HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.06.13 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. .tune 13, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL, REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Sewer Service to Burbank Area:
L. Agcnda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 9, 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 11114/10.
5. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 417/11.
6. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 515111.
7. Letter from Pasco Chamber of Commerce dated 617111.
(b) Truck Parking/Storage on City Streets:
L. Agenda Report from Rick While, Community & Economic Deveiopment Director dated
June 1, 2011,
2. Proposed Ordinance amending Title 10,
3. Proposed ordinance amending'fitle 12.
4. Letter from DKB Inc.
(c) Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2012 -2017:
1, Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director elated June 2, 2011.
2. Proposed Plan.
3, Resolution.
4. Map.
(d) Code Amendment: (MY #CA2011-001) PMC 25.46 Contractor Plant and Storage Yards
in the C-3 District:
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated June 8,2011,
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Staff memo to the Planning Commission dated 5/19/1 l.
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/19111.
(e) Golf Course Management Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Rick Tentivay, Administrative & Community- Services Director dated
June 8, 2011.
(f) Interagency Agreement for Summer School Services:
1. Agenda Report from Dews Austin, Chief of Pohcc dated May 12, 2011.
2, Proposed Interagency Agreement.
(g) Housing Authority:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 9, 2011.
(h) Reclassification:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 9, 2011,
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(C)
6. EXECU,rivF SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
Workshop .Meeting 2 June 13, 2011
REMINDERS:
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, June 13, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon. (Debbie Bone-Harris, presenter. (Mrs. Bone-Harris from Franklin PUD will be
discussilig Franklin PUD issues and what that means for us as consumers.)
2. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 14, Senior Center — Senior Citizens Advisory Committee ]Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN,Alt.)
3. 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 15, Dominick's on the Runway, Willa Walla — Benton, Franklin &
Walla Walla Counties Good Roads & Transportation Association Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER
BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
4. 11:30 a.m., Friday, June 17, Sandberg Event Center — Benton-Franklui Council of Governments
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK,Alt.)
5, 11:00 a.m., Saturday, June 18, Pasco's Highland Park .- Juneteenth Parade (check in at 10:00 a.m.)
(COL NCCLMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK and TOM LARSEN)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Counci June 9, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6113/11
SUBJECT: Sewer Service to Burbank Area
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter from Port of Walla Walla to Pasco City Manager dated 7/2110
3. Memorandum from CH2MHill 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
6. Letter from Pasco Chamber of Commerce dated 6/7111
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/13: 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 SR 12 interchange being constructed
over the next year or two. In essence, the Port proposes to install all collection
lines and pianp 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, Hoffinann and Franeik 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 (snore 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 SR12 1395 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
4(a)
limited to non-industrial uses (i.e., retail and housing), the competition risk
would be greatly diminished (if not eliminated).
• 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 (P1LT); 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 hoiising 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 addition to the 5/5/11 memorandum providing further explanation, the Pasco
Chamber of Commerce was asked to advise the city of its perspective in this
matter, recognizing that the provision of sewer service to the Burbank area could
have adverse influences on Pasco businesses and/or investments. Given the
relatively short timeline for a response, the Chamber addressed it at its recent
board meeting; the Chamber's letter is attached as Reference 6. In essence, the
Chamber's position is that the proposed concept agreement provides much more
financial benefit to Burbank than to Pasco and the potential risks to Pasco are not
sufficiently mitigated, The Chamber does note that receipt of sufficient water
rights, however, may make the agreement more of a"win-win" arrangement (in
recognition of Pasco's need for water rights).
C) In view of the previous city council discussions, coupled with the observations
provided by the Chamber of Commerce, staff suggests council either:
1. Decline to further consider the proposed agreement,
OR
2. Offer to develop an interlocal agreement with the Port of Walla Walla
based on the proposed concept agreement, but to include the following
changes;
• Restriction of industrial uses to adequately minimize potential
industrial land competition;
• Higher compensation for Pasco and payment in form of
acceptable water rights.
AY ` �k--� V•A•ti:•
PASCO WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT - ,r� -
IIIr`;':+ ^`+,. .t ^, , _ ..0'•P stir, �,�o_
4
-`'��;� ��� k- ' •�� ROAD 40 EAST SEWER INTERCEPTOR •,; C '`
acv PORT OF
WALLA WALLA
t p�►51� TC�. tY- �i i
1"=2000'
R_ 310 A Street
P-0-i
Walla Walla Regional Airport
FWALLA WALLA Walla Walla,Washington 99362-2269
Phonc: (509) 525-3100 FAX: (509) 525-3101 www.portwallawalia.com • www.wallawallaairport.com
PASCO CITY HALL
July 2, 2010 PECE.IVED
JUL 0 6 2010
Gary Crutchfield --fI'Y vAANAGER'S
City Manager OFFICE
City of Pasco
525 N. Third Ave.
Pasco,WA 99301
Dear Gary:
Thank you for visiting with one 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 flour. 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.
ncerely,
ames M. Kuntz
Executive Director
cc: Port Commissioners
Ronald W. Dunning, Commissioner
Michael Fredrickson, Commissioner James M. Kuntz, Executive Director
Paul Fl, Schneidmiller, Commissioner
TABLE 5-3
ALTERNATIVE A
CITY OF PASCO SERVICE
SYSTEM COMPONENT SiZEICAPACITY ESTIMATED I SYSTEM
COST COST
Headworks
Screening Structure $80,000
Mechanical Screen 12-inch/inclined 85,000
1-12S 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
Safes 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
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.
6AIM1D
S'100C91WW PORnW385-221 BURBANK WASTEWATEMTABLE 5-3 ALT A REV.xlsx
BURBANK BUSINESS PARK
FLOWS AND LOADS
Total Flow Total BOD Total SS
(gpd) (Iblday) (lb/day)
PHASE 1 Average Daily Fbw(gRd)___._ 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(gpm) 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
SADDCSMW PORTIW355.221 BURBANK WASTEWATMFLOWS AND LOADS.J-
tL
+ i
J ,
CONNECT ~ +
TO PASCO
SEWER
f
1 - }
w
�,'.1C � !.N: 1 �' .,.•♦k.'�� ^-��. SCREEN AND
L1FT'STATION
'� '�'��s ��•• � +L• t; •,�' ,tit
PORT OF WALLA WALLA FIGURE
,�I q�pede On BURBANK BUSINESS PARK
'c L Y..� 111
0550c ites,inc. 5-3
CONNECT TO PASCO
MEMORANDUM Gll-112MHELL
Port of Walla Walla Sewer Connection Update
To: Ahmad Qayoumi,P.E.-Director of Public Works,City of Pasco
COOK 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 corulection 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 Artnual Daily now
(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 mariner or
in a stepwise manner as significant new uses are connected.
'rhe 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 ingd,or roughly 50% of
design flow.
The additional flow proposed by the Port represents approximately 3.75% of the W WTP'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 frUm this value.
TCAl20101114 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 WW'iTP was designed,and operates,based on influent flow characteristics of a typical
domestic wastewater (250-300 mg/L BOD,250-300 mg/h 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
• HOD 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 purnp station to the SP 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 POW W'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 pretreatTnent may be required. A disclosure of anticipated discharges
TCN 20101114_POWN1_CONNECTION_UPDATE.DOCX 2
PORT OF WALLA WALLA SEWER CONNEC I ION UPOM E
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 corulection and use charges for the Port's proposed
connection revised to show a non-phased approach and the larger proposed flows.
The proposed conmection 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 Ievel 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 Constrnthon Cost Index for August 2010 was
compared to that for the year 1995.
The cast 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).
