HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.02.28 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. February 28, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau Presentation. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL. ON
AGENDA) Presented by Kris Watkins, President and CEO, Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention
Bureau.
(b) Impact Fees for School Facilities:
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated
February 17, 2011.
2. Memorandum to the City Manager.
(c) Waste Water Treatment Plant Update:
1. Agenda Report from Alunad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated February 15, 2011.
2. Consultant Agreement,
(d) Quasi Judicial Hearing Procedures:
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated
February 25, 2011.
2. Draft Ordinance.
(e) Weapons in Parks;
1. Agenda Report from Rick Tenvay, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
February 8, 2011.
2. PMC 9.48.090.
3. 1212/10 Park Board Minutes.
4. Proposed Ordinance.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(C)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1. 4:00 p.m., Monday, February 28, Ben-Franklin Transit Office—Hanford Area Economic Investment
Fund Committee Meeting, (COUNCTI.MEMBER At.YENNF.Y,Rep.; SAU- ,MARTIN. F.Z, Alt.)
2. 12:00 p.m.., Tuesday, March 1, Bob's Burger & Brew, Kennewick — Mayor's Luncheon Meeting.
(MAYOR MATT WATKINS)
3. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control
District Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt,)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 17, 2011
TO: Gary Crutch anager Workshop Mtg.: 2/28/11
FROM: Kick White
Community & Economic Development Direetor, ,�
SUBJECT- Impact Fees for School Facilities Y�
1. REFERENCES
1. Memorandum to the City Manager
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECONIMENDATIONS:
2/28: DISCUSSION
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The Pasco School District (PSD) has formally requested that the City and County
adopt school "impact fees," and have provided a letter and capital improvement
plan that outlines their reasoning and facility needs.
B. Impact fees are charges that are assessed by the City or County against new
development that recover a portion of the costs of providing public facilities to
serve that new development. Like other impact fees (traffic and park), the
City/County would be responsible for the collection of the fees, but unlike other
fees, school impact fees may be used within ten years as opposed to six.
C. Incorporation of school impact fees as a condition of new development will
require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and existing
development regulations. Both actions begin with a recommendation from the
Planning Commission and end with a decision from City Council.
D. It is also expected that imposition of school impact fees would require an
interlocal agreement with the PSD specifying, collection, accounting,
reimbursement and indemnification procedures.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. In order to gain a better understanding of this complex issue, it is suggested that
Council consider a joint meeting with the PSD Board or formation of a cormnittee
of Council and Board members for discussion of the problem and possible
solutions.
B. The attached memo outlines the basic Iand use scenarios and possible legal
ramifications pertaining to this issue.
C. Staff will respond to Council's discussion of this issue as directed.
4(b)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic DevelopmenrV f
SUBJECT: School District Impact Fees
This review is of the Pasco School District's (PSD) request to initiate the imposition of impact
fees. This matter has been discussed in public on several different occasions and has been
the subject of several newspaper articles, however a formal request by the District has not
been received until now (distributed to City Council in the January 31, 2011 Workshop
packet).
The PSD has prepared a capital facility plan that addresses the District's need for school
facilities through the year 2016. Based on the District's Capital Facility Plan, the PSD has
requested that the City (and County) charge impact fees for new residential development to
be used for the provision of new school facilities that can accommodate growth in the
student population. In the Capital Plan, the District has indicated that nearly all educational
facilities are at or above capacity, and that the enrollment in the year 2016 is expected to
be nearly 21,000 students (an increase of 5,640 students over 2010 enrollment). The
District has also indicated that the expected impact fees for a single family home is $6,012
and $5,272 for a multi—family dwelling.
This request is based on RCW 58.17.110 and 82.02.050. RCW 58.17.110 requires a city and
county to make findings for plat approval that appropriate public facilities of all types are in
place to accommodate expected impacts of new development. These findings are as
follows:
(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and
interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and
dedication. It shall determine;
(a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health,
safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or
roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies,
sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school
grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and
other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who
only walk to and from school; and
(b) whether the public interest will be. served by the subdivision and dedication.
(2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the
city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a)
Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other
public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and
recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts,
including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions
for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest
will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the
proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the
public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the
proposed subdivision and dedication.
RCW 82.02.050 authorizes the payment of impact fees for cities and counties planning
under the Growth Management Act. RCW 82.02.050 reads (in part) as follows:
1) It is the intent of the legislature:
(a) To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and
development;
(b) To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by which
counties, cities, and towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth and
development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to
serve new growth and development; and
(c) To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established procedures and
criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees
for the same impact.
2) Counties, cities, and towns that are required or choose to plan under RCW
36.70A.040 are authorized to impose impact fees on development activity as part of
the financing for public facilities, provided that the financing for system
improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between
impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees.
