HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.05.09 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 9,2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Downtown Development Authority Board Interviews:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated May 5, 2011.
2. Applications(5) (Council packets only).
(b) Historic Preservation Committee Interviews:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated May 5, 2011.
2. Applications(2)(Council packets only).
(c) Sewer Service to Burbank Area:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated May 5,2011.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Letter from Port of Walla Walla to Pasco City Manager dated 7/2/10.
4. Memorandum from CH2MHill to Ahmad Qayoumi dated 11/14/10.
5. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 4/7/11.
6. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 515111.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday,May 9,Pasco Red Lion—Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership Luncheon.
(Featuring two guest speakers, Jessie Campos of Tri-Cities Teen Challenge and Greg Falk of the
Boys and Girls Club of Benton and Franklin Counties.)
2. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 10, Senior Center — Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN,Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN,Alt.)
3. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, May 12, Cousin's Restaurant, Pasco — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory
Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK,Alt.)
4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, May 12, Transit Facility — Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR
MATT WATKINS,Rep.;COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON,Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council May 5, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfie y Manager Workshop Mtg.: 5/9/11
SUBJECT: Downtown De elopment Authority Board Interviews
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Applications (5) (Council packets only)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/9: Council to conduct brief interviews with Miguel Angulo, Wanda Buddrius; Carl
Holder; Michael Miller; and Shirley Reese.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) City Council formed the Downtown Development Authority in December 2010
under Ordinance No. 3985, to initiate the creation of a new downtown
revitalization organization. The Pasco Downtown Development Association
(private association) representatives agreed to keep its basic operations in place
(particularly for the farmers market and specialty kitchen) pending the startup of
the new organization.
B) Applications have been solicited for consideration of appointment to the new
board of directors (nine seats), emphasizing those individuals with a real property
or business interest in the downtown area. A total of 16 applications were
received and each was then asked to provide a written response to three questions
regarding downtown Pasco. Once received, the applications and letters were
reviewed by the screening committee (Mayor Watkins and Councilmembers
Martinez and Yenney)to identify those recommended for interview.
C) As the application/screening process has consumed much more time than
originally contemplated, it is important that the board appointments be made as
soon as possible and the corporation's work program initiated. In particular, it is
imperative that the recruitment of a full-time director be initiated; that work
cannot happen until the board takes action to authorize it. The city attorney
advises that a board composed of at least five members is sufficient to initiate and
conduct business of the corporation.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The screening committee recommends five of the current applicants be
interviewed; the respective applications and response letters are attached for
Council review. To till the remaining seats, the screening committee recommends
another round of applications be solicited, without the caveat that individuals have
a property or business interest in downtown.
4(a)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council May 5, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfe Manager Workshop Mtg.: 5/9/11
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Committee Interviews
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Applications (2) (Council packets only)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/9: Council to conduct brief interviews with David Dalthorp and Tony Maya.
III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Historic Preservation Committee is composed of five members; terms are for
three years. The board meets as required.
B) The Historic Preservation Committee: identifies and actively encourages the
conservation of Pasco's historic resources by reviewing National Register
properties applying for Special Tax Valuation; raises community awareness of
Pasco's history and historic resources; and serves as the City of Pasco's primary
resource in matters of history, historic planning and preservation.
C) There are two positions whose terms will expire on 8/1/11:
I. Position No. 1 (vacant)
2. Position No. 2 (Dan Stafford)
D) The Council screening committee concluded that the incumbent in Position No. 2
be reappointed without interview.
E) At the present time there is one vacancy:
1. Position No. 4 (vacant) term expiration date of 8/1/12
F) After Council Screening Committee review of all applications, the following have
been selected to interview for possible appointments:
David Dalthorp............................................................. 103 Innisbrook Lane
Tony Maya......................................................................4303 Cochins Lane
IV. DISCUSSION:
A) After conduct of interviews at the May 9 Workshop meeting, it is proposed that
appropriate appointment(s) be made by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the
Council, at the May 16 Business meeting.
4(b)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council May 5, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfie Manager Workshop Mtg.: 5/9/11
SUBJECT: Sewer Service t Burbank Area
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter from Port of Walla Walla to Pasco City Manager dated 7/2/10
3. Memorandum from CH2MHil1 to Ahmad Qayoumi dated 11/14/10
4. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 4/7/11
5. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 5/5/11
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/9: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See Reference No. 4
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city received an inquiry from the Port of Walla Walla in July 2010, seeking
an agreement to allow the Port of Walla Walla to connect its proposed sewer
system to the City of Pasco's sewer plant. The Port's primary purpose is to
provide sewer service within its business park lands, presently owned or being
acquired by the Port in the vicinity of a new SR12 interchange being constructed
over the next year or two. In essence, the Port proposes to install all collection
lines and pump stations to serve the Port of Walla Walla land (in Burbank area),
install a force main across the Snake River and connect to Pasco's southeast trunk
line near Road 40 East. From there, wastewater would flow to the Pasco sewer
treatment plant located at Maitland and Ainsworth (see references 2 and 3).
B) A City Council committee of Watkins, Hoffmann and Francik accompanied the
City Manager and Public Works Director in meetings with Port of Walla Walla
representatives through the past fall and winter. Several issues consumed
considerable attention through the committee meetings; most notably the potential
secondary effects of industrial land competition, tax base loss and residential
impacts to Pasco (see reference 4).
