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