3) The impact fees:
(a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to
the new development;
(b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements
that are reasonably related to the new development; and
(c) Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new
development.
In the January 11 letter to the City, the PSD has stated that"...we have outgrown our ability
to continue providing schools without requiring the development that will be served by the
schools to contribute to the cost." The District has also stated that "...the County and City
cannot approve residential subdivisions unless you find there are "adequate provisions for
schools". The District is notifying the County and City that without impact fees or mitigation
under SEPA, there are not adequate provisions for schools."
The January 11th letter places the City on notice that the District will assert that a significant
adverse impact to the school system will occur by the approval of new residential
development unless that development pays impact fees or provides other appropriate
mitigation. in addition, the District has attached a draft ordinance that clearly defines
construction of a new single family home as a "development activity" that will create
additional demand for school facilities. It is the District's intent that construction of a new
dwelling on an existing lot will also be subject to the impact fee process.
Imposition of impact fees requires the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
incorporating the PSD's Capital Facility Plan into the City's Capital Facility Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Following this action, the City would be required to provide for the
imposition of impact fees through an ordinance. The ordinance would need to provide
justification for the fees and the amount expected to be paid.
As Council knows, amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is a once per year process that
originates with a recommendation from the City's Planning Commission and ends with a City
Council decision. It will take several months for that process to run its course. Assuming the
City decides to impose school impact fees, this is a considerable period of time before any
fees could be implemented. It is possible that a significant number of permit applications
would be submitted to avert the imposition of Impact fees as a condition of approval. As a
consequence of this expected reaction by the development industry, the declaration of a
moratorium on new residential development applications should be considered. A
moratorium would prohibit issuing residential building permits until this matter has been
procedurally resolved. Moratoriums can be implemented only after a public hearing and for
terms of six months. Extensions of the moratorium may be made under certain
circumstances with appropriate findings by City Council.
The scenario described below illustrates several positions that the City and District may
experience with a new submission of a preliminary plat application.
A new application for a preliminary plat approval is submitted. In conjunction with the
preliminary plat application, the applicant submits a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Checklist. This is a regulatory tool that describes the proposal, and is used by cities and
counties in Washington State to identify potential impacts a development may have on a
variety of environmental issues. The City refers the checklist to the District. Consistent with
their January 11th letter to the City, the District indicates it cannot accommodate the school
age population that the new development is expected to generate unless mitigation is
accomplished. The District also indicates that mitigation in this case is payment of impact
fees for each single family home permit within the proposed plat.
This then, requires the City to decide one of the following courses of action:
• Issue a Determination of Significance. By declaring that the proposed preliminary
plat will have a significant adverse impact on the built environment, the City is
requiring that a limited Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be written to provide
information on the impacts of the proposal. The limited EIS would analyze a
recommended action and several alternatives. The information in the EIS would be
used by the Planning Commission and City Council in the decision making process for
the preliminary plat application. Appeal of the action of issuing a Determination of
Significance would take place in Superior Court.
• Deny the application. Based on the District's comments, the City would deny the
preliminary plat application due to the inability to make the findings for approval
required by 58.17.110 RCW. Appeal of this denial would take place under the
jurisdiction of Superior Court or the State's Growth Management Hearing Board.
• Approve the application, The City would make appropriate findings contrary to the
District's assertion that adequate provisions for schools cannot be made without the
payment of impact fees, and approve the preliminary plat. Appeal of this action
would take place under the jurisdiction of the State's Growth Management Hearing
Board.
• Approve the application with mitigation. As allowed by SEPA, The City would approve
the preliminary plat through a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS).
This would condition the approval of the preliminary plat on receipt of mitigation
measures as requested by the District. Appeal of this action would take place in
Superior Court.
There is also the possibility that the housing or development industry may file suit
challenging the imposition of the impact fees absent a specific land use application or
request. This challenge would involve the City as well as the District.
RW/sa
AGENDA REPORT NO. 1
FOR: City Council February 15. 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi Ci Manager
FROM: Ahmad Qayounji, Public Works Director Workshop Mtg.: 02/28/11
Q
Regular Mtg,: 03!07/11
SUBJECT: Waste Water Treatment Plant Update
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Consultant Agreement
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
02128: Discussion
03107: MOTION: 1 move to approve the Consultant Agreement from HDR
Engineering, Inc. authorizing engineering and consulting
services with respect to the Waste Water Treatment Plant, not
to exceed $57,500 and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the
agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
A) $57,500; Sewer Utility Account
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In June 2010, the City received an approved permit from the Department of Ecology
for the Waste plater 'Treatment Plant located at Gray Street which expires June 15,
2015. The permit contained a condition that the City must complete a Comprehensive
Engineering Study for the plant by January 1, 2011. The study will enable the City to
have a plan for optimization of the plant for operations to meet Department of Energy
(DOE) requirements.