V. DISCUSSION:
A) From a purely engineering standpoint, provision of Pasco's wastewater plant
capacity for Burbank is doable and sensible (more cost effective than building and
operating a new separate plant and discharge system to the Columbia River).
Major hurdles, however, are found in the policy issues associated with the
concept, as discussed in reference 4 and outlined specifically below:
• Should Pasco facilitate creation of sewer-served industrial sites that will
compete with similar sites in Pasco (on the SR121395 corridor)? Certainly,
competing industrial sites are not desirable for Pasco. However, if the Port
can build its own plant, competing sites may exist anyway (though sewer cost
would be substantially higher, absent federal/state grant funds to reduce
capital cost recovery). However, if Burbank's sewer service from Pasco was
limited to non-industrial uses (i.e., retail and housing), the competition risk
would be greatly diminished (if not eliminated).
4(c)
• Can the potential competition effect be adequately mitigated? Ideally, Pasco
and the Port would create a "tax base sharing" agreement whereby a fixed
percentage of new tax generated by sewer-induced investments would be
shared with Pasco agencies (city, county, schools, etc.). The next best
mechanism is a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT); that mechanism can be as
simple or complex as the parties may agree. Whether it is sufficient in lieu of
a tax base sharing agreement is a policy question for Council.
• Will more employment in the Burbank area result in more housing demand
in Pasco, in turn resulting in more demand for non-existent school space in
Pasco (and without the industrial tax base associated with the jobs)? The
fundamental conflict inherent in this question is the tax-base issue. That is,
when Pasco realizes housing investments without the industrial tax base of the
employer (e.g., Tyson Foods, Broetje Orchards, Boise Cascade, etc.), the
Pasco school system suffers the financial consequence (most notably, space
for enrollment growth).
B) In follow up to questions raised during the April 25 workshop discussion, staff
has provided the memorandum to Council dated 5/5/11, attached as reference#5.
C) Staff recommends Council further discuss the concept and associated impacts and
policy issues. It is recognized that such consideration may require multiple
Council workshops to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not to go forward
with any agreement to provide sewer plant capacity for the Burbank area.
1 -
qn1^ct
t +
T-W lam
i� iL�iS 3F p
CD
LL-
Cl-
LLJ
LLJ
Cn
tj NS
r w
0
Cl-
LIJ
o
W `t t
ry
LLJ
Od
4!
• . 310 A Street
Walla Walla Regional Airport
WALLA WALLA Walla Walla, Washington 99362-2269
JOB CREATION - TRANSPORTATION Phone: (509) 525-3100 FAX: (509) 525-3101 www.portwallawalla.com • www.wallawallaairport.com
PASCO CITY HALL
July 2, 2010 FECEIVED
JUL 0 6 2010
Gary Crutchfield
City Manager ` I 1 Y OFFICEER'S
City of Pasco
525 N. Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Dear Gary:
Thank you for visiting with me by phone concerning the Port of Walla Walla's interest in
connecting to the City of Pasco's sewer system. The Port would like to develop a business park
for the Burbank community in the western portion of Walla Walla County. A major obstacle is
the lack of a sewer system in Burbank.
The Port would appreciate the City of Pasco's favorable consideration to allow the Port of Walla
Walla to connect to its sewer system. The concept would be for the Port, at its sole cost,to
operate a central lift station at the proposed business park and pump raw or screened wastewater
to the City of Pasco for treatment. Connection to the City of Pasco would involve a Snake River
pipeline crossing along the river floor. A sanitary sewer tie-in to the City of Pasco collection
system would occur in the vicinity of the Big Pasco Industrial Center and Sacagawea State Park.
Enclosed is a preliminary map showing the proposed route along with the estimated cost the Port
would incur.
Also enclosed are flow and load projections the City needs to assess our impact on your sewer
treatment facility. The Port understands the City will need to charge a capacity fee to the Port.
In addition based on your current codes the Port will be charged a 50% sewer treatment
surcharge in consideration we are outside the city limits.
The Port is willing to meet with the City to discuss any technical or policy issues as you analyze
this request. We believe both parties could benefit from this arrangement and would alleviate the
need to have multiple treatment facilities in close proximity to one another. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
?Executive M. Kuntz
Director
cc: Port Commissioners
Ronald W. Dunning, Commissioner
Michael Fredrickson,Commissioner James M.Kuntz, Executive Director
Paul H. Schneidmiller,Commissioner
TABLE 5-3
ALTERNATIVE A
CITY OF PASCO SERVICE
SYSTEM COMPONENT JSIZE/CAPACITY ESTIMATED SYSTEM
COST COST
Headworks
Screening Structure $80,000
Mechanical Screen 12-inch/inclined 85,000
H2S Control Tank and Feed 45,000
System
Headworks Accessories 20,000
$230,000
Lift Station
Wetwell 6-foot-diameter $18,000
Valve Vault 15,000
Valves, Fittings, Hatches, etc. 50,000
Triplex Pumps and Accessories 50-200 gpm VFD 95,000
Pump Control Panel 20,000
$198,000
Forcemain 6-inch Pressure Main 6,500 feet $260,000
Snake River Crossing 480,000
Gravity Transition to Pasco Sewer 45,000
$785,00
Miscellaneous
Yard Piping $15,000
Site Work /Mitigation 45,000
Electrical Supply and Controls 30,000
Emergency Generator 50,000
$140,000
Subtotal $1,353,000
Sales Tax(8.0%) $108,200
Subtotal $1,461,200
Contingency (15%) $203,000
Engineering, Contract Administration, Legal (20%) $271,000
Pipeline Easement $80,000
Pasco Capacity Purchase TBD
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $2,015,200
Notes:
