Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.11.28 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL, Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. November 28, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Process Water Treatment System Optimization: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated November 23, 2011. 2. Summary of Optimization Analysis. (b) Quad Cities Water Permit MOA: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated November 18,2011. 2. Summary of Proposed MOA. 3. Proposed MOA. (c) Ecology Grant for Raw Water Intake and Irrigation Project: 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated November 23,2011. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Department of Ecology Interagency Agreement Contract and Project Scope (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Public Works office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at b!V://www.pasco-wa.jzov/citycouncilreDorts . (d) Water Utilities Amendments: 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated November 22,2011. 2. Proposed Ordinance. 3. Draft Backflow Assembly Tester Policy and Procedure. (e) WCIA Liability Coverage Deductible: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated November 21, 2011. 2. WCIA Assessment Comparison. (f) Correspondence from Tri-Cities Regional Public Facilities District: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager dated November 22,2011. 2. October 18,2011 letter from TCRPFD. (g) "A"Street/SR12 Interchange Area: 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated November 22,2011. 2. City of Pasco SR 12/Tank Farm Road Interchange Study (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at b!V://www.pasco-wa. ov/citvcouncilre o�rts). (h) Council Goals:Broadmoor Area Marketing Report: 1. Agenda Report from David I.McDonald,City Planner dated November 22,2011. 2. Broadmoor Area Marketing Report (October 2011) (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at http://www.12asco-wa.gov/citvcouncilre oorrts). (i) Code Amendment Rabbits and Hens in Residential Zones: 1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams,Associate Planner dated November 21,2011. 2. Staff memo to the Planning Commission dated 11/17/11. 3. Proposed Ordinance. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/20/11 and 11/17/11. 5. Summary Table. (j) Federal Legislative Consulting Agreement: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated November 21,2011. 2. Proposed Agreement. Workshop Meeting 2 November 28, 2011 5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) Acquisition of Real Estate (b) (c) 7. ADJOURNMENT REMINDERS: 1. 4:00 p.m.,Monday,November 28,Ben-Franklin Transit Office—Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY,Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ,Alt.) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council On November 23, 2011 111 1 FROM: Gary Crutchfie i Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/11 SUBJECT: Process Water Treatment System Optimization I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Summary of Optimization Analysis II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The city treats and re-uses the process water generated by the Pasco processing center during vegetable processing by applying it to agricultural crops grown on the city's farm circles. The agronomic capacity of the land dictates the maximum process water volume that can be delivered from the processing center to the city for treatment and reuse. Without additional land or other changes, the city cannot accommodate a new processor, nor expansion of existing processors. B) Staff employed the services of Cascade Earth Sciences (CES) to analyze the existing process water treatment system to identify opportunities to optimize the capacity of the system. Their effort identified several improvements the city can make to the system to achieve greater capacity (see reference #1). V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff proposes to optimize the treatment capability of the existing farm circles in order to maximize the utility of the existing system. Optimizing the current system in the fashion proposed by CES will be beneficial, as it would improve crop growth and farmer income while also maximizing the production potential for the food processors. It is also more cost effective because it will first leverage the existing system before incurring costs to expand the land base (the last resort). B) Staff and a representative from CES will explain the optimization plan in a presentation at the workshop meeting. 4(a) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Pasco(City)treats and reuses the process water produced by the Pasco Processing Center during vegetable processing by applying it to agricultural crops grown on the City's land treatment fields. The agronomic capacity of the land dictates the maximum process water volume that can be delivered to the City. Pre-treatment of the process water can increase its loading limits within the current agronomic capacity,while the agronomic capacity can be increased with improvements in irrigation, cropping,operational and data management, and land use. The City would like to optimize the treatment capability of the existing system,via pre-treatment and increasing the agronomic capacity, to maximize additional process water loadings. Cascade Earth Sciences conducted a comprehensive inspection of the system from process water source to irrigation field with a team of specialists in engineering, agronomy, irrigation design,and system configuration and operations. We gained a complete understanding of the system,current sizing, operational aspects, and weaknesses and opportunities necessary for optimization. The key limitation is that the fields are essentially at their agronomic capacity under the current operations. However,we identified several strategies the City can ernploy to increase the agronomic capacity and amount of process water they can apply if they implement specific operational and capital improvements. The City can optimize the treatment potential of the existing system and maintain a passive low cost treatment philosophy to provide the Pasco Processing Center with the maximum additional process water delivery capability at the lowest possible cost. Currently there is little system pre-treatment,which is affecting functionality and reducing system treatment capability. Phase 1 includes medium screening,grit removal, fine screening, and implementation of improved field monitoring and management. The benefits and cost of Phase 1 include: 0 Reduced abrasion expanding system life 0 Expand storage volume through reduced sediment deposition 0 77,000 lb of additional agronomic nitrogen capacity and 103 MG of hydraulic process water delivery potential 0 Budgetary cost is$1,454,000. Phase 2 will include sediment removal; potentially fats,oil, and grease(FOG)removal; and expansion of the irrigated area within the existing City-owned land. The benefits and cost of Phase 2 include: 0 Further reduction in abrasion expanding system life 0 Phase 3 will greatly benefit from sediment removal 0 FOG removal, if incorporated, will further reduce biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) and nitrogen concentrations 0 53,000 lb additional agronomic nitrogen capacity 0 79 MG of additional process water delivery capability 0 Reduced hydraulic loading to the entire system in early spring and late fall 0 Budgetary cost is$1,654,560 Cascade Earth Sciences-Spokane,WA Pasco Processing Center-City of Pasco,WA PN:2011230032 Process Water Treatment System Optimization and Improvement Plan Doc:2011230032 Pasco Optimization Report.docx November 3,2011/Page iv An Advanced Facultative Pond is the option considered for Phase 3 during the design efforts because it will provide BOD reduction and additional storage. The benefits and cost of Phase 3 include: • Reduce biochemical oxygen demand concentration to allow longer storage time. • Increase the percentage of process water in the total irrigation made possible by storage longer into the spring. • Expand storage volume by at least 30 million gallons. • Significantly reduce the odor potential in the spring. • Reduction in aerator operation will reduce power costs. • Reduced organic matter will significantly reduce the volume of biosolids produced in the storage pond. • Reduced biosolids production will reduce solids loading to the fields in early spring leading to healthier soil conditions during crop emergence. With the improved water quality and improved crop yields anticipated, future process water delivery increases above the new system capacity would need to consider an additional land base,which is considered Phase 4. It is not known if the City would purchase additional land or develop a long-term land lease agreement, or where the land is located. However, for planning purposes we can use a typical field size of 133 acres to provide the following benefits and cost estimate per field. • 47,200 lb of additional agronomic nitrogen capacity • 71 MG of additional process water delivery capability • Budgetary cost is$313,500 per field. Total potential increase of process water delivery capability with Phases 1, 2,and 3 is 202 MG. Actual values will vary depending on site conditions and efficacy of all upgrades and management activities, but we believe this estimate is balanced and achievable. Nevertheless,this large potential increase in process water delivery capability clearly indicates significant opportunity to optimize the existing system. The City would like to implement the fast phase of the system optimization in time for vegetable processing in June 2012 and to begin field and cropping strategy improvements to meet the 2012 growing season. Phase 2 scheduling takes advantage of process flow and quality data collected up to and following the Phase I pre-treatment installation and plans to use additional acreage during the 2013 growing season. The sedimentation portion of Phase 2 must be implemented before Phase 3. Phase 3 scheduling accounts for the 2013-2014 storage seasons. The Phase 4 schedule considers being on-line for the 2014 crop growing season. Cascade Earth Sciences-Spokane,WA Pasco Processing Center-City of Pasco,WA PN:2011230032 Process Water Treatment System Optimization and Improvement Plan Doc:2011230032 Pasco Optimization Report.docx November 3,2011/Page v AGENDA REPORT TO: City Counci November 18, 2011 FROM: Gary Crutch i Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1 1/28/1 1 Regular Mtg.: 12/5/11 SUBJECT: Quad Cities ater Permit MOA I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Summary of Proposed MOA 2. Proposed MOA H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion 12/5: MOTION: I move to approve the Quad-Cities Water Supply Memorandum of Agreement between the cities of Pasco, Kennewick, Richland and West Richland and the Washington State Department of Ecology and, further, authorize the Public Works Director to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Quad Cities water permit, issued by Ecology in 2006, under the terms of the 2003 settlement agreement, represented the culmination of a long process (about 8 years) undertaken by the four cities collectively to obtain a "regional" water permit, rather than wait for uncertain opportunities to obtain individual water permits. In 2005, the four cities approved an MOU detailing how the four cities would manage their collective rights and responsibilities under the new regional permit. B) With the development of the new water supply plan for each city, approved by the State Department of Health in 2010, the Public Works Directors of the four cities have been working with Ecology to develop an MOA to clarify details associated with the 2003 settlement agreement (the basis for the regional permit). Those clarifications include: • Revision of the"consumptive use" factor, from 80%to 60%; • Availability of 2,408 acre feet additional water under the Quad Cities Regional Permit (as a result of the change in consumptive use); • Resolution of the "pre-settlement holes" asserted by Pasco and West Richland. V. DISCUSSION: A) The MOA is necessary to clarify, in writing, the common understanding as to how Ecology will fulfill its obligations under the settlement agreement. Those provisions are generally consistent with the historical understandings. The major change is the consumptive use factor, dropping from 80% to 60%; this change effectively reduces Ecology's obligation for mitigation water (by 25%) but also makes up to 2,408 acre feet of water available for municipal use that would have otherwise been consumed for mitigation purposes. As that segment of water is from the Lake Roosevelt "bucket," it carries an annual fee (about $40 per acre foot). As Pasco still has a deficit (about 3,800 acre feet) and the other cities do not, the consumptive use change allows Pasco to eliminate about two-thirds of its current deficit (at the associated annual cost). B) Staff recommends Council approval of the proposed MOA and authorize the Public Works Director to sign it, as the other three cities are likewise recommending approval. 4(b) Quad Cities and the Office of Columbia River Memorandum of Agreement (MOA): Securing New Water Supplies for the City of Kennewick, City of Pasco, City of Richland, and City of rifest Richland Summary 1. Purpose a. Coordinate Water Supply Development Projects b. Resolve remaining uncertainty in the 2003 Settlement Agreement 2. Buckley Season of Use Transfer a. Upon written request of the Quad Cities, Ecology will modify the rights to restore the historic season of use 3. Agreement on Trust Water Holdings for Mitigation of First 10 cfs under S4-30976 a. The Parties agree that Ecology's obligation is to mitigate total 8 cfs and 5,781 .6 acre-feet. b. The Parties agree the appropriate amount of mitigation for the first increment of growth is 6 cfs and 4,336.2 acre-feet (60% consumptive use). c. The remaining 2 cfs and 1,445.4 acre-feet are available to the Quad Cities as mitigation for the future increments of growth. d. Responsibility for costs are divided between Ecology (6 cfs portion) and Quad Cities (2 cfs portion). 4. Fulfillment of Ecology's obligation to provide 8 cfs and 5,781.6 acre-feet. a. The difference between Ecology's Buckley and Byerly trust water holdings and the 8 cfs and 5,781.6 acre-feet described above, is 1 cfs and 4,014.37 acre-feet. b. Ecology agrees to make 13.25 cfs and 4,014.37 acre-feet available from Lake Roosevelt Project to fulfill its mitigation obligations. c. The Parties agree that the Lake Roosevelt water provides equivalent benefit to the McNary Pool per the 2003 Settlement Agreement 5. Filing of New Applications a. City-specific applications may be filed that address specific projects. b. Coordinated application shall be filed for regional growth needs. OCR may issue new rights as mitigation for S4-30976, or in substitution of S4- 30976 if preferred by Quad Cities. 6. OCR and Quads will coordinate on future water supply projects to meet growth. 7. Pasco and West Richland pre-settlement "holes" are resolved. 