B) The past tw,o months of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's) have shown the
effluent is exceeding the discharge permit Iimits. Staff has been working with DOE to
address it and this study will accomplish mitigation plans.
V. DISCUSSION:
HDR will provide the following services:
A) HDR will provide a technical memorandum (TM) to assist in satisfying the conditions
of the permit. In addition, the TM will focus on an evaluation of the capacity and
operations of the existing Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), The capacity will be
analyzed using the last 10 years of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's).
B) HDR will evaluate the existing operating parameters to investigate the recent total
suspended solids (1'SS) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) excursions in the
W WTP effluent.
C) Evaluate the recycle loading from solids processing to the liquid stream and assist the
City to determine if the meters are within calibration standards.
D) Investigate and evaluate the recent digester upset,
C) HDR will identify immediate unit process improvements to meet effluent discharge
limits.
F) HDR will conduct a site visit that will assist in the evaluation and generate a list of
potential energy conservation suggestions.
G) HDR will recommend process changes to improve the WWTP's operations within the
parameters of the existing facility.
H) Develop a Facility Plan Chapter outline.
1) Develop a Microsoft Project Schedule for the City's review.
4(c)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into between the City of Pasco,hereinafter
referred to as the "City", and HDR Engineering,Inc.hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant".
WHEREAS,the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consulting firm to provide engineering and consulting services with respect to the Facility Plant
Update.
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
accomplish the above-mentioned objectives in accordance with Exhibit A with Aaron Meilleur
as project manager.
2. n i ano use of DeliveLgbles. All research,tests, surveys, preliminary data and
any and all other Deliverables, as defined in the Scope of Services and 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 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, Deliverables of
the consultant, along with a summary of deliverables done to date of default or termination, shall
become the property of the City and tender of the Deliverables and summary shall be a
prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of done shall be prepared at no
additional cost, if the contract is terminated through default by the consultant.If the contract is
terminated through convenience by the City,the City agrees to pay consultant for the preparation
of the summary of work done.
D. CONSULTANT retains ownership of all concepts, general specifications,
methodologies, ideas,trade secrets or other "instruments of service".
E. Nothing in this paragraph shall constitute or be construed to be any representation
by the CONSULTANT that the Deliverable(s) is suitable in any way for any other project except
the one detailed in this Agreement. Any reuse by the CITY shall be at the CITY's sole risk and
without liability or legal exposure to CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT does not convey,
assign or transfer the intellectual property rights it has in the Deliverable(s) or in the processes
CrTY of PAsco PAGE 1 HDR ENGINEERING,iNC,
FACILITY PLANT UPDATE AGREEMENT XXXXXX/1.1
that were developed to create the Deliverable(s) so as to limit CONSULTANT'S ability or right
to develop,design or provide services or deliverables on other projects of or for its other clients.
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 the 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 on a
Time and Material basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit A,provided, in no
event shall the payment for all work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of
$57,700.
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 shade available upon request.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this
Agreement in a timely manner.
5. HQId 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"Indemnitees"), from all suits, claims, demands, actions or
proceedings, and to the extent caused by
A. all damages or liability of any character including in part costs, expenses and
reasonable attorney fees, directly due to any negligent act,error, or omission of Consultant in
connection with the performance ofp1ofessional, services under this Agreement; and
B. all liability, loss, damage, claims, demands, costs and expenses of whatsoever
nature, including in part,court costs and reasonable attorney fees,based to the extend directly
due to any negligent act, omission, or occurrence of the Consultant cause by the performance or
failure of actions other than vrofessional s rices under this Agreement,
C. Consultant's indemnification and defense obligation shall be limited to the
percentage of fault apportioned to Consultant by a court of law, arbitrator or by mutual
agreement between the parties to this Agreement
6. General and nroWsional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and
maintain in full force and effect during performance of all professional services pursuant to this
CITY OF PASCO PAGE 2 HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
FACILITY PLANT UPDATE AGREEMENT XXXXXX/1.1
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. 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.
7. Discrimination erobibited. 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 as rode endea contractor. The parties intend that and independent
consultant 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,
representative and subconsultant during the performance of this contract.
9. City approval. Notwithstanding'the Consultant's status as an independent consultant,
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. 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.
12. 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.
13. N2n-Ass4wable. The services to be provided by the consultant shall not be assigned or
subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
14. Covenant plailnst ontincent 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, and 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.
CITY OF PASCO PAGE 3 HDR ENGINEERING, INC,
FACILITY PLANT UPDATE AGREEMENT XUCXM1.1
15. 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.
