HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.01.29 Council Special Meeting Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. January 29,2007
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. BUSINESS ITEMS:
(a) Award of Bid,Baseball Stadium Shade Structure:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
January 25, 2007.
2. Bid Summary.
3. Drawing,Base Bid Alt.
4. Drawing, Alt. #4
5. Letter from Apollo Inc.,to SCM Consultants, dated 1/25/07.
MOTION: I move to award the bid for the Pasco Baseball Stadium Improvements,Alternate
4, to Apollo, Inc., in the amount of$1,100,000, plus applicable Washington State sales tax
and, further,authorize the Mayor to sign the construction contract.
4. ADJOURNMENT.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 25, 2007
TO: Gary Crutch a anager Special Mtg.: 1/29/07
FROM: Stan Strebel, ministrative and Community
Services Direc or
SUBJECT: Award of Bid, Baseball Stadium Shade Structure
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Bid Summary
B. Drawing, Base Bid Alt.
C. Drawing, Alt. #4
D. Letter from Apollo Inc. to SCM Consultants, dated 1/25/07
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
1/29: MOTION: I move to award the bid for the Pasco Baseball Stadium
Improvements, Alternate 4, to Apollo, Inc., in the amount of
$1,100,000, plus applicable Washington State sales tax, and further,
authorize the Mayor to sign the construction contract.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
With the award of the contract as proposed, and estimating all other project costs,
(permits, inspections, sales tax, design and construction management) with a 5%
construction contingency, total project costs could be as high as $1,385,000. The
Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development has granted
the City $1 million for stadium improvements and has indicated that expenditures above
the grant amount could be reimbursed from grant funding anticipated to be approved by
the 2007 Legislature. The Governor has included $660,000 as a grant for Pasco Stadium
improvements in her budget as submitted to the Legislature. In the event that the
Legislature does not approve the funding, the City would be obligated to cover any
expense beyond the original grant.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) On January 25 the City received six bids for the Baseball Stadium Shade Structure
as shown on the attached summary. A consideration of the different trade offs
associated with the design of the shade structure for the stadium(amount of shade,
height and width, integration with stadium structure and aesthetic appeal)
prompted staff to request bids with a number of different alternates. The bids for
the two most cost effective alternates are shown on the summary and discussed
below:
Base Bid plus Alt. #1.
This alternative is for the structure to be integrated within the stadium as shown
on the attached drawing. While this is the least expensive bid alternate (due to
smaller structure), staff, our professional consultants and the low bid contractor
are concerned about this alternative from both construction and maintenance
standpoints.
Integrating the structure into the stadium carries more uncertainty because of
possible impacts to the existing structure,the need to provide "seams" (where new
3(a)
structure meets existing) and potential disruption of the baseball team's activities,
if construction does not go exactly as planned.
From the maintenance standpoint, staff is concerned that future operations to
repaint, clean or repair the structure, as needed, may be complicated due to its
location on the stair-stepped bleachers. The use of aerial lifts for access would be
difficult if not impossible, with more costly scaffolding being the likely
alternative.
Total project costs for this alternative are expected to be $1,030,000, without
estimating a project contingency.
Alternate#4.
This alternative avoids most of the issues associated with the base bid as it is
separate and set back from the stadium structure (see drawing). Necessarily
somewhat taller, due to the setback, the cost is greater. However, the ability to
predict a smooth construction schedule is much greater and the potential of
disruption of the team's operation is erased. Maintenance is predicted to be much
less of a problem as the structure will be accessible from both sides by common
aerial lift equipment. Issues associated with unknowns with the existing stadium
and the necessary "seams" between the two structures disappear with this
alternative.
Total project costs are estimated to be $1,330,000 not including contingency.
B) Apollo, Inc. of Kennewick submitted the low bid for all alternates and
combinations. See the summary for comparison of the bids. Staff recommends
that Council award the contract to Apollo as the low bidder.
C) Staff is mindful of the extra cost associated with Alternate #4. Additional funding
allocated by the Legislature could be used for other stadium improvements. In the
event that no funding is forth coming, the City would bear the additional costs
estimated at some $330,000. Still, given the potential for increased maintenance
costs (our experience with other facilities has demonstrated that a dollar saved in
construction may end up costing again and gain in maintenance) to avoid any
possibility of disruption of the team's schedule and to better assure that the project
is completed prior to the first game in June, staff recommends the award of the
contract for Alternative#4.
Pasco Baseball Stadium Improvements Bid Summary 1124107
Base Bid Alt.#4
Bidders Alt.#1 (Move Outside)
Ray Poland & Sons 1,566,486 1,193,486
Ziegler Construction 995,000 1,110,000
Apollo 825,000 1,100,000
Siefken & Sons 1,351,000 1,127,705
George Grant 1,015,000 1,159,000
Chervenell 875,000 Add 1,108,000
A/E Estimate 850,000 1,000,000
CWI
N
cu
g y
s / ✓� / ` ,7
r
r y
o r
N � N
qj
m
'1
r\h�,
h °o
cc p
V \
l °E
i
00
� Mom
4 f r
d
n
4 f e � 1 ✓
y
Y 1 '
s f
T
2
t
r
t
fs�
_ I �
}fit ¢ f S 1f f
1
t �
p
General Contractor
...Building People Who Build Great Things
January 25, 2007
Mike Brightman
SCM Consultants, Inc.
7601 West Clearwater Ave.
Suite 301
Kennewick, WA 99336
Project: Pasco Baseball Stadium
Subject: Alternates
Per our conversation this morning, Apollo Inc. feels it would be in the best interest of the City of
Pasco and the Fans to choose alternate #4 for the Pasco Baseball Stadium Improvements. While
we are confident we can complete the base bid and alternate 1 per the requirements, alternate#4
is the best value for the available funding. Here are a few of the reasons we think alternate#4 is
the right choice;
• No loss of seating
• No loss of valuable locker room space
• No demolition of seating
• Ease of constructability
• Larger shadow
• Less unforeseen conditions
• Less interruption of facility operation
• More potential for accelerated schedule
We understand that it is an issue of finding for the City of Pasco at this point, but wanted to give
our reconunendation fi-om the contractor's point of view. What ever the City of Pasco decides,
we are eager to get started and very happy to be a part of this project.
