HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.11.15 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 6:00 p.m. November 15, 2011
Please note that our Council meeting will take place on Tuesday,November 15.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) 2012 Budget Presentation (approximately 90 minutes). (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON
AGENDA), 2012 Preliminary Budget available for public review at the Pasco Library and on
the City's webpage at htti2://www.t)a5co-wa.wpv.
(b) 2012 Property Tax Lew Report:
1. Agenda Report from Dunyele Mason, Finance Manager dated November 9, 2011.
2. Assessed Value History Chart.
3. Tax Levy Rate History Chart.
4. Summary of Options.
5. Proposed Ordinance for the 2012 Ad Valorem Tax.
6. Proposed Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity.
(c) Reject Bids for City Hall Roof Replacement,Project No. C6-11-15-GE N:
1. Agenda Report from Michael Pawlak, City Engineer dated November 8, 2011.
2. Bid Summary.
(d) Agreement with Port of Pasco for the Heritage Rail Spur Project(MF#EXEC2011-002):
1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams,Associate Planner dated November 9,2011.
2_ Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Proposed Letter of Agreement.
(e) City Council Districts:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated November 1,2011.
2. Map/Matrix of Current Council Districts,
3. Map/Matrix District Adjustment Option 1.
4. Map/Matrix District Adjustment Option 2.
5. Chart on Redistricting-Franklin County.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(h)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, November 14, Pasco Red Lion - Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon. ("Remember the Old School Way of Doing Business"presented by Tom Moore)
2. 4:00 p.m,, Thursday, November 17, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd - TRIDEC Board Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Rep.; TOM LARSEN, Alt.).
3. 11:30 a.m., Friday,November 18, Sandberg Event Center-Benton-Franklin Council of Governments
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK,Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 9, 2011
Workshop Mtg, 11/14/11
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Regular Mtg.: 11/21/10
Rick Terway, A mi i ra ive & Community Services Director
FROM: Dunyele Mason, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT: 2012 Property Tax Levy—Report
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Assessed Value History Chart
2. Tax Levy Rate History Chart
3. Summary of Options
4. Proposed Ordinance for the 2012 Ad Valorem Tax
5. Proposed Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11/14 Discussion
11121 Public Hearing
Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No , providing for the 2012 Ad
Valorem Tax Levy, a levy for the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation
Bonds and the 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
Motion: 1 move to adopt Ordinance No. , preserving property tax levy
capacity for fiscal years after 2012 in accordance with State law.
IIII. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The maximum allowed levy rate, per State statute, that the city can levy (per $1,000 of assessed
value) is $3.60. The last time Pasco's levy rate was near that number was in 1994. From 1994
through 1999, the levy rate was reduced by not levying any of the allowable 6% increase
available at that time.
In November 1999, the legislature reduced the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) to $30 per
vehicle. To compensate for this loss, Council elected to use most of the unused or banked levy
capacity. The levy rate for 2000 taxes was set at $3.07 per $1,000 of assessed value — still well
below the $3.60 maximum.
In 2001, the voters approved Initiative 747, limiting the amount taxing districts could raise the
property tax levy over the previous year by the lesser of 101% or the Implicit Price Deflator
(IPD), without voter approval. In November 2007, that initiative was challenged and ruled
unconstitutional in the Washington State Supreme Court; that decision returned the limit to the
lesser of 6% or IPD. Council chose not to increase the 2008 property tax levy rate by any
allowable legal limit.
In January 2008, the legislature placed into law those limits (Suggested by 1-747). The legal limit
was to be the lesser of 1% or 1PD; this limit is still in effect today. IPD is a national inflation
indicator much like the Consumer Price Index. The IPD figure to be used for the 2012 tax
calculation is 2.755%.
The preliminary budget document has been prepared using an estimated property tax levy of
$6,200,000 which is less than Option 1 and Option 2 as can be seen in the attached Summary of
Options. Option 1 reflects an increase of $61,124 allowed by the 101% limit while Option 2
retains 100% of the 2011 levy. Option 3 shows the maximum amount the City could collect if
Council chose to levy all prior property tax authority that has been preserved for future use
(according to the State Department of Revenue calculations),
4(b)
Pasco has been holding steady and been buffered from the worst of the poor overall economic
conditions that affect other parts of the country. The State of Washington's economic challenges
could negatively affect 2012's outcomes if'revenue sources from the state are sharply curtailed.
The 2012 budget anticipates a 3.6% cut in certain state shared revenues. Overall major tax
revenues for 2012 are projected to hold steady with 2011 year end estimates.
Pasco has been fortunate in that our prior budgeting practices included conservative budgeting in
several areas which has resulted in healthy fiend balances to prepare the 2012 budget. Staff is
projecting a $9.9 million beginning fund balance and a S6.7 million ending fund balance in the
General Fund for next year.