16. Standard of Care. The standard of care for all professional engineering, consulting and
related services performed or furnished by Consultant and its employees under this Agreement
will be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of Consultant's profession practicing under
the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. Consultant makes
no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with
Consultant's services
17. Notices. Notices to the City of Pasco shall be sent to the following address:
AHMAD QAYOUMI; PE
CITY OF PASCO
P.O. BOX 293
PASCO,WA 99301
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
AARON MEILLEUR, PE
HDR ENGINEERING INC
2805 ST ANDREWS LOOP SUITE A
PASCO,.WA 99301
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 , 2011
CITY OF PASCO CONSULTANT:
.By: By:
Miles L. Cross, PE
Its Vice President
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Clerk
City Attorney
CITY OF PASCO PAGE 4 HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
FACILITY PLANT UPDATE AGREEMENT XXXXXXl1.1
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PASCO PAGE 5 HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
Y.1 -l]e...wrr A VVVVVVI.! .1
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR ASSISTANCE TO CITY OF PASCO
FOR NPDES PERMIT COMPLIANCE
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Pasco, Washington has been issued an NPDES Permit on June 29,2010, effective
July 1,2010 and expires June 30, 2015. The City has requested that HDR Engineering, Inc.
(Consultant) assist them in negotiating and addressing a reasonable schedule for the submittal of
the required Facility Plan update in their most recent NPDES Permit.
Scope Of Services
This scope of services addresses Consultant and related services to assist the City of Pasco with
the requirements of their NPDES Permit.
The scope of services is organized into the following tasks.
• Task Series 100: Project Management and QA/QC
• Task Series 200: WWTP Facility Planning Update
• Task Series 300: Implementation Assistance
1.0 Task 100 — Project Management and QA/QC
Objectives
1. Meet with City staff to review progress and define City preferences for accomplishing the
work outlined in this scope of services.
2. Provide quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)reviews of the recommendations and
project deliverables,
Consultant Services
1. Coordinate and manage the Consultant team. Prepare a Project Guide.
2. Communicate and coordinate with the City project team via the City project manager.
Attend miscellaneous project management meetings with the City.
3. Provide QA/QC reviews of the recommendations and deliverables,
4. Prepare monthly invoices and project status reports.
City Responsibilities
1. Participate in project coordination meetings.
Page 1 of 4
2. Respond in a timely manner to issues brought forward in the progress reports and through
direct communication with the Consultant.
Assumptions
1. The duration for completing the outlined scope of services is anticipated to occur by May
2011.
2. There will be up to 3 status meetings with the City.
Deliverables
1. Monthly invoices and project status reports
2. Meeting notes
2.0 Task Series 200 — WWTP Facility Planning Update
Objective
Provide a technical memorandum to assist the City in satisfying the conditions of the future
facility planning effort for evaluation of the capacity of the existing Waste Water Treatment
Plant(WWTP).
Consultant Services
1. Prepare technical memorandum that evaluates the capacity of the current WWTP
configuration using the Envision mass balance model and analyzing the last 10 years of
Discharge Monitoring Reports(DMR's)_
a. Utilize the BioWin Model to evaluate the facilities capacity assuming the initial
Envision model has determined there is a secondary capacity issue.
b. Based on the review of existing data and the results of the BioWin and Envision
Models, determine if the proposed primary clarifier is needed within the next S
years or can be deferred to a future date.
2. Evaluate existing operating parameters to investigate the recent total suspended solids
(TSS)and biological oxygen demand (BOD) excursions in the facilities effluent.
3. Evaluate the recycle loading from solids processing to the liquid stream. Assist the City
in determining if the meters on the solids processing return liquid stream, plant influent
and plant effluent meters are within calibration standards.
4. Investigate the recent digester upset, including:
a. Operational historical parameters
b. Digester feed pump controls
c. Digester feed flow monitoring
5. Provide recommendations to the City for implementing process changes to improve the
facility's operations within the parameters of the existing facility.
Page 2 of 4
5. Identify immediate unit process improvements required to meet effluent requirements.
7. During the on-site evaluation, generate a list of potential energy conservation or "green
power" suggestions to be considered for inclusion in the facility plan scope of services.
City Responsibilities
1. Provide last 10 years of operational data and DMR reports in excel worksheet format.
2. Have wastewater treatment operators accompany Consultant's Operational Specialist
while on-site.
Assumptions
I. Envision mass balance model will be used to perform the initial analysis.
2. Consultant's Operational Specialist will spend 2 days on-site with City's operations staff
reviewing and observing facilities operation.
3. BioWin model analysis will only be implemented should the Envision model indicate that
the flows and loading parameters have exceeded the capacity of the facility's activated
sludge system.
Deliverables
I. Draft technical memorandum, in electronic format,providing the initial design
parameters of each unit process,the mass balance capacity of each unit process and the
current actual loading of each unit process.
2. Final technical memorandum, as a final pdf and 1 mailed hard copy, incorporating City's
comments on the draft technical memorandum.