1 1-10-201 1 1 Quad Cities and the Office of Columbia River Memorandum of Agreement (MOA): Securing New Water Supplies for the City of Kennewick, City of Pasco, City of Richland, and City of West Richland Parties: The undersigned Parties, the City of Kennewick, City of Pasco, City of Richland, and City of West Richland (Quad Cities) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), acting through the Office of Columbia River (OCR), jointly support this Memorandum of Agreement (2011 Quads MOA). Purpose: The undersigned Parties are committed to the following objectives: 1. Coordinate on water supply development projects that will assist the Quad Cities in meeting the mitigation requirements of Water Right Permit S4- 30976P, or provide alternate, equivalent means of serving the projected growth for the Quad Cities. 2. Reach a common understanding of issues of uncertainty contained in the 2003 Stipulation, Settlement Agreement and Order of Dismissal of PCHB Appeal No. 02-216 (2003 Settlement Agreement), relating to Water Right Permit S4-30976P. Recitals: • Whereas OCR has a statutory mandate to pursue developing water supplies to meet pending municipal needs and develop sources of supply for interruptible water users on the Columbia River; >>-10-20]1 2 • Whereas Water Right Permit S4-30976P is subject to interruption associated with minimum instream flow requirements on the Columbia River. • Whereas both Ecology and the Quad Cities are parties to the 2003 Settlement Agreement'; • Whereas Ecology and the City of Kennewick are partnering on an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project, subject to a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (2008 Kennewick MOU). • Whereas Ecology and the City of Pasco are partnering on a water supply project, subject to a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (2011 Pasco MOU). • Whereas there is a need to coordinate future water supply development projects consistent with the terms of Water Right Permit S4-30976P. Now, therefore, the Parties acknowledge and agree to the following. 1. Buckley and Byerly Water Right Trust Transfers: In partial fulfillment of obligations of the 2003 Settlement Agreement, Ecology acquired and placed water rights into the State Trust Program (RCW 90.42), termed the "Buckley" and "Byerly" water rights. Collectively, these water rights total 7 cfs and 1,767.23 acre-feet. A summary of the Buckley and Byerly water rights held in trust under the 2003 Settlement Agreement is provided in Appendix A. The 2003 Settlement Agreement (Page 3) states in part that "the intent . . . is The Center for Environmental Law and Policy(CELP) is also a parry to the 2003 Settlement Agreement. CELP is not a parry to this MOA and is unaffected by its terms and conditions. 11-10-2011 3 that trust water rights used for mitigation shall be from McNary Pool and of equivalent quantity and period as shown in Table 5 of the ROE' (referring to Table 5 of the Report of Examination, or ROE, for Permit S4-30976P). The referenced table identified the historic Buckley season of use as year-round, with water right specific quantities for each season (i.e., summer, fall and winter/spring). However, Ecology's 2002 ROE for the Buckley water rights altered the season of use inconsistent with Table 5 in response to comments from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under RCW 90.42.040, Ecology may modify a trust water certificate providing it does not impair existing water rights. Upon written request of the Quad Cities, Ecology will process a modification to the subject rights to return the season of use consistent with the historic exercise thereof, and with the terms and conditions of Table 5 of the ROE for Permit S4-30976P. While Ecology cannot prejudge this decision, a return to the historic season of use is not expected to impair existing water rights. In the event that Ecology's impairment analysis introduces constraints to the Quad-Cities' requested trust water certificate modifications other than a return to the historic season of use, Ecology shall 1) consult with the Quad-Cities to set the modified certificate to the Quad Cities' maximum benefit; and 2) consult with the Fish Flow Advisory Group to determine whether the available Lake Roosevelt mitigation can be used to offset such constraints. 11-10-2011 4 2. Trust Water Mitigation for the First 10 cfs of Diversions Under S4- 30976P: The 2003 Settlement Agreement contains several statements that are unclear as to Ecology's obligation to hold trust water rights as mitigation for diversions under the first 10 cfs of Permit S4-30976P. First, the 2003 Settlement Agreement (Page 4) states: "To determine the amount of perpetual mitigation for the first increment of water use, Ecology has used an 80 percent consumptive use estimate". Permit S4-30976P identifies the first increment of water use as 10 cfs and 7,227 acre-feet. 80 percent of the first increment is 8 cfs and 5,781.6 acre-feet. Second, the 2003 Settlement Agreement (Page 3) references Table 5 of the ROE for Permit S4-30976P as "the two groups of water rights Ecology intends to use as mitigation for the first increment of Quad Cities' wafer use". Table 5 identified diversions for a suite of water rights (Buckley and Simplot) ranging from 11 cfs to 20.8 cfs and totaling 6,476.7 acre-feet. Third, the 2003 Settlement Agreement (Page 4) stated that concurrent with each 6-year Quad Cities planning update, Ecology "will assure that the appropriate amount of water-for-water mitigation is in place". In 2008, the Quad Cities completed its 2008 Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan Update, which identified an annual consumptive use percentage of 48%, significantly less than the 80% assumption. The "appropriate amount of 11-10-2011 5 water-for-water mitigation" based on 48% consumptive use to offset the first increment under Permit S4-30976P would be 4.8 cfs and 3,469 acre-feet. The Parties agree that Ecology's obligations to mitigate for the first increment of water use total 8 cfs and 5,781.6 acre-feet. The Parties further agree that, while consumptive use must be calculated during each 6-year planning effort, and while consumptive use may vary from year-to-year, that the 80% consumptive use assumption for the first 10 cfs is likely to be significantly higher than the Quad Cities' actual consumptive use, even during drought years. The Parties desire to maximize the trust water holdings for the benefit of the Quad Cities municipal uses. The trust water holdings will be maximized if 1) sufficient trust water holdings are maintained to offset consumptive uses in the first increment across a range of potential water years; and 2) if trust water holdings surplus to that objective, but within the 8 cfs, and 5,781.6 acre- feet held for such purpose, are made available to the Quad Cities as mitigation to offset future increments of growth. To that end, the Parties agree "that the appropriate amount of water-for-water mitigation" for the first increment of growth is 6 cfs and 4,336.2 acre-feet (60% consumptive use). The remaining 2 cfs and 1,445.4 acre-feet are available to the Quad Cities as mitigation for the future increments of growth. 11-10-2011 6 The Parties agree that Ecology is responsible for developing the 8 cfs and 5,781.6 acre-feet of water for the first increment. The Parties agree that Ecology is responsible for costs associated with the 6 cfs and 4,336.2 acre- feet of water for the first increment. The Parties agree that Quad Cities is responsible for costs associated with the 2 cfs and 1,445.2 acre-feet of water beyond the first increment. However, in the event that consumptive use in the future increases above 60%, Ecology agrees to assume responsibility for costs associated with that quantity. The Parties further agree that in the event that a future planning document estimates consumptive use above 60%, the Parties will meet and negotiate how such data will affect future increments of growth for which mitigation has already been secured. The Parties further agree that in the event that a future planning document estimates consumptive use at a percentage less than the percentage used to acquire mitigation that the Parties will negotiate a new and expanded permitted diversion amount commensurate with the lower consumptive use percentage. 3. Simplot, Byerly and Lake Roosevelt Trust dater Rights: When the ROE for Permit S4-30976P issued, Table 5 contained a summary of six water rights Ecology was negotiating with Mr. Buckley to acquire and three water rights that Ecology was negotiating to acquire from the Simplot Corporation. The Buckley water rights were secured, totaling 1,536.58 acre-feet. However, negotiations between Simplot and Ecology broke down and those rights were 1 1-10-201 1 7 not acquired. Since that time, Ecology has acquired two water rights termed the "Byerly" water rights, totaling 230.65 acre-feet, bringing Ecology's trust water holdings to 7 cfs and 1,767.23 acre-feet. The difference between Ecology's Buckley and Byerly trust water holdings and the 8 cfs and 5,781.6 acre-feet described in Section 2 above, is 1 cfs and 4,014.37 acre-feet. OCR is beginning a permitting effort for water made available through its Lake Roosevelt Incremental Storage Release Projects. Ecology holds 25,000 acre-feet of water in trust for municipal, domestic, and industrial purposes. Mitigation water is available from this project from April to August. Ecology agrees to make 13.25 cfs and 4,014.37 acre-feet available to fulfill its mitigation obligations under the Quad Cities permit. These quantities are shown in Appendix B. While permits issued based on the mitigation provided by the Lake Roosevelt project are permanent, the mitigation supply is not; Ecology must replace its 25,000 acre-feet of trust water holdings in the future with another supply source. In that event, Ecology will notify Quad Cities of opportunities to participate in the permitting and environmental review for such decisions. The Parties agree to amend Section 3 and Appendix B of this MOA at that time to reflect the change in mitigation source, and potentially the timing of availability; however, the quantities agreed to herein 11-10-2011 8 are expected to remain unchanged. 4. McNary Pool Defined: The 2003 Settlement Agreement (Page 3) states that the Buckley water rights and Simplot water rights (if acquired) place of use were to be modified to "the McNary Pool of the Columbia River". Further, if the Simplot rights were not acquired, then "other water rights from the McNary Pool" were to be acquired and put into trust. The Buckley and Byerly rights acquired to-date (and Simplot water not acquired) were originally diverted from the Walla Walla River, in a location such that the trust water benefit to McNary Pool accrued on the order of days later. The Parties agree that the Lake Roosevelt water described above provides equivalent benefit to the McNary Pool as contemplated in the 2003 Settlement Agreement. Lake Roosevelt authorizations used for Quad Cities mitigation will reflect delivery of water to the McNary Pool of the Columbia River from approximately River Mile 292 to River Mile 346. 5. New Water bight Applications: Section 9 (Page 5) of the 2003 Settlement Agreement required the Quad Cities to "withdraw all pending applications for new water rights except for certain groundwater applications that are for supplemental rights for alternate places of withdrawal'. However, since execution of the 2003 Settlement Agreement, the legislature passed RCW 90.90 and formed the Office of Columbia River, which created water supply development and permitting options not originally contemplated by the 1I-10-2011 9 Parties. Under this 2011 Quads MOA, the Parties agree on the following framework for the submittal of new water right applications: a. Project-Specific Applications: Any individual city may file: i. A project-specific water right application associated with a joint City-OCR water supply development partnership. An example of a project of this nature is the City of Kennewick — OCR Aquifer Storage and Recovery project, for which a reservoir application has been filed and a preliminary permit issued. In the event that new water supply is made available from such a project, such quantity in acre-feet shall be allocated in the same manner as for Non-Project-Specific Applications below. ii. A new water right application for additional instantaneous capacity only (no additive annual allocation) without affecting annual allocations amongst the Quad Cities. b. Non-Project-Specific Applications: Unless partnering with OCR on specific projects or filing for source redundancy applications in Section 5a above, the Quad Cities shall file new water right applications jointly and consistent with the planning demands outlined in the Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan updates, and the 2000 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. As part of the 11-10-2011 10 negotiation of this MOA, the Quad Cities will file the first of such applications. The Quad Cities shall reserve the right to allocate water awarded under such applications amongst themselves consistent with the planning objectives outlined in the Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan updates. If Project-Specific Applications for individual cities are also granted, then the Quad Cities shall coordinate how such individual water right permits affect regional water availability. Non-Project-Specific Applications are subject to the following guidelines: L Mitigation Water: A new water right may be granted to provide mitigation water for consumptive use impacts associated with Permit S4-30976P. Such water right may be in the form of a new water right permit, a trust water certificate, a reservoir permit, or other appropriate authorization for the project. ii. In-Lieu dater: Ecology may develop water supplies with mitigation requirements that are deemed "superior" to those in Permit S4-30976P. In such cases, the Quad Cities may receive a permit in exchange for the voluntary cancellation of an equal amount of Permit S4-30976P. iii. Priority Date: Consistent with RCW 90.03.340, the priority date of such applications filed by the Quad Cities or individual cities that are a party to this 2011 Quads MOA is the date of the filing of the application. OCR shall follow WAC 173-152 in the 11-10-2011 11 processing of water right applications filed. However, if OCR holds a trust water right, it reserves the right to assign portions thereof to Quad Cities as mitigation water so long as the objectives of RCW 90.90.020 are met. 6. f=uture Water Supply Development Partnership: The Parties agree to partner opportunistically on water supply development projects that meet the objectives of this 2011 Quads MOA. It is anticipated by the Parties that water supply development costs will be project-specific; if Quad Cities elects to receive water under the OCR Program beyond the 6 cfs and 4,336.2 acre-feet of water for the first increment described in Section 2, OCR may recover direct costs for such water supply from the Quad Cities consistent with RCW 90.90. The goal of the Parties is to ensure uninterrupted growth consistent with Permit S4-30976P, and to have a reasonable, non-speculative quantity of water in reserve to bridge the gap between water supply development alternatives. 