The property tax levy for 2012 will be comprised'of the following three elements:
1. General Property Tax Levy
2, 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Fire Station/Library Bonds Debt Service
3. 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Retunding (1993) Bonds Debt Servicc
The City is required to certify property tax levies with the County by November 30 of each year.
IV. DISCUSSION:
The Franklin County Assessor has provided a preliminary assessed valuation of$3,215,099,668
which is used to calculate the 2012 property taxes. This amount includes new construction of
$99,251,700 and increase in the State assessed utilities values of $10,042,866. There were no
annexations of property before the cutoff date of March 31". The Franklin County Assessor's
Office now re-assesses all properties in the County each year.
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
Several options for setting the 2012 levy are outlined as follows:
Option 1:
Since the IPD of 2.755% is greater than 1%, last year's levy would be increased by the allowed
I% of$61,124 plus the value of new construction, new annexations and any increases in State
Assessed Utility values at last year's rate and adding those numbers to last year's total levy.
■ 2011 (prior year) Total General Property Tax Levy......................................$6,1 12,376
■ 1% increase in the levy rate based on the allowable maximum increase amount
(lesser of 1PD or 1%) ..........................................................................................$61 124
■ New Construction Values of$99,251,700 using the 2011(prior year) rate of
$1.971575/$1,000 Assessed Value...................................................................$195,682
■ New Annexation Values of$0 using the 2011 (prior year)rate of$1.971575/$1,000
AssessedValue ............................. ................................................................................0
■ Increase in the State Assessed Utilities of$10,042,866 using the 2011 rate of
$1.971575/S1,000 Assessed Value...................................................... $19,800
Total Proposed 2012 Levy $6,388,982
A 2012 General Levy of$6,388,982 using the assessed value of$3,205,056,802 calculates to a
levy rate of$1.98718 per $1,000 of assessed value. Under this option, the 2012 levy rate would
be approximately $0.02 per S 1,000 more than the 2011 rate of$1.971575.
Option 2:
Council could choose not to assess the 1% allowed and there would be no increase from 2011 to
2012's levy except to add 'increased value related to new construction, annexations and the
changes in the value of State assessed utilities. This would set the levy rate at $1.96817 per
$1,000 of assessed value. The decrease in the levy rate of$0.0034 is a function of changes in the
assessed value between 2011 and 2012. Using Option 2, the 2012 to al General Property Tax
Levy would be $6,327,858. Under Option 2, the 2012 General Property Tax "base" levy would
remain unchanged at $6,112,376 compared to the$61,124 increase as described in Option 1.
Option
Beginning in 1993 and continuing through 2011, the City has preserved its accumulated taxing
capacity of 56,286,501. If the City was to levy all of the tax available in Option 3 and choose to
levy all the preserved levy capacity, the general levy would increase to $6,564,848. The levy
rate would calculate to $2.04188 per 51,000 of assessed value, still well below the maximum rate
allowed per State statute of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value, Selecting this option would
require a"super majority"vote of the Council, or five affirmative votes.
PRESERVING FUTURE LEVY CAPACITY
Preserved levy capacity, also referred to as "banked" levy capacity, is NOT money that has been
put into a bank account. It is merely capacity that has not been levied and, therefore, dollars left
in the pockets of the taxpayers. The purpose of RCW 84.55.092 allowing a governmental entity
to preserve future levy capacity is to"remove the incentive for a taxing district to maintain its tax
levy at the maximum level pennitted under this chapter, and to protect the future levy capacity of
a taxing district that reduces its tax levy below the level that it otherwise could impose under this
chapter, by removing the adverse consequences to future Ievy capacities resulting from such levy
reductions." This simply means if the tax is not needed, a City does not have to set the levy at
the maximum amount. The City can reserve that resource for future use. Preserving any unused
levy capacity requires a "super majority" vote of the Council.
A preservation ordinance has been prepared should any unused levy capacity be available to
preserve. If council enacts Option 2, then the banked levy capacity for future years would be
$236,990 which is highest lawful levy amount of $6,564,848 less the actual levy amount of
$6,327,858.
1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE
The 2012 debt service requirement for the 1999 UTGO Bonds issued for the purpose of the
Library Remodel and Fire Station Relocation is 563,445 and $80,355, respectively. Staff
recommends the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond tax levy be set at those amounts.
The two numbers are not combined because they appeared on the official ballot separately when
voted upon. The county assessor's office requires we set these levies separately.
The estimated assessed value for properties subject to the tax is $2,772,961,373; this will result
in levy rates of approximately S0.02288 and $0.02898 respectively, or a combined levy rate of
$0.05186. The 2011 levy rates were $0.02444 and $0.03095, respectively, or $0.05539
combined. The schedule of payments calls for principal payments of$100,000 each year. This
will result in decreased levy rates for the remaining payment schedule as the interest portion
declines. The final payment for these bonds occurs in December 2019.
