HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010.11.08 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 6:00 p.m. November 8,2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBF.RS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) 2011 Budget Presentation (approximately 90 minutes). (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON
AGENDA). 2011 Preliminary Budget available for public review at the Pasco Library and on
the City's webpage at htip�'/w w ? w- . v.
(b) 2011 Property Tax Levy:
1. Agenda Report from Dunyele Mason, Finance Manager dated November 4, 2010.
2. Tax Levy Rate History Chart.
3. Assessed Value History Chart.
4. Summary of Options.
5. Copy of Ordinance for the 2011 Ad Valorem Tax.
6. Copy of Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity.
(c) Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvements:
I. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated
October 29, 2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Map of the proposed Local improvement District(LID)area and completed LID 146.
4. Proposed Resolution.
(d) Delayed Street Improvements:
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated
November 3, 2010.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
(e) Memorial Pool Remodel:
1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
November 3,20I0.
2. Resolution.
(1) Public Works Inspection:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated October 26, 2010.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
(g) Civil Service Commission Appointment:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated November 4, 2010.
2. PMC 2.33.
3. Application, Cos Edwards(Council Packets only).
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECVFIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
Workshop Meeting 2 November 8,2010
REMINDERS:
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, November 8, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon. ("Discovering Your Memory Power!"David Shoup, Presenter)
2. 10:00 a,m., Tuesday, November 9, Senior Center — Senior Citizens Advisory Commmittee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARS.FN,Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN, Alt.)
3. 7:00 a..m., Thursday, November 11, Cousins Restaurant — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory
Committee Meeting. (COUNCTLMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; REBECCA FRANCTK, Alt.)
4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, November 11, Transit Facility — Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting,
(MAYOR MATT WATKINS,Rep.; COUNICILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
City Hall will lie closed Thursday,November 11 in honor of Veterans' Day.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council DATE: 1114/10
WORKSHOP: 11!8/10
REG L7LAR: 11115110
TO: Gary Crutchfie " �lai�ager
Rick Terway, A na strative & Community Services Director
FROM: Dunyele Mason, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT: 20 1] Yroert_v Tax Lev — Reiaort
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Tax Levy Rate History Chart
2. Assessed Value History Chart
3. Summary of Options
4. Copy of Ordinance for the 2011 Ad Valorem Tax
5. Copy of Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1118/10 Discussion
11/15/10 Public Hearing
Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No , providing for the 2011 Ad
Valorem Tax Levy, a levy for the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation
Bonds and the 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , preserving property tax levy
capacity for fiscal years after 2011 in accordance with State law.
Ill. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The maximum allowed levy rate, per State statute, that the City of Pasco can levy per $1,000 of
assessed value is $3.60. The last time Pasco's levy rate was near that number was in 1994.
From 1994 through 1999, the levy rate was reduced by not levying any of the allowable 6%
increase available at that time.
In November 1999, the legislature reduced the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (WET) to $30 per
vehicle. To compensate for this loss, Council elected to use most of the unused or banked levy
capacity. The levy rate for 2000 taxes was set at $3.07 per $1,000 of assessed value — still well
below the $3.60 maximum.
In 2001, the voters approved Initiative 747, limiting the amount taxing districts could raise the
property tax levy over the previous year by the lesser of 1% or the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD),
without voter approval. In November 2007, that initiative was challenged and ruled
unconstitutional in the Washington State Supreme Court; that decision returned the limit to the
lesser of 6% or IPD. Council chose not to increase the 2008 property tax levy rate by any
allowable legal hinit.
In January 2008, the legislature placed into law those limits (suggested by I-747). The legal limit
was to be the lesser of 1% or IPD; this limit is still in effect today. IPD is a national inflation
indicator much like the Consumer Price Index. The IPD figure to be used for the 2011 tax
calculation is 1.539%.
The preliminary budget document has been prepared using an estimated property tax levy of
$6.000,000 which is less than Option 1 and Option 2 as can be seen in the attached Summary of
Options. Option 1 reflects an increase of$58,653 allowed by the 1% limit while Option 2 retains
100% of the 2010 levy. Option 3 shows the maximum amoLint the City could collect if Council
chose to levy all prior property tax authority that has been preserved for future use.
4(b)
Pasco has been affected by the poor overall economic conditions of the entire country and has
seen a serious decline in sales tax revenues. Increased utility tax revenues have helped to offset
some of the sales tax decline, and major tax revenues for 2011 are projected to hold steady with
2010 year end estimates.
Pasco has been fortunate in that our prior budgeting practices included conservative budgeting in
several areas which has consistent fund balances to prepare the 2011 budget. Staff is projecting
a$6 million beginning fund balance in the General Fund for next year.
The property tax levy for 2011 will be comprised of the following three elements:
1. General Property Tax Levy,
2. 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Fire Station/Library Bonds Debt Service
3. 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding(1993)Bonds Debt Service
The City is required to certify property tax levies with the County by November 30 of each year.
IV. DISCUSSION:
The Franklin County Assessor has provided a preliminary assessed valuation of $3,049,417,376
which is used to calculate the 2011 property taxes. This amount includes new construction of
$120,591,600 and increase in the State assessed utilities values of $3,044,089. There were no
annexations of property before the cutoff date of March 31 s�. The Franklin County Assessor's
Office now re-assesses all properties in the County each year.
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
Several options for setting the 2011 levy are outlined as follows;
Option 1:
Since the IPD is greater than 1% (1.539%) last year's levy would be increased by the allowed
1% of$58,653 plus the value of new construction, new annexations and any increases in State
Assessed Utility values at last year's rate and adding those numbers to last year's total levy.