3. Site field visitation report from Consultant's Operational Specialist site visit.
3.0 Task Series 300 — Implementation Assistance
Objectives
Assist the City in providing the Washington State Department of Ecology an implementation
schedule for a Facility Plan pursuant to the WAC Chapter 173-240 requirements.
Consultant Services
1. Develop a Facility Plan Chapter outline.
2. Develop a Microsoft Project Schedule for City's review.
3. Meet with the City to develop a realistic schedule for implementation of the facility plat;
to include and incorporate facility review times and mandated public advertising
schedules.
4. Assist the City in development of a request for proposals (RFP) for a complete and
comprehensive Facility Plan to review the flows and loads in the City,to develop a needs
assessment for the current facility,and to incorporate an evaluation of the needs for a
West Pasco Facility.
Page 3 of 4
5. Assist the City in determining the Environmental Review requirements to include in the
Facility Plan RFP,including work required to satisfy the SERP process, support
permitting efforts, and to qualify for state and federal finding assistance.
City Responsibilities
1. Meet with the Consultant to provide input and requirements for the RFP
2. Meet with the Consultant to provide realistic review and advertising times in schedule
development
Assumptions
1. Consultant will have up to three(3)meetings with the City to receive the City's input of
the RFP and schedule process and to document and incorporate the City's review
comments.
Deliverables
1. Provide an editable electronic version of the Facility Plan Chapter outline in Word format
for the City's use
2. Provide an editable electronic version of draft implementation schedule in Microsoft
Project format for the City to review
3. Provide an editable electronic version of draft RFP in Word format for the City to review
4. Provide an editable electronic version of final schedule in Microsoft Project format with
the City's review comments and input incorporated
5. Provide an editable electronic version of final RFP in Word format with the City's review
comments and input incorporated
Page 4 of 4
Compensation
Pasco, WA Facility Plant Update
PROJECT HOUR AND COST ESTIMATE
Labor KOURS FOR EACH HOUR TASK Total
HEIR Labor Efate t 2 3 Hours Cost
Project Principal $67.91 0 0 0 0 $0
Project Manager $6150 13 10 8 31 $1.907
Senior Engineer $50.50 0 0 0 0 $0
Process Engineer $47.38 0 68 0 68 $3,222
Engineer/EIT $28.50 4 36 48 88 $2,508
OC Reviewer $72.10 1 20 10 31 $2,235
Operational Specialist $57.30 0 38 0 38 $2,177
Technical Writer $37.37 0 8 0 8 $299
Senior Process Engineer $92.60 0 20 0 20 $1,8521
NPDES Permit Specialist $94.00 0 14 61 20 $1,880
Project Controller $26.45 24 0 0 24 $635
Project Assistant $15.30 10 0 0 10 $153
Total Hours 52 214 72 338 $56,868
Subtotal Direct Labor 1,773 11,949 3,145 $16,868
Overhead @ 3,103 20,911 5,504 $29,518
Total HDR Labor Cost 4,876 32,860 8,6491 $46,386
HDR Expenses 1 2 3 Expenses
91 Miscellaneous-Mail $0
92 Travel $598.80 $2,100.60 $59830 $3.301
93 Mapping/Photos/Surveys $0
95 Printing Drawings $0
95 Copying 50
96 Telephone/FAX 50
97 HDR Computers/Software SO
Per Labor Hr, Tech. Charge $3.70 192 792 266 $1,251
Expense Admin Outside$) 0.0% 0 0 0 $0
Total HDR Expenses 791 2,901 865 $4,558
TOTAL HDR LABOR AND EXP 5,668 35,762 9,514 $50,943
Subtotal Cost by Task - - 5,668 35,762 9,514 50,943
FEE(%Tot Cost&Fee) a@ 14.5% 707 4,765 1,254 6,726
TOTAL ESTIN ATED 1 2 3 Total
COST AND FEE 6,3751 40,5261 10,768 SsT,66s
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council y Febniary 25, 2011
TO: Crary Crutc 1~ Manager Workshop Mtg.: 2/28/2011
FROM: Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Directo�Vl
SUBJECT: (Quasi Judicial.Hearinv,Procedures
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Draft Ordinance
II. ACT10N REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2128: DISCUSSION
Iii. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The rules governing the quasi-judicial hearing process for consideration of
rezones, subdivisions, special pennits, etc., largely emanate from state court cases
over the past 30 years and have generally grown more restrictive (more
"judicial"). The fundamental notion is that the hearing body (Planning
Commission or City Council) must be free of inappropriate influence in forming
its decision,just as a judge or jury would be. One fundamental rule is that the City
Council, when conducting a "closed record hearing" can consider only the
evidence contained in the "record" of the Planning Commission hearing and
recommendation.