7. City of Pasco and City of Nest Richland Water Right Deficits Resolved: In the past, Ecology, the City of Pasco, and the City of West Richland have disagreed about commitments to resolve water right deficits (aka "holes") that pre-dated the issuance of Permit S4-30976P and the 2003 Settlement Agreement. By virtue of a water supply project funded by OCR and the associated 2011 Pasco MOU, the City of Pasco agrees all "hole" issues have 11-10-2011 12 been resolved to its satisfaction. The City of West Richland agrees all "hole" issues have been resolved to its satisfaction based on the following: a. Ecology's processing of numerous change decisions in 2008 providing for greater source flexibility amongst city sources and water rights. b. Ecology's issuance of new water right permit G4-35203P to the City in 2010 for 1,650 gpm (additive to existing rights) and 2,661 acre-feet (non-additive to existing rights). c. Ecology and the City's agreement in this MOA regarding pending City applications G4-32304 and G4-32395 as follows: i. Ecology and the City agrees the intent of modifying application G4-32304 and G4-32395 to a supplemental designation was to provide an alternate, but non-additive source of water for the Quads permit (S4-30976P). ii. If a quantity of water is approved by Ecology for application G4-32304 and G4-32395, then an equal quantity of Permit S4- 30976P would be cancelled and a superseding permit issued. iii. Ecology agrees it will begin processing application G4-32304 and G4-32395, or will otherwise modify existing Permit G4-35203P2, to meet the goal of issuing 2,800 gpm and 4,531 acre-feet of water additive to the existing groundwater rights, but with a commensurate reduction of 2,800 gpm and 4,531 acre- feet from Permit S4-30976. 2 If Permit G4-352031?is modified to accomplish this goal, then the face sheet of the permit will reflect that the 2,661 acre-feet authorized is now additive, so long as 2,661 acre-feet of water from Quads Permit S4-30976P is similarly reduced. 11-10-2011 13 iv. Consistent with RCW 90.03.290, Ecology can only approve applications where water is available, will not impair other rights or the public interest, and is for a beneficial use. v. West Richland understands that the groundwater being requested is in an area with uncertain recharge and with a history of complaints regarding declining water levels that have necessitated deepening of pump depths. If Ecology processes less than 2,800 gpm and 4,531 acre-feet in new groundwater applications or permit amendments, Ecology and West Richland agree to enter into negotiations for OCR-funding of a feasibility study for a potential aquifer storage and recovery project. 8. Regulatory Actions Not Constrained: To the extent this MOU contemplates Ecology taking regulatory action on any application, permit, certificate, or other document, the parties understand that Ecology must make decisions consistent with legal requirements, notwithstanding this MOU. The parties further understand that such decisions are subject to possible appeal by other parties, and that if an appeal alters or reverses a decision by Ecology, Ecology shall be relieved of any obligation to the contrary under this MOU. 9. MOU Not a Binding Contract: This MOU is intended only to improve intergovernmental coordination and is not intended to and does not create a legally binding contract or any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against another party, its 11-10-2011 14 directors, officers, employees or other persons. This MOU does not constitute an explicit or implicit agreement by the parties to subject the other party to the jurisdiction of any federal or state court over and above any rights or procedures presently available to the parties. This MOU shall not be construed to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of the parties with the MOU. 10.No Commitment Except as Authorized: Nothing in this MOU shall be construed as committing any party to actions for which it lacks authority. All actions and schedules called for by this MOU are subject to and contingent upon the availability and allocation of future appropriations, existing and future limitations on a party's statutory authorities, and state and federal regulatory approvals as needed. 11. Principle of Construction: This Agreement has been prepared jointly by the parties following negotiations between them. The parties were represented by legal counsel of their choosing. It shall be construed according to its terms and not for or against any of the parties. MOU Acceptance By: Representing the Washington State Department of Ecology: Date Derek Sandison, Director Office of Columbia River 11-10-2011 15 Representing City of Kennewick: Date Peter M. Beaudry Director of Public Works City of Kennewick Representing City of Pasco: Date Ahmad Qayoumi Public Works Director City of Pasco Representing City of Richland: Date Peter Rogalsky Public Works Director City of Richland Representing City of West Richland: Date Roscoe C. Slade III Public Works Director City of West Richland 11-10-2011 16 M al W N O1 00 00 O N O r` Lr)Ln M LD lN0 N N Ln n m m N .-1 m N u O O 0 o O O O O O O O O Ln to o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o0 0 1° `t O O 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o O N O O N > O O O O O O Ln O O O O to Ln 0 0 O O O O O O O 00 0 0 O O cm -1 0 LO N z O O O O O O O O O o 0 O N O 0 m N N u O O m emi 00 W lD ^ Ln w Or OR 00 cn w r- O O O O m o � 0 O N N m o m rn N m `0 o 0 m � o °' v CL C m H O N � O O i LnN m O Ln LD m Lr) N Ln O i-4 O o N cC ac co 00 00 00 00 00 r-40) Ln O a) 3 0 o O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O m `� 0 m Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O � O o c�I 7 N 0 co 0 O O O O m m O 0 3 0 O O O o 0 o o 0 O O N O m t ,yam LL O M a1 •-1 M " W d' r, 1-1 � tNf'1 O Ol O � m 0 o N 1 0 Ln O Ln o o m m=Y m Q Q d�GV X_�Q Q1 + Q t u i G 7N�a>3i N N$ u tD 0_Q a1, uO m L$N p N rn M Ln Ln O O vO vora- C a L0N N cFn L + 0 N i Ln � 00 O m O O O o 01 Ln O O o o m 01 ^ rl t r! 0 0 m 00 O 0') r Ln O O 4 � m o 00 O O o 0 O � (:5 O O L. o O O O O O O o 0 0 0 w Ln o N r` O O O Ln 00 `i O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O O 0 O N o N rN O o O O o 0 0 o O O O O w O O 0 O m O Ln 0 LL o 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O o O O O O O "0 Ln O r,Ln 00 -1 o O O O w 1-i O N O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 N +$ ,A m ra m m m m m o Yo a s 4 0 Q Q Q Q m 01 00 Ln Ln m m N O w OO 1 a t0 Ol m . 7 � COJ N N v 41 0T1 N T _A O co CO Co ca m m 00 co N to M Ol w 1-4 O N co W �-� 1A M Q O M 0 O N O O O N s i C-4 O N N O O N N Z -i m O O . i m N N N N 00 00 O O N 0 q.D O O wD I- M M E 00 00 to ,i � O O 1. ui LD t.0 O O tD lD co N N N r b N N M -,:r OR LL Q O r, `m"{ •m-1 rm-1 N 00 00 L m N m N -� ,6 M 'i m r-4 .-i 00 O m m O G1 rn m N -! r-I N O m Sri r, 00 o O O M Yrn N a) m J `D oN N .O LO m 00 RS a No N � r-4 o0 d m m m O O m O N O O O N d V m rq °o o cn CD m U. o ° 6 6 0 cq m m ,1: °o °o m �( -+ O C14 O O O N Q a Q O $ V) $ Q 3 0 H C O V a N C > Qj z u m r o m a) N Y fp O J AGENDA REPORT NO. 16 FOR: City Council November 23, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfiel , Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/2011 Regular Mtg.: 12/05/2011 FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Ecology Grant for Raw Water Intake and Irrigation Project I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Department of Ecology Interagency Agreement Contract and Project Scope (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Public Works office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at http://www/p asco- wa.gov/generalinfo/cilycouncilreports). II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion 12/05: MOTION: I move to accept the grant offered by Washington State Department of Ecology in the amount of $2,667,038.00 for the Columbia Water Supply — Raw Water Intake and Irrigation Project and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the Interagency Agreement Contract. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City currently draws raw water to supply its new West Pasco Water Treatment Plant (WPWTP) from an existing intake located immediately west of the I-182 bridge on the north side of the Columbia River. The existing intake is an older City irrigation system facility that has been modified to enable pumping through the new membrane pressure filters at the WPWTP. Both irrigation and potable water is withdrawn at that location. The existing intake has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 9 MGD,approximately 3 MGD for irrigation and 6 MGD for potable water. V. DISCUSSION: A) The City intends to construct the new intake structure by the end of 2015, including a pumping facility and raw water pipeline designed and constructed to match the ultimate capacity of the WPWTP (18 MGD), and construction of a separate irrigation system supply pipe and booster pump station. The irrigation improvements are needed to deliver at least 1,000 acre-feet of water from the pending USBR permit. The project includes approximately 12,000 feet of 16-inch pipeline from the river to the existing irrigation system in Sandifur Parkway at Road 84 and a booster pump station near the southerly convergence of Harris Road and I-182, in compliance with the City's Irrigation Master Plan. B) The City has received a grant offer from Washington State Department of Ecology in the amount of$2,677,038.00 for: raw water intake design and property acquisition for the new intake structure; the new irrigation pipeline and associated booster pump station. The grant is partly intended to resolve the long-standing dispute between the city and Ecology as to Ecology's obligation to provide another 2.5 cfs of water in association with the Quad-Cities regional water permit. If accepted, the grant constitutes Ecology's fulfillment and the city will regard the matter as resolved. 4(c) I .. L i_ ��,.�■-�_ _ � j � :..Y 'SID LK '!.*.CC _ i� \3.� r.» r * N x•71 :t1�/.�Y� fill �ttfie°ii • ,� a Q! a tfF p 31y I ] SA ��- �> . .F.O. �1�� � i/.�!•lil AHKg� iIIY t�a,�y!(, L:a 4i \ t N rs. n� E rat ti i • ,, • VIII AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council ' November 22, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfiel Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/11 Regular Mtg.: 12/5111 FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Pu is Works Director SUBJECT: Water Utilities Amendments I. REFERENCE(S): I. Proposed Ordinance 2. Draft Backflow Assembly Tester Policy and Procedure II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion 12/5: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. regarding water and irrigation water utility rules and regulations and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City implemented a backflow assembly testing/tester program as a requirement of state law and, to safeguard the City's water system, in the late 1990's. Recent state law requires that the City formalize its policies and procedures for backflow assembly testers. B) Staff has also identified two areas where the code should be amended to be in compliance with the plumbing code (stop and waste cock replaced by shut-off valve after meter) and to define when irrigation water is available. V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed amendment to PMC Section 13.16.021 authorizes the City Manager to issue rules and procedures, not inconsistent with state law, for backflow assembly testers. This provision will allow administrative changes as required by experience or due to changes in the Washington Administrative Code. A draft policy and procedure is attached. B) Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. 4(d) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, amending Title 13 of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding water and irrigation water utility rules and regulations. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain amendments to Title 13 "Water and Sewer" regarding water and irrigation water utility rules and regulations are necessary; and WHEREAS, The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 246-290-490) requires that water service providers develop and implement a backflow prevention assembly testing quality control assurance program; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has implemented a cross connection control program to address high and low risk users; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish rules for addressing Backflow Assembly Testers testing backflow prevention assemblies protecting the municipal water system NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a new Section 13.08.008 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Backflow Assembly Tester" shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: 13.08.008 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER Backflow Assembly Tester means a person who has met the Washington State Department of Health requirements to test backflow prevention assemblies and has a current certificate and Backflow Assembly Tester certification number issued by Washington Certification Services Section 2. That a new Section 13.16.021 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Backflow Assembly Tester" shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: 13.16.021 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER The City Manager is authorized to issue rules and procedures, not inconsistent with state law, for Backflow Assembly Testers Any person desiring to test backflow assemblies connected with the water supply system of the City shall make application with the Water Superintendent on the forms provided The Backflow Assembly Tester must agree to conform to all ordinances rules and regulations now in existence and as hereafter amended or supplemented governing Backflow Assembly Testers Section 3. That Section 13.16.170 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Installation of Stop and Waste Cock" is amended to be entitled and shall read as follows: 13.16.170 INSTALLATION OF STOP AND WASTE-COCK SHUT-OFF VALVE It is unlawful to install water service without a "stop and waste eeek shut-off valve on customer line, enabling the owner to shut off water. A "step and waste" eeen shut-off valve will not be permitted inside the meter box. A shut-off valve ahead of the meter is not a "stop and writ°" shut-off valve, and the closing of this valve will not protect the plumbing between the meter and house or within the house, and this valve must not be closed except in the presence of the Water Superintendent, or his representative, or upon their instructions, or to avoid damage to property, in which case, it shall be the duty of the water user to notify the Water Department immediately of such shut-off. Section 4. That a new Section 13.61.061 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Irrigation Water Availability" shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: 13.61.061 IRRIGATION WATER AVAILABILITY Irrigation water is available when any of the following exists: (1) An active irrigation service is on the property; (2) Irrigation water is being delivered in a pipe adjacent to the property; (3) Written confirmation of irrigation water availability has been provided by Franklin County Irrigation District. Section 5. 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 Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Amending Title 13 PMC "Water and Irrigation Water Utility Rules and Regulations" Page 2 7/05/2011 CITY OF PASCO Public Works Department BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER POLICY and PROCEDURES Sections: 100 Purpose 110 Application 120 Definitions 130 Approved Tester List 140 Backflow Assembly Tester Eligibility Qualifications 150 Test Report Form 160 Eligibility Review 100 PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy is to maintain a list of competent Backflow Assembly Testers that recognize a high level of customer service is expected when providing testing and repair services to the City's water customers.To ensure accurate reporting of backflow prevention assemblies in a timely manner including, but not limited to installation, testing and repair of backflow prevention assemblies and devices used to protect the City's potable water system pursuant to Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 13.16.020. 110 APPLICATION. This policy applies to any person and/or corporation testing backflow prevention assemblies or devices installed on the City's potable water system. 120 DEFINITIONS. (1) Accurate means free from errors. (2) Approved Backflow Assembly Tester means a person that has met the Washington State Department of Health requirements to test backflow prevention assemblies and has a current certificate and Backflow Assembly Tester certification number issued by Washington Certification Services. (3) BAT means a Backflow Assembly Tester(Tester) holding a valid certification issued by Washington Certification Services. (4) Backflow Prevention Assembly means a configuration of one or more check valves, an air inlet valve, or relief valve and may include shutoff valves that have been approved for use in the State of Washington to prevent backflow and is/has been on the Department of Health's published list. (5) City's Cross Connection Specialist is the person(s) responsible for administering the City's Cross Connection Control Program. (6) Code Enforcement Board.The Code Enforcement Board hears alleged violations of the City codes regarding property maintenance standards.The Board has the 7/05/2011 authority to establish monetary penalties and order water to the premises to be turned off. (7) Complete means not omitting information when completing a test report form, including but not limited to test results, manufacturer, model, size, serial number, location of the backflow prevention assembly or device, date tested and Tester. (8) DOH means the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water and any of the departments within the agency. (9) Operations Manager is the person responsible for the City's potable water distribution system and oversees the Cross Connection Division. (10) Legible means the written information that can be read easily and is free of stains and smudges. (11) Potable Water System means the network of piping that carries drinking water to the City's water customers. (12) Washington Certification Services under the direction of the Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water administers the BAT certification program for the State of Washington. 130 APPROVED TESTER LIST. The City's Cross Connection Division will maintain a list of Approved Testers for the public to use. This list can be accessed on the City's web site and is available in printed form upon request. A second list of Approved Testers lists BATs and companies with Testers that have met the City's requirements to submit test report forms but do not wish to be on a public list. 140 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS. To qualify as an Approved Backflow Assembly Tester the following conditions must be satisfied: (1) BATs shall meet with the City's Cross Connection Specialist to review the City'sBackflow Assembly Tester Policy and the testing procedures. (2) A copy of a current Pasco business license or receipt from the City Clerk's office showing the application fee has been paid. (3) Calibration report for the test kit used by the Tester to test backflow prevention assemblies. The report shall be dated no more than one (1) year before the date of the test. (4) Current BAT validation card issued by Washington Certification Services verifying the BAT has met all requirements for eligibility to test backflow prevention assemblies in the state of Washington. 150 TEST REPORT FORM. Only a City approved test report form shall be used to report the test and inspection results of backflow prevention assemblies and devices. (1) The property owner is responsible to have their backflow assemblies tested. A test report form shall be submitted and received by the City's Cross Connection 7/05/2011 Specialist within seven (7) days of the test. The test report may include any of the following: A passing test, a failing test or a test after repair. (2) Test report forms shall be submitted by hand, fax, U.S. Postal Service or other commercial delivery service. 160 ELIGIBILITY REVIEW. A BAT and/or company may have their testing privileges revoked for violation of any part of this Policy. The Operations Manager has the authority to administer action including but not limited to suspension, probation, notification of action by the City to DOH and removal from the City's approved lists. (1) Action may be taken as the result of, including but not limited to: • Inaccurate information, • Falsified test results or documentation, • Incomplete information, • Test reports submitted beyond the acceptable 7 day time frame, • A BAT fails to return telephone calls, • A BAT's action has caused a property owner to be assessed a penalty by the Pasco Code Enforcement Board • A test report form is determined to be illegible. (2) The action taken in succession will include, but is not limited to: a.) Verbal notification to the BAT when a problem on the test report form(s) is identified. b.) Witten notice to the Tester after four (4) problem test reports are identified within twelve(12)months of the first problem test reportbeingsubmitted. c.) A written notice will be sent to theemployer of the BAT when the BAT has caused the Code Enforcement Board to issue penalties against a property owner. d.) Letter advising the Tester their testing privileges may be revoked. An action plan that lists corrective action to be taken by the Tester/company is required when the Operations Manager determines that the Tester has not shown reasonable improvement in correcting problems that have been identified in the written notice. e.) Revocation of testing privileges shall be at the discretion of the Operations Manager when it has been determined that the BAT has violated any part ofthis policy. Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Date AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council n November 21, 2011 TO: Gary Crutch y Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/11 Regular Mtg.: 12/5/11 FROM: Stan Strebel, D uty City Manager SUBJECT: WCIA Liability Coverage Deductible I. REFERENCE(S): 1. WCIA Assessment Comparison II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion 12/5: MOTION: I move to authorize staff to specify a $100,000 deductible with WCIA for the 2012 coverage year. III. FISCAL IMPACT: The City's 2012 Liability Assessment will be $375,608 without deductible; $240,389 with the proposed $100,000 deductible. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In September, Council reviewed an assessment comparison from WCIA showing the effects of using either a $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 liability deductible over the last five years claim history. Applying a $100,000 deductible over the past five years would have resulted in savings of approximately $150,000. [It should be noted, as prior, that, with a typical statutory three-year period within which one must file a claim, the claims history and experience (including losses) may not be fully ripe. As time passes, there is the possibility for incurred amounts to change as claims are actually settled or litigated.] B. Based on Councils' interest in using a deductible, staff reviewed the existing insurance allocation methodology (used to divide the WCIA assessment between funds) to make sure that it reasonably reflected the claims history, as provided by WCIA, as well as employee hours, the two major factors in the assessment determination. In summary, the review showed that the general fund was being charged about 24% of the assessment but incurring some 85% of the claims. Likewise the utility fund was paying 55% of the assessment but only incurring 10% of claims. C) Staff has developed a new allocation formula which is based on employee hours for allocating the assessment and claims history based in that actual claim costs within the $100,000 deductible amount will be paid directly from the operating budget of the fund. This method will more closely reflect actual claims, moving the general fund assessment share to about 72%. As this method uses actual expenses, it avoids the "double counting" of claims history in determining the allocation. D) Based on the 2012 WCIA Assessment with deductible, and estimating annual claim costs for the year, staff would expect general fund costs to be in the range of $230,000-$240,000. This represents an annual increase of approximately $130,000- $140,000 for the fund. At the same time, applying the new allocation formula with deductible, we would expect costs to the utility fund to decrease by $150,000- $160,000. Other funds are minimally impacted. 4(e) E) Past experience indicates that it is extremely unlikely for one year to incur multiple events that exceed $100,000. Nonetheless it is possible. Our claims experience indicates such a claims event would most likely occur from either general fund or utility fund activities. These two funds carry substantial unreserved fund balances. Part of the purpose of unreserved fund balance is to provide resources for the city to recover from significant, unforeseeable, losses. Rather than carving up the unreserved fund balances into individual pieces (Reserves Designated for XYZ) to cover all possible contingencies, it is recommended to leave the unreserved fund balance as being available to cover whatever type of significant, unforeseeable, loss which may occur. (n — i� O .-. NO � NMCO OoOLn (A � —N r- Lt) 0 � � � CD e- 00 N CD O � O O — C*l CM LO CO O M "t U w (7) r 00 O 00 e- LO 00 r O Lc) N O N ti Lo C6 � O Nr— Nr- MIZI- O (flLr) MMN O N N d N CO N LO N -t CD r-- V) LLU C o 6G� Gq 60. G, U). cq 6p). Y) 64 Gq 603� ba 6q 60D046gY> M M O0') O LX) - N O N M O LO CA CD M t` CO O) O 00 m r` Izr r- U') 0) O O .- 00 00 O O O — MONT- CD rl- MONOrt r- CACO - Ma) LA Lf) O O O - 0) m 00 "I- e- N CD M of U') N r- _ O m U') co CD O � O N ti 0) N �- O O M O o � � MMMM � OO rtMMMMr— � MNMMCD CO + O Q) .V _U p fl.. a CL W 69 69 61)16c> 69 6R 69 69 69 EF3 EtT 69 Ef} 69 6g 69 69 69 cD O 00 O CO co CD LO CO M co m LO Lf) co a) 00 co LO � Lnr— M � N r-- U) (DM -t00 r-- U.) CDMcYc0 ® Ln 7 MC� NN 00 CD U,) C6NN MOLnONN O r-- O Lfi t-- CD M O B CD r- LC) M O rl- (o O LO r- O r � O CD Ln L-) cu 00 co OO O E Cl O O _ > O 0 U ® C 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Ef? 69 EH 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 O N O M O 00 M co O N CO a- CD O O O O c} ti E O MNti Mo0 — r- mNLo (D MMOoNC.0 CA N O � O � O O rl- M 0 N 00 O Ln O CO r- r- CO r- C) U) l O co Un O V ti O O M LC) C6 (fl U-) 0) U) r- CD Or- t- OMCO rl- r- O � Mir- MLnCD o (6 p p O M N N M M � N N cV N N M N N N N N r- EO O V N r �- O I— (ll I Y) In N N Ef) U cB O o `- O U U O 69 69 69 6F3 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Eta 69 69 U). 6A D O N Q 0 U - j I Ln 00 N ,I- to r co N �7 Ln �- M N O 69 p — p M Ln O N co M Ln C3) N M I M U-) 0) N M d' U O .� � � Ne- r- MOIn N � r� MOLn N .-- tiMOLn tf9 O U � +- � .- rl 00 CD O t` � 00 CD O r` = r� 00 CD O m O p m CD V M O O N CD It M CD O N CD � co Cfl O N � L C L O M M co M �t 00 M M M M It OD M M M co Cp � - ® (�} O L O L c( a.E > -a Q 69 Eft Eta Eta 6�? 69 Eta 6A Eft Efj 69 Ef3 Efl 69 69 69 69 69 C6 U L O a> L � �' a� � Cl CD cu Q CD ® `� U � 0000 ° ° cDr� co0) O ® (Dr- mmCD F ® O o O O — U � � � ( O cm OOOOO O t� 000000 O 00000 O 4!!� N N N N N H N N N N N 69- N N N N N F-- AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council November 22, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/11 FROM: Stan Strebel, Manager Z01", SUBJECT: Correspondence from Tri-Cities Regional Public Facilities District I. REFERENCE(S): 1. October 18, 2011 letter from TCRPFD 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion 111. FISCAL IMPACT: TBD IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) As Council is aware, the Tri-Cities Regional Public Facilities District (TCRPFD) has been considering which of four projects it should recommend to voters for funding approval at an election proposing an increase in the sales tax. B) The TCRPFD Board recently began discussing the concept of limiting its role to capital funding of projects which would be operated by other entities (presumably cities and/or public facility districts) with such entities being responsible for ongoing project operating expenses. The attached letter highlights the discussion and invites the cities and public facility districts to comment. C) The Board decided to postpone its continued discussion of this issue from November 9 to its next meeting, which will be held December 14. V. DISCUSSION: A) In discussions the Board identified a number of reasons to consider limiting the role of TCRPFD to capital funding of projects only, including: • The lack of operational expertise and experience associated with the RPFD as compared to local PFDs and cities. • The ability, potentially, to accomplish more projects if limited sales tax revenue are not obligated for operational expenses (often the most costly part of a project). • The opportunity to provide more careful screening of projects if an additional (governmental) sponsor must necessarily assume operational costs. B) Some points in opposition to the concept were also made, including: • Since the project(s) would be regional in nature, the burden of operating costs should be a regional responsibility. • Some worthy projects without additional sponsorship might not be realized. C) Staff suggests that Council discuss this item on November 28 and provide direction to staff. 4l Tri-Cities regional Public Facilities District Matt Watkins,President Steve Young,Vice-President Sandra Kent,Secretary/Treasurer October 18, 2011 Don Britain Rebecca Francih John Givens Gary Crutchfield, City Manager John Merh City of Pasco Ed Revell 525 N. 3rd Avenue Sheila Sullivan Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Crutchfield: As you may be aware,the Tri-City Regional Public Facilities District(TCRPFD) is continuing a process to evaluate projects for possible consideration by the voters as early as November 2012. At the meeting of October 12, the Board discussed the issue of operating expenses, which may include shortfalls from operational revenue potentially associated with any project. A number of considerations were discussed, including: • State of the national economy • The question of the sales tax rate increase/duration that voters are likely to approve • Multiple projects with construction cost estimates as follows: • Aquatic Facility...........................................$37.5 million • Performing Arts Center..................................$36 million • Reach Interpretative Center............................$14 million • Three Rivers Convention Center....................$15 million • Whether the TCRPFD Board is ready to become an operational entity in addition to a construction financing entity • The need to be able to evaluate submitted pro-formas thoroughly and carefully and within the Board's time table Discussion of the above items, among others, led the Board to determine to invite the cities,the public facility districts and the project sponsors to consider and comment on the concept of the TCRPFD limiting its role to providing construction financing for projects which can be backed by either a city(ies) or PFD(s) or other entity which is capable of guaranteeing operational expenses for the life of a project, thus allowing the RPFD greater capacity and flexibility to consider providing regional projects of significance. As the Board will be discussing this issue at its meeting of November 9 (5:45pm,Pasco City Hall),we invite your written comment in advance of the meeting(please send to Gwen Luper,Benton Franklin Council of Governments, P. O. Box 216, Richland,WA 99352; or gluper ,bfco .us), or your participation that evening. Sincerely, Matt Watkins,President Tri-Cities Regional Public Facilities District PO Box 293 4 Pasco,WA 99301 . 509.545.3404 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council November 22, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/11 FROM: Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director SUBJECT: "A" Street/SR12 Interchange Area I. REFERENCE(S): 1. City of Pasco SR 12/Tank Farm Road Interchange Study(Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at ht_pt ://www.12asco-wa. og v/citycouncilreports). II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28/11: DISCUSSION III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The Washington State Department of Transportation has conducted planning for a future interchange near "A" Street at SR 12. It is expected that once the interchange is constructed, it will have a significant impact on highway safety, development opportunities and the delivery of municipal services. B. Replacing the at-grade crossing with an interchange also provides an opportunity to evaluate the anticipated effects of the proposed interchange on the current urban growth boundary and related land use and utility issues. C. Evaluation of the impacts of the interchange has been designated as a primary Council goal for the years 2010—2011. D. The Study evaluates land use designations, transportation opportunities and the designated urban boundary and recommends that transportation corridors be established and slight expansions be made to the existing Urban Growth Area. E. Staff will deliver a PowerPoint presentation to Council summarizing the Study. 4(g) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council November 22, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Regular Mtg.: 11/28/11 Rick White, Community& E ono is Development Director014 FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Council Goals: Broadmoor Area Marketing Report I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Broadmoor Area Marketing Report (October 2011) (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning Office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at http://www.t)asco-wa.gove/citycouncilrel)oi-ts . II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28/11: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. In 2009 the City with input from land owners in the Broadmoor Area completed the Broadmoor Concept Plan. To work toward the realization of that Plan the City Council set a goal for 2010-2011 to "work with appropriate commercial brokers and land owners to market the preferred development plan for private investment, with the expectation of at least one development commitment within two years." B. To implement the Council goal staff organized a meeting in the fall of 2011 with two commercial real estate brokers (one representing the major property owner), a townhouse/condo developer, and two single-family residential developers/builders to explore ideas for promoting development of the Broadmoor Area. The group represented a mix of multi-family, single family and commercial development interests. C. While the group represented interested buyers and developers a number of development issues surfaced (similar issues to those identified in the 2009 Concept Plan) and staff was unable to get a commitment for a firm development proposal. The major issue identified was the lack of sanitary sewer service. D. The Public Works Department is currently working on a Comprehensive Sewer Plan that will address the sewer issue for the Broadmoor Area. Once a firmer understanding of where sewer infrastructure will be located marketing efforts will become more clear. E. Staff will deliver a PowerPoint presentation to Council summarizing the Report. 4(h) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council November 21,2011 TO: Gary Crutchfiel a ager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28//11 Rick White, Community & conomic Development Director 21� FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Rabbits and Hens in Residential Zones I. REFERENCES 1. Staff memo to the Planning Commission dated 11/17/11 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/20/2011 and 11/17/11 4. Summary Table I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion I]I. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On October 20`x' 2011 the Planning Commission held a workshop to discuss an amendment to the "R" (Residential) district regulations that to allow for the keeping of laying hens in residential zones provided certain performance requirements are met. B. During the workshop the provision for the keeping of rabbits was added to the discussion, and on November 17, 2011 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the keeping of both rabbits and laying hens in residential zones. C. Following the workshop the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed code amendments as contained in Reference#1. V. DISCUSSION: A. Rabbits and chickens are already allowed in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones, but with a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet for up to 20 rabbits/hens, or a minimum of 32,000 square feet for up to 40 rabbits/hens. B. The proposed amendment would allow for up to three rabbits or three hens, along with Lip to three cats or three dogs, or a combination not to exceed six total animals on lots less than 22,000 square feet in the RT, RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones, and in the R-1, R-1-A, R-1-A2, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones with a 5,000 square-foot minimum lot size, when occupied by a single-family structure. C. Development standards would require rabbit hutches or chicken coops and runs to be set back a minimum of 10' from neighboring yards to prevent possible nuisances. D. Roosters are prohibited on lots with less than 22,000 square feet. E. The RT (Residential Transition) zone was also amended to address animals where PMC 25.20 was otherwise silent. 4(i) MEMORANDUM November 17, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner RE: Hens in Residential Zones Issue statement The City of Pasco recently received a letter requesting the legalization of "small numbers of hens . . . in residential zones in Pasco." This letter reflects the sentiment of a growing number of Pasco residents that the Pasco Municipal code should be modified to allow for laying hens in residential zones. As noted in Exhibit 1, the inclusion of rabbits has also been suggested. What is Currently Allowed The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) allows for "the keeping of farm animals upon the premises . . . for a personal use only . . ." in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones (PMC 25.12.040). No commercial animal husbandry operations are allowed. Chickens are not allowed in any other zones in the City. This provision for "the keeping of farm animals upon the premises . . . for a personal use only . . ." is allowed as long as the lot in question has at least "ten thousand (10,000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel." (See PMC 25.22.030; 25.24.030; 25.26.030). Thus farm animals are only allowed on parcels of 22,000 square feet (1/2 acre) or larger. Furthermore, "for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above [the area] set aside for the dwelling" the owner may have one animal unit. An "animal unit" is defined as "any one of the following: steer, cow, milk cow, horse, mule/donkey, three goats, three sheep, three pigs, twenty chickens, twenty fowl or twenty rabbits" (See PMC 25.12.065). A cap of "2 animal units" is placed on the keeping of"chickens, fowl or rabbits" in these zones. Finally, chicken houses must be located at least ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership and twenty-five feet from a public roadway (See PMC 25.22.030; 25.24.030; 25.26.030). In summary, if a property owner has at least 22,000 square feet of land in an R-S-1, RS-12, or RS-20 zone, they may keep up to 20 chickens for personal use; a person may keep up to 40 chickens if the lot has 32,000 or more square feet. All coops and chicken-related structures need to be positioned at least 10 feet from the side and rear property lines and 25 feet from any public road. Pros/Cons of Keeping Small Numbers of Hens Pros, (as put forth in the request letter): Hens provide healthier eggs. Page 1 of 5 Their eggs supplement the diets of low-income families. Hens eat waste products like bugs, weeds, and kitchen scraps, changing trash into food. Chicken droppings provide valuable, odorless (sic) fertilizer that is high in nitrogen, preventing the need for petroleum-based commercial fertilizer. Chickens are fun, friendly pets. Chickens have educational value for children about where food like eggs comes from. Chickens are much more suited to a smaller area (such as a backyard) than a dog or a cat because they are smaller and don't have the need to run and roam such as dogs and cats. They contribute to sustainability and self-sufficiency. Cons (gathered from various sources) Both rabbit and chicken-raising requires personal responsibility. Chicken eggs must be collected daily. Both rabbits and chickens create a great deal of waste. Rabbit and chicken waste creates a less than pleasing aroma for neighborhoods. Rabbit and chicken food may encourage rats and raccoons. Chickens make unwanted noise. Some yards are not large enough. Chickens can quickly denude vegetation in a run or pen, causing blowing dust concerns. Chickens can fly into neighboring yards. Rabbits may burrow into neighboring yards. Code enforcement may increase. On the Pros and Cons Healthier eggs: Whether homegrown eggs are healthier is not necessarily a zoning issue, and thus need not be dealt with here. Cost effectiveness: As with perceived nutritional value of eggs, home poultry- keeping economics is not a zoning issue, and will not be addressed. Pest Control: Chickens do eat bugs, and chicken byproducts are typically not as toxic as sprays. Weed Control: Weed control is an important consideration for code enforcement, but as noted above, chickens eat vegetation of all kinds. However, Page 2 of 5 chickens given only a small patch of yard can quickly denude that area of vegetation, thus creating a blowing dust nuisance. Recycling Table Scraps: Chickens can efficiently convert most "wet" garbage, such as lawn clippings, and fruit and vegetable scraps, into manure. Recycling is an element of the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan "Odorless" Manure: Rabbit and chicken manure is not unscented. Accumulations of rabbit or chicken waste, like any animal waste, will create a nuisance for neighbors. But this is not unlike dog or cat manure control; owners are equally obligated to prevent pet waste buildup, regardless of the type of animal. However, unlike dog or cat manure, rabbit and chicken manure is generally safe for food crops. As well, chickens given adequate space to roam, and kept off of impermeable surfaces, will work the manure into the dirt with their scratching behaviors, thus fertilizing and improving soil quality. Pets: Both rabbits and chickens, like many animals can be treated as domesticated pets. All pets require a certain level of personal responsibility for their care. For rabbits and hens this includes feeding, watering, protecting from predators (skunks, raccoons, and neighborhood dogs), and for chickens, daily egg collection. Most rabbits and hens are docile, but like any other "pet" they (especially "broody" hens), can become unruly and would require special handling. The care of an unruly rabbit or chicken would not be more onerous than that required for a troublesome dog or cat, except that chickens have the added feature of limited flight capability (Roosters would not be allowed under this code amendment). Generally, rabbits and hens are fairly quiet, and can usually be favorably compared to a dog or cat in terms of noise output. Educational Value: The educational value of chickens may be seen as contributing to community self-reliance, as children can be instructed to some degree on animal husbandry, food production, and farm economics. Smaller Area: It may be true that chickens require a smaller area than a cat or dog of similar size. However such small confinement may defeat the "free- range" component of the "healthier chickens/better eggs" argument. Sustainability/Self-sufficiency: As noted above, chickens fed and housed in a certain way can contribute to sustainable agriculture/self sufficiency and perhaps produce healthier eggs. However chicken-raising at home as opposed to on a commercial ranch is not per se a guarantee of either. Possible Implementation Guidelines These code revisions would pertain only to residential zones (Rabbits and chickens are already allowed in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones, but only with a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet). The PMC could be revised to allow for up to three rabbits or three hens (no roosters) along with up to three cats or three dogs, or a combination not to exceed six total animals (see attached Draft Ordinance). Page 3 of 5 Because much of the demand for rabbits and laying hens occurs in the smaller-lot R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, the code should be adapted for these zones in such a way as to allow rabbits or hens only as long as yard space is sufficient for rabbits or hens, hutches/coops, and runs. A 5,000 square-foot minimum yard size is suggested (see attached Draft Ordinance). Finally, development standards should reflect rules for placement of rabbit hutches or chicken coops and runs to keep them away from neighboring yards and to preempt a possible nuisance (see attached Draft Ordinance). Findings of Fact 1. Rabbits and chickens are currently allowed only in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones in the City. 2. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) allows for the keeping of up to 20 rabbits and chickens in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones for personal use, provided there is a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet (PMC 25.12.040) and allows for the keeping of up to 40 rabbits and chickens in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones for personal use, provided there is a minimum lot size of 32,000 square feet (PMC 25.12.040). 3. Butchering of animals in residential districts is prohibited (PMC 9.60.030(13). 4. PMC Title 25 currently allows up to 3 dogs and three cats, not to exceed 6 animals total, in all residential zones. 5. Rabbit hutches and chicken houses in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones must be located at least ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership and twenty-five feet from a public roadway. 6. A request has been received to consider an amendment to the Pasco Municipal Code to allow the keeping of hens and rabbits in residential districts. 7. The Planning Commission has researched and considered the request and has recommended that such an amendment be approved with appropriate conditions. Recommendation MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the November 17, 2011 staff memo on Code Amendments for PMC Section 25. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Code Amendments modifying PMC Chapters 25.20, 25.22, 25.24, 25.26, 25.28, 25.30, 25.32, 25.34, 25.36, and 25.38 as indicated on the attached Ordinance to include provisions Page 4 of 5 for the keeping of rabbits and laying hens in residential ("R") zoning Districts. Page 5 of 5 August 2b, 2011 Dear Rick White. My name is Amelia Larson. I am writing to request that you legalize small numbers of liens (not roosters) in residential zones in Pasco, WA. In this letter, 1 will describe the benefits of chickens in the city. I will also provide examples of backyard chicken laws from other cities. Benefits: Hens provide a number of benefits to an urban family that other pets, such as dogs, cannot provide.These include: • Hens provide healthier eggs that supplement the diets of low income families. • Hens eat waste products like bugs,weeds,and kitchen scraps,changing trash into food. • Chicken droppings provide valuable,odorless fertilizer that is high in nitrogen,preventing the need for petroleum-based commercial fertilizer. • Chickens are fun,friendly pets with educational value for children about where food like eggs comes from. • Chickens are much more suited to a smaller area(such as a backyard)than a dog or a cat because they are smaller and don't have the need to run and roam such as dogs and cats. • They contribute to sustainability and self-sufficiency. Noise: A noise concern is a valid worry for noisier fowl like roosters,peafowl, or guineas. I Iens, however, are among the quietest of poultry species. They do cluck - for example, to brag about an egg they just laid- but if they are outdoors, they cannot be heard inside nearby buildings. Any noises a domestic bird might make are not as loud as a dog barking. Examples from other cities:A good example of a responsible chicken ownership law is found in Seattle, WA: SMC 23.42.052 Keeping of animals The keeping of small animals,farm animals,domestic fowl and bees is permitted outright in all zones as an accessory use to any principal use permitted outright or to a permitted conditional use,in each case subject to the standards of this Section 23.42.052. A.Small Animals.Up to three small animals may be kept accessory to each business establishment,other than an urban farm,or dwelling unit on a lot, except as follows: 1. In no case is more than one miniature potbelly pig allowed per business establishment or dwelling unit(see subsection 23.42.052.B). 2. In single-family zones, a.accessory dwelling units shall not be considered separate dwelling units for the purpose of this Section 23.42.052; b.up to four small animals are permitted on lots of at least 20,000 square feet;and c.one additional small animal is permitted for each 5,000 square feet of lot area in excess of 20,000 square feet.Accessory structures,including kennels,for four or more animals must be at least 10 feet from any other lot in a residential zone. B.Miniature Potbelly Pigs.That type of swine commonly known as the Vietnamese,Chinese,or Asian Potbelly Pig(Sus scrofa bittatus)may be kept as a small animal,provided that no swine that is greater than 22 inches in height at the shoulder or more than 150 pounds in weight may be kept in the city. C. Domestic Fowl. Up to eight domestic fowl may be kept on any lot in addition to the small animals permitted in subsection 23.42.052.A. 1. On lots greater than 10,000 square feet that include either a community garden or an urban farm,one additional fowl is permitted for every 1,000 square feet of lot area over 10,000 square feet in community garden or urban farm use. 2.Roosters are not permitted. 3.Structures housing domestic fowl must be located at least 10 feet away from any structure that includes a dwelling unit on an adjacent lot. D.Farm Animals.Cows,horses,sheep and other similar farm animals are permitted only on lots of at least 20,000 square feet The keeping of swine is prohibited,except for miniature potbelly pigs allowed under subsection 23.42.052.B. 1.One farm animal for every 10,000 square feet of lot area is permitted. 2.Farm animals and structures housing them must be kept at least 50 feet from any other lot in a residential zone. E. Beekeeping. Beekeeping is pennitted outright as an accessory use,when registered with the State Department of Agriculture,provided that: 1.No more than four hives,each with only one swarm,are allowed on lots of less than 10,000 square feet. 2. Hives shall not be located within 25 feet of any lot line except when situated 8 feet or more above the grade immediately adjacent to the grade of the lot on which the hives are located or when situated less than 8 feet above the adjacent existing lot grade and behind a solid fence or hedge six (6)feet high parallel to any lot line within 25 feet of a hive and extending at least 20 feet beyond the hive in both directions. F.Miniature Goats.The types of goats commonly known as Pygmy,Dwarf and Miniature Goats may be kept as small animals,provided that male miniature goats are neutered and all miniature goats are dehorned.Nursing offspring of miniature goats licensed according to the provisions of this Code may be kept until weaned,no longer than 12 weeks from birth,without violating the limitations of subsection 23.42.052.A. Here: are examples from other major cities: Mesa.AZ: 5 hens can be kept on any lot as long as the coop is 45 feet away from the neighbor's house. Phoenix,AZ: Similar to Mesa. Law also requires coop be cleaned once every week. Chicago, II.: An unlimited number of chickens may be kept for pets or eggs. Slaughter is not permitted and the chickens must be penned. San Francisco, CA: You may keep any combination of 4 small animals on your lot without permission. Thank you for taking this issue into consideration. As a citizen working toward sustainability and the overall welfare of the earth 1 thank you for working with me toward my goal. When chickens are allowed in Pasco city I would fully expect the same type of restrictions that are in place for dogs and cats. I would also follow them exactly because I know the effects of lackadaisical pet ownership. Please inform me of how I may move forward in order to change this law for the good of all of Masco's citizens trying to raise their own food in light of economic hardship. I feel this is a step toward a better community in general when citizens know how to take care of themselves and others by using the natural resources around them and the earth beneath them. Chickens seem a natural Part of this for us and our children. We will throw away less (benefit to the city), provide more food for ourselves (eggs and garden produce helped by chicken manure which is essentially a benefit to the world). We'll be waiting for your response. In Summary: • Hens offer a number of benefits to urban families. • Perceived concerns (such as noise and odor) apply more to dogs than hens. • Many other cities have reasonable regulations permitting limited domestic hens. Chickens have existed in cities since the dawn of time, and they still exist all over the world. Benefits to raising hens in Pasco.As a citizen of Pasco, WA, I urge City Council to amend the code forbidding hens in residential areas in order to pen-nit the responsible raising of small numbers of backyard poultry. Thank you, Name:* Kristin Peterson Email:* monkeyfamily44@msn.com Subject:* chickens or rabbits in Pasco! Comment:* I am supporting Amelia Larson's request for legalizing hens and rabbits in residential zones in Pasco. Our family would love to have rabbits at our home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kristin Peterson To Whom it may concern, I am writing to request that you legalize small numbers of hens (not roosters) and rabbits in residential zones in Pasco, WA. In this letter, I will describe the benefits of chickens in the city. I will also provide examples of backyard chicken laws from other cities. Benefits: Hens provide a number of benefits to an urban family that other pets, such as dogs, cannot provide. These include: -Hens provide healthier eggs that supplement the diets of low income families. *Hens eat waste products like bugs, weeds, and kitchen scraps, changing trash into food. -Chicken droppings provide valuable, odorless fertilizer that is high in nitrogen, preventing the need for petroleum-based commercial fertilizer. -Chickens are fun, friendly pets with educational value for children about where food like eggs comes from. -Chickens are much more suited to a smaller area (such as a backyard) than a dog or a cat because they are smaller and don't have the need to run and roam such as dogs and cats. -They contribute to sustainability and self-sufficiency. Noise: A noise concern is a valid worry for noisier fowl like roosters, peafowl, or guineas. Hens, however, are among the quietest of poultry species. They do cluck - for example, to brag about an egg they just laid - but if they are outdoors, they cannot be heard inside nearby buildings. Any noises a domestic bird might make are not as loud as a dog barking. Examples from other cities: A good example of a responsible chicken ownership law is found in Seattle, WA: SMC 23.42.052 Keeping of animals The keeping of small animals, farm animals, domestic fowl and bees is permitted outright in all zones as an accessory use to any principal use permitted outright or to a permitted conditional use, in each case subject to the standards of this Section 23.42.052. A. Small Animals. Up to three small animals may be kept accessory to each business establishment, other than an urban farm, or dwelling unit on a lot, except as follows: 1. In no case is more than one miniature potbelly pig allowed per business establishment or dwelling unit (see subsection 23.42.052.13). 2. In single-family zones, a. accessory dwelling units shall not be considered separate dwelling units for the purpose of this Section 23.42.052; b. up to four small animals are permitted on lots of at least 20,000 square feet; and c. one additional small animal is permitted for each 5,000 square feet of lot area in excess of 20,000 square feet. Accessory structures, including kennels, for four or more animals must be at least 10 feet from any other lot in a residential zone. B. Miniature Potbelly Pigs. That type of swine commonly known as the Vietnamese, Chinese, or Asian Potbelly Pig (Sus scrofa bittatus) may be kept as a small animal, provided that no swine that is greater than 22 inches in height at the shoulder or more than 150 pounds in weight may be kept in the city. C. Domestic Fowl. Up to eight domestic fowl may be kept on any lot in addition to the small animals permitted in subsection 23.42.052.A. 1. On lots greater than 10,000 square feet that include either a community garden or an urban farm, one additional fowl is permitted for every 1,000 square feet of lot area over 10,000 square feet in community garden or urban farm use. 2. Roosters are not permitted. 3. Structures housing domestic fowl must be located at least 10 feet away from any structure that includes a dwelling unit on an adjacent lot. D. Farm Animals. Cows, horses, sheep and other similar farm animals are permitted only on lots of at least 20,000 square feet. The keeping of swine is prohibited, except for miniature potbelly pigs allowed under subsection 23.42.052.B. 1. One farm animal for every 10,000 square feet of lot area is permitted. 2. Farm animals and structures housing them must be kept at least 50 feet from any other lot in a residential zone. E. Beekeeping. Beekeeping is permitted outright as an accessory use, when registered with the State Department of Agriculture, provided that: 1. No more than four hives, each with only one swarm, are allowed on lots of less than 10,000 square feet. 2. Hives shall not be located within 25 feet of any lot line except when situated 8 feet or more above the grade immediately adjacent to the grade of the lot on which the hives are located or when situated less than 8 feet above the adjacent existing lot grade and behind a solid fence or hedge six (6) feet high parallel to any lot line within 25 feet of a hive and extending at least 20 feet beyond the hive in both directions. F. Miniature Goats. The types of goats commonly known as Pygmy, Dwarf and Miniature Goats may be kept as small animals, provided that male miniature goats are neutered and all miniature goats are dehorned. Nursing offspring of miniature goats licensed according to the provisions of this Code may be kept until weaned, no longer than 12 weeks from birth, without violating the limitations of subsection 23.42.052.A. Here are examples from other major cities: Mesa, AZ: 5 hens can be kept on any lot as long as the coop is 45 feet away from the neighbor's house. Phoenix, AZ: Similar to Mesa. Law also requires coop be cleaned once every week. Chicago, IL: An unlimited number of chickens may be kept for pets or eggs. Slaughter is not permitted and the chickens must be penned. San Francisco, CA: You may keep any combination of 4 small animals on your lot without permission. Thank you for taking this issue into consideration. As a citizen working toward sustainability and,the overall welfare of the earth I thank you for working with me toward my goal. When chickens are allowed in Pasco city I would fully expect the same type of restrictions that are in place for dogs and cats. I would also follow them exactly because I know the effects of lackadaisical pet ownership. Please inform me of how I may move forward in order to change this law for the good of all of Pasco's citizens trying to raise their own food in light of economic hardship. I feel this is a step toward a better community in general when citizens know how to take care of themselves and others by using the natural resources around them and the earth beneath them. Chickens seem a natural part of this for us and our children. We will throw away less (benefit to the city), provide more food for ourselves (eggs and garden produce helped by chicken manure which is essentially a benefit to the world). We'll be waiting for your response. In Summary: -Hens offer a number of benefits to urban families. -Perceived concerns (such as noise and odor) apply more to dogs than hens. -Many other cities have reasonable regulations permitting limited domestic hens. Chickens have existed in cities since the dawn of time, and they still exist all over the world. Benefits to raising hens in Pasco. As a citizen of Pasco, WA, I urge City Council to amend the code forbidding hens in residential areas in order to permit the responsible raising of small numbers of backyard poultry. Thank you, Mrs. Amelia Larson ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH LAYING HENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and ensure that the 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 City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations, and has determined that to further the purpose of the comprehensive planning and to maintain and protect the welfare of the 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 25.20.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.20.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory in the R-T district: (1) Accessory dwellings; (2) Home occupations (see definition in Section 25.12.220); (3) Ranch and farm buildings appurtenant to an agricultural use and agricultural uses (limited), as defined in Section 25.12.040, except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; and (4) Uses incidental and customary to a permitted use. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.); (5) The keeping_of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (6) For lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet but less than 22,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit the keeping ff dogs cats rabbits and hens, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats and/or three rabbits and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed. Page 1 of 11 Section 2. That Section 25.22.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.22.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-S-20 suburban district: (1) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed the height of 18 feet and are no larger than 1,200 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined in Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding 480 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted. For each additional 20,000 square feet of lot area, the gross floor area of storage sheds can be increased by 400 square feet; (4) Agricultural uses (limited), as defined in Section 25.12.040, except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10,000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; (5) One animal unit (as defined in Section 25.12.065) shall be allowed for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel; provided that all barns, barnyards, chicken houses, or corrals shall be located not less than twenty-five feet from a public roadway and not less than ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership; and provided said number of chickens, fowl or rabbits does not exceed 2 animal units; (6) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (7) For lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet but less than 22,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit, the keeping of dogs cats rabbits and hens, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs, and/or three cats and/or three rabbits and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed. Section 3. That Section 25.22.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.22.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provide in 25.22.030 (8); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty(40) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks; (a) Front: Twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Side: Ten (10) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Twenty-five (25) feet. Page 2 of 11 Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any propert y line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 4. That Section 25.24.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.24.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-S-12 suburban district: (1) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed 18 feet in height and 1,200 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined in Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding 260 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted. For each additional 12,000 square feet of lot area the gross floor area of storage sheds can be increased by 260 square feet; (4) Agricultural uses (limited), as defined in Section 25.12.040, except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10,000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; (5) One animal unit (as defined in Section 25.12.065) shall be allowed for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel; provided that all barns, barnyards, chicken houses, or corrals shall be located not less than twenty-five feet from a public roadway and not less than ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership; and provided said number of chickens, fowl or rabbits does not exceed 2 animal units; (6) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (7) For lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet but less than 22,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit the keeping of dogs cats rabbits and hens, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats and/or three rabbits and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six, all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties, are not allowed. Section 5. That Section 25.24.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.24.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Twelve thousand (12,000) square feet; Page 3 of 11 (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provide in 25.24.030 (8); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a)Front: Twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Side: Ten (10) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Twenty-five (25) feet. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 6. That Section 25.26.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.26.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-S-1 suburban district: (1) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed 15 feet in height and 1,000 square feet in area; except on lots that are 12,000 square feet or more the height may be increased by 3 feet and the area may increase by 200 square feet; (2) Home occupations as defined in Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding 200 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, will be permitted; (4) Agricultural uses (limited), as defined in Section 25.12.040, except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10,000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; (5) One animal unit (as defined in Section 25.12.065) shall be allowed for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel, provided that all barns, barnyards, chicken houses, or corrals shall be located not less than twenty-five feet from a public roadway and not less than ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership, and provided said number of chickens, fowl or rabbits does not exceed 2 animal units; (6) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (7) For lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet but less than 22,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwellinP unit the keeping of dogs cats rabbits and hens, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats Page 4 of 11 and/or three rabbits and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties, are not allowed. Section 7. That Section 25.26.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.26.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provided in 25.26.030 (8); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty(40) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty(20) feet. (b) Side: Principal building: Ten (10) feet. Accessory structures: Five feet, provided the accessory structure is located behind the rear building line. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any propert y line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 8. That Section 25.28.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.28.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1 low density residential district: (1) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed 15 feet in height and 1,000 square feet in area; except on lots that are 12,000 square feet or more the height may be increased by 3 feet and the area may increase by 200 square feet; (2) Home occupations, as defined by Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted; (4) The renting of rooms for lodging purposes only; provided, however, such accommodations shall not exceed two persons in a single-family dwelling. One off-street parking space, per roomer, must be provided in addition to the requirement set forth under Section 25.78.170(5); Page 5 of 11 (5) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (6) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit, the kegping of dogs, cats, rabbits and hens provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs, and/or three cats and/or three rabbits and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed. Section 9. That Section 25.28.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.28.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provide in 25.28.030 (7); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty(20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 10. That Section 25.30.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.30.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1-A District; (l) Detached residential garages, as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1,000 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations, as defined in Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as define in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted; (4) The renting of rooms for lodging purposes only; provided, however, such accommodations shall not exceed two persons in a single-family dwelling. One off-street parking space, per roomer, must be provided in addition to the requirement set forth under Section 25.78.170(5); Page 6 of 11 (5) The keeping of dogs and cats, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (6) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit, the keeping of dogs cats rabbits and chickens for personal use provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats and/or three rabbits and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties, are not allowed; Section 11. That Section 25.30.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.30.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provided in 25.30.030 (7); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty(40) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five(5) feet (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling,but not less than ten (10) feet. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any propert y line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 12. That Section 25.32.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.32.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-IA2 District; (1) Detached residential garages, as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1,000 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations, as defined in Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height, provided no container storage, as define in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted; (4) The renting of rooms for lodging purposes only, provided, however, such accommodations shall not exceed two persons in a single-family dwelling. One off-street parking space, per roomer, must be provided in addition to the requirement set forth under Section 25.78.170(5); Page 7 of 11 (5) The keeping of dogs and cats, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (6) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit the keeping of dogs and cats rabbits and chickens for personal use provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats and/or three rabbits, and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six-, in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 13. That Section 25.32.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.32.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provided in 25.32.030 (7); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty(40) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling, but not less than ten(10) feet. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any_propert y line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 14. That Section 25.34.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.34.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-2 district: (1) Detached single family residential garages, as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1,000 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined by Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted; (4) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; Page 8of11 (5) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit, the keeping of up to three rabbits or three hens for personal use provided the total number of animals (including dogs cats rabbits and hens) does not exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 15. That Section 25.34.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.34.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1)Minimum lot area: Five thousand (5,000) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling per 5,000 square feet of lot area except as provided in 25.34.030 (7); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty(40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five(5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 16. That Section 25.36.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.36.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted used in the R-3 district: (1) Detached single family residential garages, as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1,000 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined by Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted; (4) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (5) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit, the keeping of W to three rabbits or three hens for personal use provided the total number of animals (including dogs cats rabbits and hens) does not exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Page 9 of 11 Section 17. That Section 25.36.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.36.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five thousand (5,000) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet of lot area for single family dwellings and 3,000 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings; (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Sixty(60)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any propert y line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 18. That Section 25.38.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.38.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-4 district: (1) Detached single family residential garages, as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1,000 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined by Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted; (4) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (5) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwelling unit the keeping of up to three rabbits or three hens for personal use provided the total number of animals (including dogs, cats, rabbits and hens) does not exceed six- in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 19. That Section 25.38.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.38.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five thousand (5,000) square feet; Page 10 of 11 (2) Density: One dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet of lot area for single family dwellings and 1,500 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings; (3) Lot Coverage: Sixty(60) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty(20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops must be at least ten (10) feet from any_propert y line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 20. 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 , 2011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney Page 11 of 11 REGULAR MEETING October 20, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A. Workshop Hens in Residential "R" Zones Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director explained the City received a written request for a code amendment to allow the keeping of hens in residential zones subject to certain conditions. The suburban zones (RS-20, RS-12, and RS-1) in Pasco allow the keeping of hens. There is a size limitation on the lots. None of the other residential zones allow the keeping of hens or rabbits. Mr. White reviewed details of the proposed code amendment, such as, quantity of hens, lot sizes, and housing of the hens. The code amendment would only allow the keeping of three hens on single family lots that do not now qualify for the keeping of hens. If personal responsibility is exercised, staff doesn't see a large difference between keeping cats, dogs, or other small animals provided conditions were met. Commissioner Lukins asked what the other cities in the area (Kennewick and Richland) were doing in regards to the codes on keeping of hens. Mr. White answered that they are doing the same thing. Amelia Larson, 8615 Studebaker Drive, stated Mr. White's report was accurate. As for the noise issue, hens are not louder than any other pet, and keeping them away from fences is important, as well as being a responsible owner. Hens take up less space than dogs or many other animals. Chairman Cruz asked about the proposed number of hens to be allowed. Ms. Larson said three would be about right, perhaps five but that could be pushing it. Chris Baugh, 5812 Curlew Lane, spoke in support of the proposal of the code amendment. He personally has 12 hens (Mr. Baugh lives in a County R-S-20 Zone) and it has taught his children a lot and has provided their family with food. Mr. White explained the proposed code amendment item would be brought back for a formal hearing and a staff report. -1- Planning Commission Minutes 11/17/2011 PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Code Amendment Rabbits and Hens in Residential "R" Zones (MF# CA 2011-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that the Commission discussed this item at the October 20, 2011 workshop. The issue concerns a recent interest among the community in establishing for personal use, the keeping of a small number of hens or rabbits in residential zones with appropriate safeguards. Staff did thorough research of the issue to come up with a proposed code amendment that would affect the largest of the residential zones all the way down to the medium density zones (RS-20 to R-4 Zoning Districts) with some qualifying conditions. The ability to have no more than six small animals, which can include hens and/or rabbits, would be based on the proposed code amendment provisions explained in the November 17, 2011 packet. Staff research concluded that the appropriate personal responsibility for the keeping of hens and rabbits isn't any different than the keeping of dogs and cats. Mr. White corrected a comment made at the October 20, 2011 workshop about the City of Kennewick's code. At that meeting it was explained that Kennewick adopted a code similar to the one being proposed. However Kennewick changed its code three years ago, prohibiting hens in all districts except for their equivalent of the City of Pasco's RS zoning districts. The City of Richland allows up to six hens and doesn't limit the keeping of small animals to three of one kind; a person can keep up to six at one time (i.e. hens, cats, dogs). Mr. White explained that the wording in the ordinance is the same for all of the zoning districts, with a slight change in wording for the RS Districts because they already allow the keeping of up to 40 hens, depending on lot size. Chairman Cruz asked of clarification between the proposed code and the Kennewick code relating to lot size. Mr. White stated Kennewick used to allow up to three hens in any zoning district. Now hens are only permitted in Suburban Zones on lots .5 acres or larger. Gabriel Larson, 8615 Studebaker Drive, supported the code amendment because people could learn the responsibility of taking care of an animal. He said that hens are not any louder than a dog or a cat. Amelia Larson, 8615 Studebaker Drive, explained the reasons why keeping hens in residential zones was beneficial. She stated hens and rabbits were ideal for small spaces; they are quiet, good with general waste, promote sustainability, and good for educational purposes. Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Larson if she was an advocate for hens on smaller lot sizes even though the City of Kennewick did away with the keeping of hens on smaller lots. Ms. Larson answered that she is curious as to why Kennewick did away with hens on the smaller lots sizes because in her research, it was possible to have hens on a small lot with a small number of hens. If done properly, she did not see a problem with hens on a small lot. Mr. White stated the prohibition of hens in Kennewick had nothing to do with hens but everything to do with roosters and since there was a rooster problem, the City of Kennewick prohibited all chickens. Chairman Cruz closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Hay explained that he has had to live next to someone who kept a rooster and the noise was problematic. To keep away the problem of roosters, Mr. Hay proposed no hens either. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of Fact, as contained in the November 17, 2011 staff report on code amendments for PMC Section 25. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Hay. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf that the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed code amendment modifying PMC Section 25 to approve keeping of hens and rabbits in residential zones, with conditions as contained in the November 17, 2011 staff report. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Hay. Staff explained that this will go to City Council Workshop November 28, 2011 and then most likely to the first City Council Meeting December 5, 2011. rH :5; ti 0 N _q \ Lf) t-i N � O U- C:) Q1 C y A l J L O i N O i O > N 9 O O Lr) 0 O O 4—) W-4 L B6➢ N O O q Q c N z z O o E a r, E O ° Ln g r�9 O " o N O v r' * dF Q Q vii CC z 00 a � ® O i fu _ cm A -0 QJ O_ O C37 N O O V) a p C� O N O 4J v °g _® Q A N a_ a-1 �� ° p N N ® t� N N Q! aJ > 4-1 � # L # 0 u, 0 0 0 N Q U AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council November 21, 2011 FROM: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/28/11 Regular Mtg.: 12/5/11 SUBJECT: Federal Legislative Consulting Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Agreement IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/28: Discussion 12/5: MOTION: I move to approve the agreement with Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs for federal legislative consultant services and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $60,000 annually IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The city has contracted with the consulting firm of Gordon Thomas Honeywell (GTH) for legislative assistance at the state level for several years. In early 2009, the city entered into a separate agreement with the Washington DC division of GTH to provide for legislative consulting services specifically geared to federal funding for the Lewis Street Overpass Project. B) The agreement with the Washington DC office will expire on 12/31/11 and a new agreement is needed to sustain the consulting effort on the city's behalf in Washington DC. V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed agreement is identical to the prior agreements, except for the dates. The scope of work, as identified in the attachment to the agreement, still focuses on funding for construction of the Lewis Street Overpass project but also includes pursuit of EDA funds for the Heritage Industrial Center rail project. B) The expense of the contract remains at $5,000 monthly ($60,000 annually). The assistance of the consultant was beneficial in 2009 through Representative Hastings' effort to obtain a $750,000 allocation for the project in the 2010 federal budget. It is also critical to work with other legislative offices to assure the best opportunity to have Pasco's projects included in new federal funding bills expected sometime within the next 18 months. C) In view of the substantial financial benefit for this particular project, staff recommends the agreement continue for another year. CONSULTING AGREEMENT GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & CITY OF PASCO This Agreement is entered into by and between City of Pasco and any other party hereto, as is identified in the consultant's signature block below (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), upon the following terms and conditions: A. Scope of Work. Consultant will advise and assist the City of Pasco in accordance with Consultant's Scope of Work, described in Attachment "A" hereto and incorporated herein, and Consultant will do and produce such other things as are set forth in the Scope of Work (the "Services"). Consultant's Services will be in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, rules, orders, licenses and permits, now or hereinafter in effect, and Consultant shall furnish such documents as may be required to effect or evidence such compliance. B. Compensation; Expenses. The City of Pasco will pay Consultant for satisfactorily rendered Services in accordance with the specific terms set forth in Attachment "A." C. Invoices; Payment. Consultant will furnish the City of Pasco invoices at regular intervals, as set forth in Attachment "A." D. Term. Consultant shall promptly begin the Services hereunder on the date set forth in Attachment "A" and shall terminate same on the date set forth in Attachment "A." The City or Consultant may terminate Consultant services for convenience at any time prior to the termination date set forth in Attachment "A," provided that the terminating party provides 30-days written notice to the other party. E. Ownership of Work Product. The product of all work performed under this agreement, including reports, and other related materials shall be the property of the City of Pasco or its nominees, and the City of Pasco or its nominees shall have the sole right to use, sell, license, publish or otherwise disseminate or transfer rights in such work product. G. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to make Consultant an employee of the City of Pasco, or to empower Consultant to bind or obligate the City of Pasco in any way. Consultant is solely responsible for paying all of Consultant's own tax obligations, as well as those due for any employee/subcontractor permitted to work for Consultant hereunder. H. Release of Claims; Indemnity. Consultant hereby releases, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Pasco from and against all claims, liabilities, damages and costs arising directly or indirectly out of, or related to, Consultant's fault, negligence, strict liability or produce liability of Consultant, and/or that of any permitted employee or subcontract or Consultant, pertaining to the Services hereunder. 1. Assignment. Consultant's rights and obligations hereunder shall not be assigned or transferred without the City of Pasco's prior written consent; subject thereto, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' heirs and successors. J. Governing Law; Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, U.S.A. (excluding conflict of laws provisions). If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be legally invalid or unenforceable by a court with lawful jurisdiction hereover (excluding arbitrators), such term or provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any remaining terms or provisions of this Agreement, and the court shall, so far as possible, construe the invalid portion to implement the original intent thereof. K. Arbitration. Any dispute between the parties related to or arising out of the subject matter of this Agreement shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in Washington State. L. Entire Agreement; Etc. This Agreement, and its incorporated attachments hereto, state the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersede any prior agreements or understandings pertaining thereto. Any modification to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties. Any provision hereof which may be reasonably deemed to survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall so survive, and remain in continuing effect. No delay or failure in exercising any right hereunder shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right granted hereunder or at law by either party. CONSULTANT: CITY OF PASCO Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Sign: Sign: Print: Tim Schellberg Print: Gary Crutchfield Title: President Title: City Manager Date: Date: Consulting Agreement for Federal Grants re: Lewis Street Overpass Gordon Thomas Honeywell & City of Pasco Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT "A" TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & CITY OF PASCO A. Scope of Work: Consultant shall provide the City of Pasco with the following federal governmental affair services: • Identify and track all federal grants and initiatives that are available to the City of Pasco that impact funding for the Lewis Street Overpass. • Lobby the Washington State Congressional delegation and others as necessary to pursue federal grants and initiatives, including various infrastructure packages and the anticipated highway reauthorization bill: 1) for a road and/or bridge project related to the Lewis Street Overpass; 2) Department of Commerce funding for the Heritage Industrial Center Rail Extension. • Indentify, track and lobby for federal grants and initiatives that benefit the City of Pasco. • Work as a liaison between the City of Pasco and federal officials, Members of Congress, congressional staff and Administration representatives to impact issues and projects important to the City. • Organize meetings for City of Pasco officials, local community leaders and business leaders to support the congressional transportation request. • Provide the City of Pasco with periodic reports and updates on effort, status and progress. B. Compensation/Expenses: The City of Pasco shall pay Consultant a monthly fee of$5,000 for the services listed above. Consultant shall only bill communication expenses. The expenses shall not exceed $2,500 for the term of the contract. C. Invoices/Payments: (a) Consultant shall furnish the City of Pasco with invoices for services performed on a monthly basis, and (b) the City of Pasco shall pay each of Consultant's invoices within thirty (30) days after the City's receipt and verification of invoice. D. Term of Agreement: Consultant's services shall commence on January 1, 2012 and shall terminate on December 31, 2012. Consulting Agreement for Federal Grants re: Lewis Street Overpass Gordon Thomas Honeywell & City of Pasco Page 3 of 3