 2. Proposed Agreement. (t) Reject Bids for"A" Street and Hopkins Street WaterLines, Project Nos. 06-2-07, 05-2-03 and 05-7-02: 1. Agenda Report from Doug Bramlette,City Engineer dated October 4, 2006. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Bid Summary. (g) Commercial/Industrial Water Rights: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated October 5,2006. 2. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 9/21106. 3. Proposed Ordinance. 4. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: t�) tl�) 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 6. ADJOURNMENT. Reminders: 1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, October 9, Pasco Red Lion - Chamber of Commerce General Membership Meeting. {"The State of Education in Pasco" presented by Saundra Hill, Superintendent, Pasco School District) 2. 6:30 p.m., Monday, October 9, Conference Room #1 - Old Fire Pension Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER JOE.JACKSON,Rep.;MATT WATKINS,Alt.) 3. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 10, Senior Center, Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN,Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN,Alt.) 4. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, October 12, Henry's, Richland - BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Corrinuttee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; JOE JACKSON,Alt.) 5. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, October 12, Transit Facility - Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS,Rep.;MIKE GARRISON,Alt.) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council October 5, 2006 FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 10/9106 Regular Mtg.: 10/16/06 SUBJECT: Tourism Promotion Area I. REFERENCE(S): 1. 2007 TPA Budget Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1019: Presentation by Kris Watkins, President and CEO, Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau 10/16: MOTION: I move to approve the 2007 operating budget for the Tourism Promotion Area in the total amount of 5793,000. 111. 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 2007 budget will increase the marketing effort of the hotel industry, to the ultimate benefit of the community. Staff recommends approval of the TPA 2007 budget. 3(a) 2007 TPA Budget Summary 2006 Forecasted 2007 Bud et Revenues Kennewick $ 319,500 40% $ 319,500 40% Pasco $ 165,500 21% $ 165,500 21% Richland $ 308,000 39% $ 308,000 39% Total: $ 793,000 100% $ 793,000 100% Expenditures Group Markets $ 416,962 53% $ 387,656 49% City Wide Conventions Associations Corporate& Government SMERF(social, military, education, religious, fraternal) Sports Housing& Groups Services $ 40,484 5% 8 49,967 6% Tourism Development $ 29,604 3% 8 102,854 13% Administration $ 151,050 19% $ 124,283 16% (administrative staff,office supplies, rent, teleplione (Neslsubscriptions, postage,equipment maintenance, etc.) Opportunity Fund $ 54,000 7% $ 27,000 3% Capital Expenditures $ 5,600 1% $ 5,000 1% Reserves $ 79,300 10% $ 63,440 8% Accountin !Professional $ 16,000 2% $ 32,800 4% Total: $ 793,000 100% $ 793,000 100% I 26 { AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council October 5,2006 FROM: Gary Crutchfi i anager Workshop Mtg.: 1019106 Regular Mtg.: 10/16/06 SUBJECT:. Tri-Cities Visitor&Convention Bureau Contract Amendment I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Addendum IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1019: Discussion 10/16: MOTION: I move to approve the addendum to the Visitor & Convention Bureau contract and, ftirther, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City has long contracted with the Visitor& Convention Bureau to provide to the Ik Bureau an annual sum equal to 50% of the average annual receipts from the 2% basic hotel/motel (room) tax. The Bureau is obligated to use the funds for expenses associated with the promotion of visitors and tourism to the Tri-Cities region. B) The Washington State Attorney General's office, earlier this year, issued its opinion that such contracts must pay for services rendered, as opposed to paying for services in advance. The history of the contracts with the Bureau (in all three of the local cities) has been to pay in advance (by virtue of calculating the annual figure at the beginning of the year, dividing by 12 and paying the fixed monthly fee at the beginning of each month). C} The Pasco City attorney has drafted an addendum to the common agreement between the Bureau and the three cities, so that all three will continue the Bureau's funding contract yet comply with the Attorney General's opinion issued earlier this year. The addendum essentially requires the Bureau to now submit a monthly invoice for services rendered during the prior month. This change will cause the Bureau to miss one month of income during the calendar year (it will be received in January 2007 instead of December 2006). The executive director of the Bureau has been advised of the necessity of this change and acknowledges the Bureau's need to accommodate it. V. DISCUSSION: A) As the Attorney General has issued the opinion and the state auditor will use it in reviewing the City's compliance this year, staff urges Council to approve the addendum for effect in 2006. As noted above, the matter has been reviewed with the Bureau executive director and the Bureau is prepared to accommodate the change and the effect on its cash flow for one month. 3(b) ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM THIS ADDENDUM is entered into this day of October, 2006, amending the Agreement for the Promotion of Tourism between the City of Pasco, a Municipal Corporation, referred to therein as "City" and the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, a nonprofit corporation, referred to therein as "Bureau." WHEREAS, to comply with the recent opinion of the Washington State Attorney General's Office regarding payment for services, and based upon mutual and added consideration, it is agreed as follows: 1. Section T1.A. shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: For the services herein contemplated and more fully described in the annual work plan, the City agrees to pay the Bureau fifty percent (50%) of the annual average hotel/motel tax receipts of the City collected from the first two percent (2%) levied for the five year period immediately preceding the year for which the work plan is approved. The Bureau shall invoice the City for such services on a monthly basis commencing, for the purpose of this Amendment, on December 1, 2006, with an invoice for services performed during November 2006 and payable by the City upon receipt. 2. All remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement for the Promotion of Tourism of September 6, 2005, shall remain in full force and effect. DATED this day of October, 2006. CITY OF PASCO Joyce Olson Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney TRI-CITIES VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU Edward S. Aromi Kris W. Watkins Chairman of the Board President& CEO AGENDA REPORT NO. 24 FOR: City Council DATE: 10/4/06 TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop: 10/09/06 FROM: Robert J. Alber blic Works Director SUBJECT: Study of a Columbia River Crossing I. REFERENCE (S): II. AC-110N REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10109: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV, HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Mr. Mark Kushner, Transportation Director for the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments will discuss with Council the review that was done for a new bridge across the Columbia River. Council may recall that on May 24, 2004 Mr. Kushner made a presentation to City Council regarding the 2005 Council of Governments' Work Plan, which included a study for a new bridge crossing the Columbia River between Pasco and Kennewick. Since that time, the Council of Governments has completed their study which entailed extensive traffic modeling to review if there is a need for a bridge. Mr. Kushner will discuss the findings in the study. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING: Project File 3(c) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council October 5, 2006 FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 10/9/06 SUBJECT: Chiawana Par .I. RE,FERENCE(S): 1. Map 2. Memorandum to City Manager from Administrative& Community Services Director dated 10/2/06 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/9: Discussion 111. FISCAL IMPACT: See discussion below IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Franklin County leased Chiawana Park from the US Corps of Engineers for more than 30 years. The County terminated its lease of the large park at the end of 2005, due to its budget constraints. The Corps of Engineers declared it could not make the park open to the public due to its own budget constraints. B) The City suggested (and the Corps of Engineers agreed) that the City contract to perform the maintenance duties for the 2006 summer season, so the park could at least be open to the public this year. Another purpose of the temporary arrangement, however, was to get first-hand knowledge of the Park's maintenance requirements and a better idea of the cost of operating the park, if the city were to consider a long- term lease arrangement. Reference number two reports the City's experience in maintaining the park between May and September(five months) this year. V. DISCUSSION: A) Franklin County experience had reflected an annual expenditure of $160,000 for operating/maintaining the park (exclusive of capital expenses). The City's experience in 2006 indicates that the park can be operated for about S100,000 annually (exclusive of capital outlay). The difference is largely due to the fact that the City uses seasonal employees to assist one full-time employee (rather than 2.5 FTE) and the City's departmental overhead structure applies to a much broader-base of operation, thus reducing the cost of administrative support of each park. Another factor is that the mowing equipment can (and will) be used in other parks, thus further reducing the "carrying costs" associated with Chiawana Park itself. In essence, the City's maintenance operation is more efficient (due to its larger system); Chiawana Park was the County's only park maintenance function. B) As noted in the Administrative & Community Services Director's memorandum report, several capital expenditures should be considered as well as the operational demands. Those capital needs are grouped into "essential" and "recommended." The essential capital expenses are those that are necessary to facilitate the recommended operations budget, while the recommended capital expenses are those that would improve operations. Thus, any commitment to lease the park should recognize a capital expense of at least $78,000 immediately and it could approach $200,000. Beyond those initial capital outlays, another $200,000 for more noticeable physical improvements will be needed (restroom, play structure, parking 3(d) lots, etc.). Thus, a lease commitment will require City expenditure of at least $400,000 in capital improvements over the first two to five years. C) It is likely that the capital outlays will be easier to absorb in the budget (if spread over three to five years) than will the operating cost of $100,000 annually. Following are the primary options available to generate the additional $100,000 annually(or most of it): 1. Property Tax: given the estimated total assessed value for 2007, a $100,000 increase in the property tax levy would increase the property tax rate by about four cents per thousand (the first year; it would decline as assessed value grows in subsequent years). Thus, the owner of a $100,000 home would pay $4/year additional property tax (the first year; it would decline as community assessed value grows in subsequent years). 2. Gambling Tax: state law permits a local tax of up to 20% on card rooms; all three of the Tri-Cites impose a 10% tax rate. Increasing the tax to 12% would generate approximately $100,000 annually. 3. Utility Tax: the utility tax on water, sewer and garbage are. fixed by Council action (rates on electricity, telephone and natural gas are fixed by prior public vote) at 8.5%. Increasing the utility tax on water to 10% is estimated to generate about $82,000 annually and would include most of those unincorporated households in the vicinity of Chiawana Park (because most are connected to the City's water system). Increasing the utility on sewer to 10% is estimated to generate about $99,000 annually, but would not apply to unincorporated households, as the sewer system is not available outside the City boundary. Increasing the utility tax on garbage service to 10% would generate about $45,000 annually but, again, would apply only to those households within the City boundary. An increase in the utility tax on either water or sewer would not result in a corresponding rate increase in the near term, as both utilities currently reflect an operating margin in excess of 1.5% (in other words, either can absorb such a tax increase without passing it on to the customer, at least for a few years), due to the growth in customer base over the past four years. D) Staff recommends Council authorize negotiations with the Corps of Engineers to determine specifics associated with a long-term lease of Chiawana Park and report back to the City Council not later than February 1, 2007. Council should also note any consensus as to the preferred method of absorbing the additional $100,000 annual operating cost in the general fund. o„ � t r t-4 BLVD ROAD 700 � ,r ROAD 84 7. � a $ y01� l - ROAD fig a .... . c r b n Ft g; � k ; � — � ryn� h Ci •-. .. :. j ROAD 80 ?C t • � s —� ROAD 52 BQbR��2_.. T ROAD 44 ` ROAD 44 z ROAD 44 r y a • GOAD 36 i.._. �. ROAD 38 _. ' ROAD 34 - !-ROAD ze i 1 20TH AVE la - MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager FROM: Stan Strebel, Administrative and Community Services Director DATE: October 2, 2006 RE: Chiawana Park 2006 Maintenance Expenses, Expected Costs under Lease This is to provide a summary of our expense history for Chiawana Park for the 2006 maintenance contract with the Army Corps of Engineers as well as anticipated operational and capital expenses in the event the City enters into a long term lease agreement for the facility. 2006 Maintenance The 2006 season was abbreviated with the park being opened for approximately 4.5 months. While most maintenance expense categories will not be impacted significantly by opening the park for as many as 7 months (April —October), a few categories would be expected to increase moderately with greater use by the public. For the 2006 year staff arranged for a landscape contractor to mow park turf to avoid the necessity of purchasing additional equipment until the long term plan for the park was decided. (While staff recommends that a large mower be purchased if the facility is to be leased, it should be noted that the same equipment will be needed in order to help maintain three new parks(13 acres)that are coming on line in 2006 and 2007.) Park gate lock-up was also done by a contractor and staff would recommend continuation of this arrangement. The Corps of Engineers retained responsibility for park reservations and fee collection in 2006. Staff believes that this function can be assumed by the City Recreation office. The City seasonal park ranger spent considerable time(up to 12— 15 hours per week) at Chiawana. It would be expected that this effort would continue in the future. We diverted our Groundsman I/Arborist from other assigned duties to maintain the irrigation system (which early in the season required considerable attention)and to maintain other areas of the facility. Seasonal workers provided for trash collection, restroom cleaning, weed control, etc. With uncertainty about the future of the park,the facility was maintained in as good a condition as possible while deferring expensive repairs or improvements and even avoiding non-essential expenses. If the City were to obligate itself, with a lease, I would expect to see additional expenses that would not be wise to defer indefinitely(i.e. tree pruning; irrigation system improvements). While some expenses will still be incurred for the remainder of the season(mowing, irrigation, winterization), it appears that our 2006 expenditures will be a total cost of some $40,000. 