2010 Total General Property Tax Levy $5,865,306
1% increase in the levy rate based on the allowable
maximum increase amount (lesser of IPD or 1%) 58,653
New Construction Values of$120,591,600
using the 2010 rate of$1.9986/$1,000 Assessed Value 241,008
New Annexation Values of$0
using the 2010 rate of$1.9986/$1,000 Assessed Value 0
Increase in the State Assessed Utilities of$3,044,089
using the 2010 rate of$1.9986/$1,000 Assessed Value
Total Proposed 2011 Levy $6,171,051
A 2011 General Levy of$6,171,051 using the assessed value of$3,049,417,376 calculates to a
levy rate of$2.0237 per $1,000 of assessed value. Under this option, the 2011 levy rate would
be approximately $0.02 per$1,000 1-.igher than the 2010 rate of$1.9986.
Option 2:
Council could choose not to assess the 1% allowed and there would he no increase from 2010 to
201 I's levy except to add increased value related to new construction, annexations and the
changes in the value of State assessed utilities. This would set the levy rate at $2.0045 per
$1,000 of assessed value. The modest increase in the levy rate of $0.0059 is a function of
changes in the assessed value between 2010 and 2011. Using Option 2, the 2011 total General
Property Tax Levy would be $6,112,398. Under Option 2, the 2011 General Property Tax
"base" levy would remain unchanged at $5,865,306 compared to the $58,653 increase as
described in Option 1.
Option 3•
Beginning in 1993 and continuing through 2010, the City has preserved its accumulated taxing
capacity of$740,106 with exception of the utilization in the late 90's and of$48,661 last year.
The amount currently preserved totals $740,106. if the City was to levy all of the tax available
in Option 3 and choose to levy all the preserved levy capacity, the general levy would increase to
$6,911,157. The levy rate would calculate to $2.2664 per $1,000 of assessed value, still well
below the maximum rate allowed per State statute of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value.
Selecting this option would require a "super majority" vote of the Council, or 5 affirmative
votes.
PRESERVING FUTURE LEVY CAPACITY
Preserved levy capacity, also referred to as "banked" levy capacity, is NOT money that has been
put into a bank account. It is merely dollars that have not been levied and, therefore, left in the
pockets of the taxpayers. The purpose of RCW 84.55.092 allowing a governmental entity to
preserve future levy capacity is to "remove the incentive for a taxing district to maintain its tax
levy at the maximum level permitted under this chapter, and to protect the future levy capacity of
a taxing district that reduces its tax levy below the level that it otherwise could impose under this
chapter, by removing the adverse consequences to future levy capacities resulting from such levy
reductions." This simply means if the tax is not needed, a City does not have to set the levy at
the maximum amount. The City can reserve that resource for future use. Preserving any unused
levy capacity requires a"super majority" vote of the Council.
A preservation ordinance has been prepared should any Lmused levy capacity be available to
preserve.
1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE
The 2011 debt service requirement for the 1999 UTGO Bonds issued for the purpose of the
Library Remodel and Fire Station Relocation is $65,757 and $83,293, respectively. Staff
recommends the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond tax levy be set at those amounts.
The two numbers are not combined because they appeared on the official ballot separately when
voted upon. The county assessor's office requires we set these levies separately.
The estimated assessed value for properties subject to the tax is $2,638,248,230; this will result
in levy rates of approximately $0.0249 and $0.0316, respectively, or a combined levy rate of
$0.0565. The 2010 levy rates were $0.0269 and $0.0341, respectively, or $0.0610 combined.
The schedule of payments calls for principal payments of$100,000 each year. This will result in
decreased levy rates for the remaining payment schedule as the interest portion declines. The
final payment for these bonds occurs in December 2019.
2002 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS
The 2002 Unlimited Tax Generat Obligation Refunding Bonds were issued to refund the 1993
General Obligation Bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates available and save the
taxpayer's money. The debt service requirements in 2011 for the 2002 UTGO Refunding Bonds
is $377,000 and staff recommends the 2002 Unlimited General Obligation Refunding Bonds tax
levy rate be set at that dollar amount. The assessed value for properties subject to the tax is
estimated at $2,377,118,846. This equates to a levy rate of $0.1586 per $1,000 of assessed
value. This is a slightly lower rate compared to the 2010 levy rate of$0.1670. Unlike the 1999
Bonds, the principal payment amounts will increase over the remaining life of these bonds but
the interest portion will decrease keeping the annual payments at approximately $380,000. The
final payment for these bonds occurs in December 2013.
Assessed Values f
$3.500
$3.000
$2.500 -._-_.--
i I
$2.000
0
m $1.500 - ____._ _ _..___.,-____._--- -.__.._---._._. ,__.-.__..._..__.._..__._.._....