TCA+201O1114 POW41!CONNECfION_UPDATEDOCX 9
PORT OF WALLA WALLA SEWER CONNECTION UPDATF
EXHIBIT 2
Proposed Connection and Use Charges
Port of Walla Walla
Connection Charge:
Capital Cost,WWTP capacity MM $45,334,000
%of capacity impaired by Pori 3,75%
Treatment capacity cost share $1,700,000
Capital Cost, SE Trunk capacity 181131 $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 15) $56,170
Current O&M cost,conveyance 44! $573.457
Cost factor for conveyance annual 151 $57,646
Current O&M cost,administration t4) $1,511,350
Cost factor for administration,annual's} $4,800
Total Use Cost Factors,annual $118,616
I'1 Treatment Capital cost based on most recent upgrade to facility,which enables
this connection
tzl Conveyance Capital Cost based on cost of construction at$10/inch
d lamefer/foot
(3)Capital cost adjusted for increase in construction costs (ENR Index 1995=
5471,August 2010=8858)
14I O&M costs based on current year budget amounts
15� 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.
TCA124101114_POWW_CONNECTION_UY()ATE.WCx 4
MEMORANDUM
April 7, 2011
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutcht 1 ity Manager
RE: Sewer Service to urbank 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. Franeik 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 Burhank 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 industrial 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 Nvith Port of
Walla Walla representatives (Exhibit 13) as discussed below.
• Tenn; 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:
o Plant: reservation of 300,000gpd represents 3.75% of existing total capacity of'the
sewer plant; it represents about 12% of current unused plant capacity. 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,
o 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).
o 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 Iikely be gradual, the Port prefers to purchase the capacity
in blocks over time. To accommodate that, the committee recommends three blocks
of 100,OOOgpd 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 fort will install and maintain all collection lines, pump stations, etc.,
and tivill 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 $2,000 per month minimum, is likely not to grow for an
extended period of time, barring a maj or user of the sewer service. Unlike the sewer use
charges, the PILT payments would go to the general fund, as compensation for potential loss
of property tax opportunity.
• Service Area: the initial service area for the agreement is that portion of Burbank lying south
of the '4lcNary Wildlife Refuge (see Exhibit Q. It includes a current mix of moderate value
residential development, a public school complex and a few small industrial facilities. The
Port expects to accommodate commercial development interest in the vicinity of the new
SRI interchange at Humorist Road as well as potential industrial users in the vicinity of
SR12 and SR124. Service to existing and potential residential developments is possible, but
not nearly as likely as the business interests. The Port desires the possibility of adding
Burbank Heights (above or north of the McNary Wildlife Refuge) to the service area; given
the strong likelihood that all such development in that area would be residential, that
potential should present no concerns to Pasco.
GC/tlz
Attachments
EXHIBIT A
Possible Property Tax Effects
(re: Burbank Sewer Service)
Pasco Franklin PSD Port of Total
County Pasco
Gas Station/Mini-?Flail
($.5m) 985 820 3,320 170 5,295
Retail Strip Center
IOk sf($I.Om) 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) 11,820 9,840 1 39,840 2,040 1 63,540
Processing Plant
100k sf($8.Om) 15,760 13,120 53,120 2,720 84,720 s
Equipment($10.Om) 19,700 16,400 66,400 F-3—,4-0-0—T105,9
—$29m j 57,130 47,560 192,560 1 9,860 307,110
EXHIBIT B
Sewer Contract Concept
• lnterlocal Agreement
• Term: 75 years
• Capacity:
City commits 300,000 gpd capacity of existing sewer plant and southeast trunk line; current
value at $2.2 miIIion, Port of Walla Walla (PWW) purchase first 100,000 gpd block of
capacity($750,000) ,vithin 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) 1,112 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
wastcwatcr review and compliance with city wastewater standards.
+ City wastewater standards (constituents; maximum strength; etc.) shall apply to entire
system.
EXHIBIT B
■ DesiaWConstruction:
• An access vault needs to be constructed at a manholc 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 pen-nits to
complete construction.
■ Termination: (?)
EXHIBIT C
Burbank/Burbank sleights
Coordinated Water System Plana
N GoISOM
G°
'S`1�\*
s � f
Hood at• SR 124
ll 1 -Crnin - - —i
eWam Feed Sup
olumbin Raria Sl Dal
Harrison{xav ' p� 7
Il
Cal omc neisaa'eResta r nt HUMORIST RDa l �J,-�•
Burbank �.� um r•
Irrigation Dist. �, {
o
Na n Ray S'y -J
z
e iding Club z �y
tur' for Sys 1
LEGEND .
Class A
(2 to 25 Connections)
Critical Water Supply
Service Boundary
Port of Walla Walla
Proposed Retail 04,
Service Area 0
Public Water District 4'Irk `
Serving More Than Port o a Walla 1
25 Connections
Burbank Rural Activity Center P eopposed 0 `ale PArwilliiap•• 3
&Port of Walla Walla Proposed ,, :.•
Wholesale Service Area P1
j Wildlife Refuge 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.Ail 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 County's GIS data.
MEMORANDUM
May 5, 2011
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutchlie C • Ma ager
RE: Burbank Sewe 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 and 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 currently 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 soil 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, l) 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
'I 310 A Street
POR
Walla Walla Regional Airport
WALLA WALLA Walla Walla, Washington 99362-2269
Phone: (509) 525-3100 FAX: (509) 525-3101 www.portwallawalia.com - www.wallawallaairport.coin
PASCO CITY HALL
DECEIVED
May 4, 2011
my 5 2011
Gary Crutchfield G1T�! OFFICEER'S
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,
ales M. Kuntz
Executive Director
Ronald W. Dunning. Commissioner
Michael Fredrickson. Commissioner James M. Kuntz, Executive Director
Paul H. 5chneidmiller. Commissioner
Uses Allowed In Burbank's Industrial Business Park Zone
INDUSTRIAL/
t
BUSINESS PARK
i
Use Permittedi Plx.Conditional Use (C)
Hotels/Motels P
Farmworker Dwellings AC, with conditions
Automotive Dealers P, with Conditions
Automobile Leasing/Remal 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 conditions
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 BusWess Park bme
Page 1 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 Il 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, al l 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 Tenninals 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 Z me
Page 2of2
PASCO
Kr w t1w
June 07, 2011
Pasco City Council
525 N. Third Ave.
Pasco,WA 99301
Dear Pasco City Council,
Please accept The Pasco Chambers gratitude for allowing our members to weigh in on the Port of Walla
Walla sewer proposal.
The Pasco Chamber board discussed at length the pros and cons of the City's choice to accept the
proposed engagement, We commend all of you for going through the process of ensuring a well
informed decision. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated.
There was a great amount of discussion on the future effects this could hold on our City, The growth
that may be stifled,due to the lack of planning in the surrounding areas,was a broiling topic.There was
great concern on the impact this could have if Walla Walla County gained some momentum as an
industrial business competitor,
There was discussion on the positive aspects of promoting growth in our region, as well as how it could
increase Pasco's tax base. Discussed at length were the following questions;
What Impacts will this decision have on our Community 75 years from now?
Will we need the extra sewage capacity in the future to accommodate our own community's growth?
Would this relieve the impact of our schools and slow housing in our area?
The dollar amount seemed minimal to most and the majority suggested leveraging the possibility to
trade for water rights. It seemed that this would prove to be a win-win for both parties,
Thank you again for considering our input and appreciate the opportunity.
Sincerely,
Nikki Gerds
Executive Director
Pasco Chamber of Commerce
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council .,� June 1, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/13/11
FROiVI: Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Directory y
SUBJECT: Truck Parkin /Sg_torage on City Streets {�/
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance amending Title 10
2. Proposed Ordinance amending Title 12
3. Letter i�om DKB Inc.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/13, DISCUSSION:
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. As a transportation, agricultural and food processing center, the Pasco street
system and adjacent state highways are used to convey a large amount of goods
through a large and local trucking industry. Many of the drivers and operators of
heavy trucks live within the City and nearby region, essentially using Pasco as a
"base" for their operations. This has resulted in the on and off-street parking and
storage of tractors, trailers and equipment necessary for trucking activities. In
addition, there are locations in the community that have reoccurring instances of
illegal loading/unloading from the public street.
