Loading...
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)