2002 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS
The 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds were issued to refund the 1993
General Obligation Bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates available and save the
taxpayer's money. The debt service requirements in 2012 for the 2002 UTGO Refunding Bonds
is $378,600 and staff recommends the 2002 Unlimited General Obligation Refunding Bonds tax
levy rate be set at that dollar amount. The assessed value for properties subject to the tax is
estimated at S2,409,343,904, This equates to a levy rate of $0.1521 per S1,000 of assessed
value, This is a slightly lower rate compared to the 2011 levy rate of S0.1564. Unlike the 1999
Bonds, the principal payment amounts will increase over the remaining life of these bonds but
the interest portion will decrease keeping the annual payments at approximately $380,000. The
final payment for these bonds occurs December 1, 2013.
Assessed Values
$3.500
$3.000
$2.500
c
$2.000
0
m
$1.500
$1.000
so.soo
$0.000
2003 7004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
PASCO PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE HISTORY
(GENERAL FUND PORTION)
PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE
$2.8000
2.68390
$2.6000
$2.4000
$2.2000
1.96817
$2.0000 --
$1.8000
$1.6000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2012 SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
Assessed Value (including New Construction,Annexations c& Utilities) $ 3,215,099,668
OPTION 1
Prior Year Total General Property Tax Levy $ 6,1 12,376
1.000% 1% or IPD - Increase in the levy rate based on the 61,124
allowable maximum increase amount
(Lesser of IPD 2.755% or 1%) 10/r.
New Construction Values of $ 99,251,700
at the 2011 rate of $ 1.971575 per $1,000 195,682
of Assessed Value
Annexation Values of S
at the 201 1 rate of $ 1.971575 per$1,000 0
of Assessed Value
Increase in the State Assessed Utilities $ 10,042,866
at the 2011 rate of $ 1.971575 per $1,000 19,800
of Assessed Value
Levy rate of $ 1.98718 per $1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 6,388,982
OPTION 2
Prior Year Total General Property 1'ax bevy $ 6,1 12,376
IPD- No Increase of 1 % in the levy rate 0
New Construction Values of $ 99,251,700 195,682
at the 2011 rate of $ 1.971575 per$1,000
of Assessed Value
Annexation Values of S - 0
at the 2011 rate of $ 1.971575 per$1,000
ofAsscssed Value
Increase in the State Assessed Utilities $ 10,042,866
at the 201 1 rate of $ 1.971575 per $1,000 19,800
of Assessed Value
Levy rate of $ 1.96817 per $1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 6,327,858
OPTION 3
Highest Lawful Levy from Previous Years $ 6,286,501
Declare substantial need and increase highest allowed by 1% 62,865
New Construction Values of $ 99,251,700
at the 201 1 rate of $ 1.971575 per $1,000 195,682
of Assessed Value
Annexation Values of $
at the 20i 1 rate of $ 1.971575 per$1,000 0
of.Assessed Value
Increase in the State Assessed utilities $ 10,042,866
at the 201 1 rate of $ 1.971575 per$1,000 19,800
of Assessed Value
Levy rate of $ 2.04188 per$1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 6,564,848
C:\Users2UNKERT AppDafa\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\6T76�—EOR\2012 SUMMARY OF
11/9/2011 11:51 AM OPTIONS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE 2012 AD VALOREM TAX LEVY, A LEVY
FOR THE 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND A LEVY
FOR THE 2002 UNLIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS IN THE
CITY OF PASCO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
§1. The City Council of the City of Pasco (the population of which is greater than 10,000)
has inet and considered its budget for the calendar year 2012;
§2. The City Council of the City of Pasco after public hearing and after duty considering
all relevant evidence and testimony presented, determined that the City of Pasco requires a
regular levy in the amount of $6,327.858. which does NOT include any of the allowable
percentage increase in property tax revenues from the previous year, and does include amounts
resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increases
in the value of state-assessed property, and amounts authorized by law as a result of any
annexations that have occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge the expected expenses
and obligations of the district.
RCW 84.55.120 requires a specific statement regarding the amount of any increase in
regular property tax from the previous year. The actual general levy amount from the previous
year (2011) was $6,112,376. The City Council of the City of Pasco hereby authorizes the
following increase in the regular property tax levy to be collected in the 2012 tax year. The
dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy amount from the previous year shall be $0
(ZERO) which is a percentage INCREASE of 0% (ZERO PERCENT) from the previous year.
This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction
and improvements, newly constructed wind turbines to property, any increase in the value of
state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have
occurred and refunds made.