B. Previous Council discussion has revealed some desire to be able to use the video
recordings of the Planning Commission hearing (or to attend such hearings or
watch them on cable channel 12) to augment Council's understanding of the
"record." Arguably, one may get a better "sense" of the subject matter if one
watches the hearing, rather than reading the transcript (movie vs. book). As noted
at the January 31 Workshop, the video recording cannot substitute for the
transcribed record and references to the issues in the record are hest accomplished
through the transcripts.
C. In addition, it has been suggested that Planning Commissioners and City Council
members be permitted to view the site of an application (rezone, subdivision or
special permit); again, it is arguable that such a visit would improve the
individual's understanding of the application, As the attorney notes, however,
such a visit could lead to inappropriate communication with a party outside the
hearing process and, therefore, constitute "ex paste" influence (violating the
quasi-judicial standard).
D. A draft ordinance was prepared by the attorney and presented to Council on
January 31, 2011. This draft reflected a limited ability to use video recordings of
the Planning Commission hearing and view the site of an application.
E. Council discussion of this issue indicated that consideration of various options is
in order.
4(d)
V. DISCUSSION:
A. After research, the attorney finds case law generally on both sides of the issue of
"viewing the site." Thei•e are good reasons to encourage property views to give a
better"lay of the land" in regards to the subject property and how its development
might affect the surrounding neighborhood. Yet, there are risks, as it may be
difficult to avoid communication with neighbors or other interested parties while
at the site.
B. lndividual site visits may prove problematic in that different hearing officers or
Council members will see different issues depending on time of day,
circumstances or incidental activities on the site. This will result in each
individual perceiving a different record from that considered by the Planning
Commission or other Council members. Group site visits may be impractical in
that a quorum of hearing officers or Council members will constitute a "public
meeting" and must be advertised. As a matter of transparency, the press, applicant
and those that have expressed an interest in the outcome of a given land use action
should also be notified of any group site visit. The logistics and time
commitments organizing and carrying out such site visits will be difficult to
accommodate.
C. An option for consideration may be for staff to provide a photographic exhibit of
the site and surroundings for the record. This will insure that decision makers are
getting the same information and avoid the probability of "ex parte"
communications.
D. The matter of using the video recordings of hearings largely hinges on the source
of the video and whether it becomes part of the record. ]Because the city records
the hearings, it should be simple to maintain a controlled system for production
and provide them as requested (or Council may prefer that every appeal include a
video of the hearing conducted by the Planning Commission), The majority of
recommendations forwarded to Council through the Planning Commission do not
involve an appeal and very few actions that are not appealed result in a closed
record hearing by Council. It may be unnecessary to include a recording of each
land use action for Council viewing. in those cases where a video is provided,
staff will need to develop a standard method of referencing the video in the record
so there is no conflict/failure on that point.
E. Staff recommends Council favorably consider a photographic exhibit of the site
and surroundings be provided for the record, and video recordings only be
provided for those quasi judicial matters that are the subjects of an appeal.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending
Section 4.02.030 "Definitions" and Section 4.02.140 "Permit Procedures"
Permitting Video Record of Proceedings
WHEREAS, as a service to the public, the City has initiated the unedited video recording
and broadcast of City meetings, including meetings of the City of Pasco Planning Commission
and the City of Pasco Code Enforcement Board; and
WHEREAS, the video recordings of these proceedings are broadcasted to the public and
retained as an accurate public record of the proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, from time to time, sits in a quasi-judicial capacity of
hearing closed record appeals of hearings held before both the City of Pasco Planning
Commission and the City of Pasco Code Enforcement Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that such technology provides an accurate and
more engaging method of preserving the record, including the ability to view and judge the
demeanor of the witnesses, thereby providing the Council a better opportunity to accurately
perceive the proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the use of a record, supplemented by video recording of the proceedings
benefits the citizens who have matters pending in such proceedings by providing a better record,
and therefore, contributing to a better result; and
WHEREAS, with the introduction of the video record as a part of the official record of
proceedings, negates the video record from constituting an ex parte communication, NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 4,02.030 entitled "Definitions" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follow:
4.02.030 DEFINITIONS. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the
definitions in this section apply throughout this Title.
(1) "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record following
an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no
or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument
allowed,
(2) "Director" means the Director of Community and Economic Development unless
another department or agency is in charge of the project permit in which case it refers to the chief
administrative officer of that department or agency.
(3) "Open record hearing" means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or
officer that creates the record through testimony and submission of evidence and information.
An open record hearing may be held prior to a decision on a project permit to be known
as an "open record predecision hearing," An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be
known as an "open appeal hearing," if no open record predecision has been held on the project
permit.
(4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or
environmental permit or license required from the City for a project action, including but not
limited to subdivisions, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial
development permits, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific
rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, but excluding the adoption of
amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as
otherwise specifically included in this subsection.
(5) "Public meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public
gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project
permit prior to a decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review of
architectural control board meeting, a special review district or community council meeting, or a
scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include
an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or
recommendation may be included in the local government's project permit application file.
