Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.03.05 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. March 5, 2007 1. CALL, TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated February 20,2007. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) 1. To approve General Claims in the amount of$1,231,942.86($89,809.44 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 4697 and 4700 and, $1,142,133.42 consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 159178 through 159382). 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $2,135,524.46, Voucher Nos. 35840 through 35992;and EFT Deposit Nos. 30015049 through 30015529. (c) Aquatic Facilities Planning: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated February 20, 2007. 2. Proposed Agreement. To approve the professional services agreement with ORB Architects and, further, to authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. (d) Appeal of Storm Water Rules: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated February 20,2007. 2. Proposed Interlocal Agreement. To approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Bellevue and others to appeal the State of Washington Storm Water Management Rules and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. *(e) Golf Course Lease Committee: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated March 1, 2007. To concur in the Mayor's appointment of the following members of an ad-hoc committee to advise the City Council regarding proposed amendments to the golf course lease: Councilmember Mike Garrison and Park Board Members Duane Taber and Steve Putnam. (f) Resolution No. 3012,a Resolution authorizing the sale of Administrative &Community Services and Police Department miscellaneous personal property and equipment surplus to city needs. 1. Agenda Report from Debbie Clark,City Clerk dated February 16, 2007. 2. Memorandum —department requests to surplus miscellaneous property. 3. Proposed Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 3012,authorizing the sale of Administrative and Community Services Department and Police Department miscellaneous personal property surplus to city needs. (g) Resolution No. 3013, a Resolution authorizing the sale of seized/asset forfeiture property surplus to city needs. 1. Agenda Report from Debbie Clark, City Clerk dated February 17,2007. 2. Memorandum from David Renzelman, Crime Specialist/Evidence Technician. 3. Proposed Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 3013, authorizing the sale of seized/asset forfeiture property considered surplus to city needs. *(h) Resolution No. 3014, a Resolution accepting work by MP Construction, Inc., under contract for the Police Locker Room Remodel Project. 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated February 28, 2007. 2. Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 3014, accepting the work performed by MP Construction, Inc., under contract for the Police Locker Room Remodel Project. Regular Meeting 2 March 5, 2007 *(i) Resolution No. 3015, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of Road 92. 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated February 27, 2007. 2. Proposed Resolution and Vicinity Map. 3. Vacation Petition. To approve Resolution No. 3015, fixing 7:00 p.m., April 2, 2007 as the time and date for a public hearing to consider the proposed vacation. (RQ MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) (b) (c) 5. VISITORS-OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers. (b) (c) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO; (None) 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Chapter 5.25 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Special Events Permit." 1. Agenda Report from Debbie Clark,City Clerk dated February 17,2007. 2. Proposed Ordinance. MOTION: 1 move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 5.25 regarding Special Events and,further,to authorize publication by summary only. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Annexation: City/County Boundary Adjustments (MF#ANX07-001): 1, Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated February 27, 2007. 2. InterlocaI Cooperation Agreement. MOTION: I move to approve the City/County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for revision of the Corporate Boundaries of the City and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement. Q*(b) Special Permit: Farming in a RT Zone (north of Harris Road and West Broadmoor Blvd.) (MF#SP06-015): 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated February 27, 2007. 2. Report to Planning Commission. 3. Planning Commission Minutes: dated 1/18/07&2/15/07. MOTION A: (Not Recommended) I move to approve the special permit for the location of a farm on the Adams property as recommended by the Planning Commission. MOTION B: (Recommended) I move to set 7:00 p.m., April 2, 2007 as the time and date for a closed record hearing to consider the Planning Commission recommendation for a farm in a RT zone under Master File#SP06-015. Regular Meeting 3 March 5, 2007 *(c) Office and Locker Room Expansion, Phase II, Project No. 07-1-02: 1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated February 27, 2007. (RC) MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the Office & Locker Room Expansion, Phase II, Project No. 07-1-02 to Booth & Sons Construction, Inc., in the amount of$114,116.48 including applicable sales tax and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. *(d) TPA Budget Amendment: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated March 2, 2007, 2. Letter from VCB President to City Manager dated 2/26/67. 3. TPA Budget, 2007, with proposed changes. MOTION: I move to approve the $60,000 increase in the 2007 TPA budget for TPA staff salaries and, further, direct that the increased expenditure be included in the year-end supplemental budget. *(c) TPA Budget Amendment for Advertising Campaign: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated March 2,2007. 2. Letter from VCB President to City Manager dated 3/l/07. 3. TPA Budget, 2007,with proposed changes. MOTION: I move to approve the TPA budget increase of$60,000 for wine and golf leisure travel advertising campaign and, further, direct that it be included in the year-end supplemental budget. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: *(a) For discussion only, no action — Ordinance Amending PMC for Disposition of Unclaimed Animals: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated February 27, 2007. 2. Proposed Ordinance. 3. Letter from ACA Management Committee. *(b) For discussion only, no action — Amendment to InterlocaI Cooperative Agreement for Animal Control, Designation of City of Pasco as Operating Jurisdiction: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated February 27, 2007. 2. Proposed Amendment No. 1 to lnterlocal Cooperative Agreement. 3. Proposed Operating Jurisdiction Agreement. t2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed MF# "Master File#...... Q Quasi-Judicial Matter REMINDERS: 1. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, 1135 E. Hillsboro Street — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.;JOE JACKSON, Alt.) 2. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, Richland Community Center — Ben-Franklin Transit's 02 Diesel Announcement Event. (MAYOR JOYCE OLSON and COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS) 3. 8:00 a.m., Thursday, March 8, Pasco Red Lion — Three-Rivers Community Roundtable. (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND) 4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, March 8, Transit Facility — Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS, Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.) 5. 7:00 a.m., Friday, March R, Pasco iHOP (date and location change) — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; JOE JACKSON, Alt.) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 20, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Joyce Olson, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Michael Garrison, Joe Jackson, Joyce Olson, and Matt Watkins. Absent: Tom Larsen, Rebecca Francik, and Robert Hoffmann. Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director; Richard Smith, Community & Economic Dev. Director; Bob Alberts, Public Works Director; David McDonald, City Planner; Doug Bramlette, City Engineer and Greg Garcia, Fire Chief. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated February 5, 2007. (b) Bills and Communications: To approve General Claims in the amount of$304,644.31 ($304,644.31 consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 158948 through 158976). (2006 EXPENSES) To approve General Claims in the amount of$805,340.23 ($84,090.41 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 4689 and 4695 and, $153,089.95 consisting of Claim Warrant numbered 158947 and $721,249.82 consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 158977 through 159177). (2007 EXPENSES) To approve bad debt write-offs for utility billing, ambulance, miscellaneous, cemetery, code enforcement and Municipal Court non-criminal, criminal and parking accounts receivable in the total amount of$246,087.47 and, of that amount, authorize $177,172.08 be turned over for collection. (c) Public Participation Plan (CPA06-002): To approve the Public Participation Plan to be utilized in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update. (d) Final Plat: Mediterranean Villas Phase 4 (Fortunate, Inc.) (MF#FP06-009): To approve the final plat for Mediterranean Villas Phase 4. (e) Resolution No. 3009, a Resolution authorizing the sale of seized/asset forfeiture property surplus to City needs. To approve Resolution No. 3009, authorizing the sale of four Police Department seizure/forfeiture vehicles that are considered surplus property to City needs. (f) Resolution No. 3010, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of East "B" Street. To approve Resolution No. 3010, fixing 7:00 p.m., March 19, 2007 as the time and date for a public hearing to consider the proposed vacation. (g) Resolution No. 3011, a Resolution accepting work performed by Sharpe& Preszler, Inc., under contract for the Road A/C Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 06-2-03. 1 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 20, 2007 To approve Resolution No. 3011, accepting the work performed by Sharpe & Preszler, Inc., under contract for the A/C Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 06-2-03. MOTION: Mr. Watkins moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Watkins, Ms. Francik and Mr. Crutchfield attended the AWC City Legislative Action Conference. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ordinance No.3820, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Section 2.46 entitled "Sale of City Property" of the Pasco Municipal Code. MOTION: Mr. Watkins moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3820, amending Chapter 2.46 of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding Sale of City Property and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 3821, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, relating to traffic impacts on City streets and the need for utilities and amending Title 12 of the Pasco Municipal Code to include provisions for concurrency. MOTION: Mr. Watkins moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3821, creating provisions for transportation and utility concurrency review and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Award Road 34 to "A" Street Water Line, Project No. 05-2-03: MOTION: Mr. Watkins moved to award the low bid excluding Alternate A for the Road 34 to"A" Street Water Line, Project No. 05-2-03 to Sharpe & Preszler, Inc., in the amount of$1,047,715.61 including applicable sales tax and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Mr. Watkins thanked staff for the excellent work on the 2006 Annual Report. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Joyce Olson, Mayor Sandy Kenworthy,Deputy City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 5th day of March, 2007. 2 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: March 5,2007 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington We,the unde i ned,do h y ce ify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished,the services ren erpd or th abor perfo ed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation a st the ity and that a are utbnrized to authenticate and certify to said 0110 Gary Crut field, City rage James W.; se, Finance Manager We,the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington, do hereby certify that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received;that Wire Transfer No.s 4697 and 4700 in the amount of$89,809.44, have been authorized;that Check No.s 159178 through 159382 are approved for payment in the amount of$1,142,133.42,for a combined total of 1,231,942.86 on this 5th day of March,2007. Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS/WIRE TRANSFERS BY FUND: GENERALFUND: Legislative 740.66 Judicial 2,666.74 Executive 1,309.64 Police 170,456.80 Fire 9,952.36 Administration &Community Services 45,963.03 Community Development 43,043.57 Engineering 4,026.61 Non-Departmental 148,490.03 Library 69,536.08 TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 516,185,52 STREET 45,832.47 C. D,BLOCK GRANT 35,231.77 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 3,647.34 AMBULANCE SERVICE 1,357.50 CEMETERY 5,921.16 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 5,270.43 SENIOR CENTER 3,620.73 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 1,357.29 RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 131.19 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 10,321.08 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 2,214.60 PARKS FUND 0.00 TRAC DEVELOPMENT 12,500.00 STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER 6,068.44 SUN WILLOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 0.00 METRO DRUG TASK FORCE 0.00 METRO DRUG FORFEITURE FUND 442.85 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 10,564.89 WATER/SEW ER 365,915.12 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING 13,023.94 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT 0.00 MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE 119,394.31 CENTRAL STORES 4,325.72 FIRE PENSIONS 7,752,99 PAYROLL CLEARING 34,284.92 PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 26,378.60 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 1,231,942.86 3(b).1 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of; Payroll Approval March 5,2007 The City Council City of Pasco Franklin County, Washington The fo ing is a summary of payroll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of February 2 V hich ar ted herewith for your review and approval. Gr D. u d, Ci Manager James W. Ve,Financial Services Manager We,the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received and that payroll voucher No's. 35840 through 35992 and EFT deposit No's. 30015049 through 30015529 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of$2,135,524.46 are approved for payment on this 5th day of March 2007. Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND GENERAL FUND: Legislative $ 6,153.22 Judicial 57,915.81 Executive 52,478.15 Police 1,055,511.09 Fire 232,975.64 Administrative& Community Services 187,656.01 Community Development 50,510.75 Engineering 79,941.52 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,723,142.19 CITY STREET 32,445.71 BLOCK GRANT 6,742.16 MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER 4,826.36 AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND 104,409.73 CEMETERY 8,056.06 ATHLETIC FUND 4,167.35 SENIOR CENTER 10,403.29 STADIUM OPERATIONS 0.00 MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 344.90 BOAT BASIN 295.04 REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 0.00 TASK FORCE 8,412.64 WATER/SEWER 210,591.92 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING 21,687.11 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 2,135,524.46 Payroll Summary Net Payroll 1,108,920.26 Employee Deductions 667,114.95 Gross Payroll 1,776,035.21 City of Pasco Contributions 359,489.25 Total Payroll $ 2,135,524.46 3(b).2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 20, 2007 TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 2/26/07 Regular Mtg.: 3/5/07 FROM: Stan Strebel,.A �'nisstrative and Community Services Dirac SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement for Aquatic Facilities Planning I. REFERENCE(S): A. Proposed Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 2/26: Discussion 3/5: MOTION: I move to approve the professional services agreement with ORB Architects and to authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $7,100, General Fund Budget Supplement necessary. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Last summer, staff introduced a proposal, to demolish one of the smaller neighborhood swimming pools and replace it with a sprayground, for inclusion in the City's 6 year Capital Budget. The difficulty of maintaining our aging pools in safe and reasonable operating condition, without significant expenditures for updating or replacement, was the primary focus of staff's concern. B) The City Council asked that the Park and Recreation Advisory Council provide a recommendation on the proposal. The Advisory Council recommended that Richardson Pool be demolished and that Kurtzman Pool be renovated and that Memorial Pool be renovated and covered for year round use. C) Upon receipt of the recommendation from the Advisory Council, City Council directed staff to develop a proposal for further consideration. D) Staff has had the opportunity to meet with ORB Architects, a consultant firm with considerable expertise in the planning, construction and operation of aquatic facilities, and which firm prepared the City's Aquatic Facility Feasibility Study in 2001. Together with the consultant we have prepared a priced scope of work in which the consultant will: 1) Provide capital and operating cost estimates for the renovation of Memorial Pool as a year round facility. 2) Provide capital and operating cost estimates for replacement of Kurtzman Pool with an indoor,25 yard pool. 3) Provide updated cost estimates for the renovation of Memorial Pool and Kurtzman Pool as outdoor summer facilities (as previously provided in the 2001 planning study)and 4) Provide cost estimates for the replacement of Richardson Pool with a sprayground. Staff believes that the work outlined in the proposed study will enable the City to make decisions on the most reasonable project(s)to consider at this time. E) The proposed cost of the study is approximately$7,100. The work can be completed by April, allowing ample time to consider alternatives prior to discussion on the 2008 Capital Budget. Staff recommends approval of the proposed agreement. 3(c) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Pasco, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and ORB Architects,hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to perform a planning study for aquatic facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to complete the work as outlined in the scope of services entitled "Pasco Feasibility Study" that is dated February 20, 2007, and marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost, if the Agreement is terminated through default by the Consultant. If the Agreement is terminated through convenience by the City, the City agrees to pay Consultant for the preparation of the summary of work done. 3. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit A (4 pages, attached), provided, in no event shall the payment for all work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $7,100.00 without prior authorization of the City. ORB Architects, Aquatic Facilities Planning Study 1 B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City monthly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 4. Time of performance, The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly and deliver the work product by April 2, 2007, provided that the City gives authorization to proceed by March 6, 2007. 5. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, the Consultant agrees to defend the City, their officers, agents, servants and employees (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as "Indemnities"), from all suits, claims, demands, actions or proceedings, and to the extent permissible by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnities from A. All damages or liability of any character including in part costs, expenses and attorney fees, based upon, any negligent act, error, or omission of Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, and arising out of the performance of professional services under this Agreement; and B. All liability, loss, damage, claims, demands, costs and expenses of whatsoever nature, including in part, court costs and attorney fees, based upon, or alleged to be based upon, any act, omission, or occurrence of the Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, arising out of, in connection with, resulting from or caused by the performance or failure of performance of any work or services other than professional services under this Agreement, or from conditions created by the Consultant in the performance or non-performance of said work or service, regardless of whether or not caused in part by the party indemnified hereunder. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to this contract a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $500,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; $500,000 per occurrence and aggregate for property damage; and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. Such general liability policies shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. The City shall be named as the certificate holder on the general liability insurance. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen(15) days of execution of this Agreement. ORB Architects, Aquatic Facilities Planning Study 2 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and sub-consultants during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10)days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. General Provisions. For the purpose of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement, breach or interpretation of this Agreement, venue shall be placed in Franklin County, Washington, the laws of the State of Washington shall apply, and the prevailing parties shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 12. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and the Consultant's proposal attached hereto. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 13. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 14. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 15. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. ORB Architects, Aquatic Facilities Planning Study 3 16. Notices. Notices to the City of Pasco shall be sent to the following address: CITY OF PASCO P. O. BOX 293 PASCO, WA 99301 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Robert W. Bignoid ORB Architects 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210 Renton, WA 98055 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U. S. mails,with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF ,2007 CITY OF PASCO CONSULTANT: ORB Arcbitects By: By: City Manager Title: ORB Architects, Aquatic Facilities Planning Study 4 Exhibit A o-r•b architects February 20, 2007 Attention Paul Whitemarsh Park and Recreation Director City of Pasco Reference: Provide updated construction and operating cost for various Swimming pool Options to the City of Pasco Proposed Scope of work: It is our understanding that the Park Board would like to renovate and enclose your existing Memorial Pool, renovate Kurtzman, and replace Richardson pool with an outdoor spray park. The enclosure of a large 50-meter pool like Memorial not only represents a large capital cost but could also impose a large annual operating deficit on the city. For this reason we are suggesting that it would be a prudent course of action to provide the city with the following estimated capital and operating costs to provide the city with the information required to make a prudent decision: 1. Renovate Memorial Pool as a fifty meter indoor pool to meet the winter swimming demand. Provide an outline sketch and area of magnitude cost estimate for both the first capital cost and the annual operating pro-forma. 2. Provide a new smaller 25 —yard Indoor Pool at the Kurtzman Pool to serve the Pasco winter swimming demand. Provide an outline sketch and area of magnitude cost estimate to construct a new 25 yard indoor pool. Also provide the city with an outline sketch and area of magnitude cost estimate to include small shallow water zero depth pool in this facility to increase indoor pool usage. This option would give the City of Pasco Park Board and City council the information required to make a good preliminary decision. Provide an outline sketch and area of magnitude cost estimate for both the first capital cost and the annual operating pro-forma. Page 1 of 2 It is also the purpose of this study effort to update the costs of the projects included in the 2001 planning report as follows: A) Renovate Memorial pool as a fifty-meter outdoor pool to meet the large summer swimming demand as previously outlined in the 2001 planning study. B) Renovate Kurtzman pool and bathhouse as previously planned in 2001 planning study. C) Replace Richardson pool with a water spray-ground and renovate the existing Richardson pool bathhouse to provide park storage and the restroom facilities required for a water spray park. The Cost to accomplish the above scope of work is estimated at $7000.00 See attached fee estimate. Paul, I will be out of the Office next week, if you have any questions concerning either the scope or the fee call Rick Charbonneau. Sincerely, Bob Bignold Page 2of2 PASCO FEASI BI U TY STUDY 2121/2007 RWIHrOR9 PROPOSED HOURLY BREAKDOWN PRI N. ARCH DRAFT TYPI ST Renovate and Enclose Flfty Meter Pool Prepare Outline Sketch 1 8 Prepare Area of Magnitude Construction Cost Estlmalo 4 Estimate Annual numbor of Swims 4 Prepare Preliminary Pool Operating Proforma 4 SUBTOTAL 9 12 0 0 Construct New Twenty-five Yard I ndoor Pool Prepare Outline Sketch 8 Prepare Area of Magnitude Constructlon Cost Estimate 6 Estimate Annual number of Swims 2 Pr are Prdimlnwy fool Operating Proforma 4 SUBTOTAL 6 14 0 0 Construct New 25 yard pool with Small Leisure Pool Prepare Cuttine Sketch 1 4 Prepare Area of Magnitude Construction Cost rstlmate 4 Estimate Annual number of Swims 2 Prepare Preliminary Pool Operating Proforma 4 SUBTOTAL 7 8 0 0 Estlmates to Renovate Memorial Pool as an Outdoor Pool Escalate Area of Magnitude Estimate to Renovate Memorial Pool 2 Escalate Area of Magnnude Estimate to Renovate Kurtzman Pool 2 Area of Magnitude to Replace Richardson Pool with a Spray Park 4 SUBTOTAL 0 6 0 0 TOTAL HOURS 22 42 0 0 ARCHITECTURAL g, LANNI (1zi1Q>�P :H7�r+Ak _,r HOUFIS RATE WJ OFH TOTAL PRINCIPAL 22 $125.00 $2,750 ARCHITECT and Cost Estimator 42 $102.00 $4,284 DRAFTER 0 $71.00 $0 TYPIST 0 $70.00 $0.. TOTAL FEA-SIBILITYSTUDY FEE $7,034 Page t of 1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council February 20,2007 FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 2/26/07 Regular Mtg.: 3/5/07 SUBJECT: Appeal of Storm Water Rules I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Interlocal Agreement 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 2/26: Discussion 3/5: MOTION: I move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Bellevue and others to appeal the State of Washington Storm Water Management Rules and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Less than $11,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Federal Clean Water Act was amended several years ago by Congress to require management of storm water, with the intent to reduce the level of pollution ultimately sent to rivers and oceans, largely from urban areas (pavement and roof tops). The federal law provided several years of preparation and time for states to implement the new requirements, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. B) The Washington State Department of Ecology has developed its state-wide rules to implement the NPDES Phase II Program for management of storm water and declared the rules effective January 16, 2007 (any objection to the rules must be filed within 30 days, or February 16, 2007). While the rules were generally developed to respond to many of the concerns voiced by cities, certain portions of the new rules present significant concern to cities either through extraordinary cost burdens or liability exposures. C) A group of more than 20 cities has initiated an appeal of Ecology's storm water rules and has invited other cities to join the effort via interlocal agreement(attached). V. DISCUSSION: A) The new storm water rules include requirements which would apply to redevelopment of urban areas (i.e., downtowns and other older areas generally without contemporary storm water systems) which would likely make redevelopment cost-prohibitive, thus indirectly defeating a common urban goal of revitalizing older urban areas. In other cases, cost impositions associated with compliance may invite lawsuits from property owners for effectively making their property too expensive to be developed. There remains some question about the level of regulation imposed in relation to the Federal Clean Water Act requirements. The collective cities' effort to cause changes to the storm water rules may well be beneficial to the City of Pasco and its landowners, so as to assure the storm water management rules do not effectively override other valid urban development programs. B) The interlocal agreement offered by the cities' group provides for a maximum cost of about $11,000/per city. Any increase in cost must be first approved by all participating cities (or an individual city can drop out before incurring additional costs). A city can terminate at any time, with 90 days written notice. C) Per the most recent discussion with representatives of the group of cities, the number of participating cities now exceeds 25 and the maximum cost is dropping closer to $10,000. It is expected that Kennewick and Richland will likewise participate in the appeal effort. Staff recommends Council determine whether or not Pasco will participate. 3(d) INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ANACORTES, AUBURN,BELLEVUE,BREMERTON,BURIEN, BURLINGTON, CAMAS,CLYDE HILL, ELLENSBURG. FEDERAL WAY, KENNEWICK, KENT, LONGVIEW, MARYSVILLE, NORMANDY PARK,ORTING, PACIFIC, PASCO, PORT ANGELES, POULSBO, PUYALLUP, RENTON,SUMNER,TUKWILA, UNIVERSITY PLACE AND VANCOUVER REGARDING LEGAL SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT("Agreement")is entered into between the Cities of Anacortes,Auburn, Bellevue, Bremerton, Burien, Burlington, Camas,Clyde Hill, Ellensburg, Federal Way, Kennewick, Kent, Longview, Marysville, Normandy Park,Orting, Pacific, Pasco, Port Angeles, Poulsbo, Puyallup, Renton,Sumner, Tukwila , University Place,Vancouver, and any other cities that laterjoin this Agreement (collectively,"Cities"). RECITALS 1. The Cities are public agencies as defined by Ch.39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, and may enter into interlocal agreements on the basis of mutual advantage to provide services and facilities in the manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic,economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities. 2. The Phase li National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is required under provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and requires Cities in Washington to develop and maintain storm water programs. The Department of Ecology(DOE) has adopted standards(DOE Standards)purportedly under the NPDES Permit authority that may impose costly burdens on landowners, including Cities and may also cause costly legal challenges to Cities as a result of enforcing DOE Standards. 3, The potential impact of the DOE Standards on Cities and property owners is so significant and far-reaching, Cities are joining together to explore all legal and other avenues available to challenge the DOE Standards including but not limited to filing an appeal with the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The appeal deadline is February 16, 2007,the effective date of the DOE Standards. Cities wish to retain outside counsel(Counsel)to represent the Cities in said legal challenge(s)and wish to collectively pay Counsel as further set forth below. 4. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions contained herein,the Cities agree as follows: NPDES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Page 1 of 12 AGREEMENT 1. Purpose: It is the purpose of this Agreement to have Cities collectively pay for the legal services of Foster Pepper PLLC(Legal Services)to represent the Cities' interests in any legal challenges to the NPDES Phase II permits(Litigation). 2. Duration: This Agreement shall be effective February 2007, irrespective of the date Cities execute this Agreement. Unless terminated by any party in accordance with Paragraph 5, Termination,the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect through conclusion of the Legal Services either through settlement of the dispute with the State of Washington, Pollution Control Hearings Board order, court order or other court disposition by the highest court authorized to hear an appeal of this matter,and/or other mutual resolution of the legal challenge or Legal Services as agreed to among Cities as provided in Paragraph 5.2 of this Agreement. 3. Administration: Cities shall enter into a Joint Prosecution Agreement for the administration of the Legal Services and Litigation. Said Joint Prosecution Agreement shall include, but need not be limited to,a confidentiality agreement, establishing a structure for the administration and oversight of the Legal Services and Litigation that is efficient and effective given the number of Cities who are parties to this Agreement, including oversight of the legal costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement and any other subjects necessary or appropriate to the administration of the Legal Services and prosecution of the Litigation, if this Agreement is effective prior to finalizing the Joint Prosecution Agreement, Cities authorize the City of Bellevue to be Lead Agency to do all things necessary and/or appropriate to pursue the Litigation on behalf of Cities including but not limited entering into an agreement for Legal Services as contemplated herein. 4. Payment: 4.1 The Legal Services'fees and costs shall be shared equally by all Cities regardless of a City's population or any other factor distinguishing it from another City. This obligation shall continue through conclusion of the Legal Services as provided in Paragraph 2 above, unless City terminates its participation in this Agreement as provided in Paragraph 5. Cities hereby authorize said fees and costs up to a total of$275,000. Additional fees and/or costs may be approved by written amendment to this Agreement by Cities. 4.2 The provider of Legal Services shall provide a monthly bill of its fees and costs to Bellevue. Bellevue shall timely pay the bill on behalf of Cities. Within 15 days of approval of this Agreement,each City shall remit its proportionate share of the fees and costs to the City of Bellevue. Bellevue shall place these funds into an interest-bearing account,with any interest derived from these funds to be NPDES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Page 2 of 12 applied to the costs of the provider of Legal Services. At the time of drafting of this Agreement 23 Cities have committed to joining this appeal;therefore the proportionate share of each City is$11,957.00. In the event Bellevue must take legal action to collect any amount due from a City or Cities, Bellevue shall be entitled to recover all costs for said action including reasonable attorney's fees. 4.3 In the event additional Cities join this Agreement,the proportionate share of each City shall be reduced accordingly. In the event fewer Cities participate in this Agreement or terminate their participation,the proportionate share of each remaining participating city shall increase accordingly. 4.4 While it is recognized that some Cities may not be able to sign this Agreement before February 16,2007,it is agreed that the Cities will benefit from the Legal Services provided herein. Therefore, it is presumed that a City which enters and signs this Agreement agrees to pay for Legal Services performed as of ,January 31, 2007, regardless of the date of signing. Adjustments to amounts previously billed and received by Bellevue due to later joining Cities will be reconciled on a semi annual basis. 5. Termination: 5.1 Termination by Notice: Any participating City may terminate its participation in this Agreement by providing at least three months prior written notice to all other participating Cities. The terminating City must pay the full share of the Legal Services Fees and Costs due through the date of termination three months from the date of Notice. Should it become necessary to amend this Agreement to increase the authorized total amount of fees and costs set forth in Paragraph 4.1, any City may terminate its participation in this Agreement by providing written notice to all other participating Cities within 15 days of receiving written notice of the request to amend fees and costs. This termination shall not affect the obligation of the terminating City to pay its full share of the currently authorized Legal Services Fees and Costs, Except as provided in Paragraph 5.2,the termination of a City's participation in this Agreement shall not result in the termination of this Agreement with respect to other Cities. 5.2 Termination by Mutual Written Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual written agreement of a majority of the then participating Cities. Cities shall be obligated to pay for Legal Services incurred to the date of Notice to the provider of Legal Services that its services are no longer needed and any reasonable additional fees and costs necessary to conclude its Legal Services. 5.3 Distribution of Assets upon Termination. It is not anticipated that any assets will be acquired as a result of participating in this Agreement. If, however, any assets are acquired with joint funds of the Cities,those assets will be equally divided among the Cities at the asset's fair market value upon termination. NPDES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Page 3 of 12 The value of the assets shall be determined by using commonly accepted methods of valuation. 6. Miscellaneous: 6.1 Amendments. This Agreement may only be amended by mutual written agreement of the Cities. 6.2 Severability. If any section of this Agreement is adjudicated to be invalid,such action shall not affect the validity of any section not so adjudicated. 6.3 Interpretation. The legal presumption that an ambiguous term of this Agreement should be interpreted against the party who prepared the Agreement shall not apply. 6.4 Ownership of Property. Any property owned and used by Bellevue in connection with this Agreement shall remain the property of Bellevue and any property owned and used by any other participating City shall remain the property of that City, unless otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or its amendment. 6.5 Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement will be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice shall become effective upon personal service or three(3)business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail,and will be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or any other address if later specified in writing. Except for the requirement of Notice as provided in this Agreement, nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Cities from communicating among themselves by email,fax or other electronic means. Any City not specifically named herein, that later joins in this Agreement, shall give to all Cities then participating under this Agreement written notice of the name and address of the person that can accept notices on behalf of such joining City. 6.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be entered into with any number of counterparts which, taken collectively,will constitute one entire agreement. 6.7 Ratification and Confirmation. All acts taken prior to the effective date of this Agreement that are consistent with the intent and purpose of the same are hereby ratified and confirmed retroactive to January 31, 2007. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. Should any dispute arise among Cities or between one or more Cities related to the interpretation,application or administration of this Agreement,the disputing parties shall participate in a good faith mediation effort to resolve their differences prior to bringing any legal action. NPDES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Page 4 of 12 6.9 Compliance with RCW 39.34.040. Cities entering into this Agreement shall be responsible for ensuring that it is fled in accordance with RCW 39.34.040. IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement,which shall become effective February ,2007. ANACORTES: AUBURN: Deleted:BELLEVUE �I f CITY Ol= NACORTES CITY OF UPS BURN 0, ehed:BELLEVUE Deleted:NACORTES ] By: By: Print Name: Print Name: Its: Its: Date: Date: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: (Telephone) (Telephone) (Facsimile) (Facsimile) APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: NPDES[NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Page 5 of 12 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council March 1, 2007 FROM: Gary Crutchfi &anager Regular Mtg.: 3!5!07 SUBJECT: Golf Course L ase Committee I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 315: MOTION: I move to concur in the Mayor's appointment of the following members of an ad-hoc committee to advise the City Council regarding proposed amendments to the golf course lease: Councilmember Mike Garrison and Park Board Members Duane Taber and Steve Putnam. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) As staff explained at a prior workshop meeting, the golf course lessee has proposed several changes to the golf course lease and operation that may be worth consideration by the city. The golf course lease is a complex document which involves operational and long-term maintenance issues as well as annual income to the city. Given that the city has invested more than S 1 million in the facility over the past several years, it represents a significant recreational asset as well as an important source of non-tax revenue for city operations. B) Prior Council discussion generally concurred in the notion that a small ad-hoc committee evaluate the proposed lease changes and advise the Council accordingly. V. DISCUSSION: A) Councilmember Garrison is an experienced golfer and has indicated his willingness to serve on the committee. Park Board members Duane Taber and Steve Putnam are both familiar with the golf course and have likewise committed to serve on the committee. B) Staff believes a three-member committee is sufficient to walk through the details of the issue and report back to the City Council. 3(e) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 16, 2007 TO: Gary Crutchfi 1 anager W/Shop Mtg.: 02/26/07 Stan Strebel, m nistyative & Community i s Director Regular Mtg.: 03/05/07 FROM: Debbie Clark, City Clerk SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Memorandum—department requests to surplus miscellaneous property 2. Proposed Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 02/26: Discussion 03/05: Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. 30(o�authorizing the sale of Administrative and Community Services Department, and Police Department miscellaneous personal property surplus to City needs. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Administrative and Community Services Department, along with the Police Department have an assortment of miscellaneous items that are surplus to City needs. B) No minimum prices are suggested for each of the miscellaneous items, as they are too numerous; estimated total sales price will be less than $5,000.00. Staff requests Council to declare the items surplus to City needs and authorize sale of the items through auction consignment for a price that is in the best interest of the City. C) Staff proposes to dispose of the items through auction consignment with proceeds going into the General Fund. 3(f) MEMORANDUM To: Debbie Clark, City Clerk From: Crime Specialist I Evidence Technician David Renzelman Date: February 16, 2007 Subject: Seizure/Asset Forfeitures for the Pasco Police Department Below is the description of an item that has been seized and is now available for disposal. The value of the item is less than$500.00, 1 request that this microwave be classified as surplus property and disposed of accordingly. 1 —Sharp Carousel commercial grade microwave Thank you, David Renzelman Crime Specialist I Evidence Technician MEMORANDUM To: Debbie Clark, City Clerk From: Marjorie Worden, IS Manager- Administrative & Community Services Date: February 16, 2007 Subject: Surplus property request We request the following items be classified as surplus property and disposed of accordingly. The value of each item is less than $500.00: 175+ -7400 type AT&T phones US Robotics Modem 1 Tally receipt printer— impact HP Laserjet 8100 with attached paper Apollo Inkjet printer trays 2 Meter Reading devices HP Color Laserjet 4550 5 Laserjet printers IBM PC 2 HP terminals w/keyboards Dell PC Computer HP impact printer w/ accessories 3 boxes continuous form printer paper UPS unit HP Deskjet printer 855 Dot matrix printer—AT&T Voice Over iP equipment for old phone Monitor and keyboard —AT&T system Multi Tech Modem —AT&T 2 AT&T Modems Thank you, Marjie MEMORANDUM To: Debbie Clark, City Clerk From: Dan Dotta, Facilities Services Manager-Administrative & Community Services Date: February 16, 2007 Subject: Surplus property request I request the following items be classified as surplus property and disposed of accordingly. The value of each item is less than $500.00: 2— L Shaped wood desks with hutch 1 — L shaped metal desk 1 — Metal desk 1 — Home made wood drafting table 1 — Metal rollup door 1 — Stanley gate opener 1 — Homelite Generator 6 — Metal door frames 5 — Solid wood doors 8 — Office chairs 13- Molded stackable chairs 23- Folding chairs 4- Swintec 8014 S typewriters 3 — steel rollup doors Th nik you, Dan RESOLUTION NO. (,501 a A RESOLUTION authorizing the sale of Administrative and Community Services and Police Department miscellaneous personal property and equipment surplus to City needs. WHEREAS, there are certain items of personal property and equipment surplus to City needs; NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The items of personal property listed below are declared surplus property and City staff is authorized to sell at auction the following items: Miscellaneous items: Information Services surplus IBM PC 1 —Metal desk roe Dell PC I —Home made wood drafting table 175+-7400 type AT&T phones HP impact printer w/accessories 1 —Metal rollup door 1 Tally receipt printer— impact UPS unit 1 —Stanley gate opener Apollo Inkjet printer Dot matrix printer—AT&T 1 —Homelite Generator 2 Meter Reading devices Monitor and keyboard—AT&T 6—Metal door frames 5 Laserjet printers Modem—AT&T 5—Solid wood doors 2 HP terminals w/keyboards 8—Office chairs Computer Central Stores surplus property- 13-Molded stackable chairs 3 boxes continuous form printer obsolete: 23-Folding chairs paper 1 fax toner 4-Swintec 8014 S typewriters HP DeskJet printer 855 6 staple boxes 3—steel rollup doors Voice Over IP equipment for old 26 ink cartridges phone system Multi Tech 38 mist, toner cartridges Police Department surplus property: 2 AT&T Modems 45 mist, typewriter ribbons Microwave US Robotics Modem HP Laserjet 8100 with attached Facility Services surplus property paper trays 2—L Shaped wood desks with hutch HP Color Laserjet 4550 1 —L shaped metal desk PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at a regular meeting this day of March 2007. CITY OF PASCO Joyce Olson, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 17, 2007 TO: Gary CrutchZ' Zes Manager W/Shop Mtg.: 02/26/07 Stan Strebgl, tive& Community Director Regular Mtg.: 03/05/07 FROM: Debbie Clark, City Clerk SUBJECT: A resolution authorizing the disposal of surplus property. I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Memorandum from David Renzelman, Crime Specialist/ Evidence Technician 2. Proposed Resolution H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 2/26: Discussion 3/05: Motion: I move to approve Resolution No.3—()L5 authorizing the sale of seized/asset forfeiture property considered surplus to City needs. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Police Department has acquired 63-weapons through seized/asset forfeiture. The weapons have been processed through the Police Department and are now available for disposal through a Licensed Federal Firearms Dealer. The weapons are considered surplus to City needs. B) No minimum price is suggested for each weapon. Staff requests Council to declare the weapons surplus to City needs, and authorize staff to sell at auction through a Licensed Federal Firearms Dealer for a price that is in the best interest of the City. C) Staff proposes to have the auction consigned to H.A. Rowell Auctioneers, Licensed Firearms Dealer for a 25% commission on the gross proceeds from the sale with no charge for transporting the items to auction or advertisement thereof. D) In comparison with other auctioneers, this proposal is most advantageous to the City. 3(g) MEMORANDUM To: Debbie Clark, City Clerk From: Crime Specialist 1 Evidence Technician David Renzelman Date: February 15, 2007 Subject: Seizure/Asset Forfeitures for the Pasco Police Department Below is a list representing weapons that have been approved by the Chief of Police for disposal as excess property. The individual value of each of the weapons described is less than $2,000 each. I request that each of these weapons be classified as surplus equipment and disposed of through and to only Licensed Federal Firearms Dealers. S&W I Pistol I 78K9381 Bersa I Pistol 29907 Colt I Pistol 1 101368 S&W I Pistol RAH5311 Taurus Pistol I AYG38313 S&W I Pistol 124KO16 S&W I Pistol I CAH5222 Taurus I Pistol TMB 98361D S&W I Pistol I 11K4301 I S&W I Pistol LIAB1533 S&W I Pistol I N323511 Ruger I Pistol 572-02062 S&W I Pistol I D524133 Ruger I Pistol 153-61492 COIL I Pistol SG02348E Ruger I Pistol 650-35134 Remington I Pistol 2207113 J Springfietd Armory I Pistol NM143032 Colt I Pistol ELCAB0258 Ruger I Pistol 34015071 J R Sauer&Son I Pistol 1730113 Winchester I Rifle 676302 Colt I Pistol 311745 Smith Corona Springfield 03 Rifle 3682608 UZI I Pistol 96318964 Martin I Rifle AD53185 FEG Hungary I Pistol R54755 Ruger I Rifle(Scope) 247-47207 Beretta I Pistol BER218643 Ruger I Rifle(Scope) 11434773 CZ75 I Pistol B3986 Rossi I Rifle G174901 Norinco I Pistol 401408 Remington I Rine I Scope 29096 S&W I Pistol 75227 Ruger I Rifle 237-90614 Llama I Pistol 740053 U S Carbine I M-1 I Rifle 6334443 Ruger I Pistol 153-33225 Savage I Rifle 667722 Browning I Pistol 72C59364 Ruger I Rifle(Scope) 701-90716 Rossi I Pistol D926688 Remington 58 I Shotgun 260944V Giock I Pistol AY7933 Remington 870 1 Shotgun T953271V S&W I Pistol TBN4684 Winchester(Shotgun _ L1474886 Ruger95 DC I Pistol 312-90882 Winchester I Shotgun L1532744 Hardballer I Pistol M00605 Winchester I Shotgun 264355 Sturm Ruger I Pistol 661-56203 Winchester I Shotgun L3354628 Beretta I Pistol A37293Y H&r I Shotgun AN221589 S&W I Pistol 61623 S&W Model 916T I Shotgun 57R225 Rossi Interarms I Pistol AA192180 Remington 870 I Shotgun C310580A Glock I Pistol APRO82 Heckler&Koch I Benelti I Shotgun M251652 Ruger I Pistol 314-48815 Thank you,, David Renzelman, Crime Specialist / Evidence Technician RESOLUTION NO._, A RESOLUTION authorizing the sale of seized/asset forfeiture property surplus to City needs. WHEREAS, there are certain items of seized/asset forfeiture acquired by the Pasco Police Department and property is surplus to City needs; and; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: SECTION 1: The items of seized/asset forfeiture property listed below are declared surplus property and city staff is authorized to sell such property at public auction through a Licensed Federal Firearms Dealer: S&W I Pistol 78K9381 Rossi I Pistol D926698 Winchester I Rifle 676302 Smith Corona Springfiled 031 Colt I Pistol 1 101368 Glock I Pistol AYT933 Rifle 3692608 Taunus Pistol AYG38313 S&W I Pistol TBN4684 Marlin Rifle AD53185 S&W Pistol CAH5222 Ru er95 DC I Pistol 312-90892 Ru er Rifle(Scope) 247-47207 S&W Pistol IIK4301 Hardballer I Pistol M00605 Ru er Rifle(Scope) 11434773 S&W Pistol N323511 Sturm Ru er I Pistol 661-56203 Rossi I Rifle G174901 S&W Pistol D524133 I Beretta I Pistol A37293Y I Remington I Rifle I Scope 29096 Colt I Pistol SGO2348E S&W I Pistol 61623 Ru er I Rifle 237-90614 Remington I Pistol 2207113 Rossi Interarms I Pistol AA 192180 U S Carbine I M- I Rifle 6334443 Colt I Pistol ELCAB0258 Glock I Pistol APRO82 Savage I Rifle 667722 J R Sauer&Son Pistol 1730113 Ru er I Pistol 314-48815 Ru er I Rifle Sco a 701-90716 Colt Pistol 311745 Bersa I Pistol 29907 Remington 58 1 Shotgun 260944V UZI Pistol 96318964 S&W I Pistol RAH5311 Remington 970 1 Shotgun T953271V FEG Hungary I Pistol R54755 S&W I Pistol 124KO16 Winchester I Shotgun L1474886 Th4B Beretta I Pistol BER218643 Taurus I Pistol 98361D Winchester I Shotgun L1532744 CZ75 I Pistol B3986 S&W I Pistol UABI133 Winchester I Shotgun 264355 Norinco I Pistol 401408 Ru er I Pistol 572-02062 Winchester I Shotgun L3354628 Harrington&Richardson I S&W I Pistol 75227 Ru er I Pistol 153.61492 Shotgun AN221589 Llama I Pistol 740053 Ru er I Pistol 650-35134 S&W Model 916T Shotgun 57R225 Springfield Armory I Ru er I Pistol 153-33225 Pistol NM143032 Remington 870 1 Shotgun C310580A Heckler&Koch I Benelli I Browning Pistol 72C59364 Ru er I Pistol 34015071 Shotgun M251652 SECTION 2: The city staff is hereby authorized to dispose of said surplus property at auction for a price that is in the best interest of the City. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of February, 2007 Joyce Olson,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Lee Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council DATE: 2/28/07 TO: Gary Crutch i Manager Regular: 3/5107 FROM: Stan Strebel, Directo'�, trative and Community Services SUBJECT: Police Locker Room remodel Project I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 3/5/07: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 0 Iq accepting the work performed by MP Construction, Inc., under contract for the Police Locker Room Remodel Project. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) On August 21, 2006 the City Council awarded the Police Locker Room Remodel Project, in the amount of$45,610, including tax,to MP Construction, Inc. The project is now complete with the final cost of the contract being$45,6I0, including tax. B) Staff recommends acceptance of the project. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING Project File 3(h) RESOLUTION NO. 304 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK BY MP CONSTRUCTION, INC., UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE POLICE LOCKER ROOM REMODEL PROJECT. WHEREAS, the work performed by MP Construction Inc., under contract for the Police Locker Room Remodel Project has been examined by Administrative and Community Services and been found to be in apparent compliance with the applicable project specifications and drawings, and WHEREAS, it is Administrative and Community Services' recommendation that the City of Pasco formally accept the contractor's work and the project as complete; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That the City Council concurs with Administrative and Community Services' recommendation and thereby accepts the work performed by MP Construction Inc., under contract for the Police Locker Room Remodel Project as being completed in apparent conformance with the project specifications and drawings, and Be it further resolved that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Washington State Department of Revenue of this acceptance, and Be it further resolved that the final payment of retainage being withheld pursuant to applicable laws, regulations and administrative determination shall be released upon satisfaction of same and verification thereof by the Administrative and Community Services Director and Finance Manager. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5th day of March, 2007. Joyce Olson, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT NO. 24 FOR: City Council DATE: 2/27/07 TO: Gary Crutchfie anager WORKSHOP: Richard J. Smi ire for REGULAR: 3/5/07 Community an Economic Devel pment FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner` SUBJECT: STREET VACATION- The Northerly 830 feet of Road 92. (MF #VAC-07-003) I. REFERENCESh A. Proposed Resolution and Vicinity Map B. Vacation Petition II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF.RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No 3 fixing 7.00 PM, April 2, 2007 as the time and date for a public hearing to consider the proposed vacation. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The owners of the property abutting the north 830 feet of Road 92 have submitted a petition requesting vacation of the undeveloped right-of-way abutting their property. The vacation is being requested to facilitate the expansion of the Broadmoor Estates subdivision. B. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the vacation request. The earliest regular City Council meeting available for a public hearing, which provides the statutory 20-day hearing notice, is April 2, 2007. V. DISCUSSION: NONE VI. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING: 3(i} RESOLUTION NO. 3U5 A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF ROAD 92. WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, R.C.W. 35.79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a public hearing to consider vacating the northerly 830 feet of Road 92, will be held before the City Council of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers at, 525 North 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on April 2, 2007. That the City Clerk of the City of Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law. 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 I 179 ad02� PL4)__ 0 U a o a a a a Lu— N � U a LLI U) Q Z LU Q `� U N Q � � L N121 NIW1S3M o o _L a }/ Y U --� U_ _ Ct 4) o6 ad0i 3)An 1n=i -� U � � Z6 Ob'08 3u/lln3 l J NIA J1N3n00 H� Of a o LL w W D a LL J C° N I QNtf1QIW •may •may e1i m �U 10 NOA Q 10 HSIGN3AVO Z J __Dam I=Ix� 1S aliO3a39 FEE $200 MASTER FILE # DATE SUBMITTED: CITY OF PASCO STREET / ALLEY VACATION PETITION I, we the undersigned, owners of two-thirds of the privately owned abutting property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the following described street/alley rights-of-way: Portion of Road 92 right of way abutting future Broadmoor Estates Phase 3._ APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Description) Print Name: HELMES INC. Parcel Number 115-412-C)�Eq CHRIS G HELMES 03 - Sign Name: )15-_38;' Address: 11815 NE 113TH AVE VANCOUVER WA 98682 Phone # 360 254-9225 Date 8/11/06 Print Name: d Vl✓vs 4e-I f e Sign Name: --- Date „ d� Print Name: Sign Name: Date AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 17, 2007 TO: Gary Crutchfi d lager W/Shop Mtg.: 02/26/07 Stan Strebel, Ad inistr tv e & Community S rv`i�P ector Regular Mtg.: 03/05/07 FROM: Debbie Clark, City Clerk, SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 5.25 regarding Special Events. I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 2/26: Discussion 3/05: Motion: 1 move to adopt Ordinance No. amending Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 5.25 regarding Special Events and to authorize publication by summary only. TIT. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In January of this year, Troy Woody, General Manager for TRAC contacted Planning staff in reference to a revision to the municipal code relating to Special Event Permits. He explained that his customers were encountering difficulty in understanding the requirements and potential exemptions that may affect their particular event. B) After review and consideration of the request from Mr. Woody, staff was able to develop a proposed amendment to the code that is acceptable to all parties. The original integrity and intent of the code remains the same; staff has prepared a "user friendly" amendment to the code which utilizes a "list" format to identify events which require permits and those which are exempt. C) Attached please find the proposed amendment for Council consideration and approval, 8(a) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.25 OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT." WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has determined that certain amendments to the Pasco Municipal Code regarding Special Events Permit are warranted; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, Does Ordain as follows: Section 1. That Section 5.25.010 PERMIT REQUIRED of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 5.25.010 PERMIT REQUIRED. It shall be unlawful for any person or promoter to initiate, conduct, promote, or participate in any public dance, dance hall, concert, outdoor music festival, parade, demonstration, athletic or competitive event or temporary special sales events on public or private roadways, sidewalks, parks or places within the City until a Special Events Permit therefore has been secured. The following events afe exempt ftem the pefmit r-equifements imposed by this seetion, exeept that b ene or more unkeensed business shall be feqttifed to file an appheation J . elementary,fees, per- vender- feF stieh sales event.