B. It is becoming increasingly common to see heavy truck parking and storage on
City streets (particularly east of US 395), vacant lots (south of"A" Street and east
of 10"` Avenue) and in and around commercial areas in all parts of Pasco. Often
this parking and storage is accompanied by various maintenance and repair
activities (wheel replacement, trailer repair...).
C. Parking and storage of trucks on public streets and vacant lots present issues of
public concern. These include: safety of pedestrians and vehicles using the street
system for travel; street drainage and maintenance and deposits of motor fuels,
lubricants and litter on street and unimproved surfaces, In addition, on street
storage/parking does not have security measures that prevent theft and vandalism
and pose a problem of equity for those businesses that provide proper storage for
their truck fleets.
D. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) contains a variety of regulations on parking
and storage of trucks on City streets. In particular, the PMC restricts parking and
operation of trucks in residential zones and establishes truck routes on specific
streets. The PMC is not as restrictive can the storage and use of City streets in
commercial and industrial areas. In addition, PMC 12.36 "Concurrency" does not
clearly indicate that developing or licensing a business (such as a truck parking
lot) requires necessary street improvements so that such lots are not established
via unimproved right of ways.
4(b)
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The issue of using City streets for unloading/loading of goods should be
addressed through a combination of signage and increased enforcement. Selected
street locations used for unloading/loading of goods may need definitive signage
related to "Loading/Unloading, Parking, Stopping and Standing" followed up
with vigorous enforcement through citations. This will be staff intensive in the
immediate tenn, but should result in a solution of the problem at particular
locations.
B. To address the issue of using City streets for parking and storage of trucks and
related equipment and trucking activities, staff is proposing code amendments as
contained if Reference #1 (amendment to Title 10 PMC) to provide the Police
Department the ability to cite operators/drivers of heavy trucks using City streets
for trek storage. This type of enforcement action is staff intensive and usually
will be complaint driven. The draft Ordinance has a grace period time limit of two
hours. Council should discuss the legitimate reasons heavy trucks need to be
parked on public rights of way and determine if a two hour 16-nit is appropriate.
For example, if a trek is parked on a public street within 500 feet of
eating/sleeping accommodations, it may be legitimate for it to remain parked for
8-12 hours. If a truck is parked on a public street and is not loading or unloading,
is not conducting a business activity or the street is adjacent to vacant land — then
a grace period of only two hours may be appropriate before a citation can be
issued.
C. The issue of using vacant lots for truck storage accessed through unimproved
rights of way can be addressed by reference #2 (amendment to Title 12) that
define business licensing and various permitting activities as a "Development
Activity" requiring concurrent street improvements. Truck storage ail parking is
a permitted use in the C-3 and Industrial zones, but not on unimproved lots and
not through unimproved streets without paving and drainage. This proposed
amendment will provide staff clear code support when encountering this problem.
This is likely to be staff intensive to enforce, often involving the assistance of the
City Attorney,
D. Staff requests Council discussion of this issue. It may be advisable to refer this to
the Pasco Chamber of Commerce for their perspective.
Reference 1 - Proposed Ordinance
Amending Title 10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Section
10.52.030 "Parking for Certain Purposes Prohibited" to Prohibit Overtime
Parking of Commercial Tractors and Trailers on City Streets"
WHEREAS, the extended parking of commercial tractors and trailers
upon City streets has created congestion affecting the free-flow of traffic,
reduce the availability of short-term parking, and created a hazard to other
drivers and pedestrians of the roadway; and
WHEREAS, restriction of such extended parking is necessary to preserve
the public safety, provide for the unimpeded travel of vehicle traffic, and
enhance the circulation of traffic within the City; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 10.52.030 entitled "Parking for Certain
Purposes Prohibited" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
10.52.030 PARKING FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES PROHIBITED.
(1) No person shall drop or permit to be dropped from any vehicle or
the machinery thereof, any oil, grease or similar substance upon the streets or
alleyways of the City;
(2) No vehicle with a maximum gross weight of fourteen thousand
(14,000) pounds or more shall park anywhere on or off the street in a
residential zone of the City, except parking on residential streets may be
permitted in the course of making deliveries as provided in Section 10-64.020.
A street is in a residential zone for purposes of this Chapter if any property on
either side of the street is in a residential zone; each block of the street will be
treated as a separate unit for purposes of determining whether overnight
parking will be permitted. No truck tractor, trailer, semi-trailer, or vehicle with
a maximum gross weight of fourteen thousand (14,000) pounds or more shall
park, stand, or stop on any City street within a commercial or industrial zone
for a period in excess of two (2) hours. "Maximum gross weight" means the
scale weight of any motor vehicle, truck, truck tractor, trailer or semi-trailer to
which shall be added the maximum load to be carried thereon as set by the
licensee in his application for a license or as marked on the vehicle, whichever
is greater. A street sAn--a +eaidential. zone far purp es of thi&- hapter if 'Uly
Ordinance Amending Section 10.52.030 - 1
-,
(3) No unlicensed vehicle shall be parked upon the streets of the City;
(4) No boat, motor home, camp trailer, trailer, fifth wheel, pickup
camper, snowmobile, or utility trailer as defined in Title 25 shall be stored or
maintained on any public street, right-of-way, or other public areas; except
such items may be parked in public right-of-way in front of an owner's property-
for a period of seventy-two (72) hours in any given two-week period for loading
and unloading purposes. Guests of the owner may temporarily park, in public
right-of-way, in front of the owner's property for a period of seventy-two 172 in
any given two-week period only if the boat, motor home, camp trailer, trailer,
fifth wheel, pickup, camper, snowmobile, or utility trailer, as defined by Title
25, of the guests cannot be accommodated due to size, on the owner's
driveway. (Ord. 3171 Sec. 3, 1996; Ord. 3009 Sec. 1, 1994; Ord. 3005, Sec. 2,
1994; Ord. 1678 Sec. 1, 1974; Prior Code Sec. 8-32.12).
Section 2. 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 Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Scction 10.52.030 -2
Reference 2 - Proposed Ordinance
Amending Title 12
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Section
12.36.020 "Definitions" Providing and Clarifying the Definition of
"Development Activities" to Include Business Licenses, Special and
Conditional Use Permits
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, the City has
adopted concurrency requirements to insure the City's transportation and
utility systems will be adequate to serve current and future development within
the City without an unacceptable reduction and level of services; and
WHEREAS, the development activities triggering these concurrency
requirements are changes in the use of real property, and to avoid ambiguity,
require a specific definition sufficient for general outstanding; and
WHEREAS, to clarify those activities constituting "development
activities", should be clarified; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 12.36.020 entitled "Definitions" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
12.36.020 DEFINITIONS. Except as specifically defined in this Chapter
or elsewhere in the Pasco Municipal Code, all words shall carry their
customary meaning.
(1) Adequate - means transportation or utility facilities meet or exceed
the City's level of service as established in the Comprehensive Plan and or the
Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan.
(2) Capacity for Transportation - means the maximum number of
vehicles that can be accommodated during a specific travel period at a specific
level of service.
(3) Capacity for Utilities - means the number of equivalent residential
units that can be accommodated by the water and sewer system.
(4) Completion of Development - means that a certificate of
occupancy, permit issuance, or other formal approval has been issued by the
City authorizing occupancy and/or the use of development.
Ordinance Amending Section 12.36.020 - l
(5) Concurrent - means physical improvements or transportation and
utility strategies are in place at the completion of development, or the financial
commitment is in place to complete the needed improvements or strategies
within six years.
(6) Development Activities - means any construction or reconstruction
that expands a building, plattin g a division of land, or change of use requiring
a business license occupancy registration, conditional orspecial permit, or
any use of real property which requires review, approval and/or permitting by
the City.
(7) Financial Commitment - means revenue designated in the most
currently adopted Transportation Improvement Plan for transportation facilities
or the most current adopted Capital Improvement Plan for utility facilities
through a six-year period or revenue that is assured by an applicant in a form
approved by the City.