$1.000
i $0.500
$0.000
�--------�T2002 -2003 2004- 2005-2006 2007 2008 2009- 2010 2011
I
1 . .......----------------
Property Tax Levy Rate History
(General Fund Portion)
i
1 $3.5000 . ____Per.$1000_of_Assessed Value
$3.0000 ---- 3.0634
$2.5000 ---- - -- - -
$2.0045
$2.0000 ---
1 $1.5000
$1.0000
$0.5000
$0.0000 -_ __- --
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
_...._.. .,,.. _. ._. _ _.....-
2011 SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
Assessed Value (including New Construction,Annexations & Utilities) $ 3,049,417,3 76
OPTION 1
2010 Total General Property Tax Levy $ 5,865,306
1.5390/0 IPD - Increase in the levy rate based on the 58,653
allowable maximum increase amount
(Lesser of 1PD or I%) 1
New Construction Values of $ 120,591,600
at the 2010 rate of $ 1.9986 per$1,000 241,008
of Assessed Value
Annexation Values of $
at the 2010 rate of $ 1,9986 per $1,000 0
of Assessed Value
Increase in the State Assessed Utilities $ 3,044,089
at the 2010 rate of $ 1,9986 per$1,000 6,084
of Assessed Value
Levy rate of $ 2,02368 per 51,000 of Total Assessed Value S 6,171,051
OPTION 2
2010 Total General Property Fax. Leery S 5,865,306
IPD -No Increase of'] % in the levy rate 0
New Construction Values of S 120,591,600 241,008
at the 2010 rate of $ 1.9986 per $1,000
of Assessed Value
Annexation Values of $ - 0
at the 2010 rate of $ 1.9986 per$1,000
of Assessed Value
Increase in the State Assessed ttilities $ 3,044,089
at the 2010 rate of $ 1,9986 per$1,000 6,084
ol'Assessed Value
Option 2 Levy rate c S 2.00445 per S1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 6,112,398
OPTION 3
2010 Total General Property Tax Levy $ 5,865,306
Declare substantial need and increase last year's rate up to 1% 58,653
New Construction Values of $ 120,591,600
at the 2010 rate of $ 1 .9986 per $1,000 241,008
of Assessed Value
Annexation Values of $ -
at the 2010 rate of $ 1.9986 per $1,000 0
of Assessed Value
Increase in the State Assessed utilities $ 3,044,089
at the 1.010 rate of $ 1.9986 per$1,000 6,084
of Assessed Value
Levy previous preserved capacity 740,106
Requires a "super majority" vote of the Council
Levy rate of $ 2.26639 per S1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 6,911,157
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE 2011 AD VALOREM
TAX LEVY, A LEVY FOR THE 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS AND A LEVY FOR THE 2002 UNLIMITED
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS IN THE CITY OF
PASCO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
§1. The City Council of the City of Pasco (the population of which is greater than
10,000) has met and considered its budget for the calendar year 2011;
§2. The City Council of the City of Pasco after public hearing and after duly considering
all relevant evidence and testimony presented, determined that the City of Pasco requires a
regular levy in the amount of $6,112,398, which does NOT include any of the allowable
percentage increase in property tax revenues from the previous year, and does include amounts
resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increases
in the value of state-assessed property, and amounts authorized by law as a result of any
annexations that have occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge the expected expenses
and obligations of the district,
RCW 84.55.120 requires a specific statement regarding the amount of any increase in
regular property tax from the previous year. The actual general levy amount from the previous
year (2010) was $5,865,332. The City Council of the City of Pasco hereby authorizes the
following increase in the regular property tax levy to be collected in the 2011 tax year. The
dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy amount from the previous year shall be $0
(ZERO) which is a percentage INCREASE of 0% (ZERO PERCENT) from the previous year,
This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction
and 'improvements, newly constructed wind turbines to property, any increase in the value of
state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have
occurred and refunds made.
The property tax from new construction to be included in the actual levy is calculated to
be $241,008. This number is the result of the amount of new construction and improvements to
property of$120,591,600, provided by the Franklin County Assessor's Office, multiplied by the
2010 levy rate of $1.9986 per $1,000 of that value. The property tax from increased value in
State assessed utilities is calculated to be $6,084. This number is the result of the increase in
value of State assessed utilities of $3,044,089 multiplied by the 2010 levy rate of $1.9986 per
$1,000. There was no additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred or
refunds made,
§3. A tax for the following sums of money which includes new construction and
annexations to defray the expense and liabilities of the City of Pasco be and the same is hereby
levied for the purposes specified against all taxable property in the City for the fiscal year 2011:
General Expense, including Councilmanic Bond Debt Service..........................$6,112,399
1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Library Remodel..............................65,757
1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Fire Station ......................................83,293
2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds.....................................377,000
$6,638,448
§4. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Pasco, on this 15th day of November, 2010,
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland S. Kerr, City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PRESERVING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY
CAPACITY IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON FOR FISCAL
YEARS AFTER 2010 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
WHEREAS, to provide the property tax revenues required by the general operating
budget of the City for fiscal year 2011, City Council of the City of Pasco levied property taxes
on all taxable property in the City for collection in fiscal year 2011 in the total amount of
$6,112,398, which dollar amount is the sum of(a) $5,865,332 which is the amount of property
taxes levied by the City in fiscal year 2010, plus (b) $0 of the allowable increase of the lesser of
1% or the Implicit Price Deflator (1.539%), (c) $241,008, which is the amount of additional
taxes at the 2010 levy rate of 1.9986 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the
addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City, plus (d) $0 relating to
property annexed into the City during fiscal year 2010, and (e) $6,084, which is the amount of
additional taxes at the 2010 levy rate of 1.9986 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from
the increase in value of State-assessed utility property in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City desires to preserve in accordance with State
law (including but not limited to Chapter 84.55 RCW) the capacity of the City to levy property
taxes in future fiscal years after 2411, calculated as if the City in fiscal year 2011 had levied the
full amount allowed by state law upon a finding of substantial need therefore; and
WHEREAS, upon a finding of substantial need and based upon limit factors of the lesser
of 101% or IPD (1.539%) for the previous year and limit factors of 101% or 106% and IPD for
previous years as provided by RCW 84.55.0 101 and $3.60 per$1,000 of assessed value by RCW
84.52.043 and 41.16.060, the City would be permitted to levy property taxes for fiscal year 2011
in a total amount of$6,911,157 (the "full amount allowed by law"), which dollar amount is the
sum of (a) $6,664,065 (the lesser of the amount calculated by multiplying the allowable 2010
property tax levy of$6,605,412 times the limit factor of 101% (the lesser of 101% or IPD or the
$3.60 per $1,000 statutory limitation), plus (b) $241,008, which is the amount of additional taxes
at the 2010 levy rate of$1.9986 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the addition of
new construction and improvements to property in the City, plus (c) $0 for property annexed into
the City during fiscal year, and (d) $6,084, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2010
levy rate of $1.9986 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the increase in value of
State assessed utility; and
WHEREAS, the full amount allowed by law for fiscal year 2011 of $6,911,157 is
$798,759 greater than the actual property tax levy of the City for fiscal year 2011 of$6,112,398
and such excess of$798,759 represents the unused 2011 property tax levy capacity that the City
desires to preserve for future fiscal years after 2011;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City finds and determines that there is substantial
need for the City to preserve, for future fiscal years after 2011, the capacity to levy property
taxes on all taxable property in the City in the amount of$798,759, which is equal to the unused
levy capacity of the City for fiscal year 2011. This substantial need includes, without limitation,
the anticipated future requirements for additional property tax revenues that will be needed for
the construction and/or maintenance of roads, streets, bridges and other transportation facilities
of the City; to satisfy anticipated and unanticipated new regulatory requirements applicable to
the City; to provide for potential excess costs of capital facilities; and generally to meet other
substantial future financial requirements of the City.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and
five days following its publication as required by law.