(6) "Record" means the memorialization of testimony, evidence and other
communication submitted or created during a hearing and obtained through unedited audio,
video or other lawful means of recordation. (Ord. 3151 Sec. 1, 1996).
Section 2. That Section 4.02.100 entitled "Permit Procedures" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
4.02.100 PERMIT PROCEDURES.
(1) All project permits and project permit applications, except zone changes; plats,
street vacations, and other legislative decisions, shall be processed and reviewed in the following
manner, upon receipt ol'a completed application:
(a) For an application requiring legislative action or which is illegal, the
application shall be denied or processed in accord with subsection (2).
Ordinance Amending Sections 4.02,030 and 4.02,100
Page 2
(b) For applications which involve more than one permit, the City will prepare
a temporary schedule for review by all interested agencies, departments, and the
applicant. The schedule will be prepared during the application completion determination
in accord with Section 4.02.060.
(c) Depending upon the scope of the project, the City will schedule necessary
public meetings to coordinate the permit process and gather information following
appropriate notification as provided in 4.02.040.
(d) Unless otherwise required, no open record hearing will be held unless
there is a bona fide objection to some portion of the permit or from some determination
made during the course of the permit processing. When required, only one open record
hearing will be held. The open record hearing will be before the officer or body having
jurisdiction over the matter in dispute or over the matter requiring the open record
hearing. If the matter disputed or for which an open record hearing is required falls within
the jurisdiction of more than one department or agency, a joint hearing will he held if
practical.
(e) A decision or joint decision if possible, shall be issued and notice given
thereof, including the time for appeal and the person or body to whom the appeal must be
made. Unless another time is provided, an appeal must he filed within ten days of the
decision. The longest appeal period following a joint hearing controls if there are multiple
appeal periods.
(0 The body or bodies with appellant jurisdiction shall hold a joint closed
record appeal. An open record appeal may be held for matters for which no open record
hearing has previously been held. The decision of the person or bodies hearing the appeal
may be joint or separate. Every effort shall be made in the event of separate decisions to
ensure that they are issued simultaneously. Any review of the decision or decisions must
be made to the superior court within 21 days.
(g) In the event that no appellant body is designated for a matter, the matter
shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner.
(h) The hearing officer or body may view the site of the subject matter of the
permit or application, with or without notification to the parties,.but shall place on the
record, the time, manner and circumstances of such view, and shall not engage in any ex
t),-Lrte communications with aiiX parties or potential witnesses while at the site
(2) In the event any hearing, quasi-judicial hearing, or appeal that is conducted before
the Pasco City Council and the Council member is not able to attend the hearing or appeal, said
Council member may still vote on the matter so long as the Council member affirms on the
record that they have had adequate to opportunity to review the record, including an unedited video
record of the proceeding, and having reviewed the entire record believes he or she may vote on
the matter with the same level of confidence and understanding as if he or she had in fact been in
attendance at the quasi-judicial hearing or appeal. Any Council member may, upon Prig r
Ordinance Amending Sections 4.02.030 and 4.02.100
Page 3
request, receive and review the video record of proceedings as a part of the record so long as the
video record or-proceeding is included in the record of the quasi-judicial hearing or appeal and
noted in the record of such hearinlior appeal. A Council member may view the video broadcast
of the proceeding which is subject to the quasi-judicial hearing or appeal if the broadcast is
viewed in its entirety, and is placed in the record that the broadcast video was unedited and
broadcast in its entirety.
(-23) If the decision on an application must be made by the Pasco City Council, the
application will normally be denied until legislative approval has been obtained. Except for
comprehensive plan amendments which may never be processed other than as part of the annual
review, an applicant may request combined processing in accord with subsection (1) of this
section.
(-34) The actual costs of any hearing or appeal not otherwise required will be borne by
the person requesting the review or objecting to a decision. Security for the costs must be posted
prior to the setting or notice of hearing or appeal. The failure to post security is a waiver of any
objection.
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 , 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Sections 4,02,030 and 4.02.100
Page 4
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 8, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi , i Manager Workshop Mtg.: 2/28/2011
Regular Mtg.: 3/7/2011
Y
.FROM: Rick Tez•way; irectox, A&C�
SUBJECT: Weapons in Parks
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. PMC 9.48.090
2, 12/2/2010 Park Board Minutes
3. Proposed Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
02/28: Discussion
03/7: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending PMC Chapter
9.48.090; regarding discharge of weapons in city parks, and,
further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) RCW 9.41.290 preempts a city's authority to enact local laws that prohibit possession
of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities.
B) RCW 9.41.300 states - Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their
respective jurisdiction where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic
animal, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinance shall not abridge the
right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to
bear arms in defense of self or others.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) This is simply a housekeeping change to bring the Pasco Municipal Code in
compliance with state law, The Parks and Recreation Advisory Council discussed the
proposed amendment and recommended approval at their December 2, 2010 meeting.
