HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.07.25 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. July 25, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. BUSINESS ITEMS
(a) Interlocal Annexation Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Clary Crutchfield, City Manager dated July 21, 2011,
2. Map, Pasco UGA with City Boundary.
3. Mats, Current Annexation Opportunities.
4. RCW 35A.I4.480.
5. Letter from Franklin County Fire District No. 3,dated July 20, 2011.
MOTION: 1 move to authorize initiation of the lnterlocal Amir—xation Agro=."l ptocess
provided In,ILC.W 35A_14.480.
4. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council ; July 21, 2011
FROM: Gary C.rutchft Manager Special Mtg.: 7/25/11
SUBJECT: Interlocal Anne atio Agreement
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Map, Pasco UGA with City Boundary
2. Map, Current Annexation Opportunities
3. RCW 35A.14.480
4. Letter from Franklin County Fire District No. 3, dated. July 20, 2011
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7125: MOTION: I move to authorize initiation of the Interlocal Annexation
Agreement process provided by RCW 35A.14.480.
111. 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 oftlie 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
malting 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.
3(a)
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.
8) 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.
,�'' a _ _ - - �^ tllllf■111/11�.!wlllll - -- tt .
r■IA vqunamul�.-`InutfJ.
�";'4r— �'���t{lam1{ ',�_w ���s��r■■=�=��trlli•.•�
ctt . i }14 ���` �.�■i=;.111 nf: _ �
..u,r;+r,_C�■ iii }
�iula'flu_� xal �� wnuelt / f C'3"TX OF
PAS C Q
_Irll11 '
n1u n �
' ` �l Rain I����:►i��Gll lllilD!�II��N��i���ll
n.ai
NE
VIZ.�.i i*'426:5 .. \ •f.
', ��►` ��� - �°I—� ii.;IMr� ,. • ;� ..., " _ _rte_
1' �f
�'.L 7`.ry>j_��� Hrl ��TjAl►.Iltll`M �. `�`•.: �, � 1, �1�*i�Y .-
���, rn■ n� i i.. i f 1,-• \. +... �� .:,II. tl \•n+p f • I ` 1'��, rrr���
IIl1 ■111=�1- .. I�SII n .mrr �1.
!d aulnl -■■ aliii •+�':1�I:isru7ti _.'
��r al . _ , ��,4•��I�P��� ■
',^i.'1�� ■4 Iv�nuuroll:: - ■:� �t■�l�ull!r•.*�i�,.,�rl*#loon.,■lint r1�= � \ .� ���■t�r�,�
"
11,18.w■r INI,•m SI/-�tl:=��ttrt
,� ': "lillw�'-.�}ti .� �..:, � .1 _ r '��niul��.,■a.1 n,►��- _ ��� S!, ����� ,CM�
m# i1 11=116 1. ■ 94 n�� ;'rrcr' I' ,� ,i l�',11��y+ \\;\` •
.,..�... i►��;lo_� i� �.t # w '7 ■: i3c afi r��
.� �� 1 �``�'•4��,_ s � i# �i� il! �y. ��• .. +�•.,_.. -. Il_t..
Nis
■. e
n� . :� / r iii 'r�� -.0
—M �� 1 t ■
—slur,, 1. f�r il.t3.1!1�.• i-."�er� �c•�'r �L 1.a4 ,t����`�
r l'.,. fad_. � •� hllli at.111i /�`
It Hall a r= ? tr� n1 ej.�■ ` � :n a\» ,?s�IL� WL�_��'s►
101 All
■ffi
r
Inc
I qa.�
r�
r �
I�: ,w l,a;rl��I �IfiT•
_!1.■�{{ ; �I'ihtlll:.11 iUgll =���■" `Il�1➢:: =11H 111 oil�
w;j;; ■�I11111Li1Z��■r.r:11l�j� ••� i!lI,IlNlrlll_,1��,
�4 ���� mm mammon
_��r!��w� � �1I11�INllllaill[H[fllw :'�€
��.,�_ r �_�� �nl�=l1�� IN
11 11 j?'.rif111N i �"+_� iii ■_ w.R�r r r �, r p♦elrleoar�,is
��I= ' MJ ■ 111■ �� �, If�1 �?Nlrjr9 rre�.y ! +t{+
1_ .}li' _ I ��Lli•11■��'�� 6:-•
Hai._.�'�ws rl.o- sfud�...".C/
MUNI
ll�li•�, 2!!I.
�2tl •�` p
t.FIR�t���'■11.
�■. �, 1�l..a.� 1
n
I
I
RCW 35A.14.480: Annexation of territory served by fire districts — Interlocal agreemertt.,. 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:
(1) 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 fire 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.gov/rew/default,aspx?cite=35A.14.480 6!1312011
FRANKLIN LINTY
July 20, 2011 R
D I T R1 C
Gary Crutchfield
City Manager PRE-VENT FMS
City of Pasco IT'S Y, OUR JOB!
525 N Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Mr. Crutchfield,
RCW 35.13.238 allows for annexation by resolution of the city council after inter local agreements are
signed by the Fire District, the County Commissioners and the city. The Commissioners of Franklin
County Fire District#3 feel it is in the best interest of the district and those we serve to explore this
process and therefore are intcrested in pursuing this inter local agreement. The district understands that it
will be participating in public meetings to consider and address the concerns of affected residents.
The District understands that at some point the whole Riverview area will become a part of the city due to
the fact that this is the normal progression and a function of the Urban.Growth Plan. If done in bits and
pieces with no ability to negotiate compensation the district will suffer from loss of Assessed Valuation.
A negotiated Inter Local Agreement between FCFD#3 and the city will allow the district to plan and
prepare for changes to the district's service area needs.
There are efficiencies to be gained through a planned and negotiated process of annexation rather than
done piecemeal. Many of the opportunities within the RCW will be lost if the city uses the traditional
metbod_ This RCW will provide an opportunity to, among other benefits, do better quality long term
strategic planning and clear up confusing boundary lines in relation to dispatch and response of resources
to emergencies.
