Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.09.06 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. September b,2011 The Council Meeting will take place on Tuesday, September b as City Hall will be closed Monday, September 5 in honor of Labor Day. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated August 15, 2011. 2. Minutes of the Special Pasco City Council Meeting dated August 22, 2011. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) 1. To approve General Claims in the amount of $2,200,378.42 ($287,919.21 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 6992, 7063 and 7103; and$1,912,459.21 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1109, 1110, 1114 and 1119; and Claim Warrants numbered 183787 through 184054). 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $2,091,096.I0, Voucher Nos. 43102 through 43309 and 80060000 through 80060009; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30046511 through 30047086. (c) Lewis Street Land Acquisition/Relocation Services: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated August 9, 2011. 2. January 6, 2010 Agenda Report. 3. Exhibit"A"(5/10/11)T)14R Estimate of Additional Acquisition Services. 4. June 1,2011 letter from HDR on Out-of-Scope Services. To authorize an amendment to the Agreement with HDR Engineering for Lewis Street Acquisition and Relocation Professional Services, increasing the fee payable to (not to exceed) $508,000 and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment. (d) Franklin County Master Mutual Aid Agreement: 1. Agenda Report from Bob Gear,Fire Chief dated August 15, 2011. 2. Franklin County Master Mutual Aid Agreement (provided in 8/22 agenda packets; copy available for public review in the City Manager's office,or at the Pasco Library). To approve the City's participation in the Franklin County Master Mutual Aid Agreement and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the document. (e) Bargaining Contract for Code Enforcement Officers and Permit Technicians: 1. Agenda Report from Lynne Jackson,Human Resources Manager dated August 3,2011. 2. Proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement (provided in 8/22 agenda packets; copy available for public review in the City Manager's office,the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at htti);//www.pasco-,A,a.Liov/documentview.asRx?DID=3664 . To approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the 1UOE, Local 280, Code Enforcement Officers and Permit Technicians for years 2011-2012 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. (f) Resolution No. 3335, a Resolution approving Federal HOME Work Plan Allocation for Program Year 2012. 1. Agenda Report from Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator dated August 23, 2011. 2. Proposed Resolution_ To approve Resolution No. 3335, approving the City's 2012 HOME Annual Work Plan Allocation. (RQ MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as reed. Regular Meeting 2 September 6, 2011 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGINIENTS: (a) "Yard of the Month" Awards. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco residents have been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive Certificates of Appreciation from the City Council for"Yard of the Month,"August 2011. 1. Maria Soriano, 611 N. Cedar Avenue. 2. Maria Muniz, 1520 14'. Agate Street 3. Andy and Dianne Sanderson, 6312 Camden Drive 4. Van and Donna Snyder, 7607 Estevan Drive (b) `Business of the Month" Appearance Award. (NO WRITTEN :MATERIAL ON' AGENDA) The following Pasco business has been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive a Certificate of Appreciation from the City Council for "Business of the Month Appearance Award" for August.2011. 1. Inca Auto Sales, 1205 S. 10"i Avenue 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) (c) 7. PUBLIC HEARJNGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES A_'.ITD RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: *(a) Street Vacation (MF# ti'AC2011-005) A Portion of California Avenue (Domingo Navarro), 1. Agenda Report from David 1. McDonald, City Planner dated August 30, 2011. 2. Vicinity Map, 3, Proposed Ordinance. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating a portion of California Avenue. MOTION: L move to adopt Ordinance vacating a portion of Califbrnia Avenue and, further, authorize publication by sutt wary only_ *(b) Code Amendment: (.NIF# CA2011-002) PMC 25.48 Auto Body Shops as an Accessory Use in the C-R(Regional Commercial) District. 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald,City Planner dated August 30, 2011. 2. Proposed Ordinance. 3. Staff memo to the Planning Commission dated 8;18/11. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 8118/11. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING MOTION FOR FINDINGS; I move to adopt the Findings as contained in the staff memo to the Planning Commission dated August 18, 2011, Ordinance No. , an Ordinance relating to zoning and amending PMC Title 25 by including Auto Body Shops as a permitted accessory use in Chapter 25.48. MOTION FOR THE ORDINANCE: 1 move to adept Ordinance Amending PMC Cliapter 25.48 by including auto IxKiy shops as an �ivccssory use within C-R (Regional C."omine:rcial) Districts and, further, authorize publication by summ.ary only. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARLNGS; (a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, creating Section 3,07,075 "State and Federal Background Investigation Criminal History Check"; and Section 5,08.045 "State and Federal Background Investigation Ciirninal History Check"; amending Section 5.08.060 "Investigation-Character and Business Responsibility"; creating Section 5,12.018 "Criminal History Check"; amending Section 5.16A.040 "Investigation and Determination"; amending Section 5.25.040 "Dance Halls"; amending Section 5.25.050 `Public Dance"; amending Section 5.27.160 `Applicant Investigation-Adult Entertainment Facility"; amending Section 5.27.170 "Applicant Investigation-'.Manager Wait Person and Entertainer'; and amending Section 5.45.110 "Driver's Permit-Requirements." 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated August 30, 2011. 2. Proposed Ordinance. Regular Meeting 3 September 6, 2011 MOTION- I-move to adopt Ordinance No. _ ramending. Itle Pasco Municipal Cock;. re ardiTng state and federal and criminal background checks, and, I'urthcr, authorize pubb cation by suanlnnary only. (b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance repealing Chapter 1.08 "Elections"of the Pasco Municipal Code. 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated August 3, 2011. 2. Proposed Ordinance. 3. PMC Chapter 1.08. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. _-_. C'haplc r 1.08 of �hc Pasco o Mui_ticipal Code and, further, authorize publication by summary only- (c) Resolution No. , a Resolution approving the Capital Improvement Plan for Calendar Years 2012-2017. 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated August 16,2011. 2. Proposed Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2017 (Copy available for review in the City Manager's office, Pasco Library or on the city's website at http://www.r)asco- wa.vov/index.aspx?NID=620). 3. Proposed Resolution. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. adopting the Capital Irnprovernent Plan for fiscal years 2012-2017. Q*(d) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a Special Permit for a Community Service Facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone. I. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner 1 dated September 1, 2011. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Proposed Resolution. 4. Report to Planning Commission. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/21/11 and 8/18111. MOTION. I move. to approve Resolution No. arpro,,ing a. Special Permit for the location of a I-evel `L'wo Community Service Facility at 215 S. 6"Avenue (Tax Paamel 112G60378)_ *(e) Resolution No. , a Resolution approving a Preliminary Plat for Columbia Villas. 1. Agenda Report from David 1.McDonald, City Planner dated August 30, 2011. 2. Overview and Vicinity Maps. 3. Proposed Resolution. 4. Preliminary Plat (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Plaruiing office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at httn://www.nasco- wa,ggv/F' vcQUncilr�rports}. 5. Report to the Planning Commission. 6. Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/16/11, 7/21/11 and 8/18/11. MOT 710N ##1: Planning Commission Recommendation: l move to approve Rcso)utiolr loo. approving the preliminary Plat for Columbia Villas, -OR- 1b OT1.0N #2; Setting a Closed record HeFtring: 1 move to set 7:00 p.m., October 17, 2011 as the time and date l`or .a closed record hearing to review the Planning CIommissic►a 's recomm ndation doaling with mitigation of development impacts to the School District- (f) Resolution No. ,a Resolution approving Federal CDBG Annual Work Plan Allocation for Program Year 2012. 1. Agenda Report from Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator dated August 30, 2011. 2. CDBG Fund Summary. 3. Proposed Resolution. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. a.11pmving tlnc: City's 2012 CUBc9 Annciaal Work Plan allocation as m ominended by city staff. (g) Resolution No. , a Resolution of the City of Pasco adopting findings in support of retention of the moratorium prohibiting medical cannabis collective gardens in all zoning districts within the city. 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated August 29, 2011. 2. Proposed Resolution. 3. Proposed Work Plan. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No._, with a 12-month term_ that adopts findings in .support of retention of the moratorium prohibiting medical marijuana collective gardens in all zoning dissiric ts- Regular Meeting 4 September 6,2011 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (a) 4`" Avenue Corridor Enhancement Project(South): 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated August 16, 2011. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Professional Services Agreement. MOTION. I move to approve the ProfessionaI Ser%gces Agreement with H1JJ Design Uroup authorizing sure v, read design services wil.h respect to ibc 4h Avcnuu Corridor Enhancenicmt Project (South), not to e cc ecd$39,4!65.00 anti, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreenleni. *(b) "A" Street Water Line Repair,Project No.M4-11-60-WTR-. 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated August 30, 2011. 2. Bid Summary. 3. Vicinity Map. (RC) MOTION: I move to aw-ard the low hid fvr `i,A" Street Water Litte Repair. I'rtlject No. M44l- 60-WTR to Michel3 Pipe Services in the- amount of 5121,265.00, plus applicable sales tax and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract document:,,_ *(c) Ratification of Award of Quote for Lewis Street Underpass Coating Project No. M4-11-60- STR: 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated August 29, 2011. 2- Photographs_ MOTION: I move to ratify the contract a,.N,ard for the Lewis Street Ui do ass Cou6u-, Project No. M4-11- -STR. *(d) Ratification of Award of Bid for Sylvester Water Line Replacement Project No. C2-11-19- WTR: 1- Agenda Report from Alunad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated August 31, 2011. 2. Bid Summary. 3. Vicinity Map. 14'1(O`I`ION: 1 move, to ratify the contract award for the Sylvester Water Lime Replacement, Project No. C2-11-19-NV7R. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Moll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed MF# "Master File#...." Q Quasi-Judicial Matter REMINDERS: 1. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 7, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) 2. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, September 8, Cousins Restaurant — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.;REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.) 3. 7:00 p.m., Thursday. September 8, Transit Facility — Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS,Rep.;COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON,Alt.) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15, 2011 CALL TO OR-DER: The meeting was called to order at 7;00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor, ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present. Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Patrick Galloway, Acting City Attorney; Stan StrebeI, Deputy City Manager; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Denis Austin, Police Chief and Bob Gear, Fire Chief. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Approval of Minutes; Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated August 1, 2011. (b) Bills and Communications: To approve General Claims in the amount of$1,495,453.13 ($253,397.95 in the form of Electronic Fund 'Transfer Nos. 6824, 6868, 6891, 6907 and 6930; and $1,242,055.18 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. l 111 through H 13; and Claim Warrants numbered 183560 through 183786), To approve bad debt write-offs for utility billing, ambulance, cemetery, general accounts, miscellaneous accounts, and Municipal Court(non-criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of$263,371.48 and, of that amount, authorize $181,521.71 be turned over for collection. (c) Right-of-Way Dedication for a Portion of Sandifur Parkway (MF #DEED2011-004): To accept the deed from William White for a portion of the Sandifur Parkway right-of- way. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Mayor Watkins presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Christian Tenney, Memorial Pool Lifeguard, for exemplary performance of his job as a lifeguard by quickly rescuing a child from the pool and initiating CPR action to save the life of Eliana Pena. Adela Flores, mother of Eliana Pena, presented Christian Tenney with a plaque of appreciation for rescuing Eliana. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Rob Dupuy, 6220 Richardson Rd., requested Council consider supporting HR 1489, Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mayor Watkins attended the Ben-Franklin Transit Board meeting. Ms. Francik reported citizens are concealed about trash at Wade Park during community events. l 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15, 2011 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Medical Marijuana (MF #CA2011-003). Mr. White explained the details of the moratorium. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA MORATORIUM, Mr, Jerrold Forsyth, 3502 W. Hopkins, spoke in opposition to the moratorium. Memo from Rick White to Gary Crutchfield dated August 11, 2011 "Preliminary Report on Pasco's Medical Marijuana Moratorium" is entered into the record as part of this public hearing. FoI.LOWING THREE CALLS FOR COMMENTS, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARIT'G CLOSED. Council and staff discussed the moratorium. Council asked staff to follow up with more information for discussion at the next workshop meeting. Public Safety Sales Tax. Mr. Crutchfield explained the details of the proposed Franklin County Public Safey Sales Tax ballot measure. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE FRANKLIN COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX BALLOT MEASURE, Ms. Ortega, 4515 Arabian Lane, spoke against the measure because it is not a good time for a tax increase. FOLLOWING THREE CALLS FOR COMMENTS, Ell-HER FOR OR AGAINST, MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Resolution No. 3333, a Resolution endorsing the Public Safety Sales Tax measure on the November 2011 ballot and urging city voters to approve the same. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No, 3333, endorsing the Public Safety Sales Tax measure on the November 2011 ballot and urging city voters to approve the same. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried. 5-2. No — Larsen, Hoffmann. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ordinance No. 4018, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of$4,110,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2011, of the City to provide part of the funds with which to pay the cost of refunding the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2001 and paying the administrative costs of such refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds; providing for and authorizing the purchase of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds herein authorized and for the use and application of the money derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of an agreement with U.S. Bank National Association of Seattle, Washington, as refunding trustee; providing for the call, payment and redemption of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; fixing the terms and covenants of the bonds; and providing for related matters. 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15, 2011 Mr. Daren Bell, representing Piper Jaffrey, explained the details of the bond sale. MOTION: Ms, Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4018, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of$4,110,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2011, of the City to provide pail of the fiends with which to pay the cost of refunding the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2001 and paying the administrative costs of such refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds; providing for and authorizing the purchase of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds herein authorized and for the use and application of the money derived fiom those investments; authorizing the execution of an agreement with U.S. Bank National Association of Seattle, Washington, as refunding trustee; providing for the call, payment and redemption of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; fixing the terms and covenants of the bonds; and providing for related matters and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded, Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 4019, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Sections 1.01.130 "Violations-Penalty"; 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. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No, 4019, amending sections of the Pasco Municipal Lode redefining the maxima n incarceration for gross misdemeanors and redefining graffiti nuisances as misdemeanors and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3334, a Resolution authorizing development of an Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Walla Walla for Wastewater Treatment Services. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3334, 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. Mr. Hoffmann seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes — Watkins, Yenney, Francik, Garrison, Hoffmann, Martinez. No — Larsen, MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Mr. Hoffmann commented on the penalties pertaining to rental licensing violations in Ordinance No. 4019. Mr. Crutchfield requested Council hold a special meeting before the August 22 Workshop meeting to consider the Consultant Agreement with HDR Engineering for Design Services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of September, 2011. 3 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Michael Garrison was excused. Staff present: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Jim Raymond, Police Captain and Bob Gear, Fire Chief. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. BUSINESS ITEM: Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements: Mr, Qayoumi, Public Work Director and Mr. John Cook, HDR Engineering, explained the details of the proposed improvements. Council and staff discussed the proposed improvements. MOTION; Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consultant Agreement from HDR Engineering, Inc., authorizing design and engineering services with respect to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, not to exceed $311,011 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at7;11 p.m, APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clcrk PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of September, 2011. 1 3(a).2 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of September 6,2011 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco,Franklin County,Washington We,the undersigned,do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just,due and unpaid n against the city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Gary ger Cr field, Ity a Dunyel ason, Fi ance Services Manager We,t undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco,Franklin County,Washington,do hereby certify on this 5th day of July, 2011 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received: Check Numbers and 183787-184054 In The Amount Of: $1,912,459.21 Electronic Funds Transfers: 1109-1110 1114-1119 In The Amount Of: $287,919.21 Electronic Funds Transfers: 6992,7063,7103 (Journal Entries) Combined total of $2,200,378.42 Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND: Legislative 450.74 Judicial 7,663.05 Executive 4,005.57 Police 393,607.18 Fire 11,420.81 Administration&Community Services 131,957.80 Community Development 2,051.10 Engineering 9,019.43 Non-Departmental 41,163.60 Library 94,320.85 TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 695,660.13 STREET 35,894.67 ARTERIAL STREET 0.00 STREET OVERLAY 162.66 C. D,BLOCK GRANT 5,829.19 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 1,926.57 AMBULANCE SERVICE 11,696.12 CEMETERY 5,703.34 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 17,284.26 GOLF COURSE 81,129.76 SENIOR CENTER OPERATING 5,601.37 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 2,117.68 RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 1,003.74 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 17,099.96 LITTER CONTROL 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 476.00 TRAC DEVELOPMENT&OPERATING 19,663:00 PARKS 0.00 STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER 8,970.36 GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 12,033.75 WATER/SEWER 346,364.26 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL 53,823.30 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING BUSINESS 6,667.75 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL (347.23) EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS 424,807.34 MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE 319,867.84 CENTRAL STORES 56.65 OLD FIRE PENSION 0.00 PAYROLL CLEARING 38,992.32 LID CONSTRUCTION 0.00 PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST- 38,404.81 TRI CITY ANIMAL CONTROL 49,388.02 SENIOR CENTER ASSOCIATION 100.80 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 2,204,37BA2 3Cbjs 1 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of. Payroll Approval September 6, 2011 The City Council City of Pasco F,anklin County,Washington The folloWW ; a summa d of payroll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of August 2011 wKich are pres he with for your review and approval. Cj Gary Crutchfield, City a, r Rick erway, Ad nistrative ommunity Services Director r 'Ate, the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Frarklin County, Washington, do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures ^.ays been received and that payroll voucher No's. 43102 through 43309 and 80060000 through 80060009 and EFT deposit No's. 3OC46511 through 30047086 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of$2,091,096.10 are approved for payment on this 6th day of September 2011. Counciimember Councilmember SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND GENERAL FUND: Legislative $ 7,$52 84 Judicial 79,495.36 Executive 65,072.50 Police 569,786.90 Fire 263,340.99 Administrative& Community Services 362,954.38 Community Develooment 75,071.91 Engineering 98,298.25 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,522,173.13 CITY STREET 38,358.83 BLOCK GRANT 13,640.65 MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER 5,750.95 AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND 151,298.73 CEMETERY 11,484.21 ATHLETIC FUND 1,504.75 SENIOR CENTER 12,374.01 STADIUM OPERATIONS 0.00 MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 0.00 BOAT BASIN 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 0.00 BASK FORCE 0.00 'NATEPUSEWER 299,898.70 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATiNG 26,400.17 OLD FIRE PENSION FUND 8,211.97 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 2,0911,096.1.0 Payroll Summary Net Payroll 992,107.86 Employee Deauctiuns 568,643.05 Gross Payroll 1,560,750.91 City of Pasco Contributions 530,345.19 Total Payroll $ 2,091,096.10 3(b).2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council August 9, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchf v anager Workshop Mtg.: 8122!11 Regular Mtg.: 916/11 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Lewis Street Land Acquisition/Relocation Services I. REFERENCE(S): 1, January 6, 2010 Agenda Report 2. Exhibit "A' (5/]0/11) HDR Estimate of Additional Acquisition Services 3, June 1, 2011 letter from HDR on Out-of-Scope Services II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS; 8/22: Discussion 9/6: MOTION: 1 move to authorize an amendment to the Agreement with HDR Engineering for Lewis Street Acquisition and Relocation Professional Services, increasing the fee payable to (not to exceed) $508,000 and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $66,000 Additional Cost IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City entered into an agreement with HDR Engineering in January 2010 for land acquisition and relocation services not to exceed $442,000 for the Lewis Street Overpass project (see attached agenda report for additional details). B) At the time the agreement was approved, it was not known, to what extent, property may need to be acquired at the intersection of Lewis Street and Oregon Avenue, the eastern terminus of the project. Through the City's rcccnt design process with .CUB Engineering, the City has identified the need for four small partial property acquisitions, one on each corner, of the intersection. It appears to be most cost effective to continue with HDR for the property acquisition process. The estimated cost, $52,527.98 for the necessary acquisition services, including appraisal and negotiation (not including land costs) is detailed in the attached reference #2. C) Some of the tenants in the properties scheduled to be acquired were unknown at the time the original agreement was approved. As a result, there have been some costs for appraisal and relocation services which were not included in the original scope of work. These costs amount to $12,970.18 as outlined in the letter from HDR, attached as reference #3. D) Staff requests that council approve an amcndment to the agreement, increasing the not to exceed fee by $66,000 to $508,000 in order to cover the new, plus the out- of-scope work, V. DISCUSSION: A) The land acquisition and relocation work must be performed in strict accordance with federal guidelines. l 1DR has demonstrated its familiarity with the federal requirements over the Iast 18 months. Negotiations have been concluded for the purchase of all but four of 25 parcels (12 of 14 landowners) under the original scope-of-work. 3(c) AGENDA REPORT NO. 01 FOR. City Council January 6, 2010 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager FROM: Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director Workshop Mig,: 0 1/2 5/10 Regular Mtg.: 02/01/10 SUBJECT; Lewis Street Land Acquisition/Relocation Services I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 01125: Discussion 02/01: MOTION: I move to accept the agreement from HDR Engineering for the land acquisition and relocation services for the Lewis Street Overpass project. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In 2000 Council passed Resolution 2532 adopting the planned location for a new overpass at Lewis Street. B) On July 21, 2008 the Council approved an Agreement with CH2MHill for pre- design services. C) On March 2, 2009 the Council approved an Agreement with CH2MHil1 to perform the NEPA environmental document for the Lewis Street Overpass project. D) In 2009 the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) budget provided $3.0 million for the Lewis Street Overpass project. E) In November of 2009 the City received notice that $750,000 has been allocated for the Lewis Street Overpass Project in the Federal Transportation Bill. V. DISCUSSION: The next two (2) phases for the Lewis Street Overpass project is for land acquisition and the actual design services for the overpass. Approximately $4,0 million has been secured to date for these two phases. Staff anticipates additional funds will be needed in the next 1$ months once the costs are better defined. The proposed agreement with HDR Engineering is for the land acquisition and relocation services for the Lewis Street Overpass project. Approximately 26 parcels need to be acquired. The proposed services would be on a time and material basis not to exceed $442,000. The fee does not include the actual land acquisition or relocations costs. Staff is anticipating these costs to be $2.0 million or less. The actual costs will not be known until after the services being provided by HDR Engineering is completed. The land acquisition and relocation work must be performed in strict accordance to federal guidelines and by approved specialists in this field. This limits the options to the City. HDR Engineering is the only firm with a local office which has the qualified staff and experience to perform this work. The firm is also willing to commit their resources to complete the work in as short a time frame as possible. "fhe other options are to contract with firms outside the area or with the State directly. In reviewing the option with the State, staff concluded the process most likely would take longer and the final costs would most likely be the same. The acquisition cost will be paid out of the $3.0 million WSDOT funds and need to be spent within the next 18 months. Staff believes that the HDR Engineering proposal is the best option and recommends Council approve the Mayor to sign Lhe contract. Exhibit"A" HDR Engineering,Inc. _ 511 012 01 1 2011 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates City of Pasco I t Total Estimated Loaded APPRAISAL ACQUISITION! Estlma:ed Labor Employ"Category Hourly Rate TITLE APPRAISAL REVIEW NEGOTIATION CERTIFICATION Hours Cost Acquisition Project Manager 268.44 1 2 2 24 4 33.00 8,858.68 Sr. Agent 110.76 4 2 2 128 8 144.00 15,949.44 ROW Tech 81.77 6 21 48 24 82.00 6,705.14 Project Controller 94.92 1 16 16.00 1,518.72 1,202.10 921.95 921.95 26,063.64 3,922.34 275.00 33,031. 33,031.98 Expense Meals(1C days 46.00 per day) 460,00 Lodging(10 days;70.00 per day).___ I 700.00 _ Mileage(1500 @.55/mile) t 825.00 Black and White copies(500;.10 each) 50.00 Color copies(100;.75 each) 75.00 Mail and Express I 60.00 5%Markup on Expenses _ 108.50 Technology Charge($3,70 per hour) 1,017.50 Total Expenses 3,296.00 Subconsultant j lAppraisals 4 reports 9,80a.ao 1 Appraisal Reviews 4 4,800.00 j Title Reports 4 x$400 1,600.00 Total Subconsuttant Expenses r 16,200,00 j Totai New Fee Estimate 52,527.98 Total Client Cost _ $52,527.98 Assu mptlons 1 Four parcels A be added to the original scope with all other orginal scope conditions remaining in effect. This estimate assumes that escrow and closing costs will be paid directly by the client The above rates are sublet to an annual increase effective January 1.2912,not to exceed 5%without Plor approval. A 33.70fiour audited technology charge is not included in the hourty rates proposed above. This audited direct expense vAl be bled on a monthty basis, , June 1, 2011 Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager City of Pasco PO Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 RE Lewis Street Overpass Project Dear Stan: We are requested authorization to increase our current budget for the Lewis Street Overpass project by$12,970.18.This would include both the -CDR out of scope work that has been completed to date and tracked, the second Llamas appraisal and our estimate of the remaining out of scope work for relocation services. Those costs are itemized below. HDR out of scope fees to date - $8,174.62 Second out of scope Llamas Appraisal - 1500.00 Estimated remaining out of scope relocation services - 3,295.56 Total Out Of Scope Fees: $12,970.18 The new total contract amount would be S454,728.93 ($441,758.75 current contract amount + $12970.10 total out of scope fees). If this increase is approved by the City we will discontinue tracking out of scope work and will show the new contract amount on all future invoices. Please contact me if there are any questions or concerns regarding this request. Thank you. Sincerely, James F. Prossick Real Estate SQrvices Manager 4251450-6356 3ames.prossick:i hdrinc.com HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 108`h Avenue NE,Suite 120 Bellevue,WA 98004-5549 Main:(425)450-6200 Fax:(425)4537107 AGENDA REPORT FOR; City Council August 15, 201 1 TO: Gary Crutchfi Tanager Workshop Mtg.: 08/22,111 r Regular Mtg.: 09/06/11 FROM Bob Gear, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Franklin County Master Mutual Aid Agreement 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Franklin County Master Mutual Aid Agreement I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/22: Discussion 9/6: MOTION: I move to approve the City's participation in the Franklin County Master Mutual Aid Agreement and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the document, III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Emergency situations over the past ten years have emphasized the need for communities to prepare for events which may overwhelm traditional response agencies such as police, fire and EMS. The proposed Master Mutual Aid Agreement follows national guidelines published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). B) It is important for communities to look beyond traditional response agencies and recognize the importance of having pre-signed agreements for public works and transportation resources as well as those from other special purpose agencies such as port districts and public utility districts. C) There is also a need to formalize the relationships between governmental agencies and non-governmental agencies or non-profits, such as the American Red Cross and the private sector. Non-governmental agencies play a key role in the response to and recovery from events and disasters. D) While we have many traditional functional area mutual aid agreements in place, there are no consistent, county-wide or multi-cuunty agreements in place that allow the community as a whole to marshal its total strength to respond to and mitigate a major disaster or event. V. DISCUSSION: A) A similar agreement is currently in place in Benton County and one is under consideration in Walla Walla County. It is intended to pursue reciprocal agreements between counties that would further extend the benefits of cooperation and coordination in the region. B) As is usually the case with mutual aid agreements, assistance and participation is valuntaiy.The agreement simply allows, but does not require response. C) Unlike past traditional mutual aid agreements, the proposed agreement allows for a reimbursement provision between agencies for extended duration emergencies. 