Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-16-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. April 16, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 19, 2009 and March 26, 2009 IV. OLD BUSINESS: V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a Salvation Army Corps Community Center (church and related services) in a C-3 Zone (Salvation Army) (1900 Block of W Lewis Street )(MF #SP 09-003) B. Rezone R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Chad Bagley) (921 24th Ave.) (MF# Z 09-002) C. CDBG American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 CDBG Formula Allocation (City wide) (MF # CDBG 09- 002 VI. WORKSHOP: VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: SPECIAL MEETING March 26, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Todd Samuel. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Todd Samuel, Chairman No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 David Little No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Ray Rose No. 7 Tony Schouviller No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Vacant APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No declarations were made. Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there were objections to any commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections from the audience. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Samuel explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: -1- A. Special Permit Remand Hearing on Location of an Asphalt Batch Plant (CPM Development Corporation) (11919 Harris Road) (MF# SP06-010) Chairman Samuel stated this report and testimony occurred at the March 19, 2009 regular Planning Commission Hearing. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2009 and therefore no new evidence or testimony would be considered this evening. The City Attorney and staff are available to answer questions on procedure or issues raised in the staff report and during the public hearing. Chairman Samuel questioned the Planning Commission if they had any questions for the City Attorney on the procedure or process for deliberations. There was no response. Chairman Samuel questioned the Planning Commission if they had any questions for City staff on the staff report dated March 19, 2009 or any issues that were presented during the testimony. Commissioner Little questioned how the sum of $250,000 regarding traffic type issues was determined. Mr. White stated that figure was calculated at the time the FEIS was completed in 2006. It was based on a traffic study performed by CPM and that represents their portion of the needed improvements in that intersection that could be expected to occur if the application is approved. Commissioner Little further questioned that was a done over two years ago and would that consist of stoplights, additional lanes, street maintenance causing additional fees. Mr. White stated it would not, however there are extenuating circumstances that need to be explained. In the two years that have passed since the study was performed, the City will actually now install those signalized improvements to that intersection using funds other than funds contributed by CPM. CPM will contribute a like amount towards the reconfiguration of the intersection rather than the signalization of the intersection. Commissioner Little questioned if that money was required to be paid up front, or as necessary or immediately. Mr. White stated no it would be a condition that will be implemented at the appropriate time. It can be either money or a combination of money and like contributions. The proposed mitigation states following all plant permitting and at such time the City and/or private parties determine to construct the west portion of the intersection of realigned Harris Road at Road 100/Sandifur Parkway pay or contribute $250,000 for the cost of and improvements to the Harris Road realignment and intersection improvements. -2- Commissioner Little further questioned "like kind" projects of significant value and would their competitors be eligible to bid on those projects. Mr. White stated yes, it would be an ordinary road project. At the time the road project is undertaken CPM would comply with mitigation condition #12 either by contributing money towards that project or a contribution of labor and materials for this project or some other item related to the project itself, or both. Commissioner Anderson stated he has a concern if recommending approval for this special permit that ten years down the road there could be a significant improvement in technology that controls odor and noise on the plant. Would CPM be required to maintain the plant with the best available technology to suppress the odor and noise? He understands comparing the Richland plant to the proposed plant is light years ahead and his concern is that technology should be improved and included in the conditions. Mr. Kerr stated no. We are not the only regulating agency; the Dept. of Ecology is also a regulating agency. There is nothing to say as those changes in regulations take effect that they may impose those on CPM. We can impose the laws and regulations that are in effect now and since we cannot determine what may happen in the future we are limited on imposing future regulations and restrictions. Commissioner Anderson questioned if the City is giving up any regulatory control over the operation of the plant and will it be regulated by the EPA as far as the odor mitigation and noise. Mr. White stated no. The Dept. of Ecology monitors air quality and what is proposed in Exhibit #27 is a continuous odor response program. That has a significant City role involved in it. Commissioner Anderson understands that, his concern is that in five to ten years down the road or however long the permit exists for the gravel pit, he wants the best available on that plant. The City can say if someone wants to develop property in that area, here is a state-of-the-art plant that