- Event-s rVe-ndue-a-ed- by publie OF pfivate Events, spefiseFed events, and ongoing evenis eitheF operating tinder a City peFmit or- a business heefised in. a f-kility speeifleally designed for- the pufpese of that event, ifteluding but not lifnited t baseball games at the baseball stadium, seeeer- matehes at the City seeeer- fields, softball at the City saftball eemplex, and other- sifflilar-events afe exempt &em this r-equifement. Special Event Permits will be required for(but not limited to) the following_ a) Public dance b) Dance Hall c) Concert d) Outdoor music festival e) Parade f) Demonstration g) Athletic or competitive event h) Temporary special sales event involving one or more unlicensed City of Pasco business i) Dances, concerts and special sales events that involve one or more unlicensed City of Pasco business held at the Trade Recreation and Agricultural Center(TRAC) (Ord 3764 Sec. 3, 2006; Ord. 3524 Sec. 4, 2001.) Section 2. That a new Section, 5.25.015 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled Exemption to Permit Requirements, is added to read as follows: 5.25.015 EXEMPTION TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The fallowin events shall be exempt from the Special Event requirements and application process and payment of permit fee, provided, however, the person or promoter initiating or conducting such event shall be responsible for collecting any applicable vendor(s) fee and payment of applicable admissions tax: a) Events conducted by public or private elementary, secondary and college-level educational institutions held at educational facilities b) Events held at the Trade Recreation and Agdcultural Center(TRAC) Please note: 5.25.010(i) listed above) c) Private events not open to the public d) Cite sponsored events e) Ongoing events either operating under a City permit or f} A business licensed event in a facility designed for the event (i.e., baseball games at the baseball stadium, soccer matches at the City soccer fields, softball at the City soft ball complex; g) Other similar events. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this day of March, 2007. Joyce Olson, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT NO. 23 FOR: City Council DATE: 2/27/2007 TO: Gary Crutch4an 1 i Manager WORKSHOP: Richard J. S , Di ector �, REGULAR: 3/5/07 Community Economic Development FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planned-- SUBJECT: Annexation: City/County Boundary Adjustments (MF # ANX07-001) I. REFERENCES): A. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Motion: I move to approve the City/County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Revision of the Corporate Boundaries of the City and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Over the past decade approximately 2,200 acres of land on the western edges of the City have been annexed to the City. Additionally in the early 1980's the City annexed approximately 8 square miles (348,480 acres) of land which is now often referred to as the 1-182 Corridor. B. Legal descriptions for annexations often included section lines for the formation of annexation boundaries. As the City has developed, section lines tend to be used for centerlines of streets. When a section line is used for an annexation boundary line and the centerline of a subsequent street, the street is inadvertently split between the City and County. Dividing a street down the centerline creates a number of inefficiencies for both the City and County related to maintenance and law enforcement. C. There are currently five segments of street right-of-way between the City and County that are currently divided by, or shortly will be divided by the City County boundary line (see maps with attached Agreement). D. State law does not permit annexations using the centerlines of streets but does recognize the fact streets may became split by municipal boundaries after annexation. As a result the law provides a process that permits the adjustment of City boundaries through Interlocal agreement. V. DISCUSSION: A. The process for correcting the split jurisdictional problems with the referenced right-of-way involves the approval of an interlocal agreement between the City and County. The interlocal agreement is then followed by the adoption of an ordinance by the City and an ordinance or resolution by the County. B. On February 26th the City Council discussed the conditions of the roadways to be adjusted into the City. Council determined that due to the poor condition of Road 52 it should not be included within the City boundaries at the present time. D. As directed by the Council the attached interlocal agreement has been modified to exclude Road 52 from the corporate limits of the City. 10(a) WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Pasco,Washington 525 North 3rd Pasco WA 99301 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN STREETS AND REVISION TO CITY OF PASCO CORPORATE BOUNDARIES THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2007, between the City of Pasco, Washington, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Franklin County, Washington, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "County", pursuant to RCW 35A.21.210 (revision of corporate boundary) and Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington (Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Act). WHEREAS, there has been significant growth in the City resulting in annexation of additional territory within City's defined urban growth boundaries; and WHEREAS, in several cases, the boundaries of such annexations have been a section line which has ultimately resulted in being either the centerline, or the edge of a public street, road or highway right-of-way which in some circumstances has resulted in an inconsistent ownership or jurisdiction over all or a portion of the roadway; and WHEREAS, the legislature has found that the use of centerlines of public streets, roads and highways as boundaries has resulted in divided jurisdictions over such public ways causing inefficiencies and wastes on their construction, improvement and maintenance and impairing effective law enforcement and has encouraged cities and counties, by agreement, to revise their existing centerline boundaries to coincide with right-of-way lines;and WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Council of the City of Pasco, and the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, that a revision of the corporate boundaries of the City of Pasco to comply with the requirements of RCW 35.02.170, and to provide for the orderly operation and maintenance of those affected streets, roads and highways,NOW, THEREFORE, Interlocal Agreement City/County - 1 In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION I PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to revise any part of the corporate boundaries of the City of Pasco, Washington, which coincide with the centerline, edge, or any portion of a public street, road or highway right-of-way by substituting therefore a right- of-way line for the same public street, road, or highway so as to fully include or fully exclude that segment of the public street, road or highway into or from the corporate limits of the City of Pasco, Washington. SECTION II REVISION OF CORPORATE BOUNDARIES A) As authorized by RCW 35A.21.210, the corporate boundaries for the City of Pasco, Washington, shall be revised by Ordinance passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, Washington, to include within the corporate limits of the City of Pasco, Washington, the following segments of right-of-way, which segments are more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated hereinby this reference. B) Those segments of public street, road or highway right-of-way to be excluded in the corporate limits of the City of Pasco, Washington, are designated as follows and more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated hereinby this reference. SECTION III JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY Upon the effective date of this Agreement as provided below, the City of Pasco, Washington, has full jurisdiction and authority concerning the construction, improvement, maintenance and the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations upon those public streets, roads and highways included within the City's corporate boundaries provided above. Upon the effective date of this Agreement as provided below, Franklin County shall have full jurisdiction and authority concerning the construction, improvement, maintenance and the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations upon those public streets, roads and highways excluded within the corporate boundaries provided above. Interlocal Agreement City/County-2 SECTION IV EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall become effective and the revisions of the corporate boundaries as provided above, shall become effective on the approval by Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and by Ordinance or Resolution of the Board of Franklin County Commissioners. SECTION V INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT PROVISIONS No special budget or funds are anticipated nor shall be created. It is not intended that a separate legal entity be established to conduct this cooperative undertaking, nor is the acquiring, holding, or disposing of real or personal property anticipated. The City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington, and the County Administrator of Franklin County, Washington, shall be designated as the Co- Administrator of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Franklin County Auditor, as required by RCW 39.34.040,and with the City Clerk of the City of Pasco. SECTION VI ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other understanding, verbal or otherwise, in regard to the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be deemed to exist. Any modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both Parties to be effective. SECTION VII APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement is governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement, breach, or interpretation of this Agreement, the Parties shall first, prior to initiation of any action, meet in a good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. In the event arbitration or litigation is commenced, venue shall be placed in Franklin County, Washington. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees in such proceeding, or any appeal thereof, to be set by the Court, in addition to costs and disbursements as allowed by law. Interlocal Agreement City/County -3 SECTION VIII AUTHORITY The City and County warrants and represents that its representatives, whose signatures are below, possess all required authority to sign this Agreement and such powers have not, as of the date of this Agreement, been revoked or revised. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by duly authorized officers on the day and year first written above. CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON Joyce Olson, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON Robert E. Koch, Chair Neva J. Corkrurn, Chair Pro-tem Rick Miller, Member Attest: Approved as to Form: Clerk of the Board Ryan E. Verhulp for Franklin County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Interlocal Agreement City/County -4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of Franklin } On this day personally appeared before me JOYCE OLSON, Mayor of the City of Pasco, Washington, to be known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seat this day of , 2006. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : ss. County of Franklin } On this day personally appeared before me ROBERT E. KOCH, Chair of the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners,to be known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2006. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . ss. County of Franklin ) On this day personally appeared before me NEVA J. CORKRUM, Chair Pro-Tern of the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners, to be known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2006. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: Interlocal Agreement City/County - 5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : ss. County of Franklin } On this day personally appeared before me RICK MILLER, Member of the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners, to be known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of 52006. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: Interlocal Agreement City/County-6 EXHIBIT A RIGHT-OF-WAY SEGMENTS TO BE INCLUDE WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY A-1 Road 60 & Sandifur Parkway Addiustment from the County to City Beginning at point on the east right-of-way line of Road 60, said point being the intersection of the east right-of-way line of Road 60 and the northwest corner of Lot 1, Short Plat 95-2; Thence west along the projection of the north line of the said Lot 1 to the west line of the northeast quarter of said Section 10,Township 9 North, Range 29; Thence southerly along the west line of the northeast quarter of said Section 10, to the intersection with the south line of the northeast quarter of said Section 10, said intersection being the center of said Section 10; Thence easterly along the south line of the northeast quarter of said Section 10, to the intersection with the southerly projection of the east line of Lot 2, Short Plat 93- 12; Thence northerly along the southerly projection of said Lot 2, to the intersection with the south line of said Lot 2, said line also being the north right-of-way line of Sandifur Parkway; Thence westerly along the north right-of-way line of Sandifur Parkway to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Road 60.Thence northerly along the east right- of-way line of Road 60 to the point of beginning;as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Map A-1 & A-2. A-3 Road 96 Adjustment from the County to City Beginning at a point on the south line of the FCID canal right-of-way, said point being the intersection of the south right-of-way line of the FCID canal and the northerly projection of the centerline of Road 96; Thence southerly along said projection of the centerline Road 96 to the intersection with the westerly projection of the south line of Lot 3, Hills Estates; thence easterly along the westerly projection of the south line of Lot 3, Hills Estates to the southwest corner of Lot 3, Hills Estates, the same being the east right-of-way line of Road 96; Thence northerly along the east right-of-way line of Road 96 to the intersection with the south line of the FCID canal right-of-way; thence westerly along the south line of the FCID canal right-of-way to the point of beginning as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Map A-3. A-4 Harris Road Adjustment from the County to City. Beginning at a point on the South right-of-way line of Harris Road, said point being the intersection of the south right-of-way of Harris Road and the south section line of Section 7, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Thence westerly along the South right- of-way line of Harris Road to the intersection with a north/south line bearing south 00 degrees, 19 minutes, 39 seconds located 537.70 feet west of the corner of the Southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 9 North, Range 30; Thence northerly along said north/south line to the intersection with the south line of Section 12 Township 9 North, Range 30; Thence easterly along the south line of said Section 12 and continuing easterly along the south line of Section 7, Township 9 North, Range 29 to the point of beginning, as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Map A-4. '. f N•f - � � '�..-JR f'�4' P?CC �.rN�l it4'Ryy•�� J�Y�i.. .l':�SR� • J. ,OtiY{!Y.- t I'"✓S y'F. f�"� i"lf. iC' s �!"a' a ��'+ d r ' :�' +3✓�/ '� g^R+yrj S�;fY<pr1� ,.�t'+"j• ,! •,!�jti, Y `T Ss"� r'f. 'F. � •' I '� • ',r �1 �4, aypn�1t��+�M ,xt gl,�. _ i e`er. � a ; .��«Y}i;-0���,•.� ''.-:�it� ,'• x �t•R,�NX w�t'i ;a+F fix. ' x�;S,•t;a ,.�} 1 �+4�`ti ,: �a..�+� tit �f )���` 111 1 !'• 1•C•,l •45:4• i� •` r. � '.� o � 1 74 � � 1• 5 •. ). _, ��yy,, V, f y 1 1 o R C� Q s - r - 1 � � �L 11�+�� y�e ' � :.�.::�.` •�r �+r IS {�rR. � ;ijr.�J;-i '1 o w - }•f; fA We�,� -.;�- >,�,�, ��'' f ��' ,� r- � it { a- •fir:. f 1 .y {�i d .l• yy y` T I li a j r•� aey i' � �i y � ,�,a �I uw .i•"j r.FU FO��cP'„ C+.ti}�y�1�3li.,yl4a � ;l�1 t. � I- ! t 7 rid,► l t 'l;rte • �--'=��.i�.3:.Y,F,��:Y3.�, ��„� :x �` i •;1; 5.5:�it a � .s�,y�4 �, '�✓ :t� L (2;;, 31 I I I I'� � ��., j I�,: aNF' i •5•.� �Y 'S L. 9G. �' r>:Sr'rt� ``.,�d,•"�L :+'.i� i�.• 4.p �! � rL C 1 Map Item: City/County Boundary Adj stment A-3 Applicant: City of Pasco File • ANX 07-001 ti Aft, J4 W. i".43 MY IV w. XV, 46: T., wt -In �z Jin des'i w I'Au J t" jp N"M ,MV -A.w -V Map Item: City/County Boundary Adj stment. A-4 Applicant: City of • ©. File - ANX 07-001 ..... _..... - r:. :r. � aa� .... r.. : 7r. '4i.:�rvtpp ,:,: _d,+'.�',x` -. it �:s ... .::.?,• ..,. ... .: .. ,. ... .. ;u X: �..,� r?e �r:».,: ,r•,,.��L'A'Sk�':"x'1".'�,+k67,°': :xa�pLMErFSh,:,.,-...?.'BRfi!;e:rxws�,,._ .. .. .. .. .. ....... ...,.. .. :.,._.. .. _ i t r 41 I ftellt - v� : , : rr : V. x r: `r. , 'y, •r • a 'tW � ::r' :."i,•'`iii�n ./. ;Y..,,'r.'." ,y„i e;, EXHIBIT B RIGHT-OF-WAY SEGMENTS TO BE EXCLUDE FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY B-1Road 96 Adjustment from the City to County Beginning at a point on the south line of the FCID canal right-of-way, said point being the intersection of the south right-of-way line of the FCID canal with the northerly extension of the center line of Road 96; Thence southerly along said extension of Road 96 to a point lying 30 feet east of the northeast corner of Short Plat 83-7, said point being the true point of beginning; Thence westerly along the projection of the north line of Short Plat 83-7 to the west right-of-way line of Road 96; thence northerly along the west right- of-way line of road 92 to the intersection with the westerly projection of the south line of Lot 3 Plat of Hills Estates; thence easterly along said westerly projection of Lot 3 Plat of Hills Estates to the center line of Road 96; thence southerly along the center line of road 92 to the true point of beginning, as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Map B-1. - a; "#+,G{::.�yta.'fi'.'':E,tN.ss��,,..:.:.. ..\x..�:-+.a'p ... .. .. •�' .:'- 'Jy�: >P+ _ _ _ ,,�,_R._ +t Y AA �"i.i�'`.•+.3i ;.YR.c.,,. - _v ' - ate•"' ;s- ;.?et i:` +xS: a£a.:a;,w:• v�':_~<.� _ _ iNn«e y, [.. ��f- .�.L..}.�."�.'i.',2 R'M-:�yy }f.^:. !°i5,H.i♦:.. ,.v,_„..1 i::�.:'�''' ::.f y::'v:< �+?•:. ,,j!',.�. 4,K•_+'...F,G. �"�°a�a3iL�:ryu:. ......+{!v:'.:...♦,3'S?.'.'!i:,a'.K'.'.FT.„' ^:..4-. .e.ii'�,: ,`3`J ,'%i:<i•, _ :r',X=':":': r..:.: y' 4 t•A.�,. MV ."'�z,.'�i. „' ''s.'< v %s<:- :•.�,F.�- .':._ '":i`^•'� �+Eo-s '4, s•�.,a:`. ' s+ nCy :.3.•` y,� ,ty.. :J�:sw' .?.,. _cx.rY,., 4 a.. : •. - �z'�4'g".c, :+ .ay.:<�::F'•:^y"-::"..:. ps..-`'<: .�' "�?r _. ... .. • k •�lIt ;',a•+i'!,s`s_,.;:: `.:,.."r •T.-P:ti..: r' ;,;# rte-• .sy'•{t:.. 're'i;x'• _ „ .,. -.:.... _ C•ys a« ��r'.�a} - t"az.-.z 1 -t.,..;;:::. :..:�.t,_'<.•ss:."4a.,.,,.:....:•e;A"?r:':;. `i. .._a? w��•. '?�:: r_s..` - - .. ._.,-<:a>3-;, >!! ...... ;+fix;,...•;.:._. §. .♦:'F! .....*.-_... ..:..:. -..,-.:..;.: ..„ ...r,s:i.-a-n,.,, _ :'.:E2'� ni si y°C','v'4a.':'.z_�. .Y,4"'•YYS�"M1.:.:_ ... ..._r c.._.,...-.:. .:'Y..... ..^e:T� � _ mss",. -':.,•"3+':.�.;:e: :S - K _ :..,,.,,Fir=t!;`:'r _ v � °.:.,�. -�,: .tic=5-ri� :.�••$S,?_ ..:....... �i ':YM. .- .. « h'"'- ._..'t`-';:.: .:3•:".::s....eii$:�"' ._., r'Ea Yom: ,,'q .t .....- .... _ t. y - �:r„ ,,, Ft>:«:zj '•.v .> g...,•„p. .:,.v`F.3':i "'. •;<ti� a ":+%,�� - - ,r.. .. 4:- - ._ins:'. Yr?::`sr �'.:.:;.d`• ta.:. ....,...aFy.,"`r•_.?...,y:�F:-a:...Xc;>.:.;�ar..,...--._;�.. a:.�.;. "���'� � t.$�T .,., t'i"s ' .:.:....., .t"..a-'>' �r�'^' .,..er fir.q.::: ;,,.>.r`•t;; _ ,•a. _ �-�' ES risS"+ i t[ _..yam. ,_:•.'= __ ,�us•:.:fit' •-�`•;�,-.:,.>ti`� ,,x: ,.•,,,<.. - �-q a.-:, .Y , fix. .,._,,.;,.:F.. •'g'.::y��:.^�.• :- e: 11 ml, it x.''Y���':.'�,r:e•=:.'. a in='?&s'. .,y' - t�y{pit;: ...•�:"';ti^...'Y�.,_ �,m`« -¢, _ sN MR •iii: „x;',+:��'i 3,, .4.- :,,2 - '� T4' j$I:'.tt•:'�_ ..... '�: '�?�e;r3 - �'+a�!'!:Nf. ?$'y-i-�^i;^ x?` .�i;�ti�'a�t•eF$::i _��s`.' _ •'T�, _ - t -aA. ' L• r y t+. Rs .c - ++ .::s� <s.•a >'.»� a'�.,?:' `"fir-,�"� 'r�!.... .•�..�:{:,:."s< z;t�� _ ♦ _ ..:::i31�. .•£Y: ...%R<,�.."a.,._� -.s... :e. i Q ...t?:�-. a.h.:... .i 'I•.�...•.. , :. .r,?. we -i.l Yl�. ��?iy,,, 2'�C� "` >.Via'_:,U.cY'v'a':�•": '�-" r . -�5;.>� ;; .._:.'•a.�„ ': -. ..� .,,ri.;r....,svC•q..,.,:;»� +s.;' ;'a;: _ ::N.x -off. ;-v���`:�`s,� :'..'Y y4:..- ..ta - '.•.i \e'h:f45. : yy •:.5'.:,^',:i: _ �T�j�s.Tlk•.aFib�:. �*�"::tif:.dFkE`,?,�.y..„",i. �,..Fti�:i:,L h i,.,`:•",.� �'• cr; .,.E.,•� ;,r..r"vi` -..s�:y'`r` � rs?�` :'.F<. :;f..: -?3 �. ... �+:a.:? �.:. .�*...�.Y_,�:, . '.:•�'.a'•.r:'..�1. �`i#er �_ ="sd'• T:•x. `�:ti. st.�> a- > `:�;:,. ...a '±._._ ::>•...,:.: �>:s.+: 'x.:;r�Y •b, `aegis=�" _ :.. .:�: r*sa..• x N ....... ... :[. :.F. -.yr. jy�"'&. � �.+'a '�`�'' uiS`^•; c':>.. _ - € a' 'i�.:' :: ..J #• X �^-ix. .-, '-4.�. &' !'a?:' .- F,}Fr.:C'.-.;F'�xa,:. 'T6'.