3(d) ALL HAZARD MASTER MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN AGENCIES, NON-GOVERNMENTAL GROUPS, AND PRIVATE INDUSTRIES WITHIN FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON Master Mutual Aid Agreement 1 October 2010 Table of Contents Section1. Introduction........................................................................................................................3 Section2. Authorizations and Authorities....................................................................................4 Section3. Implementation................................................................................................................ 5 Section 4. Roles and Responsibilities.............................................................................................b Section S. Requesting and Providing Resources........................................................................7 SectionG. Compensation and Reimbursements........................................................................8 a. Compensation............................................................................................................ ...............................8 b. Costs .............................................................................................................................................................8 c. Record Keeping.......................................................................................................................................10 d. Paymient....................................................................................................................................................10 Section 7. Insurance, Indemnification/Liability, Claims, and Immunity........................11 Section S. Interoperable Communications and Information Management..................12 Section 9. Qualifications and Certifications ..............................................................................14 Section10. Resource Sharing.........................................................................................................14 Section11. Administration .............................................................................................................15 Definitions/Index................................................................................................................................17 Master Mutual Aid Agreement 2 October 2010 Section 1 , Introduction This Master Mutual Aid Agreement (MMAA) is made and entered by and between the signatory agencies to this MMAA according to the date when signed by each signatory agency. It is understood that no community owns all of the resources required for all potential emergencies. By sharing resources the needs of most emergencies can be met on the local or regional basis without declaring an emergency as provided by law to garner materials elsewhere. Sharing resources will bring scarce resources to bear on the emergency faster than receiving outside help. Preplanning through an MMAA will help to ensure efficient utilization of the closest, most appropriate, available resources. This MMAA between the parties delineated about and signed hereto: a. Creates a fonnal structure for the provision of comprehensive mutual aid between jurisdictions; it is the means for one jurisdiction, or agency, to provide resources, facilities, services and other required support to another jurisdiction,or agency, under specific terns during an incident. b. Provides that no party shall be required to unreasonably deplete its own resources in furnishing aid; C. Provides that the responsible local official in whose jurisdiction an incident requiring mutual aid has occurred shall remain in charge of such incident and provides for the delegation of authorities to single resources and incident management teams; d. Provides that each signatory to this MMAA agrees to develop an operational plan to engage (lie resources received from and to iunplement this MMAA in their jurisdictions. Such operational plans must include how resources from all of their participating agencies and private entities that may provide resources during an emergency under this MMAA may be made operational upon request. Fach operational plan shall be reviewed by the jurisdiction at least annually; e. Provides that each signatory to this MMAA will cause to keep the Franklin County Communications Center computer aided dispatch system up to date on their resources which are available for mutual aid and type-define such resources according to the National Incident Management System (NMS); f. This MMAA does not supersede any other mutual aid agreement the signatories may be a signatory to and it is the jurisdiction's responsibility to resolve any conflicts with other plans. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 3 October 2010 Section 2. Authorizations and Authorities a. Article I, section 10 of the Constitution of the United States permits a state to enter into an agreement or compact with another state, subject to the consent of Congress. Congress, through enactment of Title 50 U.S.C. Sections 2281(g), 2283 and the Executive Department, by issuance of Executive Orders No. 10186 of December 1, 1950, encourages the states to enter into emergency, disaster and civil defense mutual aid agreements or pacts. b. Robert T. Stafford Disastc;r Rclicf and Emergency Assistancc Act, as Amended by Public Law 106- 390, October 30, 2000: provides for the federal emergency and disaster response capabilities and rules. c, The National Response Framework, which is the United States' plan for emergency response, details that the Chief Elected or Appointed Official of each jurisdiction is responsible for ensuring the public safety and welfare of that jurisdiction. It further states the emergency manager of each jurisdiction has the day-to-day authority and responsibility, for overseeing emergency management programs and activities and for coordinating local emergency planning and resources. These activities include the development of mutual aid agreements. ci. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 which implements the National Incident Management System(NTMS)has a critical component which emphasizes mutual aid. e. Fire Protection Act of September 201 , 1922 (Stat, 857; 16 U.S.C. 594); describes federal Fish and Wildlife response to wild fife. f Reciprocal Fire Protection Act of May 27, 1955 (69 Stat. 66, 67; 42 U.S.C. 1856, 1856A and 1856B) and Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act of 1989 (102 Stat. 1615): provides the Federal wild fire system to enter into agreements to suppress wild fires. g. Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of October 29, 1974 (88 Stat. 1535; 15 U.S.C. 2201) and Supplemental Appropriation Act of September 19, 1982 (96 Stat. 837): provides the U.S. Interior Department policy for the emergency stabilization and rehabilitation on bureau lands and Indian trust lands following wild land fire. h. RCW 38.52.091 sets forth the requirements and content needed for mutual aid agreements. i. RCW 38.52.180 provides certain immunities from liability for registered emergency workers within the scope of their assignments. j. RCW 39.34.030 sets forth the requirements of and between jurisdictions to enter into agreements for joint or cooperative actions. k. RCW 43.43.960-975 sets forth requirements for the Washington State Fire Service Mobilization. 1, RCW 52 provides for Fire Protection Districts. m. WAC 118.04 describes the Washington State Emergency Worker Program. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 4 October 2010 Section 3. Implementation a, All signers to this MMAA shall utilize the National Incident Management System (NTMS) and the Incident Command System(ICS) when responding to, commanding, or planning for emergencies within Franklin County. b. The designated Incident Commander of an emergency situation may call for mutual aid resources under this NIMAA. C. Requests for mutual aid resources will be made through the host dispatch center. d. Each party to this MMAA shall develop a plan known as an Operations Plan providing for the effective mobilization and utilization of its resources to assist with and support emergency or disaster response. Such plans shall list the resources and services that can be made available by the parties to this M1vlAA and shall indicate the method and manner by which such resources and services can be utilized by the other parties. The plan must further cover the NTMS requirements for Operations Plans as outlined within the checklist included in Annex B: e. Each party to this MMAA agrees to furnish those resources and services to each other as necessary to assist in the combating of emergencies or disasters in accordance with the adopted Operations Plans. f. Personnel sent to render aid under this M1v1AA remain the employee of the sending agency. Their duties under mutual aid will be directed by the Incident Commander. g. Resources sent will be in good and safe working condition and of the type requested unless otherwise approved by the Incident Commander. Resource list will be included within the operations plan. h. Although an Incident Commander shall expect requested aid to be sent as outlined under this MMAA, any jurisdiction may refuse the .request for mutual aid. No jurisdiction will be expected to deplete their resources under a mutual aid request. i. A jurisdiction may withdraw their resources from a mutual aid circumstance upon timely notice to the Incident Commander. At no time should this withdrawal put the requesting jurisdiction in immediate risk of injury to personnel or damage to property, Every attempt will be made by the sending jurisdiction to provide the aid requested until replacement resources can be found or the Incident Commander can place all emergency personnel in safe conditions as a result of the withdrawal. j. At such time resources requested are no longer available to an Incident Commander and the emergency has not abated and is not improving, an emergency may be declared by the jurisdiction's chief executive or other person delegated that authority. The emergency will be defined as is allowed by the jurisdiction's rules, codes, laws or other authorities. Should the jurisdiction be overwhelmed and no longer able to manage the incident with available resources, Franklin County may declare an emergency and request help from other counties or the State of Washington. k. At the earliest possible time during an emergency, a demobilization plan will be created or made to be created by the Incident Commander for all resources requested under this MNL. A. Master Mutual Aid Agreement S October 2010 Section 4. Roles and Responsibilities All parties to this MMAA will: a. Develop a capability to take care of their own employees and internal unctions so that they can reliably carry out then-critical fuuctions and services under emergency, conditions. b. Strive to develop facilities that have a reduced vulnerability to hazards. C. Acquire and manage appropriate equipment, and train personnel to carry out lhcir intennal responsibilities and support regional efforts. d. Develop and test internal plans to manage their response as it links to this MMAA and developed Operations Plans. e. Participate in other mutual aid agreements and develop the capability to accommodatc/support incoming resources from assistuig agencies. f. Maintain or develop a mechanism for proclaiming an emergency. g. Participate in further planning efforts in specific functional areas to create Emergency Support Functions (ESFs), which are consistent with existing procedures and developed Operations Plans. h. Share in the collective effort to educate area residents, employees, customers, clients, and the community to disaster preparedness fundamentals. i. Commit to providing a prompt reply to any request for support within Franklin County. j. Participate in maintaining a single point of contact for gathering and disseminating damage information, resource requests,and response priorities within their jurisdiction, community and/or organization. k. Participate in the development of, and sign onto, the requisite Operations Plans. Requesting Parties will: a. First use appropriate organizational resources to address the emergency. b. Request and use any available mutual aid resources. C. Request a mission number from Washington State Emergency Management Division when deemed appropriate by Franklin County Emergency Management. d. Proclaim an emergency before requesting assistance from others. e. Communicate its damage assessment information, resource request, and response priorities to Franklin County Emergency Management. f. Utilize the National incident Management System (NIMS) to provide direction for resources being utilized in response to the event. Assisting Parties will: a. Assess internal capabilities and provide a prompt reply to any request for support from a requesting party, as provided in their Operations Plans. b. Deploy, or deliver, resources and services in a timely manner once a commitment is made. C. Document all communications, decisions, activities, deployments,and deliveries. d. Maintain avenues of communication with employees who have been deployed. e. Perform field operations or coordinating functions under the guidance of the on-scene Incident Commander. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 6 October 2010 1'. Demobilize and provide timely activity reports and final documentation. Section 5. Requesting and Providing Resources a. The underlying concepts for resource management in this MMAA are that: i. It provides a uniform method of identifying, acquiring, allocating, and tracking resources. ii. It uses effective mutual-aid assistance, which is enabled by the standardized classification of kinds and types of resources required to support the incident management organization. iii. It uses a credcntialing system tied to uniform training and certitication standards to ensure that requested personnel are successfully integrated into ongoing incident operations. It assumes the certifying or credentialing organization has assured the criteria have been met by their employee or resource for their certification or credential. iv. Its coordination is the responsibility of the affected Emergency Operations Centers (1✓0C) andlor Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Group(s), as well as specific elements of the Incident Command System(ICS) structure. V. it may also encompass resources contributed by private sector and non-governmental organizations. b. All available resources within the context of this MMAA are to be categorized by size, capacity, capability, skill, and other characteristics (Kind and Type). A database of Franklin County resources shall be developed, managed, and maintained by FCEM and resources shall be classified by kind and type. This makes the resource ordering and dispatch process within jurisdictions, across jurisdictions, and between governmental and non-governmental entities more efficient and ensures that Incident Commanders (IC) receive resources appropriate to their needs. U. Resources to be identified in this way include supplies, equipment, facilities, incident management personnel and/or emergency response teams. d. If a requesting party is linable to describe an item using the resource type or classification syster.n, the requesting party's communications center may provide technical information to enable the requirements to be defined and translated into a specification, e. Requests for items that the IC cannot obtain locally are submitted through the communications center supporting the incident to the EOC or MAC Group using standardized resource-ordering procedures. If the communications center or EOC is unable to till the order locally, the order is to be fonvarded up to the next level - generally an adjacent local, State, regional EOC, or MAC Group. f. Incident assigned personnel begin mobilizing when notified through established channels. At the time of notification they are given: Master Mutual Aid Agreement 7 October 2010 i. the date, time, and place of departure; ii. mode of transportation to the incident, if necessary; iii. estimated date(if necessary)and time of arrival; iv. reporting location (address,contact name, and phone number); v, anticipated incident assignment; vi. anticipated duration of deployment; vii, resource order number(if available); viii. incident number (if necessary); and ix. applicable cost and funding codes (if necessary). g. The resource tracking and mobilization processes are directly linked_ When resources arrive on scene, they must formally check in with the IC, Division Supervisor, Staging, or Check-In (Per ICS). Check in starts the on-scene, in-processing and validates the order requirements, Notification that the resource has arrived is sent back through the system. Section 6. Compensation and Reimbursements a. Compensation— The parties agree that the resources available under this MMAA from each are equivalent by type or credential and agree that the availability and provision of such constitute consideration under this MMAA b. Costs— The terms and conditions governing reimbursement for any assistance under this MMAA shall be in accordance with the following provisions, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Requesting and Assisting Parties. i. Personnel — During the Initial Operations period of assistance, the Assisting Party shall continue to pay its employees according to its prevailing ordinances, rules, and regulations. This is considered to he the period of mutual aid. During Extended Operations or declared emergency the Requesting Party shall reimburse the Assisting Party for all direct and indirect payroll costs and expenses (including travel expenses) incurred excepting worker's compensation due to injuries or death occurring while such employees are engaged in rendering aid under this MMAA , Both the Requesting Party and the Assisting Party shall be responsible for payment of such benefits only to their respective employees.Personnel, including those assigned to an Incident Management Team (IMT), must have adequate rest and recuperation time, and facilities should be provided. Mobilization guides developed at each jurisdictional level and within functional agencies provide appropriate rest and recuperation time guidelines. Important occupational health and mental health issues must also be addressed, including monitoring how such events affect emergency responders over time. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 8 October 2010 ii. Equipment/non-expendable resources— The Assisting Party shall be reimbursed by the Requesting Party for the use of its equipment during Extended Operations according to either a pre-established local or State hourly rate, or according to the actual replacement, operation, and maintenance expenses incurred. For those instances in which costs are reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the eligible direct costs shall be determined in accordance with 44 CPR 206.228 or by the Washington State Fire Service Mobilization for fretighting equipment. The Assisting Party shall pay for all repairs to its equipment deemed necessary by its on-site supervisors to maintain such equipment in a safe and operable condition. At the request of the Assisting Party, fuels, miscellaneous supplies, and minor repairs may be provided by the Requesting Party, if practical. The total charges, if any, to the Requesting Party shall be reduced by the total value of fuels, supplies; and repairs provided by the Requesting Party. When damage or loss occurs to a non-expendable resource it should be fully accounted for at the incident site and again when they are returned to the home unit. The Requesting Party is responsible to restore the resource to a fully functional capability, if possible. Destroyed beyond repair and/or lost items should be replaced through the incident Supply Unit, by the organization with invoicing; responsibility for the incident, or as defined in the Operations Plan. Materials and Supplies/expcndable resources—The Assisting Party shall cover all costs for all materials and supplies furnished by it and used or damaged during the period of mutual aid, unless such damage is caused by gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, intentional misuse, or recklessness of the-Requesting Parry's personnel. All Parties personnel shall use reasonable care under the circumstances in the operation and control of all materials and supplies used by them during mutual aid. Under declared emergencies or extended operations, reimbursements may be available. Generally, the measure of reimbursement shall be determined in accordance with 44 CFR 206,228 or by the Washington State Fire Service Mobilization for firefighting expendable materials. In the alternative,'the Parties may agree that the Requesting Party will replace,with like kind and quality as determined by the Assisting Party, the materials and supplies used or damaged. Further, materials, supplies, and expendable resources shall also be fully accounted for at the incident and by the Assisting Party upon return. Restocking may occur at the incident or at the point from which a resource was deployed. The incident management organization may bear the costs of expendable resources, as authorized in preplanned financial agreements or as defined in the Operations Plans. Returned resources that are not in restorable condition--whether expendable or non- expendable--must be declared as excess according to established regulations and policies of the controlling entity. Waste management is of special note in the process of recovering resources. Resources that require special handling and disposition (e.g., biological waste and Master Mutual Aid Agreement 9 October 2010 contaminated supplies, debris, and equipment) are dealt with according to established regulations and policies. , iv. Other Cost Allocations - Some Parties to this MMAA may be charging for services or contracting to provide services under a cost allocation formula. For example: An agency may contract with a federal land management agency to provide services to lands outside their jurisdictional boundary. An agency may provide medical services outside their jurisdiction on a per incident basis. Agencies will determine and document, in the Operations Plans, who will be responsible for costs incurred by assisting agencies and these resources will be provided under separate Contracts for Services outside of this MMAA. C. Record Keeping-- The Assisting Party shall maintain records and submit invoices for reimbursement by the Requesting Party using the format used by their respective administrative agency. Additional forms and procedures may be required by FEMA publications, including 44 CFR, Part 13, applicable Office of Management and Budget Circulars, and State requirements if the disaster provides for reimbursements through the State from FEMA. Requesting Party and Division finance personnel shall provide information, directions, and assistance for record keeping to Assisting Party personnel. d. Payment— Unless otherwise mutually agreed in a written acknowledgment or contract for service, the Assisting Party absorbs the cost for all reimbursable expenses. This shall not preclude an Assisting Party or Requesting Party from assuming or donating, in whole or in part, the costs associated with any loss, damage, expense or use of personnel, equipment and resources provided to a Requesting Party. e. Reimbursement— Any Requesting Party may reimburse the Assisting Party rendering aid under this system. An Assisting Party may determine to donate assets of any kind to a Requesting Party. Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement, breach or interpretation of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event such dispute caluiot be resolved by agreement of the parties, such dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, and the Mandatory Rules of Arbitration (MAR); venue shall be placed in Pasco, Franklin County, Wasldngton,the laws of the State of Washington shall apply, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs. Personnel of a Party responding to or rendering assistance for a request who sustain injury or death in the course of, and arising out of,their employment are entitled to all applicable benefits normally Master Mutual Aid Agreement � 10 October 2010 available to personnel while performing their duties for their employer. Responders shall receive any additional state and federal benefits that may be available to them for line of duty deaths. Section 7. Insurance, Indemnification/Liability, Claims, and Immunity a. All activities performed under this MMAA are deemed hereby to be governmental functions, For the purposes of liability, all persons responding under the operational control of the Requesting P'arty are deemed to be employees of the Assisting Party. b. Insurance —Each Participating Government shall bear the risk of its own actions, as it does with its day-to-clay operations, and determine for itself what kinds of insurance, and in what amounts, it should carry. Each Assisting Party shall be solely responsible for determining that its insurance is current and adequate prior to providing assistance under this MMAA.. No eligibility or protection offered under chapter 38.52 RCW will replace other state mandated insurance coverage required for vehicles, vessels, boats, or aircraft except as specified in 38.52.180 RCW. All resources are to be covered for general liability, inland marine, auto liability and auto physical damage by the Assisting Party. C. Liability: Each Agency shall be responsible for the wrongful or negligent actions of its employees as their respective liability shall appear under the laws of the State of Washington and/or Federal Law and this agreement is not intended to diminish or expand such liability. i. To that end, each Agency pronnises to hold harmless and release all the other participating Agencies from any loss, claim or liability arising from or out of the negligent or inactions of its employees, officers and officials. Such liability shall be apportioned among the parties or other at fault persons or entities in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. ii. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to: a). Waive any defense arising out of RCW Title 51. b). Limit the ability of a participant to exercise any right,defense, or remedy which a party may have with respect to third parties or the offrcer(s)whose action or inaction give rise to loss,claim or liability including but not limited to an assertion that the officer(s)was acting beyond the scope of his or her employment c). Cover ur require indemnification or payment of any judgment against any individual or Agency for intentionally wrongful conduct outside the scope of employment of any individual or for any judgment for punitive damages against any individual or Agency. Payment of punitive damage awards, fines or sanctions shall be the sole responsibility of the individual against whom said judgment is rendered and/or his or her municipal Master Mutual Aid Agreement 11 October 2010 employer, should that employer elect to make said payment voluntarily. This agreement does not require indemnification of any punitive damage awards or for any order imposing fines or sanctions. d. Immunity from Liability, Volunteer Frnergency Workers — Duly registered volunteer emergency workers are exempt from some liability or covered for liability by the State of Washington according to 38.52.180 RCW and 118.04 WAC. All parties to this MMAA agree to register all of their volunteers as emergency workers with Frarilclin County Emergency Management. 118-04 WAC discusses volunteer emergency workers and their class scopes of duty. Each Party agrees to be familiar with these class scopes of duty and understand who is or is not a volunteer emergency worker under the RCW and WAC. e. Evidence Search, Training Event and Mission Numbers —The State of Washington Emergency Management Division will issue evidence search numbers, training event numbers and mission numbers for use when training, meeting with, or using emergency workers in an actual incident. Evidence search and training event numbers provide liability coverage for training events and meetings under 38.52 RCW. A mission number or evidence search number provides coverage for emergency workers during actual missions as well as setting up a reference number for incident resources requested from the State, should there be any. Parties to this MMAA will request training event numbers and mission numbers through Franklin County Emergency Management or other local authorized officials when using emergency workers according to 118.04 WAC and 38.52 RCW. Section 8. lnteroperable Communications and Information Management Effective communications, information management, and information and intelligence sharing are critical aspects of domestic incident management. Establishing and maintaining a common operating picture and ensuring accessibility and interoperability are principal goals of communications and information management. a, A common operating picture and systems interoperability provide the framework necessary toy i. Formulate and disseminate indications and warnings. ii. Formulate, execute, and communicate operational decisions at an incident site, as well as between incident management entities across jurisdiction and functional agency lines. iii. Prepare for potential requirements and requests supporting incident management activities; and iv. Develop and maintain overall awareness and understanding of an incident within and across jurisdictions. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 12 October 2010 b. Prior to an incident, entities responsible for taking appropriate pre-incident actions use communications and information management processes and systems to inform and guide various critical activities. These actions include mobilization or pre-deployment of resources, as well as strategic planning by preparedness organizations, MAC Groups, agency executives,jurisdictional authorities, and EOC personnel. Dtiuing an incident, incident management personnel use communications and information processes and systems to convey the fonnulation, coordination, and execution of operational decisions and requests for assistance. C. The Parties to this MMAA recognize the importance of interoperable communications for command and control of an incident. Agencies receiving assistance under this MMAA will be responsible for establishing an appropriate communications link with all responding agencies prior to incident assignment. Agencies providing assistance agree not to engage their resources to the mitigation of an incident until such time as effective communications are established. d, incident communications typically fall into four levels. Responsibility to ensure interoperable communications and information sharing changes at each level, Level 1 - These incidents involve a single discipline responding within a single jurisdiction. Communications between the responders is established and requires no further action. The on-scene IC is responsible to ensure appropriate communications and information sharing. Level 2 - Multiple disciplines responding within a single jurisdiction. Communications systems are usually compatible but current concept of operations may include response on individual frequencies with a dispatcher assigned to each frequency. The host agency communications center will be responsible to establish communications and information sharing links. Level 3 - Multiple disciplines and jurisdictions responding within a single jurisdiction. In this scenario you may encounter compatible and non-compatible communications systems. Establishment of effective interoperable communications and information sharing will initially be the responsibility of the host agency communications center. However, the hosting agency EOC is ultimately responsible to establish and maintain interoperable communications and information sharing. This responsibility should be moved from the communications center to the EOC as rapidly as possible. Level 4 - Multiple disciplines, jurisdictions and levels of government responding throughout multiple jurisdictions. While this scenario is probably a very rare event communications plans must be established to minimize conflict and maximize the safety and utilization of resources. interoperable communications and information sharing planning for, and resources for, this event are the responsibility of local and State Emergency Management programs. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 13 October 2010 Section 9. Qualifications and Certifications a. The development of a national credentialing system is a fundamental component of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). According to the N1MS, '`credentialing involves the provision of documentation that can authenticate and verify the certification and identity of designated incident managers and emergency responders" to ensure that response personnel -possess a minimum common level of training, currency, experience, physical and medical fitness, and capability" for the roles they are tasked to fill. b. The NINIS Integration Center (NIC) initiated the development of a national credentialing systcm to help governments at all levels identify, request and dispatch qualified emergency responders from other jurisdictions when needed. C. A national credentialing system ensures that personnel resources requested from another jurisdiction to assist in a response operation are adequately trained and skilled. A national system to verify the identity and qualifications of emergency responders will not provide automatic access to an incident site. This system can serve to prevent unauthorized — self-dispatched or unqualified personnel—access to an incident site. d. Ir'a person or entity holds a license, certificate or other permit issued by a participating party or the state evidencing qualification in a professional, mechanical or other skill and the assistance of that person or entity is requested by a participating party, the person or entity shall be deemed to be licensed, certified or permitted with the party requesting assistance for the duration of the declared emergency or authorized drills or exercises and subject to any limitations and conditions the chief executive of the participating party receiving the assistance may prescribe by executive order or otherwise. The party owning or employing a resource is responsible to verify or certify the credentials of a resource. Section 10. Resource Sharing a. incident Resources refer to the combination of personnel and equipment required to enable incident management operations. Resources may be organized and managed in three different ways, depending on the requirements of the incident: i, Single Resources- These are individual personnel and equipment items and the operators associated with them. ii. Task Forces - A Task Force is any combination of resources assembled and requested by the Incident Commander in support of a specific mission or operational need. All resource elements within a Task Force must have common communications and a designated leader. iii. Strike Teams - Strike Teams are a set number of resources of the same kind and type that have an established minimum number of personnel. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 14 October 2010 iv, The use of Strike Teams and Task Forces is encouraged, wherever possible, to optimize the use of resources, reduce the span of control over a large number of single resources, and reduce the complexity of incident management coordination and communications. b. The Incident Management Team (IMT) is comprised of interagency management level representatives operating under ICS as section chiefs or other designated management functions. This Team functions under a delegation of authority from the governmental agency requesting the Team. The Teams function is to assume overall management of the on-scene functions of the incident, including coordination and support of operations and resources,plaiming,maintaining status and cost of resources utilized, record property losses,recommend needed disaster declarations and other major governmental actions. Section 11. Administration a. Tenn and Withdrawal —This MMAA shall be in effect for one (1) year from the date herein and is renewed automatically in successive one(1) year terms. Upon no less than sixty(60)calendar days advance written notice a Party may withdraw from this MMAA. Notice of such withdrawal shall be made in writing and shall be served personally or by registered mail to the Director, Franklin County Emergency Management, and by regular mail or facsimile to all other Parties of the MMAA. Notice of withdrawal shall not relieve the withdrawing Participating Party from obligations incurred hereunder prior to the effective date of the withdrawal. b. Termination—This MMAA may be terminated in its entirety by written mutual agreement of all the Parties' herein. c. effective Date of this MMAA —This Master Mutual Aid Agreement shall become effective as to each party when adopted by resolution and executed by the governing body of the Party, and shall remain operative and effective as between each and every party that has heretofore or hereafter executed this MMAA, until participation in this MMAA is withdrawn by the party. The Director shall issue an annual report, with updates as needed, to all parties identifying the parties to this i`iMAA. d. Severability, Effects on Other Agreements — Should any portion, section, or subsection of this MMAA be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that fact shall not affect or invalidate any other portion, section or subsection; and the remaining portions of this MMAA shall remain in full force and affect without regard to the section, portion, or subsection or power invalidated. The withdrawal by one or more of the parties of its participation in this MMAA shall not affect the operation of this MMAA as between the other parties thereto. e. Dispute Resolution —Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement, breach or interpretation of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event such dispute cannot be resolved by agreement of the parties, such dispute shall be resolved by Master Mutual Aid Agreement 15 October 2010 binding arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, and the Mandatory Rules of Arbitration (MAR); venue shall be placed in Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, the laws of the State of Washington shall apply, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs. f. Master Mutual Aid Agreement Maintenance —The Resource List, Appendix A, will be updated by Franklin County Emergency Management as resources are added or removed and the updated list will be delivered to the Parties at least annually. g. Any Party may request modification of this MMAA by submitting the recommended change in writing to Franklin County Emergency Management. The Director will then deliver the recommended change to each Party for review and approval. Approval by the legislative boards of a majority of the Parties will cause the modification to be included in this MMAA and all parties will then be subject to the modified M.MAA. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 16 October 2010 Definitions/index The glossary of terms and definitions included below are adopted by the Parties and provide a common, standardized understanding of terminology commonly used in emergency management. These terms are identified in the federal resource typing initiative and are to be used in the development of EON. A Arbitration:the use of an unbiased third party to resolve disputes. -11,15 Assisting;Parties.-The jurisdiction providing aid to another jurisdiction as authorized under-this Master Mutual Aid Agreement.-6,8,9,10, 11 C Compensutiun:Payment for materials,service,or losses. •8 Costs:Personnel,equipment,non-expendible resources,materials and supplies,and other outlay that may or may not be reimbursable under this agreement. -8 Credential:cred entia ling:uniform training and certification standards.The employer or sponsor of an individual is expected to verify the credentials of its employees and volunteers. •7,8,14 D Declared etnergencies:the official action from a jurisdiction to announce an emergency is likely to exceed local capabilities, Generally,jurisdictional approval of this declaration puts the next level of governmental jurisdiction on notice that the declaring jurisdiction is likely to exceed their capability to respond to a particular emergency and they may need assistance beyond mutual aid.It may also allow the jurisdiction to suspend certain laws,codes,activities,government employment conditions and other things to help to mitigate or respond to the emergency,depending on the jurisdictions legal authority. •8,9 Demobilization plawdemobilization plan:a written plan to downsize the response to an incident as the situation is mitigated and resources are no longer required.It includes accountability fur resources used and compensation that may be required.-6,7 Delegation of Authority:The transfer of management authority for actions during an incident is done through the execution ot'a written delegation of authority from an Agency to the Incident Commander.This procedure facilitates the transition between incident management levels.The delegation of authority is a part of the briefing package provided to an inccnning incident management team.It should contain both the delegation of authority and specific limitations to that authority.3 E Emergency:any occurrence,or threat thereof including,but is not limited to,any human-caused or natural event or circumstance within the area of operation of any part to this agreement causing or threatening loss of life,damage to the environment,injury to person or property,human suffering or financial loss,such as: fire, explosion, flood,severe weather,drought, earthquake, volcanic activity, spills or releases of hazardous materials, contamination, utility or transportation emergencies, disease, infestation,civii disturbance,riots,act of terrorism or sabotage; said event being or is likely to be beyond the capacity of any affected party or parties,in terms of personnel,equipment and facilities,thereby requiring assistance. Master Mutual Aid Agreement 17 October 2010 Emergency Operations Centers:A physical location where strategies are developed and resource allocation decisions are made by those with authority to make such decisions. - 7 Emergency Operations Plan:A cuininunitys plan for mitigating,responding to,recovering from,and planning for emergencies and disasters within the community, • 5,h,9 Emergency Support Functions:Functional areas of emergency response and emergency support as outlined in an EOP. • G Emergency Worker.Volunteer emergency workers arc defined within Washington State Revised Code. •4 EOC See emergency operations center EOP See Emergency Operations Plan BF See emergency support Functions Evidence Search: Mission number assigned by Wa>hington State EM D through Franklin County Emergency Management or other local authority to track accountability and costs of evidence searches and to provide volunteers with liability protection. . 12 Expendable resources:Miscellaneous supplies and materials normally expected to be ecrosumed during an incident or activity.• 9 Extended Operations:phase of an incident when initial operations capabilities have been exceeded as determined by the 1C. Mutual aid has been exhausted at this point and more outside resources are being ordered. • 8,9 F Franklin County Emergency Management(FCEM): The agency formed by an interlocal agreement between the political Jurisdictions within Franklin County,Washington to provide required emergency management services-•6,12, 15,16 Federal Emergency Management Agency:The division within U.S.Homeland Security that is the liaison and federal response agency for tnaior emergencies and disasters. • 9 I 1C- See incident commander Immunity: Duly registered volunteer emergency workers are exempt from some liability or covered for liability by the State of Washington according to 38.52.180 RCW and 118.04 WAC. - 11, 12 1MT• See incident management team Incident Command System:The Incident Command System,or ICS,is a standardized,on-scene,all-hazard incident management concept.ICS allows its users to adopt an integrated organizational structure to match the complexities and demands of single em multiple incidents without being hindered by jurisdictional boundaries. It is the tactical all-hazard command system for managing the field tactics in incidents. It is flexible and scalable for the size or complexity of an incident organizcd under a common framework so disparate agencies can work together effectively and efficiently,• 5,7 Incident Commander:is the person responsible for all aspects of an emergency response;including quickly developing incident objectives,managing all incident operations,application of resources as well as responsibility for all persons involved.The Incident Commander sets priorities and defines the organization. • 5,6,7, 14,vi incident Management Team. . 8 Incident Management Team:a trained incident command system teaan,type defined by the complexity of an incident,which manages an incident according to what has been assigned to them through an official,signed document by an agency or MAC group.That document and act is known as a delegation of authority. • 3 lndetnnifieation/iaability:means to hold harinless, - 1 I Initial Operations period: action taken by resources first to arrive at an incident and has not exceeded mutual aid capabilities as determined by the IC. • 8 Insurance• 1 I Interoperable Communications:Common operating picture for getting a message or communication efficiently and quickly to where it needs to go. Interoperable communications includes telecommunications that can communicate with each other, common tenninology,common i'orrrts,shared intelligence,and so forth. • 12 Master Mutual Aid Agreement 18 October 2010 L Liability- I I Af MAC Group:Multi Agency Coordinating Groups consist of the policy makers in Franklin County.They are the individuals that have authority to assign their jurisdiction's resuurce,outside oftheirjurisdiction. • 7, 13 Master Mutual Aid Agreement(MMAA): Written agrecmcntbetwccn agencies and/or jurisdietiuns in which they agree to assist one another upon request,by furnishing personnel and equipment, • 3,6, 15, 16,i Mission Numbers:The Washington State Emergency Management Division shall assign a mission number to approved missions or other emergency activities.The local authorized official shall notify emergency management division as soon as practical of all missions or other emergency activities under their jurisdiction and request the assignment of a mission number.The mission number assigned shall be a reference for the dispatch of resources to assist in the mission,rccordkeeping,and reimbursement of any emergency wurker compensation claims tiled in connection with that mission. U,, 12 MMAA-see Master Mutual Aid Agreement A% National Incident Management System:The national standard for managing incidents that requires the implementation of ICS. 3,4,5.6, 14 NIC• See MMS Integration Center N1MS- see National Incident Management System N1MS Integration Center:The FEMA Division that oversees all aspects of NIMS including the development of compliance criteria and implementation activities at federal,state and local levels.It provides guidance and support to jurisdictions and incident management and responder organizations as they adopt the system. • 14 Non-expendable resource:resources that are routinely expected to be useful at the end of an incident,such as,but not limited to, equipment and tools. • 9 0 Operational plan:the Parry's strategic plan for implementing this MMAA and for delineating how the Party will respond to emergencies. • 3 1' Parry to this MMAA:any jurisdiction or entity that is signatory to this MMAA. - 5 Q Qualifications and Certifications:credentialing involves the provision of documentation that can authenticate and verify the certification and identity of designated incident managers and emergency responders"to ensure that response personnel `Possess a minimum common level of training,currency,experience.physical and medical fitness,and capability"for the toles they are tasked to fill.Credentials must be verified by the home agency of the resource with the credential. • 14 Master Mutual Aid Agreement 19 October 2010 R Reimbursable expenses:Any agreed-to service or resource the Requesting Party has agreed to pay the Assisting Party. Under a declared emergency,reimbursements from the State or Federal Government may also be allowed. • 10 Requesting Partics:Thejurisdietion requesting mutual aid fto n another jurisdiction as authorized under this MMAA. • 6,7,8, 9, 10 Resources:Personnel,overhead,equipment,services and supplies available,or potentially available,for assignment to incidents. 3,4,5,6,7,8,10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 S Sevcrability• 15 Single Resources;An individual,a piece of equipment and its persormel complement,or a crew or team of individuals with an identified work supervisor that can be used on an incident.• 14 Span of control:To limit the number orresponsibilities and resources being managed by any individual,the ICS requires that any single person's span of control should be between three and seven,with five being ideal. � 15 Staging: Staging areas are established for check in and temporary location of available resources. • 8 Strike Teams: Specified combinations of the same kind and type of resources,with common communications,and a leader. • 15 T Task Forces: a grouping of unlike resources to perform a specific mission or task as Ordered by the IC, • 14, 15 Training Event• 12 Type,types,typing:The NIMSIICS method for describing resources according to size and capabilities.Typing resources allows an IC to know exactly what they are ordering and will receive. • 7 43� % ashiiigton State Hre Service Mobili2ation • 4,`J Master Mutual Aid Agreement 20 October 2010 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council � 0 August 3, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfie C, Tanager Workshop Mtg.: 8/22/11 Regular Mtg.: 9/06/11 FROM: Lynne Jackson, human Resources Manager SUBJECT: Bargaining Contract for Code Enforcement Officers and Pennit Technicians I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Human Resource office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at httv://www.pasco-\7,,a.pov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3664) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/22: DISCUSSION 9122: MOTION: I move to approve the CoIIective Bargaining Agreement with the IUOE, Local 280, code enforcement officers and permit technicians, for years 2011-2012 and, fir-ther, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: 2011: No fiscal impact 2012: Maximum increase of$5,037.00 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The previous contract terminated December 31, 2010. V. DISCUSSION: The city and representatives of the Code Enforcement Officer and Permit Technicians (5 employees total) in the Inspection Services Division of the Community and Economic Development Department who are represented by IUOE, Local 280 have reached tentative agreement on a new, two-year contract. The bargaining unit has voted to approve it. Following is a listing of the significant changes: • Effective January 1, 2011: No wage increase for all represented employees Insurance premium contribution of 10%; insurance premium cap of 5% (of monthly wage) • Effective January 1, 2012: Increase of 90% CPI-U (Oct-Oct 2011, B/C western cities) 0- 2%, min/max. Insurance premium contribution increases to 12%; premium cap of 5% (of monthly wage) • Contract language consistent with policies governing non-represented employees. Staff recommends Council ratification of the Agreement 3(e) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council Date: August 23, 2011 TO. Gary Crutchfie Manager Workshop Mtg.: 08/22/11 Rick White, Regular Mtg.: 09/06/11 Community & fxonomic Development Director e lw FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator CW Community &Economic Development Department SUBJECT: 2012 HOME Annual Work Plan Allocation(MF#BGAP2011-004) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 08/22/11: DISCUSSION 09/06/11: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. �, approving the City's 2012 HOME Annual Work Plan Allocation III. FISCAL LMPACT It is estimated that approximately$167,188 from the 2012 Entitlement including an estimated 15%reduction and$375,000 from Program Income from the sale of three acquisition and new construction projects for funds totaling$542,188 will be available for HOME projects. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1996 making the City eligible for Federal HOME funds. In May 2010, this Agreement was renewed through 2013. B. Pasco's HOME Fund balance as of July 31, 2011 through Program Year 2011 is $846,702. Of this amount, $560,101 is expended or under contract and $105,000 is committed to projects that are awaiting final approval. Program income received from the sale of three inftll homes that are currently under rehabilitation must be used prior to drawing down entitlement funds. These acquisition and rehabilitation projects are overcommitted to counter the effect on timely expenditure of entitlement funds. Current Projects Budget Obligated Acquisition &Rehab/Infill Projects 5 115,495 $ 473,522 First Time Homebuyer Assistance $ 23,857 $ 43,894 Chkmer-occupied Rehabilitation $ 406,175 $ 38,337 Rental Rehabilitation $ 203,949 $ - CHDO Set-aside(RFP Pending) $ 90,294 $ - Admini5tration from PI $ 6,933 $ 4,348 $ 846,702 $ 560.101 C. HOME funds are based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits, however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council receive first consideration. Funding is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low-moderate income census tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as needed within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low-moderate income families. V. DISCUSSION: A. The City is able to use HOME funds for acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties, or developing vacant property through "inftll" projects, Current balances and program income expected from the sale of acquisition and new constrttetion projects in 2012 provides funding to continue that program. Staff proposes that the 2012 allocation and annual work plan focus on infill and be allocated to the projects below: Proposed Activities Budget Units Acquisition&lnfllConstruction Projects $ 362,188 3 Fir,t Time HomcbuyerAssistance $ 142,500 15 Administration from PI S 37,500 $ 542,188 18 3(f) RESOLUTION NO. 3';1)3E3 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FEDERAL HOME WORK PLAN ALLOCATION FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2012 WHEREAS, the City of Pasco entered into an Agreement with Kennewick and Richland in 2010 continuing participation in a Consortium originally formed in 1996 under the Home Investments Partnership (HOME) Program; and WHEREAS, the Consortium allows the three cities to be eligible for federal HOME funds; and WHEREAS, the City has established a Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP); and WHEREAS, it is estimated in 2012, the City of Pasco will receive $167,188 federal HOME Entitlement Funds plus 5375,000 in Program. Income for total estimated available funding of$542,188 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 'l. 2012 HOME funds received by the City of Pasco shall be allocated to the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) which operates city-wide. Priority will be given to neighborhood improvement areas and low-moderate income census tracts as needed for the activities below: Estimated Activity Units Amount HOME Administration $ 37,500.00 First Time Homebuyer's Program 15 $ 142,500.00 Acquisition & Infill Construction 3 $ 362,188.00 TOTAL ALLOCATED 18 $ 542,188.00 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2011. CITY OF PASCO: Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr CMC City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council August 30, 2011 s TO: Gary Crutcl -el' t, Manager Regular Mtg.: 9/6/11 Rick White, Community&, -conomic Development Directorr"11 � FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: STREET VACATION iMF# VAC 2011-0051 A portion of California Avenue (Domingo Navarro I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct Public Hearing: 9/6: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating a portion of California Avenue and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The owner of the Ranch House Cafe at 1410 East Lewis Street petitioned for the vacation of the west 10 feet of California Avenue abutting his property. B. The City Council set September 6, 2011 as the date to consider the vacation. V. DISCtiSSION: A. The proposed street vacation has been reviewed by the City Engineering Department and the utility providers. B. There are no utilities within the right-of-way being considered for vacation, therefore there is no need to retain an easement. 7(a) Vicinity Item: ROW Vacation California Ave Map Applicant: Domingo Navarro File #: VAC 2011 -005 . � LEWwis SIT' �� r :t 0 ` + 0? ` 1A 1 w _d 1 �. o i - SITE ' . . o*44 w t ' CO o 00 r gold WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3`d Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate right-of-way; and WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said right-of-way have been duly taken and performed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That California Avenue from the south right-of-way line of East Lewis Street to the north right-of-way line of East Columbia Street, as depicted in Exhibit "1" be and the same is hereby vacated. Section 2. That a certified copy of this ordinance be recorded by the City Clerk of the City of Pasco in and with the office of the Auditor of Franklin County, Washington. Section 3. This ordinance shall take frill force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this b`t` day of September, 2011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L, Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney Exhibit Item• ROW Vacation California Ave #1 Applicant: Domingo Navarro N File #-. VAC 201 1 -005 LEWIS ST 70 � w uj �p 3: a Area � Vacated � yo � Ak �vMg`PS-c ,o co AGENDA REPORT FOR; City Council August 30, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfiel ; Manager Regular Mtg.: 9/6/11 Rick White, � Community & Ebonomic Development Director FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment: (MF # CA2011-002) PMC 25.48 Auto Body Shops as an Accessory Use in the C-R (Regional Commerical District I. REFERENCES 1, Proposed Ordinance 2. Staff memo to the Planning Commission dated 8/18/11 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 8118111 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct Public Hearing 9/6: Motion for findings: 1 move to adopt the Findings as contained in the staff memo to the Planning Commission dated August 18, 2011. Motion for the Ordinance: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance amending PMC Chapter 25.48 by including auto body shops as an accessory use within C-R (Regional Commercial) Districts and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On August 18, 2011 the Planning Commission held a workshop to consider an amendment to the C-R (Regional Commercial) district regulations that included the addition of auto body shops as permitted accessory uses provided certain locational requirements are met. B. Following the workshop the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed C-R code amendment as contained in Reference #1. V. DISCUSSION: A. The proposed code amendment would permit auto body shops as accessory uses in the C-R District under the following conditions: 1) The auto body shop and associated spray booth must be enclosed within a building primarily used for automotive or RV sales and service; 2) The building must be setback at least 30 feet from all property lines; 3) The building must be 300 feet from any residentially zoned properties; and, 4) All vchicle parts must be completely screened from adjoining properties and right-of-way. B. The proposed code amendment will provide for some modest expansion of existing and future businesses in the C-R District while addressing negative external impacts that can be associated with stand alone auto body shops. 7(b) C. Zoning code amendments require at least one public hearing before adoption by the City Council. Typically code amendment hearings are held by the Planning Commission. In this case, in an effort to make timely accommodations for business expansion, the Planning Commission developed a recommendation for Council's consideration after only conducting a workshop. The necessary hearing on the proposed code amendment has been scheduled for the City Council meeting of September 6, 2011. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 BY INCLUDING AUTO BODY SHOPS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE IN CHAPTER 25.48. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, the zoning regulations are designed to increase the security of home life and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban Area; and, WHEREAS, the C-R District (PMC 25.48) permits the location of auto sales and service and RV sales and service facilities; and, WHEREAS, services related to auto and RV sales include auto body restoration; and, WHEREAS, the 2009 International Fire Code adopted by the City provides safety guidelines for the installation and operation of auto body spray booths; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on August 18, 2011 and following deliberations made a recommendation that the City Council amend PMC 25.48 by including auto body shops as a permitted accessory use in the C-R Regional Commercial District with certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 6, 2011 to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and to receive additional public comment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.48.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.46.020 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. Aceessep� buil& gs ni a-HesseFy uses +n ° �6ng--c , 1 +,ed i the district defined de r .n 5-42.920 aftd -tom 1� i yr_ fir_ �3 T �- �r�••� The following accessory uses and buildin s as resipectively defined in Sections 25.12.020 and 25.12,115 shall be permitted in the C-R district: (1) Auto Body Shops, provided the shop and spray booth are enclosed within a building primarily used for automotive or RV sales and service,the building is setback at least 30 feet from all property lines and 300 feet from a residential zoning district and provided all vehicle parts are completely screened from adjoining properties and right-of-way by a solid continuous fence or wall at least six feet in height; (2) Storage buildings; excluding container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of September 6d' 2011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L, Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment PMC 25.48 Auto Body Shops as an Accessory Use in the C-R District (Regional Commercial) District BACKGROUND Staff recently met with the owner of the Broadmoor RV Center on Saint Thomas Drive to review details of future expansion plans for the RV Center. The plans call for the addition of a new building, refurbishing of the service portion of the existing building and the addition of a spray booth for painting vehicles. Spray booths are an integral component of auto body shops. Auto body shops are defined (PMC 25. 12.085) as "a building or portion of a building wherein there is engaged the business of improvement and restoration of automobiles and other and other motor vehicles by sanding, priming, painting, straightening and other like repair or restoration." By definition then any building that contains a spray booth for painting vehicles is an auto body shop. Auto body shops are permitted uses in Industrial Districts and may be permitted in C-3 (General Business) Districts by Special Permit only. The Broadmoor RV Center is located in a C-R Regional Commercial District. To assist with the proposed expansion plans and address the auto body shop issue the City has the option of rezoning the site to C-3 (allowing approval by the Special Permit process) or by amending the C-R regulations to include auto body shops either as a permitted or accessory use. The City has made a concerted effort over the last 30 years to ensure that commercial areas in the I-182 corridor are preserved for retail and regional commercial activities rather than the heavy commercial activities permitted by the C-3 District. The rezone option is not recommended. Adding auto body shops as permitted uses in the C-R District is also not recommended. A stand alone auto body shop can be similar in many respects to uses permitted in the C-3 District. On the other hand, classifying auto body shops as accessory uses reduces the opportunities for conflicts and lessens the chance the auto body shop can become the dominate use on a site. Accessory uses by definition are incidental and subordinate to principal uses. Permitting auto body shops as an 1 accessory use in the C-R District addresses the need for business expansion while moderating the external concerns related to stand alone auto body shops. The proposed code amendment would permit auto body shops as accessory uses in the C-R District under the following conditions: 1) The auto body shop and associated spray booth must be enclosed within a building primarily used for automotive or RV sales and service; 2) The building must be setback at least 30 feet from all property lines; 3) The building must be 300 feet from any residentially zoned properties; and, 4) All vehicle parts must be completely screened from adjoining properties and right-of-way. FINDINGS 1) The Municipal Code recognizes certain land use actions such as rezones and special permits could impact properties within a 300 foot distance. Property owners within 300 feet of a proposed rezone or special permit site are notified by direct mailing (PMC 25,88.040), 2) The proposed C-R District code amendment would permit auto body shops as accessory uses only if the proposed site is 300 feet from any residentially zoned property. Public notice requirements for special permit hearings call for notification of property owners within 300 feet of the site under consideration. 3) Accessory uses are defined in PMC 25.12.090 as a use subordinate to the principal use located on the same lot as the principal use. 4) By definition and function, accessory uses cannot exceed the size and scope of a principal use. 5) Accessory uses are common for many businesses. For example, a car wash located with a convenience store/gas station, a gift shop in a restaurant, a baker within a grocery store or a service/repair shop with an auto dealership. b) The proposed code amendment only permits auto body shops as an accessory in the C-R District when enclosed in a building that is primarily used for automotive or RV sales and service. 7) Chapter 15 of the International Fire Code (IFC) contains specific standards and regulations for the safe installation and operation of paint spray booths. 8) The City of Pasco has adopted the IFC. 9) Spray booths located anywhere in the City must comply with the IFC standards. 10) The IFC requires spray booths venting flammable vapors to be setback 30 feet from all property lines. The proposed code amendment requires a 30 foot setback. 2 11) Auto body shops often store auto parts and scrap outdoors. The proposed code amendment requires all outdoor storage of auto parts to be completely screened by a solid continuous fence 6 feet in height. 12) Development within C-R Districts in the I-182 Overlay zone must comply with the development standards in PMC 25.58. RECOMMENDATION Due to time constraints the process for this proposed code amendment has been modified. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission review the proposal and make a recommendation to the City Council. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation the City Council will hold a public hearing to complete the process. Typically the Planning Commission conducts public hearing for code amendments. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Code Amendments modifying PMC Chapter 25.48 to include auto body shops as an Accessory Use to automotive and RV sales and services facilities in the C-R District. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2011 OTHER BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Auto Body Shops as Accessory Uses in the C-R District PMC 25.48 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked staff for comments. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated staff recently received a request from an owner of a business on St. Thomas Drive for a building permit for a remodel and expansion including a new 20,000 square foot building. Part of the remodel was to permit the use of a spray booth. A spray booth is considered to be part of an auto body shop which is not permitted on St. Thomas Drive. Staff prepared a code amendment that would allow an auto body shop as an accessory use in the C-R district, provided the spray booth is totally enclosed within a primary building that provides auto sales and service or RV sales and service and provided the building location is at least 300 feet from any residential zoning district. The code proposal would also require a qualifying building to be set back at least 30 feet from any property line and all outdoor storage would need to be completely screened from adjoining properties. Dave McDonald further explained the Planning Commission was conducting a workshop and is being asked to make a recommendation on the matter for the Council to consider in public hearing in September. Chairman Cruz asked why Auto or RV sales and services were used rather than adding tractors as well. Dave McDonald answered that it was because those uses were not permitted in the C-R district. Heavy equipment sales are permitted in C-3 or I-1 zones. Commissioner Hay asked if there were any environmental concerns. Dave McDonald, answered by stating spray booths are required to receive an Air Quality Permit from the Department of Ecology and go through the SEPA process. John Ramsey, 8612 Whipple, stated he had been in business on St. Thomas Drive for 15 years and did not realize he was not zoned for painting. Mr. Ramsey explained his expansion plans. Safety for the community around his business is a big concern of his. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendment modifying PMC 25.48 to include Auto Body Shops as an accessory use to automotive and RV sales and service facilities in the C-R district. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council August 30, 2011 TO: Gary Crutch � it i Manager Regular Mtg.: 9/6/r11 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: PMC Amendments on Criminal Background Checks I. REFERENCE(S): L Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 916: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending the Pasco Municipal Code regarding state and federal and criminal background checks and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $30 fee, plus direct costs payable by applicant IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In a number of instances, the City code provides that a check of criminal history or background be completed on a licensee/applicant prior to issuance. Recent legislation at the state level provides access to federal criminal history information (FBI) through the Washington Slate Patrol, Up to now, access to information outside of the state has been limited. B) Access to both state and federal criminal history will provide the City with better information for making licensing decisions and, therefore, provide better protection to the public. C) The attached draft ordinance incorporates a new fee section (3.07.075) as well as a new process, as recommended by the FBI (5.08.045). The proposed $30 fee to the City is expected to cover the City's processing costs; direct costs of other agencies will be passed along to applicants. D) Existing Code sections referring to/requiring criminal histories are amended to reference the proposed now process. These are as follows: • Section 3 — 5.08.060 Solicitation License • Section 4 —5.12.018 Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers • Section 5 — 5.16A.040 Carnivals and Circuses • Section 6 — 5.25.040 Dance Halls • Section 7 — 5.25.050 Public Dances • Section 8 — 5.27.160 Adult Entertainment Facilities • Section 9 —5.27.170 Adult Entertainment Workers • Section 10—5.45.l 10 For Hire Drivers V. DISCUSSION: A) At the meeting of August 22, Council asked if including federal criminal history information would cause a delay in the process. In response, the Police Department records supenlisor indicates that technology enables rapid turnaround of requests, usually within hours to a few days, therefore no delay is anticipated. B) Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance, S(a) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, creating Section 3.07.075 "State and Federal Background Investigation Criminal History Check"; and Section 5.08.045 "State and Federal Background Investigation Criminal History Check"; amending Section 5,08.060 "investigation-Character and Business Responsibility"; creating Section 5.12.018 "Criminal History Check"; amending Section 5.16A.040 "Investigation and Determination"; amending Section 5.25.040 "Dance Halls"; amending Section 5.25.050 "Public Dance"; amending Section 5.27.160 "Applicant Investigation-Adult Entertainment Facility"; amending Section 5.27.170 "Applicant Investigation- Manager Wait Person and Entertainer"; and amending Section 5.45.110 "Driver's Permit-Requirements," WHEREAS, recent law contained in RCW 35A.21.370 provides for State and Federal criminal background checks of license applicants and licensees of occupations under local licensing authority when said authority establishes an ordinance or ordinances requiring such consistent with 28 CFR § 20.33(3); and WHEREAS, the City has previously by Ordinance required criminal background checks of applicants for dance halls, public dances, and for-hire driver permits; and WHEREAS, City staff has recommended to Council that criminal background checks be authorized for certain other license applications and occupations; and WHEREAS, Council having reviewed this matter, determined that performing criminal background checks for certain license applicants and occupations is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Pasco to provide for the health, welfare, morals, and governance of the people; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I. That a new Section 3.07.075 entitled "State and Federal Background Investigation Criminal History Check" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: Criminal History Check Ordinance Page i 3.07.075 STATE AND FEDERAL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK. Fee/Charge Reference A) Criminal History Check $30.00 5.08.060 5.12.018 5.16A.040 5.25.040 5.25.050 5.27.160 5.27.170 5.45.110 Section 2. That a new Section 5.08.045 entitled "State and Federal Background Investigation Criminal History Check" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: 5.08.045 STATE AND FEDERAL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK. A) Pursuant to PMC 5.08.060, 5.12.018, 5.16A.040, 5.25.040, 5.25.050, 5.27.160, 5.27.170 and 5,45.110, certain licenses require satisfactory completion of a State and Federal background investigation to include a criminal history check performed in accordance with RCW 35A.21.370 and 28 CPR § 20.33(3). B) Applicants for licenses requiring a criminal history check shall submit fingerprints to the City which will submit the fingerprints to the Washington State Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, C) In addition to any fee required by PMC 3.07.075, the applicant shall submit appropriate fees as required by the Washington State Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Once the results of the Washington State Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation check are returned to the City, the information will be promptly reviewed and the license application processed. D) In the event the applicant is an entity and not an individual, the City may require criminal history checks be performed for any officers, agents, employees, or owners of the entity seeking the license. E) If the applicant is a private individual or entity, the City shall render a fitness determination based upon the results of the criminal history check and communicate its fitness determination to such private individual or entity. If an applicant is a public entity, the City shall; 1) Render a fitness determination based upon the results of the criminal history check and communicate its fitness determination to the public entity; or Criminal History Check Ordinance Page 2 2) Disseminate the results of the criminal history check to the public entity for a fitness determination. F) In rendering a fitness determination, the City shall decide whether the applicant has been convicted of or is under pending indictment for: 1) A crime which bears upon the applicant's ability or fitness to serve in that capacity; or 2) Any felony or a misdemeanor which involved force or threat of force, controlled substances, or was a sex-related offense. G) An applicant may request and receive a copy of the applicant's criminal history record information from the City. Section 3. That Section 5.08.060 entitled "Investigation — Character and Business Responsibility" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 5.08.060 INVESTIGATION AND CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK — CHARACTElt AND BUSINESS RESPONSIBILITY. The original copy of the application shall be referred to the Chief of Police, who shall promptly make an investigation of the applicant's character and business responsibility. Criminal history checks shall be performed in accordance with PMC 5.08.045. If the applicant's character or business responsibility is found to be unsatisfactory, the Chief of Police shall endorse on such application his disapproval and the reason therefore and return the application to the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall notify the applicant that his application is disapproved and that no license will be issued. If the Chief of Police finds that the applicant's character and business responsibility are satisfactory, he shall endorse his approval on the application and return it to the City Clerk, who shall, upon payment of the license fee and the filing of bond as provided for in this chapter, issue the license. (Prior code Sec. 3-8.24.) Section 4. That a new Section 5.12,018 entitled "Criminal History Check" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: 5.12.018 CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK. For each applicant for a license under this Chapter, the City shall perform a criminal history check in accordance with PMC 5.08.045. Section 5. That Section 5.16A.040 entitled "Investigation and Determination" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 5.16A.040 INVESTIGATION AND DETERMNATION. Upon receipt of such application, the City Clerk shall cause such investigation of such persons or persons business responsibility to be made as is deemed necessary for protection of the public good and shall refer the application to the Community Development and Fire Department for determination as to compliance with applicable codes. Criminal history checks shall be performed in accordance Criminal History Check Ordinance Pate 3 with PMC 5.08.045. An application shall be denied by the City Clerk upon written findings that the applicant's business responsibility is unsatisfactory or that the proposed business activity will violate any applicable law, rule or regulation. Otherwise, upon submittal of the required application and infonnation and following collection of fees and receipt of approvals from applicable City departments, the health District (if applicable) and the Department of Labor and Industries, the City Clerk shall issue the license. (Ord. 2850 See. 1, 1991.) Section 6. That Section 5.25.040 entitled "Dance Halls" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 5.12 5.040 DANCF HALLS. In addition to the application as required in Section 5.25.030 above, the applicant for Dance Hall operation shall submit: A) A statement that the premises are in compliance with all City laws, including but not limited to building, zoning, planning and fire codes, together with attached documentation of an inspection of the premises conducted not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of application. B) A statement that the applicant will, in the conduct and operation of the Dance Hall, comply with all City laws, including, but not limited to the Noise Control Ordinance. C) A security plan identifying the method and qualification for providing one (1) security officer for each one hundred (100) persons upon the premises. D) Description of other food, beverage, or services provided on the premises with copies of necessary permits and licenses. E) A statement identifying the individual entity liable for the collection and payment of the City admission tax. -the City , Mek�T-, oF 14ane&-Ha11- (Ord. 3524 Sec. 4, 2001.) F) The Citv shall perform a criminal history check in accordance with PMC 5.08.045 for all applicants seeking a permit under this Cha.. cr, Section 7. That Section 5.25.050 entitled "Public Dance" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 5.25.050 PUBLIC DANCE. Any public dance, other than those conducted on the premises of a dance hall, and in addition to the application provided in Section 5.25.030 above, shall: A) Identify the date and time of the conduct of the public dance. A Pen-nit shall be required for each date and time the public dance is to be conducted and shall only be good for the place, date and time specified in the Permit. Criminal History Check Ordinance Page 4 B) A security plan identifying the method and qualification for providing one (1) security officer for each one hundred (100) persons upon the premises, C) Description of other licensed food, beverage, or services provided on the premises. D) A statement identifying the individual liable for the collection and payment of the City admission tax. ed.release a1-1=.,,�.. t --cif applicant,-- , �f, .I �ti zrkh rke rk;khe in the f..-kiet -e f fk� V cairrc ir.���ac. n �^° (Ord. 3524 Sec. 4, 2001.) 1 Ci V1IL�CL7rr F) The City shall t)erform a criminal history check in accordance with PMC 5.08.045 for all applicants seeking_a permit under this Chapter. Section 8. That Section 5.27.160 entitled "Applicant Investigation — Adult Entertainment Facility" of the Pasco Municipal Court shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 5.27.160 APPLICANT INVESTIGATION - ADULT ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY. A) Upon filing of an application for an adult entertainment facility business license, the City Manager shall forward copies of the application for review by the Police Chief, the City Planner, and Building Inspector; and 1) Within thirty (30) days of the date of the application for an adult entertainment facility business license, the Police Chief shall investigate the statements set forth in the application and report to the City Manager whether the information received by the Police Chief confirms the information in the application. 2) Within thirty (30) days of the date of an application for an adult entertainment facility business license, the City Planner shall inspect the proposed premises of the adult entertainment facility and report to the City Manager whether the location of the proposed adult entertainment facility complies with the zoning regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code. 3) Within thirty (30) days of the date of' the application for an adult entertainment facility business license, the Building Inspector shall inspect the proposed premises of the adult entertainment facility and report to the City Manager whether the premises complies with the fire, safety and building code regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code.. Criminal History Check Ordinance Page 5 4) Within thirty (30) days of the date of the application for an adult entertainment facility business license, the City Planner and Building Inspector shall inspect the interior layout, lighting; signage, and other features of the premises and report to the City Manager whether the premises complies with the provisions of this Chapter. B) The City shall perform a criminal history check in accordance with PMC 5.08.045 for all ap plicants seeking a license under this Chapter, (Ord. 3262 Sec. 3, 1997.) Section 9. That Section 5.27.170 entitled "Applicant Investigation — Manager Wait Person and Entertainer" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 5.27.170 APPLICANT INVESTIGATION - MANAGER, WAIT PERSON AND ENTERTANER. Upon filing of an application for an adult entertainer's license, adult waitperson's license or adult entertainment facility manager's license, the City Manager shall forward copies of the application to the Police Chief. Within three (3) working days of the date of the application, the Police Chief shall investigate the statements set forth in the application and report to the City Manager whether the information received by the Police Chief confirms the information in the application. Additionally, the City shall perform a criminal history check in accordance with PMC 5.08.045 for all applicants seeking La license under this Chapter. (Ord. 3262 Sec. 3, 1997) Section 10. That Section 5.45.110 entitled "Driver's Permit — Requirements" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 5.45.110 DRIVER'S PERMIT - REQUIREMENTS. Before a Driver's Permit shall be issued, the applicant shall submit to and 1 or supply the following to the Pasco Police Department: A) To being fingerprinted for a non-refundable fee as set forth in Chapter 3.07 of this code; B) Photographed annually for a non-refundable fee as set forth in Chapter 3.07 of this code; C) Driver's check; D) Criminal history check— annually for a one time non-refundable fee as set forth in Chapter 3.07 (14C-W 46.72, nd and such fees as inay be established by the Washington State Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Criminal history checks performed under this section shall be in accordance with PMC 5.08.045; E) Health Department TB test results on an annual basis; and F) Outstanding warrants check. Criminal History Check Ordinance Page 6 The Chief of Police shall notify the City Clerk with the approval or disapproval of the applicant's qualifications. (Ord. 3938, 2009; Ord. 3858, 2008; Ord. 3335 Sec. 2, 1998.) 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 Criminal History Check Ordinance Pa-e 7 AGENDA REPORT P FOR: City Council August 3, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfi r-ity ager Workshop Mtg.: 8/22/11 Regular Ivltg.: 916/11 FR01v1: Stan Strebel, Deputy an ager SUBJECT: Outdated PMC Chapter, 1.08 Elections 1. REFERENCE(S): i Proposed Ordinance 2. PMC Chapter 1.08 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8122: Discussion 9/6: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No, , repealing Chapter 1.08 of the Pasco Municipal Code and, further, to authorize publication by su nmary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NIA IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) It has come to the attention of staff that PMC Chapter 1.08, which addresses voter registration processes under the direction of the City Clerk is no longer applicable; the County Auditor being responsible to supervise elections and voter registration activities. V. DISCUSSION: A) As PMC 1.08 is no longer needed, staff recommends repeal of the Chapter by adoption of the attached ordinance. s(b) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE Repealing Chapter 1.08 "Elections" of the Pasco Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the provisions of Chapter 1,08 of the Pasco Municipal Code have been determined to be no longer applicable under Washington State luw; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 1.08 entitled "Elections" of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (S) 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 Attorncy CHAPTER 1.08 ELECTIONS Sections: 1.08,010 TEMPORARY REGISTRATION FACILITIES ESTABLISHED. .................12 1.08.020 DOOR TO DOOR REGISTRATION. ...................................................12 1.08.030 TRAINING CLASS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRARS. .................................12 1.08,040 FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF UNQUALIFIED PERSONS. .............13 1.08.050 COMPENSATION OF REGISTRARS...................................................13 1.08.010 TEMPORARY REGISTRATION FACILITIES ESTABLISHED. There are established temporary registration facilities at the Franklin County Courthouse and the Pasco Public Library, 1320 West Hopkins Street, Pasco, Franklin County, Washington during the fifteen day period excepting Sundays prior to the last day to register in order to be eligible to vote at a state primary election or municipal primary election and during the fifteen day period excepting Sundays prior to the last day to register in order to be eligible to vote at a state general election or municipal general election. The City Clerk may also establish additional temporary registration facilities other than those named above if such are necessary and shall submit the number of such additional facilities and their location to the City Council for approval at a regularly scheduled council meeting prior to the date such additional facilities are to be operated. Each additional temporary registration facility shall be open from nine a.m, to five p.m. and shall be manned by no less than two deputy registrars to be selected by the City Clerk from the registered voters of the City. Deputy registrars shall hold office at the pleasure of the City Clerk. (Prior code Sec. 1-2.04.) 1.08.020 DOOR TO DOOR REGISTRATION. In addition to the temporary registration facilities provided for in Section 1.08.010, the City Clerk shall appoint deputy registrars to conduct door to door registration in the City during the time period prior to both state and municipal primary elections and state and municipal general elections as set forth in Section 1.08.010. These registrars shall be selected from a list of persons qualified to act as registrars and certified to and submitted by the chairman of the county central committee of each major political party. All such registrars must be registered voters of the City and shall hold office at the pleasure of the City Clerk. Each major political party shall be equally represented and no more than six persons shall be selected from any one major political party. In the event a major political party fails to submit a list of persons qualified to act as registrar, the City Clerk shall then have the right to select those persons to conduct door to door registration from a list of the registered voters of the City. (Prior code Sec. 1-2.08.) 1.08.030 TRAINING CLASS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRARS. The City Clerk shall hold a training class to instruct persons selected to serve as deputy registrars under both Section 1.08.010 and Section 1.08.020 of this chapter in registration procedure not more than ninety days prior to the elections set forth in this chapter. These persons PMC Title 1 1/18/2011 12 shall then be qualified to act as registrars for a two-year period. (Prior code Sec. 1- 2.12.) 1.08,040 FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF UNQUALIFIED PERSONS. Every deputy registrar who fraudulently registers an unqualified person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the City jail for a period of not exceeding ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Prior code Sec. 1-2.16.) 1.08.050 COMPENSATION OF REGISTRARS. The compensation of registrars under this chapter shall be the same as provided by state law (RCW 29.07.040) as it now exists or may be amended or added to in the future. (Prior code Sec. 1-2.20.) PMC Title 1 1/18/2011 13 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council i August 16, 2011 FROM: Gary Crutchfi 1 y Manager Workshop Mtg.: 8/22!11 Regular lvltg,: 916!11 SUBJECT: Capital improvement Plan I. REFERENCE(S): 1. 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://wivw,pasco-wa.,gov/index.aspx?NID=255). 2. Proposed Resolution. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8122: Discussion 916: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution Iwo, adopting the Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2012-2017. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS: A) The annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2012-2017 was presented to Council for discussion at the !August 8 workshop meeting. V. DISCUSSION: A) Several changes have been made to the proposed plan by staff subsequent to the August 8 discussion, as follows: • Ladder Truck-- added this project • East Side Booster Station ---lowered cost estimate • County Road 1001 Vent Rd Ext (Water) - added this project • Broadmoor Blvd—added construction costs; design costs only in original • East Airport Water Line - added construction costs; design costs only in original • County Road 1001 Dent Rd Ext (Sewer) - added this project • Annual Irrigation Extensions —added one more year of projects • Road 100 Corridor Study —removed B) Staff recommends that council identify any substantive changes it desires and schedule formal Council approval of the Capital improvement Plan at the September 6 business meeting, so that the CIP is in place to guide staff in preparation of' the annual budget this fall. S(c) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION Approving the Capital improvement Plan for Calendar Years 2012-2017. WHEREAS, staff has prepared the Capital Improvement Plan which defines the capital projects proposed to be undertaken by the City over the ensuing six years; and WHEREAS, on August 8 and August 22, 2011 the Capital Improvement Plan was presented to the City Council for review and prioritization; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the Capital Improvement Plan for calendar years 2012-2017 as the City's list of capital projects proposed to be undertaken by the City over the coming six years, with the understanding that implementation of any project listed in the Capital improvement Plan is subject to budget appropriation. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this 6th day of September, 2011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council d , September 1, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfie 'ty -anager Regular Mtg.: 9i6/11 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 2011-009). Location of a Community Service Facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone (Tax Parcel 112060378) (Pasco Conference of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Report to Planning Commission 4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 7121/1 1 & 8118/11 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/1: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No., , approving a Special Permit for the location of a .Level Two Community Service Facility at 215 S. 61h Avenue (Tax Parcel 112060378). III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE INN. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On July 21, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a Special Permit be granted for the location of a Community Service Facility at 215 South 6`b Avenue. B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a Special Pennit for the Community Service Facility. C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution. D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(d) Item: Saint Vincent de Paul Vicinity 0 0 Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul N File # : SP2011 -009 :*or an � f �A � Y 71 SITE: AL + � N -iae,siR •t..g..IlNwtt:t �1 � A%j + IL FEE ' �� Y �t r t .# A• �' 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDA'T'ION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITY IN AN 1-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)ZONE W fIEREAS, the Pasco Conference of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, submitted an application for the location of a Community Service Facility at 215 S. 6`h Avenue (Tax Parcel 112060378);and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 21, 2011 to review the proposed Community Service Facility; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on August 18, 2011 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the Community Service Facility with certain conditions; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to St. Vincent de Paul for the location of a Community Service Facility in an 1-1 (bight Industrial) zone under Master File # SP2011-009 with the following conditions: a) The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 112060378; b) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the Special Permit application; e) Site development shall conform to the commercial landscape standards of PMC 25.75; d) No food commodities or other materials shall be stored outside of the building; e) The driveway entrances shall meet current ADA requiremen(s. f) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not obtained by September 30,2013. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 6`r' day of September, 2011. Matt Watkins, Mayor AITEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2011-009 APPLICANT: Pasco Conference of HEARING DATE: 7/21/2011 the Society of St. Vincent de Paul ACTION DATE: 8/18/2011 1120 West Sylvester Street Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a 14.952 Square Foot Community Service Facility {Level Two) Warehouse in an I-1 Li ht Industrial) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 1 of Binding Site Plan 2011-002 General Location: Between 5th Ave. and-6th Ave. 155 ft. north of"A" St. (2 15 S. 6th Ave.) Property Size: 1.7 acres 2. ACCESS: The site will have access from 5th and 6th Avenues. 3. UTILITIES: A municipal water line is located at the northwest corner of the site and both municipal sewer and water lines are located along the entire frontage of the site on 5th Avenue. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and is undeveloped. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: I-1 - Warehouse SOUTH: R-2 - Single-Family Residences EAST: I-1 - Building Materials Supplier B'L'EST: I-1 - Building Materials Supplier 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The proposal would replace a vacant lot with a warehouse and parking lot containing landscaping. Policy LU-2-1) requires all development to be landscaped. b. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, 1 STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The Saint Vincent de Paul Society has operated a food bank at 129 Nest Lewis Street for over 30 years. 2. The City of Pasco is purchasing the exiting Saint Vincent de Paul building to clear in preparation for the construction of the Lewis Street overpass. 3. The existing Saint Vincent de Paul facility has no parking facilities for patrons. 4. The proposed site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). 5. The applicant proposes to construct a food bank and clothing distribution facility. 6. By definition, food banks and other non-profit organizations qualify as Level Two Community Service Facilities (PMC 25.12.156). 7. The Municipal Code [PMC 25.86.020(4)1 requires Special Permit review for Level Two Community Service Facilities 8. The proposed site is currently owned by BNSF Railway Company. 9. The proposed facility is 14,952 square feet in size and contains 97 onsite parking stalls. 10. The proposed building provides indoor queuing for patrons 11. The proposed facility has onsite sidewalks for additional queuing areas. 12. The proposed food bank/clothing center uses each Wednesday as the distribution day. 13. The site is accessible from both 51h and 61h Avenues. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 3 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? Surrounding properties are zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). There are no height limitations in the I-1 zone. The proposed food bank warehouse building will be about 18 feet in height which is similar to or less than the height of surrounding warehouses. The proposed facility will also contain significantly more improved onsite parking and landscaping than the surrounding industrial supply facilities. Development of the site, which is currently a vacant lot, will consist of a paved parking lot, landscaping and a new building, which will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. An online search of the Franklin County Assessor's records (7/2011) indicate that property values surrounding the most recently approved food bank (Golden Age Food Share, 504 S Oregon Ave, 2005) have generally increased over the past few years. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed food bank/clothing center will only be open to the public one day a week. The facility has been designed with a large onsite parking lot, with indoor queuing space and covered outdoor queuing space to eliminate the need for food bank patrons to line up for services on public sidewalks. The operation of the proposed facility will create less noise, fumes, vibration and dust than the nearby material supply facilities. 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Development of the site with the proposed food bank/clothing center will eliminate nuisances associated with blowing dust and weeds that are common on vacant lots within the City. On most days of the week minimal activity will occur on the site. The proposed facility has been planned to accommodate 60 more parking spaces than required by code for a warehouse. The facility has also been designed to accommodate indoor and onsite queuing of patrons to address concerns of individuals lining up on city sidewalks to receive ser, ces. The onsite parking and queuing will address safety concerns associated with the existing food bank that contains no onsite public parking or queuing. With distribution occurring one day a week, the food bank will have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5 Vicinity Item: Saint Vincent de Paul 0 Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul N File # : SP2011 -009 4�� 10 -live 4k dawn M O ` 1 N i y ., ".SITE BEA y "A" ST Alf •r } M P - - r Zoning Item: Saint Vincent de Paul Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul x File # : SP2011 -009 s,- � � 9L vs� SITE m, J1 I "A" ST C-1 R-3 i R_3 R-3 R/w IL I-1 t - SITE DATA Army z + f "c11W 4!n-uu@S[a.axrx�.dyL- I- ow PFVfi r t }-' FKllfa i+- - � IwwrsrPrbs: •��_� vM.�l E I,mre_ceeia�niwriLU, yry rMuire�,� •�_no ode � .11, aueEa:svnvur FaEa� —i—— !Y?1�PSrNtC:O`Ii?EMOYiL�,= 1L� � non Yw_},arts,rq�airzuPa�,uu _ �:ul 'LTM�9� �L'bi_Cm'.=A6M fi1lG 4.1 +m �•r �i UI�Y[ NfrrTItNOEUTIk tli� .. 4 IPAM e.m uaw nuu. _PJ F. .�' -�.. ..�s�• —� , cm' cam.akcl�l¢NA1�]ti ,-t_ 4aL� F `}"� �` � •r Rl if nEk�•DATA--- ._T _ i !"�I i i11�k �.T-,�... Lx-, �► L�i�ctu Irxowsu! r,l� Y_- : E 21F`e � � -�7 ��•,gd �' a a N �\`14'!$Rl$g —,,� .I � E"� nmtgast'J Niep vy _�P It {� �a Fla}aPlao�Frl I -;�--I ,DiSTRtStJ7`tOYAREA. fir—, r` r I �. - -I r•P-L' s6d 1 Vol i;U I,:. PARKMa 4�,�0 yt `C l ed Vol pO( .,\� 1'•r" �NFaalm�it(mi,gllglnlwieltalt7lu n'xaFi,i l ftet$I + � �+ Sy5'� PAAKM leasrsgjsoiaoiei�lk,ml4crociealgttaeiggimin'81tdlratltlr7e'h�1g;rPl.o�:tlru *10I A F: a r PROPOSED SITE PLAN ` RE19sP.n.Irn PGhp �► A01.1 SHE EIGHT SHEcT$ Looking north f sit �t fp Ik 511; Al to 'f h . ..:..r•�• 'T�•�,.'�• _�=�,..��3�-''�,1,���fir' +` + �- �__ . �►• I aa•�~ `v t•i�.. yIt.� '•`�•?y�l•• l -.1���77K�~RJi - Looking south tr^� i. y r `•- �.- �` '-. - •... -• i „ .w!••��•.-r•may•.• ,(t- i � _•� �•a :•� all y. a, c, :�4�`�`f ri rr .•• �.. �.y yi"� ;r . `sC. z ` ".�' ✓ , Lr I1n '� ,.'� A f ,_ K •r+ - , Ai • t + 1,�1'��^.i,�+� 1'j � „ •'�'�.� `...��' , -• _ �+ .yL' .�. t7[�•i .a 1��w � �t.:.a a..'S '1�`� �� j•��.- ' , -2� r _ Iy. �• __ - �•-�` -' •'�`A ram � -_� `�%' •�•' •r Y �-a�'�'j.�. •jj'�;•f _• _lam_ s,^tL�r�:i1•�_ !`�_. �.t.�.. a�,�.'.�: '-• �-+� .wig.^ ay };Y f mil• ,it j' . _ / ,.. �, �, i••f-r�•S w�-',� � ';`.y` F �•1+ Y� Z��� •r,. `;7� +t '�C'- �-� 1�`•. �-•. � .1r�i��t 4.7C J�r•����. •i+F•w s •• � �.ti�,' ''•Yry"�`I�F� '•h ��_•� i� Fehr � r ��.`J��1`•�y��[�'•.��a�♦r•�"e1+..4••?����J-�'-���i Sj •��r ,�' a. '.. s . �. �-� �� r• r '- T �L°• T � �Yi3 r r�N � wit• L �.�.1"♦ c' �' •. _ �� .ia l ��'�•!n';�I;�.�j.... .� -��" '14y1/. fr,y�ry.+••• ?�„� i. �.�e , .�+cti Y. , r y:,. �t''�_�,.••'� � `Y �w -Fr•� .�!. �: �. r!v��`,.Lr'0'+ •r 4',-••i'� �.x -+�' },# •��C i1" •;�f�l y ,-�}ajM-'l i .�,�. 1'�, ���� 'i.� "��.Z. ♦4 '.�a-1 {� :,• •k ',`� -tir t -ti "-r_ I.. -.':Y',,,�,a� � JAtt� �:_r� _ J 4. •r ..•.. -r.J,.,'�."ti. a.� .• :��Y+y'� -` +-E :.J"�Y'�"'•.,r•:r. --J�-.:� is r,� _ •� 'a- j - - i Looking Ali- i r .. � �... �. o~- --• ,,..� 1,'�-,�• LY^! .rte s- �a�". .y .. ti _ .i r. .v ti �',• •.K •�' 1 _.....,: .°����r�.+ ': � �- - ... r �'•�1. Vie. s •1 , �� _ ,''"e4� ;.r, ;�� ...- w, ,.fit tiR+�: _ I a� r• - y ,' �T- Y�,�j1 ys t "�'� �,v��';�1��•�r ,!�.�� - �`L.e��'•Y}.:,'�!'i r�',''aiT1:J '�•' �' r .. /L 4 :!s`/' ''''�' t7;C. �1� •f" ".a K 7. ;i - r '. ,,•'��.y�=,�.1 --ti' e� • }' _ - - - �r � 1 ',•�'.7� {, !•r�,?�'.' .fir '� � � t. . ldpmjopr-_ - Looking west y Y R L t• i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 2011 A. Special Permit Location of a Community Service Facility in an I-1 Zone (300 block of South Sth Avenue) (Saint Vincent de Paul Society) (MF# SP 2011-0091 Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner stated the application was for the location of a food bank and clothing distribution center on a site north of "A" Street between 5�b & 6th Avenue. The Saint Vincent de Paul Society has provided services for the residents in Pasco for 50+ years. They have been located on West Lewis Street for the past 30+ years. The city is purchasing the existing Saint Vincent de Paul property in preparation for the construction of the new Lewis Street overpass. The type of activities the St. Vincent de Paul Society engages in fall within the definition of a community service facility and as such a special permit is required. The new facility will include a fully landscaped and paved parking lot. The site will provide ample parking and a queuing area for recipients versus the current site which lacks parking and a queuing area where recipients stand in a line on the sidewalk. The facility will be open one day per week and staff/volunteers will be on site sporadically to prepare for the weekly distribution. Sina Pierret, 2 Daisy Court, stated the new facility will provide more safety for recipients than the current facility by providing a staging area for recipients versus standing on the city sidewalks. They will have enough parking on their site for staff, recipients and vendors. The location of the new site is near the current site and is also on a bus line which will provide easy access for recipients traveling on the bus. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if Saint Vincent de Paul will provide a collection/drop-off location on site. Ms. Pierret stated not at this time. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf called for further public comment and with no response, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed Level Two Community Service Facility and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 18, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2011 B. Special Permit Location of a Community Service _Facility in an I-1 Zone. (300 Block of S. 5th Ave.) Saint Vincent de Paul Society] (MF# SP 2011-008k Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Hay moved seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings, the Fact and Conclusions therefore contained in the August 18, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the St. Vincent de Paul Society for the location of a community service facility at 215 S. 6th Avenue with the conditions as contained in the August 18, 2008 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Staff noted this item would go to the City Council September 6, 2011. Staff briefly explained the appeal process. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council August 30, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfiel 'Tanager Regular Mtg.: 9/6/11 Rick White, Community & Fconomie Development Director l FROM: David McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT: Columbia Villas (Road 76 and Sandifur Parkwav) (Big Land Creek Company) (MF#PP 2011-002) I. REFERENCE(S): 1 . Overview and Vicinity Maps 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Preliminary Plat (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at http://wuw.pasco- wa,gov/citycouncilreel2orts). 4. Report to the Planning Commission 5. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 6/16/11, 7/21/11 & 8/18/11 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/6: MOTION#1:Planning Commission recommendation I move to approve Resolution No, approving the Preliminary Plat for Columbia Villas. MOTION 42: Setting a closed record hearing I move to set 7:00 PM, October 17, 2011 as the time and date for a closed record hearing to review the Planning Commission's recommendation dealing with mitigation of development impacts to the School District, I11. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On June 16, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to develop a recommendation for the City Council on the Preliminary Plat for Columbia Villas, a 100-lot subdivision proposed for the northwest corner of Road 76 and Sandifur Parkway, B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission detenrnined that with conditions related to public schools, utility services and other infrastructure needs, the Preliminary Plat could be recommended for approval. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached resolution. C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. D. The Planning Commission's plat recommendations include a provision requiring the developer to enter into a voluntary agreement with the Pasco School District to address mitigation of development impacts to the School District. This is a matter related to the school impact fee issue discussed by the City Council several weeks ago. There is a difference between school impact fees and mitigation agreements. This is an issue that may warrant further clarification and to do so the Council has the option of setting a close record hearing. Motion#2 would allow review of the record for purposes of clarifying the use of mitigation agreements verses school impact fees, 8(e) Overvi a Columbia Item:A B f t• i Land Company N ' Map Fi* e . . 2011 -002 �RR2- o■/ ■""r Isiil�i�r.s a3� j t; � .a:•o�f s-3"4 � .l�ii-k was � ■r ■ ., ,,, ..a _, ate- +�1 �r .:.��'� �� �.��I 'a't_ � �' /ifil� �' ■ ■E ��u^i3�ys3wi�taf a�d�i~ ''4 F,d bald =� WA 0 ILI' ■ �� ��p, �-;�q,M'pwgs.rsc`'.r •r: Y�',,•.�3 ; s.`�`.� � to,■ . � '�� Z,C ilf � ��}• '�� H17R O �i•�14lsI�i1 Y.Mn � �j'�y �'>'� Y�� .d z � .r!:�,� �.3 I 'ice `Af .c' -•r.s^ a ■ � ! �Asi � . ill, 'rl� �y2,�' �f, '�1R �j �ll��� �..!' � �!!. �-,�1t :�y�;: ► ' wed• � ';� J .115 ills � � *3 a: 7! "� i �� �� a3J ,� tii� • .� ��.'' ,l,�r• •� is >!�: : �- "� � 1. _. �_.;�� :i�1•�M'��.ir.��rt� i�A !;� � ��+ �+L`�i �' t•i tYi !� � .f�A �.iu�� . LLr .,p, - 1 s � � ■llt HY iiii��iai��� ���, I� r �..` •.� h ���_ .+��• lily•,��.,f wa�tt� ;� �''Igg r � • two �1 1�: Vii' 'r<<'�, ''fir i •.��i�s+i �i•a• ' -�.�ci `t _ `R F ;d +± afil�cl� +! t � �•�fyr ,tl ..x{�d .iii 'ia'a>R ►�ak.�[ sus , �Rl��t3►ii�i� iilR+�iir sii�! - atin• .�1��619M !!y �!1.�dd3!k. .: Rlljr 2rtfr 4a it i•E. p.r "f ! �' G�i1 - .. rt �•* WN■ lix"Oi►f°�i`+� _`' . ilss>r![AxsR a alrJ� to iiGii fids� c �,� a, s♦i✓�t:+is �, �r3dllx ,� Wass' A ; r :�,iF1Sii#!Rill�! eai.� p:•,,o ' >4.� ,;j ���x. :.a .0,<�_1 � ► � �rlr�rtR f�l�•�r4`.. p� "�i - r P 9 P��1i Ip T w �•y,, � �+sir. o •,-,- 4 c - •.v a� `1!�Elm aim , ss ds M.9 k� L.� �.r _ �'r a:+i J elk+} �� i �►`'•. t! Q r. . L +�• r+. As iir �',w ,;� :� s' 'Y s-.a 1wA �s .0 a�s1r_ �► v� �" ,/�Sit ,�6 �•d � .L rr.'Y4� t�ls � ! � dY+���� . �r *.ii,` \a r. `e.. law lfar^ H! �f dtA:+llr/IsY3 :s >< .�l *a+r 1KI�F�R �l o �, awii.iyrw �ij� Rb l ` � .c � 'YKi�?\ , 1<. �. }• • 1 � .ltall!►'� '. !Qr �1rr1!� .6.4f 'i iYrN ad s� ` kX" ar a�iS� :.7Y!►_� �+ .i1F, I'll 111111��Jjjjjj t 1.19 I 0 6 B I P F • 1110k, Man AL INN LN IL •. ,� ►-,,�``' �°� a . �"i � ,. ZOO- I I OZ dd s 011A dvW �i '' pui3l jawD i?ijj :juuoijddv VJ. r ! RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR COLUMBIA VILLAS. WHEREAS, RCW 58.17 enables the City to uniformly administer the process of subdividing property for the overall welfare of the community; and, WHEREAS,owners and developers of property situated in the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., have requested approval of a preliminary plat; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said preliminary plat which is named Columbia Villas; and, WHEREAS, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission fbimd the proposed plat promoted the general welfare of the community and recommended said preliminary plat be approved with conditions; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That the preliminary plat for Columbia Villas, located in the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M., is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be developed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, irrigation and sewer lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. Sidewalks must be installed no later than the time each lot is developed with a house. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final Plat approval. All existing and proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense. 2) Improvements to Sandifur Parkway must include a curvilinear sidewalk, landscaping and irrigation to match the existing sidewalk and landscaping on Sandifur Parkway. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks department prior to installation. 3) Excess right-of-way along Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive must be landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf and trees. The species of trees and spacing will be determined by the Parks department. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks department prior to installation. 4) All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance responsibility for excess right-of-way landscaping on Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association, 5) Lots abutting Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final Plat(s). 1 6) The developer shall install a common "Estate Type" fence six-feet in height adjacent the rear line of all lots backing on Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with each phase abutting said streets. The fence must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to the vision triangle at the intersection of streets. Maintenance and upkeep of said fence must be the responsibility of the subdivision Homeowners Association. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance responsibility for the estate fence is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 7) The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the circulation system within the 1-182 corridor. 8) All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final Plat(s). 9) No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 10) All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 11) The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings thereon. 12) The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. 13) The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to plan approval. 14) The 16" PVC irrigation mainline in Sandifur Parkway shall be extended from its current termination point in Sandifur Parkway to the east right-of-way line of Road 76. 15) Irrigation mainlines shall be installed throughout the entire Plat of a size sufficient to service every lot within the Plat pursuant to PMC 26.04.116. All easements/rights-of-way necessary to convey an irrigation system to and through the Plat must be conveyed to the City of Pasco. 16) All water lines must be extended through the length of the final Plat(s). No phase may be left for more than six months without die subsequent looping of each system with the existing City of Pasco water system. The developer will be required to deposit funds for any non-looped system left longer than six mouths with the City of Pasco to insure the completion of the water system. No water valves/meter boxes are to be located in any easements/walkways. 17) The final Plat shall contain the following statement: "Irrigation service lines are currently available to lots within this Plat; however, water for the irrigation system may not currently be available. The City of Pasco is constructing its irrigation infrastructure on an ongoing basis. The use of the system will become available as time and resources permit the expansion and connection of new systems to the existing irrigation supply." 18) The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with construction inspection and plan review service expenses incurred by the City of Pasco Engineering department. 2 19) All engineering designs for infrastructure and final Plat drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 20) The final Plat shall contain 10-foot utility easements parallel to all streets. An additional easement shall be provided as needed by the Franklin County PUD. All other easement widths are to be as directed by the City Engineer. 21) The final Plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a Iot or Iots of this flat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backf ll for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the Plat." 22) Water rights shall be assigned to the City, if no water rights exist, the developer is required to pay a fee of$1,500 per acre to the City of Pasco prior to acceptance of any subdivision construction plans. 23) Street lighting will be installed to the City of Pasco/Tranklin County PUD standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are typically installed every 300 feet and collector/arterial type street lights are typically installed every 150 feet. 24) Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the first intake meeting for construction plans for each phase of development. 25) The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no excess build up of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer_ The developer will be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement for a period of up to five years from the date of final Plat approval for each phase or until the systcm is accepted by the City of Pasco. The City of Pasco's acceptance of construction plans for subsequent phases of the subdivision will be contingent upon the developer satisfying all requirements of the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. 26) The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 27) To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remimeration as determined by said agreement. 28) Final Plat approval is further contingent upon execution and recording of a voluntary agreement authorized by RCW 82.02.020 between the Developer and the Pasco School District providing for payment in mitigation of the direct impact upon the Pasco School District as a consequence of the Columbia Villas subdivision. 3 Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 0 day of October, 2010. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, CMC Leland B, Kerr, City Attorney City Clerk 4 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2011-002 APPLICANT: Big Creek Land Company HEARING DATE: 6/16/2011 11741 W. Romin Road ACTION DATE: 8/ 18/2011 Post Falls, ID 83854 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Columbia Villas,100-Lots (Multi-Familvl I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lem: The east 525' of the south 1180' of the northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 29 East except road rights-of-way General Location: The N/W corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 Property Size: 12.72 Acres Number of Lots Pro osed: 100 lots for zero lot line construction Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,018 ft2 to 5,793 ft2 Avera-ge Lot Square Eoptage: 4,300 ft2 2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer currently exists on the site. Water service will need to be extended through the site from the east and west. Irrigation lines will need to be installed through the site and extended the length of the site on both Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-4 - Vacant and Apartments SOUTH: R-1 - Single Family Residences EAST: C-1 - Vacant WEST R-1 - Single Family Residences S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for mixed residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands designated for mixed residential uses when or where: severer is available, the location is convenient to major circulation routes, the site serves as a transition between more intense uses and low density uses, and when there is a market demand. Policy H-1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 i suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, comments received from the Pasco School District, and other information, the City has issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for this project under WAC 197-11-158. To mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas Subdivision the developer will need to enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District, as authorized under RCW 82.02.020. The terms of said agreement may include impact fees or other remuneration to ameliorate the impacts that 59 new students will have on the School District. ANALYSIS The site was initially designated for mixed residential development under the Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning was established in 2003 around the time Columbia Place (to the west) received Preliminary Plat approval. The right-of-way for Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive was deeded to the City in the fall of 2003. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site in question into 100 lots to allow the construction of 50 duplexes. Each duplex would occupy two lots with the common lot line dividing each unit. This proposal for Columbia Villas is identical to the process that was used for the development of the Island Estates Row Homes in the Island Estates subdivision (Phase 8) and in the Mediterranean Villas subdivision. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for multi-family development and later platted into individual lots. The lot lines within these subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the dwelling units. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed Plat contains 100 lots; with the lots varying in size from 3,018 square feet to 5,793 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-3 zoning of the site. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated. UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the Plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction 2 purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and at a maximum interval of 500 feet. Streetlights are located at street intersections and at 300-foot intervals on residential streets. STREET NAMES: The street names follow the river theme of the Columbia Place subdivision to the west. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as a part of the infrastructure improvements. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval. Where no water rights exist the developer is required to pay a fee of $1,500 per acre. FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact": Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-3 zone are designed to address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in question be developed with 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Plat has a density of less than 8 units per acre. No more than 60 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-3 zoning standards. Parks Opens Space/Schools: City parks are located in Columbia Place and Island Estates. The proposed subdivision will be served by Ruth Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the School District for review. The School District has indicated (see attached letter) that the District does not have capacity at Livingston or McLoughlin to serve the addition enrollment expected from the proposed subdivision. The applicant conceded in his testimony that there was overcrowding in the schools. In addition there was no evidence presented at the hearing in opposition to the School District's letter dated June 3, 2011. The table below illustrates the School Districts capacity constraints. The City is required by RCW 58. 17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed 3 subdivision on the School District. The proposed Plat cannot be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds adequate provisions have been made for the schools. The School District has requested the impacts be mitigated. Without a specific impact fee ordinance the mitigation can be achieved through the developer entering into a voluntary agreement with the School District as authorized under RCW 82.02.020. The voluntary agreement would specify the type or form of mitigation being provided by the developer. The mitigation could take the form of an impact fee cash payment to the District, the construction of portable classrooms or combination of fees and in- kind services. Requiring the developer to enter into an agreement with the School District for the payment of mitigation fees or other kinds of remuneration would be one method of addressing the finding requirements of RCW 58. 17. 110. SCHOOL CAPACITY OCTOBER 2010 ENROLLMENT Ruth Livingston 500 800 McLoughlin 1,000 1,483 Middle Chiawana High 2,200 2,032 Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for multi- family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 20 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 7.8 units per acre. The proposed development will provide for the continuation of Road 76 north to Three Rivers Drive and will provide another outlet/entrance to the Columbia Place subdivision. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat is connected to Sandifur Parkway, and Three Rivers Drive. Sidewalks will be installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. These sidewalks will connect with sidewalks to be built on Road 76 and with the existing sidewalk on Sandifur Parkway, Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 100 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 50 duplex units. 4 Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review. (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section also.) Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the Plat site for mixed residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential development. Mixed residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as five to twenty dwelling units per acre. • The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site was zoned R-3 in 2003. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. • The east end of Three Rivers Drive in the Columbia Place subdivision is currently barricaded and does not contain a cul-de-sac. • Dedicated cul-de-sacs are provided on the ends of streets where they are not planned to be extended in the future. • The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. • The right-of-way for Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive was deeded to the City in 2003. 5 • The site was zoned R-3 in 2003 to provide an area of transition between the more intense C-1 zoning east of Road 76 and the less intense residential development in the Columbia Place subdivision. • The School District has purchased sites for future schools at the northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway (elementary school) and at the end of Road 52 (middle school). • A recent bond measure to fund construction of the Road 60 and Road 52 schools failed. • The School District has provided data indicating Pasco schools lack the capacity to accommodate additional students. • The School District by letter dated June 3, 2011 requested the impacts to the School District created by the proposed Plat be mitigated. • RCW 58.17. 110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary Plat is approved. • The School District by letter dated June 3, 2011 indicated impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • The City of Pasco does not have a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. • RCW 82.02.020 authorizes the School District to enter into agreements with developers for the purpose of mitigating the impacts new development may have upon the School District. The terms of such agreements may include the payment of school impact fees. • The fully developed portions of Sandifur Parkway contain a curvilinear sidewalk and extensive landscaping. • The site borders on a partially developed section of Sandifur Parkway. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed Plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering 6 division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of park lands. The Preliminary Plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The School District indicated that there are capacity constraints at Ruth Livingston Elementary and McLoughlin Middle School. To address the capacity issues and ensure adequate provisions are made for schools the District is asking the developer to enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District to mitigate the impacts the development will have upon the provision of schools and school services. City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and southwest of the site. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision will provide another connection from Sandifur Parkway to and from Columbia Place. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential development. Mixed residential development is described as 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of programs encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter-neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. 7 (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e.: school impact fees are paid.) (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will 'insure the public use and interest are served. PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be developed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, irrigation and sewer lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. Sidewalks must be installed no Iater than the time each lot is developed with a house. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final Plat approval. All existing and proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense. 2. Improvements to Sandifur Parkway must include a curvilinear sidewalk, landscaping and irrigation to match the existing sidewalk and landscaping on Sandifur Parkway. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks department prior to installation. 3. Excess right-of-way along Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive must be landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf and trees. The species of trees and spacing will be determined by the Parks department. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks department prior to installation. 4. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance responsibility for excess right-of-way landscaping on Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 5. Lots abutting Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final Plat(s). 8 6. The developer shall install a common "Estate Type" fence six-feet in height adjacent the rear line of all lots backing on Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with each phase abutting said streets. The fence must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to the vision triangle at the intersection of streets. Maintenance and upkeep of said fence must be the responsibility of the subdivision Homeowners Association. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance responsibility for the estate fence is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 7, The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the circulation system within the I-182 corridor. 8. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final Plat(s). 9. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street . intersections. 10, All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 11. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings thereon. 12. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. 13. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings, All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to plan approval. 14. The 16" PVC irrigation mainline in Sandifur Parkway shall be extended from its current termination point in Sandifur Parkway to the east right-of- way line of Road 76. 15. Irrigation mainlines shall be installed throughout the entire Plat of a size sufficient to service every lot within the Plat pursuant to PMC 26.04.116. All easements/rights-of-way necessary to convey an irrigation system to and through the Plat must be conveyed to the City of Pasco. 16. All water lines must be extended through the length of the final Plat(s). No phase may be left for more than six months without the subsequent looping of each system with the existing City of Pasco water system. The 9 developer will be required to deposit funds for any non-looped system left longer than six months with the City of Pasco to insure the completion of the water system. No water valves/meter boxes are to be located in any easements/walkways. 17. The final Plat shall contain the following statement: "Irrigation service lines are currently available to lots within this Plat; however, water for the irrigation system may not currently be available. The City of Pasco is constructing its irrigation infrastructure on an ongoing basis. The use of the system will become available as time and resources permit the expansion and connection of new systems to the existing irrigation supply." 18. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with construction inspection and plan review service expenses incurred by the City of Pasco Engineering department. 19. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final Plat drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 20. The final Plat shall contain 10-foot utility easements parallel to all streets. An additional easement shall be provided as needed by the Franklin County PUD. All other easement widths are to be as directed by the City Engineer, 21. The final Plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the Plat." 22. Water rights shall be assigned to the City, if no water rights exist, the developer is required to pay a fee of $1,500 per acre to the City of Pasco prior to acceptance of any subdivision construction plans. 23. Street lighting will be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are typically installed every 300 feet and collector/arterial type street lights are typically installed every 150 feet. 24. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the first intake meeting for construction plans for each phase of development. 10 25. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no excess build up of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement for a period of up to five years from the date of final Plat approval for each phase or until the system is accepted by the City of Pasco. The City of Pasco's acceptance of construction plans for subsequent phases of the subdivision will be contingent upon the developer satisfying all requirements of the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. 26, The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 27. To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration as determined by said agreement. 28. Final Plat approval is further contingent upon execution and recording of a voluntary agreement authorized by RCW 82.02.020 between the Developer and the Pasco School District providing for payment in mitigation of the direct impact upon the Pasco School District as a consequence of the Columbia Villas subdivision. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 18, 2011 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve a Preliminary Plat for the Columbia Villas Subdivision with the conditions as listed in the August 18, 2011 staff report. I1 Item: Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas Overview Applicant: Big Cr Company Map File #: PP 2011 -002 � ■■..� I�sr � I"�1 �� .r � ■ � as SHi� �■ _ , ! - ' ' '!,,: � '� �. ids ■ :■ l�kl■ t� F Ali �� � .���'� >�� Id�l�' �: . ,:•�. � ,■ s` �. awls � • ■ ■� ��:t"!!�� gTiy�t�r.elll+�p�I,� n _ wr�,t�'� �,I� ! ! 1�1� •� al 9 • ! �.w „eiiw t.5tc i�• r2�rEL►`Iff 'R.t~l51i ■ ■ �" i _mob �j Ili��ld�i� ,y_...,, _-1iai:J:a.•u._'�"•' -t '>N'6y>ri4��ll��l`C + _ •• I' '; "' rs �Il�fi �t ' iiii'{>< :� ��� ?� �r 4 +' .,;� ^i.o,tel� s""t*Z�tmziir�s ''d+s�iB'skas"'" `__� s• ;- �>u����a �I�itais� `` � �!� r a�. �ti {j ' r'�.� a� �.ref.r'i�J;ll?: �, iii>!b# a� ,`,4...�•. � i l�fM .iRd#!f t!�# rlw �' �p Y' iEa ils ifs# rY ! s: wa�id 1eA ,. aa'a� .._ st{���t#S� ia #ielr dRit i!! R :` �9;� nab* �� • . � ri�� - i°,c � ._ rNRt�!#�iis�si` +��'�' .•1�5. Via` i� 'A ��+ ' r�sarbly ♦ sfP ils il"sr' IM t �` �r���?� y� w -. ." 1;3�r�. �.f- � «!i>ws :x � R7��li!l�►�arkr 't';i� `..-c � ,`� �fO � lily s� �#Dnlifr� •ryt t�%1�e[ iL "'� v � ^- _�! ► ! �• Ida��' [� AL Gid.' �� 'S a �i1i +. a�fJ��ies?si r i ,'kz"��� R'��ldil'd !s ?ail _,_•� �.>pe�l� Wit'=�,a��•�sa ��` �IL :��a=�►1�i r �i� "�s��;te� a�a�M�t dl�J�. r �". � ,agK�i�•t �� .;rJi►rB#, �S*r 1�� �.�lr�� a� _�le�ir -74 ;+liw� �+ ' © a •°.�t .iis12 i ,e" � 's�,• KS �.�FK�■ we ey a ra „ayi afIs l>t'b+k0 1[ s!s �*i.lD aa'e' '• Oif.�•�7+� � s?it '}- v��.t•�sY y \ �'�rbii6�j�• t� w'� 'J �cD w� weti 'r'�o � rYr.G� •�X �� ii Ide+r e• e' �i!!1C>l4�lrlr KSP:• +fK! E'�!1 A4 .419 .'40W� ��.► , `�,1" SIfYE�ariD t�� d �� s-: r` .. ��,�+rit �1�i;2 iii��f+_f1f��L _ lam "tipl3uA tit 'U 4A, \\ ` ipL �► ' ►:`a1a�•\\\�s�w� °, , MN NN NS 8l I !RS 3M A- �e � r. :�► ZOO- K �uudwoo puej jo;).TD 2iq :juuoilddV a SA SVIIIA r , I-eld Land Item: Prelim. Plat - Columbia Use Applicant: Big Creek Land Company N Map--- File 4: PIP 2011 -002 Farming IN r 1 ♦ 1 1 1!111 111 111 ,;, ;,•-; E H20 1--Commercial 11111111 � ►_\�����:;; ��■ �nr� ■1111■ ► ...._,.\\,,..� 1� r , - ■ Towers MENEM honing Item: Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas Neap Applicant: Big Creek Land Company N . File # . PP 2011 -002 R-4r 0 o R tiro � 1 Yor s°tieR 1 , 1 � RT Ii y� -- N l ` RUSH CREEK OR Rwl M o �SIT� l - m CANYON DR _ I CA -_ i11 VIM17f.BLUFFS CTS z z IJ WENATCHEE DR DESCHUTES DR I T SANDIFUR PKWY 1 REDONDA DR VENDOVi DR LI I I F XM . 1 MAYNE DR _PENDER DR _ , Loo ing south ��-�♦ '- �i - ` L .i • '+fir-.�. . V.. .�,�. r - ''� � fti .•• - •�Ar.� •ti•�f. �-�� •rte_�� a 7' � ,,�� a .•i� I ��. ~, 1,�4.6 y�x-, J�C°l' r",•�•'�, � p . _ -� . P u . • �lL./'� .. y I,� .7��s.f� �•v l•• �•a'a••��G. l�" • ♦ •.'yy Al S f Looking north 7711PI 1 • L-o-oking .' e LIZ mj •V� ti*�� ._ �.�, .•�� _. •�.;r -� :. _ �...jT T'••�w rte. - .:. �-.J �Iw.r —a�.v...rte --► ` � .---.? -. �,. ��.h�. �;�'t•�Igl: 'i.�, T�f'� l�'�� � f�• � it fNM , .. • � '���1+ �+"71 .1 f•,+� rf r�~' , . .� � ''}[.• ..;�� ,,' r ` � ,I, r�. - 1777•.' •. :RrfS�,csLNr,��.'1� ` ` Its , �• •�i,�•�,F• ' i I y, 1 Looking southwest -�.. .'" ;, - " IMP♦ -.a �,�r` �' jM. ,try-.�► � t •;1• , '�- �.;+� 7 •a ` $• ♦ r jl• '. �•a' �:'���`�. t •E li, i' M :.ti�-• �• •� � '-1 .i�j,,'^'� k1��. ��,, `�,r�•q t� ^g •d r r �. � ., , � • 4�,,�, t �S'{ • S 1 . 6 i t is � r 1�,,s' 11�j 7 rl "ha ��1 �� '�t�� !• /�w� t 1 tY t A 't�,�ltiT:'.'t• �•�t r' . - `, � �" ^ � �,S tC•. � �".+ � r._�` - � ` ,�1,. i.��p� '. �r .' t. a '�' � r, * S,• � , •�� ,�/;1— :- if ,ti ,�M*•*��,' 1' r •,t � i � M� t, r �` t• 1�, A�P� 4 S 3i ,j• . 1 .,• � r '.� •' - ��i;'� ��'r_�.�'�'`�. ��� i' y 1�1r� y � 6. , •` L.�I �, i..'. J t�,1• •, y � '� .l �i•r�t�j' � t�71,<,. t `t.�;��1' j•�.� f r , 1 ,.. K t'- ,.t/. ,� ."tip !r iI ! t.. i a r ,.. � � .� ,l�''x�M}'+ +. .1 .G-�l lr.r. �.f .� � M1 �� Ir�,.y, t•i.11' -. °A( •/ •• _ • t �.�1 rii r l'.�1 't .t > A t t 7 .�� �' � �,� !M{: t ' .�'!,A w 1 i�i , •>, � , '}a�ii+•♦ Y+Lti... t •{_y;'u, YQ 1 .� �.� d. i 1 �` �N y!�. �y�1♦,b't�:,•.� � �• ,' �F . , � T ^ r , X71/ 1. � l� t •� �C 1 d A t � •�- � r r ♦ , � � t� � �,�y r 1���+e# ail t � � •. � t t , -A 16 '�.' �� :� � s } 't 7 � tr •�'al>�; A',' 14` � a{�ya f •J¢ 4 •ewt� IFj' .�'4i *• '_ ,� I v i. .l f' � ' ,Y.t#� ��ji�LL�. �' �t�a 4ar�= � ,M .w 'j• t,'� •"y ;,�; r, R)f.''�^ ��� r. �` ., • ,fi 1,� r S� 11.�. t * � •t, f ' 1 i ' �� 1 � ♦ • � (/ �,L,'i< ,��� Ii.i' , i ,1 b , {` � � � 1, �+�it �� t 1t ' �� ,� � r � •'�* � ,eft • ' •A '1i "' � • � k t � � 1, t '� r� •, FR � t,•a , t •�• 1 E' MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Legal Opinions on School Impact Mitigation. (Columbia Villas) (MF# PP 2011-002) During the July hearing on the Columbia Villas preliminary plat, staff indicated a representative of the property owner requested additional time to provide a legal opinion on the School District's request that the proposed plat provide mitigation for.impacts to the school system. Affording an opportunity for the property owner to provide a legal opinion necessitated providing the same opportunity to the School District. Accordingly the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Columbia Villas Plat to the August 18, 2011 meeting. The hearing continuation was provided to allow legal opinions only. No new evidence from the developer or the School District can be provided. Both the School District and the property owner have submitted letters explaining their positions on the use of "voluntary agreements" as a means of mitigating development impacts to the Pasco school system. The City Attorney has reviewed the legal opinions to ensure no new evidence is being provided. Following deliberations, based solely on the record and review of the legal opinions, the Planning Commission will need to complete the process by making a recommendation to the City Council. The findings of fact and other information in the staff report can be used to assist with making a recommendation. Attachments: Legal opinions from the Property Owner and School District are attached under the Correspondence Section following the staff report. t Correspondence (PP 2011-002) Exhibit 1 Letter from Homebuilders Association Exhibit 2 Memo from Staff on Mitigation for School Impacts Exhibit 3 Letter from Pasco School District dated June 3, 2011 Exhibit 4 July 15, 2011 Memo from Staff with attached Memo from the City Attorney dated July 12, 2011 dealing with Mitigation Fees for School Impacts Exhibit 5 Property Owner Legal Opinion Exhibit 6 School District Legal Opinion Exhibit 1 - Letter from Homebuilders Association Dine$u11 eh rae trop orTrF n q 801ding the Tri•Citlom since 1958 Pasco City Council Franklin County Commissioners Pasco Planning Commission Franklin County Planning Commission P.O. Box 293 1010 N.4th Street Pasco, WA 99301 Pasco,WA 99301 March 25,2011 It has come to our attention that the Pasco School District is opposing all new subdivisions in the City of Pasco and Franklin County on the basis of insufficient capacity in the schools. In order to mitigate the impacts associated with new development,the Pasco School District has requested all applicants be required to sign a voluntary agreement and pay an amount equivalent to the proposed impact fees.On behalf ofthe Home Builders Association of TTi-Cities(HBA), I would like to express our opposition,not just to the impact fee proposals, but also ro(Iris proposed circumvention of impact fee ordinances through a so-called"voluntary"agreement. Whatever it is called or however it is imposed,whether it`s an impact fee ordinance or a SPPA mitigation fee, it is quite simply a tax targeted at new construction.Growth is beneficial to the entire community. Residential construction not only creates jobs and increases the tax base,but also leads the way for commercial development as it provides those much needed consumers. And commercial development is certainly desired—not just for the tar reventte,but also for a better quality of life for the residents.And yes,there are costs to growth and development—they require more schools,parks,roads,and public services.But because the entire community gets to enjoy the benefits ofgrowth,then the entire community should pay for the costs,which are ultimately returned to taxpayers through that tax revenue.In fact,in 2009, for every 400 single family homes built in the City of Pasco,the one-year, local impacts were equal to$51.6 million in local'income;$7.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments,and 855 local jobs.In addition,those 400 homes generate substantial ongoing annual local Impacts,including $10.1 million in local income;$4,0 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments and 189 local jobs. Althotigh such"voluntary"agreements are allowed under state law,the use of such agreements to impose fees circumvents the impact fee process and has the potential to cause immediate and lasting damage to the building industry in our area.This damage may include lost jobs and increased unemployment rates, less economic development and declining tax revenues. Impact fees are currently being considered by both the City and County and until that process is complete,including the necessary and valuable public hearings and comment period,builders and dcvelopers should not be forced into paying the equivalent of such fees.Not only is this far Home builders Association of Tri_ClUes,WA 100131 W Clearwater Ave l Kennewick,WA 99336 (509)735.2745 or(877)942-8453 1 fax-(509)735.84701 www•hbaic com from"voluntary",but is a fee that builders and developers had no knowledge of when they bought their land,and is therefore a threat to property rights and another barrier to growth. The HBA urges the City of Pasco and Franklin County to pass any pending and fixture plat or development approvals withow the condition to enter into a voluntary agreement and pay these outrageous fees and allow development and building to continue without pause. Sincerely, Rened Daftlgren Director of Government Affairs cc: Pasco School District;.lerrod MacPherson;Rick White Nome 6vilders Association of Yn-Gitles.WA l coo 1 w ctearwalerAve I Kennewick,WA 99336 (5091735-2745 or(877)842 453 I Fax.{509,735.8470;www.hbatO.Cbm Exhibit 2 -Memo from staff MEMORANDUM June 16,2011 TO: Dlanr ing Commission FRCM: Rick White, Director, Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Mitigation for School Impacts The Pasco School District (PSD) has prepared a capital facility plan that addresses the District's need for school facilities through the year 2016. In the Capital Plan, the District has indicated that nearly all educational facilities are above or at capacity, and that the enrollment in the year 2016 is expected to be nearly 21,000 students (an increase of 5,640 students over 2010 enrollment). Based on the District's Capital Facility Plan, the PSD has requested that the City (and County) establish impact fees for new residential development for the provision of new school facilities that can accommodate growth in the student population. The District has also indicated that the expected impact fees for a single family home is $6,012 and `?5,272 for a multi—family dwelling. In the absence of established fees, the PSD has requested that the impacts of new development upon, school facilities be mitigated. The PSD has requested that the City consider the Impact that new development will have on educationai facilities through the State Environmental Policy Act, which requires the impacts of a project to be analyzed and a determination made as to the effects of those impacts on the built (and natural) environment. The PSD has also requested that new residential platting be analyzed in accord with RCW 56.17.110, which requires a city and county to make assertive findings for plat approval that appropriate public facilities of all types are in place to accommodate expected impacts of new development. These findings are as follows: (1)The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and Interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, Including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: ;a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school: grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. The PSD has previously stated that "...we have outgrown our ability to continue providing schools without requiring the development that will be served by the schools to contribute to the cost." The District has also stated that "...the County and City cannot approve residential subdivisions unless you find there are "adequate provisions for schools The District is notifying the County and City that without impact fees or mitigation under SEPA, there are not adequate provisions for schools." The Pasco School District is the sole provider of public education facilities in the area of the proposed plat. As the sole provider of such facilities, the School District's assertion that the proposed plat requires mitigation should be accepted. RCW 82.02.020 authorizes a voluntary agreement to be created between the developer and the PSD for such mitigation. This mitigation can include the payment of fees or other in-kind measures. The PSD will execute and administer the voluntary agreement and assume stewardship of any payment, just as any other provider of public facilities would(such as with electric or other utility services). Staff has included a discussion of this provision in State law within the report for the Columbia Hills plat and urges the Planning Commission include the provision for a voluntary agreement between the District and the developer as a condition of plat approval. Exhibit 3- Letter from Pasco Pasco School DiSt17Cfc".H�trict dated June 3,2011 Operations Depa=vnt r r John Murgan,Executive Director (509)543-6098 ;! Jean Martin,Administrative Assistant (509)546-2880 1215 Wc&t Lewis Street > ASC� Pasco, vv A 99301 SCH001, I'I'luct'#I Fax;(509)543-671 S June 3,2011 David McDonald City Planner City of Pasco PO Box 293 Pasco,WA 99301 RE: Columbia Villas (MF4 PP2011-002) Dear Dave: On behalf of the Pasco School District. thank you for the oppurtunity to comment on the above referenced development proposal. The district is submitting this letter to inform the City of Pasco Planning Commission and the proposed developer of the impacts the proposed development will have on the Pasco School District facilities and to respectfully request the impact be mitigated, District-wide, every new family unit in the district creates the need to provide school facilities for .59 students per multi-family unit. That means more than 59 students will live in new houses associated with the proposed development. This district will provide a public education to these 59 students at Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School. The following table lists the number of students enrolled at Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School. OCTOBER 2010 SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT 1 Livingston Elementary 500 800 _McLoughlin Middle 1,000 1,483 Chiawana High 2,200 —M_— _ 2,032 The information in this table was taken from the most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors in December 2010 and Is intended to be used to identify and plan for the public school facilities that are needed to serve new development. As shown in the table above and the Capital Facilities Plan,the district does not have capacity at Livingston or McLoughlin Middle Schools to serve the students from the proposed development, The Issue of inadequate capacity is exacerbated when you consider other pending developments that will generate additional students. CelebrrtinF scxdemiev,divemlty,and innovation, David McDonald Page 2 Public schools are one of the many public facilities the city (and county) must plan for. As new development occurs it is necessary to have a plan and regulations that ensure public facilities, including schools will be provided. New subdivisions plats cannot be approved unless the city finds there are adequate{provisions for schools RCW 58.17.110. Given the significant cost to build schools,and the lack of capacity in our schools to serve students from new developments,the Pasco School Board has asked the City of Pasco and Franklin County to adopt a school impact fee ordinance. (To construct a 750 student elementary school it will cost the district approximately$26,000,000, or about$35,000 per student. A 1.250 student middle school will cost the district approximately $64,000,000 or about$48,000 per student.) Impact fees address the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. The District respectively requests that the city consider and address the Impacts new development has on public schools and the District's ability to provide quality education for all students. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Respectfully, John M. Morgan Executive Director of Operations Im.C,ry of Pasoo UnluMbia VUlas Rasppnsa &Z•t t Celebrating academics,diverair9,and innovr.tlon. Exhibit 4: July 15, 2011 Memo From Staff MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: M-Mation Fees for Scbool Imp is Please find an attached legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the Planning Commissions role as the fact finder for the approval of plats. In this memo Mr. Kerr explains the implications behind state law particularly 58.17,110 RCW. Although this is information that was not available at the June Planning Commission meeting, it is considered legal advice and the Planning Commission can freely view this without compromising the record. Sincerely, Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development RW/sa Attachment: Memorandum from Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney dated 7/12/11 RECEIVED KERR LAW GROUP - JUL 15 201f 7025 Grandridge Blvd., Suite A IN Kennewick, Washington 99336-7724 &ECONQMICOEVEIppM (509)735-1542 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission City of Pasco FROM: Leland B. Kerr Attorney-at-La DATE: July 12, 2011 RE: Mitigation Fees for School Impacts The Planning Commission is the "fact-finder" for the City in evaluating the criteria that State law has established for approval of plats. As such, the Planning Commission receives evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that the plat meets each of the required criteria. Under RCW 58.17.110, one of the criteria for consideration is adequacy of "schools and schoolgrounds." It is important to remember that this statute is in the negative, "A proposed subdivision . . . shad,not be VXToved unless the city . . . legislature body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for . . . schools and schoolgrounds . . ." The School District has presented evidence of significant overcrowding with limited resources and facilities asserting that there are not appropriate provisions to meet the additional demand that this subdivision will cause without payment of a mitigation fee. This places the burden upon the applicant to prove by substantial evidence that either the School District has the existing capacity and resources to meet the additional demands caused by the subdivision, or alternative "provisions" which can make the existing school facilities and resources "appropriate"to meet this new demand. The important thing to remember is that the applicant must demonstrate through the evidence they present at the public hearing, facts, documentation, or expert testimony to support their position. The evidence cannot consist of opinions, conjecture, fears, or concerns. It must be based upon facts such as statistics, inventory of the facilities, student census, costs of student services, etc. In addition, the evidence must be substantial. This means that there must be a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that their position is true. Planning Commission ' July 12, 2011 Page 2 if there is no evidence in the record that meets this criteria, any concIusions, or decisions based upon those conclusions, may not stand. As fact-finders, the Planning Commission has the duty to gather and evaluate the evidence, to insure that there is a factual and substantial basis for the action. In this case, any applicant challenging the School District's determination that it does not have appropriate provisions to meet this new demand, must provide factual evidence and sufficient quality and quantity to persuade you. LBK/sla RECEIVED MCCULLOUGH HILL LEAKY, PS JUL 2 0 2411 July 15, 2011 C O VV16 CCU IFIED MAIL F - .Q City of Pasco Planning Commission 0 a PO Box 293 •ii C Pasco, WA 99301 �' J Re: Preliminary Plat Approval for Columbia Villas (MF# PP 2011-002) x W Proposed Plat Condition Requiring "Voluntary Agreement" for School Impact Fees Dear Planning Commission Members: a 0 We represent FBA Land Holdings, LLC ("FBA Holdings"). FBA Holdings owns the 13.72- to acre "Columbia,Villas" property currently under preliminary plat review before the Planning Commission, as well as approximately 48 additional acres of residentially-zoned land in the City of Pasco ("City"). This letter demonstrates that the City has no legal authority to impose plat conditions requiting developers to enter into unspecified, open-ended "voluntary agreements" with the Pasco School District to mitigate potential impacts of development on school facilities. Adequate funding for schools is critically important, but the mechanism the City is considering---forcing developers to pay whatever fee the District requests, with no individualized determiriation of that development's impact on the school district—would violate state law and set a damaging precedent. The Planning Commission should follow state law and refuse to impose these conditions. I. Background The City does not have a Growth Management Act ("GIAA") school impact fee ordinance. In January 2011, the Pasco School District ("District") notified Franklin County and the City of Pasco ("City") that its schools are over capacity, and it requested that the County and City adopt the District's Capital Facilities Plan and a school impact fee ordinance under the GMA. The District stated that if the County and City were unwilling to adopt a GMA impact fee ordinance, it would request that the County and City "refuse to approve new residential developments unless the developers have mitigated the impact their development have on schools." Letter from Pasco School District#1 to Franklin County Board of Commissioners and iWayor and Pasco City Coundi iW embers,januarol 11, 2011,p. 2. In March 2011, the District indicated that it would seek school impact fees from the proposed Ranger Heights subdivision, but it subsequently withdrew its request, based in part on the fact that "there was no formal statement of impact/mitigation £ces for schools." Letterfr-ona f ohn M. 701 Fif21i Avenue - Suite 7220 - Seattle,Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Nx 206.812.3389 - www.mhseatde.com City of Pasco Planning ComMisSloll July 15, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Morgan to Gene Batey,March 31,2099. The letter stated,however, that beginning on April 1, 2011, the District would begin requesting impact/mitigation fees for all residential developments—i.espite the fact that the City still lacks policies or regulations authorizing the imposition of school impact fees. Columbia Villas is the first plat application subject to Planning Commission review since April 1, 2011. In a June 3, 2011 letter to the City, the District asked the City to impose a school iriitigation requirement on the Columbia Villa preliminary plat. The District did not cite a specific fee in its letter, but it appears, based on past conimunications and the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan, that the District will request a fee of$6012 per single-family unit.' If this fee were applied to the proposed 100-unit Columbia Villas plat,it would result in an impact fee of$601,200, which is over half the value of the underlying srnerly.= At its June 16, 2011 hearing on the Columbia Villas preiuriinary plat, the Planning Conunission considered two "tentative conditions" based on the District's request. These conditions proti7de: 27. To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration as determined by said agreement. 28. +1 signed and notarized copy of the School District/Developer agreement must be provided to the City before a final plat is approved by the City Council. 'lhe Planning Commission discussed these proposed conditions at the June 16 hearing, and it will reconvene on July 21, 2011 to adopt its final recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Comtission should refuse to impose Conditions #27 and #28. State law does not allow the imposition of open-ended, "voluntary"mitigation agreements that are not based on the direct,proportionate impact of a proposed development, especially when the City has not adopted regulations in its Comprehensive Plan or City Code that authorize such fees. In addition, there are no facts ui the Columbia Villas plat record that support Conditions #27 and #28. II. Anal�:sis A City cannot collect impact/mitigation fees unless such fees are (1) authorized by state law and the City's owtz regulations (most typically, under GNIA or the State Environmental Policy Act); 1 "1'he District's Capital Facilities Plan cites a proposed fee of$6012 per single family unit and$5,272 per multi-farnily unit. Pasco School Dirtricl No. 1 Capital Facih'lies Plan, 2010—2016,p. 13. z If the District's requested impact fee were applied to FBA Holdings' R4 zoned property'a higher-density zoning designation than the Columbia Villas property),the requested school impact fee would greatly exceed the market value of the property, City of Pasco Planning Commission July 15, 2011 Page 3 of 5 and (2) properly calculated to ensure that the fee is "reasonably necessary" as a "direct result" of the proposed development or plat. RCW 82.02.020. Here, neither of these requirements is satisfied. The City has not adopted a GMA school impact fee ordinance. Futthermore, the City has not adopted SEPA policies that allow it to impose impact fees for• school facilities. See Pasco Municipal Code ("PMC") 23.07.060,' Finally, although the law may allow impact fees to be assessed under the state subdivision statute,RCW 58.17,the City has not adopted provisions in its subdivision regulations that require impact fee payments for schools.' Accordingly, the City lacks substantive authority to impose plat conditions requiring payment of school impact fees, See View Ridge Park Assoaates v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 67 Wn. App. 588, 599, 839 P.2d 343, review denied, 121 Wn.2d 1016 (1992)(mitigation must be based on jurisdiction's adopted SEPA powers or pursuant to adopted ordinance); see also Trimen Dei,. Co. v, King County, 124 WI-1,2d 261, 274, 877 P.2d 187 (1994)(park fee ordinance adopted to authorize park fees imposed tinder RCW 58.17). The District has suggested that the state subdivision statute, RCW 58.17,may provide independent authority for the City to require developers to enter into a"voluntary agreement"with the District under RCW 82.02.020. Even if that were true, the requrements of RCW 82.02,020 cannot be met in this case. Voluntary agreements must be narrowly tailored to "mitigate a direct impact that has been identincd as a conticqucncc of a proposed development, subdivision or plat." RCW 82.02.020. The burden of demonstrating that a fee is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development falls solely on the local government. Isla Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 759, 49 P.3d 867 (2002). The Washington Supreme Court analyzed the validity of development fee programs based on voluntary agreements in two cases, Henderson Homes, Inc. P. Ciy of Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 877 P.2d 176 (1994), and Trimen Dev. Co. v. KinS Gounty, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). Under Henderson and Dzmen, there are three basic requirements for valid voluntary agreement fees under RCW 82.02.020. First, the agreement to pay a fee must be truly "voluntary," i.e., there must be a viable 3 Under kWAC 197-11-660,SEPA sni6gation conditions must be "based on policies,plans,rules,or regulations formally designated by the agency,""related to specific,adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal,"and"imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal," In this case,none of these standards are met. The City has not adopted a specific SEPA policy that would authorize the imposition of a SEPA impact fee related to school facilities, so SEPA cannot be the basis for the impact fee. See Pasco Municipal Code 23.07.060. 'RCW 58.17 requires cities to make written findings when approving subdivisions that"appropriate provisions"are made for schools and schoolgrounds. The City has adopted regulations in its subdivision code requiring dedications and fees in lieu for parks and playgrounds. See Chapter 26.20 PMC,`Dedications for Parks and Playgrounds." 6 Wliile ,volUntan agreements" under RCW 92.02,020 provide a vehicle for assessing fees,they do not provide substantive authority'for conditioiung development of the payment of impact fees. See Castle Hamer•U. GnI of Brier,76. Wn.App. 95, 105,882 P.2d 1172(1994). City of Pasco Planning Commission July 15, 2011 Page 4 of 5 alternative to paying the fee. If a developer is given a choice between paying the fee and being denied development approval and/or is denied the opportunity to negotiate the amount of the fee, the fee payment is not voluntary. Ttzmen, 124. Wn.2d at 271-72. Second, the voluntary agreement fee must be necessary as a direct result of an identified impact of the proposed development. It cannot be used to address existing deficiencies or cumulative impacts not caused by a development proposal, Id, at 274;see also Castle Homes and Dev., Inc. a Brier, 76 Wn. App. 95, 105, 882 P.2d 1172 (1994); Dolan v. Cite of Tigard; 114 S. Ct. 2309,2319-20, 129 T..Rd2d 304 (1994)(requiring"nexus" and"proportionality" between development urlpacts and conditions imposed by governments). Third,any money collected through voluntary agreements must be expended for capital improvements constructed within the service area where the property is located within a specified time. I~Iendersog, 121 Wn.2d at 249. Proposed Conditions #27 and#28 would violate each of these requirements. First, these conditions are not"voluntary." There is no viable alternative. These conditions would essentially abrogate the City's burden of demonstrating a reasonable, proportionate fee to the District, who may unilaterally cause final plat approval to be withheld until it receives its requested payment (whatever it may be). Second, Conditions #27 and #28 are not based on a "direct impact" identified as a consequence of the Columbia Villas plat. in other words, these conditions lack the "nexus" and "proportionality"required by state and federal courts. The City has not formally reviewed or adopted the District's Capital Facilities Plan, it has not adopted its own regulations authorizing school impact fees, and it has made no attempt to discern whether the flat fee the District may seek to impose is necessary, equitable or proportionate as required by RCW 82.02.020. Third, because the City has no policies or regulations authorizing the imposition, collection or disbursement of school impact fees, it has no means of ensuring that fees collected by the District would be used for capital improvements that reasonably benefit the development in the legally required titmeframe. In sum, Conditions #27 and #28 cannot be sustained as "voluntary agreements" under RCW 82.02.020 or any other authority. They are illegal fees, and the Planning Commission should refuse to impose them. III. Conclusion The District's own Capital Facilities Plan identifies bonds and state capital construction funds as the primary sources of funding for the construction of new schools and other capital facilities projects. Pasco School Das6ria Al u. I COvitall'aci ities Plan, 2010—2016,P. 11, However, these sources of revenue have proven inadequate, and Pasco schools are currently over capacity. This is a complicated issue that requires a comprehensive solution,which may involve legislative action to increase bonding capacity. Cin, of Pasco Planning Commission July 15, 2011 Page 5 of 5 This problem cannot be solved by requiring individual developers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the existing deficiencies that have mounted over the past decade. This is especially true where,as here, the City has not adopted regulations authorizing such fees, and when there has been no attempt to quantify the direct,proportionate impact of each residential unit as required by RCW 82.02.020. The open-ended, ad hoc plat conditions the City is considering would violate state lacer, and the Planning Commission should reject them. Finally, as a practical matter, a school impact fee that amounts to half of the underlying property value is patently unreasonable and cannot be sanctioned by the City. We appreciate your attention to thds letter. FBA Holdings Iooks forward to future cooperative discussions with the City and District on this issue. Sincerely, Nl LLOUGH HILL LEARY,P.S. I /X___—, Co y E. Flora cc: Gary Crutchfield,City Manager Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director Dave McDonald, City Planner John M. Morgan, Executive Director of Operations, Pasco School District Renee L, Dahlgren, Director, Government Affairs, Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities Exhibit 6: MARNIE School District Legal Opinion ALLEN.AT"I.OR NEY l-egal So�utions for Schools August 9, 2011 City of Pasco Planning Commission PQ Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat(MF#PP 2011-002) Dear Commissioners: I represent the Pasco School District and appreciate the opportunity to respond to the letter FBA Land Holdings, LLC filed on July 15, 2011, objecting to the condition of approval requiring mitigation of the impacts the proposed development will have on schools through a voluntary development agreement. FBA Land Holdings, LLC owns the property that is the subject of the Columbia Villa's preliminary plat. FBA Holdings is not the applicant and FBA Holdings is not the developer. Despite this, FBA Land Holdings is questioning the Planning Commission's condition of approval requiring "the developer' to enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with the Pasco School District. Why is FBA Land Holdings, and not the developer that is obligated to comply with the condition, challenging the condition? Setting aside questions about whether FBA Land Holdings has standing and is the proper party to object to the conditions, requiring mitigation pursuant to a voluntary development agreement is appropriate and is legally required, assuming the Planning Commission wants to approve the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat. As explained below, the Planning Commission must require mitigation of the impacts the proposed development(Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat) will have on schools. The tool the law provides to address the required mitigation is a voluntary development agreement, 1. Mitigation is Required As stated in the letter the Pasco School District fled with the City on June 3, 2011, the elementary and middle schools that will serve the proposed development do not have adequate capacity to serve the students that will live in the proposed development. At a minimum, the proposed development will generate 59 additional students. There is no capacity at the elementary or middle school to accommodate these students. The impacts associated with Columbia Villas are identified in the SBPA documents, the comments on the SEPA checklist, the Report to the Planning Commission and Rick White's June 16, 2011 Memorandum to the Planning Commission. The evidence of the adverse impacts on schools is uncontested. What appears to be at issue is how to address the impacts the proposed development will have on schools. The City has two options. The City can give the developer the opportunity to A program of Educational Service District 112 L�O,)NE G,Zk 1:(,tAorVVP="`80,Gi I 1'^ 3Cu7 il; S:iJ I f? t �•rf.11•,,;I!r`YKr�S'-1'IJ.!.I � Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 2 of 6 enter into a voluntary agreement with the Pasco School District, under which the developer can agree to mitigate the direct impacts the proposed development has on the schools. Or, the City can deny the development because the impacts on schools have,not been mitigated. The better option is to impose the condition requiring mitigation under a voluntary development agreement, as is being done. 11. The State Environmental Policy Act Requires Mitigation of Impacts on Schools As reflected in the documents in the record and state law,the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires analysis of the impacts a project will have on the built and natural environment, Where a proposed development will have adverse impacts on the built environment(schools), the law authorizes local governments to impose conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the impacts. RCW 43.21 C.060 and WAC 197-11-060. A condition requiring mitigation must be based upon city policy or regulations and the condition may only require mitigation of specific adverse impacts of the proposed development as identified in the SEPA and proposed development documents. The City of Pasco has adopted SEPA regulations, which specifically include the authority to impose conditions requiring mitigation. Section 23.03.050(g) of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) states "[m]igitation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit, or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the City." The City's SEPA regulations also adopt by reference the policies in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. PMC 23.07.060(c)(1). The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains the following policies "(e]nsure that those public facilities and service necessary to support aevelopment shall be adequate to serve development. . . " See Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements, Policy No 1, paragraph 10. The City's adopted regulations and policies support the imposition of conditions requiring mitigation under SEPA. Court's routinely uphold policies and regulations, similar to Pasco's, which support the imposition of conditions requiring mitigation. See West Main v. City of Bellevue, 49 Wn. App. 513, 742 P.2d 1266 (1987); Detray v. City of Lacey, 132 Wn, App. 1008 (2006) (unpublished), As long as the condition requires mitigation of adverse impacts that are specific to the proposed development, as identified in the SEPA documents,the condition is appropriate and will be upheld. See Prisk v. City of Poulsbo, 46 Wn. App. 793, 732 P.2d 1013 (1987). Impacts the developer of Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat will be required to mitigate under a voluntary development agreement are those identified in the record which are specific to the development. While the record refers to the Pasco School District's request to have the City of Pasco and Franklin County adopt a school impact fee ordinance, neither the Pasco School District nor the City have stated the terms of the voluntary agreement will require payment of a school impact fee in the amount the District has asked the City and County to consider. There is no evidence in the record to this effect. Instead, what the District has requested and the City is requiring is an agreement under which the developer will mitigate the specific and direct impacts associated A program of Educational Service District 117 2115V.A '�ih '_+?L�C t N,- -',30 750 7500 1 Fr 36D;A 70 Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 3 of 6 with Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat, Imposing a condition of approval requiring a voluntary development agreement between the District and developer, in which the developer must agree to mitigate the impacts the development will have on schools, is both allowed and required under SEPA. 111. The Subdivision Act and Pasco Subdivision Regulations Require Mitigation The Washington State Subdivision Act says "every subdivision shall wmQly with the provisions of this chapter[RCW 58.17]," RCW 58.17.030. The provisions in Chapter 58.17 state "a proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved" unless the city finds "(a) [a]ppropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets .,. schools and schoolgrounds." RCW 58.17.110(2). The City of Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations (Subdivision Regulations) implement and are consistent with the Subdivision Act. Section 26.25.060 of the Subdivision Regulations states "tile Planning Commission shall make and enter into findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not: (1) [a]dequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys . . . schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditionsfor students and other public needs." The Planning Commission cannot find there are adequate provisions for schools without imposing the condition requiring a voluntary agreement that will address mitigation of the impacts on schools. Accordingly, the condition is required. The legal requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for public services is recognized and addressed in Washington court opinions. See Isla Verda Intern. Holdings, fnc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wn,2d 740,49 P.3d 867 (2002) ; Miller v. City of Port Angeles, 38 Wn. App. 904, 691 P.2d 229 (1984); Kenart&Associates v. Skagit County, 37 Wn, App. 295, 680 P.2d 439 (1984). According to the case law,where there is evidence in the record that demonstrates there are not adequate provisions for public services, including schools, a condition of approval requiring the developer to mitigate its impacts is appropriate. Id. Furthermore, as the court in Kenhart&Associates v. Skagit County stated, "school capacity is always a legitimate concern." The court explained that school capacity alone might be sufficient to halt a development, but only if no other solution exists. Kenhart, at 302. Here, as in other case, a solution other than denying the development exists; the developer can agree to mitigate the impacts pursuant to a voluntary agreement. The condition requiring mitigation is appropriate and required. The condition requiring mitigation of the impacts Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat will have on schools under a voluntary development agreement is necessary. If a condition requiring a voluntary agreement is not imposed and implemented, the City must deny the development Without the condition,there are not adequate provisions for schools. The school mitigation condition ensures the development can proceed. The condition does not require payment of school impact fees or impose an involuntary burden on the developer A program of Educational Service Oktricl 112 5P,'-56 i I Ph. 150! 1 p,i :Z6-0 4?',1P. Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 4 of 6 that is not supported by the evidence in the record and the law. The conditions require mitigation of the direct impacts the development will have on the schools, as reflected in a voluntary agreement that will be negotiated by the developer and the Pasco School District. IV. Requiring Mitigation Under a Development Agreementis Appropriate FBA Land Holdings appears to be confused about the authority the City is acting under. The condition is not being imposed under the Growth Management Act or the City's authority to assess school impact fees. Rather, Pasco School District requested mitigation in its comments on the SEPA checklist and proposed preliminary plat. The City is imposing the condition pursuant to its authority under SEPA, the Subdivision Regulations and RCW 82.02.020. The requirement to mitigate the impacts in accordance with a voluntary development agreement is authorized by law and is an appropriate alternative to denying the development because there are not adequate provisions for schools. As the court in Cobb v. Snohomish County, 64 Wn. App.451, at 458-459, 829 P. 2d 169(1991) stated "[w]ithin the context of RCW 82.02.020, the word"voluntary' means precisely that the developer has the choice of either (1) paying for those reasonably necessary costs which are directly attributable to the developer's project or (2) losing preliminary plat approval. The fact that the developer's choices may not be between perfect options does not render the agreement "involuntary" under the statute."Where, as is the case with the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat, a condition of approval requires mitigation of direct impacts pursuant to a voluntary agreement, and does not impose a requirement to agree to pay a predetermined fee amount, the condition is appropriate and authorized. in fact, such a condition arguably is required because it is an alternative to denying the development. FBA Land Holdings has cited two cases for the proposition that the City cannot impose a condition requiring the developer to enter into a voluntary agreement; Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 WP-2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994) and Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 877 P.2d 176 (1994). In Trimen, the Washington Supreme Court upheld King County's decision to require a developer to pay a park development fee in lieu of dedicating property. The developer paid the park development fee pursuant to a King County Ordinance that set and assessed the fee, as opposed to paying the fee in response to a condition that required a voluntary agreement. After the developer paid the fee and built his project, he sued King County seeking a refund. Among other things, the developer claimed he should receive a refund because payment of the fee was not "voluntary." The Washington Supreme court held the County requirement to pay the fee was authorized by the statute and quoted the definition of voluntary set forth in the Cobb decision ("voluntary" means precisely that the developer has the choice of either(1) paying for those reasonably necessary costs which are directly attributable to the developer's project or (2) losing preliminary plat approval. The fact that the developer's choices may not be between perfect options does not render the agreement"involuntary" under the statute). A program of Educational Service District 112 i GC lei: 6"t'h Ave:wN,Wi!'Krtwoo Ca8C61 i Fn:)-30.750.7$00 1 rt.360?�O.:iJJfi i ;r,t: r.ie.:,j.r.1 F :.!li.c•r; Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 5 of 6 In Henderson, the City of Bothell imposed a condition of approval requiring a developer to enter into a voluntary development agreement under which the developer had to agree to pay a predetermined fixed fee of $400 per lot, The $400 per lot fee was akin to a park impact fee, but it was not assessed pursuant to an impact fee ordinance. The Washington Supreme Court held the requirement to pay a predetermined fee was not consistent with the statute because the amount of the fee was predetermined as opposed to being calculated independently based on the impacts of the proposed development. There wasn't a "voluntary agreement" because the agreement and fee amounts "were not negotiated as to the impact fee amount to be paid." Neither of the two cases FBA Land Holdings has cited support the conclusion that is inappropriate for the Planning Commission to impose a condition requiring a voluntary development agreement where the terms of the agreement will be negotiated and will ensure the direct impacts the development has on the schools are mitigated. The condition being imposed by the Planning Commission does not require the developer to agree to pay a predetermined school impact fee, or to agree to mitigation measures that are beyond what is reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct impacts the development will have on schools. Rather, this is a case where the City is following the law,which requires a developerto mitigate adverse impacts directly caused by the development so there are adequate provisions for schools. The developer in this case, Big Creek Land Company, has not filed an objection to the condition and did not appeal the SEPA MDNS, which contained the same condition. Presumably the developer wants to negotiate an agreement so the development can proceed, In any event, it is appropriate and necessary to impose the condition requiring mitigate under a voluntary agreement so the developer has the choice to mitigate the impacts on schools or have the development denied. V. Conclusion Washington courts recognize the legal authority to impose a condition of approval requiring mitigation under a voluntary development agreement. An agreement is"voluntary" if the developer is given the choice to either pay the reasonably necessary costs which are directly attributable to the developer's project or lose preliminary plat approval. The courts recognize the use of voluntary development agreements to mitigate the proposed development's direct impacts, even if a developer doesn't want to mitigate its impacts, because the preference is to give developers an opportunity to agree on mitigation terms as opposed to denying the development outright. The City of Pasco staff correctly described the options to address the impacts the proposed development will have on schools and the Planning Commission is acting within its authority if it approves the development subject to conditions that require mitigation under a voluntary development agreement. The District respectfully requests the Planning Commission include the mitigation conditions in its decision to approve the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat. ra program of Educational Service Districl 112 2SOO Fi% E4iri aY'.Y:. 1866! ! �i°, �cn.75' .`;7Ji) F,,, 7�0. Ou`6 1 ^.n,,;' :Gsi•,.1 1. Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 6 of 6 The Pasco School District is committed to providing quality education to students in the City of Pasco. The District is and remains open to discussions with Big Creek Land Development Company regarding measures that are necessary to mitigate the proposed development's direct impacts. While the District would prefer not to be in the position of having to require and negotiate mitigation measures with residential developers, there simply is not adequate capacity in the schools to serve students from new development, Mitigation is required. Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued support of Pasco Schools. Si n ce re ly, Marnie Alien Special Legal Counsel for the Pasco School District c: Pasco School District Board of Directors Saundra Hill, Superintendent Sarah Thornton, Executive Director of Human Resources and Legal Affairs John Morgan, Executive Director of Operations Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Rick White, Director, Community and Economic Development Courtney F. Flora,Attorney for FBA Land Holdings A,pragram of Educational Service DEIria 112 5GG NI:i 5th :Nr:u . �'liVit,''f+ti'r+96c61 I r"'h:JuO.?ay.7'�r?�J I r Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2011 NEW BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for Columbia Villas, a 100-lot subdivision located at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 Wig Creek Land Com an MF#E PP 2011-0021 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application consisted of a proposal for a multi-family Plat containing 100-lots. The purpose of the hearing was to review the proposed Plat and not to determine whether the site was an appropriate location for multi-family development. That determination was made in 2003 when the zoning was established. Mr. McDonald reviewed the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission and discussed the finding requirements of RCW 5817.010. By law the Planning Commission is required to make findings that the proposed plat provides for public facilities, utilities, streets, parks, sidewalks, safe travel, school grounds and schools. State law requires the Planning Commission to review schools and other public facilities to make a recommendation on a Plat. In response to the project SEPA Checklist the School District indicated the District lacks the capacity to accommodate additional students. The School District's letter dated June 3, 2011 indicated that impact fees address the requirement to assure adequate provisions are made for schools. It was explained the City does not have a School Impact Fee Ordinance to provide the School District with mitigation fees. However RCW 82.02.020 authorizes the School District to enter into agreements with developers for the purpose of mitigating the impacts of new developments. The recommended plat approval conditions were also reviewed including a condition for the developer to enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration as determined by the agreement. Commissioner Kahn asked for clarification of recommended condition Number 5 dealing with maintenance and upkeep of the fencing. Mr. McDonald discussed the fencing requirements as-well-as explaining that for single-family subdivisions the City normally collects a fee per lot which goes into a City fund to cover the cost of maintaining the boulevard strip. In areas that are not single-family the developer needs to establish a home owners association for the maintenance. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the units would be individually sold. Mr. McDonald directed the question to the applicant. Commissioner Lukins asked what the difference was between an impact fee and a mitigation fee. Mr. White stated for common use it is the same; however an impact is different than mitigation. Mitigation may take one form or another form; an impact fee is a fee. Chairman Cruz asked what types of remuneration are allowed by lawn. Mr. White stated there are as many as a person can imagine. Extension of utilities is an example of an in-kind mitigation as opposed to a fee. Contribution or purchase of a portable classroom may be an in-kind contribution as opposed to a fee. Dedication of land is another example. Cliff Mort, 6812 Maplewood, Post Falls Idaho, explained his proposed plat and stated that at the moment he was unsure whether the lots would be sold individually. Mr. Mort stated he has been developing for 25 years and understands the issues of school overcrowding. The ability for impact fees to be collected is necessary due to the overcrowding of schools. The difficulty for Mr. Mort was that the fees needed to be fair, equitable and reasonable. He stated he had read the School District reports and viewed the website and it appears the problem is being handled for the moment with portables. Mr. Mort stated he believed growth pays its own way through construction of new roads, water/sewer lines, extensions of utilities from offsite, curbs, gutter, and landscaping. Mitigation fees are paid for, parks and traffic at the time of impact. Mr. Mort also stated new construction and development creates jobs in the community. He would be in favor of an overall impact fee versus a fee on a few developers. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Mort if he had any discussions with the School District. Mr. Mort stated he has made numerous attempts to reach the School District with no response. Commissioner Anderson mentioned this issue might be able to be taken care of with the School District with an agreement. Mr, Mort stated the School District has an issue and he is willing to help however, he feels it is bigger than his subdivision and a concern is once impact fees start they don't stop. After the school is built the impact fees do not go away. Chairman Cruz asked about the constraints. Mr. White stated the State Law, RCW 82.02.020, has parameters for a timeframe and what the agreements can be used for and by whom. The School District qualifies for use of Voluntary Agreements provided the fees collected by such arc used within a certain time; five years. The memo provided to the Planning Commission explains the City does not provide essential public services for education, the School District does. The purpose of the Voluntary Agreement is to enable the creator of the impact and the public service provider, the School District, to come to terms on impact mitigation. Chairman Cruz stated some might argue that if a modest impact fee was established earlier we would be taking a different approach and not asking for $6,000 which seems out of hand for stakeholders. In addition the precedent that's established by the Planning Commission in setting these kinds of agreements leaves him in an uncomfortable position this is a policy decision for the City Council and the School District to work out. Mr. White stated the record so far indicates that there is an adverse impact on the school system by this development. He has not yet heard anything contrary to that. The obligation of the Planning Commission is to go back to the Findings required by RCW 58.17. if the Planning Commission looks at the record in its entirety and does not agree that the School District has proven there is an adverse impact on the provision of educational facilities by this development then there would not be an obligation for a voluntay agreement. If the record supports the School Districts assertion that there is going to be an adverse impact based on this development then the obligation lies with the provision of a voluntary agreement in this case because there isn't an impact fee ordinance to provide for that mitigation. Commissioner Lukins asked if City Council is discussing an impact fee. Mr. White stated there is an Impact Fee Ordinance in process however there is a big difference on what the School District is asking for and an Impact Fee Ordinance. Currently mitigation is case by case since there is no Ordinance to fall back on. Chairman Cruz stated that until the Council and the School District come to an agreement the Commission needs to review each case individually. Commissioner Anderson stated they are faced with determining whether there is an impact to the School District as a part of the approval of the Plat, the School District and the developer need to work on an agreement. It is not up to the Planning Commission to determine the fee. Commissioner Levin stated condition No. 27 should be reworded since it makes the applicant feel boxed. It should state that the applicant is willing to work out a situation with the School District. Commissioner Kahn asked if that means the applicant enters into a dialogue with the School District about providing either in-kind services or an impact fee until the Ciry decides on an Ordinance and Impact Fee. Chairman Cruz stated yes, however if the City does not decide on an Ordinance then they will be faced with this question on a case by case basis. Commissioner Lukins stated he negotiates contracts for a living and if they approve this as written then they are giving the School District a stick to hit the contractor to make them negotiate. The School District is saying take it or leave it and he does not have a solution at the moment. Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Lukins and feels they are opening a Pandora's box and strong-arming the developers. Commissioner Lukins asked staff on the recourse the School District has if Commission does not go with their recommendation. Mr. White stated there could be an appeal to the City Council and then to the Court system. Commissioner Kahn asked since this is an RCW would the law be in favor of the School District. Mr. White stated the law is in favor of the record and if the record indicates there is an impact to the School system then it is up to the Planning Commissioner to make findings and conditions that mitigate that impact; if the record indicates there are no impacts then the question is moot. Chairman Cruz stated based on the information provided by there appears to be an impact. The question they are struggling with is how much of an impact is there. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Mort on what he believes the impact to the School District. Mr. Mort stated his development will contain mostly single level homes and could have a lot of retired folks similar to the Mediterranean Villas. He does not feel the School District or staff have misrepresented the number of potential students. His concern is that mitigation is only on new development and not new construction. Commissioner Anderson stated the Commission has put the cart before the horse, their charge is to determine if there is or is not an impact on the School District. They have had no testimony from the School District or from residents. Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing. John Morgan, Pasco School District, stated any number of students in this area could attend any of the schools due to the capacity overload. Mr. '_Morgan stated he has not received calls from developers to discuss this issue. He has met with two other developers over the past three weeks and had good discussions on behalf of the school district. A misnomer is that the District gets more money if more growth comes in. There is no other money coming in. They get what the taxpayers agree to and it doesn't matter how many people move in. The school district is not anti-development, they have one job and that is to educate the students. Since 2000, the school district has grown by 71%. On average 620 students a year, a new elementary school each year. Commissioner Kempf asked if the site location was in the boundary for Maya Angelou Elementary. Mr. Morgan stated yes; the overcrowding will cause sharing of space with Ruth Livingston Elementary. Chairman Cruz asked if the student count for =Maya Angelou is over capacity by 150 students. Mr. Morgan stated the school was over capacity higher than the 150 students. Commissioner Anderson stated the growth in Pasco is not a surprise and in the past asked if there had been any discussion between the School District and the City or County to have an impact fee to mitigate the growth. Mr. Morgan said there were discussions in the past. Chairman Cruz called for clarification about the discussion. Mr. Morgan stated it was before he was involved in the process. Chairman Cruz asked if there are other forms of mitigation being pursued. Mr. Morgan discussed. the Districts efforts to look at open seats in other school districts to share, a multi-track scheduling, year round school scheduling, as well as double shifting. Darcy Buckley, 4110 Road 104 was in favor of an impact fee to help the schools. The double shifting process would cause her to change her education for her children. Dennis Lukin, 1420 S. Quincy Avenue, Kennewick, stated he understands the School Districts increase in population and Pasco has grown a third more than the other cities and property taxes are going up. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification from staff on the property taxes going to the School District. Mr. White stated they are based on a levy and the County could experience a large increase on property values in any given year however the School District will only get what is authorized by the Operating and Maintenance Levy. Any bond voted in by the citizens would also apply, Chairman Cruz stated the total collected does not change. Commissioner Kahn stated the levy is for learning, bonds are for building. Mandy Jones, 10409 Willow Way, stated she has four children in the School District and believes it is the City's job and the Planning Commission's job to plan for the growth. The schools are crowded and there is no way to look at this new development and say there will be no impact to the School District. Chairman Cruz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to close the hearing on the proposed subdivision and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the July 21, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White stated the public hearing is the first step the item will return in July for deliberations and action. Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2011 OLD BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Prelimin_a Plat approval for Columbig yi_llas, a 100-lot subdivision located at y the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 (Big Creek Land Company) (MF# PP 2011-0021 Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, stated a legal opinion was submitted to the Commission from the City Attorney on the role of the Planning Commissions as fact finder in quasi-judicial hearings. A representative for the property owner has requested time to prepare a legal opinion. Extending that opportunity to the property owner necessitates the opportunity be extended to the Pasco School District as well. Therefore staff requested the matter be continued to the August 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting to allow for legal opinions from the property owner and the Pasco School District. The City Attorney will then have tune to review those opinions and ensure that no new evidence is received since the public hearing was closed at the last hearing. If the Commission moves in that direction then two opinions will be in the packet for the August meeting and a recommendation can be made at that time. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the public hearing to allow for legal opinion to be submitted from the Pasco School District as well as the applicant. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2011 OLD BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for Columbia Villas, a 100-lot subdivision located at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 (Big Creek Land Company) MF# PP 2011- OU2J Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, stated that at the last meeting staff indicated the property owner made a request to provide the Planning Commission with a legal opinion related to school impact fees. As a result of that request, staff thought it was appropriate to also afford the same opportunity to the Pasco School District, resulting in the Planning Commission continuing the hearing to August 18, 2011 . Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, summed up the Staff memo of June 16, 2011 to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lukins asked if the letters submitted from the property owner and Pasco School District had changed any previous opinions. Rick White confirmed that no previous opinions had changed and confirmed the City Attorney reviewed the letters. Commissioner Greenaway discussed the concern for possible negative impact a mitigation fee could present and posed a question regarding tax dollars in regards to building new schools. Commissioner Anderson stated school districts are financed by bonds. In the past the Pasco School District has brought bonds to the voters and the voters turned down the bond. All that is being asked of the Planning Commission is to require the developer to negotiate with the School District on what a fee would be and how they would mitigate the impacts. Commissioner Hay asked what would happen to the school levies if the fee was passed and if the mitigation fees are going to be the only thing the school district will rely upon, Rick White responded that there will not be any effects on current levies or bonds. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the August 18, 2011 staff -1- report. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Levin. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, based on the finding of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat with the conditions as listed in the August 18, 2011 staff report. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Levin. The Chairman explained the recommendation would go to the City Council for decision at the September b, 2011 meeting. -2- AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council Date: August 30, 2011 r�- TO: Gary Crutchfe y ,�Manager Workshop Mtg.: 81122/11 r Rick Wliitc, I Regular Mtg.: 9/6/11 Community& Eeonomic Development Director FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator alAp SUBJECT: 2012 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Work Plan Allocation 00F4 BGAP 2011-003) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. CDBG Fund Summary 2. Proposed Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/22/11: DISCUSSION 9/6/11: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving the City's 2012 CDBG Annual Work Plan Allocation as recommended by City staff. III. FISCAL IMPACT It is estimated that the 2012 annual entitlement grant will be $510,000, a reduction of 15% from 2010 allocations. Together with $10,000 available from program income, and $461,849 from prior year reallocations, the total available federal dollars for use in program year 2012 is $981,849. IV, HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. A Request for Proposals for 2012 CDBG funds was published in the Tri-City Herald and Tu Decides Hispanic newspapers May 1 and 8, 2011. Sixteen (16) requests were received totaling $1,470,204. Approximately $981,849 will be available for funding 2012 activities. B. The Planning Commission held public hearings and discussion on June 16 and July 21, 2011. The public hearings solicited public comment on any application for funding, or reallocation for the City of Pasco 2012 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. At the public hearings, sixteen (16) presentations were made relating to proposed activities. V. DISCUSSION A. Staff presented recommendations for funding at the July 21, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding recommendations as presented except for reducing three city public service activities by 10% and recommending funding of PowerZone for $7,000. Funding of the City public service activities was already recommended by staff at a $10,000 reduction to maintain the public service cap in keeping with the anticipated reduction in entitlement funds. Reduction of the three City public service activities per the Planning Commission recommendation results in the General Fund paying an even higher portion of these activities. The Planning Commission recommendation is inconsistent with adopted Resolution 1969 which limits funding of public service activities to City-sponsored programs. B. There is always some question regarding funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available funding for these FY 2012 activities will remain in question until the early part of 2012 when the allocation is made. If funding levels are lower than estimated, activity funding may need to be reallocated accordingly. 8(f) Attachment 1 2012 CDBG Fund Summary - 07.21.11 Attachment 1 Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 Proposals-Recommendations Agency Staff CITY ID Recipients ACTIVITY/AGENCY NAME NonCDBGMatch Requested Recommend PC Recommend COUNCIL APPROVAL City of Pasco-Community $0.00 $120,D00.00 $1D4,000.00 $104,000.00 1 1& Economic Development CDBG Program Administration City of Pasco- Administrative& Civic Center-Youth Recreation $45,500.00 .$37,500.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 2 Community Services Specialist City of Pasco- Administrative& Martin Luther King Community $100,500.00 S37,500.00i $20,000.00 $18,000.00 3 Community Services Center Recreation Specialist City of Pasco- Administrative& Senior Citizen's Center $200,500.00 $37,500.001 $30,000.00 $27,000.00 4 Co nmunity Services Recreation Specialist Youth Organic Farmers/Produce $15,000.00 $14,704.00 5 Charity Training Center Coop Benton Franklin Community Action $11.000.00 6 Committee Homeless Prevention Program HcmeworkZone-After School $10,450.00 $35..000.00 $7,000.00 7 PowerZone Youth Center TutoringlMentoring Program City of Pasco-Community Pasco Downtown Development $42,465.00 $65,000.01) $50,000.00 $50,000.00 8 &Economic Development Commercial Kitchen City of Pasco-Community Downtown Fagtade Improvement $40,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 9 &Economic Development (2 fagtades) City of Pasco- Ad,ninistrative& LID 148 Special Assessment $55,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 10 Community Services Assistance Volunteer Chore Services(12 $69,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 11 Cat^olio =arnily Charities households) City of Pasco- Administrative& $663,000.00 $300,000.0G $230,849.00 $230,649.00 12 Community Services Eastside Community Park City of Pasco- Administrative& $0.00 $85,000.00 13 Community Services Senior Center Kitchen Remodel City of Pasco-Community $147,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $48.000.00 14 & Ecor.omic Development I Code Enforcement Officer •Kurtzman Park Neighborhood City o'Pasco-Public Improvements-Pi.ase IV $300,000.00 5300,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 15 Works (CT201 BG2) City of Pasco-Public ADA Accessibility- Handicap $250,000.00 $250,1)00.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 18 Vdorks Ramp Retrofit $1,883,915.00 $1,470,204.00 $981,849.00 $981,849.00 Entitlement(2012 Estimated) $ 510,000 Program Income (2012 Estimated) $ 1 D,000 Prior Year Reallocations 12008-2010) $ 461,849 Total Funds Available $ 981,849 Proposals Recommended $ 981,849 SURPLUSIDEFICIT $ 5/3012011 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FEDERAL CDBG ANNUAL WORK PLAN ALLOCATION FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2012 WHEREAS, it estimated the City of Pasco will receive annual entitlement of$510,000, program income of $10,000, and 5461,849 from prior year reallocations for funds totaling $981,849 available for 2012 activities; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared the program year 2012 annual work plan allocation for activities totaling $981,849; Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the 2012 CDBG Annual Work Plan allocation as follows: Activity Funding CDBG Program Administration $104,000.00 Civic Center-Youth Recreation Specialist $20,000.00 Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist $20,000.00 Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist $30,000.00 Pasco Downtown Development Commercial Kitchen $50,000.00 Downtown Fagade Improvement Program $60,000.00 LID #148 Assistance (Special Assessment payments) $65,000.00 Catholic Family Charities—Volunteer Chore Services $4,000.00 Eastside Community Park $230,849.00 Code Enforcement Officer $48,000.00 Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvements - Phase IV (CT201BG2) $200,000.00 ADA Accessibility Handicap Ramp Retrofit $150,000.00 TOTAL $981,849.00 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of 12011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr CMC City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council August 29, 2011 '1'0: Gary Crutch Manager 1476 Workshop Mtg.: 8/22/11 FROM: Rick White, i I Regular Mtg.: 9/06/11 Community &Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Medical Mariivana (MF#CA2011-003) 1. REFERENCE(S): I. Proposed Resolution 2. Proposed Work Plan 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL,/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/06: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. with a 12 month term, that adopts findings in support of retention of the moratorium prohibiting medical marijuana collective gardens in all zoning districts. 111. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. In 1998, Initiative 692 was passed by Washington voters that permitted the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The Initiative was codified as Chapter 69.51A of the Revised Code of Washington even though marijuana still remained illegal under the Federal Control Substance Act. B. In 2007, the State Legislature clarified RCW 69.51A by determining that a medically authorized person could posses a 60-day supply of medicinal marijuana. However, cultivating marijuana still remained a felony under Federal law. C. The 2011 State Legislature attempted to address this through Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill (E2SSB) 5073 which passed the Legislature in April of 2011. This bill provided for collective gardening of medical marijuana and allowed local cities and counties to adopt zoning and health regulations governing the production and distribution of medical marijuana. D. A majority of E2SSB 5073 was vetoed by Governor Gregoire. Section 403 remains in place which allows qualifying patients to jointly maintain collective gardens for cultivating cannabis for medical use. The legislation also permits growing marijuana in collective gardens with no more restrictions than it cannot be grown in public view and contain no more than 15 plants per patient up to a total of 45 plants. E2SSB 5073 went into effect on July 22,2011. C. City Council approved Resolution 3330 on July 18, 2011 establishing a 6 month moratorium on collective medical marijuana gardens in all zoning districts. A public hearing on the moratorium was held on August 15, 2011, and at the August 22"d Workshop—Council discussed the time period for duration of the moratorium. V. DISCUSSION: A. Cities may impose reasonable restrictions through zoning regulations on collective medicinal marijuana gardens. The restrictions must serve a legitimate government interest and be reasonably calculated to achieve that government interest. The moratorium established through Resolution 3330 precludes the siting of collective medical marijuana gardens and provides the City time to establish a work plan for developing appropriate regulations for collective gardens. B. The proposed resolution retains the moratorium. The proposed work plan depicts the staging expected for adoption of appropriate regulations for collective medical marijuana gardens (Reference #2). Extension of the initial 6 month moratorium for up to 12 months is recommended since a critical component of the work plan involves accommodating the changes in State law expected as a result of the 2012 Legislative Session. The moratorium will expire upon adoption of regulations for collective gardens. 8(g) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF RETENTION OF THE MORATORIUM PROHIBITING MEDICAL CANNABIS COLLECTIVE GARDENS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE C1'1'Y. WHEREAS, the Washington legislature by Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 (the Medical Cannabis Bill) provided for the establishment of State regulated medical cannabis dispensaries and collective cannabis gardens to provide a source of medical cannabis for qualifying patients, however, %Vashington Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed significant portions of the Bill including all State agency regulations of the production, processing and distribution of medical cannabis; and WHEREAS, as a response to the Governor's veto, the legislature attempted, in the last hours of the 2011 legislative session to introduce Senate Bill 9555 addressing the concerns raised by the Governor's veto, however,this Bill did not survive the closing of the legislative session and, therefore, further legislative action is unlikely until the convening of the 2012 legislature; and WHEREAS, the portions of the Medical Cannabis Bill that survived the veto permits collective cannabis gardens subject to the City's determination of appropriate zoning, business license, health and safety requirements to serve the best interests of the City;and WHEREAS,the veto of major sections of the Medical Cannabis Bill has resulted in great confusion as to its application and future legislation including a recently filed Initiative which raises further questions in regards to the future effect and application of this act;and WI3EREAS, it is anticipated that collective cannabis gardens will require an increased risk to health and safety, require increased code enforcement activities, and affect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties without appropriate regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City that the moratorium be retained to provide the City an opportunity to develop appropriate regulations for such collective gardens, and to develop a work plan for the implementation of such regulations; NOW',THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.The City of Pasco makes the following findings; A. The City of Pasco does not currently have specific regulatory provisions addressing the conditions or locations of collective cannabis gardens within the City. B. The City adopted a moratorium on collective medicinal marijuana gardens in all zoning districts through City of Pasco Resolution 3330 on July 18,2011 and heard citizen comments that medical marijuana dispensaries are needed for residents of the greater Pasco--Kennewick—Richland area and that currently, medicinal marijuana users must resort to illegal means to secure medicinal marijuana. Resolution - 1 C. The City of Pasco held a public hearing on the propriety of the moratorium on August 15, 2011 and received a report from staff on issues of concern related to collective medicinal marijuana gardens, and heard testimony from I citizen relating to the contradictions within State law, the need for collective medicinal marijuana gardens, the adverse effects of resorting to illegal means of procuring medicinal marijuana, the need for building and zoning regulations for collective gardens and the potential positive financial impact of taxing medicinal marijuana. . D. The City Council finds that zoning, licensing and permitting regulations should be established, pending review of appropriate locations and other requirements for collective gardens, and the impacts of the newly amended law and its interaction with federal law must be compared and analyzed. E. The City must ensure that proposed locations for collective gardens are appropriate and that any potential secondary impacts arising from the operation of collective gardens are minimized and mitigated. These secondary impacts include, but are not limited to burglaries associated with the marijuana maintained on the site, or an increase of other illegal activities, such as drug use, within the vicinity of collective medical marijuana gardens. F. 'The Pasco Police .Department (PPD) has expressed concerns that collective medical marijuana gardens will invite vandalism, theft and trespass and compromise neighborhood safety and has expressed the need for development of regulations that will minimize these expected impacts. Section 2. Moratorium Retained. The moratorium established by Pasco Resolution 3330 on July 18, 2011 is retained prohibiting the establishment, maintenance, cultivation, or operation of a collective garden for growing inedical cannabis as defined by Section 1, Subsection 2 of the Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 and RCW 69.51A.010 as amended,within all zoning districts within the City of Pasco. Section 3. Term of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by Resolution 3330 shall continue in effect for an initial period of 12 months, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after a public hearing and the entry of appropriate findings of fact as required by RCW 35A.63.220, provided, however, that the moratorium shall automatically expire upon the effective date of zoning regulations adopted by the City Council to address collective gardens for medical cannabis within the City of Pasco. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and signature below. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of _ 2011 Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Resolution - 2 September 2011 Medical Marijuana Work Plan The following steps are intended to identify the expected process of creating legislation unique to the City of Pasco's needs and legislative priorities. I, Research cities/states with similar circumstances/laws pertaining to medicinal marijuana. 2. Research Washington Cities Insurance Association,Association of Washington Cities and the Municipal Research and Service Center to determine latest developments,cautions,examples and experiences in regulation of medicinal marijuana. 3. Research current State law and reconcile the discrepancy of federal laws concerning cultivation,possession and distribution of medicinal marijuana,the question of precedence of State versus federal law and the risk of prosecution to City personnel implementing State law, 4. Involve City Departments to determine the extent and degree of intervention needed from a licensing, taxation,code enforcement,crime prevention, public safety(police and fire protection)and zoning standpoint. 5. Research the degree of consistency for regulation desired/needed from Benton and Franklin counties and the cities or Kennewick, Richland, West Richland,and meet with these jurisdictions as necessary to coordinate efforts. G. Evaluate the impact of voter approved initiatives after the November general election as applicable, 7. Evaluate the expected timeframe of developing local regulation against any State legislative movement. Consider extension of the moratorium as needed. 8. Prepare interim report to City Council on progress of the work plan and anticipated timeline for completion, and present to City Council on or before December 12,2011. 9. Develop draft legislative alternatives for regulating collective medical marijuana gardens. 10. Review with City management and revise as directed. It. Conduct public workshops with the Planning Commission and revise draft regulatory alternatives as needed. 12. Review developing State legislative amendments to State law concerning collective medical marijuana gardens. Consider extension of the moratorium and adjustment of the work plan as necessary. 13. Conduct formal public hearing(s)with the Planning Commission to determine the Commission's recommendation to City Council, 14. Present the recommended legislation to City Council at a Council Workshop. 15. Return to City Council for formal action as directed. AGENDA REPORT NO. 07 FOR: City Council August 16, 2011 t TO: Gary Crutchfie 1 anager FROM: Alunad Qayouti, Public Works Director Workshop Mtg.: 08/22,12011 Regular Mtg.: 09/06/2011 SUBJECT: 4t' Avenue Corridor Enhancement Project (South) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Professional Services Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 08/22: Discussion 09/06: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with HDJ Design Group authorizing survey, road design services with respect to the 4t` Avenue Corridor Enhancement Project (South), not to exceed $39,465.00 and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement, III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) On August 15, 2011, the consultant selection team picked Hopper, Dennis, Jellison(HDJ), which has an office in Pasco, to perform design work on the south segment of the 4"' Avenue Corridor Enhancement Project. V. DISCUSSION: A) Fourth Avenue Corridor (south of Court Street) Enhancement Project will include safety, sidewalks, pedestrian crossing and parking improvements. Sidewalks along the project are intended to keep the corridor's speed slow and be pedestrian friendly. The roundabout design at the intersections of 3`a Avenue, 4"'Avenue and Marie Street was incorporated into the scope of work covered under a separate design contract which was awarded on April 4, 2011. The scope of work also includes identifying amenities within the project boundary that the City may want to blend with the future vision of the downtown. These amenities would include the design of street lights, concrete finish and landscaping. The fee for this work is proposed on the lump sum of $39,465.00. The preliminary construction cost for the road improvements is $800,000. The design of the project is expected to be completed by October 2011, award by December 2011 and construction to start spring 2012. 1Q(a) �—•---t •----i–.1 ((((��``l� '�� ���`."'�4� ��.`�c�-s�al'`• �` � .v t���°''�. `' -, tll1�Y�lW�6t�iElk �– i' , � -, `�V1T` i '''+.i"'�' ,A�{S.' r .SI�'r�� •�� T �'e�-� tY� ' ��}�� � �, i�7n I, ter•[. �.:SSt .� `�. �.ll ,� ." dd r � 'y, A �� • �,nl �__ P \! "e...."�• �. r '' ' ��� i•�Y'� Ana , "y;r� `L • --,.5. -^/t#E Syr•! ` �. "." '. ,y... a 1 L!.{z- f ~ � 1...` .a•T"T '4 ..r t. � 1. � ��:��.� - �\� .� '.a L �� �^,•j� - `.'�,1 tl�!y + q- 1''y, -``t y ,j' ,� '. �'► ,`aiT+t� f 1d,� a t. rt ►VE.r+�'� W 1 .: ` ` T �'� t mot' �.S��P 's .a. r ��.w•�'�(^ /'riY' �� '` 1.�,� 1'�" � ��.'� �:�� M '" `V '" l��. 4 - i T re �'� .F'3+'1! 'CtiY rte•. �. .a+'". : .\ y� `'_ Y .� '•r, -� ' �rl' Lv Az - _ - - - ,.-� ��Fa•"�� .,, .afiT��`�, It •1f twat _! f 1" i T' '� -e. �M 1 I� �, (.16a,4 u�n' !L.'''!!!��� f'_Y■ 1 'i I �,ft}, •. 4 f ,1 T~ �� i�`''1^ �!� F.i� �� t ..,••'r � �` -� 194 L '. '� .; �I 1`.— N i q. -i.l - .a �7! :d —t � �,'t '''• 1 'F' + T,:+ JL �F� ,�j r+_`" y;,,�`�,t �_.—'ZF:.aS �.�:.J L____• '�---•�"-i•"l!�'..�tL.0 `S.�_'�._ .� � � '�. { � �Ii-y '""R.� I � + + i k � 1t i '•i�-1.... �i!� Q, � i ;•"�� T? lit. E �� ��n E4 i c._! _ t r`,`�� a «+�,�,�►�'. •ii' i � ai�t�• � ��N iNDN93S Hinos - �ocmj�oo ' AAv qiv N PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Pasco, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and HDJ Design Group hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide preliminary survey, topography and roundabout design with respect to the 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement Project (South) ROAD DESIGN, Court Street to Sylvester Street. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows; 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with Exhibit A. 2. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that; A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost, if the contract is terminated through default by the contractor. If the contract is terminated through convenience by the City, the City agrees to pay contractor for the preparation of the summary of work done. 3. Pavments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a Lump Sum basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in the project proposal, provided, in no event shall the payment for all work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of 539,465.00, without approval from the City. B. All vouchers shalt be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City monthly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly and within 120 days. 5. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, the Consultant agrees to defend the City, their officers, agents, servants and employees (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as "lndemnitees"), from all suits, claims, demands, actions or proceedings, and to the extent permissible by law, indemnify and hold harmless the lndemnitees from: A. All damages or liability of any character including in part costs, expenses and attorney fees, based upon, any negligent act, error, or omission of Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, and arising out of the performance of professional services under this Agreement; and B. All liability, loss, damage, claims, demands, costs and expenses of whatsoever nature, including in part, court costs and attorney fees, based upon, or alleged to be based upon, any act, omission, or occurrence of the Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, arising out of, in connection with, resulting from or caused by the performance or failure of performance of any work or services under this Agreement, or from conditions created by the Consultant performance or non-performance of said work or service. 6. General and professional liabili - in . The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to this contract a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of at least 5500,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; $500,000 per occurrence and aggregate for property damage; and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. Such general liability policies shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. The City shall be named as the certificate holder on the general liability insurance. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. 7. Discrimination Prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractor during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval_ Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten(10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and the Consultant's proposal attached hereto. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any 4onflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 13. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 14. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 15. General Provisions. For the purpose of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement, breach or interpretation of this Agreement, venue shall be placed in Franklin County, Washington, the laws of the State of Washington shall apply, and the prevailing parties shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs. 16. Notices. Notices to the City of Pasco shall be sent to the following address: City of Pasco P. O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: HDJ Design Group 300 W. 15th Street Vancouver,WA 98660-2927 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U. S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF ,2011 CITY OF PASCO CONSULTANT Matt Watkins, Mayor Greg Jellison, Prinicpal ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney i a6ed >Itott��taN d F— _m X W OU"$9C�6b$ o'?•a49 a8'. "' ESDT. =Qp 00 .. S?1VTIOQ7VlOI s, r�af�rt{Y Of 0fii$ r' 9YLS 'Od5t'i S S IVIIAMON sunolY IV.LO.i'y. a l"ll 00'99T$ 'ba ufop 'E UO'UUCS OtiUUC4' safdo� l sasuadr3 algeSrngwfab 'H 00'03 00.0 00"0 00'0 UO'U 000 00.0 00"U ou'O 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'03 suonsanb uopoRpsua� 'E 00"0S aaus"Woo uonOngsuooald 'Z UO-as poddnS W.8 '1 aouelsfssy uolJOrulsuoO pue 6141pple 'g 00'SSS OWL UO'O 00,0 UO'O 000 OU 0 lon 0U'o UU'0 1007 1 00-T Oo"SSSS 0U'Z OO'Z OU"C Cwfpodalr pue&W)PPJl "1 6uf>lor.�� o0"b•99'SS 00'0 TI UU'0 OU'U (1 '3 OI1'91 UU'r 009C ocvz O('s 00'T UU'£99'83 00's 00'9T 00"5 00'91 OO'rz QQ"s UO'T -� Surao)woo Allo Ssarppv 't Suetd RUI.4 '3 00'86T us 00'(7 00'0 100'0 00'OI. 00'8 OO'T49 Iowa OO'sh (A)LIC 05'9 00'S UU"EZ9"T$ OO'V OU"z OUT OOZ 00'1 aleulllt Sraauf u3 puesaq!luenb 'Z o0'r0£'S3 UD-17z 00's 00"SC (SAW S)Sueld IUU6!S I OO'ECtt'£$ 00'9I OIYZ 00'6 05"0 51e011s E)sgeJap/salou uonetnwnpJ 'a 00'£F6s 00.0 003 00'£ 05'0 (ealls 6)SpalaolSoloN BU1414S pue 5MUPIS P oo'9Zz,t•s O691 QU't OIY6 00'S OO'i (elaotls n)sueld ucgeulwnflfptte BuldlAS pueF)uruOIS 'o 00'8T•0'ISS / O(YK O0'6 00'91 002 SJaegs E)tfiJawoaq pus 6ulpejg NJemapfS "q 00'Ti'S4 on 00'Z 050 lee4SJeAOO "e 00'OFL'1$ 00'8 OU'r sueld%96 't ul3lseo 9St3 "O 00'£01 ks VcC IDO'0 00'0 o0"U lo 0'0 00 U Q{t'0 00'0 00'81 00'r loo's 00'£U£'fS 00'81 UO'6 00'5 Jnofe7 uofieufwrNtl/$uldglSlBulunlSllNS Neufwffard "l, Jn e7ttreufurgald '� U0,0991TS 00'0 001 UU"t, UO'D 00'0 000 O0'O OU'0 00.0 UO'U OO'0 t70'0-,�, U0 h OHJOJl1)JOlUI JlOUwf 'Z 00'09 C C$ 00s — o of "J AanunS g' 00'099'£4 00'0 loo,o -- o _ 0o'9 ooZ Jon 00'Z oo-Z (IU S 00'9 00'90i's I 00'L DU-1 suodx3 pue spoe-jCjVaolny E WOWS 007 007 00'F 11e1S 00 IMIA laaiN 'Z tl0'tf T[$ 110'7. Ou'r 00 z 61 NOT OUZ O(Z Sbut)aaw)xly uoneuip-10001 jejuf 't uopeAStunupy y to p—aq l-, �siu'a:i J,iS` v13N_�s I.1'-rYiti NIV7 tn01LIM-"fN.L If-U). !2 L f i' JNJ. 111'7t C'-FtLUd l"_?�i t lt:l°.tA?[ utt zfs�yCl IF 0'O'n _ _ ._.._..._.. _._.. _...,. Vh1,'oasrJJodt*�-toarf� 9}Ita%un.)O(j uoi;:)ngsuoJ NPOS)p,alord tvoiur,)u'149-anyti(t.:aowti qo( �aal�sxso�y.)ao7 aa��inaaaue�u u/ca :'ON qOl 6Loz 1 bsnflny:ateg SUPPLEMENT #1 -SCOPE OF WORK 41r' Aenge Enhancement Project(South] for The City of PascoT WA General Description: The City of Pasco requested that HDJ provide a supplement proposal outlining additional scope of work for this project to include sidewalk, striping, and illumination improvements for 4th Avenue between Sylvester Street and Court Street. Additional Scope: HDJ proposes adding the following scope items to the existing scope of work for this project: 1.) Additional site topography for areas that were not originally requested in the survey. 2.) Perform site visit and identify driveway and ADA issues. 3.) Prepare preliminary layout for inclusion in the Open house. 4.) HDJ will now be preparing the entire plan set including a cover sheet. (Assumed 1 sheet) 5.) Perform Luminance analysis and design for the project corridor. 6.) Prepare sidewalk grading and geometry plans for the project corridor. (Assumed 3 sheets) 7.) Prepare signing, striping, and illumination plans for the project corridor. (Assumed 3 sheets) S.) Prepare Signing and Striping notes and details plan. (Assumed 1 sheet) 9.) Prepare illumination notes and detail plans. (Assumed 3 sheets) 10.) Prepare plans identifying signal modifications at the intersection of Court Street and 4"' Avenue. (Assumed 5 sheets) 11.) Provide project tracking, coordination, deliverables, and address City review comments as outlined in the existing scope of work. City of Pasco,WA August 16,201.1 4d'Avenue Enhancement Project(South) Page 1 of 1 AGENDA REPORT NO. 10 FOR: City Council August 30, 2011 V- Manager TO: Gary Crutchf td, FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi; Public Works Director Regular Mtg.: 9/6/2011 SUBJECT: Award "A" Street Water Line Repair, Project No. M4-11-60-WTR 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Bid Summary 2. Vicinity Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 09106: MOTION: I move to award the low bid for ''A" Street Water Line Repair, Project No. M4-11-60-WTR to Michels Pipe Services in the amount of $121,265.00, plus applicable sales tax, and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Utility Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The waterline currently under the railroad crossings at "A" Street has lead joints that failed and require immediate repairs. The most cost effective method for the repair is to reline the cast iron water pipes. This method of repair would minimize the impacts to rail services and save on the costs, instead of total replacement. V. DISCUSSION: A) On August 5, 2011 staff received two (2) bids for "A" Street Water Line Repair, Project No. M4-11-60-WTR. The low bid was received from Michels Pipe Services in the amount of $121,265.00, plus applicable sales tax. The second lowest bid received was in the amount of$210,000.00, plus applicable sales tax. The Engineer's Estimate for the project is $111,000.00, plus applicable sales tax. Staff recommends award of this contract to Michels Pipe Services. 10(b) City of Pasco "A" Street Water Line Repair Project No. M4-11-60-WTR August 5, 2011 BID SUMMARY Total Engineer's Estimate $111,000.00 1 . Michels Pipe Services $121,265.00 2. Insituform $21000.00 A STREET WATER LINE REPAIR r JAME•.S,S tt�, - � I ti - v T N VESTIP 0 LET 'A ST * PROJECT LO ATI `N 1� . , b10 ONS: A SfRfE'/ w- ,dJO.l f D&M SWL 1{I go 'Rupp, i AGENDA REPORT NO. 09 FOR: City Council August 29, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfi d. Cat Manager FROM: Ahmad Qayoun ,'Public Works Director Regular Mtg.: 09/06/2011 SUBJECT: Ratification of Award of Quote for Lewis Street Underpass Coating Project No. M4-11-60-STR 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Photographs H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 09/06: MOTION: 1 move to ratify the contract award for the Lewis Street Underpass Coating, Project#M4-11-60-ST.R 11.1. FISCAL IMPACT: Street Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In 1998 the City of Pasco contracted with Matheson Painting to coat the failing structure with a special polymer based coating to preserve failing areas in.the structure at Lewis Street and the Burlington Northern Rail Road crossing. Prior to the application of the material, loose concrete was removed and repair mortar was applied. B) Over the last thirteen years, the structure has continued to degrade. Some of the material which the polymer was bonded to has again failed and the coating is falling off along with the failed material. This creates a potential traffic hazard as it is possible that some of the falling pieces can hit motorists. C) This project removes the existing failing areas and recoats the railing. This process will extend the life of the underpass an additional five to eight years. D) The product being used to coat the underpass is manufactured by Specialty Products. Matheson Painting is the only contractor within 300 mites certified to apply this specific product. Using a Iocal company will also allow for quicker mobilization and warranty response. V. DISCUSSION: A) The quote received from Matheson is in the amount of$67,820.00. Staff recommends ratification of the award. 10(c) ar �- • .�•� _ � �� ��j • for • -1 PW•3C i! T so fir/ •F N; 1 - 1 f r i �• .Z� �� _ �1 • I `L I 1 lk IL )Owl Ok do i • INN I. i I r , I—j , ' Wr— i. �7 f ,•rn l.. { fi __ r � _ ="t - :�-. ♦ ate..�-�" �"• � �. ..� -'.rte � - ~. ` ' �� - J�,,,♦�R7� - � I t - � Q U) W w W r M Q L r 11 � jp r-� • e 4 job *A _ s •,�. i M t tree—rr 0 • AGENDA REPORT NO. 11 FOR: City Council August 31, 2011 t TO: Gary Crutchf 1 T'ty Manager FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director Regular Mtg.: 09/06/2011 SUBJECT: Ratification of Award of Bid for Sylvester Water Line Replacement Project No. C2-11-19-WTR I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Bid Summary 2. Vicinity Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 09106: MOTION: I move to ratify the contract award for the Sylvester Water Line Replacement, Project #C2-11-19-WTR. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Utility Fund IV. HISTORY AND .FACTS BRIEF: A) There have been 3 failures over the last few years on a section of the water main line in Sylvester Street from Road 60 to Road 62. These failures have resulted in flooded garages and basements; damage to homeowners' yards, and significant damage to the roadway. The water main line needs to be replaced in this area to avoid further liability to the city if another failure occurs. B) As part of the Capital Improvement Plan various water projects that would either improve water lines or replace water lines are identified. This project is part of the 2011 Water Line Improvements and consists of the installation of 650 feet of 8" ductile iron pipe, twelve new services, reconnection, paving and site restoration in Sylvester Street from Road 60 to Road 62. V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff received six (6) bids for the above referenced project. There was one additional bid received that was not considered due to late delivery. All bids were consistent with the Engineers Estimate of $88,273.41 including sales tax with the lowest bid from Goodman and Mehlenbacher in the amount of $81,707.70 including sales tax. Staff recommends ratification of the award. 1a(d) City of Pasco Sylvester Street Water Line Replacement Project No. C2-11-19-WTR BID SUMMARY Total Engineer's Estimate $88,273.41 1. Goodman & Mehlenbacher $81,707.70 2. Sharpe &. Preszler $89,330.71 3. Rotschy, Inc. $89,822.84 4. C & E Trenching $935982.08 5. Mahaffey Enterprises $99,074.79 6. Ray Poland & Sons, Inc. $104,149.47 1 I SYLVESTER WATER LINE REPLACEMENT I 1 C2-11-19-WTR I i : "� � •Q �...�` t 'yam -ti 16 - i —:0 �,.y. .. �� i4.•y �, couNrTY 41 WIANEW — L ,J� !-.j `�ryt� WU�iT j�..'e_T tb I C �_7�- �..- i 7 • j�-.r_ _�._ -� erg - 'y y II 'i" .«'. pa Seery '--1-"- > I 1 - f SYLV_f STEK ST-7 __ —— SYi�VE5T�R ST -N-U;s'-• ------------- ,:ate;'..... • , PROJECT LOCATION PARTIAL VICINITY MAP 1 - — - SCALE: NONE VICINITY MAP - f I �I I