(8) Incidental Residential Permit - means a permit for any activity
other than the initial permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on
a lot.
(9) Transportation Facility - means arterial, collector and local streets
maintained by the City and transit routes operated by the Ben Franklin Transit
Authority.
(a) Existing transportation facilities - are those facilities in place
at the time a concurrency test is applied.
(b) Planned transportation facilities - are those facilities
identified in the Comprehensive Plan and/or scheduled to be constructed
as shown in the Six-year Street improvement Program.
(10) Utility Facility - means the water and sewer system maintained by
the City.
(a) Existing utility facilities - are those facilities in place at the
time a concurrency test is applied.
(b) Planned utility facilities - are those facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan and/or scheduled to be
constructed as shown in the Six-year Street Capital Improvement
Program.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (S) days
after its approval, passage, and publication as required by law.
Ordinance Amending Section 12.36.020 - 2
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 Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Section E 2.35.020 -3
Reference 3 - Letter from DKB, Inc.
DKB , INC .
M17C11ANICAL INSULATION & CONSTRU CT N SERV ] CES
PASCO CITY FALL
PECEIVED
APIR 0 U" 2011
2*il 6,2011 CITY MANAGER'S
OFFICE
Gar),Crutchfield
fiasco City Manager
525 N Thud Ave.
Pasco,WA 99301
Re: SCIni Truck Storage on California Ave.
Subject: Request for Pasco Government to take action to abate the issue.
Dear Mr. Crutchfield,
I have previously sent a request to your office to assist in the issue of commercial semi-trucks and trailers
utilizing our street to operator and locate their business without purchasing land or building or paying taxes.
Originally it was the Lorenzo Trucking firm and the city won out on that issue. They purchased land and
conducted their business from that location, That was multiple years ago and I appreciate the assistance on that
issue as it prevented us from selling this location and moving our business to a community that values it's
businesses. 'Times have changed again, for several years I have worked with code enforcement and the police
officers that man this area in an attempt to keep the trucking business from utilizing this area as their offices
and maintenance facilities. Mitch has been a great resource however he is limited by the codes and lack of
interest in resolving this issue by the city eri&ecrs. The city engineers have told me that California Ave.is an
overflow for the truck traffic off of Oregon.I find that hard to believe as California is a land locked street on
both ends as it dead heads at both ends. The), tell me they cannot put up loading zones or no parking signs to
assist the business on the street from having commercial trucks and trailers stored in front of our business. Yet
code enforcement tells me that it is illegal for trucks to park and use this street for storage east of California.
The bottom line is no business should have to contend with or compete with trucking business operating from
public streets when they use the streets for storage of their cnrporate equipment, and maintain their equipment
while parked on the public streets.They use the school parking lot as an employee parking lot for their drivers,
They use the land next to the street for their trash disposal,while all other licensed business in the community
have to paw for the storage,maintenance facilities,offices,and ETC for their business.
Attached you will find photographic records since September of 2010 detailing what we contend with every
single day. I have been told that the parking time is limited.However you will find in these photos trailers stored
on the street since September 2010. It is the same group day in and day out.
DKB, inc. owns the property we operate from and have enjoyed seeing the commercial growth in this area.
Our firm is currently looking to expand our facilities in the near future. The principals of out firm have to
determine if we invest the funds will it be a wise investment. Without some change in how the trucks and
trucking firms are allowed to use the street in front of our facility, we will be forced to look to another
community and take our 60 employees elsewhere.
7C2 N. CALT FOR N1A AVE, TRI.CITAES, WA 99301
PJ'ONR. 509-545-3885 - FAX: 509.545-3880
WW'W.DK131NC.NR-T
-2— April G,2011
I am looking forward to your input on how the City of Pasco will be addressing these issues in die near future.
Our thoughts would to be put a 2 hour limit on commercial vehicle parking and install signs to keep those
commercial vehicles �m parking long term on the street. Passing a code making it illegal to maintain
commiBurows l /cWthe ee urould be helpful.
Respe /
R De
President
DKB,Inc.
Cc, Mayor Pro-term Rebecca Francik
Councilman Al Yenny
T, Miller Attorney for DKB,Inc.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 5
FOR: City Council Date: 06/02/2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager �v
FROM: Ahmad Qayourgi, Public Works Directo V Workshop: 06/13/11
' Regular: 06/20/11
SUBJECT: Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2012 - 2017
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Plan
2. Resolution
3, Map
I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
06/13: Discussion
06/20: Conduct Public Hearing
06/20: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. thereby adopting
the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan for 2012
- 2017.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND BRIEF FACTS:
A) Each year, all Cities and Counties in the State are required to adopt an updated
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan specifically for federal and state
funded projects. For the City of Pasco, this plan has consisted of all projects
including the annual overlays, street widening, and signal projects which are
within the City limits. Larger projects such as the Lewis Street Overpass also
have been shown.
B) The proposed six-year program represents those projects that are anticipated to be
needed within six years. Several projects will need to be coordinated with utility
projects which could change the actual timing of the projects. Although this
process of adopting a six-year plan is a state requirement, the Council will again
review the projects in the Six-Year C.I.P. process and the budgeting process.
While the worksheets presented by staff include a potential funding source, many
of the projects listed will be dependent upon available funding. In addition, staff
will be pursuing available grants from the various funding programs.
Staff recommends the plan be presented at a public hearing on June 20, 2011, and
that Council adopt the plan by resolution.
4(c)
City of Pasco — DRAFT Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Year 2012-2017
Proiect Name Location Project Cost Potential Funding Sources
Year 2012
a) 2012 Overlays Various City Streets $900,000 Overlay Fund
b) Miscellaneous Street Projects Various Locations $50,000 Arterial Street Fund
c) Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Upgrades Various Locations $100,000 Arterial Street Fund
d) City Wide Signal Improvements Various Locations $150,000 Local
1. 0 Avenue Corridor 1-182 to Sylvester Street $1.15 Million Federal $350,000 / Local $800,000
2. 1-182 Corridor Improvements Study Rd 100 to Rd 36 $150,000 Local
3. Harris Road Realignment Broadmoor Blvd and Sandifur $250,000 Local / Developer Contribution
4. Argent Road Widening 20th Ave to 1-182 Ramp $1.5 Million LID and Impact Fee
5. Rd 68 Improvements, Phase 1 1-182 to Argent Rd $400,000 Arterial Street /TIB / Federal
6. TSP (Traffic System Planning) City Wide $250,000 Local
Year 2013
a) 2013 Overlays Various City Streets $1 Million Overlay Fund
b) Miscellaneous Street Projects Various Locations $50,000 Arterial Street Fund
c) City Wide Signal Improvements Various Locations $150,000 Local
7. Powerline Road - Design Rd 68 to Rd 100 $100,000 Local
8. Road 100 Widening Chapel Hill to Court Street $600,000 TIB $498,000 /Arterial Street Fund $102,000
9. Sandifur Parkway (Rd 52 to 60) Road 52 to Road 60 $200,000 Arterial Street Fund / Impact Fees
10. Road 68 Improvements Phase 2 Sandifur and Argent $1.5 Million State/Federal/Impact Fees
Year 2014
a) 2014 Overlays Various City Streets $1 Million Overlay Fund
b) Miscellaneous Street Projects Various Locations $50,000 Arterial Street Fund
c) Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Upgrades Various Locations $100,000 Arterial Street Fund
d) City Wide Signal Improvements Various Locations $150,000 Local
11. Powerline Road — Construction Rd 68- Rd 100 $900,000 Local f Impact Fees
12. 1-182 Off Ramp Argent and Rd 52 $2 Million Federal / State / Local
13. Chapel Hill Extension Rd 84 to Rd 68 $800,000 Local
14. Sacagawea Heritage Trail Rd 52 to Rd 72 $850,000 Federal / State / Local
15. Road 68 and Court Street RA I TS Rd 68 to Court Street $220,000 Local / Impact Fees
06!1012011 Page 1 of 2
Year 2015
a) 2015 Overlays Various City Streets $1 Million Overlay Fund
b) Miscellaneous Street Projects Various Locations $50,000 Arterial Street Fund
c) City Wide Signal Improvements Various Locations $150,000 Local
16. Road 100 & Argent Road Traffic Signal Road 100 & Argent Road $160,000 Local and Impact Fees