ADOPTED by the City Council by the affirmative vote of a majority plus one vote of the
members thereof and APPROVED by the Mayor of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public
meeting thereof, this 15th day of November, 2010,
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 29, 2010
r
TO: Gary Crutch( . 4 Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/08110
Regular Mtg.: 11115/10
3
FROM: Rick White
Community & Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Kurtzman Park Nei liborhood Improvements
1. REFERENCE(S):
I . Vicinity Map
2. Map of the proposed Local Improvement District (LID) area acid completed LTD
146
3. Proposed Resolution
111. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11/08: Discussion
11/15: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution relating to public
improvements; declaring the City's intention to order the
improvement of Waldemar, Cedar, Hugo and Sycamore
Avenues arld Alton, Helena and Butte Streets in the Kurtzman
area and to create a Local Improvement District to assess a
portion of the cost and expense of carrying out those
improvements against the properties specially benefited
thereby; and, notifying all persons who desire to object to the
improvements to appear and present their objections at a
hearing before the City Council to be held on December 20,
2010.
Ill. FISCAL I M PACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Following a public outreach effort in 2006, the City accepted the Kurtzman Park
Action flan in early 2007. The Plan was developed as a result of neighborhood
input and established a priority system for neighborhood improvements including
infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lights and in some cases utilities),
increased Code Eril'orcement efforts and an increased Police presence.
B. LID 146 (Reference #2) was completed this past sununer for the southern portion
of the Kurtzman neighborhood using a combination of federal stimulus and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and owner contributions.
C. City Council has allocated $334,000 in 2011 CDBG funds as a means of
financing a portion of the missing infrastructure in the proposed LID area. The
cost for curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights and street paving is estimated at
$1,337,206, CDBG funds can also be used to pay assessments for lower income
residents similar to a program that is now in place for the payment of utility
.LID'S. Staff intends to request CDBG funds in the 2012 allocation process for
LID assistance.
D. Sever Extension Project 410-1-01 (sewer extension in Sycamore, Ceciar,
Waldemar and Alton) was recently awarded by City Council and will likely be
complete before the end of 2010.
E. Four neighborhood meetings were conducted this year (April, May, August and
October) to explore the level of neighborhood interest in an LID. Almost all
residents attending were interested in moving forward with the LID process ---
with the understanding that cost estimates for individual properties would need to
be developed.
4(c)
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The infrastructure cost doted above is a preliminary estimate. rornnal cost
estimates in the LID process are obtained by preparation of a preliminary
assessment roll. Most residents that attended the neighborhood meetings are
anticipating a public hearing as the first step in order to leant estimated costs and
the potential for individual CDBG assistance,
B. The bowndaries of the actual LID are subject to change based on public interest,
engineering design of the improvements, costs and the City's success in obtaining
necessary right of way on Cedar, Hugo and Sycamore Avenues and Alton Street.
C. Neighborhood improvement in areas lacking or experiencing decay of
infrastructure is a longstanding Council goal. The use of CDBG monies for an
area-wide benefit and for LID assistance can minimize the impact of improving
neighborhood infrastructure on low income households.
4 W,
A ra. _V
ML
Torlow
A
10
rj.;
Ilk Z.
r
AW
Ll
?
j U)_
Z�
AA
t 40
V,
t .
f
LZ
too(.