�:v��. '''�^b an PT c:..... ..y:::::...R ..._.. �•:.::: ,F. .. ,: ,_.gig. .. . .........' _. '� _ '`�:7i -r:,aka,,iNN, '[:=;`<''rF°;;:. AGENDA REPORT NO. 25 FOR: City Council DATE: 2/ 27/07 TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager WORKSHOP: Richard J. Sm' h, D ector REGULAR: 2/5/07 Community a d Economic Development FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in a RT Zone (North of Harris Rd & West Brodmoor Blvd.) (MF# SP06-015) I. REFERENCE(S1: A. Report to Planning Commission B. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 1/18/07 & 2/15/07 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION A: (Not Recommended) I move to approve the special permit for the location of a farm on the Adams property as recommended by the Planning Commission. MOTION B: (Recommended) I move to set 7:00 pm, April 2, 2007 as the time and date for a closed record hearing to consider the Planning Commission recommendation for a farm in a RT zone under Master File # SP06-015. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On January 18, 2007 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit for the location and operation of a commercial farm on the Adams property generally located west of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of I-182. B. Following conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with conditions, the property in question could be utilized for a commercial farm, without detriment to the community. The recommended conditions listed as follows: (1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; (3) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise run onto or in the adjoining public right-of-way; (4) Farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; (5) The farm must always maintain a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency; (6) Crop rotation, cover crop planting, soil preparation and other necessary farm activities shall strictly follow the requirements of the approved conservation plan; (7) Primary access for farm machinery must be from Dent Road; (8) The farm operation shall be subject to noise and dust control regulations. (9) The farm shall be designed to readily permit the extension of Sandifer Parkway to the west from Broadmoor Blvd.; 10(b) (10) The farm shall be designed to allow the easy conversion of the property to intended land uses as identified in the Pasco Comprehensive Plan; (11) The areas between the circles not used for farming must be maintained to control blowing dust; (12) The property shall be posted to indicate no motorcycling or four wheeling or dumping is a permitted; (13) The special permit shall be null and void if the farm circles have not been installed by October 30, 2007. C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. V. DISCUSSION: When considering a recommendation from the Planning Commission the City Council has the option of accepting the recommendation without further review or setting a closed record hearing to consider the full record. In this case Staff is recommending the City Council set a date for a closed record hearing to reconsider the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission's action did not fully address the impact of converting significant amounts of very limited land within the urban growth boundary to a non-urban activity. The property in question is one of the few parcels left within the urban growth boundary available to accommodate urban growth, especially large scale commercial development. VI. ADMINSTRATIVE ROUTING: MEMORANDUM DATE: February 15, 2007 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Adams Farm MF # SP06-015 When considering Special Permit applications the Planning Commission has the option of recommending approval, approval with conditions or denial of the application. All recommendations must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions. As a result of the questions raised by the Planning Commission at the public hearing for the Adams Farm proposal the staff has prepared a standard report with recommended findings and conclusions and a supplement with alternate findings and conclusions. The standard report and the supplement are attached to this memo. Based on the information in the standard staff report and testimony provided by staff at the hearing it is recommended that the special permit for the proposed farm be denied. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP06-015 APPLICANT: Dale Adams HEARING DATE: 11/ 18/07 907 Eagle ridge Dr. ACTION DATE: 2/ 15/07 Danville, CA 94506 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Farm in an R-T Zone west of Broadmoor Blvd. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: All of Section 7, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM except that portion deeded to the State of Washington for 1-182 and except all of that portion lying southerly of I-182 excluding the east 748.97 feet thereof all contained in Parcel # 115-210-021 General Location: Site # 1 is west of Broadmoor Blvd north of Harris Road and Site # 2 is between Broadmoor Blvd and the Braodmoor Apartments south of I-182 Property Size: Approximately 560 acres 2. ACCESS: Site # 1 has access from Harris Rd., Broadmoor Blvd, and Dent Rd. Site # 2 has access from Chapel Hill Blvd. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer lines are located in Broadmoor Blvd and in Chapel Hill Blvd. Other utilities are also nearby. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: Site # 1 north of the freeway (I-182) is zoned R-T (Residential Transition) and is mostly vacant land except about 70 acres in the southwest corner of the site occupied by a portion of the Central Pre-Mix gravel mining operation. Approximately 20 acres in the northwest corner of the site is being farmed. Surrounding zoning and land use is as follows: NORTH- AP-20 (under County Zoning) (Agricultural Production) land is being farmed. SOUTH- R-T and C-1(under County zoning). The Harris Farm, a truss manufacturing plant and a single family home are located to the south. EAST- C-1, R-4 and R-1. Lands to the east are developed with commercial or residential uses reflecting the zoning. EAST- C-1, R-4 and R-1. Lands to the east are developed with commercial or residential uses reflecting the zoning. WEST- R-T. The Wilson Farm & Central Premix is located to the west. Site # 2 south of the freeway (I-182) is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land use is as follows: NORTH- Freeway interchange is located directly to the north. SOUTH- C-1. Vacant land is located to the south. EAST- C-R and C-1 Vacant land, a convenience store and Tri City Prep are located to the east. WEST- R-4 Land developed with the Broadmoor apartments S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the site near the I-182 interchange for commercial development with mixed residential and low density residential extending to the north and west. Comprehensive Plan policy LU-4- B encourages concentration of commercial activities, which are functionally and economically beneficial to each other hence the reason for grouping the commercial designations around the interchange. Most of the site is designated for residential development. Plan Policy CP.2.2 I (A) and (B) encourage urban development to be confined within the Urban Growth Boundary. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of nonsignificance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The property in question currently has water rights available however the water rights have not been perfected. The applicant is endeavoring to put his land into agricultural production to preserve the water rights. The applicant is proposing to construct several (4) center pivot irrigation circles and associated infrastructure on the property north of the I-1.82 freeway. The irrigation heads on the circles will be low pressure drops designed to minimize drifting and over spraying of water. The property to the south of the freeway will be developed with solid set lines. The land south of the freeway is proposed for minimal tillage organic crops. The land north of the freeway is proposed for a rotation of crops 2 to provide proper control of wind erosion. According to the conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency for the proposed farm a planting sequence of high residue crops (wheat, corn, alfalfa) rotated with low residue crops (beans, potatoes, onions) will be employed. Following the harvest of a low residue crop various measures are required to control wind erosion including planting cover crops and/or discing approximately 1,000 pounds of straw per acre into the soil. Soil supplements (fertilizers etc) will only be applied through the drop heads on the circles. Areas of the property not needed for the circles (the corners and areas between circles) will be left in a natural state for purposes of controlling erosion. The bulk of (80%-90%) the farming activity will be located 800 to 900 feet west of Broadmoor Blvd. The applicant's application indicates the requested special use permit is for farming on a temporary basis until commercial and residential development begins. Due to the considerable expense involved in developing the infrastructure for an intensive commercial farming operation it will be difficult to amortize the cost with just a temporary farm. It is likely the proposed farm would occupy the site for 10 years before the up front development costs can be recouped. Commercial farming activities are listed as conditional uses in the R-T zone and as a result can only be permitted after review and approval through the Special Permit process. The site is located inside the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. The Urban Growth Boundary was initially established by Franklin County in April of 1993. The establishment of Urban Growth Boundary was a requirement of the State Growth Management Act (GMA). The purpose of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was to clearly establish an area in which urban development was to be encouraged and outside of which urban development was to be discouraged. Through the implementation of UGB's, the State goal (which became a City 8- County goal) was to reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into urban sprawl and to provide for appropriate public facilities and utilities in an efficient manner. Other goals included the encouragement of affordable housing and the provision of public services and facilities at the time of development. The UGB's were to protect farm lands outside the UGB and other natural resource lands from urban sprawl. With the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan for Pasco's UGB it was estimated that 75 percent of all the urban growth within Franklin County would be directed to the Pasco UGB. 3 The GMA made it very plain that urban services and utilities were not to be extended beyond the UGB's. Consequently, all of the City's land use planning and utility planning was confined to the limits of the UGB. In keeping with the established UGB, the City designated the site in question for urban development consisting of low density residential, mixed use residential and commercial uses at urban densities. In 1995 when the GMA Comprehensive Plan was adopted much of the I- 182 area was vacant and or being farmed. In 1996 the first major subdivision (Sunny Meadows north of TRAC) was under construction. Since 2000, urban development has occurred at a phenomenal rate in the I-182 area. The attached I-182 maps (Exhibits #1 & #2) provide a pictorial illustration of the rapid urban growth in the area. It is within this area that almost 100 final plats have been established in the last 8 years. Since 2000, 5,000 new single family homes have been permitted for construction in the City along with 1,100 new apartment units. Consequently a major portion of the land within the UGB north and south of I-182 has been developed. In 1996, Pasco's population stood at 22,370. Since 1996, the City's population has grown by 25,240, to 47,610. Because of the rapid growth land available for urban development is now somewhat limited within the UGB. There is approximately 640 acres of land in the 1-182 corridor designated for single family development that has not been platted or received preliminary plat approval. The Adams property represents 38 percent of the available land for residential development. At current growth rates the City has an inventory of approximately 3 years of approved residential lots that can be developed. Over the last 10 years approximately 200 acres of land has been developed for residential development every year. One of the very few remaining parcels for urban development is the parcel proposed by the applicant for farming. If the site in question is developed with a farm, continued urban growth would have to be accommodated through premature expansion of the UGB. This would lead to urban sprawl by encouraging development northward into the existing farm land outside the current UGB. As a result, existing farm land would be lost and the Adams farm operation would be surrounded by urban development. The public cost of utility and roadway extensions would be excessive due to the need to "go around" the new farm which is under consideration. The property is currently zoned R-T (Residential Transition). The R-T zone is applied to those properties in the city that are essentially undeveloped but generally intended for suburban or urban residential uses (PMC 25.20.010). As utility extensions are made and residential 4 development expands, vacant lands mainly designated for low density residential uses in the Comprehensive Plan are then transitioned through the rezone process from the holding status under the R-T District to a suburban district such as R-S-1, or to the R-1 low density residential district. In this case a portion of the property is designated for future commercial uses. The R-T District also serves as a holding zone for future commercial uses. It is not the intent of the R-T district for lands so designated to be transitioned to agricultural uses. On the contrary, the RT zone reflects progression toward urban development, as utilities and roadways are logically extended. To encourage agricultural production on the site would be counter to the goals of the Growth Management Act. The GMA requires urban development to be directed to lands within UGB's. Agricultural production is encouraged by the GMA to be located outside UGB's. INTIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. Per the Growth Management Act urban development is to be encouraged within Urban Growth Boundaries (CP.2.2 Policy 1. (B). 3. The site is zoned R-T. 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future single family, mix residential and commercial development. 5. The site is not a designated critical area. 6. R-T zoning is a holding zone that preserves land for future intended uses, principally residential uses. 7. Commercial agricultural (farms) are listed as unclassified uses in the zoning regulations. 8. Commercial agricultural (farms) are listed as conditional uses in the R-T zone and require approval through the Special Permit process. 9. The site is in the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 10. The site contains 564 acres. 11. Most of the site is vacant. 5 12. Approximately 20 acres of the site is currently being farmed. 13. Approximately 70 acres of the site are being used as part of the Central Pre Mix Gravel pit. 14. The Central Pre-Mix gravel pit and concrete facility are located to the west of the site. 15. Since 2000 4,984 new single family homes have been permitted for construction in the City. 16. Since 2000 over 1,100 new multi family dwelling units have been permitted for construction in the City. 17. Nearly 100 final plats have been approved for lands within the I- 182 corridor since 1998. 18. The Adams property was annexed to the City in 1982. The only tangible development actions on the property in recent years has been requests for Special Permit approvals for gravel extraction, a hot mix asphalt plant and a farm, all non-urban uses. 19. The Broadmoor Estates and Mediterranean Villas subdivisions are both located to the east across Boradmoor Blvd from the proposed farm site# 1. 20. The new Broadmoor Apartments (252 units) are located directly west of proposed farm site # 2. 21 , The Loviisa Farms subdivision with over 900 new single family lots is located to the southeast of site # 2 across Broadmoor Blvd. 22. Approximately 640 acres of land is available for future single family development in the I-182 Corridor. 23. The Adams property represents about 38% of the remaining single family land in the I-182 Corridor. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INTIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: iLl Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for Iow density residential development increasing in intensity to mix 6 residential and then commercial development the closer the property gets to the 1-182 Interchange. The Comprehensive Plan encourages urban development within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. The proposal encourages rural development rather than urban development. Delaying urban development on the proposed site would encourage urban sprawl by requiring additional county farmland to the north to be brought into the UGB_ Urban services would then have to skip past the proposed site all counter to the goals and objectives of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm is not dependant upon City utilities or infrastructure like residential and commercial development. However, the development of this site for farming activities will delay the extension of utilities to the site. The proposed site is within the water and sewer service boundary of the City and as such it would be counterproductive to the GMA and City goal of providing utilities in a cost efficient manner if the city were to encourage farming on the site. Development of the site for a farm will compel the City to petition the County to expand the Urban Growth Boundary and extend utilities to accommodate urban growth the City is legally bound to accommodate under State regulations. 31 Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The intended character of the site as reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan is for commercial development to be located around the freeway interchange with residential development extending beyond to the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary. High intensity commercial agricultural production with dust, chemical applications, and noise farm machinery does not exist in harmony with residential development. The issue of farm chemicals was of great concern for the neighborhood surrounding the new high school site during the hearings for the temporary vocational farm proposed by the School District. 41 Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? There will be no structures erected with this proposal other than pivot irrigation systems. Significant investment in the irrigation system and land preparation will make it impractical to develop the site for 7 intended uses within the near future, thereby discouraging the development of permitted uses. The approval of a farming operation on the proposed site will only serve to significantly delay intended pennited uses as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. S) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The planting and harvesting of crops involves the use of heavy farm equipment that makes noise and creates dust. Such activities could be considered objectionable to permitted uses allowed in the district. The application of necessary farm chemicals could also be considered an objectionable activity to permitted uses within the district. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The only permitted uses in the district currently are single family dwellings. Future uses as identified in the Comprehensive Plan will include single family and multifamily dwellings and commercial development. The operation of farm, occurring simultaneously with the development of intended uses, with the use of machinery for planting and harvesting along with the application of farm chemicals could become a nuisance to permitted and intended uses. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the February 15, 2007 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: 1 move based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a special for the location and operation of a commercial farm on the Dale Adams property. 8 A.N�1.9A' ,•`•�n'"._i �.i} },��RR.. H:� drT�R i :J _ _��•J Y t 1 a a�7, 3, t.: �AZ�Si��'.�� �agY^� ',•i2C:.'w. °i...•` _ � ���4 �}. ..1 �.u� '''.k: y��gY�gp'ry{�(�y yam!( _ •.�":; ,:� -,;_.:y. ��? .r �C9fi�'9 '!Al ��� 'f Y•G ') /�'� ,�y��'� - {: SR '>•'• - '.:''�p'.Y( '.J., ::f:.,D''i,: _ - try •'�'(..'' :}.` .•_�•, �.`i SaW. e t': �y '•`!' :rY>�.� :1 �./.'�p.,llfYl • MALI HOW All Mai _"""--' - _ � +>h"��.;�.:'r�it,.,..�+:��t.,.. .:�:-�:i",w.�>{ano•,+reru�wsaw»......�1,w�' - - M•{6 �R��`�,'b,,�..,�;�;;C, ,�•tV`;b`. '<y: o'a`f''.•-.