If you have any question regarding this proposal, I can be reached at 509-586-1155 ext.306
Sincer y
Lee Petty
Project Manager
Apollo Inc. (509) 586-1104 Ext. 306
1 133 West Columbia Drive, Kennewick WA 99336 ■ Phone (509) 586-1104 ■ Fax (509) 585-3686
An Equal Opporfuuiq,Employer
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. January 29,2007
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Habitat for Humanity:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated January 26, 2007.
2. Letter from Habitat for Humanity Director to City Manager dated 1/18/07.
3. Table of Select Permits for Habitat Homes, 1998,2004 and 2006,Pasco.
4. Memorandum from City Planner to City Manager dated 1/26/07.
(b) School Sewers:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated January 24,2007.
2. Letter from PSD Superintendent to City Manager dated 1/2/07.
3. Map of subject school sites and sewer system.
4. Draft resolution.
(c) Property Line Adjustment:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
January 17, 2007.
2. Record of Survey.
3. Quit Claim Deed.
(d) Cemetery Fee Adjustments:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
January 24,2007.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Cemetery Price Sheet.
(e) Amendment to Consortium Agreement for Kennewick, Pasco and Richland under the
HOME Program:
1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community & Economic Development Director
dated January 23, 2007.
2. Resolution.
3. Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement.
(f) Dedication of Right-of-Way of Industrial Way:
1. Agenda Report from Robert J.Alberts,Public Works Director dated January 19,2007.
2. Statutory Warranty Deed.
3. Vicinity Map.
(g) Washington State Rating Bureau:
1. Agenda Report from Gregory L. Garcia,Fire Chief dated January 24, 2007.
4. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Reminders:
1. 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday, January 30, TRAC Facility-TRAC Board Meeting. (MAYOR JOYCE OLSON
and COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK)
2. 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 31, Pasco Red Lion- State of the Cities Presentation, Mayor Joyce
Olson. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS; ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO
ATTEND)
3. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, February 1, Parks & Rec. Classroom- Parks & Recreation Advisory Council
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK,Rep.; MIKE GARRISON,Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council January 26, 2007
FROM: Gary Crutch i 4Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1/29/07
SUBJECT: Habitat for H anity
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Letter from Habitat for Humanity Director to City Manager dated 1/18/07
2. Table of Select Permits for Habitat Homes, 1998, 2004 and 2006, Pasco
3. Memorandum from City Planner to City Manager dated 1/26/07
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1/29: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See below
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Habitat for Humanity has constructed several homes in Pasco over the years, as they
have in Kennewick and Richland. Habitat recently acquired permits to construct
new homes in the Terra Vita subdivision off East "A" Street in Pasco and was
concerned with the total costs associated with the new permits. Habitat's director
(Teresa Richardson) has registered that concern in the form of a letter dated January
18 (attached as Reference No. 1) requesting the City Council give "whatever
consideration" it can to reduce the associated fees.
B) Staff has already discussed the matter with Ms. Richardson, to explain the nature of
the fees and the basis for them. In addition, however, staff has researched the actual
costs paid by Habitat for four of their homes in Pasco, at different time intervals to
highlight the changes over that time period and to clarify the information included
with Habitat's letter (see Reference No. 2). A major change in Pasco has been the
establishment of"system fees" for connection to the city's water and sewer systems
($360 for water and $1,288 for sewer, totaling $1,648).
C) In addition to looking at the changes over time in Pasco, staff has checked with
Kennewick, Richland and West Richland officials to determine the respective
standard charges for a new home. Reference No. 3, a memorandum from the City
Planner, reflects the following conclusions for a $100,000 home:
• West Richland: approximately $7,500
• Richland: between $4,700 and $5,600
• Kennewick: approximately $2,100
D) The Pasco cost of approximately $4,200 is clearly lower than all but Kennewick
(which does not have system fees for its utilities).
V. DISCUSSION:
A) While the work of Habitat is certainly commendable, the City Council would be ill
advised to waive or reduce the various "impact fees" associated with construction of
any new home in Pasco. Regardless of the income of the occupants, the home
requires reservation of capacity at the water and sewer plants, the occupants will use
the street network and a neighborhood park must be created. More than half of the
total permit fees are represented by "impact fees" and are all established by
3(a)
ordinance. To the extent those fees are not collected, that share will be added to the
burden of all other ratepayers/taxpayers when capacity improvements are required.
Thus, to reduce or waive those impact fees would amount to a local government
subsidy to one, at the expense of all others. And certainly, such a waiver/reduction
granted to one non-profit entity would necessarily be extended to others, to avoid
claims of"discrimination."
B) Rather than open such a "Pandora's Box," it is recommended that Habitat apply to
agencies that may be able to provide funding for such subsidies, including the state
of Washington, Franklin County (the County has "affordable housing funds") or
even the CDBG program operated by each of the three cities. Funding received (if
any) through these programs would then be used to pay for the impacts of each
house, rather than pretend there is not any impact and rather than pass a hidden
subsidy to other ratepayers/taxpayers.
C) The only portion of the fees that presents a rational opportunity for relief is the
building permits. Unlike the impact fees, the building permit fee is a general fund
revenue to the city. In most cases, the building permit fee exceeds the direct cost of
the inspection services rendered (the balance goes to offset some of the indirect costs
of managing development, such as planning and engineering, etc.). The building
permit fee is based on "construction value" as determined by a table presented within
the IBC (so all projects are measured with the same yardstick). Since Habitat's
program involves substantial donated labor, it may be possible to apply (by policy) a
discount to the construction value, thus reducing the building permit fee. For
example, assuming half the cost of a $100,000 home is for labor, discounting it
would drop the building permit fee from $994 to $644 (a reduction of$350).
D) If Council desires to proceed with any form of relief, general direction should be
provided to staff so that an appropriate resolution can be crafted for consideration at
the next Council workshop meeting.
• ' • Habitat
for Humanity®
AN 1 9 2007
'T'Vi-ci ies
k
Building L
houses,
building
hope
January 18, 2007
Gary Crutchfield
City Manager
City of Pasco
P 0 Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
Re: Being place on the Agenda January 29, 2007
City Council Meeting
Discuss Habitat for Humanity Tri Cities and Building Permits
Dear Mr. Crutchfield,
This letter is to request to be placed on the upcoming agenda. I would like to
discuss with the city Council members the effect of the current building fees and
Habitat for Humanity Tri Cities effort to build simple, decent, affordable housing
for very low income families.
Enclosed for your review is a record of our building permit fees over the past
several years building in Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco.
We would very much appreciate whatever consideration you could give us. We
are able to build homes through volunteers, gifts in kind, and donations — so
every dollar means a lot.
Working in Partnership,
Irt;rP --BCi'ti4d�-'Uv
Theresa Richardson
Executive Director
1.3,.5 17,aWa Avermi,
Rldlland.iNA 49?7l_
051 )fl 2LI
fa>•.(SUco)783-2283
wvw habitat-kp_org
^°i Habitat for Humanity Tri-Cities
01117/07
Accrual Basis Find Report
All Transactions
Type Date Num Name Memo Account Amount
City of Kennewick
Check 12/08/1999 123 City of Kennewick bldg permit 124 East 10th 464.00
Check 05/03/2002 315 City of Kennewick Building Permit 916 S.Elm St.,Kenn(1) 491.00
Check 08/26/2002 361 City of Kennewick Building Permit,Rivera-Plaza Home 928 S.Elm St.,Kenn(2) 754.25
Check 03/05/2003 429 City of Kennewick Building Permit 510 E.9th Place,Kenn(3) 735.50
Check 04/18/2003 2930 City of Kennewick Building Permit 514 E.91h Place,Kenn(4) 816.75
Check 09/19/2003 3149 City of Kennewick Building Permit for 919 S.Gum St. 919 S.Gum,Kennewick(CID) 723.00
Check 0411212005 3993 City of Kennewick Building Permit 921 S.Gum 848.00
Check 08/12/2005 612 City of Kennewick Building Permit 611 E 9th Place 748.00
Check 10118/2005 613 City of Kennewick Building Permit 612 E 9th Place 787.25
Check 12129/2005 613 City of Kennewick Building Permit 615 E 9th Place 785.50
Check 12/29/2005 613 City of Kennewick Building Permit 616 E 9th Place 785.50
Check 08/12/2005 613 City of Kennewick Building Permit 619 E 9th Place 791.75
Total City of Kennewick 8,730.50
City of Pasco
Check 10/1111999 109 City of Pasco Building Permit 431 North Elm 694.25
Check 03/21/2000 152 City of Pasco Building Permit 611 North Elm 722.25
Check 09/22/2004 3655 City of Pasco Building permit 715 S.Sycamore Ave.,Pasco 1,459.54
Check 12128/2006 675 City of Pasco Building Permit-3314 Estella Drive Tierra Vida 48-3314 Estrella 4,244.21
Check 12126/2006 676 City of Pasco Building Permit-605 Cereza Court Tierra Vida 67-605 Cereza Ct. 4,604.30
Total City of Pasco 11,724.55
City of Richland
Check 02110/2004 3345 City of Richland Building Permit 511 Smith,Richland 1,159.25
City of Richland Building Permit 1505 Fries 1,522.65
Check 07/24/2005 4800 City of Richland Building Permit 318 Rossell Ave 547.25
Total City of Richland 3,229.15
TOTAL 23,684.20
Pagel off
Select Permits
Habitat Homes in Pasco
1998 2004 2006
611 Elm 715 Sycamore ** 3314 Estrella 605 Cereza Ct.
Building Permit
Permit Fee 692.75 892.04 999.35 1,290.55
Plan Review Fee 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
State Code Fee 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
Park Development Fee * 528.00 563.00 563.00
Traffic Impact Fee -0- -0- 150.00 150.00
Right-of-Way Permit -0- 10.00 -0- -0-
Utilities
Front Footage (W) -0- -0- -0- -0-
Square Footage (W) -0- -0- 302.64 337.72
System Fee (W) 83.20 -0- 360.00 360.00
Meter(W) 110.00 -0- 175.00 175.00
Front Footage(S) -0- -0- -0- -0-
Square Footage (S) -0- -0- 291.72 325.53
System Fee(S) 100.00 -0- 1,288.00 1,288.00
Tap Fee(S) 50.00 -0- 75.00 75.00
$1,065.45 $1,459.54 $4,234.21 $4,594.30
* No record of park development fee being paid; should have been $200 (increased to $425 in 1999)
** All utility fees pre-paid by subdivider (seller of lot to Habitat)
(W) =Water
(S) = Sewer
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 26, 2007
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Development/Permit Fees
West Richland
West Richland fees vary according to which subdivision a person is
building in. Fees for water & sewer parks, traffic, curb cut (R-O-W)
and building permit for a $100,000 house average $7,625. The
fees for each subdivision are list on the internet and are attached.
• Park fees-- most developments pay $860 a lot
• Traffic impact fees -- most developments pay $390 or more
($465 & $944.35)
• Water fees-- most lots are $2,915 (the cheap ones are
$1,915)
• Sewer-- $2,575 (one subdivision is only $50—must be a
septic tank area)
• Building Permit for a 100,000 house is $998.25 (includes
the $4.50 for the State)
• Plan check fee for SF is 25% of the permit in this case
$248.43
West Richland collects all fees at the time of permitting.
Richland
Richland is a little higher than Pasco for water fees and a little
lower for sewer. For a $100,000 house the fees would be $5,652
• Park fees----typically about $683
• Traffic Fee--- $916.66 (In the impact area-south Richland only)
• Water fees---$1,786
• Sewer fees---$1,269
• Permit fees---$998.25
• Plan Check---0
Kennewick
Kennewick folds their traffic impact fees into the final plat process
so they are not reflected in their permits. Park fees range from
$645 to $1,100. For a $100,000 house the fees would be
$2,117.99.
• Park fees----$645
• Traffic fee --- included in the price of the lot
• Water---$200 (this assumes the developer installed the pipe)
• Sewer-381.24 (this assumes the developer installed the pipe)
• Permit--$891.75
• Plan check--0
- 2 -
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council January 24, 2007
FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1/29/07
SUBJECT: School Sewers
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Letter from PSD Superintendent to City Manager dated 1/2/07
2. Map of subject school sites and sewer system
3. Draft resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1/29: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Pasco School District (PSD) operates two schools within the Pasco urban area
but outside the city's municipal boundaries. Although McLaughlin Middle School
(on Road 88) and Ruth Livingston Elementary (on Road 84) are served by the city's
water system, both must use on-site septic tanks for sewage disposal (both were
constructed at least 20 years ago, long before municipal sewer was even close to the
properties). As both schools experience increased student load (due to the Districts'
obligation to absorb student enrollment associated with the community's
extraordinary residential growth), the on-site septic systems present a constraint for
these two school locations. Without sewer service, the District would have to
purchase additional land and reconstruct/expand the on-site septic system (at each of
the two schools).
B) The city's long standing policy regarding connection to the municipal sewer system
has been to restrict such connections to only those properties within the city
boundary. The fundamental purpose of the policy, of course, is to assure that such
services are available to serve properties that will enhance the city's tax base,
properly management development and to encourage incorporation of lands within
the designated urban growth area. The only exception to the policy has been the rare
circumstance when an unincorporated homeowner septic system fails and the
property is adjacent to city sewer line.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Although the city's sewer connection policy is sound, the circumstances faced by the
District cry for an exception to the rule. The District is a tax supported entity
obligated to serve the increasing population of the Pasco urban area. The city's
sewer system has been extended over the past decade to points within a reasonable
distance of each of the two school sites. If the District were to purchase additional
land and reconstruct the on-site septic systems, the investments in those on-site
systems would prove wasted within the next several years, as sewer is likely to be
extended past the school sites in that timeframe. The school sites themselves are
publicly owned and therefore not on the tax roll; equally important, the
improvements are paid by taxpayers, most of whom are Pasco citizens. Thus,
connection to the city sewer system would appear to be a much more cost effective
use of limited taxpayer dollars. The necessary exception to accommodate that
option, however, should be very carefully and narrowly carved so as not to
undermine the general rule of the policy. A draft resolution expressing the exception
is offered for Council consideration as reference number 3.
3(b)
B) The most practical solution is for the District to extend a shallow pressure line to the
city's existing sewer line at Road 88 and Court Street for McLaughlin and at Road
84 and Court Street for Ruth Livingston (the Road 84 city line is scheduled for
construction in 2007). However, the County will require franchise approval to
authorize installation of the pressure line within the County right-of-way, which
would consume about four months if the District were to acquire it. It may be more
practical, however, for the District to install the line under the terms of the city's
existing franchise agreement with Franklin County, assuming an appropriate
agreement between the District and City can be defined.
NOOL 0184
4'° Pasco School District #1
Ce Z
C. L. Booth Education Service Center• 1215 W. Lewis Street • Pasco,Washington 99301
ESTABLISHED 1885 Saundra L. Hill,Superintendent • (509) 546-2800 • FAX (509) 543-6781
PASCO CITY HALL
FECEIVED
January 2, 2007 JAN 0 8 2007
Gary Crutchfield
CITY
City Manager OFFICE
ER'S
City of Pasco
525 North 3rd Street
Pasco, Washin�,on 99301
Dear Mn. C tchfield:
Pasco School District requests to connect McLoughlin Middle School and Livingston
Elementary School to the City's sewer system. The district must increase enrollment at
each school to accommodate new students brought by the residential growth in the
community. The current septic systems' capacities are inadequate to handle the
additional students that will need to be housed at the schools before the district can build
an additional middle or elementary school. The district's debt capacity, based on
assessed property value, will not be sufficienl to run a bond until about 2110.
Our community has long benefited from the healthy partnership between the school
district and the City. I look forward to working with you to resolve this issue.
Sincerely,
LGGy.G�Asti/�
f aundra L. Hill
Superinte dea.
Equal Opportunity Employer
W
0 1 bi
voa
— — i
11 9s 99 13TO
co
F-
z LS ovoti
An 09 CIV06
IT-
71
0
U 0 1,9 avou
15
-xo
N i�n
OVO?i M
68 z 29 OV08 V,
LLJ
3 :2
LLJ
0 LLJ-—-
0
z
cn
2s 2s W
Sum LLJ
Z
1h 1.41VD
MON Ld(,4
U asp, 41 owe Au?j3H:)
403 M 0
wl 0 LLJ Lj
0 a�-
U
OR VLLJ)D
a:
F- V)
V)
c(n z LLJ V)z
LLJ
c 1 0 zx) X uj
toe: Ih, < CL M
4t
3 V Li
Li
V)Li
N, 0 1O 1 380 St U
Nl roc.vrml-, 0 x
X
D IHVIIMII u
sm—M, ZJ
Ma T O0 OV08
L
?i u
0,
Con
77,
MmKFGiE= —Gig&
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION conditionally authorizing connection of two public
schools outside the city to the municipal sewer system.
WHEREAS, the city has experienced extraordinary residential growth over the past five
years and the Pasco School District is obligated under state law to absorb the enrollment growth
in the delivery of public educational services; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco School District finds it necessary to add student enrollment
capacity at two school sites (McLaughlin Middle School and Ruth Livingston Elementary) which
are presently situated outside the boundaries of the City of Pasco but within its Urban Growth
Area; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco School District desires to connect the subject schools to the city
sewer system now rather than spend additional public funds on site expansion and reconstruction
of the on-site septic systems for the subject schools; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has previously received approval from Franklin County,
under the terms of Franchise Agreement No. 2005-558, two construct and maintain sewer
utilities within county rights-of-way, but the Pasco School District does not currently have such
approval from the County; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary and appropriate, in consideration of the
mutual interests of the taxpayers of the city and District, to conditionally grant an exception from
its long-standing policy that prohibits connection of properties outside the city to the municipal
sewer system; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby authorizes the Pasco School District to connect the
McLaughlin Middle School and Ruth Livingston Elementary School to the municipal sewer
system, provided the following conditions are fulfilled in relation to such connections:
• The sewer connections shall be in the form of a private temporary sewer pipeline
connected to a city sewer line at a point within the city's boundary approved by the
city engineer, at the sole expense of the Pasco School District;
• The District shall pay all standard fees associated with connection to the municipal
sewer system, at the time of connection;
• At such future time as the city sewer system is adjacent the school property, the
District shall install at its cost a standard connection to the adjacent city sewer line
and disconnect the temporary pipeline.
Section 2. The Pasco City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with
the Pasco School District Superintendent whereby the District's temporary line may be installed
within County right-of-way under the authority of the city's franchise agreement with Franklin
County, provided such agreement does not transfer responsibility for the temporary line from the
District to the city.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of 12007.
Joyce Olson,Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sandy Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Pasco School District—Municipal Sewer System
Page 2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City CouJb ' January 17, 2007
TO: Gary Cru Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1/29/07
Regular Mtg.: 2/5/07
FROM: Stan Stre strative and Community
Services r
SUBJECT: Prope rty Line Adjustment
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Record of Survey
B. Quit Claim Deed
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1/29: Discussion
2/5: MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Quit Claim
Deed adjusting the boundary for property on Beech Ave.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Last month Council authorized the sale of two properties on Beech Ave. One
parcel includes the relocated Cemetery house. The other parcel is an adjacent
vacant lot located north of the Cemetery house.
B) During the course of preparing the vacant parcel for sale, it was discovered that
the home to the north of the parcel was encroaching on the City lot by 2 feet and
the fence by 15 feet. (In fact, staff discovered that the next 3 parcels to the north
each have similar incorrect fence lines established.)
C) Staff determined that the most reasonable way to solve the encroachment would
be to have the property line adjusted to include the existing home plus the
minimum side yard setback for the zone (2 feet plus 5 feet) for the encroaching
property. The City parcel will lose only approximately 7 feet as opposed to the
previous 15 foot encroachment. The City parcel will still be buildable.
D) A boundary line adjustment survey has been prepared for recording with the
County. Staff has prepared a Quit Claim Deed to transfer this property to the
adjacent property owner, thus removing any cloud on the owner's title. The fence
has been relocated to the new property line.
F) Staff recommends the Council approve the execution of the deed.
3(c)
4DELIA t�)' 1 . hhuVnll o u n v n i 1v v .
S.W.& N.WA, SEC. 28, T.9 N., R.30 E., W.M.
to 19 CITY OF PASCO,
FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
9 20
8 VT 21
�lj W lr�l• I U ir
O 7 <'04 w 22 v�6 E. LE S5.
y
E. LION 5
W
Z m 6 Z 23 BUTTE ST -
W
o
5 E. 'a' ST.
• 123.80' 20'
1 h�a�rlOy
;Q i z4 .�56 0 zs �� VICINITY SKETCH
NOT TO SCALE
-- -- -------6N
0 26
I P
2 �Al 27
%o m I P PRGE� , 1 ^ 28
o ao F ------------ °
N 10'R-O-W Z
VACATED BY CITY r W
OF PASCO n °,)o FOUND 5/8" BENT
ORDINANCE #3402 Ln o `� REBAR 0.2'S BY 0.2V. FOUND CASED MONUMENT
n•GP' ;'E . °cD O1v S89*56'31'E BRASS CAP 0.44.
30.00 123.91' 0 173. 1'
�M`` LEGEND
o Qdo
Z c O - SET 5/8' REBAR W/ YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
1 >- HARKED "STRATTON 14120'
�
-----, ---�0- - -- -------------
- 0 - FOUND AS INDICATED
40' �O�O�'� G�� o��y (B BASIS BEARING
O - NO FOUND OR SET
QP�` i0� t9 = FOUND CASED L40NUMENT
---------- - OLD BOUNDARY LINES
DESCRIPTION - FENCE j
PARCEL 1 {
LOT 1 AND THE SOUTH 23 FEET OF LOT 2. BLOCK
4. A.M. WEHE'S ADDITION. TOGETHER WITH THE
NORTH HALF OF THE ADJOINING PORTION OF SCALE i" = 40'
QUIT CLAIM DEED
The GRANTORS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a municipal corporation of
the State of Washington, for good and valuable consideration, conveys and quit
claims to VICTOR O. GUTIERREZ, the following described real estate, situated
in the County of Franklin, State of Washington:
The north 7.26 feet of the south 11 feet of Lot 5, Block 4, A. M. Wehe's First
Addition.
TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, COVENANTS,
RESERVATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD AND IN VIEW.
Dated this day of , 2007.
City of Pasco
Gary Crutchfield
City Manager
State of Washington)
) :ss
County of Franklin )
On this day of 2007, before me, the undersigned
Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Gary
Crutchfield, known to me to be the City Manager of the City of Pasco, whose
name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, who acknowledged to me that
he signed same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
WITNESS MY SEAL
Notary Public
Residing at:
Commission Expires:
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council Date: January 24, 2007
TO: Gary Crutchfi ty anager W/Shop Mtg.: 1/29/07
Reg. Mtg.: 2/5/07
FROM: Stan Strebel, Adrrj tive and Community Services Director
SUBJECT: Cemetery Fee Adjustments
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Proposed Ordinance.
B. Cemetery Price Sheet.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1/29: Discussion:
2/5: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending Section 3.07.060
"Cemetery" of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding base fees and
charges for Cemetery services and further, to authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Cemetery Fund.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF;
A) From time to time we find it necessary to recommend fee increases at the
Cemetery in order to continue to maintain funding for the facility and to stay abreast of
market conditions. City Council last adopted revised Cemetery fees in March of 2004.
Market adjustments to certain other fees (not itemized in the City Code) are proposed to
be made by the City Manager (attached) pursuant to authorization granted in the code.
B) Based on market conditions and the cost of purchase of certain retail items
(liners) staff feels that it is necessary to adjust base Cemetery fees for lots, interments
and disinterments at this time. Even with the proposed adjustments, City View prices
will still be below the prices of competitors in the area; Sunset Memorial Gardens and
Columbia Memorial Gardens. Council's approval of the proposed ordinance will
effectuate the proposed adjustments to base fees; the attached Cemetery price sheet
will be implemented, assuming ordinance approval, for other price changes which are
set in relation to the base fees.
3(d)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending
Section 3.07.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding Cemetery Fees.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, has determined
that certain amendments regarding Cemetery Fees are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 3.07.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
3.07.060 CEMETERY: Base fees and charges. (Other fees and charges set
based on market conditions.)
A) Charge for lots exclusive of Fee/Charge Reference
endowment care
1) Baby $220.00 Ord. 3660
230.00
2) Adult and Juvenile $580-09 Ord. 3660
610.00
3) Urn $300.00 Ord. 3660
315.00
4) Urn (on existing grave) $450:09 Ord. 3660
160.00
B) Charge for lots exclusive of endowment care
1) Niche with urn $880.00 Ord. 3660
C) Charges for Burials, Inurnment
1) Baby $220.00 Ord. 3660
400.00
2) Adult and Juvenile $475-00 Ord. 3660
650.00
3) Urn (burial) $450.00 Ord. 3660
250.00
4) Niche (inurnment) $450.00 Ord. 3660
250.00
D) Charges for Disinterment:
1) Baby $220.00 Ord. 3660
400.00
2) Adult and Juvenile $475.00 Ord. 3660
650.00
3) Urn V50.00 Ord. 3660
250.00
4) Niche V60.00 Ord. 3660
250.00
E) Charges for Endowment Care: 30% of cost Ord. 3660
(Ord. 3660, 2004; Ord. 3543,
2002).
Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect on after
its approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this
day of , 2007.
Joyce Olson, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sandy L. Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
City View Cemetery
Base Rates adopted ,2007 as per Ordinance
Effective ,2007.
New Section/Flat Monuments
Adult Urn
Lot $380.00 $610.00 Lot $330.09 $370.00
Endowment Care 1-74.00 183.00 Endowment Care 485.00 111.00
Open and Close 475.00 650.00 Open and Close 130.00 250.00
Liner 500.09 625.00 Liner 11-0.00 140.00
Tax 8.3%(liner only) 4430 51.88 Tax 8.3% 943 11.62
Total $1770.50 $2,119,88 Total $724.-13 $882.62
Urn Old Section/Upright Monument
Lot $390.00 $315.00
Endowment Care 90.00 94.50 Adult
Open and Close 4-5898 250.00 Lot $790.00 $830.00
Liner 110.00 140.00 Endowment Care 237.00 249.00
Tax 8.3% 94-3 11.62 Open and Close 475.00 650.00
Total $659.1 3 $811.12 Liner 500.00 625.00
Tax 8.3%(liner only) 41.50 51.88
New Section/Upright Monument Total $21049.50$2,405.88
Adult Baby
Lot $740.00 $780.00 Lot $220.00 230.00
Endowment Care 222.00 234.00 Endowment Care 66.00 69.00
Open and Close 47508 650.00 Open and Close 220.00 400.00
Liner 500.00 625.00 Liner 175.00 220.00
Tax 8.3%(liner only) 41.59 51.88 Tax 8.3%(liner only) 44.20 18.26
Total $1,9774,54 2 340.88 Total $695.50 $937.26
Old Section/Flat Monuments Urn
Lot $330.00 $370.00
Adult Endowment Care 48500 111.00
Lot $680.00 $715.00 Open and Close 150.00 250.00
Endowment Care 204.00 214.20 Liner 110.00 140.00
Open and Close 475.00 650.00 Tax 8.3% 943 11.62
Liner 500.00 625.00 Total $-724.19 882.62
Tax 8.3%(liner only) 41.50 51.88
Total $1 X900.50$2,256.08 Urn
Add to existing grave $130.00 $160.00
Baby Endowment Care 45.00 48.00
Lot $220.00 $230.00 Open and Close 130.00 250.00
Endowment Care 66.00 69.00 Liner 110.00 140.00
Open and Close 220:80- 400.00 Tax 8.3% 943 11.62
Liner 175.00 220.00 Total $464.13 $609.62
Tax 8.3% (liner only) 448 18.26
Total $695.50 $937.26
Niches - Single Setting permanent memorial
Niche $880.00 Veterans Memorial $150.00 200.00
Endowment Care 264.00 2 x 1 1 50.00 200.00
Inurnment 150.00 250.00 3 x 1 175.00 225.00
Inscription 170.00 4 x 1 18500 240.00
Vase 66.00 5 x 1 195.00 250.00
Tax 8.3% 19.59 6 x 1 2200 300.00
Total $1,549.59$1,649.5
Vases
Niches-Double Perma vase $75.00
Niche $1,144.00 Setting 25.00
Endowment Care 284.00
Inurnment 150.00 250.00 Vaults $750:80 $800.00
Double Inscription 270.00
Final Date 160.00 Inscriptions
2"d Inurnment 150.00 250.00 Niche front inscription(single)$170.00
Vase 66.00 Niche front inscription(double)270.00
Tax 83% 41.17 Niche front inscription
Total $ ,' 2 465.17 (extra wording-per letter)1.55
Niche front inscription (emblem) 65.00
Veterans Lots $550.00 $580.00
Cenotaph Inscriptions
Disinterment Single inscription $215.00
Baby $220:00 400.00 Endowment Care 20.00
Adult and Juvenile 475.00 650.00 Two line inscription 415.00
Urn 150.00 250.00 Endowment Care 30.00
Niche 150.00 250.00 Three line inscription 585.00
(Not including removal of liners or vaults) Endowment Care 40.00
Additional Burial Charges:
Saturday and Monday through Friday before 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. -Q275.00 350.00
Holiday or Sunday-$450 $600.00($24-5:99 $350.00+$259:90 $L50.00 Holiday/Sunday charge)
Overtime Cost-When a service begins after 2:30 p.m.(regardless of the time scheduled)if clean-up duties require
City workers beyond 5:00 p.m.,there will be an additional charge of$50.00 per hour based on costs for the
caretaker and helper.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 12
FOR: City Council Date: January 23, 2007
TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop: 1/29/07
Regular: 2/5/07
FROM: Richard J. Smi , Director
Community & conomic Development
SUBJECT: Amendment to Consortium Agreement for Kennewick, Pasco and
Richland Under the HOME Program
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Resolution
B. Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1/29/07: DISCUSSION
2/5/07 MOTION: I move to authorize Resolution No. amending
the HOME 2005-2007 Cooperative Agreement
between the Cities of Pasco, Kennewick and
Richland and, further authorize the Mayor to sign
the Agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT
Pasco's share of Federal HOME funds in 2006 was $198,304.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Pasco entered into a HOME consortium agreement with Richland
and Kennewick in 1995, making the City eligible for federal HOME
funds. The populations of the individual cities alone did not meet
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
minimum. By joining together in a consortium, funds are available
to the three cities.
B. The original consortium agreement ran from 1995 through 1998.
The cities agreed to enter into a new three-year agreement, as
authorized by HUD, to continue to be eligible for HOME funding
through 2001. Thereafter, the agreement was modified to extend
the agreement to the year 2001-2004 and then 2005-2007. The
City, now uses HOME funds to rehabilitate homes in the vicinity of
Longfellow School and the Franklin County Museum.
V. DISCUSSION:
The changes to the Agreement are as follows:
A. The Agreement will automatically renew every three years unless
one of the Cities objects.
B. The Agreement notes the HUD mandated timing for expenditure of
funds. If for some reason a consortium member cannot meet these
time requirements, a portion of their funds, with their permission,
could be used in another community rather than be returned to
HUD.
3(e)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT TO FORM THE KENNEWICK, PASCO, AND RICHLAND
CORNSORTIUM UNDER THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT AND
EXTENING THE AGREEMENT FROM 2005-2007.
WHEREAS, the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland entered into a cooperative
agreement to form a consortium to increase the local supply of decent affordable housing to low
income residents as authorized by Public Law 101-625, the National Affordable Housing Act of
1990 (NAHA);
WHEREAS, the members of the Consortium extended the agreement three times for an
additional three years each from 1999-2001, 2001-2004, and 2005-2007, NOW THEREORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
That the Mayor is authorized to execute an Amendment to the 2005-2007 Cooperative
Agreement with the Cities of Kennewick and Richland to accomplish the objectives herein
stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of 52007.
Joyce Olson
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
After recording please return to:
City of Richland, Housing and Redevelopment
Attn: Deborah F. Bluher
P.O. Box 190, MS 20
Richland, WA 99352
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT #1 TO
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THE TRI-CITIES HOME CONSORTIUM
FORMED UNDER THE
NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT
PROGRAM YEAR 2005-2007
This agreement is entered into between the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and
Richland, municipal corporations of the State of Washington (Members), for the purpose
of amending -the Cooperative Agreement of the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium originally
formed in 1996 under the HOME Investments Partnership (HOME) Program. This
Agreement will become effective upon adoption of the parties and approval by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The following sections are hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS
e. This amendment provides for automatic renewals of participation in
successive three-year qualification periods in perpetuity by the date specified
in HUD's consortia designation notices or listed on HOME's Consortia web
page. The Representative Member will notify each consortium member in
writing of its right to not participate for the successive three-year qualification
period, with a copy of the notification forwarded to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development field office. Each member that does not
intend to participate in the next qualification period with the consortium must
submit written notification to the Representative Member within 30 days of
request. The Representative Member will provide copies of these
communications to its HUD Field Office to provide notification of any change
in consortium membership.
This automatic renewal provision requires all Members of the Consortium to
formally adopt by Council resolution any amendments to the agreement that
incorporate future changes necessary to meet the requirements for consortia
agreements in subsequent qualification periods.
SECTION 4: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
f. Any HOME funds set aside for a Member and not committed to a project
within 24 months, or expended within 48 months of the award of HOME
funds to the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium, will be made available to
projects of the remaining members, with the written consent of reallocation
by the affected Member. Monies not spent after 48 months must be
expended during a 12 month time period. Members are aware that after
24 months if funds are not committed to a project, or after 60 months if
1
funds have not been spent on a project, that HUD will recapture the funds.
Such a recapture will reduce the availability of funds for that individual
member by the amount determined by HUD to be in non-compliance.
Upon execution of this document by the entities involved and approval by HUD, this
document shall be recorded with the Benton and Franklin County Auditors for purposes
of meeting the recording requirements of RCW 39.34 Interlocal Cooperation Act. The
cost of said recording shall be paid from administrative funds of the HOME program.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT SIGNATURE PAGE
THE TRI-CITIES HOME CONSORTIUM
Bob Harnmond, City of Kennewick Date
Gary Crutchfield, City of Pasco Date
John C. Darrington, City of Richland Date
2
AGENDA REPORT NO. 03
FOR: City Council January 19, 2007
TO: Gary Crutchfi i Manager Workshop: January 29, 2007
Regular: February 5, 2007
FROM: Robert J. Alberts,Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Dedication of Right-of-Way of Industrial Way
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Statutory Warranty Deed
2. Vicinity Map
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
01/29/07: Discussion
02/05/07: MOTION: I move to approve the Dedication from Kimo & Tondi
L. Vonoelhoffen and acceptance of Right-of-Way on Industrial Way.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Staff has prepared a Statutory Warranty Deed dedicating Right-of-Way for
Industrial Way to the City. The Dedication is from the property owners Kimo &
Tondi L. Vonoelhoffen. In 2006, Industrial Way was extended south to Kartchner
Street. The improvement provides a frontage road parallel to SR 395 and was
constructed in accordance with applicable city standards.
Staff recommends formal acceptance of the Right-of-Way.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING
Project File
3(fi)
After Recording,Return To:
City of Pasco, Washington
Engineering Division
525 North 3`d
Pasco, WA 99301
STATUTARY WARRANTY DEED
Tax Parcel No. 118-322-039
THE GRANTOR(S),Kimo&Tondi L Vonoelhoffen,husband and wife,for
good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
dedicates, conveys and warrants to the GRANTEE, THE CITY OF PASCO, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, the following described real
estate, for the public use, as a public right-of-way, including the installation of
utilities, all interest in the land described in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and by this
reference is made a part thereof, situated in the County of Franklin, State of
Washington.
TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, COVENANTS,
RESERVATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS APPARENT OR OF RECORD.
DATED this cifty of >r f6x!.e , 2007.
By:jzL e__.....
,Vonoell}pff d; j r°
Tondi L Vonoelhoffen
Dedication Deed-Vonoelhoffen-Industrial Way 010907.doc
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
. ss.
County of )
On this ; 2007, before me,the undersigned,
_ Y o � g
duly commissioned and swo , rsonally a eared Kimo and Tondi Vonoelhoffen,
to me known to be individual(s) described above and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument as owner(s)of record,and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
signed the same and his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are authorized to
execute the said i
ml
� a ,
;N in and for t e State of Washington
� ;�Residing at:
" 3= loy Commission Expires: ,
&/dx3 N°` yy -
,;, �71W •d
ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION
The City Council of the City of Pasco,Washington,accepted the conveyance
and dedication made out in this Dedication Deed at their regular meeting on
,2007,as reflected in the official minutes of the City Council.
Accepted by the City of Pasco:
By:
Print Name: Debra L Clark
Title: City Clerk
Date:
Dedication Deed-Vonoelholfen-Industrial Way 010907.doc
Exhibit 1
Description of Right-of-Way Dedication to the City of Pasco by Kimo & Tondi L
Vonoelhoffen for the southerly extension of Industrial Way.
A strip of land, 80 feet in width, being a portion of the Northwest
quarter of Section 17, Township 9 North, Range 30 East, W.M., City
of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, said strip of land lies 40 feet
either side of the following described centerline:
Commencing at the intersection of Jason Avenue and Hillsboro
Street as shown on the plat of Kartchner Industrial Park as on record
with Franklin County in Volume D of Plats, Page 91; thence North
1'07'53"East along the centerline of Jason Avenue 907.21 feet to a
cased monument at the beginning of a curve to the left on said Jason
Avenue; thence continuing North 1°7'53"East 352.67 feet to a point
on the Northerly boundary of said plat, said point being the true
beginning of said centerline and said strip of land;
Thence continuing North 1°7'53" East 1425.60 feet to a point on the
northerly section line of said Section 17, and point being the end of
said centerline and strip of land.
Together with and subject to easements, covenants,
reservations and restrictions of record and in view.
Dedication Deed-Vonoelhoffen-Industrial Way 010407.doc
e �
K A T N
O \ MOV9T,t1 AL PA(tK
I;isr
1 —T
VICINITY MAP
Item:Statutory Warranty Deed
Industrial Way Right-of-Way
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 24, 2007
TO: Gary Crutch Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1/29/07
Regular Mtg.: 2/5/07
FROM Gregory L. Ga cia, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Washington State Rating Bureau
I. REFERENCE(S):
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1/29 Discussion
2/5 MOTION: I move to authorize the Mayor to request the Washington State Rating
Bureau re-grade the City of Pasco in 2007 for fire insurance purposes.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Washington State Surveying and Rating Bureau (WSRB) has been in operation
since 1905. The WSRB is funded by an annual assessment from their subscribers,
(insurance companies) based on premiums written in Washington State.
B) The insurance classification rating is one of the factors used in the development of
fire insurance rates, as it essentially indicates the relative capability of the local fire
department to avoid and suppress fire-related damage claims.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The rating schedule uses a grade range of Class 1 to Class 10, Class 1 being the best
and Class 10 the worst; there is no fire department in the State of Washington that is
rated Class 1. The last time the WSRB graded the City of Pasco was in 1992 and the
City received a very weak grade of"Class 5" (which is in the middle of the grading
schedule). Richland is a Class "Y' and Kennewick is a Class "4"
B) A consultant employed by the department last year reviewed the same information
the WSRB does and found that the City has dramatically improved its fire service
capabilities and water system since 1992. The consultant indicated that the City
could possibly improve its rating to a"Class 4."
C) Staff recommends the WSRB be invited to re-grade Pasco in April 2007.
3(9)