J_A
4
ir
vp
Legend
Kurtzman LID
el
1k 4, 1
J Missing Sidewatk,X
Churches
f+
Proposed Kurtzman
Houses
Local Improvement District
Ab,
J— -_ I I 1 Reference 2 - Map Proposed LID
Proposed Kurtzman
I
Local Improvement District
LEWIS ST _
i • i
t
w'—-- I
lit
• I
• I • I
ALTON ST
Legend • • • • • • I
• I
0
Kurtzman LID • •
• � • I
LSD 346 HEL I
^ W
`.J Missing Sidewalks W • Q
•
Churches • --� 4 KALISPELL CT
• Houses
• • 1
BUTTE ST
I BUTTE CT -
- q -
"A"ST
Reference 3 - Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO ORDER THE IMPROVEMENT OF WALDEMAR, CEDAR, HUGO
AND SYCAMORE AVENUES AND ALTON, HELENA AND BUT'T'E STREETS IN THE
KURTZMAN AREA AND TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO
ASSESS A PORTION OF THE COST AND EXPENSE OF CARRYING OUT THOSE
IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTIES SPECIALLY BENEFITED
THEREBY; AND, NOTIFYING ALL PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO OBJECT TO THE
IMPROVEMENTS TO APPEAR AND PRESENT THEIR OBJECTIONS AT A
HEARING BEFORE THE CI'T'Y COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 20, 2010.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, as follows:
Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, to
order the improvement of the properties within the area described in Exhibit B, by the
improvement of, Waldemar, Cedar, Hugo and Sycamore Avenues and Alton, I-3elena and Butte
Streets in the Kurtzman area of the city. The improvements more fully described in Exhibit A, to
include road widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain system and street lighting
(collectively, the "Improvements"). The referenced exhibits A and B are attached hereto and by
this reference made a part hereof
All of the foregoing Improvements shall be in accordance with the plans and
specifications therefore prepared by the City Engineer of the City and may be modified by the
City as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the improw:ments.
Section 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the Improvements is declared to be
$1,337,206, of which an estimated $1,003,666 shall be born.e by and assessed against the
property specially benefited by the Improvements to be included in a local improvement district
to be established and embracing as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by
the Innprovennents. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do
not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the Improvements add to the
property.
Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this
resolution and of the date, time and place fixed hereirifor the public hearing to each owner or
reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local
improvement district by mailing such notice at least fifteen days before the date fixed for public
hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the Franklin
County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law.
This resolution also shall be published in its entirety in at least two consecutive issues of
the official newspaper of the City, the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to
the date fixed herein for the public hearing.
Section 4. All persons who may desire to object to the Improvements are notified to
appear and present those objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held in the COL11161
Chambers in the City Hall, 525 N, 3`d Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on December 20,
2010, which time and place are fixed for hearing all matters relating to the Improvements and all
ubje etions thcreto and for determining the method of payment for the Improvements. All persons
who may desire to object thereto should appear and present their objections at that hearing. Any
person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council may do so within 30 days
after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the Improvements in the event the local
improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the property owner and
Should Include the legal description of the property for which the protest is filed and that protest
should be delivered to the City Clerk.
Section 5. The City Engineer is directed to submit to the City Council on or prior to
December 20, 2010, all data and information required by law to be submitted.
The foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pasco,
Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof this 15'h day of November, 2010.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
LID 148 — Kurtzman's Park Street Improvements
In — From --To Description
In Street _ From To
Sycamore Avenue Butte Street Alton Street
Hugo Avenue Butte Street Alton Street
Waldemar Avenue Butte Street Alton Street
Cedar Avenue Butte Street Lewis Street
Helena Street 150 feet West of Sycamore Avenue Cedar Avenue
Alton Street Sycamore Avenue Cedar Avenue
Sycamore Avenue Alton Street Lewis Street
Hugo Avenue Alton Street Lewis Street
The LID 148 Improvements include road widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain system, and street
lighting, and associated improvements all to city street standards.
EXHIBIT B
LID 148 — Kurtzman's Park Street Improvements
Legal description of the bounaa-y:
That portion of the South half of Section 28, Township 9 North, Range 30 East in the City of
Pasco, Franklin County, Washington more accurately described as follows:
Kurtzman's First Addition Block 1, Lots 11 through 23 together with those adjacent portions of
vacated Elm Avenue and Helena Street;
Together with Kurtzman's First Addition Block 2, Lots 1 through 23 together with those adjacent
portions of vacated Hugo Avenue, Helena Street and Sycamore Avenue;
Together with Kurtzman's First Addition Block 3, Lots 1 through 23 together with those adjacent
portions of vacated Waldemar Avenue, Helena Street and Hugo Avenue;
Together with Kurtzman's First Addition Block 4, Lots 1 through 23 together with those adjacent
portions of vacated Waldermar Avenue and Helena Street;
Together with Acre Park Addition Block 3, Lots 1 through 7 except that portion dedicated to the
City of Pasco fo- roads;
Together with Acre Park Addition Block 2, Lots 1 through 4 and Lots 8 through 14 except that
portion dedicated to the City of Pasco for roads;
Together with Acre Park Addition Block 1, Lots 1 through 9 and 11 through 14 except that
portion dedicated to the City of Pasco for roads;
Together with Short Plat 97-19, Lots 1 and 2;
Together with Short Plat 99-C1, Lots 1 through 3;
Together with Short Plat 2002-16, Lots 1 through 3;
Together with Short Plat 2001-16, Lots 1 through 3;
Together with the West 30 rods of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
28, Township 9 North, Range 30 East W.M., except the South 880 feet and the West 15 feet
thereof;
Together with the South half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the
Southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 9 North, Range 30 East, W.M., except the West 20
feet thereof;
Together with North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of Section 28, Township 9 North, Range 30 l=ast, W.M., except the West 20 feet thereof;
Together with the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of
Section 28, Township 9 North, Range 30 East, W.M., except the North 338.71 feet thereof;
Together with the North 338.71 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarte, of the
Southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 9 North, Range 30 East, except the West 228.71 feet
of the North 248.71 feet thereof;
Together with the North 248.71 feet of even width of the West 228.71 feet of even width of the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 9
North, Range 30 East, W.M.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 3, 2010
r
Workshop Mtg.: 11/08/10
TO: Gary Crutchfie v Manager Regular Mtg.: 11/15110
FROM: Rick White, t 1a r
Com.niunity & Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Dcl,2ved Street lntprovernent
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11/08: Discussion
11115: MOTION: 1 move to adopt Ordinance No. an Ordinance amending
PMC 12.36.040 by deleting certain "Exemptions" to Concurrency
and adding a new section for "Exceptions" and, further, authorize
publication by surnrnary only.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND I''ACTS BRIEF:
A. Earlier this year, staff recorninended that Crescent Road be improved to city standards
and the cost recovered through the use of the latecomer agreement aUthorizcd by state
law and city ordinance, After considerable deliberation, the City Council detern-lined that
improvement of the road was not timely, given the opposition of snrne of the property
owners along the west side of the current dead-end roadway and the uncertainty of when
the far-ru circle on the east side of the roadway would be. developed (the latecomer
agreement would expire in 15 years frorn the time the street was constructed).
B. One owner of property on the west side of the roadway desires to build a single family
home. City code requires that the property owner install the share of public improvcn,ctits
necessary to serve the property in conjunction with construction of the home. Although
this is normally done through a subdivision (before homes are built), the subject
properties were divided in the county without application of those rcquircments.
Consequently, the city must require the improvements in cor junction with the home
construction. The cost of extending the street improvement the clistanec necessary to
connect with the existing, city-standard. improverricnl (on the north side of the property) is
reasonably considered burdensome for a single property owner. Thus, the requirement
effectively results in the practical delay of the home construction until such time as the
road is improved by the city through some standard financing means (LID or latecomer
agreement).
C. At the Council Workshop of August 23, 2010, Council considered establishing a limited
waiver process that would provide for situations similar to the Crescent Road example
described above. Council was in favor of receiving additional information and
clarification on efforts to provide an alternative to providing frill concurrency in specific
circumstances.
l7. cnu ncil considered an alternative at the Workshop of October 11, 2010 which is similar
to that considered by Council at the August 23, 2010 Workshop, but eliminated the
waiver and established criteria for inclusion of a street in the CIR
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The dilenvna faced by the owner of the single property on Crescent. Road is like that of
several others in the conm-nunity that own parcels lawfully platted under county rule but
without the necessary street improvements to meet city standards. Indeed, the problem
exists in sonic of the older plats in the eastern part of the city approved in the early 1900s;
back then, lots were drawn out on paper and sold to individuals with absolutely no public
improvements in place. A century later, the current owner is unable to build a home on
the lot because there is no street or utilities extended to it.
4(d)
B. Any option, other than an LID or a latecomer agreement, that would relieve the difficulty
of the requirement: is considered an "exaction." Exactions are controlled through State
irrw and there are few opportunities to develop a process that provides a great degree of
flexibility. State law and the courts are consistent in generalizing almost all such
development exactions as "impact fees"—necessitating their use within six years.
C. The proposed ordinance provides for an exception to concurrency requirements if the
permittee pays a proportionate share of the planned street improvements in conjunction
with a building permit and the street is on the City's CIP. The proposed ordinance also
provides that Council consider at least the following criteria for placing a street on the
CiP:
• The cost of constructing the required improvement creates a disproportionate burden
upon die permit aliplicant;
• The required improvement is necessary for beneficial use of the property;
• The required improvements would benefit more than the permit applicant/owner;
• The improvement is on a collector,minor or principal arterial;
• The required in-iprovements are unlikely to be funded through other means within Clio
CIP timefraine; and
• The City will establish a latecomer agreement at the time oi' construction of the
required improvements and has a reasonable expectation to recoup a sufficient
portion of the costs of constructing the improvement.
D. Language has been added to the proposed ordinance that states the Council is not
obligated to include a street on the CIP.
E A portion of existing Section 12.36.040 "Exemptions" of the PMC is proposed for
deletion and renaming as it does not contain rational criteria to provide waivers for
development activities specifically located east of 20`x'Avenue.
P. C"ollncil consideration of the CIP occurs yearly. The CIP is a. legislative dcci ion that
contributes to sound fiscal and growth management. Inclusion of a street on the CIP for
the purpose of exceptions to concurrency would require a deliberate decision by Council,
as it would make that project more of a"commitment," rather than a "wish list."
G. Application of this alternative may include one of the following scenarios:
• The property owner applies for a building permit and is required to meet concurrency
(construct necessary street improvements);
• The property owner petitions Council to include the portion of the street needed to
rneet concurrency in the CIP based on his belief that the above criteria apply to his
ci roan rsranc:c;
• Council elects to include the street seginent on the CIP (essentially providing a
commitment for financing);
• Rased on the inclusion of the street in the CIP, the property owner pays their
proportionate share of street improvernerrts and obtains a building permit:
• The improvements are constructed by the City within six years, using one or more
sources of funding (impact fees, grants, capital improvement monies...);
• The City then establishes a i atecorners Agreement to recover a portion of the costs.
• The Latecomers Agreement is in place for a 15-year period and the City recovers
some portion or perhaps all of the funds expended for construction of the
improvement.
Or:
• The property owner applies for a building permit and is required to meet concurrency
(construct necessary street imp roverents),
• The property owner petitions Council to include the portion of the street needed to
meet concurrency in the CIP based on his belief that the above criteria apply to his
circurnstance;
• Council detennines that the street segment does not merit inclusion in the CIP'based
on the criteria. This leaves the property owner responsible for meeting concurrency—
regardless of the costs.
• The property owner withdraws his application for a building permit or makes the
required street improvements and establishes a private Latecomer Agreement.
Through the tern's of the 15-year Agreement, the property owner recovers some
portion or perhaps all of the funds expended for constnrction of the improvement.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE amending PMC Title 12 dealing with
minimum requirements for Concurrency.
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.070, requires the City to "adopt and enforce ordinances
which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a
transportation facility to decline below the standard adopted in the Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, L ess transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the
impacts of development are made concurrent with the development;" and,
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A,070, also specifies that "concurrent with the development"
means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that financial
commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six (6) years; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Plan contains street improvement projects
with identified funding and timing; and,
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Plan is considered annually by City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to ensure that the requirements of the State Growth
Management Act are met and avoid disproportionate construction delays in limited
circumstances; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Title 12 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby
amended to delete certain exemptions and include new subsections 12.36.040 (2) and (3) to
read as follows:
12.36.040. EXCEPTIONS EXCEPTIGNS. Unless otherwise provided, the following development
activities shall not require a concurrency evaluation or the payment of a traffic impact fee;
Neighborhood parks, boundary line adjustments, tax parcel segregations, final plats,
incidental residential permits, sign permits, tenant improvements and remodels that do
not result in the expansion of existing buildings. -
IOea,-,,d..east a h 'e ig eafheurrefl-e�t-(stre
Viet=
approvcd-by V--)c Public Wo
ovmc-r r sr6ng cin y -ia-tirne
frame- fer--coRIpletiGFI Of-5r'2et idewalk '
+ reef of ffie fieeessaf=y
irftpTovcf3i nt-
2 The requirement under Section 12.36.080A for adioininq street im rovements ma
be satisfied to accommodate a sinclle dwelling on a lot platted prior to January 1,.2010
provided:
l
A. The street is included within the City's 6-near Capital Improvement Plan,
B. The permittee pays the proportionate share of the planned street
improvement to the City in conjunction with the building permit.
C. The criteria for consideration of placing a street in the Capital Improvement
Plan shall include:
J. The cost of cc.;nstructing the required improvement creates a
disproportionate burden upon the permit applicant;
ii. The required improvement is necessary for beneficial use of the
prolarty
iii. The required improvements would benefit more than the permit
applicant?"owner:
iv. The required improvement is on a collector, minor or principle
arterial;
v. The reauired improvements are unlikely to be funded through other
means within the Capital Improvement Plan timeframe; and
vi. The City will establish a latecomer aareement at the time of
constructing the required improvement and has a reasonable expectation
at the time the improvement is included in the City's Capita! Improvement
Plan that the City will recoup a sufficient portion of the costs of
constructincd the improvement.
D. frothing in Section 12.36.040 (2) shall be construed as requiring the City
Council to include a particular street within the Capital Improvement Plan.
Section Z. This ordinance shall become effective five (5) days after publication as
required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting, this
day of , 2010.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 3, 2010
er
TO: Gary Crutchtz Manager
FROM: Rick Terway, D rector, n, Workshop Mtg.: 11/8/2010
Administrative and Co unity Services Regular Mtg.: 11/15/2010
SUBJECT: Memorial Pool Remodel
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Resolution
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
917: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , accepting the work
performed by Ziegler Construction Co. under contract for the
Memorial Pool remodel.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Incurred contract cost: $2,103,113.40
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) On August 17, 2009 the City Council awarded the contract for the Memorial Pool
remodel in the amount of$1,817,600.00 to Ziegler Construction Co. The remodel
is now complete with the final cost of the contract being $2,103,113.40 plus the
appropriate sales tax.
V. DISCUSSION
A) During the construction of the Memorial pool facility there were items that were
unknown until construction was well underway. We also made changes that were
obNriously cheaper to do while under construction.
During the remodel project many on site changes were made to reduce long term
maintenance costs, reduce operating costs, improve safety and provide more area
within the fenced area of the pool. These change orders amount to $285,513.40.
This equates to an approximate 8.3% cost increase (total allotted) which is not
unusual when doing a large remodel project.
B) The large ticket items were the addition of control switches in the lifeguard area
for controlling the water on the slides and spray toys, addition of enclosed ceiling
in the entire building, pavement and drains in key locations around parking lot
and loading dock, additional plumbing and electrical to reduce maintenance time
and improve safety, and concrete work required by the new slide installation. The
area inside the fenced confines of the pool was greatly increased to allow for more
family type activities to take place while enjoying the water activities.
The total of "added work" is $285,513.40. The additional expense will be
included in the 2010 budget supplement for council action in December.
C) As stated in an informational report to council earlier this year, the Memorial pool
remodel was well received by the community. Attendance was up by
approximately 10,000 and revenues were up over 400%.
D) Staff recommends acceptance of the project.
4(e)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED BY ZIEGLER
CONSTRUCTION CO. UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE MEMORIAL POOL
REMODEL PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the work performed by Ziegler Construction Co., under contract for the
Memorial Pool 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 Ziegler Construction Co., under
contract for the Memorial Pool 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 15th day of November, 2010.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council r\, October 26, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchtie] Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1118110
I Regular Mtg.: 1 1/15/10
FROM: Stan Strebel, ]deputy City Mana
SUBJECT: Public Works Inspection
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11/8: Discussion
11 115: MOTION: 1 move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending the Pasco
Municipal Code regarding Public Works Inspection and, further,
authorize publication by summary only.
Ili. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV". HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Some time ago, the City adopted a provision in the flee section of the Municipal
Code requiring "Development Inspection Fees" equal to 5% of construction costs.
Unfortunately, the applicability of the fees was not defined in the Code.
Additionally, as project costs increase, the fee based on a percentage of costs may-
increase to unrealistic and unreasonable levels.
B) Staff believes a more reasonable basis for covering inspection costs is to assess a
minimum fee ($90) for the first hour required for inspection services and $60/hour
thereafter reflecting reasonable City costs (salary, benefits, transportation) for
inspection services.
C) The proposed ordinance, which is recommended for adoption, modifies the fee
schedule and creates a new section defining when inspection fees are rewired.