Sincerely,
Todd Blackman
Chairman of the Board of Commissioners
L'es Lit:, ger
Fire Chief
2108 N. Road 84, Pasco, WA 99301 509-547-9306 —fax: 509-547-2535 — email: fcfd3 @charter.net
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. July 25, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) County-Wide Public Safety Sales Tax:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated July 20, 2011.
2. Pasco City Council Agenda Report dated June 10, 2009.
3. Joint Resolution of Pasco and Franklin County (Pasco Resolution No. 3170).
(b) Municipal Code Amendments on Gross Misdemeanors:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated July 19, 2011_
2. Draft Ordinance.
(c) Municipal Code Amendments for Vehicle Impounds:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated July 19, 2011.
2. Draft Ordinance.
(d) Refunding 2001 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated July 19, 2011.
2. Savings Summary from Piper Jaffray dated June 23,2011.
(e) Community Survey:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated July 19,2011.
(f) Code Enforcement Board Authority:
1, Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated July 20, 2011.
2. Draft Ordinance.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1. 4:00 p.m.,Monday, July 25, Ben-Franklin Transit Office— Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund
Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.)
2. 7:30 a.m., Thursday, July 28, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd — Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMENIBER MIKE GARRISON,Rep,; TOM LARSEN, Alt.)
3. 12:00 p.m., Thursday, July 28, 1404 E. Ainsworth— Port of Pasco's 15th Annual Tenant Appreciation
BBQ. (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND)
4. 4:00 p.m., Thursday, July 28, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd — TRIDEC Board Meeting,
(COLENCII,M.F,MBER N41KE GARRISON,Rep.; TOM LARSEN, Alt.)
5. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, July 28, 710 W. Court Street—Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY,Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK,Alt.)
6. 7:30 a.m., Friday, July 29, Riclrland City Council Chambers — Hanford Communities Governing
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Counci July 20, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutch t1 i Manager Workshop Mtg.: 7/25/11
SUBJECT: County-Wide ublic Safety Sales Tax
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Pasco City Council Agenda Report dated June 10, 2009
2. Joint Resolution of Pasco and Franklin County (Pasco Resolution No. 3170)
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/25: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See below
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Over the past several years, Franklin County has noted the growing; need to add
jail space and renovate the existing jail, The only two plausible financing options
for such a project are: 1) excess property tax levy (voter approved); 2) public
safety sales tax (up to 3 tenths) authorized by state law and subject to voter
approval. The city and county agreed in 2009 to jointly finance a public safety
building project near the Courthouse, to include a new jail and new municipal
court room space, subject to voter approval of the sales tax option in November
2009 (please refer to reference 41, the June 2009 agenda report which explains the
project concept, financing options and the preferred course of action at that time).
B) The County has recently been reviewing its options as to a revised jail project and
has indicated it may place the public safety sales tax question on the November
2011 ballot for voter decision.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Council should discuss the background of the public safety sales tax issue, the
potential use of funds and advise Franklin County if there is any change in the
city's previous support and/or potential use of the proceeds of the sales tax, if
approved by the voters,
4(a)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council June 101 2009
FROM: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Regular Mtg,: 6/15/09
SUBJECT: Franklin County .fail Expansion
I. REFERENCE(S);
1. Conceptual Illustration of new Jail Building
2. Conceptual "Ground Level"/Jail Footprint
3. Conceptual "Upper Level" Footprint
4. Conceptual Floor Plan for Municipal Court Space
5. Pre-Design Construction Estimate
6, Criminal Justice Sales Tax Estimate (2008)
T Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/15: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , a joint resolution with
Franklin County, regarding construction of new jail and municipal
court space and the financing thereof.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The 25-year-old Franklin County jail requires renovation and is inadequate in size to
meet current or future jail space needs. Renovation cost is estimated at $445 million
and construction of an additional 225 beds in an expansion of the jail is estimated to cost
about $28 million, The renovation and expansion, combined, are expected to
accommodate jail space needs in Franklin County for another 25 years (minimum),
B) Franklin County has two options for funding such a project, both subject to voter
approval: a) traditional property tax bond; or b) criminal justice sales tax. If financed via
property tax bond, the estimated debt service of $2 million annually would require an
annual extra levy, of about 46 cents per thousand of assessed value; thus, the owner of a
$200,000 home would pay an additional $92 per year in property tax while a business
with $1.5 million in taxable real/personal property would pay nearly $700 per year
additional property tax. The same debt service would require a sales tax increase of 3 110
of a cent county-wide, as the county's share (60%) would approximate $I.9 million.
Given the greater flexibility associated with the sales tax option and the fact it will grow
over time (thus allowing some future problems to be addressed without additional tax
burdens), the county prefers use ofthe 3/10 criminal justice sales tax option and seeks the
city's opinion/support.
C) One of the city's priority needs is to make room for the overcrowded police department
and to pay for a new municipal court facility. The space currently occupied by the
municipal court at the county's public safety building was constructed in the early 1970's
and paid by the city as a long-term lease; that 40-year lease terminates in 2012 and the
city has no place to conduct court thereafter. The police department has simply
outgrown its space at City Hall due to the dramatic expansion of its staff, in keeping up
with the city's population growth. A space-needs analysis and conceptual floor plan
completed last year has identified a need for a new building on the east end of the City
Hall campus to house the police department (S1 1 million) and possibly a new municipal
court ($3 million).
D) Estimated debt service for a police station building combined with a new municipal court
space approximates $1 million annually. If financed via property tax, an additional levy
rate of about 37 cents per thousand dollars would be required; that represents an
additional $74 per year for the owner of a $200,000 home. The city's additional property
tax levy would be in addition to the county levy, if the county chooses to use property tax
as a financing mechanism. The city's statutory share of the criminal justice sales tax
(proportionate share of incorporated population applied to 40% of the total 3/10 sales tax
annually)would approximate $1,2 million.
V. DISCUSSION;
A) Although the county is legally responsible to provide jail space for felony crimes within
the county, the city is responsible for housing city misdemeanants. Clearly, the best
option for the city is to contract with Franklin County to house misdemeanants at the
county jail (doing so avoids construction of a separate jail at city expense as well as
transport costs between a separate jail and municipal court); this method has the added
advantage of helping the county provide for operating costs associated with the jail
(essentially, the city pays a large share of the annual operating cost for the county jail, in
the form of daily prisoner housing cost). In essence, the city and county both benefit
from a mutual contracting arrangement. As the county has nearly tripled in population
since the current jail was built, expansion is clearly needed no",v and for future growth as
well. The question is not whether a jail expansion is necessary; the question is "how best
to finance?" such a project.
B) As evidenced during the discussion of this matter during the recent joint "city/county"
meetings, the county's jail expansion project could include new floor space for Pasco's
municipal court (just as the city and county collaborated in 1970, a new long-term
agreement could be developed whereby the city would pay for new court space as part of
the jail expansion project). Thus, the county's jail project not only would provide a long-
term solution to the city and county jail space need, but would also answer the question
"where does the city conduct municipal court?" A long-term agreement (at least in
principle) could be developed prior to the financing solution.
C) Assuming the city is committed to including new court space in the jail expansion
project, the financing question appears easily answered. To finance both projects via
property tax would require two separate ballot issues (one county-wide for the jail; one
within the city for the municipal court space and possibly the new police station); the
effect, assuming voter approval, would be a total of 93 cents per thousand additional
property tax on city property owners (assumes jail, court and police station), or ` 186 per
year for a $200,000 home. On the other hand, the county-wide sales tax option would
require one ballot question, county-wide, and the result (assuming approval of the 3/10
sales tax) would provide adequate funding for the jail expansion, municipal court and the
police station. In addition, the revenue stream associated with the criminal justice sales
tax (unlike the property tax) would tend to grow over time, thus absorbing growth in
operating costs over time and minimizing the need to seek increased property or sales tax
rates in the future.
D) Given the space needs of the city (new municipal court and police station), the simplicit}
of the sales tax option (one, county-wide ballot), the ability of the criminal justice sales
tax to fully support all three projects; the improved opportunity to collaborate with and
mutually benefit the city and county criminal justice operations; and the reality that the
criminal justice sales tax will grow over time, staff urges Council to prefer use of the
county-wide criminal justice sales tax as the financing option for the jail expansion,
municipal court space and new police station. That recommendation, however, is
conditioned or. the assumption that a satisfactory "agreement in principle" can be
established prior to formal action. To that end, staff further recommends a joint
resolution (city and county) which would spell out those principles in fonnal accord and
express mutual support for the criminal justice sales tax ballot, presumably in November
this year.
E) Following Council discussion at the May 11 workshop meeting, city and county staff
developed a joint resolution which outlines the basic rationale for a joint project
agreement and the principles to be included in that agreement. In addition, the resolution
declares the intent of the County Commission, with support of the Pasco City Council, to
place a ballot proposition before the voters on the ballot, proposing the three-tenths of
one percent sales tax addition.
F) Continuing discussion between city and county staff over the past two weeks has
identified the following language for the principles regarding the term of city occupancy
of the court facility to be fully paid by the City;
City will have minimum of 40 year lease of the space; county will
have periodic right to terminate after 40 years, with at least 3 years
notice and payment of depreciated value based on 80 year life of
building space and industry standards.
If City Council concurs in the revised principles, the joint resolution can be approved by
City Council at its June 15 meeting.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO AND FRANKLIN COUNTY
PASCO RESOLUTION NO. }70
FRANKLIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. _*J 41
IN THE MATTER OF JOINTLY PLACING A BALLOT
PROPOSITION BEFORE THE VOTERS OF THE COUNTY IN
NOVEMBER 2009, PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL THREE-TENTHS OF
ONE PERCENT LOCAL SALES TAX
and
JOINTLY DEVELOPING AN AGREEMENT TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPANCY SPACE FOR PASCO MUNICIPAL
COURT AS PART OF THE NEW JAIL PROJECT PLANNED BY
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Franklin County is planning construction of a new 225-bed jail as well as
renovation of the jail, as both are needed to provide the capacity for housing local offenders as
the County continues to grow; and
WHEREAS, the City contracts with Franklin County for housing of City misdemeanant
offenders being adjudicated through Pasco Municipal Court, so having adequate jail space for
pre-trial as well as post-trial confinement is critically important to the maintenance of public
safety in the Pasco community; and
WHEREAS, the City has operated its Municipal Court within space at the Franklin
County Courthouse under the terms of a 40-year lease which will expire in 2012, thus,
necessitating that the City find new space in which to conduct its Municipal Court functions; and
WHEREAS, the Franklin County Board of Commissioners and the Pasco City Council,
during recent joint meetings, discussed the probability of the City paying for new Municipal
Court space in conjunction with the County's construction of a new jail; and
WHEREAS, the Franklin County Commission and Pasco City Council, having duly
considered the efficiencies to be gained for both parties, jointly find that the citizens and
taxpayers of both jurisdictions will be greatly benefitted by the parties executing an agreement
whereby the Pasco Municipal Court functions can be housed, long-term, at the Franklin County
Courthouse,provided that the agreement is consistent with certain principles; and
WHEREAS, the cost of such a facility requires the issuance of debt by the County, the
repayment of which will require a voter-approved source of revenue; and
WHEREAS, the County Commission and the Pasco City Council have considered the
only two available options, an excess property tax levy or a three-tenths of one percent sales tax
increase; and
PASCO RESOLUTION NO. (7�
FRANKLIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO.—"' U I.I 9 4 1
WHEREAS, the County Commission and the Pasco City Council both find that the sales
tax option is much preferred because it provides sufficient funding for construction of both the
jail and court facilities but will also provide sufficient funds for operation of those and other
criminal justice functions throughout the County as well as the City and avoids an increase in the
existing property tax burden on owners of property throughout the County; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO AND
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF FRANIKLIN COUNTY, WASUINGTON:
Section 1. The Franklin County Commission and Pasco City Council hereby agree to
develop a detailed agreement to facilitate construction and occupancy of sufficient space for
Pasco Municipal Court as part of the new jail project planned by Franklin County_
Section 2. The Franklin County Commission and Pasco City Council hereby agree that
any such agreement will be wholly consistent with the following"Principles of Agreement":
• Total floor area to be occupied solely by the City will be determined mutually but not less
than 10,000 square feet in area.
• City will pay for all construction cost attributed directly to the space mutually agreed to
house Municipal Court and its related functions.
• City will pay proportional cost of construction of"common areas"of new building
directly related to the space mutually agreed to house Municipal Court.
• City payment for construction costs will occur on the same schedule as any debt
repayment schedule incurred by County for construction debt.
• City will have minimum of 40-year lease of the space; County will have periodic right to
terminate after 40 years, with at least three years notice and paynwnt of depreciated value
based on 80-year life of building space and industry standards.
• City will pay proportional share of operating costs (utilities,janitorial, etc.) based on
occupied space.
• The prisoner housing contract will remain substantially in its current form and content.
County will not include jail construction or renovation costs in calculating the daily fee
for city use of the jail facilities.
Section 3. The County Commission; as authorized under RCW 82.14,450 and with
support of the Pasco City Council, will place a ballot proposition before the voters of the County
during the 2009 General Election, proposing an addition of three-tenths of one percent to the
local sales tax, principally for construction and operation of a County jail and other public safety
purposes.
PASCO RESOLUTION NO. 3110
FRANKLIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. '!
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
PASCO, WASHINGTON
APPROVED this ['5-day of June, 2009.
Joyce 1s06mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
polo `-4
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attomey
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
APPROVED this J5 day of June,2009.
Rick Miller, Chairman
/el�zo/F7�
Robert E. Koch, Chair Pro-Tern
Brad Peck, Member
ATTEST; APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SAO
Clerk to Board Ryan,, Veerhulp
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council July 19, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfiel anager Workshop Mtg.: 7/25/11
Regular Mtg.: 8/1/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, D t City Manager
SUBJECT: Municipal Code Amendments on Gross Misdemeanors
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Draft Ordinance
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/25: Discussion
8/I: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending sections of
the Pasco Municipal Code redefining the maximum incarceration
for gross misdemeanors and, further, authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The 2011 State Legislature passed SSB 5168 which reduces the maximum period
of incarceration, for a person convicted of a gross misdemeanor, from one year to
364 days.
B) In order to be consistent with the new law, which is effective July 22, staff has
identified all PMC references to gross misdemeanors which must be revised. The
attached draft ordinance will amend the municipal code to Iimit any incarceration
penalty for these offenses to a term not to exceed 364 days, as required by statute.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance-
4(b)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending
Sections 1.01.130 "Violations - Penalty"; 1.08.040 "Fraudulent Registration
of Unqualified Persons"; 5.27.270 "Penalty"; 5.45.200 "Penalty"; 5.46.060
"Violations and Penalties; 5.70.050 "Violation and Penalty"; 5.78.030
"Violations"; 9.01.090 "Gross Misdemeanor - Penalty"; 9.02.020 "Penalty";
9.85.040 "Penalties"; and 26.04.120 "Enforcement" Redefining the
Maximum Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors
WHEREAS, the Washington legislature by Substitute Senate Bill 5168, recognized that
a maximum sentence by a Court in the State of Washington for gross misdemeanors can, under
Federal law, result in the automatic deportation of a person who has lawfully immigrated to the
United States, is a victim of domestic, violence, or a political refugee, even when all or a portion
of the sentence or confinement is suspended; and
WHEREAS, the legislature further has found that under the present definition of"gross
misdemeanor", there is a disproportionate outcome, when compared to a person who has been
convicted of certain felonies, which under the State's determinate sentencing law, must be
sentenced to less than one (1) year. As a result, an inequity exists which may he cured by
reducing the maximum sentence for gross misdemeanors by one (1) day; and
WHEREAS, such legislation has amended RCW 3.50.440 by which the Municipal
Courts are empowered to provide punishment for gross misdemeanor violations including
imprisonment for a maximum of 364 days, and requires amendment of the City's code to be
consistent with this change in the law; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 1.01.130 entitled "Violations -- Penalty" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1,01,130 VIOLATIONS - - PENALTY. It is unlawful for any person to violate any
provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code. Any person violating
any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandator), requirements of this code,
except for traffic infractions under the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance as adopted by the
City of Pasco and for such violations specifically noted in this code as a "civil infraction", shall
upon conviction of a gross misdemeanor, be punished by a fine of not more than Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00), or by imprisonment for a period of not more than three
hundred and sixty-four (364) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment or upon conviction of
a misdemeanor, be punished by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by
imprisonment for a period of not more than ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. Each such person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during
any portion of which any violation of any provision of this code is committed, continued, or
permitted by such person and shall be punished accordingly. In addition to the penalties herein
above provided, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of the provisions of this
code shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be, by this City, summarily abated as such, and
each day that such condition continues shall be regarded as a new and separate offense. (Ord.
3481 Sec. 1, 2001; Ord. 2743 Sec. 1, 1989; Ord. 2593 Sec, 1, 4-7-86; Ord. 2549 Sec. 6, 1985;
Ord. 2391 Sec. 1, 1982; Ord. 1438 Sec. 13, 1970.)
Section 2. That Section 1.08.040 entitled "Fraudulent Registration of Unqualified
Persons" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.08.040 FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF UNQUALIFIED PERSONS.
Every deputy registrar who fraudulently registers an unqualified person is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor-arid upon---coiivietion kher hall-tbe�db�e e% ;;dig 01fee
h09&e de1I. �y-J it ffipf
. (Prior code Sec. 1-2.16)
Section 3. That Section 5.27.270 entitled "Penalties" of the Pasco Municipal Code
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
5.27.270 PENALTIES.
A) Any violation of this chapter shall be a gross misdemeanor, and shall be subject to
a fine not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), or to imprisonment for a term not to exceed
one (1) year three hundred and sixty-four (36) days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each
day or portion thereof such violation continues or occurs shall be considered an additional and
separate offense.
B) Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall also be subject to
license suspension or revocation as set forth herein, (Ord. 3262 Sec. 3, 1997.)
Section 4. That Section 5.45.200 entitled "Penalty" of the Pasco Municipal Code
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows;
5.45.200 PENALTY. Any Operator, Driver, or passenger violating or failing to
comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and
shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment
for not more than one (1) year three hundred and sixty-four (364) days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. (Ord. 3335 Sec, 2, 1998.)
Section 5. That Section 5.46.060 entitled "Violations and Penalties" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
5.46.060 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. Every person, whether acting as an
individual owner, employee of the owner, operator or employee of the operator, or whether
acting as a mere agent or independent contractor for the owner, employee or operator, or acting
as a participant or worker in any way directly or indirectly, who acts in violation of any of the
provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and upon conviction, such
Ordinance Redefining the Maximum
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors -2
person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $5,000 or by imprisonment for a period not to
exceed ene yea three hundred and sixty-four (364) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(Ord, 2841 Sec. 1, 1991.)
Section 6. That Section 5.70.050 entitled "Violation and Penalty" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
5.70.050 VIOLATION AND PENALTY. Every person, except those persons who
are specifically exempted by this chapter, whether acting as in individual owner, employee of the
owner, operator or employee of the operator, or whether acting as a mere agent or independent
contractor for the owner, or acting as a participant or worker in any way directly or indirectly
who gives massages or operates a massage business, or any of the services defined in this
chapter, without first obtaining a license or permit and paying a fee to do so as required by this
chapter, or violates any provisions of this chapter, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and
upon conviction, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $5,000 or imprisonment
for a period not to exceed one-year- three hundred and sixty-four (364) days, or by both such tine
and imprisonment. (Ord. 2840 Sec. 1, 1991.)
Section 7. That Section 5.78.030 entitled "Violations" of the Pasco Municipal Code
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
5,78.030 VIOLATIONS.
A) Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the
requirements of this chapter, shall upon a finding that the act or omission had been committed,
be punished by a fine of not more than $500 dollars and shall be guilty of a code infraction.
Each such person is guilty of separate code infraction for each and every day during any portion
of which any violation of any provision of this chapter is committed, continued, or pennitted by
such person and shall be punished as aforestated.
B) Any person who knowingly submits or assists in the submission of a falsified
certificate of inspection, or knowingly submits falsified information upon which a certificate of
inspection is issued, shall, in addition to the penalties provided in subsection (A) above, be guilty
of a gross misdemeanor arid. _
nortt f ►e d o a ��, �ffld eni-e
st-k t°° r• r for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this
subsection shall be committed.
C) In addition to the penalties provided above, any violation of this chapter may
result in the revocation of the business licenses provided in this title. Any violation of this
chapter including the determination by the City after an inspection of the dwelling unit, that a
condition exists which substantially endangers or impairs the health or safety of a tenant may, in
addition to the penalties provided above, result in the issuance of a notice of civil violation by
subject to the penalties as imposed under the provisions of this code. (Ord. 3231 Sec, 2, 1997.)
Ordinance Rudefiningthe Maximum
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors-3
Section 8. That Section 9.01.090 entitled "Gross Misdemeanor - - Penalty" of the
Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
9.01.090 GROSS MISDEMEANOR - - PENALTY. Every person convicted of a
gross misdemeanor defined in this code shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for
a maximum term fixed by the court, of not more than one yea three hundred and sixty-four
364 days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court, of not more than Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine. (Ord. 3482 Sec, 1, 2001.)
Section 9. That Section 9.02.020 entitled "Penalty" of the Pasco Municipal Code
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
9.02.020 PENALTY. The penalty for willful failure to appear shall be a fine of not
more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000,00) or imprisonment for not more than erne ve tlu-ee
hundred sixty-four (364) days, or both. The penalty imposed under this Section shall not exceed
the maximum penalty for the original crime charged or, if there has been no charge, the offense
for which the person was arrested. (Ord. 2592 Sec. 1, 3-7-86.)
Section 10. That Section 9.85.040 entitled "Penalties" of the Pasco Municipal Code
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
(1) Fines and Imprisonment, Any person violating this Ordinance shall be guilty of a
gross misdemeanor and punished by a fine of$250 dam- for the first offense; $500 dollars for
the second offense; and $1,000 dear for each subsequent offense, or by imprisonment in the
city jail lisr-a tvtm nm-to efteeed-si myt d ef by be!h .ia ne. and i m. it die ti n of
the-eeurt.
(2) Restitution. In addition to any punishment specified in this section, the court shall
order any violator to make restitution to the victim for damages or loss caused directly or
indirectly by the violator's offense in the amount or manner determined by the court.
(3) Community Service. In lieu of, or as part of, the penalties specified in paragraph
one of this section, a minor or adult may be required to perform community service as described
by the court based on the following minimum requirements:
(a) The offender shall perform at least 50 hours of community service,
(b) The entire period of community service shall be performed under the
supervision of a community service provider approved by the Courts,
(c) Reasonable efforts shall be made to assign the offender to a type of
community service that is reasonably expected to have the most rehabilitative effect on
the offender, including community service that involves graffiti removal. (Ord. 3370
Sec. 2, 1999.)
Ordinance Redefining the Maximum
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors-4
Section 11. That Section 26.04,120 entitled "Enforcement" of the Pasco Municipal
Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
26,04.120 ENFORCEMENT. Any person violating the provisions of this title is
guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not less than or undfed-�+00)
dellafs $100 or more than { $300 or to imprisonment not exceeding
ninety(90) three hundred and sixty-four (364) days or both. The City Attorney shall commence
an action to enjoin further violations or attempted violations and to compel compliance with this
title. (Ord. 3398 Sec, 2, 1999.)
Section 12. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of , 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Ordinance Redefining the Maximum
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeattors- 5
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council duly 19, 2011
T(7: Gary Crutchfield, anager Workshop Mtg.: 7/25111
Regular Mtg.: 8/l/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, De i Manager
SUBJECT, 'Municipal Code Amendments for Vehicle Impounds
I, REFERENCE(S):
1. Draft Ordinance
II, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/25: Discussion
8/I: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending Title 10 of
the Pasco Municipal Code regarding impoundment of vehicles and,
further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The 2011 State Legislature passed legislation known as "Hailey's Law" which
requires the mandatory impound of vehicles of those who are arrested for driving
under the influence of alcohol and for having physical control of a vehicle while
under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
B) Staff has prepared the attached draft Ordinance which amends PMC 10.18.010 to
be consistent with the new law and creates a new Section I0.18.015 on
"Mandatory Impound"requirements.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance.
4(C)
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending
Section 10.18.010 "Authority to Impound Vehicles"; and creating a new
Section 10.18.015 "Mandatory Impound" providing for mandatory impound
upon arrest for driving while under the influence (RCW 46.61.502) and
physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504)
WHEREAS, the Washington State legislature has by the adoption of "Hailey's Law"
required the mandatory impound of vehicles to those who are arrested for driving under the
influence of alcohol (RCW 46.61.502), and having physical control of a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol or drugs (RCW 46.61.504); and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to bring the Pasco Municipal Code in compliance with these
changes in the State law; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 10.18.010 entitled "Authority to Impound Vehicles" of the
Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
10.18.010 AUTHORITY TO IMPOUND VEHICLES.
(A) Grant of authority. City law enforcement officers are hereby authorized. and
empowered to remove, tow and impound a vehicle from a public street, highway or right-of way
to a designated vehicle impound facility including the business location of a registered tow truck
operator under the circumstances hereinafter enumerated.
(1) Whenever a driver of a vehicle is arrested in violation of l4' €r1 5
influenee) RCW 46.20.342 (Driving While License Invalidated); or RCW 46.20.345
(Operation Under Other License or Permit While License Suspended or Revoked) such
vehicle is subject to summary impoundment pursuant to the terms of this Chapter at the
direction of a law enforcement officer.
(2) In addition, a law enforcement officer may take custody of a vehicle, at his
or her discretion after consideration of reasonable alternatives, and provide for its prompt
removal to a place of safety or designated vehicle impound facility under any of the
following circumstances:
(a) Whenever a law enforcement officer finds a vehicle standing upon
the roadway in violation. of any of the provisions of RCW 46.61.570 (Stopping,
Standing, or Parking Prohibited in Specified Places), the officer may provide for
the removal of the vehicle or require the driver or other person in charge of the
vehicle to move the vehicle to a position off the roadway;
(b) Whenever a law enforcement officer finds a vehicle unattended
upon a public street, highway or right-of-way where the vehicle constitutes an
obstruction to traffic or jeopardizes public safety;
(c) Whenever a law enforcement officer finds an unattended vehicle at
the scene of an accident or when the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident is
physically or mentally incapable of deciding upon steps to be taken to protect his
or her property;
(d) Whenever the driver of a vehicle is arrested and taken into custody
by a law enforcement.officer;
(e) Whenever a law enforcement officer discovers a vehicle that the
officer determines to be a stolen vehicle;
(f) Whenever a vehicle without a special license plate, plaque, or
decal indicating that the vehicle is being used to transfer a person with disabilities
under RCW 46.16.381 is parked in a stall or space clearly and conspicuously
marked under RCW' 46.61.581 which space is provided on private property
without charge or on the public property;
(g) Upon determining that a person is operating a motor vehicle
without a valid a_n_d;if reuired,_sp.�ciall en�,darsed driver's license in violation of
RCW 46.20.005, or with a license that has been expired for ninety (90) days or
more;
(h) Whenever a vehicle is illegally occupying a restricted parking zone
including, but not limited to, truck or commercial loading zone, bus or taxi
loading zone, posted street construction or maintenance, or other similar zone,
where, by order of the Director of Public Works, Chief'of Police or Fire Chief, of
or their designees, parking is limited to designated classes of vehicles or is
prohibited during certain hours, on designated days or at all times, if the zone has
been established with signage restricting parking for at least twenty-four (24)
hours giving notice to the public that a vehicle will be removed if illegally parked
in the zone, and where the vehicle is interfering with the proper and intended use
of the zone, Signage must wive notice to the public that a vehicle Vvih be removed
if illea. II narked in that zone.
(i) Whenever the driver of a vehicle is arrested for violation of RCW
46.61.503 (Driver Under Twenty-One Consuming Alcohol);
(i) When a vehicle with an expired registration of more than fortv-five
(45) days is parked on a public street.
Ordinance Amending Section 10.18.010
and Creating Section 10.18,015 -2
Nothing in this section may derogate from the powers of a law enforcement
officer under the Revised Code of Washington, including but not limited to RCW
46.55.0805 RCW 46.55.085, RCW 46.55.113 or RCW 9A.88,140, any, other section of
the Pasco Municipal Code, or the common law.
(3) When an arrest is made for violation of RCW 46.20.342 (DWLS), if the
vehicle is a commercial vehicle or farm trans orb t vehicle and the driver of the vehicle is
not the owner of the vehicle, before summary impoundment directed under subsection (1)
of this section, the law enforcement officer shall attempt in a reasonable and timely
manner to contact the owner of the vehicle and may release the vehicle to the owner if the
owner is reasonably available, as long as the owner was not in the vehicle at the time of
the stop and arrest and the owner has not received a prior release under this subsection or
RCW 46.55.120 (1)(a)(ii). Farm transport vehicle means a motor vehicle owned by a
farmer and that is being, actively used in the transportation of the farmer's or another
farmer's farm, orchard, aquatic farm. or dairy products, including livestock and plant or
animal wastes, from point of production to market or disposal, or supplies or
commodities to be used on the farm orchard aquatic farm or dairy, and that has a gross
vehicle weight rating of 7,258 kilojZrams (16.001 pounds) or more.
(B) Notice to Owner of Liability for Costs and Fees. When any vehicle is removed,
towed or impounded pursuant to this chapter the owner of the vehicle shall pay the towing and
storage costs against the said vehicle, as well as any costs and fees assessed pursuant to this
chapter, before said vehicle is released. Notice of impound required by RCW 46.55.1 10 shall be
given by the tow truck operator,
(C) Tow Truck Operator, The City shall appoint by competitive bid, contract,
rotational call agreement, or any combination of these methods, one or more properly licensed
tow truck operator registered with the State of Washington to provide such services. The Police
Department shall arrange for towing and storage of the impounded vehicle through a properly
licensed tow truck operator registered with the State of Washington and contracted with the City
of Pasco. It is required that the tow truck operators who contract with the City have a City
business license. A copy of the Touring Contractors current towing and storage rates shall be on
file with the Chief of Police and the Administrator of Pasco Municipal Court. An appointment
may be rescinded by the City upon evidence that the appointed tow truck operator is not
complying with the laws or rules relating to removal and storage of vehicles or this chapter. The
rates for towing and storage shall he imposed in accordance with the rate schedules oil file with
the Chief of Police and the Administrator for Pasco Municipal Court.
(D) Costs. Any costs incurred in the removal of an impounded vehicle shall be paid
by the owner of the vehicle so removed, and the same shall be a lien upon such vehicle. (Ord.
3796, 2006; Ord. 3405 Sec.l, 2000; Ord. 3 341 Sec. 1, 1998.)
Section 2. That a new Section 10,18.015 entitled "Mandatory Impound" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows:
Ordinance Amending Scction 1018.010
and Creating Section 10,18.015 - 3
10.18.015 MANDATORY IMPOUND.
(A) When a driver of the vehicle is arrested for a violation of RCW 46.61 502
(DrivinR Under the Influence) or RCW 46.61.504 Whvsical Control of Vehicle Under the
Influence as adopted by reference in PMC 10.05.010, the vehicle is subject to swnmary
imlLound and except for a commercial or a farm transportation vehicle under subsection E of
this section,the vehicle must be impounded. With the exception of the 12-hour hold as provided
in subsection (C) below, procedures for notice, redemption, storage, auction, and sale shall
remain the same as for other impounded vehicles under this chapter.
(B) If the police officer directing that a vehicle be impounded under this section has:
(1) Waited thirty minutes after the police officer contacted the police
dispatcher reel stingy a rist_e_red tow truck operator and the tovy truck rsyon }has
not arrived, or
If the police officer is presented with exigent circumstances such as being
called to another incident or due to limited available resources being required to return to
patrol- the police officer may pjqge the cornRjqjqd impound ordef and invgtljgry inside ft
vehicle and secure the vehicle by closing the windows and locking the doors before
leavinz.Neither the City nor the police officer shall be liable for anyarnnes to or theft
of the vehicle or its contents that occur between the time the officer leaves and the time
that the registered tow truck o erator takes custody of the vehicle or for the actions of
W person who takes or removes the vehicle before the registered tow truck operator
arrives upon securing the vehicle as provided above.
(C) When a driver of a vehicle is arrested for a violation of RCW 46.61.502 (Driviniz
Under the Influence) or RCW 46.61.504 (Physical Control of Vehicle Under the Influence), and
the driver is the registered owner of the vehicle, the impounded vehicle may ngl be redeemed
within a 12-hour period following the time the impounded _vehicle arrives at the m istered tow
truck operator's storage facility as noted in the registered tow truck operator's master log, unless
there are two or more registered owners of the vehicle or there is a legal owner of the vehicle that
is not the driver of the vehicle, either whom may redeem the impounded vehicle after it anives at
the registered tow truck operator's storage facility as noted in the registered tow truck operator's
master log. The driver of such vehicle shall be notified that the impounded vehicle may not be
redeemed within a 12-hour period following the time the impounded vehicle arrives at the
registered tow truck operator's storage facility unless there are two or more registered owners or
there is a l_gal owner who is not the driver of the vehicle. The police officer shall notifv the
driver that the impounded vehicle max be redeemed by either a registered owner or legal owner.
who is not the driver of the vehicle, after the impounded vehicle arrives at the registered tow
truck operator's storage facility.
(D) When a driver of a vehicle is arrested for viqlation of RCW 46,61.502 (Driving,
Under the Influence) or RCW 46.61.504 (Physical Control of Vehicle Under the Influence) and
the driver is not a registered owner of the vehicle, the impounded vehicle may be redeemed by a
registered owner or legal owner,who is not the driver of the vehicle. after the impounded vehicle
Ordinance Amending Section 10.18.010
and Creating Section 10.18.015-4
arrives at the re istered tow truck o erator's storage facilit v as noted in the re istered tow truck
operator's master log. The police officer directing, the impound shall notify the driver that the
impounded vehicle may be redeemed by a registered istered owner or lop-al owner who is not the driver
of the vehicle, after the impounded vehicle arrives at the registered tow truck operator's storage
facility.
E If the vehicle is a commercial vehicle or farm transport vehicle and the driver of
the vehicle is not the owner of the vehicle, before the summary impoundment directed under
subsection A of this section. the police officer shall attempt in a reasonable and timely manner
to contact the owner of the vehicle and may release the vehicle to the owner if the owner is
reasonably available, as long as the owner is not in the vehicle at the time of the stoR and arrest.,
(F) The registered tow truck operator shall notify the Pasco Police Department when
the vehicle arrives at the registered tow truck operator's storage facility and has been entered into
the master to std arting the 12-hour period.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of _ , 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie L. CIark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Section 10,18.010
and Creating Section 10.18.015 -5
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council # July 19, 2011
t
TO: Gary Crutchfie thrlanager Workshop Mtg.: 7125/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, Doputy
SUBJECT: Refunding 2001 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Savings Summary from Piper Jal'fray dated June 23, 2011
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL J STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7125: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Estimated net present value savings of$419,000
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In 2001 the City issued $6,9 million of Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO —
non-voted) Bonds associated with refinancing and funding various construction
projects including City Hall, the library, a fire station and the Road 68 Softball
Complex.
B) Due to favorable market conditions, Piper Jaffray, the City's bond underwriter,
estimates that the City can save approximately $419,000 by refunding the 2001
bonds, while maintaining the current repayment schedule. The last bond payment
is scheduled for December 1, 2020.
C) Staff is in the process of working with the underwriter and bond counsel to
authorize the details of a refunding bond issue.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) If Council agrees that the anticipated savings make sense, staff will prepare for
the presentation of more details at the workshop meeting of August 8 with a
possible bond sale scheduled for August 15, 2011.
4(d)
Piperjaffray,
SAVINGS
City of Pasco, WA Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
LTGO Refunding Bonds, 2011
(Refunding 2001 LTGO Bonds)
Present Value
Prior Refunding to 09/01/2011
Date Debt Service Debt Service Savings @ 2.4441464%
1210112011 104,337.50 91,387.50 12,950.00 12,871.59
12/01/2012 598,675,00 549,450.00 49,225.00 48,133.37
12/01/2013 600,930,00 551,350.00 49,580.00 47,258.46
12/01/2014 601,865.00 553,900.00 47,965.00 44,594.48
12/0112015 601,440.00 551,000.00 50,440.00 45,714.93
1210112016 599,840.00 547,800.00 52,040.00 45,980.97
12/01;2017 601,810.00 549,800,00 52,010.00 44,825.22
12/01/2018 602,307.50 551,000.00 51,307.50 43,131.12
12/01!2019 601,307.50 551,400.00 49,907.50 40,91820
12/01!2020 598,785.00 546,000.00 52,785.00 42,199,76
5,511.297.50 1043.087.50 468,210.00 415,628.09
Savings Summar
PV of savings from cash flow 415,628.09
Plus:Refunding funds on hand 3,666.45
Net PV Savings 419,294.54
Jun 23,2011 4:09 pm Prepared by Piper Jaf[ray&Co, (Finance 6.020 Pasco:LTGU-REI:UNDOI,REFLIND41) Page 6
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council July 19, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchifli Tanager Workshop Mtg.: 7/25/11
Regular Mtg.: 8/1/11
SUBJECT: Community Survey
1. REFERENCE(S):
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/25: Discussion
8/1: MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to contract for conduct of the
2011 National Citizen Survey, not to exceed $11,000.
1I1. FISCAL I_NIPACT:
S 1 1,000
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city has contracted with the National Research Center in Boulder (Colorado)
every other year since 2005 for the conduct of the "National Citizen Survey" in
Pasco. The survey is a nationally standardized survey used by communities
throughout the country to gauge the citizens' perception of municipal service
delivery. The report has been useful in defining concerns for Council to address
during its 2006, 2008 and 2010 biennial retreats (spring of each even-numbered
year) and has also been used to gain citizen response to specific questions selected
by the Cit} Council (in addition to the standard survey questions), In anticipation
of the 2012 Council retreat; staff is preparing to contract for the National Citizen
Survey to be conducted in late 2011, for receipt of the report in January 2012
(providing plenty of time to incorporate the results in preparation for the Council
retreat in spring 2012).
B) In addition to its use for Council retreat, the survey is an integral part of the city's
on-going effort to measure its performance, from citizens' perspective, in the
provision of key services. With the benchmarks established by prior surveys,
staff will be able to track trends for certain service functions, thereby adding a
qualitative perspective to the quantitative information that the city also develops.
Thus, it is important that the survev be conducted on a regular basis (every two
years).
C) The base cost for the survey is $9,900 and may include up to three policy
questions. The data may also be compiled in a "Normative Comparisons'' report
which compares Pasco's survey data with that of other jurisdictions of
comparable size around the country; the additional cost for this report is $1,100.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff strongly recommends the survey be conducted in late 2011; thus, the
commitment must be tiled with the National Research Center by late September.
Doing so will result in the report being provided to the city by late January,
B) The use of the specific questions option has been beneficial in previous years, and
it may be for the 2011 survey as well. Staff would appreciate direction on what
specific questions to include; it is understood that the specific questions need not
be identified until early-October.
C) Staff requests authorization to contract for the survey, and Council direction
regarding questions to be included.
4{e}
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council r July 20, 2011
TO: Gary Crutch' of Manager Workshop Mtg.: 7,125/11
Regular Mtg.: 8/1/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, Dgputy 'i Tanager
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Board Authority
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Draft Ordinance
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/25: Discussion
811: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending Pasco Municipal
Code Section 11.02.010, regarding applicability of procedures for
"Civil Infractions," to include violations of Title 13, "Water and
Sewers" and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City Code Enforcement Board has, for some time, taken jurisdiction of civil
infractions regarding the City's water and sewer system under the assumption that
jurisdiction is established through the building code as found in Title 16.
Experience suggests that some of the areas fall outside of the building code (i.e.,
backflow prevention devices) and are more appropriately regulated under Title
13, Water and Sewer.
B) As the Code Enforcement Board is experienced in dealing with the typical Title
13 violations, staff' proposes that Code Board authority be amended to clearly
include the title.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The attached ordinance will give proper authority and staff recommends its
adoption.
4(f)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Pasco
Municipal Code Section 11.02.010, regarding applicability of procedures for
"Civil Infractions" to include violations of Title 13, "Water and Sewers."
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the Code Enforcement Board requires the
authority to hear cases involving infractions of water and sewer ordinances; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section entitled "Applicability of Chapter" of the Pasco Municipal
Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
11.02.010 APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to enforcement of Title 5 (excluding Chapters
5.12 - Pawnbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers and 5,46 - Private Detective Agencies,
Private Detectives, Private Security Guards, and Private Security Companies), Title 6 -
Health and Sanitation, 'Title 12 - Streets and Sidewalks, Title 13 - Water and Sewers,
Title 16 - Building Code, Title 17 - Sign Code, Title 18 - Fire Prevention, Title 19 -
Mobile Homes, Title 25 - Zoning, and Chapters 8.02 (excepting Sections 8.02.130,
8.02.170 and 8,02,320 — Animal Control), 9,60 - Public Nuisances, 9.61 - Noise
Regulation, and 9.62 - Abandoned Vehicles and Vehicle Hulks. (Ord, 3534 Sec, 2, 2002;
Ord. 3190 Sec. 1, 1996.)
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of_ , 2011 ,
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B, Kerr, City Attorney