2007 Maintenance Budget The proposed operational budget for the park, if the City enters into a lease agreement, is $99,800. This is shown in detail on the attached sheet. Personnel expense is by far the largest category, however, it should be noted that while the County budgeted 2.5 FTE to maintain Chiawana Park and the Road 48 soccer facility, our proposed budget of 1.8 FTE will also allow the City to add the maintenance of the 3 new parks referenced earlier. It is proposed to do mowing with seasonal personnel instead of contracting as this will give us greater ability to respond to the mowing needs of parks throughout the City. Seasonal staff will continue to do restroom cleaning, trash and weed control. The budget also includes contracting for evening security lock-up during the summer months. With a lease,the City could undertake the collection of fees for park reservations as has been done by the County in past years and the Corps in 2006. Any revenue collected must be used to offset maintenance expenses. It is anticipated that fee revenue would be in the range of$5,000 -$6,000 per year if fees similar to those imposed by the County were used. 2007 Capital Expense Budget Staff recommends a fairly aggressive Capital budget in the event the park is leased. Of the$178,000 recommended, about half is for equipment and about half for maintenance or improvements which will minimize long term maintenance expense(irrigation)or improve safety and appearance(pruning). Future Capital Improvements Staff has identified some capital improvements that would be highly desirable and important in the next few years. While they are not included in the proposed 2007 budget, in the event that a lease is signed, it will be important to anticipate the following: Replacement of the East restrooms Estimate (Currently on septic tank and well— ideally could be served with City water and sewer) Restroom Facility $110,000 Utilities 20,000 Total $130,000 Replacement of the East play structure (Facility is in poor repair and not up to current codes) Play Structure $40,000 Parking lot resurfacing, restriping $16,000 Road resurface 11,000 Dock repair or replacement Unknown (This has been referred to the Corps of Engineers, it is undetermined if they will repair or remove the existing facility. Depending on the status of permits for the facility, repairs could be in the range of$30,000 - $40,000; Replacement could be in excess of$100,000. There is some possibility of a grant for this type of facility. However, I would recommend that this issue be resolved with indication/commitment from the Corps of Engineers that it will assume the responsibility to repair or replace the dock in consideration of the City's willingness to lease the facility.) Administrative and Community Services Budget Additions Assuming Addition of Chiawana Park Chiawana Park Facilities Operations Budget: 010-410-57680 Additional Groundsman I (including benefits) $55,000 2 Seasonal 18,000 Water (547010) 700 Garbage (547030) 3,000 Electrical (547040) 3,000 Rep. and Maintenance (548090) 7,000 Security Contract (541090) 2,100 Ag Supplies (531060) 5,000 Equipment Rental Interfund (595480) 6,000 $99,800 Capital Expenses: 010-905-51990560410 Essential Expenses: Minor Equipment $ 4,000 Large Mower 50,000 Groundsman Vehicle 24,000 Recommended Expenses: Pruning (estimate may be high, work could be phased over 2 — 3 years) 60,000 Irrigation Repairs 10,000 Elimination of hand line irrigation 30.000 $178,000 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 4, 2006 TO: Gary Crutchfi y anager Workshop Mtg.: 10/9/06 Regular Mtg.: 10/16/06 FROM: Stan Strebel, d rirrative and Community Services Direc r SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement for Indigent Defense Services I. REFERENCES): A. Proposed Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/9: Discussion 10/16: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Service Agreement for Indigent Defense with Chris Herion and further, to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $30,000 annually (min,) in the General Fund Budget IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City has a panel of two attorneys for providing defense services to indigent defendants in Municipal Court. The agreement for one of the attorneys, Phil Rodriguez, expires on December 31 of this year. B) Staff has solicited applications and interviewed four applicants, including the current defender, for a new two year agreement. It is recommended that Chris Herion be retained for providing public defense services for 2007 and 2008. Mr. Herion has experience in many of the courts in the area and has served as a judge pro tern in the Pasco Municipal Court. C) The proposed contract is the same in all material aspects as the existing contract with the City's other public defender except for the addition of a definition of "Deferred or probation case assigned" (Section II D.(2)) and clarification, in the last paragraph of Section IV, that the attorney's obligation to complete existing cases extends for 6 months. D) Staff recommends approval of the agreement. 3(e) PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT For Legal Representation of Indigent Defendants Before the Pasco Municipal Court THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT is entered into, effective January 1, 2007, by and between the City of Pasco, a Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred to as "City", and Chris Herion, attorney authorized to practice law in the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "Attorney." THIS AGREEMENT is a Professional Service Agreement for the rendering of legal representation of indigent persons charged with misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors in the Pasco Municipal Court. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, it is agreed as follows: SECTION I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A. The Attorney shall represent in a professional manner, all individuals charged with misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors in the Pasco Municipal Court, for whose representation he/she is appointed. Such representation shall include preparation of appropriate pleadings and appearances in all phases of court proceedings following appointment, including pretrial hearings, motions, trial, sentencing, probation violations, and any other additional trials or hearings required by a remand or other order of a higher court. The Attorney shall communicate with individuals confined to jail in person or by telephone, prior to the individual's pretrial conference. The Attorney shall have no responsibility to represent individuals initially charged in the Pasco Municipal Court with felonies regardless of whether the felony charge is later reduced to a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. B. In the event a case to which the Attorney is appointed is appealed to Superior Court, the Attorney shall initiate the appeal by preparing and filing the Notice of Appeal in Superior Court which shall include a statement of the errors claimed to have been made and location of such errors in the record. The Attorney shall not be responsible for prosecuting the appeal in Superior Court, but shall remain responsible to the appellant until another attorney is appointed to represent the appellant in Superior Court. If and when the case is remanded to Pasco Municipal Court, Attorney shall again assume responsibility to provide defense services. Professional Service Agreement- 1 C. The Attorney agrees not to accept appointments for indigent defense services in Franklin County Superior Court during the term of this Agreement. D. The Attorney is expected to have knowledge of the court's schedule, including hours of operation and days of the week when hearings and trials are ordinarily set and heard. In its discretion, the court may alter the court's schedule to meet changing demands. The Attorney agrees to not accept other employment of any character that will unreasonably cause delay in the hearing of the cases assigned to Attorney or to cause the court scheduling difficulties as to Attorney's assigned cases. E. The professional services provided under this Agreement shall be in compliance with the City of Pasco's Indigent Defense Legal Representative Plan, Goals and Standards, a copy of which is incorporated as a part of this Agreement as Exhibit A. SECTION II COMPENSATION A. The City will compensate Attorney, as attorney fees and not as a salary, for the professional services provided as follows: (1) For the 2007 calendar year: $ 130.00 for each case assigned by the court to the Attorney; $ 300.00 for each case resulting in a jury trial actually tried to verdict; and $ 50.00 for each deferred or probation matter assigned by the court. (2) For the 2008 calendar year: $ 130.00 for each case assigned by the court to the Attorney; $300.00 for each case resulting in a jury trial actually tried to verdict; and $ 50.00 for each deferred or probation matter assigned by the court, however, initiated by a prior public defender. Payments shall be made monthly with the first monthly payment to be made not later than the 28th day of February 2007, constituting compensation for the immediately preceding month; subsequent payments being made not later than the 30th day of each succeeding month and the final payments being made not later than the 30th day of January 2009. B. The City agrees to compensate Attorney a minimum monthly amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) in the event the amounts received based on assignments per Section A above are below said minimum. C. It is expressly agreed that the monthly compensation fixed in Sections A Professional Service Agreement- 2 and B above shall constitute full compensation for services required under this Agreement. D. Definitions: (1) "Case assigned". For the purposes of this Agreement shall mean all proceedings relating to one or more underlying charges, occurring on or not more than two separate dates, against a defendant at the time court appointed counsel is approved by the court and on amendments to those charges including contempt of court for failure to pay fine, appear for trial or hearings, or the failure to abide the terms of probation. (2) "Deferred or Probation Case Assigned". For the purposes of this Agreement shall mean all proceedings relating to one or more probation or deferred cases, occurring on or not more than two separate dates, against a defendant at the time court appointed counsel is approved by the court and on amendments to those charges including contempt of court for failure to pay fine, appear for trail or hearings, or the failure to abide the terms of probation. SECTION III EXPENSES The Attorney shall bear all expenses incurred in the representation of each individual to whom appointed except: A. Expenses incurred in obtaining expert testimony, scientific tests or other analysis when authorized by court order. B. Expenses of a private investigator used to aid in the preparation of the defense of a matter when authorized by court order. C. Expenses for the services of an interpreter determined appropriate by the court. SECTION IV TERM The terms of this Agreement shall be for the period commencing January 1, 2007, and concluding on December 31, 2008. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Attorney's obligation to represent an individual in a matter to which the Attorney has been appointed shall continue through the disposition of the matter as set forth below. Professional Service Agreement - 3 If this Agreement is not then in default, the Attorney shall have the option to renew this Agreement for one (1) additional term of one (1) year. The terms and conditions of the renewal term shall be identical to the terms and conditions of the last year of the original term (with appropriate modifications of installment payment dates) except that upon termination of the final term, the Attorney shall no longer have any option to renew this Agreement. The renewal option must be exercised by written notice to the City, given not less than 120 days prior to the last date of the expiring term. The giving of such notice shall make the agreement binding for the renewal term without further act of the parties. It is understood by the parties hereto that the Attorney's obligation to provide representation pursuant to this Agreement includes the obligation to complete all cases or matters covered by this Agreement. The Attorney shall continue to provide representation for a period of six months, for those persons whom the Attorney was appointed to represent and whose case was not concluded during the duration of this Agreement. It is further, understood by the parties that the Attorney's obligation to complete all cases or matters covered by this Agreement shall not result in any additional compensation over the amount specified herein. SECTION V NON-ASSIGNMENT No other person shall perform any of the services required of the Attorney by this Agreement nor shall the Attorney assign or subcontract their responsibility for the performance of any of the services required by this Agreement, provided, however, Attorney may, by mutual agreement with another attorney holding a current Professional Service Agreement for legal representation of indigent individuals with the City of Pasco, make substitute appearances for one another on as-needed basis; or with the approval of the City, a designated qualified member of the Attorney's Law Firm may perform the Attorney's contract and responsibilities on a temporary basis, or assign or subcontract such services with another qualified attorney. SECTION VI TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause upon forty-five (45) days advance written notice to the other. This Agreement may be terminated for cause consisting of failing to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement upon ten (10) days advance written notice. Professional Service Agreement - 4 In the event of Attorney's disbarment or suspension from the practice of law, this Agreement shall terminate as of the effective date of such disbarment or suspension. In the event of a termination without cause, the Attorney shall continue to accept and represent to conclusion court assigned cases during the forty (45) day period and will be compensated for such court assigned cases pursuant to Section II above. SECTION VII INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION During the term of this Agreement, the Attorney shall maintain errors and omissions insurance coverage and shall include anyone else acting for or on behalf of the Attorney in the performance of this Agreement as an additional named insured on any such policy. Such insurance shall be obtained from any insurance company authorized to do business as such in the State of Washington, and shall have policy limits of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) or more. At the time of commencement of the performance of services hereunder, the Attorney shall submit evidence that such insurance is in force and that such insurance will not be canceled without first giving thirty (30) days written notice to the City. DATED this day of October, 2006. CITY OF PASCO Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney ATTORNEY Attorney Professional Service Agreement- 5 EXHIBIT A CITY OF PASCO INDIGENT DEFENSE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE PLAIN GOALS AND STANDARDS I. PLAN GOAL The goal of this Indigent Defense Legal Representation Plan is to provide legal defense services to the indigent citizens of the City of Pasco, and to provide for their defense in a professional, skilled manner consistent with the minimum standards as set forth by the Washington Law and approved by the Washington State Bar Association. This goal will be achieved by the adoption of standards, specifically tailored to address those needs within the Pasco Municipal Court for public defense services, by qualifying Washington State attorneys contracted to serve as the accused counsel and advocate in proceedings before the City of Pasco Municipal Court. This plan shall include the selection, monitoring and evaluation of qualified contract attorneys by a Plan Administrator. II. DUTIES OF PLAN ADMINISTRATOR The Plan Administrator shall be the City Director of Administrative and Community Services and shall: A. Administer contracts for indigent defense representation. B. Provide annual written evaluation of the contract providers by: 1. Report and self evaluation by contract provider, 2. Evaluations from Judge, Prosecutor, other defense lawyers and clients of the performance of the contract service provider. 3. Observations of in-Court performance for preparing an evaluation report to the City Manager. C. Facilitate client complaint procedures. D. Provide an annual written report to the City Manager on the state of indigent defense services. 111. ADOPTION OF STANDARDS The Washington Defenders Association "Standards for Public Defense Services" as approved by the Washington State Bar Association and mandated by RCW 10.101.030, as modified to specifically apply to misdemeanors and gross misdemeanor defense before the City of Pasco Municipal Court, are adopted as a standard for the City of Pasco for the rendering of indigent defense legal services. A copy of which standards are adopted and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit 1 to this Plan. These standards shall be incorporated in all contracts for the provision of indigent defense legal services establishing the minimum standard performance for all those contracting with the City to provide such services. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Indigent Defense Legal Representation Plan and incorporated standards for public defense services shall be effective from and after January 1, 2003. DATED this -&-161) day of�/�L ,-Z7 hcX 2002. CITY F p Gary t hfield City Manager Goals and Standards - 2 EXHIBIT A STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES RCW 10.101.030 Standards for Public Defense services. Each county or city under this chapter shall adopt standards for the delivery of public defense services, whether those services are provided by contract, assigned counsel, or a public defender office. Standards shall include the following: Compensation of counsel, duties and responsibilities of counsel, case load limits and types of cases, responsibility for expert witness fees and other costs associated with representation, administration expenses, support services, reports of attorney activity and vouchers,training, supervision, monitoring and evaluation of attorneys, substitution of attorneys or assignment of contracts, limitations on private practice of contract attorneys, qualifications of attorneys, disposition of client complaints, cause for termination of contract or removal of attorney, and nondiscrimination. The standards endorsed by the Washington State Bar Association for the provision of public defense services may serve as guidelines to contracting authorities. INTRODUCTION In recognition of the duty imposed on it by RCW 10.101.030 and the duty to provide indigent defendants with adequate legal representation, the City of Pasco adopts the following Standards for Public Defense Services provided in conjunction with the Municipal Court of Pasco. STANDARD ONE: COMPENSATION Standard: Indigent services shall be provided by contract. For contract defense attorneys, compensation shall be determined by a written contract based upon the estimated case load, time demands, the customary compensation in the community for similar services rendered by private retained counsel, or by city of other publicly paid attorneys who have public clients and budgetary consideration. Contract should provide for extraordinary compensation over and above the normal contract terms for cases which require an extraordinary amount of time and preparation. Services which require extraordinary fees should be defined in the contract. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 5-2.4 and 5-3.1. Standards for Public Defense Services - 1 American Bar Association, Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance in Death Penalty Cases, 1988, Standard 10-1. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standards 13.7 and 13.11. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, Standard IV- 4. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Legal Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard III-10 and III-11. Seattle-King County Bar Association Indigent Defense Services Task Force, Guidelines for Accreditation of Defender Agencies, 1982, Guideline No. 6. STANDARD TWO: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNSEL Standard: The legal representation plan shall require that defense services be provided to all clients in a professional, skilled manner consistent with minimum standards set forth by the American Bar Association, applicable state bar association standards, the Rules of Professional Conduct, case law and applicable court rules defining the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants in criminal cases. Counsel's primary and most fundamental responsibility is to promote and protect the best interests of the client. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 4-1.1, 5-5.1 and 5-1.1. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standards 13.1. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, Standard 1I- 2. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Guideline 111-18. STANDARD THREE: CASELOAD LIMITS AND TYPES OF CASES Standard: Standards for Public Defense Services- 2 The contract or other employment agreement shall specify the types of cases for which representation shall be provided and the estimated number of cases for which each attorney shall be expected to handle. The caseload of public defense attorneys should allow each lawyer to give each client the time and effort necessary to ensure effective representation. Neither defender organizations, county offices, contract attorneys nor assigned counsel should accept workloads that, by reason of their excessive size, interfere with the rendering of quality representation. A case is defined by the Office of the Administrator for the Courts as: A filing of a document with the court naming a person as defendant or respondent. Caseload limits should be determined by the number and type of cases being accepted and on the local prosecutor's charging and plea bargaining practices. In jurisdictions where assigned counsel or contract attorneys also maintain private law practices, the contracting attorney should ensure that attorneys not accept more cases than they can reasonably discharge. Each attorney or firm contracting for indigent defense services shall set limits on the amount of privately retained work which can be accepted by the contracting attorney. These limits shall be based on the percentage of a full-time caseload which the public defense cases represents. Related and Source Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 4.1.2, 5-4.3. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.12. American Bar Association Disciplinary Rule 6-101. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, Standard 1V-1. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard 111-6 and 1 I1-12. Seattle-King County Bar Association Indigent Defense Services Task Force, Guidelines for Accreditation of Defender Agencies, 1982, Guideline Number 1. STANDARD FOUR: RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXPERT WITNESSES Standard: Reasonable compensation for expert witnesses necessary to preparation and presentation of the defense case shall be provided. Expert witness fees should be maintained and allocated from funds separate from those provided for defender services. Requests for expert witness fees under Standards for Public Defense Services -3 Court Rule 3.1 f should be made through an ex parte motion. Upon good cause shown, the defense may retain experts of its choosing as determined necessary by the Court and under such conditions as may be imposed by the Court. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 5-1.4. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, Standard IV 2d, 3. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1983, Standard II I-8d. National Advisory Commission, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.14. STANDARD FIVE: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Standard: Contracts for public defense services should include the administrative costs associated with providing legal representation. These costs may include travel, telephones, law library, financial accounting, case management systems, the reporting requirements imposed by these standards, and other costs necessarily incurred in the day to day management of the contract. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services. National.Study Commission on Defense Services, Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, (1976), Guideline 3.4. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, 1976 1-3, IV 2a-e, IV 5. STANDARD SIX: INVESTIGATORS Standard: Private law firms holding contracts to provide representation for indigent defendants accused of crimes may employ investigators with criminal investigation training and experience in cases that warrant investigation as determined necessary by the Court. Standards for Public Defense Services-4 Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 4-4-1 and 5-1.14. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.14. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, Standard IV- 3. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard I11-9. Seattle-King County Bar Association Indigent Defense Services Task Force, Guidelines for Accreditation of Defender Agencies, 1982, Guideline Number 8. STANDARD SEVEN: SUPPORT SERVICES Standard; The indigent defense contract shall provide representation that the attorneys shall provide or have access to sufficient support services to fulfill the performance under the terms of the contract. These support services may include secretaries, paralegals, investigators, social and mental health professions and other staff services, that are essential to ensure the effective performance of the defense counsel during trial preparation, in the preparation of dispositional plans, and at sentencing. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 4-8.1 and 5-1.4. National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, Standard 13.14. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, Standard IV- 3. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard 111-8. Seattle-King County Bar Association Indigent Defense Services Task Force, Guidelines for Accreditation of Defender Agencies, 1982, Guideline Number 7. Standards for Public Defense Services- 5 STANDARD EIGHT: REPORTS OF ATTORNEY ACTIVITY AND COMPENSATION Standard: The legal representation plan shall require that the defense attorney or office maintain a case- reporting and management information system which includes number and type of cases, attorney hours and disposition. This information shall be provided regularly to the City and shall also be made available to the Office of the Administrator of the Courts upon request. Any such system shall be maintained independently from client files so as to disclose no privileged information. For attorneys under contract, compensation should be made monthly as provided by the contract. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 5-3.3. (b) xii, The Report to the Criminal Justice Section Council from the Criminal Justice Standards Committee, 1989. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984 Standard 111-22. National Study Commission on Defense Services, Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, 1976, Guideline 3.4, 4.1, and 5.2. STANDARD NINE: TRAINING Standard: Attorneys providing public defense services should participate in regular training programs on criminal defense law, including a minimum of seven hours of continuing legal education annually in areas relating to their public defense practice, including substantive criminal law, criminal procedure and forensic sciences, civil commitment, and dependency law. Every attorney providing counsel to indigent accused should attend courses that foster trial advocacy skills and review professional publications and tapes. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 5-1.4. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.16. Standards for Public Defense Services - 6 National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, Standard V. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Legal Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard 111-17. Seattle-King County Bar Association Indigent Defense Services Task Force, Guidelines for Accreditation of Defender Agencies, 1982, Guideline Number 3. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, 1988, Standard 9.1. STANDARD TEN: SUPERVISION Standard: Each attorney or firms of attorneys providing public defense contract services shall provide for the supervision of defense lawyers. Contracts with private attorney(s) for the provision of public defender services shall provide for annual reviews of the private attorney's performance by the City. Such reviews shall include consultation with relevant judicial officers. Related Standards: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.9. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Legal Defense Contract, 1984, Standard 111-16. Seattle-King County Bar Association Indigent Defense Services Task Force, Guidelines for Accreditation of Defender Agencies, 1982, Guideline Number 4. STANDARD ELEVEN: MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF ATTORNEYS Standard: The contract for public defense services should establish a procedure for systematic monitoring and evaluation of attorney performance based upon publicized criteria. Supervision and evaluation efforts should include review of time and caseload records, review and inspection of transcripts, in- court observations, and periodic conferences between the contract attorney and a designee of the legislative authority. Standards for Public Defense Services - 7 Performance evaluations of a contract attorney should include comments from judges, prosecutors, other defense lawyers and clients. Attorneys should be evaluated on their skill and effectiveness as criminal lawyers and/or dependency or civil commitment advocates. Related Standards: National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard 111-16, National Study Commission on Defense Services, Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, 1976, Recommendations 5.4 and 5.5. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.9. STANDARD TWELVE: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS OR ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACTS Standard: The attorney engaged by the City to provide public defense services should not sub-contract with another firm or attorney to provide representation and should remain directly involved in the provision of representation. If the contract is with a firm or office, the City shall request the names and experience levels of those attorneys who will actually be providing the services, to ensure they meet minimum qualifications. The employment agreement shall address the procedures for continuing representation of clients upon the conclusion of the agreement. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 5-5.2. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.1. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Guideline 111-23, STANDARD THIRTEEN: QUALIFICATIONS OF ATTORNEYS Standard: Standards for Public Defense Services - 8 1. In order to assure that indigent accused receive the effective assistance of counsel to which they are constitutionally entitled, attorneys providing defense services should meet the following minimum professional qualifications: A. Satisfy the minimum requirements for practicing law in Washington as determined by the Washington Supreme Court; and B. Complete seven hours of continuing legal education within each calendar year in courses relating to their public defense practice. 2. Legal Interns. Legal Interns may be utilized in the assistance of indigent defendants only to the extent allowed by rule and upon prior City approval. A. Legal interns must meet the requirements set out in APR 9. B. Legal interns shall receive training pursuant to APR 9 and Standard Nine, Training. 3. The City should award contracts for public defense services only after determining that the attorney or firm chosen can meet accepted professional standards. Under no circumstances should a contract be awarded on the basis of cost alone. Attorneys or firms bidding for contracts must demonstrate their ability to meet these standards. 4. Contracts should only be awarded to a) attorneys who have at least one year's criminal trial experience comparable municipal or district court jurisdiction, or b) a firm where at least one attorney has one year's trial experience in municipal or district court jurisdictions. Related Standards: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, Standard 13.15. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Public Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard 111-7. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, 1987, Standard 5.1. STANDARD FOURTEEN: DISPOSITION OF CLIENT COMPLAINTS Standard: Standards for Public Defense Services- 9 The legal representation plan shall include a method to respond promptly to client complaints. Complaints should first be directed to the contract attorney or firm that provided representation. If the client feels that he or she has not received an adequate response,the Client shall submit a written complaint to the City Manager who is hereby authorized to designate a person or agency to investigate the Complaint. The complaining client should be informed as to the disposition of his or her complaint within one week, or such additional time as warranted by the circumstances of each case. Complaints regarding criminal defense representation made to a judicial officer should be referred to the City Manager for investigation. Related Standards: The American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, 4-5.1 and 4-5.2. STANDARD FIFTEEN: CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OR REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY Standard: Contracts for defense services shall include the grounds for termination of the contract by the parties. The representation in an individual case establishes an inviolable attorney- client relationship. Removal of counsel from representation therefore normally should not occur over the objection of the attorney and the client. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 5-1.3, 5-5.3. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Guideline 111-5. National Study Commission on Defense Services, Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, 1976, Recommendations 2.12 and 2.14. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.8. STANDARD SIXTEEN: NON-DISCRIMINATION Standard: Standards for Public Defense Services- 10 Neither the City, in its selection of an attorney, firm or agency to provide public defense representation, nor the attorneys selected, in their hiring practices or in their representation of clients, shall discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation or handicap. Both the City and the contractor shall comply with all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination requirements. Related Standards: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services, Standard 5-3.1. National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Standards for Defender Services, 1976, Standard 111-5. Standards for Public Defense Services - i 1 AGENDA REPORT NO.31 FOR: City Council October'4,2006 TO: Gary Crutch Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1019/06 Robert J. Albe s,P lie Works Director Regular Mtg. 10/16/06 FROM.: Doug Bramlette, City Engineer SUBJECT: Reject Bids for"A" Street and Hopkins Stree-:t Water Lines Project Nos. 06-2-07, 05-2-03 &05-7-02 I. REFERENCE{S): ` 1. Vicinity Maps 2. Bid Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/9: Discussion 10/16: MOTION: I move to reject the bids received for the"A" Street 20"Waterline Project; Project No. 06-2-07, and, further, authorize staff to the project. 10/16: MOTION: I move to reject the bids received for the Road 34 & Hopkins Street Water Main Improvements & I-182 Irrigation Crossing Project # 05-2-03 & 05-7-02, and, further, authorize Staff to re-bid the project. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On September 13, 2006, staff received four sealed bids for the "A" Street 20" Waterline Project; Project # 06-2-07. The low bid was received from Watt's Constluc,ion for the amount of$779,802.51 including sales tax. The Engineer's Estimate fey: the project is $755,917.76 including sales tax. Staff received three sealed bids for the Read 34 & Hopkins Strect Water ,'V.ain Improvements &. C-182 Irrigation Crossing Project # 05-2-03 & 05-7-02: The low bid was received from Goodman &Mehienbacher for the amount of$1,164,061.43 including sales tax. The Engineer's Estimate for the project is $1,051,155.47 including sales tax. Staff was hopefiil that prices would come down after the high prices that were seen this summer. The Engineers Estimate was based on previous high prices with the expectation that one or more bids would be lower. The combined budget for both waterline projects as well as the I-182 Irrigation Crossing was approximately $700,000; the combined cost of the two low bids exceeds $1.9 million or more than double the budgeted funds for the combined projects. Due to the high cost for both projects as well as the 1-182 Irrigation Crossing, Staff recommends rejection of the bids. Staff will evaluate other alternatives for the projects. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING Project File 3(f) low V • I ' STREET 20" WATER LINE EIENETT JA. RCCI_.; D;;, <_ LA. T FILA :'' .•v; I ! F-H ! }f * I'VE Rvi E,,mm R' is rrtY I'C !�r LEaLA ST `I \ R1C�I�.RG�U ST i w`-� y FEARL Si ¢' <: u A_ ST ! rl OPAL ,OPAL ST ¢ ¢ ¢ r GATE S T is h h i,, nGA7E 57 E T R f 'I By ,T RU Y S RT ST ` i COURT S7 1 i ARTMELL Si s eROWh ST / BROWN ! I W J VL..RiE ST i� `!�!' t MARIE ST al I !� + ' Z z MARIE ST' c t tM 7y\' W ' N ! ;CTXVE ST ST a OCTAVE T !�I NRY T HENRY S ` HENRY ST tr _ vY� r 'iM 161ARGARET ST I MARGAR ST I Q v I > PARK ST 'ARK 57 �I PARK ST HASSAILD NiXON S7 NIKCN ST _ P•I;YQN ST NIXON 06 f t C SYLVc-SfER ST SYLVESTER I y�l '! ;R1r[Nu: Si 'RVING ST _A `!iN S?. QI :.,! Q Q } Q S' - j JI _I cy o x I e zi KWA ST, HQS HONE T EL I SHOSHONE ST I. a 'J ;?+oK'NS ST — r OPKt SST T I i I HcP SIN _ l i 0{v +,'ILLEI�T ' P.M I[IQ LNJ a ' rfrACF R BONNEV!LLE 5T nfij' Imo! I ' C CLARK ST tic Zi ) I PROJECT LIMITS �'rr � ■� ■i illy[-Irl� rir>•_��■r � �I ■e �� >• � �� ;- _ I j VICINITY MAP SCALE NONE a4m• .—xv-a Br SELF _ City of Pasco "A" Street 20" Waterline Project Project Number 06-2-07 September 13, 2006 BID SUMMARY TOTAL Engineers Estimate $755,917.76 1. Watt's Construction $779,802.51 2. Goodman&Mehlenbacher $800,787.18 3. Apollo, Inc. $915,326.60 4. Ray Poland & Sons $1,161,230.51 �r �.,y __ ab . ' �'��'3 Y'Y • 1. l �+ 1 � � �� _ /� r �� � � ��� �� 1 .� ���% r s ��� , / .y �� � , ` �. '// ' .. � f 1: f� / � / ` , l r. ., � �� � ` • • `r � r ,; ' �. �' � � � � . _ � Y���� �- ■ MF� # I � � j j� �i� I C� � � Y S f ` "J� C� slv 4 z�"`�1 r"e'r 1 1 "7 � � 4.� ; f � �� �� u City of Pasco Road 34 & Hopkins Street Water Main Improvements & 1-182 Irrigation Crossing Project Project Number 05-2-03 & 05-7-02 September 13, 2006 BID SUMMARY TOTAL Engineers Estimate $1,051,155.47 1. Goodman& Mehlenbacher $1,164,061.43 2. Apollo, Inc. $1,211,942.69 4. Ray Poland & Sons $1,525,489.97 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council October 5, 2006 FROM: Gary Crutchfie tanager Workshop Mtg.: 10/9/06 Regular Mtg.: 10/16/06 SUBJECT: Commercial/Industrial Water Rights I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 9/21/06 2. Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/9: Discussion 10/16: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending PMC Section 26.04.115, Assignment of Water Rights for Subdivision of Land and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Please see attached memorandum. V. DISCUSSION: A) Based on Council discussion of this matter at the September 25 workshop meeting, the proposed ordinance is-presented for deliberation. As proposed, the ordinance amendment will clarify that the requirement to dedicate water rights applies only to residential subdivisions. B) The proposed ordinance effectively excludes from the dedication requirement those subdivisions intended for commercial or industrial use. While this change will compliment the City's goal of promoting industrial investment in the community, staff is still evaluating whether commercial development should be required to provide water rights (or pay an associated mitigation fee) at the time of building permit issuance. C) Staff recommends the proposed ordinance be adopted by Council at the October 16 business meeting. 3(9) MEMORANDUM September 21, 2006 TO: City Council FROM: Gary Crutchfie i Manager RE: Water Rights R quirements As you know, the city provides domestic water throughout the city(and some of unincorporated urban area)as well as irrigation water on the plateau. The amount of water the city can produce (withdraw from Columbia River)is limited by state permit restrictions. Although the recent "Quad Cities"regional water permit provides much relief from the previous limits, the city is obligated to "mitigate"(that is, replace) new water consumption (from the Columbia River) to the extent that"minimum flows" in the Columbia River are not sustained between April and October each year. .In practical terms, that means (lie city will need to acquire enough water rights to offset its share of the problem, determined annually by the State Department of Ecology. In anticipation of such new requirements coming from the state, staff recommended(and City Council enacted) Ordinance No. 3547 in 2002, to require all new subdivisions to either dedicate to the city the agricultural water rights existing on the land in conjunction with subdivision approval or(in those cases where.the land was"dry")pay$1,500 per acre (estimated at that time to represent the average purchase price of farm land irrigation.rights). Over the past four years, the subdivision requirement has worked quite well, as an estimated 3,600 acre feet of water rights(representing approximately$1,500,000) have been dedicated to the city(virtually all in conjunction with approval of residential subdivisions on former farm lands). As well as Ordinance No. 3547 has worked for residential subdivisions, it has presented frustration for owners of commercial/industrial sites contemplating subdivisions(while there is much more subdivision activity in the residential sector,there are occasional plats within the commercial/industrial sector also). The frustration lies principally in the .fact that the amount of water consumption associated with commercial/industrial development varies widely; the owner of irrigated farmland being subdivided for commercial/industrial use may well be required (under current ordinance provisions) to dedicate more of the water rights than is necessary to offset the water consumption associated with the commercial/industrial use. In reviewing actual water consumption records, staff and an independent consultant found the following average use rates, by category: ' • Agricultural use: 3.5 feet/acre • Residential use: 4.0 feet/acre • Commercial/industrial use: 2.0 feet/acre City Council September 21, 2006 RE: Water.Rights Requirements Page 2 While the dedication of existing agricultural water rights will offset most o f the average consumption impact of a residential subdivision, they clearly exceed the average impact of a commercial/industrial subdivision(by a substantial margin). The obvious solution to this problem is to modify Ordinance No. 3547 to specify that the dedication requirement applies to commercial/industrial subdivisions at the rate of 2.0 fcet/acre. Before action is taken to make such a change to Ordinance No. 3547, however, staff suggests a policy decision be considered: should commercial/industrial development be required to mitigate its impact on the city's water rights and, if so, to what extent? The following factors appear pertinent to the discussion: One of the Council's prime goals is to foster more industrial investment so as to expand the community's tax base (this is likely to continue to be a prime goal for several years). Does the requirement to dedicate water rights (or pay the equivalent fee) work measurably to frustrate that prime goal? • Industrial development (particularly major ones) do not always require a "subdivision," rather locating on a site exceeding 20 acres(which does not require platting). Is it fair that smaller industrial developments (less than 20 acres) pay impacts (if they require a subdivision)when a larger industrial facility(perhaps with more actual water impact) escapes the requirement altogether? • Most commercial and smaller industrial developments occur on lands previously subdivided(and are therefore exempt from the platting requirement). Again, is it fair that a substantial percentage of small developments avoid the requirement altogether? In the opinion of staff, there are three practical options for Council consideration, each with its own disadvantages: 1. Reduce the dedication rate for commercial/industrial to 2.0 feet/acre; 2. Eliminate commercial/industrial from the dedication requirement altogether; 3. .Require dedication or payment at the rate of 2.0 feet/acre for all commercial/industrial development at the time of building pen-nit (not subdivision). In a matter such as this, the city is not obligated to require the same of each land use category. Given the obvious costs/benefits associated with residential development,the city is certainly justified in requiring full offset of residential impacts. Given the same analysis of commercial/industrial development, however, the city may well prefer to remove any such impediment (cost)to accommodate new industrial investment. Staff will appreciate Council's deliberation and collective decision in this matter, so appropriate legislation can be prepared for Council action. GC/tlz cc Bob Alberts Rick Smith ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Section 26.04.115 "Assignment of Water Rights for Subdivision of Land." WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3547, approved by the Pasco City Council in 2002 and codified in PMC Chapter 26.04, established the requirement that any subdivision of land within Pasco that would use City-provided water must assign to the City any water right attached to the property or pay an equivalent fee to the City; and WHEREAS, owners of lands within the City zoned and designated for industrial.use may be required, under the terms of Ordinance No. 3547, to assign more water rights to the City than would be commensurate with the industrial uses that may ultimately locate within the industrial subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after review of technical data regarding water use by land-use classification, finds that the requirement to assign water rights in conjunction with the division of land should apply only to residential subdivisions, as residential uses consistently utilize as much or more water than available through established water rights; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 26.04.11.5 entitled "Assignment of Water Rights for Subdivision of Land" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: A) As a condition for the approval of the subdivision of real property pursuant to PMC 26.24, 26.28, 26.36 and 26.40, utilizing City provided water for notable or irrigation €if-e supressiefr,-e e use within a residential subdivision, any property owner or developer of such property shall assign and transfer to the City any perfected application, certificate, permit or right of withdrawal of ground or surface waters, or such other water rights as may be appurtenant to such property in such quantities as is sufficient to serve the real property. This assignment and transfer shall not apply to individual service wells as are exempt from certification under the laws of the State of Washington, or properties which receive sufficient irrigation water services provided under a perfected water right from a City approved irrigation water service provider. B) In the event there are no water rights represented either by perfected application, certificate, permit or right for withdrawal appurtenant to the real property benefited in Section A) above, the property owner or developer shall pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights acquisition fee as established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance, Chapter 3.07. Such fee may be waived by implementation of a soil additive program, approved by the Director of Public Works, that provides for the retention of 30%or more of the applied irrigation water. (Ord. 3547 Sec. 2, 2002) 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 16th day of October, 2006. Joyce Olson Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney Ordinance Amending Section 26.04.115 CITY OF PASCO SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE NO. is an ordinance amending Section 26.04.i 15 "Assignment of Water Rights for Subdivision of Land." This ordinance clarifies that the requirement to assign water rights or pay an equivalent fee applies only to residential subdivisions. 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 99301-0293. Sandy Kenworthy,Deputy City Clerk