The property tax from new construction to be included in the actual levy is calculated to
be $195,682. This number is the result of the amount of new construction and improvements to
property of$99,251,700, provided by the Franklin County Assessor's Office, multiplied by the
2011 (prior year) levy rate of $1.971575 per $1,000 of that value. The property tax from
increased value in State assessed utilities is calculated to be $19,800. This number is the result of
the increase in value of State assessed utilities of$10,042,866 multiplied by the 2011 (prior year)
levy rate of" $1.971575 per $1,000. There was no additional amounts resulting from any
annexations that have occurred or refunds made.
§3. A tax for the following sums of money which includes new construction and
annexations to defray the expense and liabilities of the City of Pasco be and the same is hereby
levied for the purposes specified against all taxable property in the City for the fiscal year 2012:
General Expense, including Councilmanic Bond Debt Service $6,327,858
1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Library Remodel 63,445
1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Fire Station 80,355
2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds 378,600
$6,850,258
§4. This Ordinance shall take effect.five(5) days after passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Pasco, on this 21 th day of November, 2011.
City of Pasco:
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest: Approved As To Form:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
ORDPNANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PRESERVING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY
CAPACITY IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON FOR FISCAL
YEARS AFTER 2012 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
WHEREAS, to provide the property tax revenues required by the general operating
budget of the City for fiscal year 2012, City Council of the City of Pasco levied property taxes
on all taxable property in the City for collection in fiscal year 2012 in the total amount of
$6,327,858, which dollar amount is the sum of(a) $6,112.376 which is the amount of property
taxes levied by the City in fiscal year 2011, plus (b) $0 of the allowable increase of the lesser of
1% or the Implicit Price Deflator (2.755%), (c) $195,682, which is the amount of additional
taxes at the 2011 (prior year) levy rate of 1.971575 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting
from the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City, plus (d) $0
relating to property annexed into the City during fiscal year 2011, and (e) $19,800, which is the
amount of additional taxes at the 2011 (prior year) levy rate of 1.971575 cents per $1,000 of
assessed value resulting from the increase in value of State-assessed utility property in the City;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City desires to preserve in accordance with State
law (including but not limited to Chapter 84.55 RCW) the capacity of the City to levy property
taxes in future fiscal years after 2012, calculated as if the City in fiscal year 2011 had levied the
full amount allowed by state law upon a finding of substantial need therefore; and
WHEREAS, upon a finding of substantial need and based upon limit factors of the lesser
of 101% or lPD (2.755%) for the previous year and limit factors of 101°1% or 106% and IPD for
previous years as provided by RCW 84.55.0101 and $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value by RCW
84.52.043 and 41.16060, the City would be permitted to levy property taxes for fiscal year 2012
in a total amount of $6,564,848 (the "full amount allowed by law"), which dollar amount is the
sum of (a) $6,349,366 (the lesser of the amount calculated by multiplying the allowable 2011
property tax levy of$6,286,501 times the limit factor of 101% (the lesser of 101% or IPD or the
$3,60 per $1,000 statutory limitation), plus (b) $195,682, which is the amount of additional taxes
at the 2011 (prior year) levy rate of$1.971575 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from
the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City, plus (c) $0 for
property annexed into the City during fiscal year, and (d) $19,800, which is the amount of
additional taxes at the 2011 (prior year) levy rate of $1.971575 cents per $1,000 of assessed
value resulting from the increase in value of State assessed utility; and
WHEREAS, the full amount allowed by law for fiscal year 2012 of $6,564,848 is
$236,990 greater than the actual property tax levy of the City for fiscal year 2012 of$6,327,858
and such excess represents the unused 2012 property tax levy capacity that the City desires to
preserve for future fiscal years after 2012;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City finds and determines that there is substantial
need for the City to preserve, for future fiscal years after 2012, the capacity to levy property
taxes on all taxable property in the City in the amount of$236,990, which is equal to the Unused
levy capacity of the City for fiscal year 2012. This substantial need includes, without limitation,
the anticipated future requirements for additional property tax revenues that will be needed for
the construction and/or maintenance of roads, streets, bridges and other transportation facilities
of the City; to satisfy anticipated and unanticipated new regulatory requirements applicable to
the City; to provide for potential excess costs of capital facilities; and generally to meet other
substantial future financial requirements of the City.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and
five days following its publication as required by law.