D) Inspection fees are imposed on public works infrastructure which will become the
maintenance responsibility of the City. Unlike building construction permits,
permits for public infrastructure do not include the cost of inspection.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
4(f)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Chapter 14.08
of the Pasco Municipal Code, Public Works Construction Standards, and Section
3.07.180 Regarding Public Works Inspections.
WHEREAS,the City of Pasco desires to maintain quality construction of public works
infrastructure: and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary and desirable to clarify
requirements for public works inspection costs; NOW.THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 14.08 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended with the addition of
a new section to read as follows:
14.08.030 WSPF.CTION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION. Whenever permitted
construction of public works infrastructure (mainline water and sewer extensions, streets and right-of-way
construction, including drainage systems and public utilities), as determined by the Public Works Director
or his/her designee, requires inspection to assure compliance with City construction standards, the
applicant or permitee shall be responsible for payment of a minimum inspection fee for the first hour of
inspection time(as set forth in Chapter 3.07 of this code) and thereafter for the City's hourly costs(salary,
benefits and transportation) of providing such inspection services. Inspection fees/costs shall be billed by
the City on a periodic basis and payments shall be due within 30 days of billing.
Section 2. Section 3.07.180 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read:
3.07.180 A=F1 1 ^" T L PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS
Fee/Charge Reference
A) Water Crews on Contractor Site $160.00 Ord. 3 43
(aver 1"visit) (per hour)
B) Sewer Crews on Contractor Site $160.00 Ord. 3543
(after I"visit) (per hour)
Public Works Construction/Development Inspection Minimum Fee: 90 fqr first
hour: thereafter, $60,V TM
14.08.030
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law
this day of , 2010.
Matt Watkins,Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie Clark,City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council November 4, 2010
FROM: Gary Crutchfie i Manager Workshop Mtg,: 11/8/10
Regular Mtg.: 11115/10
t
SUBJECT: Civil Service Commission Appointment
1. REFERENCE(S);
1. PMC 2.33
2, Application, Cos Edwards
I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1118: Discussion
11/15: MOTION: I move to confinn the City Manager's reappointment of Cos
Edwards to Position No. 2 on the Civil Service Commission term
to expire 2117116.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
(none)
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) State Law (RCW 41.08 and 41.12) requires the city to maintain a Civil Service
Commission for its Police and Fire Departments. PMC 2.33 provides for the
Pasco Civil Service Commission and appointment of its members to six-year
terms.
B) The Civil Service Commission is to be composed of three citizens to assure
fairness and impartiality in the hiring and promotion of uniformed police and fire
employees. The Commission also decides appeals of discipline administered to
uniformed Police and Fire employees, when such employees elect to use the Civil
Service Commission hearing process (rare occasions) rather than the grievance
arbitration process afforded in their respective bargaining contracts. In addition,
the city has designated the Civil Service Commissioners to fill the role of a
personnel board to consider certain appeals of issues relating to non-uniformed
employees who are not otherwise covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The key attributes of a Civil Service Commission/Personnel Board member are
experience in managing people in the workplace and the ability to make a fair and
impartial decision based on the facts suirounding an issue. Mr. Edwards has
demonstrated that ability for more than 20 years as a member of the Civil Service
Commission, It should be noted. also, that Mr. Edwards contributes to the ethnic
diversity of the Commission, thus reflecting the diversity of the community at
large.
13) Although appointments to the Civil Service Commission are made by the City
Manager, PMC 2.33 provides for "...consent of the City Council." Consent of the
City Council is hereby requested (in the form of the proposed motion),
4(g)
CHAPTER 2.33 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & PERSONNEL BOARD
Sections:
2.33.010 CREATED - PURPOSE. ...........................................................,............27
2.33,020 MEMBERSHIP .................................................. .., ..27
2.33.030 CIVIL SERVICE RULES ........................................
2.33,040 POWERS AND DUTIES OF PERSONNEL BOARD..........................27
2.33,050 FIRE CHIEF F.XCF,PTED......................................................................27
2.33,060 POLICE CHIEF EXCEPTED................................ 27
2.33,010 CREATED - PURPOSE. There is created pursuant to RCW 41.08 and RCN'
41.12. a Civil Service Commission for the Fire Department and Police Department, and a
Personnel Board for all employees of the City, (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.)
2.33.020 MEMBERSHIP. Residents of the City of Pasco being citizens of the United
States will be eligible for appointment.. The City Manager will make all appointments to the
commission with consent of the City Council, following rules established in RCW 41.08 and
RCW 41.12. Members of the Civil Service Commission will also serve as members of the
Personnel Board. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.)
2.33.030 CIVIL. SERVICE RULES. The Commission shall adopt rules as provided for in
RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12 respectively. Commission Rules may be amended and updated from
time to time. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5,. 1997.)
2.33.040 POWERS AND DUTIES OF PERSONNEL BOARD. It shall be the duty of the
Personnel Board to:
A) Hear grievances in accordance with rules of procedures and practices to be adopted by
the Board, but informality of proceedings or in the manner of taking testimony shall not affect
any action of the Board.
B) Advise the appointing authority on matters brought before the Board by the appointing
authority.
C) Keep such records as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and
duties of the Board. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.)
2,33.050 FIRE CHIEF EXCEPTED. Any person appointed as Fire Chief after January
25, 1994 shall be excepted from inclusion within the perview of the Civil Service System created
by this chapter. (Ord. 3545 Sec. 33, 2001)
2.33.060 POLICE CHIEF EXCEPTED, Any person appointed as Police Chief after
January 25, 1994 shall be excepted from inclusion within the perview of the Civil Service
System created by this chapter. (Ord. 3545 Sec, 33, 2002.)