17. Road 84 & Chapel Hill Traffic Signal Road 84 & Chapel Hill $190,000 Federal STP $164,000 / Arterial Street Fund $26,000
18. Court Street Widening Road 44 Westerly $600,000 TIB $400,000 f Federal STP $200,000
19. Rd 76 - Argent to Chapel Hill Rd 76 to Chapel Hill $400,000 Local
20. Road 44 & Burden Traffic Signal Road 44 & Burden Blvd. $160,000 Arterial Street Fund
Year 2016
a) 2016 Overlays Various City Streets $1 Million Overlay Fund
b) Miscellaneous Street Projects Various Locations $50,000 Arterial Street Fund
c) Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Upgrades Various Locations $100,000 Arterial Street Fund
d) City Wide Signal Improvements Various Locations $150,000 Local
21. 1-182 Off and On Ramps @ Road 52 1-182 and Road 52 $3 Million Federal $2.6 Million I Local $400,000
22. Burden Blvd 1-182 On-Ramp Road 76 and Burden Blvd $5 Million Federal $4 Million / State $1 Million
23. Lewis Street Overpass At BNSF $25 Million Federal I State / Local
24. Lewis & Clark One Way Couplets 2nd Ave to 10th Ave $2 Million Local
Year2017
a) 2017 Overlays Various City Streets $1 Million Overlay Fund
b) Miscellaneous Street Projects Various Locations $50,000 Arterial Street Fund
c) City Wide Signal Improvements Various Locations $150,000 Local
25. Lewis St. & Heritage Ave Traffic Signal Lewis St. & Heritage Intersection $190,000 Federal STP $164,000 /Arterial Street Fund $26,000
26. Heritage Ave. & "A" St. Traffic Signal Heritage & "A" Street intersection $190,000 Federal STP $164,000 / Arterial Street Fund $26,000
27. Crescent Road Rd 108/ FCID Pipeline (Canal) $150,000 Local with Latecomers or LID
06/101`2011 Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain
and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 provides for annual revision and extension of the
Comprehensive Street Program of each city and town, after public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, it is now time to revise and extend the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain
and Bridge Programs; and NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, That the
City Council of the City of Pasco hereby adopts the revision and extension of the Comprehensive
Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the ensuing six years as attached hereto and labeled
"Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2012 - 2017" incorporated by this reference as
though fully set forth herein; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the Comprehensive Street, Stonn Drain and Bridge Programs
shall be filed with the Benton-Franklin Regional Council and the State of Washington.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 20th Day of June, 2011.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
•A/Ater'� r Ai ,.��.>•,•/.�,
Wrl
=W IN
AR
Nox
■Mod Y l fl:milli 1IM1111 � 1111111
11111al
If
CITY OF
evil
PA SCO I 11 mignon�
'I�I � `}y f � I���� 1,111 ..����• sY U #H IIN 'J.
I,}�I I ♦ll L�IIII! I lulu �l�r:i~' �1 lll�mill •�
I I
------lonn mill
I M1111111
♦I A,A 1f I,N I ♦ 1. `` ��
11,♦ III � I i :II
® � :III M. 'AI Y• � .I 1 ♦ � ._ —__.._._ ___._ --- -
n
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council June 8, 201.1
TO: Gary Crutehfie -y Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/13/11
Rick White, Regular Mtg.: 6/20/11
Community & 11con mic Development Director'�l�j
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Code Amendment: MF # CA20 1-001 PMC 25.46 Contractor Plant and Stora e
Yards in the C-3 District
I. REFERENCES
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Staff memo to the Planning Commission dated 5/19/11
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/19/1 1
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/13: Discussion
6/20: Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance
amending PMC Chapter 25.46 by including contractor
plants and yards as permitted and conditional uses within
C-3 (General Business ) Districts and, further, authorize
publication by sununary only.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On May 19, 2011 the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider an amendment
to the C-3 district regulations (General Business) that included the addition of
contractor plants and storage yards as permitted and conditional uses depending on
the distance of a given location from a residential district.
B. Following; the hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed C-3 code amendments as contained in Reference#1.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Since the 1970's the city has been licensing and permitting contractor facilities in C-3
zones. This has been a source of some confusion because while contractor yards and
facilities are similar to many permitted uses in the C-3 district, such as heavy
machinery sales/service they are not specifically listed as a permitted use. Contractor
facilities are identified as permitted uses in the 1-1 district.
B. Historically, with a few exceptions, most of the contractor facilities located in C-3
zones have been in areas near industrial zones (Columbia East) or near other C-3
areas (Oregon Avenue Corridor). As the community has grown we are now finding
residential districts located near or adjacent to C-3 districts. Contractor facilities may
be compatible with or similar to other uses permitted in the C-3 district but they are
seldom compatible with residential uses. The compatibility issue between residential
4(d)
uses and contractor yards recently came to light when an inquiry was made from a
contractor looking to locate an equipment yard adjacent to a residential subdivision.
C. The proposed code amendment addresses the concerns of a contractor yard in C-3
areas adjacent to residential properties by allowing contractor yards as permitted uses
provided they are located more than 300 feet front a residential district. Any site in a
C-3 zone located closer than 300 feet to a residential district will require review
through the Special Permit process. The Special Permit process would provide for a
determination of the appropriateness of the site and what conditions would be needed
to protect the nearby residential properties.
D. If the Council concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation staff will
prepare a final Ordinance for adoption at the next regular meeting.
Reference 1 - Proposed Ordinance
ORDLNANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 BY
INCLUDING CONTRACTOR PLANTS AND STORAGE YARDS 1N CHAPTER 25.46.
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and;
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the zoning regulations are designed to increase the security of home life
and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco
Urban Area; and,
WIIEREAS, the C-3 District (PMC 25.46) permits the location of wholesale businesses,
heavy machinery sales and service, lumber yards and landscaping storage businesses; and,
WHEREAS, contractor facilities are similar in nature and operation to a number of
permitted uses within the C-3 District; and,
WIiEREAS, although not listed as a pennitted use in the C-3 District, contractor
facilities and storage yards have been licensed by the City in C-3 Districts since the 19 70's; and.
WHEREAS, the Special Permit process enables the City to apply mitigation measures
which may be necessary to preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens in
residential neighborhoods adjacent to C-3 Districts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 19, 2011 and
following an opportunity for public comment made a recommendation that the City Council
amend PMC 25.46 by including contractor plants and yards as a permitted and conditional use
depending on the distance of a site from a residential district; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.46.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code he and the same is
hereby amended to read as follows;
25.46.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-3 district:
1
(1) All uses permitted in the C-1 business district;
(2) Service stations;
(3) Laundry;
(4) Express office;
(5) Wholesale business;
(6) Heavy machinery sales and service;
(7) Warehouse;
(S) Landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials;
(9) Automobile sales and service;
(10) Mobile home and trailer sales and service;
(11) Lumber sales business;
(12) Veterinarian clinics for household pets (including indoor boarding facilities); aPA
(13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C-2 district boundary provided, such lots are
paved and the development complies with the landscape and fencing requirements of the C-1
district, as enumerated in subsection 25.42.020(13); and
(14) Contactor's plant or storage yard movided such plant or Yard is more than 300
from a residential district.
Section 2. That Chapter 25.46.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is
hereby amended to read as follows:
25.46.040 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses may be permitted
in the C-3 district upon approval of a Special Permit as provided for in Chapter 25.$6:
(1) Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment facilities, provided all
boarding or overnight holding of animals occurs indoors;
(2) Auto body shops; and
(3) Parking lots; and
(4) Contractor's plant or storage yard within 300 feet of a residential district.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
20011.