B) The proposed new language broadens the definition of `weapons' and replaces the
word `possess' with `discharge'. Our signage has always stated it is illegal to
discharge weapons in the park and will remain the same.
4(e)
B) No person shall place, erect, or maintain any structure or obstruction of
any kind on park property.
C) It is unlawful for any person other than a duly authorized employee of the
City of Pasco to do any of the following acts without the written permission of the
Director:
1) No person shall intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal
negligence abandon a domesticated animal in a park.
2) No person shall mow, prune, cut, clear, plant on or otherwise alter
or disturb any park property or planting,
D) Violation of any of the provisions of this section constitutes a
misdemeanor. (Ord. 3616 Sec. 1, 2003.)
9.48.080 ANIMALS. A) It is unlawful for any person to ride a horse or other
beast of burden upon any park property unless specifically designated for such or
without specific permission of the Director.
B) It is unlawful for any person to allow or permit any animal to be at large
in any park, except dog guides or service animals, as defined in Chapter 70.84 RCW
(White Cane Law), or those animals used by a law enforcement officer; provided, that
except in areas in which animals are prohibited, animals are permitted in a park if on a
leash not greater than ten feet in length, or otherwise securely caged or securely
restrained.
C) The Director may ban dogs and other pets from areas of any park where
the Director determines it appropriate.
D) Any person with any animal in his or her possession in any park shall be
responsible for the conduct of the animal and shall not allow the animal to bite or
otherwise molest or annoy other park visitors.
E) Any person with an animal in his or her possession in any park shall carry
equipment for removing fecal matter, and shall collect and place fecal matter deposited
by such animal in an appropriate receptacle.
F) Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, the Director may designate
certain areas in parks as allowing dogs and/or other pets to be off leash.
G) Violation of any of the provisions of this section constitutes an infraction.
(Ord. 3616 Sec. 1, 2003.)
9.48.090 WEAPONS. It is unlawful to possess any firearm, air gun, bow and
arrow, B.B. gun or use any slingshot in any park; provided, this section shall not apply
to law enforcement personnel or to recreation division employees and persons involved
in City sponsored recreation activities acting and in accordance with City rules and
regulations. Violation of any of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor. (Ord.
3616 Sec. 1, 2003.)
9.48.100 FEEDING ANIMALS. It is unlawful in any manner to feed any fowl,
farm animals or wildlife, except at areas designated by the Director for such purposes.
PMC Title 9 3/1/2010 56
PARK & RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
MINUTES
December 2, 2010
In attendance:
Cheryl Smith
Edmon Daniels
Michael Mathews
Abigail Kidd
Duane Taber
Tom Davenport
Staff: Rick Terway, Director, A&CS, Dan Dotta, Facilities Manager and Carleen Hanscom,
Recreation Services Manager.
Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
Minutes of the 11/4/2010 meeting were approved unanimously.
Weapons in Parks
Rick Terway presented info regarding a proposed amendment to the Park Code stating
weapons may not be displayed or discharged in City Parks to come into compliance with state
law. The following is suggested:
"It is unlawful for any person to aischarge a firearm in, across or into any park, or to display,
discharge or propel across, in, or into any park any weapon capable of injuring or killing any
person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property; provided, this
section shall not apply to law enforcement personnel or to recreation division employees
and persons involved in City sponsored recreation activities acting and in accordance with
City rules and regulations. Violation of any of the provision of this section is a
misdemeanor."
Board discussed state law and the passible effect of the amendment.
MOTION: Cheryl 5mythM moved to approve recommending the proposed amendment to the
Park Cade stating weapons way not be displayed or discharged in City Parrs. Mike Mathews
seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Trail Access through Chiawana Park
Rick Terway presented info proposing paving an existing dirt trail to access the bike path in
Chiawana Park because the man gate at the west end of the park is locked due to winter
closure of park.
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, amending Pasco Municipal Code Section
9.48.090 Parks Code - Weapons.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has determined it is necessary to
amex►d Section 9.48.090 to comply with RCW 9.41.290
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, Does Ordain
as Follows:
Section 1. PMC 9.48.090 WEAPONS. It is unlawful for any person to possess
discharge any firearm;aiF4+acv, — � r, s i� lin,across or into
any park; or to display, discharge or rroopel across. in, or into attkL-j-)ark any other weapon c�ale
of iuriw or killing any person or wilmal. or damaLjng or destroying any p bla or private
propertv:provided, this section shall not apply to law enforcement personnel or to recreation
division employees and persons involved in City sponsored recreation activities acting and in
accordance with City rules and regulations. Violation of any of the provisions of this section is a
misdemeanor.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after its passage and publication
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at a regular meeting the day
of 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney