HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.07.11 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. July 11,2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Downtown Development Authority Board Interviews:
1. Agenda Repo,.1 from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated July 7, 2011.
2. Applications(6) (Council packets only).
(b) Interlocal Annexation Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated July 6, 2011.
2. Map, Pasco UGA with City Boundary.
3. Map, Current Annexation Opportunities.
4. RCW 35A.14.440.
(c) School Impact Fee-
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated July 8, 2011.
2. Letter from Pasco School District Board to City Council dated January 11, 2011 (with
attachinents).
3. Memorandum from City Manager dated July 7,201 L
(d) Medical Marijuana:
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Duvclopment Director dated
July 6, 201.1.
2. Proposed Resolution.
3. City Attorney Memo dated June 23,2011.
(e) Senior Center Kitchen Lease- Aramark:
1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
July 6, 2011.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a) Sale of Real Estate
{b)
{c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, July 11, Pasco Red Lion -- Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon.
2. 6:00 p.m., Monday, July 11, Conference Room #1 -- Old Fire Pension Board Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK,Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.)
3. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 12, Senior Center — Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN, Alt.)
4. 7:00 a.m., "Thursday, July 14, Cousin's Restaurant, Pasco — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory
Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alta)
5. 11:30 a.m., Friday, July 15, Sandberg Event Center — Benton-Franklin Council of-Governments
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.).
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council t July 7, 2011
PROM: Cary Crutchfi", �anager Workshop Mtg.: 7/11/11
SUBJECT: Downtown Development Authority Board Interviews
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Applications (6) (Council packets only)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/11: Council to conduct brief interviews with Judy Beeler, Ofelia Ochoa, Donald
Porter, Jean Ryckman, Alan Schreiber, and Devi Tate.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) City Council formed the Downtown Development Authority in December 2010
under Ordinance No. 3985, to initiate the creation of a new downtown
revitalization organization. The Pasco Downtown Development Association
(private association) representatives agreed to keep its basic operations in place
(particularly for the farmers market and specialty kitchen) pending the startup of
the new organization.
13) Council has appointed five board members to get the organization started and
solicited for more applicants. Of the 14 applications, the Council Screening
Committee recommended eight applicants be interviewed (two declined due to
changes in their schedules); the following have been invited to be interviewed on
July 1 l:
Judy Beeler............................................................504 N. 6"' Avenue, Pasco
Ofelia Ochoa...........................................................5102 Sinai Drive, Pasco
Donald Porter............................................... 1465 Desert Springs, Richland
Jean Ryckman...................................................3809 Meadow Court, Pasco
Alan Schreiber ..............................................................4001 Mojave, Pasco
Devi T ate.. ...........................7815 W. River Blvd, Pasco
V. DISCUSSION:
A) After conduct of interviews at the July I I workshop meeting, it is proposed that
appropriate appointment(s) be made by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the
Council, at the July 18 business meeting.
4(a)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council �`,q July 6, 201 1
I
FROM: Gary Crutchfi FManager Workshop Mtg.: 7/11/11
Regular Mtg.: 7/18111
SUB.IFCT: Interlocal Annexation Agreement
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Map, Pasco UGA with City Boundary
2. Map, Current Annexation Opportunities
3. RCW 35A.14.480
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/11: Discussion
7/18: MOTION: I move to authorize initiation of the Interlocal Annexation
Agreement process provided by RCW 35A.14.480.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Pasco Urban Growth Area (UGA), as fixed by action of the Franklin County
Commission in the 1990s, includes all land south of Powerline Road, representing
about 30 square miles. All but about two square miles have been incorporated by
the city over the past.20 years (see Reference 1).
B) Annexation has been facilitated largely by the use of"Annexation Agreements,"
signed by property owners at the time of connection to the city's water system (or
purchasers at the time of purchasing homes connected to the city water system) in
the unincorporated area. Once 60% of the assessed value of a given area is
represented by annexation agreements, annexation can occur via passage of an
ordinance by the City Council incorporating the affected area. At present, there
are two portions of the unincorporated "donut hole" that could be annexed,having
at least 60% of their respective value committed via annexation agreements (see
Reference 2)_
C) State law was amended two years ago to provide a mechanism by which areas like
the Pasco donut hole can be more readily annexed by the city surrounding the
donut hole, but only in a fashion which fosters an agreement between the
annexing city and the affected fire district and county (see Reference 3). Use of
such a process (tri-lateral agreement) offers the opportunity to better plan for
annexation through mutual agreement by the involved agencies, rather than use
the old system of"reaction" to the effects, after the fact. It also would eliminate
the need to require property owners to sign agreements or petitions regarding
annexation.
D) The rationale for annexation of the donut hole principally relates to efficiency and
making best use of local tax resources. At present, the city travels through the
donut hole daily to provide services to the balance of the city; Franklin County
and Fire District No. 3 do likewise when providing services to the balance of the
unincorporated areas_ Another factor is that state-shared revenues for cities are
allocated on population at a higher rate than are counties; thus, the Pasco
community will receive an estimated $100,000 annually more from the state than
received presently by the county for the same population.
4(b)
V. DISCUSSION:
A) City staff have shared with Franklin County Fire District #3 the observation that
certain parts of the donut hole could be annexed this year, and suggested the city
and District entertain use of the new local agreement procedure. Preliminary
discussions with District representatives indicate there may be room to reach
mutual agreement on an annexation plan, to include mitigation of potential
impacts; the results would be a path of timely annexation certainty for the city and
of reliable mitigation for the District, in essence a potential "win-win." Staff have
had no discussion with Franklin County as of yet, as the District has historically
been the most affected by annexation.
B) The new statute requires the agreement process to commence formally by the city
giving written notice to the District and the county of its desire to seek a mutual
agreement and providing 45 days for a response. Given the potential positive
outcome, staff would expect detailed discussions to ensue over the next 45-60
days, providing a more-clear picture of the probability associated with this
procedure. if an agreement is not forthcoming, an annexation of the two
immediate areas (Reference 2) could proceed without agreement of the District or
county. If an agreement is expected by year end, staff would recommend its
pursuit. To start the process, staff recommends City Council authorize initiation
of the 45-day notification process.
�7�- 1 - - � �J Erll■er. Hunt
.��liu,�ll,ll�!h�t1,111
3C1:. ■,r f! ■ INl1U1:Ct1,�11tt�
aitnitik J.. IIIO s=�\ i ��!i■iMll aSi }
pill
r���w' c!•arti, _ 1 eu 1 fl•lulnfl�t CIT
u ■u n11 �Jl�.tlll� PASO
�EIl,1 ff -
sfa= it
POW
'S •�Ell � � � �� i
Al I i■., tl 1111 lll�ftl��• �� \.•� �.• 11 , �.���`
v,•;��r4,�it� 1,..iii�� ii ,'1-t.�'� srrr � ��.1.111� 11 �,''����',/�!
.'' ■� I�i, f� , �,/■•��'.�i���l CIIRy�../llli.I�IT,� I ' Il �, �����,%t
ar ul ■irllMltUJ i�� ; r/1MLtuutlu•-1 11; ��/ ,4�
�!� ■ 'nt■,Ia7#■Ut�r+ft•fa�9il�.i�;;�uclrn:7liinnldllul e��1� �q- � 1�j■t�•►•�'I+f+��I �■
���■�,'i_ l�,uul»ul ■.as fal fafsuu��1l��
T 1� tl�anTlluurnlltlM,�=� � �1 �--fir+w.� �'I�f
�G yy""rn'Ita lalr r7�L■■Elr/IIL I!,[,■ s
�•�,�:.;'�ia,»::��t fl�l ���■.711■�Lf��� l�1 •: uN■�lltl�f■ N s\,\. 'I +.. �St•,.{��' �.a��'.
y :11' n�'lull_ ■�� ♦�:=�r : .•� i����r.� ....,il■'al . r•.I+ ,`,. �lt _1^ Mix
m. �t', _. •
1tir1�#ft�n." w ■, 1�Y 11YE r ='�1 '; {,
# +� 41u :�"Gi11 fal .I aS
a I s,�,1�M� i�� ��d ,�tnir!�*■1GT is"', I1 IVls�f f,. 11'n.:ta _ 11r # •..1fs '��- ■ �^
!{ q sy. . r till! r. ■r• 1 ■`liff<d _ry
`■
.s 4 M_ ;«. �i~=rL Ala �M ° - �r 1■ r�� '1"'� ;f • �� 1 wl ilii �`._
�•'�... �'., -So�?.:j wrd s f" all;lttr u��e■ :fit - Y.ti, ' y" •: .- ,i ��� —►Il[•�1, ill � , r
� .r"'�y�m� wul'° r_` ��j 1� ilrn :'I �• r'ta �
.�...•-y�+,�1�;i�t.l,u!.w � r,,�,z� i�j'� t�+�l,+a<�a'.` �~ - � �i'� \�1`rl1�l�.. '<i��� //�
i � /� ■ ry!1 - - ��.Z,`.� ,.s py ✓!,/r Itt l'. .: _ nliUw7 ,
�='�� ��. �r`�i���-�• salt �. .i � .rnl��r. .,�s t■,fi�► � ..�
its• ':� �� a 1�•�; was Ii1 1..
AM
Cuffent Annexati* 0 Opportu 'ties
11 I
ff�r:R'1�
s
■1��'�■I l! ■ fl "11r1fuu""lQf1t1l�� � � r ■� ■�l11 r!1 �i��»�u�\ _ ��sA■
;, �'-i111��■ �,�,�I�rlllll r/•� -- - - `��';•■••,• 11 Cil'It!Cillgfl,■11��!►r ■U.
a rr r r*
�;.ii�• ■■li■liill�l�� ■�':tllti Diu uti��lli+= __
�� �� '_w','■�■1I�'+.■���tli•�—r+•� ■ ;■,Illlftl■f■Ifllllll„r:
�■r,r` 1111
!tI1M!! Y ��=��� L��■■I� �;r�Ls,��: „”�lllllfi iC■ is
Li'�i!1!1 tllgl{f17�tl1 r.,��► era� ■�71�� � q
!r �HKI! �� � C=' fir r, �` ..c 1��■■�■" tilt■
'r �ttttl■tIL■11■�1r�"s �/ �sv.� rr. )� tlll
el/� "�_ � IlIf1�; ■I� � rya �•����,� i�+�,�lill:
I
Legend
Southeast Northwest Area
Area
RCW 35A.14.480: Annexation of'territory served by fire districts —interlocal agreement.., Page 1 of 1
RCW 35A.14.480
Annexation of territory served by fire districts—Interlocal agreement process.
(1)(a)An annexation by a code city proposing to annex territory served by one or more fire protection districts may be
accomplished by ordinance after entering into an interlocal agreement as provided in chapter 39.34 RCW with the county and
the fire protection district or districts that have jurisdiction over the territory proposed for annexation.
(b)A code city proposing to annex territory shall initiate the interlocal agreement process by sending notice to the fire
protection district representative and county representative stating the code city's interest to enter into an interlocal agreement
negotiation process. The parties have forty-five days to respond in the affirmative or negative, A negative response must state
the reasons the parties do not wish to participate in an interlocal agreement negotiation.A failure to respond within the forty-
five day period is deemed an affirmative response and the interlocal agreement negotiation process may proceed.The
interlocal agreement process may not proceed if any negative responses are received within the forty-five day period.
(c)The interlocal agreement must describe the boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation and must be consistent
with the boundaries identified in an ordinance describing the boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation and setting a
date for a public hearing on the ordinance. If the boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation are agreed to by all
parties, a notice of intention must be filed with the boundary review board created under RCW 36.93.030. However,the
jurisdiction of the board may not be invoked as described in RCW 36.93.100 for annexations that are the subject of such
agreement.
(2) An interlocal annexation agreement under this section must include the following:
(a)A statement of the goals of the agreement, Goals must include, but are not limited to:
(i) The transfer of revenues and assets between the fire protection district and the code city;
(ii) A consideration and discussion of the impact to the level of service of annexation on the unincorporated area, and an
agreement that the impact on the ability of fire protection and emergency medical services within the incorporated area must
not be negatively impacted at least through the budget cycle in which the annexation occurs;
(iii)A discussion with ire protection districts regarding the division of assets and its impact to citizens inside and outside the
newly annexed area;
(iv) Community involvement, including an agreed upon schedule of public meetings in the area or areas proposed for
annexation;
(v) Revenue sharing, if any;
(vi) Debt distribution;
(vii) Capital facilities obligations of the code city, county, and fire protection districts;
(viii)An overall schedule or plan on the timing of any annexations covered under this agreement; and
(ix)A description of which of the annexing code cities' development regulations will apply and be enforced in the area.
(b)The subject areas and policies and procedures the parties agree to undertake in annexations. Subject areas may
include, but are not limited to:
(i) Roads and traffic impact mitigation;
(ii) Surface and storm water management;
(iii) Coordination and timing of comprehensive plan and development regulation updates;
(iv) Outstanding bonds and special or improvement district assessments;
(v)Annexation procedures;
(vi) Distribution of debt and revenue sharing for annexation proposals, code enforcement, and inspection services;
(vii) Financial and administrative services; and
(viii) Consultation with other service providers, including water-sewer districts, if applicable.
(c)A term of at least five years,which may be extended by mutual agreement of the code city,the county, and the fire
http://apps.leg,wa.govhcwldefatllt.�lspx?cite=35A.14.480 6/13/2011
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council (I July 8, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 7/1 111 1
SUBJECT: School Impact iee
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Letter from Pasco School District Board to City Council dated January 11, 20l 1
(with attachments)
2. Memorandum from City Manager dated July 7, 2011
[1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7111: Discussion toward consensus/action
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In January of this year, the Pasco School District addressed to the city council its
formal request that a "impact fee" be established by the city (and county), to
address the growing problem of insufficient school capacity. After discussion by
the city council in late February, a council committee (composed of Messrs.
Yenney, Martinez and Hoffman) was assiglied to meet with representatives of the
district and Franklin County, to detennine if there was a common conclusion to be
reached. Following two such meetings, Franklin County representatives indicated
the county would not consider an impact fee until the district had first exercised
all other options available to it. Council committee members determined that
further committee meetings would be fruitless but concluded the matter should be
presented to the full council for deliberation.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff has prepared a brief (reference 2) to help focus council discussion of the
district's request.
4(c)
* ,.-Pasco School District #1
PASCO CITY HALL
Er,EIVED
C.L.Booth Education Service Center
4` k 1215 W.Lewis Street•Pasco,Washington 99301 J1s�r\l i 8 20 1
YCIIHOOL�� Board of Directors 509 546-2801 a FAX 509 543-6781
ISTRICI'#1 t 1 � 1
OFFICE
January 11, 2011
Franklin County Board of Commissioners Mayer and Paso City Council Members
1016 North 4"'Ave 525 North P Ave
Pasco, WA 99301-3706 Pasco, WA 99301
Honorable Commissioners, Mayor and Council Members:
As Directors of the Pasco School District, we are writing to inform you of the difficult
situation our District has been facing and to request your support in addressing it. Our
community has experienced significant growth for the past several years. The Pasco
School District has grown 4% to 7% every year for the past ten years. Student
enrollment has increased by over 6,200 students (71%) during that time, or an average of
624 students a year for ten years, which is enough to fill a new school every year. While
we support a vibrant community, we are at a point where the District does not have space
in its schools to serve families from new development. The District needs new
development that places demands on the school facilities to contribute to a portion of'the
cost for schools.
The Washington Growth Management Act requires Franklin County and the City of
Pasco to plan for growth. Your Comprehensive Land Use Plans must ensure public
facilities and services will be in place to serve new development. Public facilities and
services include schools and public education. To ensure schools and public education
are available to serve students from new development, we encourage Franklin County
and the City of Pasco to adopt the Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan and
adopt a school impact fee ordinance.
We understand these are tough economic times and the imposition of school impact fees
may be unpopular with some of the people or organizations we are all elected to
represent. At the same time, we have outgrown our ability to continue providing schools
without requiring the development that will be served by the schools to contribute to the
costs.
Requiring developers to pay a portion of the costs for schools ensures everyone that
benefits by quality schools contributes to the costs. When developers do not pay school
impact fees, the entire cost for new schools is paid by taxpayers. These are the same
taxpayers that have already paid taxes for new schools. We have heard from taxpayers
that they are no longer willing to bear the entire financial burden of paying for schools
Equal Opportunity Employer
when the schools are needed to serve new development. They want new development to
contribute to the cost; or they want growth to pay its fair share.I
In light of situation the Pasco School District is in, and given requirements in state law to
ensure school facilities are available to serve new development, we adopted the enclosed
resolution. As reflected in the resolution, we adopted the 2010-2016 Pasco School
District Capital Facilities Plan, which includes impact fees as a source of funding that is
needed to pay a portion of the costs for schools that are needed to serve growth. The
Capital Facilities Plan and a sample school impact fee ordinance also are enclosed. We
would like our staff to work with your staff to bring these matters before your Planning
Commissions and before the Board of County Commissioners and City Council for
formal action.
If Franklin County and/or the City of Pasco are unwilling to adopt the District's Capital
Facilities Plan and a school impact fee ordinance, the Pasco School District will be
requesting that the County and City refuse to approve new residential developments
unless the developers have mitigated the impacts their development have on schools.
Depending on the size of the proposed development, developers may be asked to dedicate
property for a school site, construct school facilities (including but not limited to
portables), or pay the costs the District will incur for the property and facilities that are
needed to serve the proposed development, While we would prefer to have developers
mitigate their impacts through the payment of school impact fees, if that is not an action
the County and/or City is willing to take, we will be forced to request other mitigation
measures; we simply don't have capacity in our schools and must receive assistance from
developers.
Recently the District requested notice of every proposed residential development in the
County and City. By this letter, and through comments we will submit in response to
notice of proposed residential developments, the District is notifying the County and City
that new residential development will have a significant adverse impact on schools
(which are capital facilities that must be addressed under the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA)). To satisfy legal requirements under SEPA,residential
developers will need to mitigate the impacts their proposed development have on schools.
Under the State Subdivision Act, the County and City cannot approve residential
subdivisions unless you find there are "adequate provisions for schools." The District is
notifying the County and City that without impact fees or mitigation under SEPA, there
are not adequate previsions for schools.
'Some in our community have suggested new development pays its way because new development
generates sales tax and increases the average assessed value(AAV)of property. School districts do not
receive sales tax revenue to pay for school facilities. School districts also do not receive additional funds
when the AAV of property in the district increases. Instead,the amount of money a school district
receives for school facilities is the fixed amount of the bond measure,which must be approved by 60%of
the voters. When new development occurs,the amount approved in the bond measure is paid for by
more taxpayers, which means existing taxpayers pay less but the District receives the same fixed amount
and no more.
Celebrating academics, diversity an d innovation.
We appreciate your consideration of the District's request and would be happy to
participate in a work session to discuss the issues the District is facing, the enclosed
Capital Facilities Plan and solutions that will address our mutual needs. If you would
like to schedule a work session, or if you have questions,please contact Superintendent
Saundra Hill at 509.546,2800.
We look forward to notice of the date and time when our request will be formally
considered.
Sincerely,
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Sherry Lanco President William V. eggett, ice President
"tu
l ..
Jeffrey Dong, Mernber Pete Felsted, Member
r X j!JJ/r/n•
V
ohn Hergert, Memb r
Encl. Capital Facilities Plan
Draft impact fee ordinance
Pasco School Board Resolution 809: Impact Fees
c: Saundra L. Hill, Superintendent
Fred Bowen, County Administrator
Cary Crutchfield, City Manager
Celebrating academics, divers t}7 and innovation.
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2010 - 2016
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Sherry Lancon, President
William Leggett, Vice President
Jeffery Dong, Member
Pete Felsted, Member
John Hergert, Member
SUPERINTENDENT
Saundra L. Hill
Adopted by the Pasco School District No. 1 Board
December, 2010
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 1 of 12
August, 2010
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan
Washington land use and environmental laws include schools in the category of public facilities and
services that cities and counties must plan for. When new development places demands on
schools, cities, counties and developers must ensure school facilities are adequate to
accommodate the additional demands. School districts adopt capital facilities plans to assist
counties and cities address legal requirements to ensure adequate school facilities will exist to
serve new development. The capital facility plans identify school facilities that are necessary to
meet the educational needs of the growing student populations.
The Pasco School District has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the "CFP")to provide the
community, Franklin County, the City of Pasco and developers' information regarding the District's
facilities and forecast needs for the next six years (2010-2016).
In accordance with capital facilities planning under the Growth Management Act, this CFP contains
the following elements:
The District's standard of service, or educational program standards which is based on
program year, class size by grade span, number of classrooms, types of facilities and
other factors identified by the District.
• An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and
capacities of the facilities, based on the District's standard of service.
• Future enrollment forecasts for elementary, middle, and high schools.
A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites based on the District's
enrollment projections.
• The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities over the next six years
based on the inventory of existing facilities and the standard of service.
• The cost for needed facilities and the plan for financing capital facilities within projected
funding capacities.
A school impact fee calculation identifying the amount single-family and multi-family
developers should pay to mitigate the impacts new construction of single-family and
multi-family homes has on the District.
B. Overview of the Pasco School District
The Pasco School District serves students in the City of Pasco and in unincorporated Franklin
County. The Pasco community is experiencing accelerating growth. Pasco is bordered by six other
school districts: North Franklin, Star, Columbia, Finley, Kennewick, and Richland.
The District serves over 14,000 students. The District has one (1)early learning center, six (6)
elementary schools serving K-5, five (5) elementary schools serving grades 1-5, three (3) middle
schools serving grades 6-8, and two (2) high schools serving grades 9-12,
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 2 of 13
October, 2010
The most significant issues facing the District in terms of providing classroom capacity to
accommodate existing and projected demands are:
6 K-12 facility needs have been projected For the short and long term. Presently, the
elementary and middle schools are housing students in excess of capacity.
E Providing the educational programs that are either required by the state and federal
government, or that are desired by the public for quality education, requires additional
facility space. For example, to provide all day kindergarten or programs for younger
children to prepare for kindergarten, the District must find additional Facility space. The
District is able to provide all-day kindergarten for its five downtown elementary schools
at Captain Gray. However, there isn't facility capacity to provide all-day kindergarten at
its remaining six elementary schools.
V The District is expected to experience significant growth in Franklin County and the City
of Pasco is processing permits for new residential development. This growth is of
concern in light of the overcrowding and inadequate capacity at the existing schools.
• The District has a limited history of passing capital project bonds and must obtain a
super majority vote to secure the funds that are necessary to build new schools.
+ Assessed property values in Franklin County are relatively low, which limits the districts
bonding capacity and increases the tax burden on district patrons. This makes it more
difficult to obtain the voters approval on bond measures.
• There is a shortage of large parcels that are suitable as school sites and as growth
continues to occur there will be fewer suitable sites to acquire at prices the District's
taxpayers will support.
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required
to accommodate the District's adopted educational program. The role that quality education plays
in growing a strong local economy is vital. In order to accomplish the community value of having a
strong local economy, schools must have quality facilities. These facilities serve as the supporting
space for developing the whole child within a community to prepare them for a competitive global
economy. The educational program standards which typically drive needs for educational space for
students include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program
offerings, supplemental program offerings, specialty spaces, classroom utilization and scheduling
requirements.
In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining agreements,
government mandates, and community expectations affect classroom space requirements. Space
is necessary for regular classrooms, the fine and performing arts, physical education, special
education, Title I, Highly Capable, bilingual education, technological applications, computer labs,
preschool and daycare programs, and other specialized programs. Space must be provided for
common areas such as media centers, cafeterias, kitchens, and auditoriums. Space is needed for
groups of students/staff to work together. These programs can have a significant impact on the
available student capacity within school facilities. Further, the community expects all spaces to be
well utilized during the school day and available after the school day for public use.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 3 of 13
October, 2010
A. District Educational Program Standards:
Core program includes the following;
o Core classroom space for all curriculum areas which includes space for group learning, directed
instruction, and individual student work to meet the rigors set forth in state standards.
Science classroom space that supports advanced coursework (including water, sinks, gas,
hoods, safety equipment). Students must achieve rigorous state mandated science standards,
This requires specialty space that is not met by adding portables. High school and middle
school science lab space is a high priority.
Physical education space is needed to for students to meet rigorous health and fitness
standards. This includes covered areas, fields, gymnasiums, and other multi-use spaces.
Technological competency is expected for all students. Space must be allocated for
technological equipment and applications in classrooms and specialty spaces. Square footage
for this equipment and its infrastructure is not calculated in current state allowances, but must
be provided.
Art, music, and theatre arts spaces are critical to the core program for students. Spaces are
necessary to adequately meet the rigorous standards of these state required programs.
Library/Media services (research, technology, collaboration) and space must be provided for
students to achieve the rigors in the core program. In information driven environment, student
access to information through appropriately sized library/media spaces is essential.
• Extra-curricular activities need adequate space in order to safely support program activities.
Special services are essential to meet the needs of special populations.
• Special Education services are delivered at each of the schools within the District. Program
standards and services vary based on the handicapping conditions of the students and their
individual education plan (IEP). Implementing each student's IEP often requires large and small
specialty spaces, which the District must provide, Program standards change as a result of
various external or internal influences. External influences include changing federal mandates,
funding changes, and the introduction of new technological applications which meet the needs
of students. Internal influences include modifications to the program year, class size, grade
configurations, and facility changes.
• Special populations receive special support. Specialty space is essential to delivery of this
support. Federal and state programs, including Title 'I Reading and Math, Highly Capable,
Bilingual, are limitedly funded. These resources do not include the expense of adding facilities
to support them.
• Early Childhood programs are essential educational programs to develop early childhood
literacy skills, and vital to the community. These programs require specialty space which is not
funded by the state.
. Supplementary services in core academic areas (tutoring, on-line learning) and providing
multiple pathways to prepare students for a broader range of post-secondary learning
opportunities require additional spaces that have not been calculated in current state square
footage allowance formulas.
Support services are often overlooked services and are essential to a quality educational program.
• Food service delivery, storage, preparation, and service require spaces that are specialty
designed and equipped also need specific attention. As student populations increase,
adequately calculating space needs for this core service is crucial to the overall planning of the
facility. Adequacy in planning for this space has significant impacts on the overall learning
environment for students if not done appropriately.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 4 of 13
October, 2010
Transportation support centers are required to handle growing transportation needs.
c Maintenance support facilities must also be considered and are often overlooked as core
support services,
E Administrative support facilities must also be considered and are often overlooked as core
support services.
B. Elementary Educational Program Standards
The District educational program standards, which directly affect school capacity, include:
i Class sizes for grades K-1 are targeted not to exceed 25 students per class.
C Class sizes for grades 2-5 are targeted not to exceed 29 students per class.
• Music will be provided in separate classrooms.
• Physical education instruction must be provided in a full size area.
E Special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for some children, while
others need highly specialized services.
• The elementary school classroom utilization standard is set at a factor of 85% (based on a
regular school day).
• Chapter I and LAP programs require specialized areas similar to regular classrooms.
All elementary schools will have a library/media resource center, which includes space for a
technology lab.
Computer labs wilt be available for all students.
+ A specialized science lab for grades 4-6 will be available.
C. Middle and High School Program Standards
The District education programs standards, which directly affect middle school and high school
capacity include:
• Class sizes for 61h grade are targeted not to exceed 26 students per class.
• Class sizes for grades 7-8 are targeted not to exceed 32 students per class
• Class sizes for high school grades 9-12 are targeted not to exceed 25 students.
• The middle and high school classroom utilization standard is set at a factor of 85% (based on a
regular school day).
• Special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for some children, while
others need highly specialized spaces.
• Students will also be provided other programs in classrooms or specialty classrooms, such as
computer labs, individual and large group study rooms, practice labs and production rooms.
• Media Central/Library
• Vocational education requires specialized spaces suited to the curriculum.
SECTION 3
CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to
accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable levels of service. This section
provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools,
portables, undeveloped land and support facilities. School facility capacity was inventoried based
on the space required to accommodate the District's educational program standards.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 5 of 13
October, 2010
A. Schools
The District maintains one (1) early learning center, six (6) elementary schools serving K-5, five (5)
elementary schools serving grades 1-5, three (3) middle schools serving grades 6-8, two (2) high
schools serving grades 9-12. The District also operates an alternative program for middle and high
school students in portable facilities,
School capacity is determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building and
the space requirements of the District's current educational programs, This capacity calculation is
used to establish the District's baseline capacity, and to determine future capacity needs based on
projected student enrollment. Because the District believes educational programs are best delivered
in brick and mortar facilities, portables provide temporary capacity and are not included in the
District's permanent capacity. The school capacity inventory is summarized in Tables 1, 2. and 3.
Table 1 – Elementary School Inventory
Early Learning Location Yr 8uiltl Acres Bldg Area Teaching Permanent
Center , Remodel sq ft Stations* 1 Capacity
ica"tain Gray K 1102—N. 10 Ave ' 1984 8.6 47 478 22 550
Elementary Schools ,
Edwin Markham 4031 Elm Rd 1962/1984 12 34,898 13 353
games McGee 4601 N Horizon Dr 1981 14 44,774 20 552
Mark Twain 1801 Road 40 1953/1999 15 52,7 5 18 498
Maya An elou 6001 Road 84 i 2004 13 59,630 27 747
Ruth Livingston 2515 Road 84 1977 1 14 44,717 20 1 556
Whittier 616 N Wehe Ave 1998 16 46,845 1 19 527
Elementary Schools
Emerson 1616 W Octave St 1997 8.6 46,845 22 614
Longfellow 301 N 10`'Ave 1989 6 44,325 20 552
Robert Frost 1915 N 22" Ave 1997 10.6 46,845 20 552
Rowena Chess 715 N 24` Ave 2000 11 49,360 635
Vir ie Robinson 125 S Wehe Ave 1 2005 1 13 59,630 1 ff 24 660
TOTAL 578,072 6,796
Table 2– Middle School Inventory
Middle Schools Location Yr Built/ Acrldg Area Teaching Permanent
es B
(6-81 Remodel sq ft Stations* Capacity'"
Ellen Ochoa 1801 E Sheppard St 2002 36 115,029 30 770
McLoughlin 2803 Road 88 1982 24.5 133.161 37 913
Stevens 1120 N 22`1 Ave 1960/1984 24.5 91,934 28 715
Discovery 3110 Argent Road All inventory in portables
TOTAL 340,124 1 95 2,398
Pasco School District Capital FacilAies Plan
Page 6 of 13
October, 2010
Table 3— High School Inventory
High Schools Location Yr Built) Acres Bldg Area Teaching Permanent
9-12 Remodel Sq ft Stations* Ca acit **
Pasco High School 1108 N 10t Avenue 1953/1993 34 255,992 86 1,827
Chiawana HS 8125 W. Argent 2009 80 337,703 102 2,167
New Horizons 3110 Argent Road All inventory in ortables
TOTAL 1 593,695 1 188 3,994
*Rooms such as music rooms,special education rooms, ELL rooms,LAP rooms,library, computer labs and science rooms,advanced
placement rooms, and similar rooms that are used for special programs have been included in the number of teaching stations reported
above. However, there are 35 teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the elementary schools which cannot be used to
serve the standard class size of 26 to 29 students, There are 29 teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the middle
schools,which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 26 to 32 students. There are 9 teaching stations that are used to deliver
special programs in the high schools,which cannot be usec to serve the standard class size of 25 students. The number of teaching stations
excludes portables.
*' Perm anent capacity is calculated by multiplying the number of teaching stations times the students/classroom defined in the educational
standards,times the 85%efficiency factor that applies in the middle and high school. The efficiency factor recognizes the time teaching
stations are not used due to circumstances such as teacher planning periods.
B. Portables
Portables are used on an interim basis to house students until funding can be secured to construct
permanent facilities, The inventory of portables includes temporary facilities that are used as
regular teaching stations, special programs and other educational purposes.
Table 4 — Portables Inventory
School Portables Classrooms School Portables Ciassroorns
Elementary Middle
Edwin Markham 1 2 Ellen Ochoa 3 6
Emerson 1 1 McLoughlin 11 22
,fames McGee* 10 16 Stevens 5 10
Longfellow 4 4 Discovery 4 4
Mark Twain 4 ! 4 Total Middle 23 42**
Maya An elou 3 1 6
Robert Frost 3 3
Vir ie Robinson* 1 2 High
Rowena Chess 2 3 1 Pasco High 20 27
Ruth Livingston 9 11 i New Horizons 4 8
Whittier 4 7 Total High 24 35**
Captain Gray 3 6
Total Elem 45 64**
'Includes portables that will be added in the summer of 2010 to serve 2011 forecast needs
—Thirty one of the portable elementary school classrooms and two of the portable middle school classrooms are used for special
vrograms.
C. Support Facilities
In addition to schools, the District owns and operates facilities that provide operational support
functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is provided in Table 5.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 7 of 13
October, 2010
Table 5 - Support Facility Inventory
Facility Location Building Area - sq ft
Booth Bldg 1 District Office 1215 W Lewis Street 55,000
Building 210 / M & O 3412 W Stearman Avenue 28,000
D. Land Inventory
The District owns three undeveloped parcels, The first parcel is approximately 18 acres (Road
48152), The second parcel is approximately 13 acres (Road 60 and Sandifur). The third parcel is
40.88 acres (Road 52 and Power Line Road).
SECTION 4
STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
A. Projected Student Enrollment
The District's enrollment projections are based on an estimate by the Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction (OSPI). OSPI estimates future enrollment for all Washington State school
districts. OSPI uses a modified cohort survival methodology to forecast future enrollment. This
methodology estimates how many students in one year will attend the next grade the following year
by looking at historical date. The methodology also forecast how many new kindergarten students
will enroll based on the number of live births in the county and historical averages for the number of
children that enter kindergarten relative to the number of live births. The enrollment forecast is
more accurate in the earlier years and less accurate in later years.
TABLE 6- ENROLLMENT FORECAST
Grade 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
K 1 ,267 1,337 1,399 1 ,460 1,522 1 ,583 1,645 1,709
1 1 ,319 1,348 1,422 1 ,488 1,553 1 ,619 1,684 1,743
2 1,199 1,366 1,396 1,473 1,541 1,609 1,187 1,751
3 1,247 1,247 1,421 1,452 1,532 1,603 1,674 1 ,744
4 1,181 1,283 1,283 1,461 1,493 1,576 1,649 1,724
5 1,170 1,209 1,313 1,313 1,495 1,528 1,613 1,682
Total Elem 7,383 7,790 ; 8,234 8,647 9,136 9,518 9,942 10,353
6 1,141 1,192 1,232 1,338 1,338 1,523 1,557 1,645
7 1,041 1,172 1 ,225 1,266 1,375 1,375 1,565 1,603
8 1,019 1,064 1 ,198 1,252 1,294 1,405 1,405 1 ,596
Total Mid 3,201 3,428 3,655 3,856 4,007 4,303 4,527 4,844
9 1,468 1 1,492 1,557 1,754 1,833 1,894 2,056 2,051
10 968 1,007 1,023 1,068 1,203 1,257 1,299 1,414
11 759 790 8,22 835 872 982 1,026 1,065
12 658 699 727 757 769 803 904 1,118
Total High 3,853 3,988 4,1129 4414 4,677 4,936 5,285 5,648
TOTAL 14,437 15,206 16,018 16,917 17,820 18,757 19,754 20,845
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 8 of 13
October, 2010
SECTION 5
CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS
A. Facility Needs
Facility needs are derived by subtracting existing capacity from the existing and forecast enrollment,
The District's current capacity, its educational programs, standard of service and enrollment
forecast are used to determine its facility needs, Existing needs are derived by subtracting the
current capacity from the students that are currently enrolled. The six year needs equal the
forecast enrollment in 2016 minus the existing capacity, or the current needs plus the needs to
serve increased student enrollment attributed to growth.
As shown in Table 7 below, by 2016 the District needs to add capacity to serve 3,357 elementary
school students, 2,446 middle school students and 1,654 high school students.
Table 7 — Enrollment, Capacity and Needs
Facilities 2016 Enrollment Current 2016 Facility Needs
Capacity
I
Elementary (K-5) 10,353 6,796 3,557
I
Middle (6-8) 4,844 2,398 2,446
High (9-12) 5,648 3,994 1,654
Totals 20,845 13,188 7,657
To serve the forecast 20,845 students, the District needs to construct four 750 student
elementary schools, two 1,250 student middle schools and it must add capacity for approximately
1,600 high school students. The District's existing need is to construct elementary capacity for
994 students and middle school capacity for 1,030 students. The existing needs are identified
and used as the baseline for determine existing deficiencies in this and future Capital Facility
Plans.
B. Planned Improvements
To serve the forecast growth, the District will construct needed facilities in phases. In the first
phase, the District will construct one 750 student elementary school and one 1,250 student
middle school. The District also will make facility improvements that are not needed to serve
forecast growth but are needed to serve existing students.
While the phase 1 improvements are being constructed, the District will start working on financing
for up to three additional 750 student elementary schools and a second 1,250 student middle
school. When the elementary and middle school capacity needs are addressed, the District will
look at adding capacity at the high schools for approximately 1,600 students.
The additional capacity and costs for the planned improvements is shown in Table B.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 9 of 13
October, 2010
Table 8 — Added Facility Capacity and Costs
Needed Facility Improvements Additional Capacity Total Cost
PHASE 9
New ElernantaEy School 750 $26,836,900
New Middle School 1250 $60,318,540
Facility Site Needs 0 $$5,100,000
Structural Needs 0 $525,000
HVAC Needs 0 $1,500,000
Energy Efficiencies 0 $700,000
Portables 0* $2,500,000
PHASE 2
Three New Elementary Schools 2,250 $80,510,700`y
New Middle School 1,250 $60,318,540
PRASE 3
High School Expansion 1,600 L $72,240,000*`Y
'Portables provide temporary capacity to house and serve students as growth occurs. They do not provide
permanent capacity and therefore,they are not listed as providing additional capacity. A portion of the cost for
portables is not attributed to growth because new development that generates growth is being charged a portion
of the cost for the permanent facilities that are needed to serve that growth. This Capital Facilities Plan does,
however,include portables as they will be needed to serve students. School Impact fees may be used to pay a
portion of the cost for portables that are necessary to serve growth.
The cost for schools in future phases is a conservative estimate using the cost to construct the phase 1
schools.The cost for inflation has not been Included. It will be captured when this CFP is updated.
The cost to add capacity for 1,600 high school students is conservative and is based on an estimate of$301
per sq ft with 150 sq K per student.
In 2016, the enrollment forecast projects that the District will be serving 20,845 students. Table 9
shows the current capacity, the added capacity for the planned improvements, the total capacity
and the forecast enrollment. As shown in Table 9, when all the planned improvements are
constructed the District will have permanent capacity to serve 20,288 students.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 10 of 13
October, 2010
Table 9 — Planned Capacity and Forecast Enrollment
Total Planned Forecast
Facility Current Capacity Capacity
Added Capacity Enrollment
6,796 3,000 9,796 10,353
Elementary K-5 l
Middle (6-8) 2,398 2,500 4,898 4,844
High (9-12) 3,994 1,600 5,594 5,648
TOTAL 13,188 7,100 20,288 20,845
The District's ability to fund the planned improvements that will add capacity is dependent upon the
passage of bond issues and capital construction funds from the state.
SECTION 6
CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
A. planned Improvements
Planned improvements include the construction of four elementary schools, two middle schools and
expansions at the high schools to serve approximately 1,600 students, The District also needs to
acquire school facility sites and must make a variety of improvements that are needed at existing
facilities. When the planned improvements are constructed there will be permanent capacity for 21,288
students.
B. Financing for Planned Improvements
'I. General Obligation Bonds
Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital improvement projects. A
60% voter approval is required to approve the issuance of bonds. Bonds are then retired through
collection of property taxes. The District must pass a bond since it is the primary source of funding for
the capital improvements listed in this plan.
2. State Capital Construction Funds
State Capital Construction funds come from the Common School Construction Fund ("the fund").
Bonds are sold on behalf of the Fund, and then retired from revenues accruing predominantly from the
sale of timber from the common school lands. If these sources are insufficient, the Legislature can
appropriate funds or the State Board of Education can change the standards. School districts may
quaiify for state match funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization ;system. Based on the
District's assessed valuation per student and the formula in the state regulations, the District is currently
eligible for state match funds for new schools at a level of approximately 86%.
3. Impact or Mitigation Fees
Impact or mitigation fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of
public facilities needed to accommodate new development. School impact fees or SEPA mitigation
fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at the time plats are approved or building permits
are issued. Improvements that do not add capacity and that are constructed to existing schools to serve
existing enrollment, are not included in impact fee or mitigation fee calculations, The existing needs
and deficiencies are excluded from the cost that is attributed to growth because impact and mitigation
fees cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 11 of 13
October, 2010
C. Six-Year Financing Plan
Table 10 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school
facilities in the first phase of the Capital Facility Plan. A similar financing plan will be prepared for
improvements that are planned for phase 2 and phase 3 once the improvements in phase 1 are under
construction. The financing components include a bond issue, state match funds, and impact or
mitigation fees. Projects or portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate
for impact fees or mitigation fees. Thus, fees collected from new developers will not be used to finance
projects or portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies,
Table 10- Capital Facilities Financing Plan
Added Unsecured Funds
Project Capacity cost Bonds State Match— Impact Fees—
New Elementary School 750 $26,836,900 $8,991,292 $15,970,608 $1,875,000
New Middle School 1,250 $60,318,540 $21,727,771 $29,965.769 $8,625,OOC
Facility Sites 0 $5,'00,000 $5,100,000 $0 $0
Existing Facility Improvements 0 $2,725,000 $2,725,000 $0 $0
Portables 0' $2,500,000 $0 $0 $2,500,000
TOTAL 2,800 $97,480,440 $38,544,063 $45,936,377 $13,000,000
The district does not include temporary capacity that is provided in portables in its permanent capacity,or added capacity, calculations,
This number is an estimate of state match and is subject to verification by OSPI,
""This number is an estimate that assumes housing development will occur at a rate similar to what has been experienced the past six years
and impact fees in the amount of at least $5,200 will be collected from builders for every new housing unit.
SECTION 7
SCHOOL IMPACT OR MITIGATION FEES
The GNiA authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement funding of additional public facilities
needed to accommodate new development, The State Environmental Policy Act requires mitigation of
impacts new devetopment has on schools and the State Subdivision Act requires there be adequate
provision of schools prior to approving subdivisions. Impact fees or mitigation fees address these legal
requirements. They cannot be used for the operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of
existing capital facilities used to meet existing service demands,
A. Fee Calculations
Franklin County and the City of Pasco have not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. However, the
District's Capital Facility Plan addresses the forecast growth, which the City and County must plan for,
and identifies the need to collect fees to address a portion of the cost the District will incur to build
facilities to serve growth.
The fees have been calculated using a standard school impact fee formula that is authorized by the
Growth Management Act and adopted in Washington counties and cities, The fees, calculated as
shown in attached Appendix A, are based on the District's cost per dwelling unit to construct new
elementary and middle schools to add capacity to serve new development. Construction costs do not
include that portion of the total cost to build new schools that is being incurred to serve unhoused
students (to remedy existing deficiencies). Credits have been applied in calculating the fees to account
for future state match funds the District could receive and projected future property taxes that will be
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 12 of 13
October, 2010
paid by the owner of the uwelling unit. The fees have been discounted by 15% to minimize the impacts
the fees may have on new development and'ensure new development is not paying more than its fair
share. The relatively high number of students living in multi-family units and comparatively low amount
of property taxes the owners of multi-family developments pay for school facilities produces a
calculated multi-family fee amount that is higher than the single family fee amount. To avoid placing an
undue burden on multi-family housing by charging a higher fee, the District is requesting the same
amount be paid for multi-family units as is paid for single family homes.
B. District's Proposed Fees
The District requests collection of school impact or mitigation fees in the amounts of:
Single Family: $6,012
Multi-Family: $5,272
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 13 of 13
October, 2010
BEFORE THE IP r>l ] MY�1 �, if� POIJ! `9r
COMM#SS11WER F,FRl Ili QQW", WASHINGTON
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW )
CHAPTER OW OF THE tM'1i11tq- 1 )
ONNTY] CODE ESTABLISHING A }
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND )
ADOPTING PARTICIPATING SCHOOL )
DISTRICTS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS ) ORDINANCE NO.
AND IMPACT FEES, INCORPORATING )
THEM INTO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES )
ELEMENT OF THE fPF f�A4�01 }
COMPREHENSIVE }
LAND USE PLAN, PURSUANT TO THE }
PROVISION IN CHAPTERQi( }
WHEREAS, the State of Washington enacted the Growth Management
Act in 1990 amending RCW 82.02 to authorize the collection of school impact
fees from new development under specified conditions, including the adoption of
a GMA Comprehensive Plan as defined in RCW 36.70A;
WHEREAS, [Franklin County/ the City of Pasco] has adopted a GMA
Comprehensive Plan with the most recent update adopted in XXXX;
WHEREAS, the Lewis County Comprehensive Plan includes a Capital
Facilities Element;
WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Element applies to public facilities,
including public K-12 schools;
WHEREAS, development activity creates additional demands and needs
for public K-12 school facilities;
WHEREAS, state law requires the demands and impacts associated with
new development be mitigated and prohibits approval of subdivisions unless
there are adequate provisions for schools;
WHEREAS, the most equitable method for new development to mitigate
impacts on schools is to have new development pay a proportionate share of the
cost for public K-12 school facilities that are needed to serve new growth and
development through the assessment of school impact fees;
WHEREAS, top:Pty_pf ire I IV is authorized by RCW
82.02 to impose school impact fees on new development that creates additional
ADOPTING CH XX.xx-SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 1 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
demands on public K-12 school facilities and to collect the impact fees on behalf
of school districts that serve the ICKy1C ut*1
WHEREAS, school impact fees may be collected and spent for public
facilities that are included in school district capital facilities plans that are adopted
by the [Franidin CourAy C Mi i My Coun.'do and incorporated
into the [F Min Cary 1� a � IP�I rt ;
WHEREAS, the Pasco ("District") adopted and submitted a Capital Facility
rt
Plan that is consistent with this ordinance, which the lFraNdirlppyrd
ICommft1gr ers! Pe4m Ci bDunck] is adopting pursuant to this ordinance and
incorporating into the raqWjq O_q l Nq ffq ] Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, Capital Facilities Element; __.
WHEREAS, the Pasco School District 2010 — 2016 Capital Facilities Plan
identifies the school facilities that are needed to serve new growth and
development;
WHEREAS, the District's Capital Facilities Plan contains the District's
Board of Directors recommendation regarding the amount of the school impact
fees for single family and multi-family developments;
WHEREAS, the recommended school impact fees have been calculated
in accordance with the impact fee formula being approved in this ordinance and
represent the fair and proportionate share of the cost new growth and residential
development should pay for their impacts on public school facilities; NOW
THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the JP 'Pity PqWjq..J
,ni rr j that,
1. A new Chapter XXXX, School Impact Fees, of the
Pay of P n' iclpalJ Code is hereby enacted to provide as follows,
XX.xx School Impact Fees
XX.xx.xxx Fin inns and authorihr. The
-of
l" mmi it )C4,. n+ finds and determines that new growth and
residential development in will create additional demand and need for school
facilities throughout the and that new growth and development
should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new school facilities needed to
serve the new growth and development. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02
RCW the l � _ � .�_ . adopts and enacts
. o of i I
Chapterx of therertl to assess
school impact fees on new residential development within the Pasco School
District in accordance with the District's adopted a six-year capital facilities plan
ADOPTING CH XX,xx-SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 2 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
that complies with this chapter. The provisions in this chapter shall be liberally
construed in order to carry out the purposes of the jC*nv wssio 1C6uncil] in
establishing the impact fee program, The provisions in this chapter do not
preclude the tQounty/Q1ty] from requiring new development to mitigate its impacts
on schools pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21 RCW)
or the State Subdivision Act (RCW 88.17.060 and RCW 58.17.110) and any
limitations contained therein.
XX.xx.xxx Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the
following meanings for the purposes of this ordinance, unless the context clearly
requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant
to RCW 82.02.090, or given their usual and customary meaning.
"Building permit" means an official document or certification which is
issued by the 10twnty'~$1 �I building official and which authorizes the
construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling,
rehabilitation, erection, placement, demolition, moving or repair of a building or
structure.
PCW theetvi the C* of P%=, WashinqUxL
L om i i n"rtr t% nt cp f0JFrank1lin
TWKr means ft City Gounc#for Pam, Washington.
"Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a
residential building or structure that could create additional demand and need for
school facilities.
"Development approval" means any written authorization from the
which authorizes the commencement of a development activity.
"District" means the Pasco School District.
"Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the
impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other
liabilities incurred for public facilities.
"Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated
association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any
governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development
activity which creates the demand for additional capital facilities, and which
requires the issuance of a building permit.
"Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed at the request of the
District by the [County/City] on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a
condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the school facilities
needed to serve new growth and development.
"Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee,
the administrative fee for collection and handling school impact fees, or the cost
of reviewing independent fee calculations.
"Multi-family housing" includes attached dwelling units with more than two
units, such as apartments, triplexes, and manufactured or mobile homes in a
manufactured or mobile home park.
ADOPTING CH XX.xx -SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 3 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
"Owner" means the owner of record of real property, or a person with an
unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided that if the real property
is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be
considered the owner of the real property.
"Project improvements" mean site improvements and facilities that are
planned and designated solely to provide service for a particular development or
users of the project, and are not system improvements. No improvement or
facility included in the District's capital facility plan shall be considered a project
improvement.
"Schools" include any primary or secondary public school or support
facility operated by the District.
"Single family homes" includes detached single family homes,
condominiums, duplexes and mobile homes or manufactured homes on
individual lots.
"System improvements" mean school facilities that are included in the
District's capital facility plan designed to provide service to the entire district, or
the service area within the community at large, in contrast to project
improvements.
XX.xx.xxx Eligib li#,,for school impact fees. The Pasco School
District, which provides public education to residents in the ] shall be
eligible to receive school impact fees when the u } adopts the
District's capital facilities plan and incorporates it into the L
comprehensive plan; provided that the District shall submit documentation that
the District has requested every other city or county that it serves to adopt a
school impact fee or mitigation program.
XX.xx.xxx Capital facilities plan requirements. (1) The District's
capital facilities plan shall be adopted and updated by the District at least once
every two years, and shall contain the following elements;
(a) The District's standard of service describing the way in which it
determines capacity for its facilities;
(b) The District's capacity over the next six years based upon an inventory
of the district's facilities and the district's standard of service;
(c) A forecast of future needs for school facilities based upon the District's
enrollment projections;
(d) A six-year financing plan component, updated as necessary to
maintain at least a six-year forecast period, for financing needed school facilities
within projected funding levels; and
(e) Application of the formula set out in Section , based upon
information contained in the capital facilities plan. Separate fees shall be
calculated for single-family and multifamily types of dwelling units, based Upon
the student generation rates determined by the district for each type of dwelling
units.
ADOPTING CH XX.xx -SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 4 of 10
ORDINANCE NO,
XX.xx.xxx School im, act fee component. School impact fees shall
be calculated using the following formula:Sl = [CS (SF) — (TC) — (SM)] x A —
FC.
(1) "SIF" means the school impact fee.
(2) "CS" means the cost of each type of facility improvement listed in the
District's capital facilities plan attributable to new growth divided by the number of
students the facility will serve. Type of facility improvement means elementary
school, middle school and high school.
(3) "SF" means student factor. The student factor is the number of
students typically generated from one residential unit for each type of school
facility. A separate student factor shall be calculated for single and multi-family
development. The student factor shall be updated each time the impact fee is
revised.
(4) "SW means state match. State match is that amount the District
anticipates will be received from the state towards school construction costs. The
state match component of the formula is that amount representing the per
student amount of state matching funds. This is calculated for each type of facility
as: student factor times Boechk index (average annual construction cost of a
school facility per square foot) times square foot standard per student
established by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) times
state match percentage (that percentage of the total cost of a school facility
funded by state funds). The projected state match for each school district shall be
calculated each time the impact fee is revised.
(5) "TC" means tax credit. This is calculated as:
TC = ( 1 + W' -- 1) x (AAV) x (PTL)
i(1+i)
'T' is the average annual interest rate paid for bonds using the Bond Buyer
General Obligation Bond Index.
"AAV" is the average assessed value for the dwelling unit within the
District.
"PTL" is the District's capital property tax levy rate.
The tax credit shall be calculated each time the impact fee is revised.
(6) "FC" means facilities credit. This is the value of any improvement listed
in the District's capital facilities plan that is being provided by the developer.
(7) "A" means an adjustment for the portion of the anticipated increase in
the public share resulting from exempt residential development that is prorated to
system improvements. This adjustment for school impacts is determined to be
85 percent.
(8) The school impact fees shall be updated when the District's capital
facility plan is updated for adoption.
(9) The school impact fees shall be collected and remitted to the District in
accordance with an interlocal agreement that the District shall enter into with the
C;0 !1
XX.xx.xxx _Assessment of impact fees. (1) No building and/or
development permit shall be issued for development activity in J
ADOPTING CH XX.xx-SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 5 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
Franklin County/the City of Pasco] unless the impact fee is paid pursuant to this
Chapter.
(2) For development activity that requires a building permit, the impact fee
shall be imposed, due and payable at the time of building permit issuance.
(3) For development activity that does not require a building permit, the
impact fee shall be imposed, due and payable at the time of other permitting
requirements; including but not limited to site plan approval, utility permits or
occupancy permits.
(4) For mobile home parks, the impact fee shall be imposed, due and
payable at the time of site plan approval. A mobile home park that has paid the
school impact fee shall not be assessed school impact fees a second time if
existing mobile homes are replaced with new mobile homes.
(d) In addition to paying the school impact fee, the feepayer shall also pay
an administrative service fee of one percent of the total amount of the impact
fee(s), which the [County/City] shall retain and use to cover its costs to collect
and disburse the school impact fees.
(6) This chapter does not apply to a preliminary plat or site plan approved
prior to Jan 1, 2011, or to existing mobile home parks. Unless an exemption
applies, the [CountytCity] shall not issue the required building and/or
development permit unless the impact fees have been paid.
XX.xx.xxx Credits. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits be
awarded to him/her for the value of dedicated land, improvements or construction
provided by the feepayer if the land, improvements and/or the facility constructed
are included within the adopted capital facilities plan or the District makes the
finding that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the goals and
objectives of the capital facilities plan. The feepayer shall direct the request for a
credit or credits to the District. The District shall first determine the general
suitability of the land, improvements, and/or construction for the District's
adopted capital facilities plan or the board of directors for the District may make
the finding that such land improvements, and/or facilities would serve the goals
and objectives of the District's capital facilities plan. The District shall forward its
determination to the tCounty/City], including cases where the District determines
that the dedicated land improvements and/or construction are not suitable for the
District's purposes. The [Ct #Y_1C�!] may adopt the determination of the District
and may award or decline to award a credit, or the tCouility'� may make an
alternative determination and set forth in writing the rationale for the alternative
determination. In the event the land, improvements and/or facilities are accepted
by both the District and the [Coun.tylQM, the feepayer shall be responsible for
supplying an independent appraisal based on objective standards which
indicates the fair market value of the dedicated land, improvements and/or
facilities. The credit amount shall be applied to the impact fee calculated for the
particular development. If the amount of the credit is more than the amount of the
impact fee due and owing by the feepayer, neither the District nor the
]County/City] shall be liable to the feepayer for the difference.
ADOPTING CH XX.xx -- SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 6 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
XX.xx.xxx __ A2neals. (1) Any feepayer may pay the impact fees
imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit,
Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may
only be taken by the owner of the property where such development, activity will
occur. No appeal shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue
have been paid.
(2) Determinations of the [CouptyfW staff with respect to the
applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity or the availability
or value of a credit, can be appealed to the [C6mmissi6WCdunc111 pursuant to
this section,
(3) Appeals shall be taken within 10 working days of payment of the fee or
within 10 working days of the [Co0tj j_1--Al issuance of a written
determination of a credit or exemption decision by filing with the KountylcM a
.notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof, and depositing the necessary
fee, which is set forth in the existing fee schedules for appeals of land use
decisions.
XX.xx.xxx Irtterlocel agreement: School impact fees will not be
disbursed to the District until the District enters into an interlocal agreement with
the [Craunly/City] providing for submittal of a capital facilities plan, fund
administration: report of expenditures, allocation of risk, and other appropriate
matters.
XX.xx.xxx Refunds. (1) If the District fails to expend or encumber the
impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid unless extraordinary or
compelling reasons exist, the current owner of the property on which impact fees
have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. The District shall notify
potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal
Service at the last known address of claimants that they are entitled to a refund.
In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact
fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first in, first out basis.
(2) Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request
for a refund of the fees to the and/or the District, within one year of
the date the right to claim the refund arises, or the date that notice is given,
whichever is later,
(3) Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made
within this one-year period shall be retained by the District and expended on the
appropriate public facilities.
(4) Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest
earned on the impact fees.
XX.xx.xxx Use of funds. (1 ) School impact fees:
(a) Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit
school facilities;
(b) Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in school facilities
serving existing developments; and
ADOPTING CH XX.xx-SCHOOL IMPACT PEES PAGE 7 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
(c) Shall not be used for maintenance or operation.
(2) School impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including
but not limited to school planning, land acquisition, site improvements, portables,
necessary off-site improvements, construction, engineering, architectural, legal,
permitting, financing and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or
mitigation costs, capital equipment pertaining to educational facilities, and any
other expenses which can be capitalized.
(3) School impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement
costs previously incurred by the district to the extent that new growth and
development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or
incurred costs.
(4) In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been
issued for the advanced provision of public Improvements for which school
impact fees may be expended, school impact fees may be used to pay the
principal on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities
or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section
and are used to serve the new development.
XX.xx.xxx School im2act fees -- Reductions and Exemptions. The
school impact fees set forth herein are generated from the formula for calculating
impact fees, also set forth herein. The amount of the impact fees is determined
by information contained in the District's capital facilities plan, as appended to the
County's comprehensive plan. All new residential developments in the District will
be charged the school impact fee, except for the following:
(1) Any development activity or project which has submitted a technically
complete building permit application prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
(2) Any fee payer that has constructed an improvement or dedicated
property for a future school site that is in the capital facilities plan, or any fee
payer that enters into a voluntary agreement with the District to mitigate school
impacts, may receive a reduction in the school impact fees equal to the value of
the improvements, property or voluntary payments that are made. The feepayer
shall direct the request for reduction in the fee to the District with a copy to the
10ountyfCity]. The District shall first determine the general suitability of the land,
improvements, and/or construction for the District's adopted capital facilities plan
or the board of directors for the District may mare the finding that such land
improvements, and/or facilities would serve the goals and objectives of the
District's capital facilities plan. The District shall forward its determination to the
.[CourvCity]. The lCOunty/City] shall then determine the amount of the
reduction that will be awarded to the feepayer. The jQopnty'sfCity'sl
determination shall be based on an independent appraisal, which the feepayer
shall submit, establishing the value of the improvements or property.
(3) Development activity that consists solely of:
(a) The replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same use at
the same site or lot when such replacement is within 12 months of the demolition
or destruction of the prior structure;
ADOPTING CH XX.xx - SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 8 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
(b) The replacement of an existing approved mobile home with a new
mobile home;
(c) The alteration, expansion, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or
conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional units are created and
the use is not changed;
(d) The construction of accessory residential structures that will not create
impacts on school facilities;
(e) Miscellaneous improvements, including, but not limited to, fences,
walls, swimming pools and signs;
(f) Demolition or moving of an existing structure within the district;
(g) Housing which by restrictive covenant, in a form that is approved by
the District, is used exclusively for persons 62.years of age or older. If the
development for which approval is sought contains a mix of uses, the impact fee
must be separately calculated for each type of use.
(4) Upon application, the developer may request from the County a
reduction or elimination of the impact fee based on unusual circumstances in
specific cases, provided that the developer's request is supported by studies and
data that supports the request.
(5) The impact fees for an exempt development shall be calculated as
provided for in this chapter and paid for with other public funds. Such payment
may be made by including such amount(s) in the public share of system
improvements undertaken by the District.
XX.xx.xxx Existing authority unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter
shall preclude the [Cowty from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a
development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific
development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21 C
RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying
development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and
subdivisions; provided, that, the exercise of this authority is consistent with the
provisions of Chapters 43.21 C and 82.02 RCW,
2. The Pasco School District has submitted a capital facility plan and
impact fee calculations that comply with the provision of this ordinance, and the
same is hereby adopted and incorporated into the [� ov
comprehensive land use plan
3. In accordance with the adopted Pasco School District Capital Facilities
Plan and the provisions in this ordinance, school impact fees in the following
amounts are hereby adopted and imposed on residential development:
Single Family: $
Multi-Family: $
4. The is authorized to execute, on behalf of
the Pum fiq ], an interlocal agreement for the collection, expenditure and
ADOPTING CH XX.xx- SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE 9 of}0
ORDINANCE NO,
reporting of school impact fees; provided, that such interlocal agreement
complies with the provisions of this ordinance.
5. If any portion of the materials adopted herein is found invalid by a
Board or Court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the provisions shall
remain in full force and effect. Further, if such invalidated portion repeals and
existing rule or regulation, the replaced rule or regulations shall be reinstated
until modified or replaced by the County Commissioners.
6. This ordinance shall become effective five days after its passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED IN REGULAR SESSION THIS day of , 2011 ,
after a public hearing was held on 2011 , pursuant to Notice
published on the day of 2011 in
INSERT COUNTY/CITY SIGNATURE BLOCK
ADOPTING CH XX.xx-SCHOOL IMPACT FEES PAGE l 0 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
.A
SC
f)
CH00 U1 IC141
Pasco School District No. 1
Resolution No. 809
ADOPTION OF THE 2010-2016 PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
AND SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
!WHEREAS, counties and cities in the State of Washington adopt comprehensive land use plans
in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA); and
WHEREAS, comprehensive plans that are adopted under the GMA must address the provision
of public services for future growth and development; and
WHEREAS, public schools are one of the public services that, with assistance from school
districts, the counties and cities must plan for;
WHEREAS, the Pasco School District desires to work with Franklin County and the City of
Pasco in planning for growth and implementing the GMA through the adoption of the Pasco
School District Capital Facilities Plan;
WHEREAS, the GMA authorizes Franklin County and the City of Pasco to collect school impact
fees from residential development in order to ensure that school facilities are available to serve
new growth and development;
WHEREAS, the District's student enrollment is projected to increase over the next six years due
to growth in unincorporated Franklin County and the City;
WHEREAS, the District will need to build new facilities to add capacity to serve the increased
enrollment;
WHEREAS, existing funding sources are not sufficient to fund the new facilities that are needed
to serve the increased enrollment;
WHEREAS, the District requests that Franklin County and the City of Pasco supplement their
Comprehensive Land Use Plans to address the school facility needs reflected in the 2010 —
2016 Pasco School District Capital Facility Plan; and
WHEREAS, the District requests that Franklin County and the City of Pasco adopt a school
impact fee ordinance and collect school impact fees in an amount set forth in the 2010 — 2016
Capital Facility Plans;
Page l of 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2010-2016 Pasco School District Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP) is hereby adopted. The District shall submit this CFP to Franklin County
and the City of Pasco for adoption as a supplement to the County's and City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plans and take any actions that are necessary to support the County's and City's
adoption of school impact fees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District respectfully requests Franklin County and the
City of Pasco impose and collect school impact fees on behalf of the District in the amount of
$6,012 per single family home and $5,272 per multi-family unit.
411—
ADOPTED THIS . day of December, 2010.
Sherry Lanncon, r ent
William Leggett, a President
Jeff DFO, Memb,
r
Pe4e Feisted, M m er
4&��X4�
J Hergert, Member
ATTEST:
�a
� q a
aundra L. Hill, Superint ndent & Secretary to the Board
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
July 7, 2011
TO, City Council +
FROM: Gary Crutchf -Manager
RE: School Capacity
The Pasco School District, in January of this year, advised the city that student enrollment
exceeded its building capacity and requested the city (and county) adopt a"impact fee"to
address the capacity problem. As the city is the legislative authority which governs development
within the city's boundaries, it is obligated under state law to address the district's capacity
problem, to the extent advised by the district. Staff offers the following information to assist
council in its deliberation of this matter.
METHODS
Essentially, there are two different and separate means by which the city can address the lack of
school capacity.
First is the "mitigation agreement" method. This method is used strictly for new lot
development, via the subdivision. process. State law (RCW 58.17.110, attached) expressively
prohibits a city from approving a new subdivision (creation of new lots) unless the city finds that
there is adequate capacity of "utilities, parks, schools, ..." to accommodate the additional
population that will eventually reside on the new lots. Thus, when the District advises the city
that it has no capacity, the subdivision cannot be lawfully approved by the city. Use of a
"mitigation agreement," in which the developer and the District mutually agree to resolve the
proportional share of the capacity problem, then permits the city to approve the subdivision (to
include the conditions identified in the mitigation agreement). Most typically, the mitigation
agreement will reflect the commitment by the developer to "pay X dollars per house" to the
District, so the District can eventually provide the additional capacity needed to accommodate
the developer's impact to the District.
The other means is called the "impact fee" method. An impact fee (which is much more
commonly used around the state than is the mitigation agreement), is a fixed dollar amount per
dwelling that is paid by any builder at the time of issuance of building permits. The fee is
detennined on the same basis as would a mitigation agreement, but it is fixed and applies to all
such subdivisions/building permit activities uniformly, and without necessity to negotiate a
mitigation agreement each time. More importantly, the impact fee could apply at the building
permit stage of development, thus applying to all existing residential lots as well as any new lots
created through new subdivisions. Unlike a mitigation agreement, an impact fee would require
an interlocaI agreement between the city and the District to fix the fee amount as well as provide
for the collection, disbursement and use of the impact fees collected thereunder. In essence, a
school impact fee would work inuch like the city's Iona-standing park development fee, except
the funds would be expended by the District for a new school, rather than the city expending
funds on a new park.
In weighing which mechanists may be preferable, one should note that the mitigation agreement
applies only to "new lots" {those created by formal subdivision approval) or apartment projects
(those that exceed 4 dwelling units are required by state law to be evaluated under the State
Environmental Policy Act which, in effect, authorizes the District to advise the city that there is
no capacity to accommodate the new development and must be disapproved, absent a mitigation
agreement). As apartment projects are few and far between, this discussion will focus on new
residential lots (though the same principles would generally apply).
EVALUATION
The city presently contains approximately 1300 vacant lots/parcels zoned for low-density
residential use, about half of which would (likely) be developed over the next decade: In
addition, the city presently contains about 1200 preliminary plat lots that could be finalized
within the next year. If' no new lots are created in the meantime, the combined 1800 lots
represent a supply of approximately 4.5 years worth of new housing pennits (assumes 400 per
year, the low end of the annual average range actually experienced over the past 5 years), If the
city relies solely on the mitigation agreement method, those 1800 dwelling units will contribute
to the additional overcrowding of schools, but not contribute to the financial solution (indeed,
1800 new homes will fill one new elementary school and about one-third of a new middle
school).
Given the historical rate of new housing permits, it is reasonable to expect new subdivision
proposals within the next 12-18 months (it takes at least one year to design/install the basic
street/utility improvements before housing permits can be issued). As those new subdivisions
are submitted for approval, the District will advise the city of the capacity limitation and the city
will have no choice but to deny the application, unless a mitigation agreement is developed
between the applicant and the District, Thus, reliance on only the mitigation agreement will
result in some new housing units paying a fee for school capacity and other new housing units
will not — it will depend on the age of the lot upon which the house is being built. Conversely,
the impact fee (as noted previously) would apply to all new housing permits regardless if the
house is built on an old lot or a new one. In that regard, the impact fee is much more equitable,
more readily understood, and will provide greater relief to existing taxpayers when financing
bonds for new schools.
According to district data; each new home brings with it (on average): .45 elementary student
and .18 middle school student. Thus, if the city issues 400 new homes in a year, the district can
expect 180 new elementary students within the following year. At that rate, the district will fill a
new elementary school every 4 years.
-2-
The district has used "portables" (pre-manufactured classrooms set on temporary foundations)
extensively over the past decade, to absorb the surging student enrollment. Continued use of
portables is prudent, to the extent they can be reasonably accommodated by the fixed support
infrastructure at each permanent school site (such as bathrooms, kitchen, gym, cafeteria, etc,),
The district has about 170 such portables located throughout the district, predominately at the
elementary and middle school sites.
The projections of overcrowding determined by the district assume current district operating
conditions (9 month school year and 1 daytime shift per day). The district is currently evaluating
potential use of a year-round schedule andJor "double shifting" (using a morning shift and an
afternoon shift each day). Either option would alter the capacity projections, as each would
make more use of existing facilities. Year-round school would effectively add at least 25%
capacity (that is, the same school would be used 25% more than it is under the 9 month school
year). Double shifting would effectively double the capacity of existing schools. Both options
require higher operating costs; so voters would have the final say via the district's operating levy
vote.
Even assuming; the district moves to a year-round schedule and gains the 25% capacity; the
growth projections will require more school construction. Even with the year-round schedule,
elementary_ schools will be 27% overcrowded by 2016 and middle schools are expected to be
77% over capacity by that period. With less than 5 years to that point, school
construction/financing needs to commence within 2 years (preferably sooner, as
design/construction requires 2 years itself). Conceivably, double-shifting could delay need for
construction beyond 2016; whether that is an operating schedule (and cost) acceptable to voters
is certainly debatable.
Imposition of an impact fee or use of mitigation agreements would, effectively, increase the price
of a new home in Pasco. According to a prominent local mortgage office, a $6,000 increase in
the price of a home will do two things: first, the typical monthly mortgage payment will increase
by about $28 (assumes 30 year mortgage at 5%); second, the income requirement for a borrower
will increase by about $80/month (assumes debt-to-income ratio of 35%). Whether this effect is
a significant deterrent is debatable; certainly, some individuals will choose not to build in Pasco,
due to principle alone (the same occurred 30 years ago when the city instituted a -park-
development fee"). To the extent new home construction decreases from the current rate of at
least 400 per year, the number of new students will also decrease proportionately.
A factor to be considered when evaluating the effect on the market place is the relative cost of
new homes within the Tri-Cities market. 'To gauge rumors that a given home costs less in Pasco
than elsewhere in the Tri-Cities, staff obtained pricing information from a prominent builder of
homes throughout the Tri-Cities. Staff found that the full range of homes offered by that builder;
in every case, was substantially less in Pasco than in Kennewick or West Richland (see exhibit
B). The price difference ranged as high as $40,000, but in no case was it less than $10,000.
A common assertion by the construction and realty industries is: "new development pays for
itself through increased taxes". In some ways, the assertion is true; but it is not universally true.
For example, when a new home is built in the city or county, the increased property value is
added to the tax roll and a commensurate increase of the city's or county's property tax income
-3-
automatically occurs the following year (whether that is sufficient to offset the cost of servicing
the home is a different question). For schools, however, there is no automatic increase. ne
additional property value is indeed added to the district's tax roll, but it only selves to reduce (by
a very slight margin) the tax rate everyone else pays. This is due to the fact the district receives a
fixed dollar amount each year, based on the fixed levy amount previously approved by voters.
While the districts operating levy can be adjusted every two years (by voter approval),
construction financing of new schools is fixed by voters for 20 year bonds (new construction
value after issuance of bonds serves only to reduce the tax rate necessary to pay the bonds, but it
is typically a very small margin and is thus imperceptible to the voter/taxpayer). Indeed, if the
industry assertion was true, the district would simply not have a shortage of space for the new
students.
SUMMARY
In summary, the school district has determined it does not have capacity for new students and,
therefore, must advise against approval of new subdivisions. The district further urges the city
and county to impose an impact fee for all new residential units (to optimize the benefit to
existing taxpayers and permit the city and county to approve new subdivisions without concern
for school. capacity). The data supplied by the district is compelling, given the surge in student
enrollment over the past decade, the reliability of the growth projections, and the recent decision
of the voters to reject a tax increase to finance new schools. The development community argues
against an impact fee, as it asserts a fee (or tax) would reduce demand for housing in Pasco and
consequently harm existing and anticipated residential development. Despite the national
economic backdrop, Pasco continues to grow at a rapid pace, continuing to issue more new
housing permits each year than either Kennewick or Richland (and sometimes more than the two
combined). Unless the district goes to "double shifting", capacity will remain a problem to be
solved only with a bond issue to finance new schools (though a bond issue would be smaller with
the year-round schedule). Use of an impact fee or mitigation agreements will reduce the tax
burden on existing property owners under an), bond financing option (though the impact fee will
have the greater benefit).
Council options include:
• Decline the requested impact fee and rely on mitigation agreements for new
subdivisions apartment projects (creates inequity among landowners arld forgoes
about $10 million of fees that could be used for new school construction).
OR
• Adopt an impact fee and develop an interlocal agreement with the district to spell
out manner of collection, use for new schools, legal indemnity, etc. (equitable
among land owners and will capture about $10 million more for school
construction than would reliance only on mitigation agreements).
OR
• Place advisory (non-binding) question on November ballot to gain the preference
of community's voters as to whether or not an impact fee should be adopted.
Attaclunents:
A) RCW 58.17.110
B) Table, new home price comparison in Pasco, Kennewick, West Richland
C) Example of impact fee effect on new elementary school bond measure
-4-
Graphic Version 1(No drsponible en espanol)
RCW 58.17.110
Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication —Factors to be considered—Conditions
for approval— Finding—Release from damages.
(1)The city, town, or county legislative nody shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by
the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine:(a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but
not limited to,the public health, safety, and general welfare,for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads,alleys,
other public ways, transit slops, potable water supplies,sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools
and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and(b)whether the public interest will
be served by the subdivision and dedication.
(2)A proposed subdivision and dedication attall not be approved unless the city, town,or county legislative body
makes writlen findings.that: (a)Appropriate prov o;cns are trade fcFr the public health,safety,and general welfare and
for such open spaces,drainage ways, streets or roads,alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts,
including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and
from school;and (b)the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication, if It
finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and
interest will be served,then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of
land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision,and/or impact fees imposed under
RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be
clearly shown on the final plat.No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW
82.02.050 through 82.02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property.The
legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be
procured from other property owners.
(3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than two acres and the donor
has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased individual of good character, the city,town,or county
legislative body must adopt the designated name.
(1995 c 32§3: 199C ist ex.s.c 17§52 1989 c 330§31 1974 exs.c 134§5: 1969 ex.s.c 271 §11.)
Notes:
Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW
36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901 ,
Exhibit A
RETAIL PRICE COMPARISON*
TYPICAL NEW HOME
SPRING 2011
Kennewick West Richland Pasco
Three Rivers Difference
HomelModel Orchard Park Creekstone View Ridge Crossing
Edgewood 1408 $154,990 $164,990 $159,990 $144,990 9$10,000
Klamath 1506 $166,990 $164,990 $1495990 >$1500
Pacific 1805 $179,990 $189,990 $181,990 $1611990 >$18,000
Parkland 1889 $182,990 $184,990 $184,990 $167,990 >$15,000
Teton 2192 $1991,990 $1901990 $172,990 >$1800
Tumalo 2318 $214,990 $186,990 $28,000
Waterville 3198 $224,990 I $239,990 $226,990 $199,990 >$40,000
Pricing infonnation provided by Hayden Homes
Elementary School Cost
• 750 scats: $26m construction cost = $34,000/seat
• .45 elementary student/house, = 2.2 houses/elementary seat
■ $34,000 _ 2.2 = $I 5,500/house= 100% paid by development
• $34,000 x 50% (state share) = $17,000
• $17,000 =2.2 houses = $7,700/house local share
■ PSD impact fee for elementary, $4,260/house (= 55% of local share)
• Bond Tax Rate Comparison
• No Impact Fee
■ $13,000,000/DS = $1,040,000 _ $4.2B AV = 24o/K AV
(= $48/yr property tax/$200,000 house)
• Impact Fee
■ $5,850,000 DS/ = $470,000 _ $4.2B AV= I l t/K AV
(= $22/yr property tax/$200,000 house)
DS means "debt service", or annual loan payment
AGENDA REPORT'
17011: City Council , July 6, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchti z Manager Workshop Mtg.: 7/11/11
Regular Mtg.: 7/18/11
FROM: Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Directot 2
SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana (MF# CA2011-403)
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Resolution
2. City Attorney Memo dated June 23, 2011
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RI.COMMF.NDATIONS:
7/I1: DISCUSSION
7/18: MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution declaring a
moratorium that prohibits medical cannabis collective
gardening in all zoning districts within the City and setting a
public hearing.
Ill. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE,
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Tn 1998 Initiative 692 was passed by Washington voters that permitted the use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes.
B. The Initiative was codified as Chapter 69.51A of the Revised Code of
Washington, However the statute did not determine how a qualifying patient
could lawfully receive medicinal marijuana. In addition, marijuana still remained
illegal under the Federal Control Substance Act.
C. In 2007, the State Legislature clarified RCW 69.51A by determining that a
medically authorized person could posses a 60-day supply of medicinal
marijuana. However, cultivating marijuana still remained a felony Lmder Federal
law.
D. The 2011 the State Legislature attempted to address this through Engrossed
Second Substitute Senate Bill (E2SSB) 5073 which passed the Legislature in
April of 2011. This bill provided for collective gardening of medical marijuana
and allowed local cities and counties to adopt zoning and health regulations
governing the production and distribution of medical marijuana.
E. A majority of E2SSB 5073 was vetoed by Governor Uregoire. Section 403
remains in place which allows qualifying patients to jointly maintain collective
gardens for cultivating cannabis for medical use. A collective garden may contain
no more than 15 plants per patient up to a total of 45 plants.
F. Although most of the Governor's veto eliminates medical marijuana provisions of
E2SSB 5073, a section in the law remains in place prohibiting cities from
precluding the possibility of siting licensed dispensaries within the jurisdiction.
The legislation also permits growing marijuana in collective gardens with no
more restrictions than it cannot be grown in public view.
G. On July 22, 2011 the portions of the law that remain intact will go into effect. It
will then be legal for qualifying patients to establish and participate in collective
gardens for growing and delivering medical marijuana.
4(d)
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Cities may impose reasonable restrictions through zoning regulations on
collective medicinal marijuana gardens. The restrictions must serve a legitimate
government interest and be reasonably calculated to achieve that government
interest. The City will need time to prepare meaningful and enforceable
regulations.
B. As noted in the City Attorney's memorandum, a moratorium may be declared by
resolution as long as a public hearing is held within 60 days of adoption of such a
resolution. The moratorium can then continue for 6 months or upon the adoption
of a specific work plan that can last up to 12 months.
C. Staff recommends that an immediate moratorium be established to prevent
establishing and "grand fathering" collective gardens for medical marijuana and
that a public hearing be set for August 15, 2011. This will allow the City to adopt
findings of fact based on evidence received from the public hearing. The City can
then extend the moratorium for up to 6 months, or establish a work plan for
developing appropriate regulation of collective gardens that can extend the
moratorium up to 12 months_
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, declaring a
moratorium prohibiting medical cannabis collective gardens in all zoning
districts within the City and setting public hearing thereon.
WHEREAS, the Washington legislature by Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill
5073 (the Medical Cannabis Bill) provided for the establishment of State regulated medical
cannabis dispensaries and collective cannabis gardens to provide a source of medical cannabis
for qualifying patients, however, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed significant
portions of the Bill including all State agency regulations of the production, processing and
distribution of medical cannabis; and
WHEREAS, as a response to the Governor's veto, the legislature attempted, in the last
hours of the 2011 legislative session to introduce Senate Bill 9555 addressing the concerns raised
by the Governor's veto, however, this Bill did not survive the closing of the legislative session
and, therefore, further legislative action is unlikely until the convening of the 2012 legislature;
and
WHEREAS, the portions of the Medical Cannabis Bill that survived the veto permits
collective cannabis gardens subject to the City's determination of appropriate zoning, business
license, health and safety requirements to serve the best interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, the veto of major sections of the Medical Cannabis Bill has resulted in
green confusion as to its application and future legislation including a recently filed Initiative
which raises further questions in regards to the future affect and application of this act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco does not currently have a specific provision addressing
the conditions or locations of collective cannabis gardens within the City; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that collective cannabis gardens may require an increased
risk to health and safety, require increased police and code enforcement activities, and affect the
use and enjoyment of surrounding properties without appropriate regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to develop appropriate zoning and land use regulations to
accommodate collective cannabis gardens; and
WHEREAS, Washington law authorises the City to adopt a moratorium with a public
hearing which must be held within sixty (60) days of the date of the adoption of a moratorium;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City that
a moratorium be established to provide the City an opportunity to study appropriate regulations
for such collective gardens, and to develop a work plan for the implementation of such
regulations; NOW, THEREFORE,
Resoful101-1 - I
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Moratorium Established. A moratorium is imposed prohibiting the
establishment, maintenance, cultivation, or operation of a collective garden for growing medical
cannabis as defined by Section I, Subsection 2 of the Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill
5073 and RCW 69.51A.010 as amended, within all zoning districts within the City of Pasco; and
a moratorium is imposed on the filing with the City, or the Courts of Competent Jurisdiction, any
applications for licenses, permits, or other approvals for the location of a collective garden as
defined above during the term of this moratorium.
Section 2. Term of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Resolution shall
become effective on the date hereof, and shall continue in effect for an initial period of six (6)
months, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after a public hearing and the
entry of appropriate .findings of fact as required by RCW 35A.63.220, provided, however, that
the moratorium shall automatically expire upon the effective date of zoning regulations adopted
by the City Council to address collective gardens for medical cannabis within the City of Pasco.
Section 3. Public Hearing:. A public hearing shall be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the 15th day of August, 2011, at the City Council
Chambers of the Pasco City Hall, where it will hear evidence and consider the comments and
testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium.
Section 4. Preliminary Finding. Following the public hearing, the City Council
shall adopt Findings of Fact justifying its actions before the public hearing, and determine
whether a work plan is necessary to address the issues involving the collective gardens for
medical cannabis within the City and extending the moratorium to complete a work plan and
implementation of appropriate regulations.
Section 5. Effective Date, This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage �Lnd signaaure below.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting
dated this day of ) 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Resolution - 2
KERR LAW GROUP
7025 West Grandridge Blvd., Suite A
Kennewick, Washirigt9n 99336-7724
(50) 135-1542
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
City of Pasco
FROM: Leland B. Kerr t
Attorney at Law
DATE: June 23,2011
RE: Medical Marijuana Status of State Law
By initiative 692, the Washington voters on,November. 3, 1998, found that "humapitarian
compassion necessitates that.the decision to `authorize the medical use bf marijuana by patients
with terminal or debilitating illnesses is a. personal individual decision, based upon their
physician's professional medical :Judgment and -discretion", thereby, permitting the use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes.
The Initiative was codified as Chapter,69.51A of the Revised Code.of Washington. This statute
defined "designated providers" who could prescribe marijuana and permitted a "qualifying
patient" to use marijuana lavvfuliy. This._was,-iccompjished by creating defenses for.both patients
and providers against pro secution.for prescribing or using medical marijuana, Unfortunately,the
statute did not determine how' either the designated provider or the qualifying patient could
lawfully receive marijuana.. At the :same time, marijuana.remained `illegal under the Federal
Control Substances Act exposing those who transfer or possess it to Federal prosecution.
In 2007, the legislature sought to clarify the law:by directing the Department of Health to define
a legal and appropriate supply of marijuana. The.health department,determined that a medically
authorized person could possess a 60-day supply, A 60-day supply is defined as "24 ounces and
15 plants."
This still, however., failed to provide a means by. which a designated provider or a qualifying
patient can actually obtain marijuana; .Dine to Federal.restrictions on medical marijuana, patients
were unable to obtain it tlirough.'a pharrnacy. Selling marijuana still remains illegal, but a patient
who possesses marijuana upon a doctor's recommendation, is,protected from State.and local
criminal penalties for possession under State law. A .person arrested .and charged with
cultivating marijuana under State. lam, has .the, right to.use the medical marijuana lave as an
affirmative defense if the cultivation as:for personal use only, ,and''if the person is a qualifying
patient, Cultivating arid-selling marijuana still remains a felony under Federal law,
Gary Crutchfield
June 23,2011
Page 2
The 2011 legislature attempted to address this under the.Medical Cannabis Bill and Engrossed
Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073,.which••passed.the.legislature in April.2011. This3ill offered
patient protecti-oni, authorized collective gaFdens; and allowed local cities quid counties to adopt
zoning and health regulations governing lbe•:production,.processing-and• distribution of medical
marijuana. The Act provided a State:•l censing- rgcedure'.for'producers and processors. of
marijuana -or•medical purposes overseen by the •D.epartinent°of:Healih arid'the'Department of
Agriculture.
As if t6 emphasize their point,the Federal government raided a marijuan.A dispensary in.Spokane
just prior to the time'the Bill-hit the Ciovembr's desk.
Governor Gregoire, as a result of-this iinmense"•'pre'$=ie -from both sides,'signed the Bill,
however, vetoed- the vast majority of- the Bill .including all_ sections dealing with State
regulations. In her vetoed-message; She.-declared `no.'state- employee should be'required 'to
violate-the federal critninal law in•order to fulfill duties under state law."
Remaining in place, however, is Section.403 which.authorizes "Qualif*g'patients may create
and participate in collective-gardens•for the p en sporting, and
, t
delivering cannabis,for.medical use . . w ph'pehinits:ho-more.1han ten qualifying,patients to
participate in a single collective garden which-contains no more than 15 plants-per patient up-to a
total of 45 plants; and contains no more-than-24 ounces of usable cannabis.per patient for up to a
total of 72 ounces of usable.cannabis.
In addition, Section 501 makes it illegal to display medical cannabis"in a manner or place which
is open to the view of the general public."
The Governor, likewise,retained Section 1102 wliich'.ptovides:
"Cities and towns may adopt and enforce-any of.1ho folloWi'ng.pertaining.to the
production, processing; or di.speri§ing>of-cannabis or cannabis products•within
their jurisdiction: Zoning requirements, business'•Iicensing:requirements, health
and safety requirements, and•business:taxes. • Nothing:in this..act is intended to•
limit the authority of cities.and•,towns fo•impose zoning,requirements qr•other
conditions uponlicerised dispensers;'sq long'as,sueh-requirerrieints do not•predlude
the possibility of siting licensed:dispensers within the-jurisdiction,"
The legislature in a last minute effort to cure ibis-problem introduced SB• 5955 in-the waning
moments of the legislative session:. This:Bill j-however, did.not make.it•out of.committee before
the close of the session, and.therefore, there will-be no further legislative direction until the next
legislative session.
This leaves the City in a very awkward-position., While the vetoes•eliminated State regulated
dispensaries, including even the authorization.that previously was used to justify dispensaries,
the cities cannot"preclude the possibility of Siting.ticensed`dispensahes within the jurisdiction."
Gary Crutchfield
.rune 23,2011
Page 3
Secondly, the legislation permits growing of marijuana:in collective gar-dens- with no mote
restrictions that it cannot be grov,4i in publio view.'
Under RCW 69.50-.608,.the "State tate of Washihit6ii-Tully decu' ies-and preerrlp.t,s-..the entire field of
'
setting penalties for violations'of the.eontrqifled-sub tnai as apt." The statute makes it clear that
local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent.with.thd requirements qf. State -law "shall.not be
enacted and (are)- unenforceable." -As a resWt,.the"Ch� canh6t"pKoh-ibit or excliide'cofflective
gardens entirely.
Therefore, on July 22,1011, the new'law-— at least.those-.portions that remain 7 shall go into
effect. At that point, it will be lawful Within.-.the $,late,.of W.asWngtori fbr:qjialifying p4tients,to
"create and participate in collo6dire- gardens, 16i' the" purpose: of producing,producing, processing,
transporting, and.delivering canhAbIs" fdr medida"I-use,. .
While the cities.ckinot make-collective gardens,4116g' al, .0
oy may impose e reasbriable restrictions
through zoning:..regulations.. Like..all'.dthdr--regulatio' ris,` it.rriu%--djyeddy-and-materially serve a
legitimate government interest; :be clear•-aad.unaifib�,S.u'ous;,'ao4 be reasonably calculated to -
achieve that governmentaYinterest.
Once it has been determined that such regulations;ati'olis ar.e.necessary, the City will need time to
prepare meaningfully aild enforceable I regulations. In light of the substantial confusion
surrounding this law and the high probability,of Riture changes, the City may wish to i:r.np'.ose a
moratorium to give it sufficient time toacconApji§h-this-task.
-RCW 35A.6 5.220'allows the City Council;to.idopt... i..Mor4fon'uni or'create .4n. interim zoning
ordinance prohibiting the'activity4hil.'e.the' City, after-a'public hearing and'.establishing a-work
plan, determines appropriate.regulations.'
A moratorium may be declared immediately.-by resolution or-iriterim zoning ordinance on the
conditibii'that a Vublic,hearing-is.held within in 60 days of iis.Ad6ption. The.-C.i.ty.Council can.act
on the moratorium whether or not'it rec'eIv' es.a e'�omincn4tioh'#roiA the plinbing.Commission..
T
The City Councii must adopt-findipgs of 14:4.tjusti tilnj-the moratorium.,' The-moratorium can
continue in effect for sik moiiths..'or.,"uplon.,tl�6:justifying:
o.fa.speci-fic work plan, his.t .up.to one
year. A moratorium in.ay I then -b,&:re'nq_Nyed re :additio'nal -sixr'month-terms if
'by'.p.ublic'hearing-'and.-fi6dihgs"' &ct� 6:.inide.-with each renewal.-
proceeded -of �X
There are two potentiatprodedures to-follow,
The -first is to declare an' immedifite moratorium.p rohibit tifig.medirW- marijuana and collective
gardens in-any zone within the City and-.:sciting.apiklic heAti i rY9 within 60 days. Following the
public hearing, -the City Council .C?4i. ad9pt-fifidings-of'fact based on ev.idehae -received and
extend the moratorium for up to six moftihs,,or establish.'a-work.plan procedure.extending the
moratorium for up to one.year.
Gary Crutchfield
June 23, 2011
Page 4
The second procediire, is'the City immediately adopts the findings.of fact and pass.a moratorium
ordinance or resolution, likeunse3.providing for:a p0lic hearing after which the Couxis6il -itay
either continue, or repeal the moratoritun.
Several other jurisdictions from the State. have alfeady enacted moratoriums 'regarding
dispensaries, and many more are expected,to enact moratoriWhs regarding collective gardens
before the effective date of&ie statute.
Attached is a draft Resolution following the first procedure for your consideration.
If you have any questi6ns or concerns,-please do not:hesitate to give me a call.
LBKAla
Attachment
cc: Lisa Beaton
Tom Lampson
Stan Strebel
Rick, White
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July b, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager
Workshop Mtg.: 7/1 1/11
FROM: Rick Terway, Director
Administrative and C munity Services
SUBJECT: Senior Center Kitchen Lease - Aramark
I. REFERENCE(S):
None
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMIVIENDATIONS:
7/18: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Possible loss of Revenue - $7,200 yearly Rent
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) For the past couple of years the kitchen equipment at the Senior Center has been
having equipment repair issues. This equipment is used primarily by the Aramark
Company for preparing meals for"Meals on Wheels". The stove/convection oven and
the compressor for the walk in freezer have out lived their life expectancy and parts are
difficult to find or are not available. Replacement is expected to cost approximately
$35,000, but is not essential to the building except for Aramark's use.
Because the contract with Aramark was due to renew, it was time to discuss kitchen
equipment options with the company. In speaking with company officials, staff requested
the company purchase the required equipment. The city would amortize the equipment
over a number of years and if Aramark should leave prior to the number of years agreed,
the city would reimburse the company for the balance. This was not acceptable to
Aramark. Staff then offered a formula that would increase the rent and extend the
contract long enough to pay the city back for the equipment purchased. Again, this was
not acceptable to Aramark. The company finally responded with a$186.00 per month
increase, but for only a three year contract, which does not cover the expected cost of the
new equipment.
While researching the issue, it was discovered that the meals prepared at the Pasco
kitchen serve the entire Tri-Cities area. Pasco residents receive 20% of the meals,
Kennewick 50%and Richland 20% and about 10%to other small communities. With
this information, staff requested financial assistance from the other cities; they
determined such assistance would be subsidizing a for-profit business and declined to
assist.
The rental rates Pasco charges Aramark are well below market rates. They were
originally set at that rate to assist in making the program more viable. Senior Life
Services, the non-profit organization that operates"Meals on Wheels" and purchases the
meals from Aramark,also contracts with the three cities for space at the respective
community centers to serve the meals. Pasco's kitchen is the only public kitchen that is
currently outfitted to enable these meals to be prepared.
Aramark's lease has expired and is currently operating on a month to month basis.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff requests guidance from Council as to whether or not Pasco should bear the
full burden of subsidizing the kitchen cost for what is, in effect, a regional service. If so,
staff can work out a rental agreement to recover part of the cost. If not, Aramark/Meals
on Wheels can find another location which will relieve the city from such an expense.
4(e)