Matt Watkins
I/layor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
2
Reference 2 - Staff memo to
the Planning Commission
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 19, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Code Amendment FMC 25.46 Contractor Plant and Storage Yards in the
C-3 District
BACKGROUND
Since the 1970's the City has been licensing and permitting contractor facilities
in C-3 zones. This has created confusion in administering the zoning code in
recent years because contractor facilities are not a listed permitted use in the C-
3 zone. Contractor facilities are listed as permitted uses in the I-1 District
under the listing of contractor plants or storage yards.
The purpose of the C-3 District is to provide areas for non-retail commercial
businesses. Contractor facilities are generally non-retail in nature. The C-3
permitted uses section (PMC 25.46.020) lists a number of uses that are similar
in nature to a contractor storage yard such as heavy machinery sales and
service, wholesale businesses, lumber sales, landscape gardening and storage
areas for equipment and materials, and express offices (trucking firms). Many
of these uses require large outdoor storage yards for machinery, equipment,
trucks, lumber and other building supplies. Businesses within the parameters
of those listed above receive and ship construction supplies, sell, service, repair
and store large construction equipment.
Historically, with few exceptions, most of the contractor facilities located in C-3
Districts have been in areas near industrial zones (Columbia East) or near other
C-3 areas (Oregon Avenue Corridor). As the community has grown we are now
finding residential districts located near or adjacent to C-3 districts. Contractor
facilities may be compatible with or similar to other uses permitted in the C-3
district but they are seldom compatible with residential uses.
Staff recently received an inquiry about locating an excavation contractor yard
in a C-3 Zone adjacent to a residential neighborhood. In the past, such an
inquiry would not have been a concern because most developed C-3 districts did
not border upon residential neighborhoods. That is no longer the case. After
considering the matter it became apparent the code needs to be amended to
address contractor facilities in the C-3 District. The proposed code amendment
I
attached to this memo would permit contractor facilities in the C-3 Districts as
a permitted use provided the site selected for a contractor facility is at least 300
feet from a residential area. Any C-3 site 300 feet or closer to a residential zone
would be required to obtain a Special Permit. Through the Special Permit
process the City could apply mitigation measures for sites adjacent to or near
residential areas. An alternative would be to require the Special Permit process
for contractor yards in all C-3 zones regardless of distance from a residential
zone.
The proposed code amendment is not a site-specific matter and therefore staff is
recommending the matter be acted upon at the May 19th Planning Commission
meeting.
FINDINGS
1) PMC 25.04.020 explains one of the purposes of the zoning regulations is to
assist in increasing the security of home life and preserve and create a
more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban
Area.
2) The C-3 District (PMC 25.46) permits the location of wholesale businesses,
heavy machinery sales and service, lumber yards and landscaping storage
businesses.
3) Contractor facilities are not listed as a permitted use in the C-3 District.
4) Contractor facilities are similar in nature and operation to a number of
permitted uses within the C-3 District.
5) The City has permitted contractor facilities and storage yards in C-3
Districts since the 1970's.
6) The Special Permit process enables the city to apply mitigation measures
that may be necessary to preserve and create a more favorable environment
for citizens in residential neighborhoods adjacent to C-3 Districts.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: i move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the May 19, 2011 staff memo on Code
Amendments for PMC Chapter 25.46.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adopt the proposed Code Amendments modifying PMC Chapter
25.46 to include provisions for contractor's plants and storage
yards in the C-3 District.
2
1
I
1
General 8usines
EL ItALAU=13off
` 1 i
ire 4.1.,:-, S� ♦ � ,
IWI
ilk Nis
- "now -- - . -
f� < 41- 1
Reference 3 - Minutes
dated 5/19111
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 19, 2011
A. Code Amendment PMC 25.46 C-3 General Business District
provisions to include Contractor Facilities
IMF# CA 2011-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated this proposal is for a Code Amendment to
add provisions in the C-3 District to list contractor facilities as permitted uses
within the district. For many years contractor facilities have been permitted in
the C-3 District. This practice has lead to some confusion because contractor's
facilities are not a listed permitted use in the C-3 District. There are other uses
permitted in the C-3 District that are similar in nature but there is no specific
language for contractor facilities.
The community has grown and some residential developments are now
adjacent to or very near C-3 zones. As a result the question of compatibility
between contractor facilities near residential area has arisen. The Tierra Vida
subdivision is an example. Tierra Vida is surrounded by C-3 properties and 25
years ago that subdivisions did not exist. Most of the contractor's facilities are
located in the center of the C-3 areas or in the King City truck stop area. This
issue recently came to the forefront when a contractor approached staff about
locating a contractor yard backing on to a residential area. In double checking
the code staff found that contractor's facilities were a listed permitted use in
the I-1 District but not listed in the C-3 District.
Staff recommended the C-3 regulations be amended to include contractor
facilities as a listed permitted use in the C-3 District and reviewed a proposed
code amendment. The recommendation suggested contractor facilities be
permitted in C-3 zones provide the location is more than 300 feet from a
residential district. Any C-3 location within 300 of a residential district would
require a Special Permit.
Mr. McDonald pointed out the Staff memo provides an alternate "2" that would
require a Special Permit for contractor facilities anywhere in the C-3 District.
Commissioner Lukins asked staff on how many current businesses the 300
foot rule would affect.
Mr, McDonald stated no one would be affected and any current businesses
would be grandfathered in. New contractors wanting to locate within the 300
foot boundary would need to apply for a Special Permit. During the permitting
process there would then be an opportunity to place conditions on the
contractor such as landscaping buffering and solid block walls.
Chairman Cruz asked why 300 feet was chosen.
Mr. McDonald stated 300 feet is the typical distance for notification of public
land use hearings.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if there is a contractor facility being
grandfathered in would the sale of the property carry the grandfathered clause
to the new owner.
Mr. McDonald stated yes. A business can be sold and continue to operate
under the perimeters of the size at the time it was grandfathered. A Special
Permit wolzld need to he obtained for any expansion.
Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing. With no response, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. McDonald asked for direction on the distance of 300 feet for the boundary.
Commissioner Lukins is in favor of the 300 foot boundary.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the
Findings of Fact as contained in the May 19, 2011 staff memo on Code
Amendments for PMC Chapter 25.46. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Code
Amendments modifying PMC Chapter 25.46 to include provisions for
contractor's plants and storage yards in the C-3 District.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council June 8, 2011
� f
TO: Gary Crutchfi` Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6,'13111
FROM: Rick Terway, Director O,. k& Community Services
SUBJECT: Golf Course Management Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. None
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/13: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) On February 28, 2011 the city took possession of Sun Willows Golf course due to
breach of contract by 1Rl Golf Group. Since that time,the city has had a temporary
agreement with CourseCo,the golf management company that currently operates
Columbia Point in Richland and Columbia Park in Kennewick.
B) Richland has had Columbia Point under a management contract for some time and is
satisfied with the results.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The Golf industry has suffered for the last 5 to 7 years due to overdevelopment and
the economic slowdown we are currently experiencing. Under the past lease
agreement, the city received lease payments and had little involvement in the
operations of the course. This worked very well when times were good and revenues
were up industry wide. But, with the current state of the golf industry, staff suggests
the city enter into a management agreement for the following reasons:
1. Management agreement allows the city to manage the fiscal aspect of the
operation.
2. The city will have the ability to develop, with the management.company,
strategies to enhance sales and increase rounds.
3. Management agreement opens up all operations to the city's purview so plans can
be made in advance verses trying to catch up with deferred maintenance or late
arrival of merchandise.
4. Management agreement would lend itself to better"agronomic" practices, short
cuts would not be taken to increase profit.