�_9�' _ '.N� 6 i..,. _ a�kj + I SIF s k NOW .el� Yi, \ �'G sw ar F'Lt,`r+�• ri �i ������� l �~S`Yti� � ` v b` 4�} .,�:. }�'��',-� R..>g. t �Y�,� ``5�;�. a. t•4 ';'.r�::$;M.. '� x.g*" -"„ti' 'ti � _5,_-: � is rsiF �=��° '��-?� �, ,d' :r.i"�`• `;- L: `�,'':�'s.,� ��`.. `'�s. ((ir m ` c c4 c A E . , • °2:�i�':. rjr"444`��i} •t��� i''��;;���,' ;, ''F•,'Yy.`�?' ;,�'�• A�, . , • v'4 is y Ste..'_.«"-^=-..,:,+£:•."r�§.'„ggf•, �.IM 3;;"'."�Y,Z�'�k;.w^ '• •• - �..jlt.E:'e'�',}'Aiar--..;,:�fi 'aS'.';.•.... .._:'t'<,''._`�c'.::�,,...-_.....-"_.,:n:P'Aa' Wf cd a � o � 7 (Rild ct Con ct �� Ct L40FJ r--4 > r--4 ILLU ci u H N �' 3 [] `p %JC3 Cl j cf) 0 0 4-a i SPECIAL PERMIT Report Supplement February 15, 2007 MASTER FILE NQ: SPO6-015 APPLICANT: Dale Adams ALTERNATE FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located zoned R-T. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future single family, mix residential and commercial development. 3. The site is not a designated critical area. 4. The R-T zone is a holding zone that preserves land for future intended uses, principally residential uses. 5. Commercial agricultural (farms) are listed as unclassified uses in the zoning regulations. 6. Commercial agricultural (farms) are listed as conditional uses in the R-T zone and require approval through the Special Permit process. 7. The site is in the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 8. The site contains 564 acres. 9. Most of the site is vacant. 10. Approximately 20 acres of the site is currently being farmed. 11. Four wheelers, and dirt bike riders have used the site for many years for off road recreation activities. 12. The property has been used as a dumping ground for yard debris and household appliances 13. Farms are located directly to the south, west, north and north east of the site. l 14. The Central Pre-Mix gravel pit and concrete facility are located to the west of the site. 15. The Lovissa Farms and Wilson Meadows subdivisions were developed on farm land 16. In the mid 1990's approximately 2,400 acres of farm land was located in the I-182 Corridor. 17. Farming occurs today in the 1-182 Corridor on land that has been zoned C-1, R-1, R-T and R-S-1/PUD. 18. The existing farm directly to the north of Broadmoor Estates is closer to residential development than the proposed farm will be. 19. Broadmoor Estates and Mediterranean Villas are both located to the east across Boradmoor Blvd from the proposed farm site. 20. No property owners from Broadmoor Estates and Mediterranean Villas appeared at the hearing to voice concerns about the proposed farm. 21. Approximately 90 percent of the proposed farming activity will occur 800 to 900 feet west of Broadmoor Blvd. 22. The applicant received approval of a conservation plan from the Farm Service Agency. 23. The Conservation Plan calls for a rotation of high residue crops and low residue crops to control wind erosion. 24. The approved Conservation Plan requires a cover crop or the addition of 1,000 pounds of straw per acre to be disced into the soil for wind erosion control following the harvest of a low residue crop. 25. The property owner has stated the proposed farm will be designed to permit the extension of Sandifur Parkway to the west. 26. The property owner has stated the circles of the proposed farm will be strategically placed to allow the circles to be easily taken out of service to accommodate intended uses. 27. The proposed farm.has access from Dent Road, Broadmoor Blvd and Harris Road. 28. The property owner agreed to have farm equipment use Dent Road for access to the farm. 29. The Conservation Plan limits plowing and field preparation to in some case to five days before planting. 30. The property contains water rights valid until June of 2007. 2 31. The water rights must be perfected by actual use prior to the expiration of said right in 2007. 32. Developers are required by the Municipal Code to deed all water rights to the City at the time of platting or development. 33. The city recently approved a farm for the School district for the purpose of preserving water rights. ALTERNATE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development increasing in intensity to mix residential and then commercial development the closer the property gets to the I-182 Interchange. The proposal is an interim use that will preserve the site for uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal also supports Policy LU-3-F that encourages the use of irrigation water in residential districts and Policy OF-3-B that calls for the continued expansion of the water system. The proposal will preserve water rights for the property owner. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm will have no adverse impact on public infrastructure. A farm is not dependant upon City utilities or infrastructure like residential and commercial development. Long term the proposal will benefit public infrastructure namely the municipal water and or irrigation system. The proposal will secure scarce water rights for the property owner. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? 3 The proposed use will be in harmony with the farms surrounding the site. The location of other farms within the 1-182 Corridor have demonstrated that farms within close proximity to dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. Farms operated simultaneous with the development of Loviisa Farms, Wilson Meadows and in harmony with other residential developments in the 1-182 Corridor. The proposed use will not make intensive use of the land or lead to the unorderly growth of the community or in any way inhibit development of future intended uses as demonstrated by the residential and commercial development occurring within the 1-182 Corridor on farm land. The proposed farm is not an industrial use or intensive commercial use but is an interim use that will easily convert to uses as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? There will be no structures erected with this proposal other than pivot irrigation systems. Development over the last 10 years within the 1-182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do no discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. Broadmoor Estates is currently being developed adjacent an existing farm. Farms are currently interspersed with residential development throughout the I-182 Corridor and the West Pasco area as explained in # 3 above. 51 Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes, noise or vibrations, than future permitted commercial and multi family uses. Current farming operations within the 1-182 Corridor attest to the fact that such activity is not more objectionable to property owners by reason of traffic,flashing lights and etc.. 61 Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The only use in the district at the present time is the Central Pre- Mix facility and a existing farm. The proposed use will not impact the gravel mining operation. The proposed farm will be compatible with the existing farm on the site. The proposed farm 4 will make less intense use of the land than uses (commercial, multi family & single family) identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed farm is only an interim use that will not impede the development of future uses nor will it become a nuisance to future permitted uses. The existence of numerous farming operations within the I-182 Corridor demonstrate the proposed use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the February 15, 2007 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location and operation of a commercial farm on the Dale Adams property with conditions as listed in the February 15, 2007 Staff report: Approval Conditions (1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; (3) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise run onto or in the adjoining public right-of-way; (4) Farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; (5) The farm must always maintain a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency; (6) Crop rotation, cover crop planting, soil preparation and other necessary farm activities shall strictly follow the requirements of the approved conservation plan; (7) Primary access for farm machinery must be from Dent Road; 5 (8) The farm operation shall be subject to noise and dust control regulations_ (9) The farm shall be designed to readily permit the extension of Sandifur Parkway to the west from Broadmoor Blvd.; (10) No farming operation shall be permitted on land designated in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial land uses; (11) The farm shall be designed to allow the easy conversion of the property to intended land uses as identified in the Pasco Comprehensive Plan; (12) The areas between the circles not used for farming must be maintained to control blowing dust. (13) The property shall be posted to indicate no motorcycling or four wheeling or dumping is a permitted; (14) The special permit shall be null and void if the farm circles have not been installed by October 30, 2007. (15) The Special Permit approval shall expire and become null and void within 3 years of the date of City Council approval. 6 Planning Commission Minutes 1/18107 A. Special Permit Farming in an RT Zone (Dale Adams) (North of Harris Rd & West of Broadmoor Blvd.) (MF# SPO6-015) Chairman McCollum read the master file number and asked for a report from Staff. Staff stated notification of the meeting had been published in the Tri City Herald, as well as mailed to the owners of property within a 300-foot radius of the proposed site were notified as well. As a result of those notifications, staff received two letters. The first letter was received from the Franklin County Irrigation District. The letter stated that the proposed site has been considered part of their planning area for a number of years, and that they have the infrastructure and pumping capacity in place to serve this site with irrigation water. The second letter was from the property owner Dale Adams. Staff explained the requested Special Permit was to allow farming on two parcels of land; one parcel was located north of I-182 northwest of the interchange, the other on the south side of the Interstate. The proposal is for a less intense farming operation on the south side of the freeway, such as row crops or possibly organic products. The site to the north would be farmed with a rotation of crops. The applicant has obtained approval of a conservation plan that details the crop rotation from the Farm Service Agency. Staff reviewed the surrounding zoning and land uses. The property is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, which indicates areas where the community intends to encourage urban-type (non-rural) development. The Growth Management Act dictates that the City is responsible for land use and utility planning within the Urban Growth Boundary. There are approximately 640 acres of undeveloped land in the I-182 corridor area that have been designated for future residential development. The applicants' property comprises approximately 38% of the available land. Staff explained the farm proposal would be counter to what the Growth Management Act mandates in that it would not transition the property to residential uses as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, but rather would transition the property into a rural use. The applicant indicated that the farm would be of a temporary nature, but due to the cost involved in setting up a farm operation on a large piece of property, the use would have to remain for at least ten years. Given the constraints that the City has with the Urban Growth Boundary, if the farm is located on this property it could cause the City to have to petition the County to extend the Urban Growth Boundary to the north, bypassing this property. Such an extension would further entail extending utilities to the north and create a type of sprawl or "leap-frog" development that the Growth Management Act seeks to avoid. Staff reviewed the Special Permit criteria listed in PMC Section 25.86 for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Little asked if the purpose of establishing a farm is to preserve the water rights. Staff responded that the applicant has indicated he is seeking to farm the property to preserve the water rights. Commissioner Samuel asked if the City has confirmed that the water rights are in jeopardy if the site is not farmed. Staff responded they have not confirmed this; however the applicant could answer the question. Commissioner Rose stated that if this area encompasses approximately 38% of the land available for development, then 62% remains available. He stated that he believes that development is beginning to level off, and utilizing the land for farming is preferable to its current condition of sand and blowing weeds. Staff stated that residential development is leveling off; however commercial land continues to be in demand, particularly in the 1-182 corridor area. Commissioner Rose asked if the vast majority of the area would be residential, with commercial development just around the I-182 interchange. Staff responded that if the application is approved, the farm land would be rented out and eventually would produce an income stream to the property owner. This would discourage the owner from pursuing further commercial development in the area. Commissioner Little stated that a couple years ago a study was done to look at development around the Broadmoor area. He wondered if that study was no longer applicable to the area. Staff replied that if more commercial land was available, more commercial development would be taking place. The study may have been a bit conservative compared to the actual growth rate that the City has seen. Chairman McCollum opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this matter. Dale Adams, 907 Eagle Ridge Drive, Danville, CA, introduced himself and stated he has owned the property for twenty years. During that time, the City has encouraged him to pursue the water rights for this land, which he has subsequently done. He added that he can provide evidence to the City that he does have water rights, and if they are not used, they will be extinguished. Mr. Adams stated that his intention is solely to perfect the water rights to the property. He stated that he had tried to work with the City to preserve the water rights for his property, and utilized them for the good of the City. Mr. Adams stated that he disagrees with staffs assumption that his perfecting the water rights will delay further development of the property. He has been ready to develop the property for the entire time he has owned it. He has never proceeded with a farming venture prior to this time because he thought that development was imminent. His desire for the site would be that there would be development of a regional nature near the interchange. He is frequently approached by individuals that want to buy five or ten acres of the site. He has not done this because he would like to see the property master planned around a major regional user. The agreement that has been made with the Irrigation District is that the water rights will remain with the property, so they will be there when the site is ready to be developed. Mr. Adams stated other problems that would be alleviated by using the site for farming would be wind erosion, and illegal dumping. Commissioner Rose asked if the applicant would be interested in setting aside half of the property for development and restricting the farming activity to the other half. Mr. Adams responded that he would be interested in either option. He is not interested in selling off small sections, but he would consider selling large portions for development. Commissioner Schouviller asked what the applicant's time frame would be for initiating the use of the property as farm land, in order to preserve the water rights. Mr. Adams answered he had a deadline for preservation of the water rights of June 1, 2007; unless he is actively pursuing the use of the water. Commissioner Schouviller asked what the impact would be to future development if the water rights are not perfected. Mr. Adams stated that loss of the water rights would not prevent future development, but that the City is better off if they are preserved. Commissioner Samuel sta ed that he was concerned about the fact that farming does have some n gative impacts to adjacent properties; dust, smell, noise, eLc. Mr. Adams responded that the farming operation would not be very close to Road 100 due to how the irrigation circles would be laid out. The largest problem that the property resents now is from wind erosion; which would be resolved by the crop cultivat on activity. Commissioner Samuel state that his concern is not the farming activity itself, but rather the trucks, plow , etc. proving to be disruptive to the surrounding properties. Mr. Adams stated that acces for the farming operation would be off Dent Road, not from Road 100 or arris Road. Commissioner Samuel aske for confirmation that the applicant would have no problem if access to the far ing operation was restricted off Harris Road and Road 100. Mr. Adams confirmed that h would be fine with the conditions of the project limiting access. Commissioner Samuel asked if the applicant has any idea of the value of these water rights. Mr. Adams responded that h cannot give a dollar value, but that he has been led to believe that they are e tremely valuable (due to a moratorium that was placed on pumping water fro the river several years ago.) Commissioner Samuel asked if the applicant has had any serious inquiries about development of the pro erty. Mr. Adams responded that h has not had many inquiries. He stated that he had pursued Target to come to the site, but they were not interested in this location. Commissioner Anderson stat d that he was concerned that if the farming operation is granted, there is o assurance that the farming operation would be ceased to allow for commercia development in the future. Mr. Adams responded that i is in his best interest to sell the property for commercial development rath r than keeping it as a farming operation which would provide no revenue to him as the property owner. After a couple of years of farming, the cost to buy out the farming operation would be less than paying the City water fees should the ights not be preserved. Commissioner Anderson then sked how Site #2 would be utilized. Mr. Adams responded that he is currently in escrow with a buyer who wishes to develop the property into a neighborhood commercial center. Roger Wright, RGW Enterprises, 3100 George Washington Way, Richland, WA introduced himself as the Civil Engineer that has been working with the applicant on this proposal. He stated that the only way that the water rights can be perfected is through farm use; that is why they are proposing to develop the property this way. Developing the property as farm land will cost approximately three thousand dollars per acre. The property will sell for residential development for approximately thirty thousand dollars per acre, and commercial land for several times that amount. If the applicant had to buy out the farming investment after just one year, he would still benefit greatly through selling the property for development. They have planned the site to provide for development to occur during the farming activity - by locating farm circles to provide for the extension of Sandifur, etc. He pointed out that farming activity currently occur closer to residential development by Broadmoor Estates and on Road 68. He pointed out Loviisa Farms and Wilson Meadows were developed on farm land. They are working with the Conservation District and will follow their guidelines regarding utilization of the property near residential developments. Commissioner Samuel asked for confirmation that the water rights stay with the property. Mr. Wright responded that the water rights run with the land; after the rights are put to beneficial use, they stay with the land. Robert Link, 4604 Shoreline Ct., Pasco, WA addressed the Commission and stated that he believes it is the responsibility of the Commission to protect the citizen's rights. He requested that if the proposal is approved, that conditions be included to prevent the expansion of the existing Central Premix operation onto this site. Commissioner Samuel asked Mr. Link if he is for or against the proposal. Mr. Link responded that he is against it, only because he is anxious about having special conditions placed on the proposal. Salina Savage, 11816 Shoreline Ct., Pasco, WA addressed the Commission and stated that she came to the hearing to find out how this proposal will affect Central Premix's operations. Commissioner McCollum asked the applicant to clarify the relationship between this property and the Central Premix operation. Mr. Adams responded that Central Premix has nothing to do with this property, and will not be utilizing the property in the future. Commissioner