1. Cost to buy into Pasco wastewater utility to be determined and added to this estimate.
2. Connection to 30-inch East Pasco sewer at S Road 40 E/D Street.
6!11/2010
S.\DOCS\WW PORT\W385-221 BURBANK WASTEWATER\TABLE 5-3 ALT A REV.xISx
BURBANK BUSINESS PARK
FLOWS AND LOADS
Total Flow Total BOD Total SS
(gpd) (lb/day) (lb/day)
PHASE 1 Average Daily Flow(gpd) 30,200 82.3 82.3
Maximum Monthly Flow(gpd) 45,300
Maximum Daily Flow(gpd) 51,000
Peak Hour Flow(gpm) 76
PHASE 2 Average Daily Flow(gpd) 78,400 83.2 83.2
Maximum Monthly Flow(gpd) 117,600
Maximum Daily Flow(gpd) 132,300
Peak Hour Flow( pm) 196
TOTAL PHASE 1 +2 Average Daily Flow(gpd) 108,600 165 165
Maximum Monthly Flow(gpd) 162,900
Maximum Daily Flow(gpd) _ 183,300
Peak Hour Flow(gpm) 272
S:IDOCS\WW PORTlW395-221 BURBANK WASTEWATERIFLOWS AND LOADS.zlsz
Z Q
U �-
ti)J
•aki• i'•• , r 3 � �
w
IL
i• f o Y W
!• 1. ..n� ZQ Z
/ a° jr O
/ m U
-c"o
g
x
'f
MEMORANDUM CH2MHELL
Port of Walla Walla Sewer Connection Update
TO: Ahmad Qayoumi,P.E.-Director of Public Works,City of Pasco
COPIES: Wally Hickerson,P.E.
FROM: Thomas J. Helgeson,P.E.
DATE: November 14,2010
In August 2010,CH2M HILL prepared a memorandum for the City of Pasco discussing
potential impacts to the Southeast Trunk Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Plant resulting
from the proposed connection of the Port of Walla Walla(POWW).That memorandum,
entitled "Southeast Trunk Main Connection' described the following impacts:
• Effect on treatment and conveyance capacity
• Effect on treatment and conveyance capability
• Potential connection and usage charges
In the interim, the POWW has proposed a Framework Agreement covering the addition of
up to 300,000 gallons per day (gpd) Maximum Monthly Design Flow(MMDF) of sanitary
sewage meeting the influent limits of the City. In the earlier proposal,the POWW
anticipated an ultimate flow contribution of 108,000 gpd Average Annual Daily Flow
(AADF)and 162,900 gpd MMDF.
The current POWW proposal also differs in that there is no discussion of discrete phases.
Presumably,flows will develop to the full 300,000 gpd in a gradually increasing manner or
in a stepwise manner as significant new uses are connected.
The purpose of this memo is to update the conclusions of our earlier memorandum to reflect
the increase in proposed flows. As in the earlier memorandum,all calculations are based on
the full ultimate flow.
Effect on Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Capacity
The Pasco WWTP is designed to treat 8.0 million gallons per day (mgd)of domestic and
pre-treated industrial wastewater to the standards required by the Washington Department
of Ecology. Currently,flows are averaging approximately 4.0 to 4.3 mgd,or roughly 50% of
design flow.
The additional flow proposed by the Port represents approximately 3.75% of the WWTP's
design capacity of 8.0 mgd.The SE Pasco Trunk was designed for a capacity of 5,000 to 6,200
gpm and the assumed peak flows proposed by the Port could represent as much as 10% of
this capacity (based on a 2.4:1 ratio of peak flow to MMDF).Without knowing the proposed
pumping facility characteristics,however,actual flows will likely differ from this value.
TCAI 20101114_POWW_CONNECTION_UPDATE.DOCX 1
PORT OF WALLA WALLA SEWER CONNECTION UPDATE
Since the actual flows will be dependent on the actual pump station configuration and
operation, the City should request that the design be subject to their review in order to
avoid potential conveyance capacity concerns.
Effect on Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Capability
'The WWTP was designed,and operates,based on influent flow characteristics of a typical
domestic wastewater (250-300 mg/L BOD,250-300 mg/L TSS,30-40 mg/L TN,6-8 mg/L
TP,no appreciable contribution from metals and other exotic components).Significant
variance from these values for new discharges could interfere with normal operations and
treatment efficiencies at the WWTP.
In recognition of these potential interferences,the limitations on discharges to the public
sewers are codified in sections 13A.52.190 et seq of the Pasco Municipal Code.This code is
mostly qualitative in nature,prohibiting those discharges which could interfere with
treatment and that could pose significant safety and/or operational hazards.Specific
quantitative limitations include:
• Wastewater pH outside the range of 5.5 to 9.0
• BOD exceeding 300 mg/L
• Temperature greater than 40°C
• Other specific exclusions
POWW's revised proposal states that"[w]aste strength will be that of normal strength
municipal wastewater" and such contributions should not impact the City's treatment
capabilities. It should be noted that the earlier proposal did indicate nominally higher BOD
concentrations that those allowed by City Code,but this appears to no longer be anticipated.
Given that there will potentially be industrial and significant contributors of regulated
compounds,the POWW will be required to comply with the City's requirements. If
consistent high-strength wastewater is conveyed to the City's system,additional surcharges
would apply. Accordingly, the final agreement should not preclude future surcharges.
From an operational perspective,the flows proposed by the port connection represent
relatively small volumes that will be pumped through a 6,500 foot 6-inch forcemain. As a
result,two concerns arise relative to operations:
• At low proposed pump flows(50 to 200 gpm),the transit time of the sewage from
the Port pump station to the SE Pasco Trunk would range from 47 to 193 minutes
PLUS the lag time between pump starts.This could allow septic conditions to arise
inside the forcemain which could result in increased odors and treatment difficulties.
• At the low pipeline velocities(ranging from 0.56 to 2.26 feet per second), the
forcemain could be subject to clogging.While it is anticipated that maintenance of
this line will remain POWW's responsibility, this will still affect the level of service
to the ultimate customer.
In addition,the revised proposal does not provide sufficient additional information as to the
nature of the proposed waste stream,so it is not possible to determine whether additional
actions,charges,or pretreatment may be required. A disclosure of anticipated discharges
TCA/20101114_POWW_CONNECTION UPDATE.DOCX 2
PORT OF WALLA WALLA SEWER CONNECTION UPDATE
and connecting entities should be provided before a final determination is made on
treatment impacts.
Connection and Use Charges
Exhibit 1 provides an estimate for the connection and use charges for the Port's proposed
connection revised to show a non-phased approach and the larger proposed flows.
The proposed connection represents a condition not included in Pasco's Comprehensive
Sewer Plan as the Port has not been considered within the service area for planning
purposes. As such,the connection represents an impairment of capacity already committed
(albeit at a planning level only).To determine the baseline value of this impairment, the
capital costs of the WWTP expansion and the value of the SE Pasco"trunk are considered.
These costs ($28,000,000 and$3,100,000 respectively)have been adjusted to reflect the
increase in construction costs since the projects were built.As is typical for such price
adjustments, the Engineering News Record Constniction Cost Index for August 2010 was
compared to that for the year 1995.
The cost of conveyance and treatment of the flows are consistent and proportional to those
currently incurred by the City. Current operating and maintenance costs are based on the
budgeted amounts for the current year.The current monthly use rates for commercial
connections are$34.95 plus$1.29/100 cubic feet over 1000.There is no surcharge in the code
for commercial accounts outside the City(unlike residential and Hotel/Motel).
TCAl 20101114_POWW_CONNECTION_UPDATE.DOCX 3
PORT OF WALLA WALLA SEWER CONNECTION UPDATE
EXHIBIT 2
Proposed Connection and Use Charges
Port of Walla Walla
Connection Charge:
Capital Cost,WWTP capacity(1)(3) $45,334,000
%of capacity impaired by Port 3.75%
Treatment capacity cost share $1,700,000
Capital Cost, SE Trunk capacity(2)(3) $5,019,000
%carrying capacity at peak flow 10.0%
Conveyance capacity cost share $501,000
Total Connection Charge $2,201,000
Use Charge:
Current O&M cost,treatment(4) $1,497,876
Cost factor for treatment,annual 15I $56,170
Current O&M cost,conveyance(4) $573,457
Cost factor for conveyance,annual I5I $57,646
Current O&M cost,administration 141 $1,511,350
Cost factor for administration,annual ISI $4,800
Total Use Cost Factors,annual $118,616
t'I Treatment Capital cost based on most recent upgrade to facility,which enables
this connection
(2)Conveyance Capital Cost based on cost of construction at$10/inch
diameter/foot
(31 Capital cost adjusted for increase in construction costs(ENR Index 1995=
5471,August 2010=8858)
14)O&M costs based on current year budget amounts
(5) Use charge cost factors based on capacity percentages above for treatment
and collection,administrative based on estimated 48 hours per year at a
burdened labor cost of$100/hour
The values shown in Exhibit 1 are based on the assumptions stated in the memorandum and
do not include potential additional surcharges based on wastewater quality. Before any final
determination is made as to any surcharges resulting from the wastewater characteristics,
the Port should provide a more detailed breakdown on the anticipated connections and
their resulting waste streams as they relate to other potentially interfering compounds.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide this information and are available to
discuss any comments or questions you may have.
TCA/20101114_POWW_CONNECTION UPDATE.DOCX 4
MEMORANDUM
April 7, 2011
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutch jtourbank y Manager
RE: Sewer Servi Area
In response to a July 2010 request by the Port of Walla Walla, Mayor Watkins appointed an ad-hoc
committee (composed of himself, Ms. Francik and Mr. Hoffmann) to join the City Manager in
exploring with Port of Walla Walla officials the possibility of providing sanitary sewer service to
the Burbank area. Through several meetings over the course of eight months, the committee and
staff concluded that sanitary sewer service could be provided relatively easily, from an engineering
standpoint. It also appears to be financially advantageous to the Port of Walla Walla to obtain
service from Pasco, versus the option of permitting, constructing and operating its own small sewer
system. The major hurdle, however, is found in the potential secondary considerations, most
notably "local tax base competition."
POLICY CONCERNS
Pasco has significant amounts of industrial land in its eastern portion along SRI (the same
highway serving the Burbank area)that are already served by city sewer or readily served by the
city's sewer system. That urban service is an attribute sought by most industria;: investments. If
Pasco provides sewer service access to Burbank, the Port of Walla Walla will naturally market its
landholdings for commercial/industrial development with sewer service available. In effect, then, a
sewer service agreement from Pasco would create more competition for industrial investment in the
SRI corridor at a time when Pasco has much industrial land to market itself and.when the Pasco
community is in such dire need for industrial investment (to increase its tax base, particularly with
respect to school funding). (See Exhibit A, Possible Property Tax Effects.)
An additional concern is the potential for new industrial jobs in Burbank to create more residents in
Pasco. While this is not a problem on the surface, the creation of more homes and school-aged
children for the Pasco School District without the additional industrial tax base is clearly contrary to
the Pasco community's goals. Candidly,the existing Tyson and Boise Cascade industrial plants in
Burbank are long-standing examples of why Pasco's"assessed value per capita" is so much lower
than other communities (Pasco receives the homes/apartments tax base while Walla Walla County
gets the industrial tax base without the "people costs").
Extensive discussion between the Council committee and Port of Walla Walla officials focused on
the potential for the sewer service to cause more industrial investment in Burbank at the expense of
Pasco (in terms of tax base). The obvious solution of"tax base sharing" was rejected by the Port, as
the Port could not convince the other taxing entities (Walla Walla County, school, fire district) to
share any property tax growth that might result from sewer induced investments in Burbank.
Ultimately, the City committee concluded that a Payment in Lieu of Taxes ("PILT") might be
sufficient in lieu of a tax base sharing agreement. The PILT would be a fee separate from(and in
addition to) the fee for sewer usage and would be received by the City's general fund as
compensation"in lieu of property tax"the city's general fund might receive if the development was
located in Pasco rather than Burbank. Rather than attempt to calculate the PILT each year based on
actual tax values of new development in Burbank each year, the PILT could equal 100% of the
monthly sewer fee with an appropriate "floor" or minimum annual payment.
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT CONCEPT
The committee recommends City Council consider the tentative agreement reached with Port of
Walla Walla representatives (Exhibit B) as discussed below.
• Term: the 75-year term, though on the "high end" may be reasonable, given the nature of the
utility service (relatively permanent) and the significant investment to be made by the Port,
in the form of its own pipelines, pump stations and the Snake River crossing. One should
also remember that the Port will pay monthly sewer charges based on rates likely to increase
over time and which will include any expenditures by the City necessary to upgrade the
sewer plant over that period of time.
• Capacity:
• Plant: reservation of 300,000gpd represents 3.75% of existing total capacity of the
sewer plant; it represents about 12%of current unused plant rapacity. Given the
likelihood of a second sewer plant to serve the growing northwestern portion of the
City, reservation of 300,000gpd at the old plant should not be a problem over time.
• Trunk Line: reservation of 300,000gpd represents 10% of existing total capacity of
the southeast trunk line. Given the likelihood that most users in Pasco's industrial
area(east of Oregon Avenue and south of Lewis Street) will be modest users of the
sewer system, the Port's reservation should not prove problematic over time. Should
a significant user in Pasco unexpectedly require more trunk capacity, it is possible to
duplicate the southeast trunk line to add capacity (though costly).
• Capacity Costs: both the plant and trunk line investments have been adjusted using
engineering construction cost standards to reflect 2010 values; plant: $45 million;
trunk line: $5 million. Applying the respective percent of design capacity reserved
for the Port, respective cost shares are $1.7 million for the plant and $500,000 for the
trunk line, or $2.2 million total. Given that development of sewer users will take
considerable time and will likely be gradual, the Port prefers to purchase the capacity
in blocks over time. To accommodate that, the committee recommends three blocks
of 100,000gpd each, be offered at a lump sum of$750,000/ea. In recognition of the
extended time it may take for the Port to utilize the second or third blocks, the
$750,000 price should be adjusted by the Seattle CPI, but not to exceed 5%annually.
• Sewer Use Costs: ordinarily, sewer service outside the city requires a surcharge of 50%.
However, in this case, the committee recommends the Port be charged the same commercial
use rate as if the user was located in the City. This recommendation is made in
consideration that the Port will install and maintain all collection lines, pump stations, etc.,
and will bill their customers; thus, the Port will, in effect, be a wholesale customer in the
city and the City avoids much of the operations costs (other than treatment at the plant). The
rate charged the Port will adjust over time just as the City adjusts its sewer use rates over
time.
• PILT: as discussed previously, the PILT is the committee's attempt to offset the potential
risk of competing industrial investment in Burbank that might be occasioned by extension of
sewer service. The PILT, at$2,000 per month minimum, is likely not to grow for an
extended period of time, barring a major user of the sewer service. Unlike the sewer use
charges, the PILT payments would go to the general fund, as compensation for potential loss
of property tax opportunity.
• Service Area: the initial service area for the agreement is that portion of Burbank lying south
of the McNary Wildlife Refuge (see Exhibit Q. It includes a current mix of moderate value
residential development, a public school complex and a few small industrial facilities. The
Port expects to accommodate commercial development interest in the vicinity of the new
SRI interchange at Humorist Road as well as potential industrial users in the vicinity of
SR12 and SR124. Service to existing and potential residential developments is possible, but
not nearly as likely as the business interests. The Port desires the possibility of adding
Burbank Heights (above or north of the McNary Wildlife Refuge) to the service area; given
the strong likelihood that all such development in that area would be residential, that
potential should present no concerns to Pasco.
GC/tlz
Attachments
EXHIBIT A
Possible Property Tax Effects
(re: Burbank Sewer Service)
Pasco Franklin PSD Port of Total
_ County Pasco
Tax 197 16 3.,. .. 0.59
Gas Station/Mini-Mart
($.5m) 985 820 3,320 1 170 5,295
Retail Strip Center
l0k sf($1.0m) 1,970 1,640 6,640 340 10,590
Warehouse
50k sf($3.5m) 6,895 5,740 23,240 1,190 37,065
100k sf($6.0m) 1 11,820 1 9,840 39,840 2,040 63,540
Processing Plant
100k sf($8.0m) 15,760 1 13,120 53,120 2,720 1 84,720
E ui ment ($10.0m) 19,700 1 16,400 66,400 3,400 1 105,900
$29m 575130 1 47,560 192,560 9,860 1 307,110
EXHIBIT B
Sewer Contract Concept
• Interlocal Agreement
• Term: 75 years
• Capacity:
City commits 300,000 gpd capacity of existing sewer plant and southeast trunk line; current
value at $2.2 million. Port of Walla Walla (PWW)purchase first 100,000 gpd block of
capacity($750,000) within 12 months of agreement; failure to timely consummate purchase
terminates agreement. Payment of$750,000 purchase may be made in equal amount
payments of$250,000 over three years. Additional blocks of capacity to be purchased by
PWW in 100,000 gpd increments at updated value [$750,000 x Seattle CPI (not to exceed
5% annually) 1/12 to date of block purchase]; payment may be made in equal annual
payments over three years.
• O&M:
PWW install, operate and maintain all collection lines,pump stations, force main and other
appurtenances necessary to collect and transport sewage from Burbank service area, across
Snake River,to point of connection at Pasco southeast trunk line.
• Sewer Use Billing:
Metered at point of connection with southeast trunk line to measure use; city to bill PWW
monthly as follows:
• Actual use to be billed at published rate applicable to Pasco commercial/industrial users,
but not less than $500 monthly; provided the minimum shall be$300/monthly for the first
two years or until the first user is connected to the PWW system.
• Each monthly bill shall include a"PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) Surcharge"equal to
100% of the respective monthly sewer use bill,but not less than$2,000 monthly.
• Service Area: (see map)
• Operational Conditions:
• City has unrestricted access to inspect the conveyance system owned and operated by the
Port.
• The City standards will govern conveyance system from the lift station to the gravity
manhole, where ownership and maintenance changes.
• PWW is responsible for maintenance of the conveyance system.
• Water quality test at the City's discretion.
• City to have unrestricted access to inspect the pump station.
• City reserves the right to review new projects within PWW early in the process for
wastewater review and compliance with city wastewater standards.
• City wastewater standards (constituents; maximum strength; etc.) shall apply to entire
system.
EXHIBIT B
■ Design/Construction:
• An access vault needs to be constructed at a manhole before it changes to gravity system
that will include a flow meter and sampling station.
• The transition from forcemain to gravity needs to occur at the earliest possible location.
From the manhole that transitions from forcemain to gravity,the City will determine the
size of the gravity pipe.
• PWW is responsible for purchasing the flow meter.
• PWW to complete design of the system that will be reviewed and subject to approval by
the City.
• PWW is responsible for obtaining any necessary right-of-way, easements and permits to
complete construction.
■ Termination: (?)
EXHIBIT C
Burbank/Burbank Heights
Coordinated Water System Plan -;- =
zz_fir
W--A E xxa,
S
T{JTi1I€
/ \\ Hood 'nr �: _ ;Zr SR 124__l.
AM
, cS i fi
—
I�, --� r IL
Columbia Babin
Iwe"turn h'cc;d Sup
S le ,
- McNary NRO —I -
/ Harrison Ray ,\�'_ "l - witalir� - Na tl-bT4
a anciacosl�esta�r nt Hl1MORiSTRC} j FARB
O.B� Col lame
itBurbank f. - J` hurch
Irrigation Di
st. Vi
, ' 1 �F
f
^ i.
r 1 ' �� 's-Adrriitfan-
H i n Ray \ i _.,
-w \
ive iding Club \ z
H�ahto VV ter Sys I S
LEGEND
J
Class A -
(2 to 25 Connections)
Critical Water Supply a//d 4h. </
Service Boundary
Port of Walla Walla /d
Proposed Retail X07 C'o
Service Area CoG 4�fy I
Public Water District �y Port of`,Walla Walla
Serving More Than •
25 Connections �*a Burbank Rural Activity Center Proposed Wholl ale - Vt'Xle -
$Port of Walla Walla Proposed ;
Wholesale Service Area
Wildlife Refuge Fi 1
Disclaimer
The data contained in Walla Walla County s Geographic Information System(GIS)is subject to constant change.Walla Walla County does not guarantee that the information
presented is accurate,precise,current or complete.All data contained in the County's GIS is provided by the County AS IS without warranty of any kind,implied or expressed.
By proceeding to use the County's GIS,each user agrees to waive,release and indemnify Walla Walla County,its agents,consultants,contractors or employees from any and
all claims,liability,actions,or causes of action for damages or injury to persons or property arising from the use or inability to use Walla Walla Countys GIS data.
MEMORANDUM
May 5, 2011
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutchfie M ager
RE: Burbank Sewef Service Concept
Council discussion of this subject matter at its April 25 workshop meeting resulted in several questions
being posed that required follow up by staff. This memorandum is intended to address those questions,
to the extent possible at this point in time.
LAND VALUE:
Much of the land to be served by the Burbank sewer system is or will be owned by the Port of
Walla Walla; whether those sites are sold or leased will be a decision of the Port. The commercial
sites in the vicinity of the new interchange will likely draw the higher prices Find adding sewer
service will likely increase the value of those sites by at least $10,000/acre (according to local real
estate advisors). Industrial sites, almost exclusively owned by the Port, would also realize an
increase in value of sewer available (though one must consider the cost of providing the sewer
service where determining the net value gain). The principal value associated with sewer service to
Burbank is the substantial increase in land utilization opportunities because: 1) more potential users
of land; 2) avoid dedication of land area for drain field use; and 3) avoid conflict of groundwater
influences. Candidly, the Burbank/Port of Walla Walla industrial sites are quite limited in market
potential due to groundwater influences which constrain the range and size of potential users;
sewer service will reduce those influences.
To a degree, sewer service to Burbank will make land values more comparable (that is, Burbank
sites with sewer available will cost more than currently is the case for sites without sewer, thus
reducing the current price differential between Burbank sites and Pasco sites with sewer service
available). Pasco industrial sites (with sewer service) range in value (depending on location) from
$30,000 to $60,000 per acre; Burbank industrial sites (without sewer) are cur:ently estimated in the
$20,000 range (according to real estate advisors).
ANNEXATION POLICY:
Pasco's policy on sewer service has been steadfastly limited to properties within the city, with rare
exceptions (one is the service connection for Livingston Elementary School and McLoughlin
Middle School, both situated outside the city but requiring sewer service to accommodate the
enrollment growth at both schools within the past decade). The primary reason behind the policy is
the lack of authority of the city to annex the service land after sewer service is provided, thus
conflicting with the state's growth management objectives (urban services, like sewer, should be
provided by cities) as well as the city's own growth management objectives (all properties within
the Pasco urban area should eventually be within the city so that all public resources within the
urban area are available for service delivery throughout the urban area).
City Council
May 5, 2011
RE: Burbank Sewer Service Concept
Page 2
Provision of sewer service on a wholesale basis presents the opportunity to sell the unused capacity
of the city's sewer system to another public agency (in this case, the Port of Walla Walla) for an
area outside Pasco's Urban Growth Area (UGA). If the properties were within the Pasco UGA,
city policy would and should require annexation, to fulfill the city's UGA objective. For a specific
"wholesale" example, Pasco entered into an agreement with the state of Washington in the late
1980s or early 1990s under which the city agreed to provide (sell) city water to the residents of
"Clark Addition" (an unincorporated neighborhood about one mile north of the Tri-Cities airport)
on the condition that the residents there create a water district to install all the water lines necessary
to transmit the water from the city system to their neighborhood and pay all associated costs with
maintenance and operation of the lines outside the city. The agreement was never implemented by
the Clark Addition residents.
So, for the"wholesale" option to be available,the land area to be served shall be: 1) outside the
current and foreseeable UGA; and 2) be represented by a qualified public agency (state law
precludes private ownership of a sewage system serving multiple properties); and 3) the public
agency must pay for all collection lines, pump stations and force mains required within the
unincorporated sewer service area. The Port of Walla Walla proposal fits the foregoing criteria for
the possibility of wholesale service, as distinguished from"retail" sewer service available via
annexation to Pasco (for private properties within Pasco's UGA).
INDUSTRIAL COMPETITION:
As noted during the April 25 workshop discussion, accommodating sewer service to the
Burbank/Port of Walla Walla area may create competition with Pasco landowners for industrial
development (with Pasco's increasing need for private industrial investment, competition would
clearly represent a conflict with Pasco's overriding goals). The Port of Walla Walla, however,
noted during the April 25 discussion that it has limited ability to serve industrial development,
suggesting that most development in the Burbank area would be retail and business park activities
(not food processing, for example). The Port, as staff requested, has provided written explanation
of the limitations it sees regarding potential for industrial investments within its land area(see
exhibit A).
The Port's letter provides some degree of clarification, but does not entirely assure that competition
for the same industrial investments would not occur in the future. One method of providing a
greater degree of assurance to Pasco is to include a mutually-acceptable restriction in the sewer
service agreement (language that would clearly avoid the undesirable conflict with Pasco's goals).
Following the April 25 Council discussion of this matter, and the public awareness of a potential
agreement, questions were raised in the business community as to potential effects. As the sewer
agreement concept has not been vetted by the business community, it may be appropriate for a brief
delay in the deliberation process (not more than one month) to provide an opportunity for the business
community, acting through the Pasco Chamber of Commerce, to comment on the proposal.
GC/tlz
attachments
Po . 310 A Street
- - ,I- Walla Walla Regional Airport
WALLA WALLA Walla Walla, Washington 99362-2269
JOB CREATION - TRANSPORTATION Phone: (509) 525-3100 FAX: (509) 525-3101 www.portwallawalla.com • www.wallawallaairport.com
"ASCO CITY HALL
PF_CEIVED
May 4, 2011
P4�, 0 5 201 11
Gary Crutchfield CI IY MANAGER'S
OFFICE
City Manager
City of Pasco
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
Dear Gary:
The purpose for this letter is to provide additional clarity regarding the Port of Walla
Walla's development plans for the Burbank business park. Please find enclosed a chart
highlighting the allowed uses per the Walla Walla County zoning code.
You will note the permitted uses are more oriented towards commercial, retail and
professional business park activities. The more traditional types of industrial uses are
not allowed.
Another important factor in developing the Burbank business park is the close proximity
of Columbia School District's elementary, middle and high school. All three schools
border the business park. This necessitates a more commercial business park
development plan.
The Port also has limited water resources at 800 gallons per minute and 463 acre feet
per year for the entire business park. The Port would not be able to accommodate a
large water user associated with an industrial type tenant.
For the above referenced reasons, the Port does not believe the City of Pasco providing
sewer treatment services to the Burbank business park would create industrial
development competition between our jurisdictions.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this
letter.
cerely,/�///�
• ' '
ames M. Kuntz
Executive Director
Ronald W. Dunning, Commissioner
Michael Fredrickson, Commissioner fames M. Kuntz, Executive Director
Paul H. Schneidmiller, Commissioner
Uses Allowed in Burbank's Industrial Business Park Zone
INDUSTRIAU
BUSINESS PARK
\\ "
Use Permitted(P), Conditional Use(C)
Hotels/Motels P
Farmworker Dwellings AC, with conditions
Automotive Dealers P, with conditions
Automobile Leasing/Rental P, with conditions
Building Material, Hardware, and Garden Supply P, with conditions
Eating and Drinking Establishments P, with conditions
Food Stores P, with conditions
General Merchandise Stores P, with conditions.
Heavy Equipment Sales and Rental P
Home Furniture,Furnishings, and Equipment Stores P
Horticultural Nurseries, Retail P
Irrigation Systems/Equipment, Sales Service & Storage P
Produce Stand P, with condition;
Produce Market P, with conditions
Retail, Miscellaneous P, with conditions
Durable Goods P
Non Durable Goods P
Commercial Greenhouses P
Accessory Use (Retail/Wholesale Land Uses) P, with conditions
Fire Station P
Animal Hospital P
Automotive Repair and Services P
Automotive Parking P
Business Services P
Catering Establishments P
Clinic P
Day Care Center P
Finance, Insurance,Real Estate P
Uses Allowed In Burbank's Industrial Business Park Zane
Page I of 2
Hospitals P
Laboratories, Research and Testing P
Offices P
Orphanage/Charitable Institutions P
Personal Services P
Repair Shops and related services P
Utility Facilities C
Warehousing and Storage P
Accessory Use (Government/General Services Land Uses) P, with conditions
Apparel and Other Textile Products P
Computer and Office Equipment P
Dairy Products Processing P
Electronic and Other Electric Equipment P
Food and Kindred Products P
Leather and Leather Goods P
Lumber and Wood Products,Except Furniture P
Printing and Publishing P
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics P
Storage/Packing Agricultural Produce P
Textile Mill Products P
Winery Type I P, with conditions
Winery Type II P, with conditions
Miscellaneous Light Manufacturing P
Accessory Use (Industrial/Manufacturing Land Uses) P, with conditions
Park P
Recreational Facility, public P
Recreational Facility(Private when 50% or less is owned/ P
partnered by a public agency)
Theaters P
Art Galleries P
Assembly Halls P
Libraries P
Museums P
Accessory Use (Recreational/Cultural Land) P, with conditions
Growing of Crops P
Accessory Use(Resource Lands Uses) P, with conditions
Colleges, business colleges, trade schools P
and similar organizations, all without students
in residence offering training in specific fields
Helistops AC
Microwave Relay Stations P
Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations and Towers P,with conditions
Railroad Freight Yards P
Railroad Terminals P
Wireless Communication Facility P, with conditions
Wireless Communication Facility, Attached P, with conditions
Accessory Use (Regional Land Uses) P, with conditions
Uses Allowed In Burbank's Industrial Business Park Zone
Page 2 of 2