B) Staff recommends moving forward with an RFP for a Golf Course Management
Agreement unless otherwise directed,
4(e)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 12, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi Manapor Workshop Mtg.: 6/13/11
r Regular Mtg.: 6/20/11
FROM: Denis Austin, ('.hief of Polic
SUBJECT: Interagency Agreement for Summer School Services
I. REFERENCE:
A. Proposed Interagency Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6113: Discussion
6/20: MOTION: I move to approve the Interagency Agreement with the Pasco School
District for summer school services and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the
agreement,
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Pasco School District Funds - $ 15,280
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) School Resource Officers (SRO) are full-time uniformed police officers primarily
dedicated to providing law enforcement resource services to assigned schools and
surrounding neighborhoods. The School District has requested an extension of the
SRO services for the 2011 Summer School at Pasco High School. Normally, SRO
services are not provided during summer months. The School District has summer
school programs at Pasco High School, Chiawana High School, New Horizons High
School, Ochoa Middle School, and Stevens Middle School. As a proactive measure,
the School District has requested SRO services for six and one-half hours each day of
summer school. There are 21 summer school days from June I6 t' to July 15th. SRO's
are assigned to work normal patrol duties when school is not in session.
B) The proposed Interagency Agreement is effective June through July 2011, and
provides two School Resource Officers for the 2011 Summer School. The School
District will reimburse the City for the salary and benefit costs for two officers during
21 days of summer school. The School District presented the proposed Agreement to
the School Board on May 23, 2011. The School Board approved the Agreement and
payment for the services. The City Council's approval of the Agreement is all that is
required for the Police Department to proceed on schedule.
4(f)
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Between
Pasco School District No. 1
And
City of Pasco,Washington
This agreement, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW is made and entered into by and between the
Pasco School District No. 1, hereafter referred to as the "District" and the City of Pasco, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereafter referred to as the "City."
No special budget or funds are anticipated, nor shall be created. It is not intended that a separate
legal entity be established to conduct this cooperative undertaking, nor is the acquiring, holding,
or disposing of real or personal property other than as specifically provided within the terms of
this Agreement, anticipated. The Chief of Police of the City of Pasco, Washington, shall be
designated as the Administrator of this Interlocal Agreement,
This Agreement shall be filed with the Franklin County Auditor, or alternatively listed by subject
on either parties' website or other electronically retrievable public source.
It is the purpose of this agreement to:
1. Enhance the safety and security of students, teachers, staff, and visitors and provide
patrol of the various campuses of the District located within the City of Pasco,
Washington.
2. Provide for the presence of armed and uniformed City Police Officers both inside and
outside the school buildings on selected campuses of the District during certain school
hours in support of such safety and security and the maintenance of a secure and peaceful
learning atmosphere.
3. Provide for prevention, intervention, and prompt effective enforcement by the City's
Police Department in situations involving, but not limited to:
a. Maintenance of order
b. Use, possession, or sale of illegal drugs and alcohol on school premises
C. Crimes against persons
d. Crimes against property
e. Any other situations or activities which require the intervention of law
enforcement officers; and
4. Provide for participation by police officers in the educational activities and role modeling
to foster and enhance knowledge of and respect for law enforcement and law
enforcement officers by students and the community.
5. Provide positive and supportive interface between law enforcement representatives and
the District's substance abuse and harassment prevention efforts including, but not
limited to Natural Helpers, Student Assistance Teams, Anti-Harassment and Bullying
Project and other intervention and prevention efforts by the District.
Interagency Agreement between Pasco School District No. 1 and the City of Pasco.
Page 1 of 6
It is therefore mutually agreed that:
1. Statement of Work. The City shall furnish the necessary personnel and services and
otherwise do all things necessary for and incidental to the performance of the work stated herein.
The City shall:
a. Assign two full-time uniformed police officers for six and one-half consecutive
hours each day from 08:00 AM to 2;30 PM to provide School Resource Officer
services at specific schools June 16 — July 15, 2011 (except July 4, 2011) in
accordance with the following schedule.
i. New Horizons High School: June 20— July 15, 2011 Monday—Friday
ii. Ochoa Middle Schools: June 20—July 15, 2011 Monday—Friday
iii Stevens Middle School: June 20—July 15, 2011 Monday--Friday
iv. Chiawana High School: June 16—July 15, 2011 Monday— Friday
v. Pasco High School: June 16—July 15, 2011 Monday— Friday
One SRO will be assigned to Chiawana High School beginning June 16'". A
second SRO will be assigned to Pasco High School beginning June 16`". Both
officers are responsible for responding to incidents at the other schools as needed
during the overlap period. Each SRO shall make certain that the Administration at
their assigned school is notified when they are required to respond to another
school. Generally, the quickest way to get an SRO to respond to an alternate
school will be to call the Franklin County Emergency Dispatch Center and request
an SRO be sent to the incident at a specific school. Except in incidents where a
particular SRO may have prior knowledge or involvement in a specific case or
other extenuating factors, the on-duty police supervisor will designate which SRO
responds.
Office space shall be provided as available at each school for the use of the
School Resource Officer. Such office shall be equipped with one office desk and
chair, and one locking cabinet. The City shall provide a lockable cabinet capable
of securing police department equipment when not in use by the officer.
b. Cooperate with the District to provide training and education to each assigned
officer to insure effective communication and interrelation with the school
community and its students;
C. Cooperate with the District to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the
assigned officers and the program;
d. Meet as needed during the academic year with the District's representative (as
designated by the District)to evaluate the effectiveness of the program;
e. Cooperate with the District's representative to investigate and report on any
complaints regarding the conduct of an assigned officer, share fully, as permitted
by law, with the District's representative all results of such investigations for the
Interagency Agreement between Pasco School District No. I and the City of Pasco.
Page 2of6
purpose of responding to each complaint and cooperate to resolve each complaint.
Provided, that it shall be the responsibility of the District to respond to any
complaint the District received from a student, parent or patron of the District and
communicate the results of any investigation to such person or persons.
2. Terms and Conditions. All rights and obligations of the parties to this agreement shall be
subject to and governed by the terms and conditions contained in the text of this agreement.
3. Period of Performance. Subject to its other provisions, the period of performance of this
agreement shall commence on June 16, 2011 and be completed on July 15, 2011 with July 41-'
scheduled off, unless terminated sooner as provided herein.
The principal shall be responsible for notifying the Chief of the City's Police Department of the
school calendar, schedule of events and activities, and any changes in the same. The principal
shall determine the specific hours when an officer shall be present within the limits set forth in
Section I.a. of the Agreement,
4. Payment. The District shall reimburse the City for its expenses in employing two officers for
273 hours as follows:
a. For June 16, 2011 through July 15, 2011, an estimated total of fifteen thousand
two hundred and eighty dollars ($15,280),
Actual amount will be determined. by the parties based upon any negotiated wage
increase between the City and the police officer's collective bargaining unit. The current
wage rate nth benefits is 555,97 per hour.
5. Billing Procedure. The City shall submit a monthly invoice or billing statement to the
District. Payment shall be made to the City according to the regular procedures of the District.
6. Funding. If for any reason the District exhausts its budgeted funds for payment to the City
for its services described herein or funds from any expected funding source become unavailable,
the District shall notify the City and the obligations of the City shall immediately cease and this
agreement terminate, unless the district otherwise assumes the obligations for the payment of
services rendered by the Police Department,
7. Non-discrimination. In the performance of this agreement, the District and the City shall
comply with the provisions of Title Vi of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 200d), Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 7904) and Chapter 49.60 RCW, as now and
hereafter amended. Both shall not, except as they may be specifically allowed by laws to do so,
discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, marital status, age,
creed, Vietnam-Era and Disabled Veterans status, or the presence of any sensor, mental, or
physical handicap.
In the event of non-compliance by either party or refusal to comply with the above provisions
this agreement may be rescinded, canceled, or terminated in whole or in part. The non-
complying party shall, however, be given a reasonable time in which to cure this non-
interagency Agreement between Pasco School District No. 1 and the City of Pasco.
Page 3 of 6
compliance. Any dispute may be resolved in accordance with the "Disputes" procedure set forth
herein.