Samuel asked how the applicant will address the issue of blowing dust. Mr. Adams responded that by putting irrigated crops on the property, the dust issue will be alleviated. Mr. Wright added that the conservation plan for the property requires that the land is not left barren; it must have vegetation on it. Commissioner Samuel asked what crops are planned for the property. Mr. Wright stated that there will be a variety of crops, but something would be on the property at all times. Ms. Savage stated that the wind blows toward the neighboring residential properties; she is concerned that crops won't control the blowing sand. After three calls for public comment the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Samuel asked for staffs reaction to the public testimony. Staff responded that their feeling is that this proposal is for a commercial farming operation, which they believe will impede development due to the fact that they are requesting permission to operate the farm for ten years. They continue to believe that the use is not appropriate within the Urban Growth Boundary. Commissioner Anderson moved to close the hearing on the Special Permit and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact and Conclusions and a recommendation to City Council for the February 15, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Schouviller seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes 2115/07 A. Special Permit Farming in an RT Zone (Dale Adams) (North of Harris Rd & West of Broadmoor Blvd.) (MF# SPOb-015) Chairman McCollum explained the Commission had considered the proposal during a hearing last month and then asked the Staff for any comments. Staff stated that as a result of the public hearing, staff has prepared a final report including findings of fact, conclusions based upon those findings of fact, and a recommendation for denial of the special permit. Additionally, as a result of questions from the Commission at the Public Hearing, staff has provided an alternate set of findings of fact and conclusions, and an alternate recommendation with conditions for the Commission's consideration. A letter from the applicant, responding to the second set of recommendations was provided to the Commissioners. (This letter was reviewed by the City Attorney and determined not to be new evidence prior to being provided to the Commissioners.) Commissioner Samuel asked why the findings of fact changed between the time the initial set was distributed to the Commission and the revised set that was created and distributed prior to this meeting. Staff responded that the initial findings of fact had not changed; they were developed prior to the public hearing. The revised findings were prepared as result of questions generated by the Commissioner at the hearing. The a alternate finds were prepared to assist the Commission should they wish to take an alternate course of action. Commissioner Samuel then asked if the applicant was still pursuing site number two. Staff responded that they were still pursuing site number two, for a less intensive farming type of activity. Commissioner Samucl asked if the applicant had agreed to drop their pursuit of approval of farming on site number two in order to allow site number one to move forward. Staff stated that they believed the applicant did make such a proposal. Commissioner Samuel then asked for clarification regarding Special Permit Condition number 10, which states that no farming operation shall be permitted on land designated by the Comprehensive Plan for commercial development. Staff stated that commercially designated land comprises about 90 to 100 acres of the proposed site. Staff believes that allowing farming activity on the site could cause commercial development to be more difficult in the future. Commissioner Samuel then asked for clarification on Special Permit Condition number 15, which would require the Special Permit to expire three years after City Council approval. Staff responded that based upon the rate of growth the City has experienced over the last several years', the site would be needed in approximately four years to fill the need for housing lots. Commissioner Samuel asked if that condition would require the applicant to come back before the Commission and request a new special permit for farming, should they not wish to discontinue operation at that expiration date. Staff responded that making application for an additional permit would be an option available to the applicant should they not wish to discontinue farming activity when the expiration date arrives. Commissioner Little stated that he recalled a study a couple years ago regarding land available for commercial development. Staff replied that a study was done in 2003 to determine the availability of commercial property in the 1-182 area. At that time the study indicated that there were over 700 acres available for future commercial development. A the study determined that the City of Pasco would need 600 acres of commercially developed property to serve the community. Commissioner Little stated that the applicant has represented that if he were able to make a deal with a prospective developer, he would buy out the farming operation on the site. He wondered if there was any reason to believe otherwise. Staff responded that while they are unable to speculate as to what the applicant might do, they have seen very little tangible action on the applicant's part toward development of this site. Additionally, buying out the farming operation would be quite expensive. Therefore, staff believes that with the farming operation approved, the site would be less likely to be developed commercially. Commissioner Samuel asked if staff is sure that the applicant has not made adequate attempts to market the property for commercial development. Staff responded that they would not dispute the applicant's claims of attempting to market the property. Their position comes from an observation of the results - that the applicant has not managed to sell the property for commercial development. Commissioner McCollum stated that he would have to disagree with the suggestion that developing farm land into commercial property is more difficult than developing raw (un-cleared, un-level) land. He asked if the applicant is unable to retain water rights on the property, how the City would intend to replace the water. Staff responded that during the course of the platting process, the developer would be required to pay a fee which is used to purchase water rights from another location at a later date. Additionally, staff stated that during the review process of this project, other City departments (that reviewed the proposal) did not express concern over preservation of the water rights for this site. Commissioner Schouviller asked if this property would not be more attractive to a potential developer with existing water rights. Staff responded that other properties have developed without water rights. Commissioner Samuel asked if there are any previous cases where farm land was developed into commercial property and the fact that the land had previously been farmed constituted a problem. Staff responded that they are looking at this particular site and its development history. While other land in the area has been developed, for some reason this land has not. Commissioner Little asked if the decision on this special permit will have any influence on the asphalt plant decision. Staff stated that was a legal question better answered by the Attorney. Staff was of the opinion that the record for the Pre-Mix application was closed and information from the current hearing could not be added to that closed record. Commissioner Samuel asked if there aren't 700 lots plotted and waiting for development elsewhere in the City. Staff responded that there are 2,900 lots that have been approved through the preliminary platting process. Since 2000 the City has had a running inventory of approximately 3,000 lots. if development continues at the current rate, those 2,900 lots would all be built out in approximately four years. Commissioner Samuel moved to adopt the Findings of Facts and Conclusions there from and contained in the February 15, 2007 Staff Report. Commissioner Hay seconded the motion; motion carried. Commissioner Samuel moved that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions there from, the Commission recommend to the City Council that a Special Permit be granted with the special conditions as listed in the February 15, 2007 Staff Report. Of the fifteen conditions listed, numbers ten and fifteen should be struck from the approval Conditions. Staff requested clarification that the Staff Report referenced in the motion was the supplemental report. Commissioner Samuel agreed that he was referencing the supplemental report. Commissioner Little Seconded the motion; motion carried. AGENDA REPORT NO. 05 FOR: City Council DATE: February 27, 2007 TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Regular Mtg: March 5, 2007 FROM: Robert J. Albe or, Public Works SUBJECT: Office & Locker Room Expansion, Phase II, Project No.07-1-02 I. REFERENCES): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 315/07: MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the Office & Locker Room Expansion, Phase 1I,Project No. 07-1-02 to Booth & Sons Construction, Inc., in the amount of$1 19,116.48 including applicable sales tax,and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Utility Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The 2007 Capital Improvement Budget includes a project to provide for additional office space and locker room expansion at the Public Works Shops. The project will be done in two phases, Phase I will include a modular building which will have offices, a lunchroom, bathrooms and locker rooms. Phase H of the project is for an equipment/vehicle storage. The total budget for the project is $400,000. Staff solicited five bids but only received one bid for the equipment/vehicle storage building. The bid was received from Booth & Sons Construction, Inc. in the amount of$119,116.48 including sales tax. To evaluate the bid, Staff reviewed past Public Works Project of similar type. The most similar new construction and building project was done in 2002, where the price was approximately $74.00 per square foot. The cost for this project will he approximately $88.00 per foot. Staff feels that the approximately 20% increase in cost per square foot is valid given the rising costs of building and construction materials and labor since 2002. Staff recommends award of this contract to Booth& Sons Construction, Inc. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING Project File 10(c) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council March 2, 2007 FROM: Gary Crutchf anager Regular Mtg.: 3/5/07 SUBJECT: TPA Budget e ment L REFERENCE(S): 1. Letter from VCB President to City Manager dated 2/26/07 2. TPA Budget, 2007, with proposed changes I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 3/5: MOTION: I move to approve the $60,000 increase in the 2007 TPA budget for TPA staff salaries and, further, direct that the increased expenditure be included in the year-end supplemental budget. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None to city; reduces TPA reserve account from $365,000 to $305,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA), formed by the three cities at the request of the Tri-Cities hotel industry, essentially requires a fee ($1.50/room night) be paid by each hotel. The funds are sent to the state by the individual hotels and returned to the Tri-Cities via each respective city; those funds are then transferred to the Visitor & Convention Bureau (VCB), acting as the managing agent of the TPA (hotels). Because the funds are handled via the state and city, they are regarded as "public" funds and, therefore, must be used in strict compliance with applicable rules. B) The VCB, as managing agent for the TPA, provides an annual TPA business plan and budget for city approval. Those documents are approved by the city, but the funds are effectively managed by the VCB and the TPA board, in accordance with the approved business plan and budget. C) The TPA recently determined, as outlined in referenced no.1, that it should provide a substantial (but one-time) assistance allocation to help assure the Water Follies event occurs in 2007 and has the opportunity to "get back on its feet," in view of the tremendous positive impacts the event provides the larger Tri-Cities community. Because TPA funds cannot be used to directly finance an event, the TPA proposes that the VCB use its private membership funds for the Water Follies assistance and the TPA provide equivalent funds to the VCB (to backfill the promotional expenses of the VCB that are eligible for public funds). The VCR letter (reference no. 1) clearly explains the process and purpose. V. DISCUSSION: A) The TPA request is for Council approval of the budget amendment, which will appropriate the additional $60,000 (from reserves) and authorize its expenditure for salaries and wages in support of the VCB (this, in turn, will allow the VCB to spend its $60,000 of salaries and wages for the Water Follies assistance instead). B) Staff recommends Council approval of the increased budget by motion and subsequent inclusion in the year-end supplemental budget. 10(d) si M51TCR CCNVEN7ICN BUREAU Kf.NNFWffK Vu( ,ki:i tlAND/Wn;!hiN6Tfi}y�'(ji.4 _ TRl tITIK WOR I(010I14N BURRO P.O. BOX 2241 Tri-Cities,WA 99302-2241 509-735-8486 1-800-254-5824 Fax 509-783-9005 www.Vi si tTri-Cities.corn February 26, 2007 info @Vis!tTri-Cities.com Mr. Gary Crutchfield City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Crutchfield; On February 8, 2007 a representative of the Tri-City Water Follies Association made a presentation to the Tri-City Area Hotel-Motel Commission regarding the financial standing of the Tri-City Water Follies Association and the potential ramifications to the hydroplane races in 2007 if significant financial support from the community could not be raised. The commissioners present at that meeting were interested in providing $60,000 from the Tourism Promotion Assessment Reserve Account as a one time payment to support the efforts of the Tri-Cities Water Follies for the hydroplane races and requested that the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau research how that money could be made available. Funds generated through the collection of the Tourism Promotion Assessment(TPA) are restricted in how they can be spent. The operational expenses for festivals and events are included in those restrictions. However, one of the approved uses is for the operational expenses of Visitor& Convention Bureaus. Since the TPA budget currently only covers a portion of the total Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau operational expenses, the following solution was developed: 1. With approval of all three of the City Councils, the Tri-City Area Hotel-Motel Commission will release $60,000 from their reserve account in order to increase their 2007 budget to accommodate a related increase in the general operating expenses of the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau. 2. With increased support from the Tri-City Area Hotel-Motel Commission the Tri- Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau will in turn allocate $60,000 from their membership budget to support the Tri-Cities Water Follies Association. Since its inception in October of 2005, a portion of the TPA revenues collected have been set aside in a reserve account. The commissioners maintained that establishing a`rainy day" fund was a prudent practice in the event that there was ever a significant event or "crisis" that would require an infusion of financial resources to ensure a continued benefit to our local economy. The total balance in the TPA reserve account as of January 30, 2007 is $365,577.54. The Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau and the Tri-Cities Area Hotel-Motel Commission are asking the Pasco City Council to approve the release of$60,000 from the reserve fund to support the Bureau's operational expenses in 2007. This arrangement will allow the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau to support the Tri-Cities Water Follies with funds unencumbered by legislation regarding the support of festivals and events. The proposed solution will allow the hospitality community to support a tourism related event which also has a significant benefit to the entire Tri-Cities community. Thank you for your participation in the monthly Tri-City Hotel-Motel Commission meetings, your support of our tourism efforts is greatly appreciated. If I can provide you with any additional details or you would like me to be available to comment as the City Council reviews this request,please let me know. Sincerely, Kris Watkins President &CEO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 C OOp Q O O o 6 4 O O v C7 t- rn h- M O o N Q' v n o tai o0D td0 O tOD 04� p m 0 r M 177 M O m m t• ["7 N O r o� 'r- r d CV r O N O O O T O O 4 N 6 O c0 O � r d L9 7 CO O e O CD O 00 O V1 O co O O co (A r tU U C yefi v9 eH 09 cr> d> EH E9 ff3 Vj cfl t9 6i> 69 b3 E3s E i 6H e� 6h e+9 fly 69 cf3 t O d 0 O O N Q1 6 0Q OO O O O Q O O Lo 0 m � 0 O co 00 1 w +� � 0 C C 11 r tD O L? O O 0 0 0 N W O ch O h N O M c7 N 6 C4 M N O O O L O T' ti r m M r M f•.(77 � a 0 N EI3 d> fA 69 cfl 6A 69 E+9 EH tl> 69 cA 69 EA b4 tft to fA (A [l> E9 E9 ER V> H3 W V1 H3 <i1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 C C C e O d; 4 hN- r N N N M CMD •d: V �i Lr,) .0 O N O $ m O d d c6 N cV O r r O N r O N 0 0 0 f'' •-- 0 0 CJ d 4 0 m O o _ h N c o tp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O O O �"� O O 1L') O N O I'at C O O c00 n 0 COD O b 0 0 l[3 O Q 6 N O O 177 CD> O1 lc'7 0 M o7 cD N 67 0� .- O O Q7 1- O V I� C9 tD N r` cMD M 0 O 0~7 NM CA M N ti Q. Q h 4 N 603, EA 1+3 EA 69 69 E9 fA ct7 EfJ ER cf> tf� cl3 69 Ef}E9 64 c{> £H Ef3 tH IH +{> a3 Eli ER fli d LL 7p In 'q O) � C lwtal C CO 07 tb + a G1 ! . Y K w G U t/7 C ti s G 0 UJ Lm O E' Q' V C7 v O N 71 > I w < x ca (n m u a m v7 > i � c x c m d') 'ti! C7 ,°% ° ✓� = y 3 a'o xaX to m ar __ c ow ©© a/ E it 0- m c oa o „ m r w m O O Q U_ cl .�• a to y Q i C m £ h N > � O 0. O O O i C U N Y7 7 V an d 'N w .W > O d M a \° > m O W 01 10 U C7 O a a � m 3 O O � b C .. = o m UUUaE- �nc0fl ¢ t- 09 (LLu Ora > U.- � ¢ aaUt- rboo a°o °rn0oo ° Hlrn e°e m N M r r °ao a1 t�pp 0 0 0 0 '�` � � r' N N N M M C'! M M !C7 N lO 1!7 in 1p Lo 0 1[) 4'7 1L7 1A &0 1(1 VP! 1(1 1C7 in 177 K1 4) 119 171 in 0 1(7 1fl C L 74 47 r ° X O > 3 Oy 10A LL7 LL Q yG L L 0 % a U Q N AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council March 2, 2007 FROM: Gary Crutch a Manager Regular Mtg.: 3/5/07 SUBJECT: TPA Budget mendment for Advertising Campaign I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Letter from VCB President to City Manager dated 3/1/07 2. TPA Budget, 2007, with proposed changes II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 315: MOTION: I move to approve the TPA budget increase of $60,000 for wine and golf leisure travel advertising campaign and, further, direct that it be included in the year-end supplemental budget. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None for city; TPA reserve account reduced from $305,000 to $245,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The attached letter from the Visitor & Convention Bureau (VCB) explains the purpose of a special advertising campaign proposed to be funded through the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA). B) The TPA budget did not include the anticipated expenditure, although sufficient funds are available in its reserve account to do so. V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed expenditure is clearly eligible for TPA fund use and is requested by the Regional Hotel/Motel Commission. Staff recommends Council approval of the budget amendment to appropriate the additional $60,000 from the reserve account for promotional expenses. 10(e) MAR 0 2 Zoo? 7-77 viSiTOR fi CO_NVENTION BUREAU 1Rf019 VISITOR I(aNYfVION BUREAU KfNNf WICK PAS©�"RIZI D/YlAl IN6T IN P.O.Box 2241 Tri-Cities,WA 99302-2241 509-735-8486 1-800-254-5824 Fax 509-783-9005 www.VisitTri-Cities.com March 1, 2007 infoGVisitTri-Citics.com Mr. Gary Crutchfield City of Pasco 525 N 3`d Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Crutchfield: The Commissioners present at the December 14, 2006 Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission voted to request that $60,000 from the Tri-City Tourism Promotion Area reserve account be released to fund a Wine &Golf Leisure Travel advertising campaign. The target of the campaign is adult travelers living along the I-5 corridor who have expendable income and who frequently take short weekend get-away trips. The idea for the campaign surfaced after the completion of the 2007 Budget. Securing funds from the reserve account would allow funding for the campaign without affecting other scheduled expenditures for 2007. The campaign is largely centered on television advertising including the Seattle affiliates of NBC (KING), CBS (KIRO) and Northwest Cable News. A small amount of print advertising is also included. The current balance of the reserve account is$365,577.54 which does not include the requested expenditure for the Bureau operational expense/Water Follies program. If both requests are approved the revised total for the reserve account would be $245,577.5 . The prospect of promoting the Tri-Cities via television advertising in the greater Seattle area is very exciting and due to the resources provided by the Tourism Promotion Assessment, the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau will be able to promote the Tri-Cities on a much larger scale than ever before. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me directly if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Kris Watkins President/CEO O 4 O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V M h C) I? M Q tD lA 00 M tD dl h h COW 03 O O O CO O C' O Q) O M r r to Q N CD r a h O Q1 m tD O (D m O 0� O Oi 1� (M N O 03 - r O N CD N 4 C� C] r Q O O N 0 0 to O � O d O a m 0 0 o p l o S 11 1y CD ilr N 1 J m U C W to UY a9 69 tR tfi to to 69 6% 0%1 W. 69 U% to to 'U1 W3 wi to b9 to to "3, W b9 SC) O p 0 N 07 tD 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O M O O LO O N Co O O O 'O O m O Q Q O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 (D O (D ti3 to I C7 0 �O CD f� r CO O O Co O ID O N O O Cl O h N O M O M Q1 'o CO 4 M W to N m 00 r Q O u7 Q) r h O � h- 0) CO (D V' 1� M N co [? M {rN• O� � to M N N Q N CD w � v h Q N to 69 to 69 V9 to to b? to 49 to Ffl to to 1A G9 to 69 fo tR to to 69 �H 69 tt} to to 6`T tf1 ef3 (A 0 o C o c o t 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 cq 0 0 0 o n o y N r co N M h co N N co O q N CO 0) N O O O 07 0 0 CO N M [D � a) lr� to CO O N O t� O r CP 0 0 "'t O r r O N r O N 0 0 0 tD r O p M 0 0 CO G.1 � O m H O O O C] N 0o CD O O p 0 0 0 0 p O C? O w O O O m O O m O N m b 0 0 0 O OS r M Q O O Q O O O O O Q O O O O r tD O (P t co 43 V9 d IQ � O O (P h, r (D C O W O � C O N Cc O M O h N O M rr � 'I 0) > QI In rA M 07 [D N O W r O O Ln 07 r n O 'cl, OS GO (O 'It f` O (D O 0) CO co M N N M 1- Cl h O N 64 - fA eel 1 t9 to t13 to tfi W3, to to 64 69 o. w 1f3 &s, t9 to K! to 60 0% to Eo 69 1 wi I ti9 I 69 Ql IL m m yvy, N d C m C C CL V JI: u - m ate. C. .tA. C •[S y L O w r- 0 4.0 0 t6 w w C C. C N Ll w � > w 11' N Q� = mom c x m 1 TL a $ � ,wm m o, m � W m m w > 1° s x w ai w m o s , E c m o W e I o `o p � ` `� o Q m m `° a a y $ a, o m cc M_ w•'. 4, o is m m u 5 o n to m 3 �' o w W U U U �' 1- V} m d Q {- 0 0 b W U O J G1 > U h Q 4 a U F- t- O co Q Q d (n O M O M O O O MN 0 'm 0 0 ,n h O O O N - - P- Q 4 O r C) 0 0 (P Q � Q7 d! O O r N � N M O O r � m r O w � A C O O O O O O O v O g r r m r N w N m M M m In to ui to V! tP 1[S r!7 ilY to IA 4� �f7 1T1 11� (1� In In 1C7 tC1 tD lC1 IA to l[3 aC3 � l¢4 (V ~ c a o a 0 W LL Q m y Q > L Q � L W w N w ►-- U U AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 27, 2007 6 TO: Gary Crutchfi 1 anager Regular Mtg.: 3/5/07 FROM: Stan Strebel, A ministrative and Regular Mtg: 3/19/07 Community Services Director SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending PMC for Disposition of Unclaimed Animals I. REFERENCE(S): A. Proposed Ordinance B. Letter from ACA Management Committee H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 3/5: Discussion 3/19: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending Chapter 8.02 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Animal Control" and to authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) As outlined in the attached letter, one of the goals with the creation of the Animal Control Authority in 1998 was to bring the three cities' animal control ordinances in closer harmony so that the public would be better able to understand the regulations and enforcement by the animal control contractor would be less complex. As noted in the attached letter, staff believes that the cities will be better able to defend claims of arbitrariness in the regulations with greater uniformity. As each City Council attempts to meet the needs of the community in passing legislation, the goal of uniformity sometimes gets overlooked. As we will have a new animal control contractor beginning April 1, ACA staff members of the three cities recommend that differences in the ordinances be reconciled as much as possible. B) The attached chart on Uniform Animal Regulations Recommended by ACA shows that the only area in which Pasco is at variance with the other two cities is in holding times for impounded cats without a license. The code currently requires only a 24 hour hold while Kennewick requires 48 and Richland 72. It is suggested that 48 hours is a reasonable standard, requiring both Richland and Pasco to modify their ordinances so that the regulation can be uniform. C) Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. 1i�a) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 8.02 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Animal Control." WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has determined that a certain amendment to the Pasco Municipal Code regarding Animal Control is warranted; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, Does Ordain as follows: Section 1. That Section 8.02.100 DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED ANIMALS of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 8.02.100: Disposition of Unclaimed Animals: If(a) an unlicensed cat or cat whose owner cannot be identified by means of an identicode or other identification implant, is not claimed and redeemed by its owner within -24 48 hours; or (b) a cat or other animal that is licensed or its owner is identifiable by means of an identicode or other informational implant is not claimed and redeemed by its owner within 72 hours, the poundmaster, at his discretion, may place the animal up for adoption, sell the animal or humanely destroy the animal. For purposes of determining whether the 72 hours has expired, the following methods shall be used: (a) if the owner is notified by telephone, time begins when telephone contact was made with the owner by the poundmaster; (b) if the owner is mailed notice by certified and regular mail, time begins when the notice was mailed; and, (c) if notice was posted because the owner of the animal could not be readily determined by the poundmaster, time begins when the poundmaster posted the notice at the animal control agency in a conspicuous location. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this day of March, 2007. Joyce Olson, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney March 1,2007 Bob Hammond, City Manager City of Kennewick John Darrington, City Manager City of Richland Gary Crutchfield,City Manager City of Pasco Gentlemen: With the formation of the Tri-Cities Animal Control Authority in 1998,one goal was to try to bring the various city animal regulations into greater harmony so that the enforcement of such regulations, by a single contractor, could be facilitated, and the task of educating the public on the different requirements could be done more efficiently and effectively. As we approach the beginning of a new Animal Control Contract,to begin April 1, we, as the representatives of the three cities for the ACA operations committee, would like to recommend that the three respective City Councils adopt some fairly simple amendments to their respective city codes to bring about the uniformity that was originally sought. Of course,the individual needs of each city are usually paramount in enacting legislation. For example, Kennewick has recently elected to eliminate animal license fees in contrast to Pasco and Richland and Richland has elected to not classify pit bulls as"potentially dangerous"as Pasco and Kennewick have previously done. Laying aside these differences, which have been so recently addressed by the Councils, we believe the public,the animal control contractor and each individual city will be better served if there is greater uniformity in the remaining regulations. There is no question that our new contractor will have a less confusing task if we can simply these rules. Additionally, our recent experience in the Wolverton lawsuit suggests that the cities may be in a much better position to defend claims of arbitrariness if our regulations are more uniform. The attached sheet represents the primary differences in the regulations that each city currently has enacted. We have taken the liberty of making suggestions on the most reasonable position for all three cities to take in order to bring about greater uniformity. You will note that the recommendations are generally made to favor the existing majority position, if two of the cities are consistent, and to balance the give and take between the changes for each of the cities. We believe that action of the Managers to recommend, and the Councils to implement these changes (or others as agreeable to all of the cities) will result in a greater ability for the public to understand our animal control laws and for the contractor to perform the necessary services as effectively and efficiently as possible. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Harris Ron Musson Stan Strebel Encl. Uniform Animal Regulations Recommended by ACA Pasco Kennewick Richland Fees ! Hold times: Penalty (Citation) First offense $50 $50 $30 Second offense $100 $100 $5AQ Third offense $200 $200 $ 5 Four or more $400 $400 $1S9 4-00 Impound Fees First $35 $40 $35 Second $50 $50 $50 Three or more $100 $100 $100 Hourly hold times for animals Cats w/o license 24 .4& 48 72 Cats and dogs 72 72 72 10-day Temporary License yes nla AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 27,2007 TO: Gary Crutchfi 1 anager Regular Mtg.: 315/07 ive an FROM: Stan Strebel, ministrat (��^ Regular Mtg: 3119107 Community Services Direct v I. SUBJECT: Amendment to Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for Animal Control, Designation of City of Pasco as Operating Jurisdiction I. REFERENCE(S): A. Proposed Amendment No. i to Interlocal Cooperative Agreement B. Proposed Operating Jurisdiction Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 315: Discussion 3119: MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between the cities of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, Washington for Animal Control. MOTION: I move to approve the Operating Jurisdiction Agreement for the Animal Control Authority and to authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost to provide ongoing Operating Jurisdiction services for the Animal Control Authority is $16,000 per year. As the designated Operating Jurisdiction,the'City of Pasco would be reimbursed two thirds of this cost($10,666), half each by the City of Richland and the City of Kennewick, annually. Legal expenses would be split three ways between the three cities as incurred. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In 1998 the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland entered into an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for animal control services. (Pasco was designated as the original operating jurisdiction and served for three years. Each of the other cities has also served a three year term as operating jurisdiction.) The Interlocal agreement was amended in 2005 to designate the operating jurisdiction for the ACA on a rotational basis through 2012. B) Staffs of the three cities have jointly discussed the effectiveness of this arrangement and have come to the conclusion that the best interest of animal control services in the Tri- Cities is not served by rotating the overall administrative responsibility. There is lack of continuity as the responsibility shifts from one jurisdiction to another. There is some retraining that must be done with each transition and some items that should be addressed are not taken care of as each jurisdiction looks to the next operating jurisdiction to take responsibility for such items. C) Because each city has now had a three year term as operating jurisdiction (Pasco's term is scheduled to begin this year) it seems an appropriate time to designate an ongoing operating jurisdiction. Pasco staff has proposed that the City would undertake this responsibility on an ongoing basis per the attached agreement and the proposed fee schedule. D) It is proposed to amend the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement to identify the Operating Jurisdiction via separate agreement and to delete the references to the operating jurisdiction assignments through 2012. The draft amendment is attached for Council's review. Staff recommends the approval of the amendment as well as the agreement designating Pasco as the Operating Jurisdiction for animal control. 11(b) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF RICHLAND,PASCO, KENNEWICK WASHINGTON FOR ANIMAL CONTROL THIS AMENDMENT to that certain Interlocal Cooperative Agreement which is dated the 23rd day of August, 2005, among the City of Kennewick, Washington; Pasco,Washington; and Richland, Washington; all municipal corporations of the State of Washington, is made this day of 2007. WHEREAS,the Cities have, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 R.C.W., the Interlocal Cooperation Act,agreed to exercise their powers jointly to provide animal control services and facilities which will best fulfill common needs of the Cities, and; WHEREAS, the Cities by their respective City Councils, have determined that certain amendments to the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement are warranted, now, therefore, and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained therein, it is agreed to amend said Interlocal Agreement, Section II,Administration, subsection 2.2, "Operating Jurisdiction" is to read as follows: 2.2 Operating Jurisdiction. By separate a reement, Gone of the Cities shall be designated as the Operating Jurisdiction for the Tri-City Animal Control Authority. The Operating Jurisdiction shall be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Animal Control Services including the enforcement of the rules, regulations and ordinances of the participating jurisdictions. All municipal employees, resources and facilities required in the implementation of the plan shall be employees and assets of the Operating Jurisdiction. The Operating Jurisdiction will provide all necessary support services for the implementation of the Animal Control Plan such as accounting, legal services,risk management and personnel management. The Operating Jurisdiction will manage all contracts with any independent contractors or other entities for services performed under the Animal Control Plan and administer all rules, regulations and policies established by the Management Committee and issue a periodical report to the Management Committee on the implementation of the Animal Control Plan. i].seo f,.2007 2009; and City e f Ri.1.1and 2010 2012 All remaining provisions of the Interlocal Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment approved by the cities,parties to the Interlocal Agreement,the day and year first written above: THE CITY OF KENNEWICK: BY: James R. Beaver, Mayor AMENDMENT NO. I TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRI-CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Attest: Valerie J. Loffler, City Clerk Approved as to form: John S. Ziobro, City Attorney THE CITY OF PASCO: BY: Joyce Olson, Mayor Attest: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Approved as to form: Leland B. Kerr, Attorney THE CITY OF RICHLAND: BY:_ Robert A. Welch, Mayor Attest: Cynthia Johnson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Thomas O. Lampson, City Attorney AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRI-CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES STATE OF WASHINGTON } : ss. County of Benton ) On this day personally appeared before me James R. Beaver,Mayor of the City of Kennewick, to be known to the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2007. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at: My Commission Expires: AMENDMENT NO. l TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRI-CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . ss. County of Benton ) On this day personally appeared before me Joyce Olson, Mayor of the City of Pasco, to be known to the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2007. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,residing at: My Commission Expires: AMENDMENT NO, 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRI-CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . ss. County of Benton ) On this day personally appeared before me Robert A. Welch, Mayor of the City of Richland, to be known to the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2007. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at: My Commission Expires: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRI-CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Operating Jurisdiction Agreement Animal Control Authority This Agreement is entered into to be effective the 1st day of January, 2007 between the City of Kennewick, the City of Pasco and the City of Richland, all municipal corporations of the State of Washington and collectively referred to as the Animal Control Authority, hereafter "ACA" and the City of Pasco, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, referred to as"Pasco". WHEREAS, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for Animal Control as amended, one of the member cities is required to serve as the Operating Jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Pasco agrees to serve as the Operating Jurisdiction under the terms and conditions set forth herein, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Appointment. Pasco shall serve as the Operating Jurisdiction for the ACA pursuant to Section 1I, Administration, of the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for Animal Control. 2. Scope of Services. Pasco shall perform the following services as operating jurisdiction: a. Maintain a separate fund for the receipt of funds from the ACA cities and for the payment of expenses for the ACA. b. Provide administrative oversight to the ACA's contractor for animal control and sheltering services. C. Maintain records on ACA owned equipment and inventory, including vehicle maintenance and replacement accounting. d. Schedule meetings of the ACA, as needed, including agenda and minute preparation. e. Provide legal counsel services to the ACA through its appointed City Attorney. 3. Compensation. Compensation for performing the services of the Operating Jurisdiction, excluding legal services (2 e.), shall be paid to Pasco on an annual basis as outlined in Exhibit "A" for the 2007 budget year, pro-rated to reflect a start date of 411107. Compensation for each subsequent year shall be determined by the parties prior to November I"of each year, but in no event shall the total of Operating Jurisdiction compensation exceed four(4) percent of the animal control and sheltering services contract cost for the respective operating year. Each of the ACA cities shall be responsible for payment of an equal share of the compensation for the Operating Jurisdiction. As the Operating Jurisdiction, Pasco shall bill each of the other ACA cities monthly, in conjunction with the billing for the monthly animal control contractor payments, 1/36 of the annual compensation as listed in Exhibit"A". 4. Legal Expenses. Legal services expense shall be shared equally between ACA member cities. Legal services, except for counsel regarding day-to-day administrative and operational issues, must be pre-approved by the ACA. Pasco shall provide the ACA cities with quarterly reports and invoices for such expenses. 5. Term. This Agreement shall be effective for a term commencing on January 1, 2007 and expiring on December 31, 2012. Provided however, this agreement shall be automatically renewed annually thereafter unless any of the Cities gives notice of its intent to terminate its participation in the Interlocal Agreement or if either party provides notice of its intent to terminate this agreement. Such notice shall be written and provided at least twelve months prior to the designated date of withdrawal or termination. ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY: THE CITY OF KENNEWICK: BY: Approved as to form: James R. Beaver, Mayor Attest: John S. Ziobro, City Attorney Valerie J. Loffler, City Clerk THE CITY OF PASCO: BY: Approved as to form: Joyce Olson, Mayor Attest: Leland B. Ken, Attorney Debra L. Clark, City Clerk THE CITY OF RICHLAND: BY: Approved as to form: Robert A. Welch, Mayor Attest: Thomas O. Lampson, City Attorney Cynthia Johnson, City Clerk THE CITY OF PASCO: BY: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager