HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.08.08 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 P.M. August S,2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Sewer Service to Burbank Area:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated August 4, 2011.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. June 9, 2011 Agenda Report (with attachments).
4. Concept Elements Comparison.
5. Proposed Resolution.
(b) Refunding 2001 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated August 5,2011.
2. Savings Summary from Piper Jaffray dated July 27, 2011.
(c) Municipal Code Amendments on Gross Misdemeanors:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated August 2,2011.
2. Draft Ordinance.
(d) Capital Improvement Plan:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated August 4,2011.
2. Proposed Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2017 (Council packets only; copy available for
public review in the City Manager's office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at
http://www,pisco-wa. ov/index.aspx?NID=255).
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c}
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1- 12-00 p-m., Monday, August 8, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon. (Presenter: Jim Toomey, Director,Port of Pasco)
2. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 9, Senior Center — Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBF.R TOM LARSEN, Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN, Alt.)
3. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, August 11, Sterling's, Walla Walla — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory
Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK,Alt.)
4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, August 11, Transit Facility - Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR
MATT WATKINS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council ,� August 4, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfit- Manager Workshop Mtg., 8/8/11
Regular Mtg.: 8/15/11
SUBJECT: Sewer Service tO Burbank Area
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. June 9, 2011 Agenda Report (with attachments)
3. Concept Elements Comparison
4. Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
818: Discussion
8/15: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. concurring in the
core elements of a wastewater treatment services agreement with
the Port of Walla Walla and, further, authorizing the City Manager
to develop a final interlocal agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Port of Walla Walla inquired about the potential for wastewater treatment
services at the Pasco sewer plant in July 2010 and a City Council committee
worked with the Port over the past year to explore the potential for a mutually
beneficial agreement. The request and the committee's observations were
reflected in the June 9, 2011 agenda report (attached as reference 2). Council
discussion at its June 13 workshop concluded the suggested agreement concept
did not provide sufficient benefit to the city to warrant approval.
B) Further discussions with the Port have resulted in a substantial increase in the
financial elements of the suggested agreement concept; a comparison of the
"previous" and "new" concept elements is attached as reference 3.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The improved financial elements reflect a 20% premium in the price of the
capacity units and assures receipt by the city of at least $1.8 million within 17
years of signing an interlocal agreement (this represents approximately 20% of
the expected cost of the city's new sewer treatment plant needed to accommodate
growth in the northwestern part of the city). In addition, the PILT floor will
adjust annually to avoid erosion by inflation.
B) Previous concerns, other than financial, focused on the potential to create
competition for industrial sites and the potential for more employment in the
Burbank area contributing to school enrollment growth in Pasco.
■ Land competition: as noted previously, the Port has the legal ability to
build/operate its own sewer treatment plant or to accommodate new
development using septic systems. Though both options would be more
costly (in one form or another), the fact remains that it can be done (witness
the existence of Tyson Foods and Boise Cascade in that general vicinity).
Thus, competition is likely to occur over time, regardless.
4(a)
■ School enrollment: this consideration hinges on actuality of development in
Burbank. As has been the case, many employees of Burbank businesses
reside in Pasco; this is not likely to change, as many people either prefer a
more urban environment (city) or cannot obtain satisfactory housing in
Burbank. Again, if development can occur in Burbank without Pasco sewer
service (and thus create additional enrollment growth in Pasco), provision of
wholesale sewer treatment service is unlikely to be a significant contributor
to Pasco school enrollment growth beyond what would occur otherwise.
C) The Port has indicated it desires formal action by the City Council, so it can
proceed accordingly; if the city declines to go forward with an agreement, then
the Port knows that option is not available to it and can proceed with its other
option(s).
PASCO WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ROAD 40 EAST SEWER INTERCEPTOR
� 'try +�• 'j'+�/,.'•���w,<? ^^ .S� ,�.. ��-fi,'-orc`
�� -` ,� ` moo._ ..�•�� f ._, �ZQ�, _��•�T rl
I . '`fie 1:'*.�. '`^ � "^ ''- •\. ��.� -- f � «"'
,K, PORT OF ti
�J
WALLA WALLA ~� •� - ,
liq
1"=Mo'
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Counci s June 4, 201 1
FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/t 3/11
SUBJECT: Sewer Service to Burbank Area
1. REFERENCE(S):
I. Vicinity Map
2. Letter from Port of Walla Walla to Paso City Manager dated 7/2110
3. Memorandum from CH2MHill to Ahmad Qayoumi dated I 1/14/10
4. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 4/7/11
5. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council dated 5/5/11
6. Letter from Pasco Chamber of Commerce dated 6/7111
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/13: Discussion
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
See Reference No. 4
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city received an inquiry from the Port of Walla Walla in July 2010, seeking
an agreement to allow the Port of Walla Walla to connect its proposed sewer
system to the City of Pasco's sewer plant. The Port's primary purpose is to
provide sewer service within its business park lands, presently owned or being
acquired by the Port in the vicinity of a new SR12 interchange being constructed
over the next year or Mo. In essence, the Port proposes to install all collection
lines and pump stations to serve the Port of Walla Walla land (in Burbank area),
install a force main across the Snake River and connect to Pasco's southeast trunk
line near Road 40 East. From there, wastewater would flow to the Pasco sewer
treatment plant located at Maitland and Ainsworth (see references 2 and 3)_
B) A City Council committee of Watkins, Hoffmann and Francik accompanied the
City Manager and Public Works Director in meetings with Port of Walla Walla
representatives through the past fall and winter. Several issues consumed
considerable attention through the committee meetings; most notably the potential
secondary effects of industrial land competition, tax base loss and residential
impacts to Pasco(see reference 4).
V. DISCUSSION:
A) From a purely engineering standpoint, provision of Pasco's wastewater plant
capacity for Burbank is doable and sensible (more cost effective than building and
operating a new separate plant and discharge system to the Columbia River).
Major hurdles, however, are found in the policy issues associated with the
concept, as discussed in reference 4 and outlined specifically below:
,should Pasco ,facilitate creation of sewer-served industrial sites that will
compete with similar sites in Pasco (on the ,S'R12 1395 corridor)? Certainly,
competing industrial sites are not desirable for Pasco. However, if the Port
can build its own plant, competing sites may exist anyway (though sewer cast
would be substantially higher, absent federal/state grant funds to reduce
capital cost recovery). However, if Burbank's sewer service from Pasco was
4(a)
limited to non-industrial uses (i.e., retail and housing), the competition risk
would be greatly diminished (if not eliminated).
• Can the potential competition effect be adequately mitigated? Ideally, Pasco
and the Port would create a "tax base sharing' agreement whereby a fixed
percentage of new tax generated by sewer-induced investments would be
shared with Pasco agencies (city, county, schools, etc.). The next best
mechanism is a Paymcnt in Lieu of Taxes (PILT); that mechanism can be as
simple or complex as the parties may agree. Whether it is sufficient in lieu of
a tax base sharing agreement is a policy question for Council.
• Will more employment in the Burbank area result In more housing demand
in Pasco, in turn resulting in more demand,for non-existent school space in
Pasco (and without the industrial tax base associated with the jobs)? The
fundamental conflict inherent in this question is the tax-base issue. Tllat is,
when Pasco realizes housing investments without the industrial tax base of the
employer (e.g., Tyson Foods, Broetje Orchards, Boise Cascade, etc.), the
Pasco school system suffers the financial consequence (most notably, space
for enrollment growth).
B) In addition to the 515111 memorandum providing further explanation, the Pasco
Chamber of Commerce was asked to advise the city of its perspective in this
matter, recognizing that the provision of sewer service to the Burbank area could
have adverse influences on Pasco businesses and/or investments. Given the
relatively short timeline for a response, the Chamber addressed it at its recent
board meeting; the Chamber's letter is attached as Reference 6. In essence, the
Chamber's position is that the proposed concept agreement provides much more
financial benefit to Burbank than to Pasco and the potential risks to Pasco are not
sufficiently mitigated. The Chamber does note that receipt of sufficient water
rights, however, may make the agreement more of a "win-win" arrangement (in
recognition of Pasco's need for water rights).
C) In view of the previous city council discussions, coupled with the observations
Provided by the Chamber of Commerce, staff suggests council either:
1. Decline to further consider the proposed agreement;
OR
2. Offer to develop an interlocal agreement with the Port of Walla Walla
based on the proposed concept agreement, but to include the following
changes:
• Restriction of industrial uses to adequately minimize potential
industrial Iand competition;
• Higher compensation for Pasco and payment in form of
acceptable water rights.
H k'°w''� sSt.• �.�!' �v F Yi. ~- —v � •.�."'Xt� ` -----^^-T�= _— e' rf �r'..�
PASCO WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ,
ROAD 40 EAST SEWER INTERCEPTOR
-S Via.
F PORT OF 4
�, ��,,•. � WALLA WALLA � ,
r
1"=2000'
310 A Street
Walla Walla Regional Airport
WALLA WALLA Walla Walla,Washington 99362-2269
Phone: (509) 525-3100 FAX: (509) 525-3101 www.portwaUawalla.com • www.wallawallaairport.com
PASCO CITY HALL
July 2, 2010
PFCEIVED
JUL 0 6 2010
Gary Crutchfield
City Manager �I I Y OFFICER'S
City of Pasco
525 N. Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Dear Gary:
Thank you for visiting with me by phone concerning the Port of Walla Walla's interest in
connecting to the City of Pasco's sewer system. The Port would like to develop a business park
for the Burbank community in the western portion of Walla Walla County. A major obstacle is
the lack of a sewer system in Burbank.
The Port would appreciate the City of Pasco's favorable consideration to allow the Port of Walla
Walla to connect to its sewer system. The concept would be for the Port, at its sole cost, to
operate a central lift station at the proposed business park and pump raw or screened wastewater
to the City of Pasco for treatment. Connection to the City of Pasco would involve a Snake River
pipeline crossing along the river floor. A sanitary sewer tie-in to the City of Pasco collection
system would occur in the vicinity of the Big Pasco Industrial Center and Sacagawea State Park.
Enclosed is a preliminary map showing the proposed route along with the estimated cost the Port
would incur.
Also enclosed are flow and load projections the City needs to assess our impact on your sewer
treatment facility. The Port understands the City will need to charge a capacity fee to the Port.
In addition based on your current codes the Port will be charged a 50% sewer treatment
surcharge in consideration we are outside the city limits.
The Port is willing to meet with the City to discuss any technical or policy issues as you analyze
this request. We believe both parties could benefit from this arrangement and would alleviate the
need to have multiple treatment facilities in close proximity to one another. Thank you fbr your
consideration.
Sincerely,
?Executive s M. Kuntz
Director
cc: Port Commissioners
Ronald W. Dunning, Commissioner
Michael Fredrickson,Commissioner James M. Kuntz, Executive Director
Paul H. Schneidmiller, Commissioner
TABLE 5-3
ALTERNATIVE A
CITY OF PASCO SERVICE
SYSTEM COMPONENT SIZEICAPACITY ESTIMATED SYSTEM
COST COST
Headworks
Screening Structure $80,000
Mechanical Screen 12-inchrinclined 85,000
H2S Control Tank and Feed 45,000
System
Headworks Accessories 20.000
$230,000
Lift Station
Wetwell 6-foot-diameter $18,000
Valve Vault 15,000
Valves, Fittings, Hatches, etc. 50,000
Triplex Pumps and Accessories 50-200 gpm VFD 95,000
Pump Control Panel 20,000
$198,0001
Forcemain 6-inch Pressure Main 6,500 feet $260,000
Snake River Crossing 480,000
Gravity Transition to Pasco Sewer 45,000
$785,000
Miscellaneous
Yard Piping $15,000
Site Work 1 Mitigation 45,000
Electrical Supply and Controls 30,000
Emergency Generator 50,000
$140,000
Subtotal $1,353,000
Sales Tax(8.0%) $108,200
Subtotal $1,461,200
Contingency (15%) $203,000
Engineering,Contract Administration, Legal (20%) $271,000
Pipeline Easement $80,000
Pasco Capacity Purchase TBD
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE
Notes:
1. Cost to buy into Pasco wastewater utility to be determined and added to this estimate.
2. Connection to 30-inch East Pasco sewer at S Road 40 EID Street.
611 1 010
S.1D0CS1WW'PORnW385-221 BUR8ANK'WAS7EWA'EMTAElE 5-3ALT A REV.XIsx
BURBANK BUSINESS PARK
FLOWS AND LOADS
Total Flow Total SOD Total SS
(gpd) (lb/day) (Ib/day)
PHASE 1 Average DaPy Flow d 30,200 82.3 .—.82.3
Maximum Monthly Flow d 45,366
Maximum Daily Flow (gpd) 51,000
Peak Hour Flow(gpm) 76
PHASE 2 Average Daily Flow(gpd) 78,400 83.2 83.2
Maximum Monthly Flow d 117,600
Maximum,.Qai1y Flow (q.pd). _ 132,300
Peak Hour Flow m 196
TOTAL PHASE 1 + 2 Average Daily Flow d 108,600 165 965
Maximum Monthly Flow d 162,900
Maximum Daily Flow d___ _ 183,300
Peak Hour Flow m 272
S:MOCS)W W PORT%W 0&-,221 BURBANK WASTE WAT ERTLOW S AND LOAOS,xW
Y /•
1 4o1`y`
f n/ �* � ff y • h
~ l ♦ 1
CONNECTm
•y �
FO,PASCO
SEWER
y
J j}�
SCREEN AND
1 UFT STATION
' PORT Of WALLA WALLA FIGURE
Y
pa
f(qjp ndeCSOn BURBANK BUSINESS PARK
&Qissoc7alos,inc. 5-3
CONNECT TO PASCO
MEMORANDUM CH2MHiLL
Port of Walla Walla Sewer Connection Update
To: Ahmad Qayoumi, P.E.- Director of Public Works,City of Pasco
COPIES: Wally Hickerson,RE.
FROM: Thornas ). Helgeson, RE.
DATE! November 14,2010
In August 2010,CH2M HILL prepared a memorandum for the City of Pasco discussing
potential impacts to the Southeast Trunk Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Plant resulting
from the proposed coruTection of the fort of Walla Walla (POWW).That memorandum,
entitled "Southeast Trunk Main Connection" described the following impacts:
0 Effect on treatment and conveyance capacity
0 Effect on treatment and conveyance capability
Potential connection and usage charges
In the interim, the POW"' has proposed a Framework Agreement covering the addition of
up to 300,000 gallons per day (gpd) Maximum Monthly Design Flow (MMDF) of sanitary
sewage meeting the influent limits of the City. In the earlier proposal, the POWW
anticipated an ultimate flow contribution of 108,000 gpd Average Annual Daily Flow
(AADF) and 162,900 gpd M!YIDF.
The current POW W proposal also differs in that there is no discussion of discrete phases.
Presumably, flows will develop to the full 300,000 gpd in a gradually increasing manner or
in a stepwise manner as significant new uses are connected.
The purpose of this memo is to update the conclusions of our earlier memorandum to refloct
the increase in proposed flows. As in the earlier memorandum, all calculations are based on
the full ultimate flow.
Effect on Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Capacity
'rhe Pasco WWTP is designed to treat 8.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of domestic and
pre-treated industrial wastewater to the standards required by the Washington Department
of Ecology.Currently, flows are averaging approximately 4.0 to 4.3 ingd, or roughly 50% of
design flow.
'The additional flow proposed by the Port represents approximately 3.75% of the WWTP's
design capacity of 8.0 mgd,The SF Pasco Trunk was designed for a capacity of 5,000 to 6,200
gpm and the assumed peak flows proposed by the Port could represent as much as 'IM'() of
this capacity (based on a 2,4:1 ratio of peak flow to IVIIv1DF). Without knowing the proposed
purnping Facility characteristics,however, actual flows will likely differ from this value,
TC.Al2J101114-PWi1N-CONNECTION.UPDRTE.DOCX 1
PORT OF WALLA WALLA SEWER CONNECTION UPDATE
Since the actual flows will be dependent on the actual pump station configuration and
operation, the C=ity should request that the design be subject to their review in order to
avoid potential conveyance capacity concerns.
Effect on Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Capability
The WWTP was designed,and operates,based on influent flow characteristics of a typical
domestic wastewater(250-300 mg/I.BOD,250-300 mg/L TSS,3040 mg/L TN,6-8 mg/L
TP, no appreciable contribution from metals and other exotic components). Significant
variance from these values for new discharges could interfere with normal operations and
treatment efficiencies at the WWTP.
In recognition of these potential interferences, the limitations on discharges to the public
sewers are codified in sections 13A.52.190 et seq of the Pasco Municipal Code.This code is
mostly qualitative in nature, prohibiting those discharges which could interfere with
treatment and that could pose significant safety and/or operational hazards. Specific
quantitative limitations include:
• Wastewater pH outside the range of 5.5 to 9.0
• BUD exceeding 300 mg/L
• Temperature greater than 40° C
• Other specific exclusions
POWW's revised proposal states that"[w]aste strength will be that of normal strength
municipal wastewater" and such contributions should not impact the City's treatment
capabilities. It should be noted that the earlier proposal did indicate nominally higher ROD
concentrations that those allowed by City Code, but this appears to no longer be anticipated.
Given that there will potentially be industrial and significant contributors of regulated
compounds, the POWW will be required to comply with the City's requirements. If
consistent high-strength wastewater is conveyed to the City's system, additional surcharges
would apply. Accordingly, the final agreement should not preclude future surcharges.
From an operational perspective, the flows proposed by the port connection represent
relatively small volumes that will be pumped through a 6,500 foot 6-inch forcemain. As a
result, two concerns arise relative to operations:
At Iow proposed pump flows(50 to 200 gpm), the transit time of the sewage from
the Port pump station to the SE Pasco Trunk would range from 47 to 193 minutes
PLUS the lag time between pump starts.This could allow septic conditions to arise
inside the forcemain which could result in increased odors and treatment difficulties.
• At the low pipeline velocities(ranging from 0.55 to 2.26 feet per second), the
forcemain could be subject to clogging. While it is anticipated that maintenance of
this line will remain POWW's responsibility,this will still affect the level of service
to the ultimate customer.
In addition, the revised proposal does not provide sufficient additional information as to the
nature of the proposed waste stream, so it is not possible to determine whether additional
actions, charges, or pretreatment may be required. A disclosure of anticipated discharges
TCA120101114„POWW CONNECTION_UPDATE.DOU 2
PORT OF WALLA VIALLA SEWER CONNF.GTION UPOAI E
and connecting entities should be provided before a final determination is made on
treatment impacts.
Connection and Use Charges
Exhibit 1 provides an estimate for the connection and use charges for the Port's proposed
connection revised to show a non-phased approach and the larger proposed Flows.
The proposed connection represents a condition not included in Pasco's Comprehensive
Sewer flan as the Port has not been considered within the service area for planning
purposes. As such, the connection represents an impairment of capacity already committed
(albeit at a plamiing level only). To determine the baseline value of this impairment, the
capital costs of the WWTP expansion and the value of the SE Pasco Trunk are considered.
These costs ($28,000,000 and $3,100,000 respectively) have been adjusted to reflect the
increase in consh•uction costs since the projects were built. AS is typical for such price
adjustments,the Engineering News Record Constniction Cost Index for August 2010 was
compared to that for the year 1995.
The cost of conveyance and treatment of the flows are consistent and proportional to those
currently incurred by the City. Current operating and maintenance costs are based on the
budgeted amounts for the current year, The current monthly use rates for commercial
coru-iections are$34,95 plus$1.29/100 cubic feet over 1000. There is no surcharge in the code
for commercial accounts outside the City (unlike residential and Hotel/Motel).
1CA/201D'114_POV,�N CONNFC717,N-JPOATE0OCX
PORT OF WALLA WALLA SEWER CONNECTION UPDATF
EXHIBIT 2
Proposed Connection and Use Charges
Pori of Walla Walla
Connection Charge:
Capital Cost,WWTP capacity 1113r $45,334,000
of capacity impaired by Pori 3.75%
Treatment capacity cost share $1.700,000
Capital Cost, SE Trunk capacity (2'(31 $5.019,000
% tarrying capacity at peak flow 10.0%
Conveyance capacity cost share $501,000
Total Connection Charge $2,201,000
Use Charge:
Current O&M cost,treatment)41 $1,497,876
Cost factor for treatment, annual it) $56.170
Current O&M cost,conveyance '"' $573,457
Cost factor for conveyance, annual''51 $57,646
CUrrentO&M cost, ad ministrationlp' $1,511,350
Cost factor for administration,annual s5j $4,800
Total Use Cost Factors, annual $118,616
I'1 Treatment Capital cost based on most recent upgrade to facility, which enables
this connection
12) Conveyance Capital Cost based on cost of construction at$10/inch
diameter/foot
13) Capital cost adjusted for increase In construction costs (ENR Index 1995=
5471,August 2010= 8858)
'A1 O&M costs based on current year budget amounts
'b1 Use charge cost factors based on capacity percentages above for treatment
and collection,administrative based on estimated 48 hours per year at a
burdenee labor cost of$100,1hour
The values shown in Exhibit 1 are based on the assumptions stated in the memorandum and
do not include potential additional surcharges based on wastewater quality. Before any final
determination is made as to any surcharges resulting from the wastewater characteristics,
the Port should provide a more detailed breakdown on the anticipated connections and
their resulting waste streams as they relate to other potentially interfering compounds.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide this information and are available to
discuss any comments or questions you may have.
TCN70101114 PO'NWCONNECTION SJPDATE.DOCx 4
MEMORANDUM
April 7, 2011
TO, City Council
FROM: Gary Crutcht -1 ity Manager
RE: Sewer Service to urbank Area
In response to a July 2010 request by the Port of Walla Walla, Mayor Watkins appointed an ad-hoc
committee (composed of himself, Ms. Francik and Mr. Hoffmann) to join the City Manager in
exploring with Port of Walla Walla officials the possibility of providing sanitary sewer service to
the Burbank area. Through several meetings over the course of eight months, the committee and
staff concluded that sanitary sewer service could be provided relatively easily, from an engineering
standpoint. It also appears to be financially advantageous to the Port of Walla Walla to obtain
service from Pasco, versus the option of permitting, constructing and operating its own small sewer
system. The major hurdle, however, is found in the potential secondary considerations, most
notably "local tax base competition."
POLICY CONCERNS
Pasco has significant amounts of industrial land in its eastern portion along SR12 (the same
highway serving the Burbank area) that are already served by city sewer or readily served by the
city's sewer system. That urban service is an attribute sought by most industrial investments. If
Pasco provides sewer service access to Burbank, the Port of Walla Walla will naturally market its
landholdings for commerciaPindustrial development with sewer service available. In effect, then, a
sewer service agreement from Pasco would create more competition for industrial investment in the
SRI corridor at a time when Pasco has much industrial land to market itself and when the Pasco
community is in such dire need for industrial investment (to increase its tax base, particularly with
respect to school funding). (See Exhibit A, Possible Property Tax Effects.)
An additional concern is the potential for new industrial jobs in Burbank to create more residents in
Pasco. While this is not a problem on the surface, the creation of more homes and school-aged
children for the Pasco School District without the additional industrial tax base is clearly contrary to
the Pasco community's goals. Candidly, the existing Tyson and Boise Cascade industrial plants in
Burbank are long-standing examples of why Pasco's"assessed value per capita" is so much low'cr
than other communities (Pasco receives the homes/apartments tax base while Walla Walla County
gets the industrial tax base without the "people costs").
Extensive discussion between the Council committee and Port of Walla Walla officials [beused on
the potential for the sewer service to cause more industrial investment in Burbank at the expense of
Pasco (in terms of tax base). The obvious solution of"tax base sharing" was rejected by the Port, as
the Port could not convince the other taxing entities (Walla Walla County, school, fire district) to
share any property tax growth that might result from sewer induced investments in Burbank.
Ultimately. the City committee concluded that a Payment in Lieu of Taxes ("PILT") might be
sufficient in lieu of a tax base sharing agreement. The PILT would be a fee separate from (and in
addition to) the fee for sewer usage and would be received by the City's general fund as
compensation "in lieu of property tax" the city's general fund might receive if the development was
located in Pasco rather than Burbank, Rather than attempt to calculate the PILT each year based on
actual tax values of new development in Burbank each year, the PILT could equal 100% of the
monthly sewer fee with an appropriate "floor" or minimum annual payment.
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT CONCEPT
The committee recommends City Council consider the tentative agreement reached with Port of
Walla Walla representatives (Exhibit I3) as discussed below.
• Term: the 75-year term, though on the "high end" may be reasonable, given the nature of the
utility service (relatively permanent) and the significant investment to be made by the Port,
in the form of its own pipelines,pump stations and the Snake River crossing. One should
also remember that the Port will pay monthly sewer charges based on rates likely to increase
over time and which will include any expenditures by the City necessary to upgrade the
server plant over that period of time.
• Capacity:
• Plant: reservation of 300,000gpd epresents 3.75% of existing total capacity of the
sewer plant; it represents about /o of current unused plant capacity. Given the
likelihood of a second sewer plant to serve the growing northwestern portion of the
City, reservation of 300,000gpd at the old plant should not be a problem over time.
• Trunk Line: reservation of 300,000gpd represents 10% of existing total capacity of
the southeast trunk line, Given the likelihood that most users in Paseo's industrial
area (east of Oregon Avenue and south of Lewis Street) will be modest users of the
sewer system, the Port's reservation should not prove problematic over time. Should
a significant user in Pasco unexpectedly require more trunk capacity, it is passible to
duplicate the southeast trunk line to add capacity (though costly).
• Capacity Costs: both the plant and trunk line investments have been adjusted using
engineering construction cost standards to reflect 2010 values; plant: $45 million;
trunk line: $5 million. Applying the respective percent of design capacity reserved
for the Port, respective cost shares are $1.7 million for the plant and$500,000 for the
trunk line, or $2.2 million total. Given that development of sewer users will take
considerable time and will likely be gradual, the Port prefers to purchase the capacity
in blocks over time. To accorrunodate that, the committee recommends three blocks
of 100,000gpd each, be offered at a lump sum of$750,0001'ea. In recognition of the
extended time it may take for the Port to utilize the second or third blocks, the
$750,000 price should be adjusted by the Seattle CPI, but not to exceed 5% annually.
• Sewer Use Costs: ordinarily, sewer service outside the city requires a surcharge of 50%.
However, in this case, the committee recommends the Port be charged the same commercial
use rate as if the user was located in the City. This recommendation is made in
consideration that the Port will install and maintain all collection lines, pump stations, etc.,
and will bill their customers; thus, the Port will, in effect, be a wholesale customer in the
city and the City avoids much of the operations costs (other than treatment at the plant). The
rate charged the Port will adjust over time just as the City adjusts its sewer use rates over
time.
• PILT: as discussed previously, the PILT is the committee's attempt to offset the potential
risk of competing industrial investment in Burbank that might be occasioned by extension of
sewer service. 'The PILT, at $2,000 per month minimum, is likely not to grow for an
extended period of time, barring a major user of the sewer service. Unlike the sewer use
charges, the PILT payments would go to the general fund, as compensation for potential loss
of property tax opportunity.
• Service Urea: the initial service area for the agreement is that portion of Burbank lying south
of the McNary Wildlife Refuge (see Exhibit Q. It includes a current mix of moderate value
residential development, a public school complex and a few small industrial facilities. The
Port expects to accommodate commercial development interest in the vicinity of the new
SRI interchange at Humorist Road as well as potential industrial users in the vicinity of
SR12 and SR124. Service to existing and potential residential developments is possible, but
not nearly as likely as the business interests. The Port desires the possibility of adding
Burbank Heights (above or north of the McNary Wildlife Refuge) to the service area; given
the strong likelihood that all such development in that area would be residential, that
potential should present no concerns to Pasco.
GC/tIz
Attachments
EXHIBIT A
Possible Property Tax Effects
(re: Burbank Sewer Service)
Pasco Franklin PSD Port of Total
County Pasco _
l;Q .
Gas StationiMim-Mart
$.5m) 985 820 1 3,320 170 5,295
Retail Strip Center
I Ok sf($1.0m) 1,970 1,640 6,640 340 t 0,590
Warehouse
50k sf($3.5m) 6,895 5,740 23,240 1,190 37,065
100k sf($6.0m) 1 11,820 9,840 39,840 2,040 63,540
Processing Plant
100k sf($ O:m 15,760 13,120 53,120 2,720 84,720
Equipment ($10.0m) L 19,700 1 16,400 1 66,400 1 3,400 105,900
S29rn 1 57,130 1 47,560 1 192,560 1 9,860 307,110
EXHIBIT B
Sewer Contract Concept
• Interlocal Agreement
• Term: 75 years
• Capacity:
City commits 300,000 gpd capacity of existing sewer plant and southeast trunk line; current
value at $2.2 million, Port of Walla Walla(PWW) purchase first 100,000 gpd block of
capacity($750,000) within 12 months of agreement; failure to timely consummate purchase
terminates agreement. Payment of$750,000 purchase may be made in equal amount
payments of$250,000 over three years. Additional blocks of capacity to be purchased by
PWW in 100,000 gpd increments at updated value [$750,000 x Seattle CPI (not to exceed
59ro annually) 1112 to date of block purchase]; payment may be made in equal annual
payments over three years.
• O&M:
PWW install, operate and maintain all collection litres, pump stations, force main and other
appurtenances necessary to collect and transport sewage from Burbank service area, across
Snake River, to point of connection at Pasco southeast trunk line.
• Sewer Use Billing:
Metered at point of connection with southeast trunk line to measure use; city to bill PWW
monthly as follows:
Actual use to be billed at published rate applicable to Pasco commercial/industrial users,
but not less than $500 monthly; provided the minimum shall be 5300/monthly for the first
two years or until the first user is connected to the PWW system.
+ Each monthly bill shall include a "PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) Surcharge" equal to
100%of the respective monthly sewer use bill,but not less than $2,000 monthly.
• Service Area: (see map)
W Operational Conditions.
o City has unrestricted access to inspect the conveyance system owned and operated by the
Port.
C The City standards will govern conveyance system from the lift station to the gravity
manhole, where ownership and maintenance changes.
+ PWW is responsible for maintenance of the conveyance system.
+ Water quality test at the City's discretion.
O City to have unrestricted access to inspect the pump station.
+ City reserves the right to review new projects within PWW early in the process for
wastewater review and compliance with city wastewater standards.
+ City wastewater standards (constituents; maximum strength; etc,) shall apply to entire
system.
EXHIBIT B
Design/Construction:
An access vault needs to be constructed at a manhole before it changes to gravity system
that will include a flow meter and sampling station.
• The transition from forcemain to gravity needs to occur at the earliest possible location.
From the manhole that transitions from forcemain to gravity, the City will determine the
size of the gravity pipe.
• PWW is responsible for purchasing the flow meter.
o PWW to complete design of the system that will be reviewed and subject to approval by
the City.
o PV61W is responsible for obtaining any necessary right-of-way, easements and permits to
complete construction.
■ Termination: (?)
EXHIBIT C
34,tIirbanklEarbank Heights
C&orlivkated Water System Plan
-- —=
1 F�
-° ,kE rya\� --- - -
,0-,A
S
SR 12� �_ I Ws
1-.�.-..1.
(�,� l.a y eeucru kkrrd 13u t.- �1��� _
T',Ooluml+lu 13ar,ie 8 1 -
.I tmfu
♦-
r
Cat
en btoa I HUMOR
-� - - R eatai ant
;yam
Burbank " F' hunch
Irrigation Dist. .
'C• r H n Ray
vir v 'ding Club
ter ter Sye
LEGEND
Class A
(2 to 25 Connectiorias
Critical Water Supply �`'/j
Service Boundary 0�y�i
Port of Walla Walla
Proposed Retail
Service Area Cp v�y -
_,
Public Water District G�j, port o�� lla Walla
Servin g More Than
25 Connections
Burbank Rural Activity Center P opqsed Who sale S r"cii A&ea
&Port of Walla Walla Proposed ; I
Wholesale Service Area
Wildlife Refuge - !f
Disclaimer
The data contained in Walla Walla Countys Geographic Information System(GISJ is subject to constant change.Walla Walla County does not guarantee that the information
presented is accurate,precise,current or complete.All data contained in the County's GIS is provided by the County AS IS without warranty of any kind,implied or expressed-
By,proceeding to use the County's GIS,each user agrees to waive,release and indemnify Walla Walla County,its agents,consultants,contractors or employees from any and
all claims,liability,actions,or causes of action for damages or injury to persons or property arising from the use or inability to use Walla Walla County's GIS data.
MEMORANDUM
May 5, 2011
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutehfie Ma ager
RE: Burbank Sewe Service Concept
Council discussion of this subject matter at its April 25 workshop meeting resulted in several questions
being posed that required follow up by staff. This memorandum is intended to address those questions,
to the extent possible at this point in time.
LAND VALUE:
Much of the land to be served by the Burbank sewer system is or will be owned by the Port of
Walla Walla; whether those sites are sold or leased will be a decision of the Port. The commercial
sites in the vicinity of the new interchange will likely draw the higher prices and adding sewer
service will likely increase the value of those sites by at least $10,000/acre (according to local real
estate advisors). Industrial sites, almost exclusively owned by the Port, would also realize an
increase in value of sewer available (though one must consider the cost of providing the sewer
service where determining the net value gain). The principal value associated with sewer service to
Burbank is the substantial increase in land utilization opportunities because: 1) more potential users
of land; 2) avoid dedication of land area for drain field use; and 3) avoid conflict of groundwater
influences. Candidly, the Burbank/Port of Walla Walla industrial sites are quite limited in market
potential due to groundwater influences which constrain the range and size of potential users;
sewer service will reduce those influences.
To a degree, sewer service to Burbank will make land values more comparable (that is, Burbank
sites with sewer available will cost more than currently is the case for sites without sewer, thus
reducing the current price differential between Burbank sites and Pasco sites with sewer service
available). Pasco industrial sites (with sewer service) range in value (depending on location) from
$30,000 to $60,000 per acre; Burbank industrial sites(without sewer) are currently estimated in the
$20,000 range (according to real estate advisors).
ANNEXATION POLICY:
Pasco's policy on sewer service has been steadfastly limited to properties within the city, with rare
exceptions (one is the service connection for Livingston Elementary School and McLoughlin
Middle School, both situated outside the city but requiring sewer service to accommodate the
enrollment growth at both schools within the past decade). The primary reason behind the policy is
the lack of authority of the city to annex the service land after sewer service is provided, thus
conflicting with the state's growth management objectives (urban services, like sewer, should be
provided by cities) as well as the city's own growth management objectives (all properties within
the Pasco urban area should eventually be within the city so that all public resources within the
urban area are available for service delivery throughout the urban area).
City Council
May 5, 2011
RE: Burbank Sewer Service Concept
Page 2
Provision of sewer service on a wholesale basis presents the opportunity to sell the unused capacity
of the city's sewer system to another public agency (in this case, the Port of Walla Walla) for an
area outside Pasco's Urban Growth Area(UGA). If the properties were within the Pasco UGA,
city policy would and should require annexation, to fulfill the city's UGA objective. For a specific
"wholesale" example, Pasco entered into an agreement with the state of Washington in the late
1980s or early 1990s under which the city agreed to provide (sell) city water to the residents of
"Clark Addition" (an unincorporated neighborhood about one mile north of the Tri-Cities airport)
on the condition that the residents there create a water district to install all the water lines necessary
to transmit the water from the city system to their neighborhood and pay all associated costs with
maintenance and operation of the lines outside the city. The agreement was never implemented by
the Clark Addition residents.
So, for the "wholesale" option to be available, the land area to be served shall be: l)outside the
current and foreseeable UGA; and 2) be represented by a qualified public agency (state law
precludes private ownership of a sewage system serving multiple properties), and 3) the public
agency must pay for all collection lines, pump stations and force mains required within the
unincorporated sewer service area. The Port of Walla 'Walla proposal fits the foregoing criteria for
the possibility of wholesale service, as distinguished from "retail" sewer service available via
annexation to Pasco (for private properties within Pasco's UGA),
INDUSTRIAL COMPETITION:
As noted during the April 25 workshop discussion, accommodating sewer service to the
Burbank/Part of Walla Walla area may create competition with Pasco landowners for industrial
development (with Pasco's increasing need for private industrial investment, competition would
clearly represent a conflict with Pasco's overriding goals). The Port of Walla 'Walla, however,
noted during the April 25 discussion that it has limited ability to serve industrial development,
suggesting that most development in the Burbank area would be retail and business park activities
(not food processing, for example). The Port, as staff requested, has provided written explanation
of the limitations it sees regarding potential for industrial investments within its land area (see
exhibit A).
The Port's letter provides some degree of clarification, but does not entirely assure that competition
for the same industrial investments would not occur in the future. One method of providing a
greater degree of assurance to Pasco is to include a mutually-acceptable restriction in the sewer
service agreement (language that would clearly avoid the undesirable conflict with Pasco's goals).
Following the April 25 Council discussion of this matter, and the public awareness of a potential
agreement, questions were raised in the business community as to potential effects. As the sewer
agreement concept has not been vetted by the business community, it may be appropriate for a brief
delay in the deliberation process (not more than one month) to provide an opportunity for the business
community, acting through the Pasco Chamber of Commerce, to comment on the proposal.
GC/tlz
attachments
310 A Street
Walla Walla Regional Airport
IEZI
Walla Walla, Washington 99362-2269
Phone: (509) 525.3100 FAX: (509) 525-3101 www.portwallawalia.com • www.wallawallaairport.com
PASCO CITY HALL
PECEIVED
May 4, 2011
2517
Gary Crutchfield Cffy MANAGER'S
City Manager
City of Pasco
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
Dear Gary:
The purpose for this letter is to provide additional clarity regarding the Port of Walla
Walla's development plans for the Burbank business park. Please find enclosed a chart
highlighting the allowed uses per the Walla Walla County zoning code.
You will note the permitted uses are more oriented towards commercial, retail and
professional business park activities. The more traditional types of industrial uses are
not allowed.
Another important factor in developing the Burbank business park is the close proximity
of Columbia School District's elementary, middle and high school, All three schools
border the business park. This necessitates a more commercial business park
development plan.
The Port also has limited water resources at 800 gallons per minute and 463 acre feet
per year for the entire business park. The Port would not be able to accommodate a
large water user associated with an industrial type tenant.
For the above referenced reasons, the Port does not believe the City of Pasco providing
sewer treatment services to the Burbank business park would create industrial
development competition between our jurisdictions.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this
letter.
*cerely,
amen M. Kuntz
Executive Director
Ronald W. Dunning,Commissioner
Michael Fredrickson, Commissioner fames M. Kuntz, Exccutive Director
Paul H. Schncidmiller. Commissioner
Uses Allowed in Burbank's Industrial Business Park Zone
INDUSTRIAL/
BUSINESS P
i
e
- 4 ,
Use PermittedtlPL Conditional Use lCl
Hotels/Motels P
Farmworker Dwellings AC, with conditions
Automotive Dealers P. with conditions
Automobile Leasing/Rental P, with conditions
Building Material, Hardware, and Garden Supply P, with conditions
Eating and Drinking Establishinents P, with conditions
Food Stores P, with conditions
General Merchandise Stores P, with conditions
Heavy Equipment Sales and Rental P
Honte Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Stores P
Horticultural Nurseries, Retail P
Irrigation Systems/Equipment, Sales Service & Storage P
Produce Stand P, with conditions
Produce Market P, with conditions
Retail,Miscellaneous P, with conditions
Durable Goods P
Non Durable Goods P
Commercial Greenhouses P
Acc:eySory Use (RetaiUWholesaie Land Uscti) P, with conditions
Firc Station P
Animal Hospital P
Automotive Repair and Services P
Automotive Parking P
Business Services P
Catering EStablishrneuts P
Clinic P
Day Care Center P
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate P
Uses Allowed In Burbank's Industrial Business Park Zone
Page I o]'2
Hospitals P
Laboratories, Research and Testing P
Offices P
Orphanage/Charitable Institutions P
Personal Services P
Repair Shops find related services P
Utility Facilities C
Warehousing and Storage P
Accessory Use (Govermnent/General Services Land Uses) P, with conditions
Apparel and Other Textile Products P
Computer and Office Equipment P
Dairy Products Processing P
Electronic and Other Electric Equipment P
Food and Kindred Products P
Leather and Leather Goods P
Lumber and Wood Products, Except Fumiture P
Printing and Publishing P
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics P
Storage/Packing Agricultural Produce P
Textile Mill Products P
Winery Type 1 P, with conditions
Winery Type it P, with conditions
Miscellaneous Light Manufacturing P
Accessory Use (industrial/Manufacturing Land Uses) P, with conditions
Park P
Recreational Facility, public P
Recreational Facility(Private when 50% or less is owned/ P
partnered by a public agency)
Theaters P
Art Galleries P
Assembly Halls P
Libraries P
Museums P
Accessory Use (Recreational/Cultural Land) P, with conditions
Growing of Crops P
Accessory Use (Resource Lands Uses) P, with conditions
Colleges, business colleges, trade schools P
and similar organizations, all without students
in residence offering training in specific fields
Helistops AC
Microwave Relay Stations P
Radio and'Television Broadcasting Stations and Towers P, with conditions
Railroad Freight Yards P
Railroad Terminals P
Wireless Communication Facility P, with conditions
Wireless Communication Facility, Attached P, with conditions
Accessory Use (Regional Land Uses) P, with conditions
Uwq Allowed In Burbank's Industrial Busines.� Park Zone
Page 2 nf'2
-PASCO
�� s�q/
June 07,2011
Pasco City Council
525 N.Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Dear Pasco City Council,
Please accept The Pasco Chambers gratitude for allowing our members to weigh in on the Port of Walla
Walla sewer proposal.
The Pasco Chamber board discussed at length the pros and cons of the City's choice to accept the
proposed engagement. We commend all of you for going through the process of ensuring a well
informed decision. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated.
There was a great amount of discussion on the future effects this could hold on our City. The growth
that may be stifled, due to the lack of planning in the surrounding areas, was a broiling topic. There was
great concern on the impact this could have if Walla Walla County gained some momentum as an
industrial business competitor.
There was discussion on the positive aspects of promoting growth in our region, as well as how it could
increase Pasco's tax base. Discussed at length were the following questions:
What Impacts will this decision have on our Community 75 years from now?
Will we need the extra sewage capacity in the future to accommodate our own community's growth?
Would this relieve the impact of our schools and slow housing in our area?
The dollar amount seemed minimal to most and the majority suggested leveraging the possibility to
trade for water rights. It seemed that this would prove to be a win-win for both parties.
Thank you again for considering our input and appreciate the opportunity.
Sincerely,
Nikki Gerds
Executive Director
Pasco Chamber of Commerce
Port of Walla Walla Sewer
New Previous
Capacity Blocks/Price $900,000/ea; +CPI/5% $750,000/ea
(100k gpd x 3) maxfyr
Capacity Purchase/Timing I" Block within 1 year I" Block within 1 year
2nd Block within 15 years
3rd Block may be cancelled by
city if not purchased within
50 years
Payment Terms 3 years each block Same
(one-third/year from I" year
of purchase)
Sewer Use Rate 100% applicable city rate Same
PILT 100% of monthly sewer 100% of monthly sewer
charge, not less than charge, not less than
$2,000/month; + CPI after $2,000/month
year 5; maximum annual
adjustment 5%
Land Use No restriction, provided Same
wastewater limitations are
met
Term 75 years; Port may terminate 75 years
with 5 years notice
Service Area Coincide with Port's Port's "wholesale" service
"wholesale" service area (see area, excluding that portion
map) north of McNary Refuge
(see map)
8/3/11
il:+��':Iyct tru / u�r�arii Heights
�Mated Water System Plan y
¢tr0
E
Jf
���•, `_�. °g�`7'w1 R'gutt Sup n• _
MCN .:Y 1 i.1
s Cal HUMORIST R
m ,rrnt:it3co'e tZeenta t1t �
2 /
1 j
H' n r+uay �
LEGEND
Class A
(2 to 25 Connectio64)
Critical Water Supply lkly" /✓rl 1;
Service Boundary
Port of Walla Walla -
Proposed Retail wiz `-6
Service Area
Public Water District 4��y Fort 41WOUa �7 alla Serving More Than `
25 Connections Q
Burbank Rural Activity Center t'sip"ed who ale Svr x1Eice, AwEa
&Port of Walla Walla Proposed
Wholesale Service Area • ci
Wildlife Refuge
Disclaimer
The data contained in Walla Walla County's Geographic Information System(GIS)is subject to constant change.Wallas Walla County does not guarantee that the information
presented is accurate,precise,current or complete.All data contained in the County's GIS is provided by the County AS IS without warranty of any kind,implied or expressed.
By proceeding to use the County's GIS,each user agrees to waive, release and indemnity Walla Walla County,its agents,consultants,contractors or employees from any and
all claims,liability,actions,or causes of action for damages or injury top;rrsons or property arising from the use or inability to use Walla Walla County's GIS data.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION authorizing development of an Interlocal Agreement with
the Port of Walla Walla for Wastewater Treatment Services,
WHEREAS, the Port of Walla Walla desires to establish wastewater services in the Burbank
area; and,
WHEREAS, Pasco owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant which has substantial
unused capacity, a portion of which could be allocated to treat wastewater delivered by the Port of
Walla Walla to the Pasco plant; and,
WHEREAS, a committee of'City Councilmembers and appropriate staff worked with Port of
Walla Walla representatives over the course of the past year to determine whether or not a mutually
beneficial agreement could be developed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BV THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO:
Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby concurs in the following core elements of an
agreement for provision of wastewater services for the Port of Walla Walla:
ELEMENT PROVISION
Capacity Blocks/Price $900,000/ea; +CPI/5% max/yr
(I 00k gpd x3
Capacity Purchase/Timing V Block within 1 year
2'd Block within 15 years
3rd Block may be cancelled by city if not purchased within 50 years
Payment Terms 3 years each block
(one-third/year from 1" year of purchase)
Sewer Use Rate 100% applicable city rate
Pl IA, 100% of monthly sewer charge, not less than $2,000/month; + CPI
after year 5; maximum annual adjustment 5%
Land Use No restriction, provided wastewater limitations are met
Term _ 75 ears; Port may terminate with 5 years notice
Service Area _ Y Coincide with Port's "wholesale" service area (see map attached
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to develop a foimaI
interlocal agreement with the Port of Walla Walla, consistent with the foregoing core elements, to
include all appropriate provisions in such a Iong-term agreement for provision of wastewater
treatment services for the Burbank area.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2011
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST; APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Suy°'aJiail klBuHrbarlk Heights
Coo.r° ' ;raiated Water S-vsteml f'l'an
x.
SR 124'
l _
_nom t
rhOreln
VMtpftl P.bvd t3U
vlumbin Haain A 1
r7�
r HUMORiST Rd
Col a aneiaca'a Pleats ht `r1
Burbanis "�.r/41� , - 1^ .barch j
Irrigation Dist
r
s t'R
tertegr Bya
LEGEND
Class A
(2 to 25 Connections)
_ Critical Water Supply
Service Boundary Gy
Port of Walla Walla
Proposed Retail ro,� C, -
Service Area '0<1
Purling Water Distract �y Po" of\W Ua Waua 4
Servin More Than
25 Connections
Burbank Rural Activity Center Proposed Who le s. iovice A!r a
8 Port of Walla Walla Proposed '!P ,.
Wholesale Service Area •Q'
j Wildlife Refuge Fire 3-
Disclaimer
The data contained in Walla walla County's Geographic Information System(GIS)is subject to constant change.Walla Walla County does not guarantee that the information
presented is accurate,precise,current or complete.All data contained in the County's GIS is provided by the County AS IS without warranty of any kind,implied or expressed.
By proceeding to use the County s GIS,each user agrees to waive,release and indemnify Walla Walla County,its agents,consultants,contractors or employees from any and
all claims,liability,actions,or causes of action for damages or injury to persons or property arising from the use or inability to use Walla Walla County's GIS data.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 5, 2011
TO: Gary Crlltchtl 4*anager Workshop Mtg.: 8!8111
FROM: Stan Strebel, De auty City Man
SUBJECT: Refunding 2001 Limited Tax Bonds
1. REFERENCE(S):
I. Savings Summary from Piper Jaffray dated July 27, 2011
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
818: Discussion
III. FISCAL INTPACT:
Estimated net present value savings of$455,000; issue of$4,190,000 bonds.
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 the Road 68 Softball Complex and refunding the 1994 LTGO
bonds for City Hall,
B) Due to favorable market conditions, Piper Jaffray, the City's bond underwriter,
estimates that the City can save approximately $455,000 by refunding the 2001
bonds, while maintaining the current repayment schedule. The last bond payment
is scheduled for December 1, 2020. Savings will depend on interest rates at the
time of the sale, August 15.
C) The City applied to Standard and Poor's for a rating on this issue, which was
published on .August 4. The "AA-" rating, which is a two step improvement over
the City's last general obligation issue rating (2002, Moody's "AT') will
positively impact the City's savings on this issue through lower interest rates.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Daren Bell, of Piper ,!affray, plans to attend the meeting of August 15 to present
the results of the bond sale and the bond purchase agreement. Staff is awaiting a
draft of the ordinance necessary to authorize the bond sale and refunding issue.
B) Standard and Poor noted factors in the City's improved rating as follows:
economic base - agriculture and Hanford; strong reserves, in accordance with
policy; good financial policies and practices.
4(b)
PiperjAray
SAVINGS
City of Pasco,WA Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
Refunding 2001 LTGO Bonds
Present Value
Prior Refunding to U9101/2011
Date Debt Service Debt Service Savings 2.4721098%
12/01/2011 104,337.50 89,125.00 15,212.50 15,119.35
12/111/2012 598,675.00 545,400.00 53,275.00 52,102.85
12/01/2013 600,930.00 547,200.00 53,730.00 51,213.02
12/01/2014 601,865.00 548,800.00 53,065.00 49,295.25
12101/2015 601,440.00 545,900.00 55,540.00 50,286.55
12101/2016 599,840,00 542,700.00 57,140.00 50,426.82
12/01/2017 601,810,00 544.200.00 57,610.00 49,555.53
12101/2018 602.307.50 545.600.00 56,707.50 47,567.04
12/01/2019 601,307 50 546,200.00 55,107.50 45,072.84
12/01/2020 598,785.00 546,000.00 52,785.00 42,092.50
5,511,297.50 5,001,125.00 510,172,50 452,731.76
Savings Summary
PV of savings from cash flow 452,731.76
Plus:Refunding flmdg on hand 2,893.68
Net PV Savings 455.625.44
Jul 27,2011 10:13 am Prepared by Piper laffray&Co. (Finance 6.020 PascoAFFUNDTG) Page 8
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council q August 2, 2011
TO: Gary Crutch&_ "# Manager Workshop Mtg.: 8/8/11
Regular Mtg.: 8/15/11
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Municipal Code Amendments on Gross Misdemeanors
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Draft Ordinance
1I. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
818: Discussion
8/15 MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No, , amending sections of the Pasco
Municipal Code redefining the maximum incarceration for gross
misdemeanors and redefining graffiti nuisances as misdemeanors and,
ftmher, 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 where the penalty is
inconsistent with the new law and which must be revised. The attached draft
ordinance will amend the municipal code to limit any incarceration penalty for these
offenses to a term not to exceed 364 days, as required by statute for most of the
instances; will specify gross misdemeanor with no penalty range in two instances
(thus reserving discretion to the court); and will clarify, in the case of graffiti
nuisances, violations as a misdemeanor, thereby avoiding any conflict with the new
law.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) In the following sections, the only change is substituting "364 days" for "1 year"
regarding incarceration penalties.
• Section 1 —PMC 1.01.130— General Provisions
• Section 2—PMC 5.27.270--Adult Entertainment Business Licenses
• Section 3 —PMC 5.45.200— For Hire Vehicles
• Section 4 --PMC 5.46.060 — Private Detective and Security Business Licenses
• Section 5 —PMC 5.70.050 — Massage Business Licenses
• Section 6 —PMC 9.01.090— Peace, Safety Morals
• Section 7 —PMC 9.02.020 -- Failure to Appear in Court
B) In the following two sections, staff suggests that violations simply continue to be
classified as gross misdemeanors, the penalty for conviction (which cannot exceed
$5,000 fine or incarceration of 364 days, or both), being unspecified, thereby leaving
discretion to the municipal court:
4W
• Section 8 -- PMC 5.78.030— Rental Business License
o Current — fine not more than $5,000 or incarceration not more than 6
months, or both
o Proposed—not specified.
• Section 9 —PMC 26,04,120 — Subdivision Regulations
o Current — fine not less than $100 or more than $300 or incarceration not
more than 90 days, or both.
Proposed --not specified.
C) The following section regarding graffiti nuisances currently defines violations as
gross misdemeanors, yet the prescribed penalties (even for multiple offenses) each
fall within the statutory definition of a misdemeanor. Staff therefore suggests that
violations be defined as only misdemeanors with no changes to the CLLrrent fine
schedule. Misdemeanors cannot carry fines exceeding $1,000 nor incarceration
teems exceeding 90 days, or both.
■ Section 10 —FMC 9.85.040 —Graffiti Nuisance
o Current-- I" offense not more than $250
2'0 offense not more than $500
Subsequent offenses, not more than $1,000 or incarceration
not more than 60 days, or both
c Proposed -- fines — same schedule, redefine as misdemeanor allowing
incarceration of up to 90 days.
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending
Sections 1.01.130 "Violations - Penalty"; 1.08.040; 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"; and 26.04.120 "Enforcement" Redefining the
Maximum Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors and amending Section
9.85.040 "Penalties" redefining Graffiti Nuisances as 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 detenninate sentencing law, must be
sentenced to less than one (1) year. As a result, an inequity exists which may be 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 mandatory 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 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 three hundred and sixty-four (364) 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 3. 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 ( f three hundred and sixty-four (364) days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. (Ord. 3335 Sec. 2, 1998.)
Section 4. 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
person shall be pimished by a fine not to exceed $5,000 or by imprisonment for a period not to
exceed ene year three hundred and sixty-four 364) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(Ord. 2841 Sec. 1, 1991,)
Ordinance Redefining the Maximum
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors - 2
Section 5. 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 yeaf three hundred and sixty-four (364) days, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. (Ord. 2840 Sec, 1, 1991)
Section 6. 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 - - PENAL'T'Y. 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 ye three hundred and sixty-four
364 days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court, of riot more than Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000,00), or by both such imprisonment and fine. (Ord. 3482 Sec. 1, 2001.)
Section 7. 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 ate yea,, three
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 8. 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 guilt), 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 permitted 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
Ordinance Redefining the Maximum
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors-3
inspection is issued, shall, in addition to the penalties provided in subsection (A) above, be guilty
of a gross misdemeanor and shall–be ^ 'one uF T.a eiy than $5,000 00 d..irn.... .
+m risonm nt a i of� r3 MON thn- ROFR-h , Ol' beffig SUeh -i re
°„k ��•���� 'fens 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.)
Section 9. 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 s k...., red
dallaf�i $100 eF mey-e than ihr-ee heiidfed (300) dellaFs $300 ar to imp i - 3-1
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 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
g-r-as misdemeanor and punished by a fine of$250 44ar-s for the first offense; $500 des for
the second offense; and $1,000 des for each subsequent offense, or by imprisonment in the
city jail for a term not to exceed-i*t�-, ninety 90 days or by both fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court.
(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.
Ordinance Redefining the Maxiinuni
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors-4
(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. 33701
Sec. 2, 1999.)
Section 11. 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
Qrdinance Redefining the Maximum
Incarceration for Gross Misdemeanors- 5
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council August 4, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg,: 8/8111
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement flan
1. REFERENCE(S);
I. Proposed Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2017 (Council packets only; copy
available for review in the City Manager's office, Pasco Library or on the city's
website at http://www,Vasco-wa. Jov/ px?NID",25.5).
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
818: Discussion
111, FISCAL IMPACT:
IV, HISTOR17 AND FACTS:
A) The city spends several million dollars annually on a wide variety of capital
expenditures necessary to deliver or improve municipal services to its citizenry.
Those capital expenditures range from parks, streets and utilities to buildings, fire
engines and computers.
B) Some of the capital improvement projects require debt financing. Given the
constraints on operating revenues, it is important to properly plan for additional debt
service obligations. Development of a six-year Capital Improvement Plan, which
identifies the various capital projects expected to be undertaken each year and the
method of financing for each, is essential to effective financial planning for the city.
It is also beneficial to the general public, which can reasonably anticipate when
certain improvements are expected to occur.
C) Development of the annual Capital Improvement Plan occurs as a prelude to the
annual budget; the first year of the approved Capital Improvement Plan is then
incorporated into the subsequent annual budget document. Thus, review and
discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan should be carried out with the notion
that the conclusions reached represent guidance to staff in developing next year's
budget.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff will be prepared to answer questions about any of the projects included in the
proposed Capital Improvement flan at the Workshop. It is recommended that
Council gain a thorough understanding of the document through discussion at the
Workshop. Staff expects Council to take formal action approving the Capital
Improvement Plan in September so that it can be used to develop the 2012 fiscal year
budget during September/October.
4(d)