S. Records Maintenance. The City shall maintain books, records, documents and other
evidence that sufficiently and effectively reflect all direct and indirect cost expended in the
performance of the services described herein. These records shall be subject to inspection,
review or audit by the personnel of both parties, other personnel authorized by either party, the
Office of the State Auditor and federal officers, if any, so authorized by law. The City and
District shall retain all books, records, documents, and other materials relevant to this agreement
for five (5) years after expiration. The office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, and any
persons authorized by the parties shall have full access and the right to examine any of these
materials during this five-year period.
9. Responsibilities and Authority of School Administrator. The principal or other
administrator designated by the District is responsible for the supervision and daily operations of
the school shall, subject to the lawful exercise of the officer's law enforcement responsibilities,
schedule, assign and direct the officer's duties under this agreement.
The principal is responsible for the investigation of non-criminal incidents that occur at or are
related to the school. If the principal finds that he or she or any individual is in physical danger,
the principal may request the law enforcement officer to assist him or her.
In the case of a search of student property for the violation of District rules or other
administrative reasons, the school principal or designated administrator or District employee will
conduct the search. Once the principal has reason to believe that a crime has been or may be
committed, the principal or other designated administrator shall request the law enforcement
officer to assume responsibility.
The building administrator shall have the responsibility to contact and report to parents and
patrons regarding activities and findings of the law enforcement officer, where appropriate.
10. Indemnification. Each party shall defend, protect and hold harmless the other party from
and against all claims, suits and/or actions arising from any negligent or intentional act or
omission of that party's employees or agents while performing under this agreement.
11. Agreement Alterations and Amendments. The District and the City may mutually amend
this agreement. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by
the personnel authorized to bind the District and the City.
1.2. Termination. Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, either party may terminate
this agreement by providing sixty (60) days advance written notification to the other party of
their intent to terminate the agreement. If this agreement is so terminated, the terminating party
shall be liable only for performance, in accordance with the terms of this agreement for
performance rendered prior to the effective date of termination.
13. Savings. Should any portion of this agreement be declared illegal, the balance of the
agreement shall remain in full force and effect to carry out the purposes of this agreement.
Interagency Agreement between Pasco School District No. 1 and the City of Pasco.
Page 4 of 6
14. Disputes. In the event that a dispute arises under this agreement, it shall be resolved in the
following manner: The Director of Educational Services of the District shall appoint a member to
the Dispute Board. The Pasco Chief of Police shall appoint a member to the Dispute Board. The
Director of Educational Services and the Pasco Chief of Police shall jointly appoint a third
member to the Dispute Board. That person shall act as chairperson, convene the Dispute Board
and cause a determination of the dispute, arrived at by a majority of the Board, to be rendered in
a timely manner. The determination of the Dispute Board shall be final and binding on the
District and the City,
15. Notices. Any notices required herein or related hereto shall be delivered in writing to the
District at:
Pasco School District No.1
Attn.: Executive Director, Operations
1215 West Lewis Street
Pasco, WA 99301
And to the City at:
Pasco Police Department
Attn: Chief of Police
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
16, All Writings Contained Herein. This agreement contains all the terms and conditions
agreed to by the parties. No understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of
this agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties to this agreement.
Interagency Agreement between Pasco School District No. I and the City of Pasco.
Page 5of6
In Witness whereof, the parties have executed this agreement effective this day of
2011.
City of Pasco: Pasco School District No. 1
Matt Watkins Sherry Lancorn
Mayor, Pro-Tem President, Board of Education
Attest:
Debbie Clark Saundra Hill
City Clerk Superintendent
Approved as to Form
Leland Kerr John Morgan
City Attorney Executive Director, Operations
Sarah Thornton
School District Counsel
Interagency Agreement between Pasco School District No. 1 and the City of Pasco.
Page 6 of 6
2011 Summer School Cost Estimate 051211
Junk: 16 - July 15, 2011 (except July,4, 2011)
ALL SUMMER SCHOOLS
Number of Officers (June 16 - July 15) 2
Hourly Rate with Benefits per Officer $ 55.97
Number of Hours Each School Day 6.5
School Days a@ PHS, CHS, OMS, SMS, NHS 21
Number of Officer Hours (June 16 -July 15) 273
Estimated Cost (June 16 - July 15) $ 15,279.81
ToTAtL COST'POR SUMMER SCHOOL SRO 15,279.81
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council `` June 9, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfi `it M ager Workshop Mtg.: 06,113/11
f
Regular Mtg.: 06/20/11
SUBJECT: Housing Authority
1. REFERENCE(S):
(none)
I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
06/13. Discussion
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY A_ND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city created a public housing authority (PHA) following WWII when the old
Navy facilities (near 4�h and Court) were declared surplus; the housing authority
assumed ownership of the housing facilities and has operated them since. They
have several other smaller housing facilities in the eastem portion of the
community (duplexes and the like), so their housing ownership totals about 300
units (most of them, however, are located at 01 and Court). In addition, the PHA
operates the "Section 8" program (housing vouchers provided by the federal
government and distributed by the housing authority to private land owners on
behalf of low income tenants approved by the housing authority). In 1981, the
city council and Franklin County Commission determined that they should create
a "joint" housing authority (JHA) as authorized by statute, for the ostensible
purpose of improving the ability of the public housing authority to foster creation
of "farm worker housing" in the rural area of the county. Under the JHA, the
Board is composed of 5 members; 2 appointed by the county and 3 appointed by
the city.
B) During the early part of the past decade, the housing authority took several actions
which frustrated or conflicted with city development goals and plans. Some
included: removing prime real estate from the community's tax roll for a housing
authority project without prior city approval; spending nearly one million dollars
to acquire/remodel a building for its new offices more than a mile from the
downtown area despite objection by the city; failing to develop farm worker
housing in the rural area of the county. The conflicts led the city council to
consider dissolution of the housing authority so it could create a new housing
authority with an emphasis on downtown renewal (as authorized by state law).
The JHA obtained a court decision which determined that state law did not
provide for dissolution of a "joint" housing authority, so the city spent the next 2
years obtaining a statutory amendment via the legislature in 2006 to clarify that a
joint housing authority can, indeed, be dissolved,
C) Over the 4 years since the legislative amendment took effect, the city council has
determined to create a separate agency for downtown revitalization (the recently
created Downtown Pasco Development Authority). Thus, creating a new housing
authority combined with downtown renewal is no longer a viable option. Unless
the city council desires to pursue dissolution of the joint housing authority (to
create a new, separate city housing authority), it is now the duty of the Mayor to
make three appointments to the JHA board (all three current members are serving
in expired terms).
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Given the fact that the city has recently created a new organization for downtown
revitalization, and appointment of the majority of the JHA board seats presents
the opportunity for the city council to reduce potential conflicts with the city's
development plans and goals, the preferred option may be to abandon the
dissolution objective in favor of making appointments to the board of the existing
organization.
4(g)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council . 1 June 9, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfia it PNV ager Workshop Mtg.: 06/13/11
Regular Mtg.: 06/20/11
SUBJECT: Reclassification
1. REFERENCE(S):
(none)
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
06113: Discussion
06/20: MOTION: I move to authorize upgrading of one Associate Engineer 11
position to Senior Engineer and include the additional
appropriation in the 2011 supplemental budget.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Approximately $6,000 annually,
1V. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Recent vacancies within the .Engineering Division of the Public Works
Department present an opportunity to realign resourecs to reflect contemporary
needs. In particular, our new Public Works Director desires to improve the
internal professional capacity for transportationAraffic management. Thus, he
requests that a vacant Associate Engineer 1I position be upgraded to that of Senior
Engineer (a Senior Engineer position requires a P.E. license and relevant
experience, whereas the Associate Engineer position does not).
B) The upgrade would increase city costs by approximately $6,000 annually. A
currently vacant CADD position can be held vacant for a couple of months to
absorb the cost increase for the balance of this year; the full annual cost impact
will be realized in the 2012 budget.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Given the growing importance of traffic management, staff urges the cOUmcil to
authorize the proposed upgrade to Senior Engineer.
4(h)