ADOPTED by the City Council by the affirmative vote of a majority plus one vote of the
members thereof and APPROVED by the Mayor of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public
meeting thereof, this 21st day of November, 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT NO. 20
FOR: City Council P, November 8, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager
Ahmad Qayou �u c Works Director
Workshop Mtg.: 11!15111
FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, PE, City Engineer Regular Mtg.: 11/2 1/1 l
SUBJECT: Reject Bids for City Hall Roof Replacement, Project No, C6-11-15-GEN
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Bid Summary
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11/15: DISCUSSION
11/21: MOTION: I move to reject all bids received for the City Hall Roof
Replacement, Project No. C6-11-15-GEN and, further.
authorize staff to rebid the project.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. Capital Improvement Funds remain available for rebid of the project.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) This project involves the replacement of the built-up roof on City Hall, with the
exception of the second floor roof over the southeast wing. Replacement includes
the removal of the existing roofing materials and installation of a new 3-ply roof.
B) Staff received two (2) bids for the project: Leslie & Campbell, Inc. submitted a
bid in the amount of $387,720,00, plus applicable sales tax; and Gillespie
Roofing, Inc, submitted a bid in the amount of$345,500.00, plus applicable sales
tax. The Engineer's Estimate for the project is $275,000.00, plus applicable sales
tax. There was one additional contractor who initially indicated it would submit a
bid, but who advised the City during the advertisement period that it world not
submit due to current workload obligations.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The City's approved budget amount for this improvement is $297,000.00. In as
much as both bids received exceed the current budget, staff suggests that all bids
be rejected due to budgetary constraints. Staff believes that the bids were higher
than expected due to several reasons including:
I. The late time of the season - typically, the majority of large roofing projects
are undertaken during the warmer, summer months when there are more hours
of daylight for accomplishing work;
2. Existing contractor workloads - one contractor removed itself from the
bidding due to heavy workloads, other potential contractors chose not to
respond presumably for similar reasons; and
3. T'he uncertainty of weather conditions - the months of November, December
and January typically bring colder temperatures and more precipitation
resulting in more uncertainty for contractors to meet the stipulated number of
contract days and raises concerns, for them, on potential weather-related
delays and imposition of possible liquidated damages.
B) Staff recommends rejection of all bids. Staff will attempt to confirm the
likelihood of more competitive bids prior to readvertising the project.
4(c)
City of Pasco
City Hall Roof Replacement
Project No. C6-11-15-GEN
November S, 2011
BID SUMMARY
Total`
Engineer's Estimate $275,000.00
1 . Leslie & Campbell, Inc. $387,720.00
2. Gillespie Roofing, Inc. $345,500.00
* Total amount is excluding applicable sales tax
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 9, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 11/15/2011
Rick White, Regular Mtg.: 11/21/2011
Community& lconomic Development Director fv-f
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Co-application agreement with the Port of Pasco for an Economic Development
Administration (EDA) Grant for completion of the Heritage Rail Spur Project
(MF# EXEC 2011-002)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Proposed Letter of Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11/15: DISCUSSION
11/21: MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution No. authorizing the
City Manager to sign an agreement with the Port of Pasco to
co-apply for EDA Grant monies to complete the Heritage Rail
Spur Project.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
$304,000 match(approximately 20% of estimated $1.8 million project cost)
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The City, Port of Pasco, Benton Franklin Council of Governme=nts , BNSF, and
Franklin County have been working with private land owners to foster creation of
the "Heritage Industrial Center," containing about 600 acres of industrial land
south of East "A" Street (see Vicinity Map). The creation of Heritage Industrial
Center is a result of one of the City's primary goals of fostering more industrial
investment to expand the community's tax base.
B. Improvements already implemented include extending Heritage Blvd from the
SR12/Lewis Street interchange %2 mile south to "A" Street and the completion of
the 1.5-mile "A" Street widening. Recently (July 2010) a mainline rail switch and
spur line were installed at the west end of the industrial center at a cost of
approximately $818,000. This was phase one of a two-phase project to extend rail
into the park from the west to the City property adjacent to Road 40 East.
C. The cost estimate to complete the final phase of the project, the extension of track
from the new switch to Road 40 East, is approximately S1.8 million. EDA has
indicated that 80% of this may be available as a grant to the City. As the Port of
Pasco will own, operate, and maintain the rail line, they are required to he a co-
applicant with the City for any grant monies received.
4(d)
Heritage Industrial Center N
rq
cr
ZVI.- Proposed Rail
f
=.•: Extension
CD
w
Legend
Arterial
L
Proposed Railroad
<_
�. ro 0
Railroad Main Line �"� bob. �^- � •�
s
City Limits
" � �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a co-application agreement
with the Port of Pasco for an EDA Grant for completion of the Heritage Rail Spur
Project.
WHEREAS, The City, Port of Pasco, Benton Franklin Council of Governments,
BNSF, and Franklin County have been working with private land owners to foster
creation of the "Heritage Industrial Center," containing about 600 acres of industrial land
south of East"A" Street; and,
WHEREAS, The creation of the Heritage Industrial Center is a manifestation of
one of the City's primary goals, to "foster more industrial investment to expand the
community's tax base"; and,
WHEREAS, A mainline rail switch and spur track was installed by the Port of
Pasco in July 2010 at the west end of the industrial center at -a cost of approximately
$818,000; and
WHEREAS, The cost estimate to complete the extension of track from the new
switch to the City-owned property west of Road 40 East, is around $1.8 million, 80% of
which ($1.5 million) may be available to the City as an EDA grant; and,
WHEREAS, the Port of Pasco will own, operate, and maintain the rail line in
perpetuity, and they are required to be a co-applicant with the City for any grant monies
received; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1.That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a co-application
agreement (Exhibit 1) with the Port of Pasco for an EDA Grant for completion of
the Heritage Rail Spur Project.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2011.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B_ Kerr
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
LETTER OF AGREEMENT REGARDING GRANT FUNDING FOR
INSTALLATION OF A RAILROAD SPUR LINE ON PROPERTY IN THE
IIERITAGE INDUSTRIAL PARK
1) PARTIES AND PROTECT. BY TH1S LETTER OF AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as
"Agreement," entered into this day of , 2011, the City of Pascn,
Washington, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the Port of Pasco,
Washington, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Port", do enter into this
Agreement for the purpose of obtaining grant funding for installation of a railroad line on property in
the Heritage Industrial Park:
2) OlflAtERSHIP AND LAND USED FOR THE EDA PROTECT: This Grant Application Agreement
concerns the installation of a railroad pur line on property in the Heritage Industrial Park in the City,
as shown on "Exhibit #12" The portions of this property which will receive the rail line is a dedicated
rail access right-of-way, and the rail extension to be installed thereon will be owned, operated, and
maintained in perpetuity by the Port,and:
3) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION(EDA) FORMS
a) The Port and the City agree to adhere to the Award Documents, which include:
i) The Financial Assistance Award.
ii) The ED-50S Budget accompanying the Award.
iii) The Special Award Conditions and Standard Terms and Conditions for Public Works and
Development Facilities accompanying the Award.
iv) The EDA publication, Summary of EDA Construction Standard, which is sent to Recipients
by Project Engineer after EDA receives an executed original Financial Assistance Award.
b) The Port and the City agree to adhere to the provisions of the United States Statutes codified in
the United States Code and EDA regulations, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
any Federal Register announcements, and OX4B Circulars applicable to EDA Public Works
projects.
4) BOUND: The parties to the Agreement understand that they will be bound by the application forms
and award documents that they execute and the applicable statutes and regulations as provided in the
Agreement, and that all the parties to the Agreement agree to each submit the following application
materials with original signatures:
a) SF424 first 4 pages of the Application.
b) Assurances- Construction Programs(2 pages),
c) EDA Construction Investments Additional Assurances.
Heritage Rail Grant Agreement between City of Pasco & Port of Pasco
Page 1 of 2
d) Certification Regarding Lobbying, Form CD-511.
e) Disclosure of Lobbying Activities(for EDA project) only if lobbying for project is done.
f) Exhibit"A"included with Environmental Narrative.
5) TASKS:The Port and the City will be responsible for the following specific tasks,
a) The City will file all EDA project reports, receive and distribute grant funds, file EDA financial
reports, bidding, award and management of the construction contract(s) for the project
components involving the construction. of the rail line.
h) The Port will be responsible for long-tenn maintenance of the finished rail line.
b) AUTHORITY. It is not intended that a separate legal entity shall be established to conduct the
cooperative undertaking nor is the acquiring, or holding, or disposing of real or personal property
anticipated. The City Manager and Port Executive Director are designated as the Administrator of the
project.
7) INCLUSIVE: This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. All
items incorporated by reference are attached. No other understandings, verbal or otherwise, in regard
to the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties.
CITY OF PASCO
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Date
PORT OF PASCO
James E.Toomey,Executive Director Date
Heritage Rail Grant Agreement between City of Pasco &Port of Pasco
Page 2 of 2
Heritage Industrial Center N
-in.i "��� ` y�• i��'y�. � t}. "�.may" `ti "�'`• 6� `-1� J ?�
le .cF q�*
t6wk-04
�r -
Of
�
V: .• rs _ '�i"-.Fa
i ...-� i = . � �Gy`y?t 2'•es�:. ray '3L �«IM= r i-
• lam+ •�� a " � � � K r
Proposed Rai �� ��
Extension
Legend
1
Arterial `~ •:: :.
r - Proposed Railroad •.
Railroad Main Line '� 1!► -> ` ~r'�+` `< ;' rn
. x
City Limits ""r `, lfr F• �.�� � .
f+�AP 4 ''mot
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 1, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi, Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11!15/11
FROM; Stan Strebel, D putt' City Manage�~~
SUBJECT: City Council Districts
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Map/Matrix ol'Current Council Districts
2. Map/.Matrix District Adjustment Option 1
3. Map/Matrix District Adjustment Option 2
4. Chart on Redistricting— Franklin County
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11115: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) RCW 29A,76.010 provides that governments redistrict their units based on the
most recent Federal census. The City is required to "prepare a plan for
redistricting" and submit the same to the County Auditor by December 8, 2011.
(Thereafter, all redistricting changes must be finalized by April 30, 2012.) While
this deadline makes sense for county and other elections which will be held in
2012, it is not nearly as critical for cities, who hold elections in odd years (2013).
B) As Council is considering the possibility of changing the number of districts vs.
at-large positions in the City (indeed, the National Citizen Survey, which will go
to residents in November, asks respondents to respond to this question) to more
effectively deal with growth trends, it may be best to prepare a redistricting"plan
based on the current 5-District, 2-At Large configuration at this time, to satisfy
the requirements of the law, than to attempt any significant changes, for which
Council does not have complete information prior to the December 8 deadline.
C) Fortunately, census numbers, only recently received from the County, suggest
only minor modifications are needed to bring the City's current Council District
plan into compliance with our PMC (Chapter 1.10). 2010 Census numbers show
that while District 1 is more than 1001/0 larger than other districts, District 3 is
smaller by almost the same amount. Relative balance between districts can be
achieved by changing one precinct (either#13 as in Option 1 or 43 as in Option 2)
from District 1 to District 3.
D) Council has additional time to consider this matter which can be scheduled for
further discussion on November 28 and December 5.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff is inclined to suggest submittal of either Option as the City's "plan" to the
County by the December 8 deadline. As further information is available, the
Council will then be able to decide if a new approach to the districting plan is
needed.
4(e)
}
445
051 m, A 3g 2 w �e
J
6 vn N
—)039 S
bill Doe
0331? e 4
i 7
:IA
cou IT 5T
4 '
018
013
ra---
013
Legend
Streets �' 002
Council District 1
Council District City of Pasco Council Districts
Council District 3 Current Districts 2011
Council District 4
Council District 5
Q County Voting Precincts
Council Districts 20111
Current Districts
Precinct District 1 District-2 District-3 District 410isirict 5iPo Est 2010
C0' 4965 4.965
_002 2950 i 2.950
1,875
004 2165 2,165
1.738
006 - --- 1 15641 _ -1,564
007 _ _ 2033 2,033
008 1 4101 -—- -_ - 410
009 _ _ 1335 1,335
010 I 1126 1,126
-oil 1147.-- - 1.141
02 �_ --__ _ 1275 - w� 1,275
CU 1235 1,235
C14 1118 618
01b - 19521`_!- _ 1.952
Q18 897, 897
017 1893 _ 1.893
018 �- 1094 - - 1,094
019 988 988
020 3961 1 396
021 I 2151 1 215
022 ! ._ I 707 707
023 1 762 762
024 607 607
625 �- - - 270 270
026 i 438 438
027 388 -- 388
028 250 '- 250
028 _ 275 --- - _ - 275
030 238 _ 238
031 _ 136 13G
9 91
2 8 T 9118
033 698 598,
094 538 538
036 151. 151
036 _-- -� 1 933 93
037 9391 939
038 9721 972
039 4691 469
040 1 1 1.390
041 1 330 330
042- -- --- - 686rr~ - 686
043 973 973
044 9651 965
045 1746; 1,746
046 15921 1.592
047 77 77
048
049 1 1 542 542
050 I—_� ( 1 9891 969
^_ 051 1 11881 — -- 1.188
052 1174 1.174
053 !— -- — — - — ' 1269 1,269
79_8 798
055 i 8841 _ 884
066 1 1.074
057 - - 1 670 670
058 i 61 61
059 s - - f 706
060 .184 184
A 13,190 12,284 10672 2 0 2 '�. S���106
03
Ir 1' -376, 8�_'
Printec 11!1!2011
City Council Districts 2011-11-01.xlsx Page 1 of 1 at 10:30 AM
CITY OF �
P,A5C0
- y
as
•
l 11 I t
Legend
Streets
jj� Council District I
Council District 2 City• 1 Ci� .vr �`�
F�
r
t r
a
of • Council
Council
1
Council District 5
County Voting Precincts
Council Districts 2011
Option#1
Precinct iDistrict 1 iDistrict 2 District-3 Distnct 41District� Pop E 2010
001 4965 _ _ 4,955
002 29501 2 95
003 18751 j 11875
004 21651 _ 2,165
1738
006 jj' 1564 1,584
007 --- I-- - 2033 -- - _ 2,033
008 410
—909 ._ - 1,335
010 _ 1126 - 1,126
011 __-- _-- 1147, ( 1,147
012 1275; 1.275
018 -- I-_ 12351-- -I _1,235
Ota - 1118 - 1.118
015 1952 1.952
016 897 897
017 1893 1,893
018 1094 1,094
019 -- -- gas. 988
396 i 396
021 215 215
022 _ --- 707 _ - 707
023 1 762 _ ; M 762
024 667 607
025 70! 270
026 _ 438 438
027 388 - "– 388
028 —-- - 250 ---- _ 250
029 275 275
030 238 238
/4�g3t
03 p - 196; 136
2 ---9t6 _�- I 918 6
033 598 4 598
034 _ 538L 538
5 151' 151
wa - - - 93�.' 933
037 939 939
038 972 - _ _ - 972
039 469 469
040 — ->7.. 1,390
441 _ 330
042 686 888
043 _ 973. i 973
044 965, i 965
045 ----- 1746 1,746
048 - 1592 "- - 1,592
Q47 - 77
048 -- 545
049 r. --- -_ - --+• 542
050 969 _` 989
05_1_ --- 1188 1.188
052 11 1,1
053 12fivi 1,269
054 m 796! 798
055 884 884
056 10741
057 -- _ - — 670 67
058 6; 61
059 i _ ; n,b 706
060 I 184 184
TOTAL 11.9551 12,2641 11,9071 12092 -11,5851 59.80
303 -541 131 .3761 59,8DI
Printed 11/112011
City Council Districts 2011-11-01.xlsx Page 1 of 1 at 10:31 AM
I �
'CITY 11F
w =-
0 I
Legend
' 11
�tIlIL1
��i ��1 ����■ ��
i
1
/1
Council District
Council District 2 Districts
CouncTi 1 "Option
County Council District 4
Voting
Council Districts 2011
Option#2
Precinct I Distfict-IjOlstrict 2 istric 3 I District 4 i Distri 5 Pa Es 2010
Dot 1 49 _ 4.965
002 2950 _ _ _ _ 2,950
- 603 18751 1,875
004 21651 2,165
005 1738i____ -- -- 1.738
006 - ---1 1564. 1 1.564
007 f 20331 2,033
008 i 410 1 _-_� 410
009 -- -_; 1335 1,33_5
010 T_ _ 1126 T -�-- 1,126
1 _ _1147 1,147
014 _. _-1 _1275 _I _ 1,275
013 12351 I 1235
01- 4 -~ 3 - 1116 - ---; 1,118
01 S 1952 - -- - 1.952
016 897 897
017 1893 — ` , 1,893
018 --- F... 1094 --__- - 1.094
988
396 396
021 215 215
022 707 707
023-�-- - -762 ---—i r—_762
-_024 - 607 -- = - 607
025 1 Y-- - __ i _ 270' 270
026 I 438 438
027 --- 388-- - - r 388
028 250 - 25
029 275: 275
_030 -- 238 - - 238
130, 136
032 918— - 918
033 _ 598 5%
_0_34
035 151'• 151
036 _— ---- - 9.33 933
037 939; 939
038 972; 972
039 ------ 469 - 469
040 -� 1390; 1,390
041 33PI 330
042 686 688
043 9737 973
044 _- "-- - — _965• a. 965
045 1746' 1.746
046 _ '1592 r 1.592
047 77: 77
048 — -- - 54Si 545
_ 049_
OSO 989 989
051 1188 - - 1,188
052 1174 1,174
053 - - �_ 1269--_-__- 1.259
054 798 798
055 1 8841 884
056 - 1074 1.074
057 670' 670
_058 --- - 61, 61
_059 _ 7081 706
060 - 184 184
OTAL 11,315; 12,264 12,5471 12,092; 11,5851, 59,803
-6461 3031 586 1 9.
Printed 11!1!2011
City Council Districts 2011-11.01.xlsx Page 1 of 1 at 10:31 AM
Jurisdiction Redistricting -
Franklin County
We are Public l'recinE[ houndary chLuiVcs ail +pied and miplenwmted+
Here hearings to
Aug 5
finalize Ann-lime froin lli)"r r her 4—.AI)rii 30 105.5&D f as passible). �
plans-Nov
-�F -----------
ZO1 a august September I October November i Tkccmbrr 012 aailtl al-Y FebFIKK�' March April �fa�
A nL- et Ore 8
Draw re-disuktirlg plans--evervine needs popularion l cadliiir i'&
dM'A and Maps-
P61-1A+ P61-1A ILI y9
'��Idltt7f�—_1
*Immediately after the County has adopted its redistricting plan,precinct boundaries will be reviewed and any information regarding changes to be made in
2012 will be made available to all jurisdictions,