maintains the technology today that eliminates the odors and assures this is the best in this situation. He further mentioned that at the public hearing on March 19, 2009 stated the Dept. of Ecology would make them update the plant and his concern is he does not want the proposed plant to end up like the Richland plant. Commissioner Rose stated he does not see how we could predict events that might happen. We need to deal with the present situation and hold them to standards. Commissioner Anderson stated we still need to protect the residents. -3- Commissioner Rose agreed yes that is why we are here. He questioned Commissioner Anderson if he was implying that we would require CPM to get new equipment. Commissioner Anderson stated he is not saying that they would not need to replace the whole plant, rather set conditions that they maintain the best available technology for odor suppression and noise suppression on that plant and if they need to retrofit it, then they retrofit it. Chairman Samuel questioned Commissioner Anderson if they add a timeline for permit approval in five years to reevaluate the special permit would that be sufficient. Commissioner Anderson stated yes he would be in favor of such. Mr. Kerr stated they can put a reasonable time for review and expiration of the permit. The difficulty is with a project of this size, it has to likewise amortize out and make sense for the applicant. We cannot put restrictions that are unreasonable and which could literally put them out of business or make the business unprofitable or unaffordable. You can identify a reasonable length of time for the expiration or reconsideration. This is a unique situation due to the fact there a couple of other permits that are outstanding which gives them use of the premise until 2025. There will not be many opportunities to review the permit as suggested, but if they do propose a certain limitation, it has to be reasonable and based on evidence heard at the hearing. Commissioner Cruz questioned based on the CORP, are we allowed to charge a fee to cover the cost of additional monitoring that the City may elect to do. Mr. White stated there is a provision that allows for such where the City would be reimbursed for testing and monitoring as a result of a pattern of complaints. Commissioner Cruz questioned what type of restrictions we can place on operating hours. The noise study states noise confined within the facility not necessarily noise generated by additional truck traffic. Are we allowed to restrict certain hours for truck travel from 7 am - 6 pm for example. Mr. White stated he was not sure if we would be able to restrict operating hours based on the asphalt plant application because it would not cause a violation of noise standards. The truck travel question would be closely based on the existing permit which does not include hours of operation. Commissioner Cruz further stated the net increase in traffic was not discussed regarding mitigation of the additional traffic other than the flow of traffic stand point vs. a noise stand point. He referenced trucks backing up with alarms as early as 5 am is not pleasant. Mr. White stated Mr. McDonald mentioned there is evidence in the record that indicates the location of those trucks entering the plant will be different than the -4- current entrance which is further to the east and not directly in front of Rivershore Estates. Chairman Samuel stated there are several cities that have restrictions on hours of operation for asphalt plants and the hours trucks can travel to and from the plant and is in favor of adding such an item to the criteria. Commissioner Little questioned if it would be permissible to add a restriction which would allow for filling of the tanks during certain hours. Commissioner Anderson mentioned the effect of an inversion on the residents and would like to add a restriction to prevent filling of the tanks during an inversion. Mr. White stated he was not aware of how a condition like that could be monitored or implemented. Mr. Hood described a fiberglass type of filter among other additions that would remove the odor from the tank filling operation. Chairman Samuel mentioned to Commissioner Anderson it would be possible to add that as a special condition. Commissioner Anderson complemented CPM on their presentation and providing the information. He is opposed at this time due to the fact of expanding their operation in that area and is not needed. He is skeptical due to his experience driving through Richland and noticing the odor issues. He does not want to expose the residents in the area to that. They purchased their property with the understanding they were next to a concrete plant. They did not purchase their property with the idea of a hot mix asphalt plant built on that site. Commissioner Cruz also complemented CPM on the quality of the material and their presentations. The difficulty on this is the assertion that CPM is a good neighbor where as there early actions do not indicate that. The decision to migrate the Richland plant to Pasco causes a nuisance. Where CPM could have prevented the nuisance by making improvements to the Richland plant and would've mitigated a lot of energy on this topic. He further stated we have to accept what Judge Swisher ordered even though some of it is difficult. Looking at the basis for the decision and based on the information presented there are only a few areas where they have any latitude to do anything about it. The noise information is reasonable, background industrial hygiene is reasonable and all of the items presented are credible. After reading through the information for hours, he did not find any holes or flaws in their information. Discussions need to be focused on the responsibility and ability to influence and control the time of the permit rather than extending the entire time. After four or five years of successful operation and things change we lighten up on it and if the existing technology is good enough, then we don't require it. Granting ten years creates the situation like the Richland plant. He further states this does not stop with -5- the City; it goes to the Dept. of Ecology, OSHA requirement, etc. The majority of the concerns will be addressed through those agencies and their processes. Commissioner Rose agreed with Commissioner Cruz and does feel like the mitigation recommendations are quite generous. He has driven out there many times and has a feel for the area. He is in favor of proposing a time limit on the permit. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. White regarding the status of the continuous odor response program draft prepared by the City and the draft prepared by CPM. Mr. White stated the continuous odor response program submitted by the City (Exhibit #27) and the continuous odor response program submitted by CPM (Exhibit #28) which was withdrawn during the public hearing by CPM. There also was a form of continuous odor response program submitted by Ms. Hodgson (Exhibit #31). It was indicated in the staff report that would be a subject of refinement during this process and it still is. Staff and CPM are working towards producing the appropriate language to use for the continuous odor response program but incorporates the Dept. of Ecology notice of construction that incorporated dust control and complaint resolution. It is not finished at this time and will be produced for the Planning Commission when they formally consider what the recommendations will be. Chairman Samuel questioned Exhibit #27 which appears to be identical word for word after a program in Spokane, what else would need to be done and what type of changes would he expect to see between the draft and the final. Mr. White stated there is a concern that staff does not have the resources to identify some of the items for measurement that are contained in the continuous odor response program (Exhibit #27). There is also a concern, if something wound that tight in terms of what is going to be measured and how it is going to be measured and the thresholds for measuring are incorporated into the permit similar to what Commissioner Anderson spoke of may in fact occur. If something better comes along, it is better to base the permit on the Dept. of Ecology permit rather than on a land use permit that is fixed in time. If the Dept. of Ecology has enhanced standards over the lifetime of the permit, we do not want to lock them into a lesser standard with the land use permit. Exhibit #31 in essence eliminated the standards and said it will be a product of the Dept. of Ecology permit. Chairman Samuel stated in looking at Exhibit #27 and Exhibit #31 he prefers the City's proposal which went into much of the necessary detail and being patterned after a successful program in Spokane and communicates strongly that we have a lot of energy about this issue in regard to notification, how much time needs to go by when the City would be notified, and feels this has the teeth in it that the City and residents would expect if the City authorizes an asphalt plant to be operated. -6- Commissioner Cruz sided with CPM on this issue and a lot of the technical forms of testing things, the City would have to hire a consultant. He does like the idea of giving the City some transparency in teeth as complemented by the permit that Ecology will issue, especially in the frequency and response levels. As far as sending the City out to do samples and some of those other things would not be practical. Chairman Samuel questioned Commissioner Cruz regarding an approach where the City has proposed Exhibit #27 for the first 2-3 years and then if CPM operates they way they have advertise and we do not have any difficulty or complaints, then we back off of being this prescriptive and allow for language similar to what CPM or the consultant proposed. Commissioner Cruz does not feel that mitigates his original issue which is there are a lot of technical things that need to happen; air samples, getting analysis done, you would need industrial hygienists to do that. He does not want to put that burden on the City; the State is available to do a lot of those things. The City should have the teeth to deal with issues in a quick timely fashion and not develop an undue burden on everyone else in town to pay for the asphalt plant that we really don't want. Parts of this should be retained, but does not want to put the City in the business of Ecology's business. Chairman Samuel stated in the public hearing it was addressed the nearest Dept. of Ecology office was located in Spokane and asked it that was true. Mr. Kerr stated the state is divided into divisions and we are under the division that is administered from the Spokane office. There is an office in Yakima and that office applies to people on the other side of the river. Chairman Samuel further questioned if citizens have complaints or issues, if Dept. of Ecology conducted a spot review they would have to travel from Spokane to do so. Part of the reason this was listed as Exhibit #27, initially it was recognized that citizens have a lot of concern with this plant operating and the intention is to set up a very responsive, proactive response system vs. waiting for the State to handle the situation. Commissioner Cruz does not dispute any of those ideas, he does not feel the City should be responsible and should be delegated to the State. Asking the City to do samples, etc is out of hand in his view. He is not advising to give them free reign but instead let the process go. We have the ability to levy fines and penalties in the case they do not behave themselves. In regards to the State, just as we see in Hanford, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If Rivershore is up in arms, it would not be very long before the State is on top of it. Commissioner Kempf referenced Exhibit #27 would set a dangerous precedent for the City if they start going too far into regulating this industry. What happens to the industries near Lamb Weston and the homes out there? Are we going to start testing all their air once we receive complaints from that side? It -7- needs to be balanced just because people that reside there built after the plant was there. There are other places in the City that are going to have the same effect. If we put this on CPM then we would have to put this on other industries and it would not be good for our economy in the long run. Commissioner Hay stated there was a comment by one of the environmental experts that the response time is erratic at best when odors are noticed and reported. Is it a basic periodic drive by type of thing? If a person has a complaint what happens? Do they have to smell it for a while? Also regarding the filters, they have an outrageous maintenance requirement. What is the plan in monitoring these filters? Is there a way they can monitor them when they are clogged? When do they get changed? He is sure during their peak season in the summer, what is their process in changing them? Do they stop operations in the middle of a run and change them? Chairman Samuel stated he understands that in a continuous odor response program there are a series of measurements that are required. One would be a pressure drop across the filters and once the pressure drop reaches a certain amount, it is realized that the filter is not working correctly and it needs to be taken care of. Mr. White stated yes that is true and there is also a requirement for an Operations & Maintenance (O & M) plan. That requires record keeping, which is a requirement of the continuous odor response program and is certain it is part of the O & M plan. That is one of the things that is not only incorporated into our permit, but also the permit that the Dept. of Ecology considers. Commissioner Hay thanked Mr. White for clarifying that. He does not recall hearing anything from the applicant regarding an O & M plan. Commissioner Anderson referenced Ms. Hodgson's proposal where she mentioned RCW 70.94.200 and asked Mr. Kerr if he would be able to describe what that refers to. Mr. Kerr stated that relates to controlling, recovery, and release of contaminants in the atmosphere and in accordance of that statute on air quality control. He mentioned they needed to identify what mitigating efforts ought to be. The RCW which has been included would be a part of either of the plans submitted by the City or CPM. Commissioner Cruz mentioned the City has talked about double containment for the tanks and spill control plan. There are dangerous waste regulations and petroleum tank regulations that are similar and this is not the purview of the City. He feels keeping language as far as response times and the ability to inspect the records, etc. give us the teeth to go into it. It is not an ideal solution, but a reasonable compromise. It is not our business to regulate, rather focus on the parts we have the ability to regulate. -8- Mr. Kerr stated there was a question on the period of review for the permit and was reminded by Mr. McDonald that in each plan there are provisions that provide for revocation of the permit if they fail to comply with any of the terms. If the machinery or filters deteriorate beyond function or maintain their standard of specification as required, the applicant will then be brought to account and the permit may be revoked regardless the remaining time of the special permit. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Kerr if that would be an item the Code Enforcement Division would enforce. Mr. Kerr stated there a couple of mechanisms available for the City right now. The end and most drastic result would be revocation of the special use permit which would occur at a public hearing in front of the City Council. They are the granting authority as well as the revoking authority. There are number of other practical which would deal with compliance and violations which would be in front of the Code Enforcement Board. They have the capacity to require abatement as well as impose penalties for the violation. Commissioner Little stated whether they approve or deny the application, it is based on a number of conditions that are put together. Commissioner Cruz referred to code and it clearly states the City's decision is final. He suggested putting a fixed amount of time on the permit which would require a review and he would like to put a ceiling on the number of years for the permit. Chairman Samuel stated he wanted specific opinions from each Commissioner and whether he is in favor or opposed on approving the special permit. Commissioner Hay stated his concerns are regarding noise and odors. He has suggested limiting hours of operation to prevent noise during certain hours. He also mentioned monitoring filters and is concerned with odors. He is on the fence at the present time in regard to approving the special permit. Commissioner Anderson stated his position has been clearly stated and realizes given the fact that CPM has proposed to install a new state-of-the-art plant and with mitigation factors that have been proposed, plus the recommended review within five years he is in favor of approving the special permit. The reason he is in favor is due to the fact he believes we have won a victory for the residents in getting a new plant. If we had the old Richland plant that would have been a mistake. He thanks CPM for proposing the new plant with the new technology and it makes it palatable for him and his is in favor. Commissioner Kempf stated she agrees with Commissioner Anderson and thanks CPM for proposing the new plant with the proposed mitigating factors. She is in favor in approving the special permit for the new plant. She feels CPM are doing great things for the community and the people who live along the river as well as the neighboring residences. She does not believe they need any -9- additional factors; the trucks are going to be driving on a new driveway next to the freeway. Chairman Samuel stated he is proposing the wording on condition #2 from retrofit the new asphalt oil tanks and he suggests they state they retrofit all asphalt, oil, and cement tanks. Commissioner Cruz questioned why cement? Chairman Samuel stated in the testimony that he has reviewed odors came from both oil tanks and cement tanks. Not cement tanks from the concrete operation, rather the actual binding agents they use to make the asphalt or after the asphalt have been made in the storage tanks. It has been referred to in testimony as cement. He does want not to restrict any concrete activities, just enforce odor control devices on them. Commissioner Anderson questioned if that is already mentioned in the conditions. He understands there is one oil tank that ends up being the binding agent for the gravel, etc. and there is a 6 foot filter bed on top of that one and does not feel it is appropriate to add such a condition or change the language. Commissioner Little stated when using the word retrofit, that means taking something old and making it more doable. Being that this is a proposed new plant he feels that it is redundant. Commissioner Cruz stated the focus needs to remain with Ecology and make sure the intent is clear and that they do not allow any excess odors or any unmitigated odors. Language should be general and defers to the State and the State should understand what the concerns are when they go through permitting as efficient. Chairman Samuel withdrew his request to make a language change. His next request is for a new special condition which replaces condition #19 which states that the hot mix asphalt plant shall only operate between 7 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday and shall not operate on Saturdays or Sundays. Commissioner Kempf stated that would be too restrictive on the business and may hurt the company economically and it would be bad for the community. Commissioner Cruz agreed with Commissioner Kempf and is in favor of 6 am to 6 pm. The noise study states the plant will comply with the night time noise regulations which would allow them to operate the plant 24 hours a day. He is not sure what they are trying to achieve with a permit condition. Chairman Samuel stated there would not be asphalt operations going on other than the proposed times and evenings and weekends would allow for opportunities for odors and noise and everything else the residents have so much concern about, that would be a further mitigator of that risk. If it turns out the neighbors do not see any type of issue with that going forward, CPM la would like to come back in a year or two and say they would like to expand our operations and we have demonstrated we are good neighbors. Commissioner Cruz does not thing that is practical and stated like cement, asphalt has a clock on it, and it has temperature limits. You can't just stick it in the truck and let it sit all day long. Being overly restrictive will cause problems later on and will give CPM an avenue to protest the whole thing and that is not fair. He believes we have made a lot of headway and is supportive of time limits and does not want to get out of hand with it. Commissioner Anderson stated he totally disagrees with Chairman Samuel's proposal. He stated we need to rely on the City's noise ordinance, the Dept. of Ecology and by accepting his proposal it would be considered micro-managing this situation and putting undue business restrictions on CPM and believes that is not fair. Chairman Samuel mentioned they heard a lot of concern from the residents and would the proposed restrictions be significant enough? Commissioner Anderson stated he would agree with Chairman Samuel if their driveway would remain where it currently exists. He has not been made aware of any testimony as far as complaints from neighbors across the street regarding concrete trucks coming out of the plant at such times. Commissioner Rose agreed that Chairman Samuel's suggestion is considered micro-managing and it should be left up to CPM regarding their hours of operation. Chairman Samuel proposed that CPM would operate on a weekly basis a street sweeper that would sweep rocks and related debris off of Harris Road from Road 100 to the west entrance of CPM. Reason being there was testimony, in the beginning of this special permit application in 2006 that was causing damage to cars that would be required to keep that road clean by CPM. Commissioner Cruz stated the testimony mentions they have changed their practices. They mentioned they have to have 4 walls on a truck before they will fill it up. He visited the site a few days ago and it was not that bad, not that big of a deal. And he is not in favor of supporting Chairman Samuel's proposal. Chairman Samuel proposed that asphalt trucks exiting the site would be required to be covered without exception. Commissioner Kempf stated she has a problem with that due to the wind. And also that covering trucks does not control any odor. The wind around here kicks up pretty strongly and she feels that having tarps on trucks might come loose and would litter the roadway and be more of a hazard than a benefit. Commissioner Cruz does not feel tarping the trucks would not make a difference and trucks are going to smell some amount, some days more than others no 41- matter what they propose. Testimony stated they took samples off the trucks and one thing he struggled with in reading that was that it is a volatile compound so when it is cold it is not going to have the same aroma as when it is warm and they do not say whether it was warm or cold when they took the samples. They did state that at some point when a cold cap and effect covers it does cut the smell way down. Chairman Samuel stated the reason he brought it up is because a significant amount of testimony from individuals that they did not smell it at the plant itself, rather they did smell it when following a truck out of the plant or were next to a truck. He thinks that if there were a cover over those trucks where those vapors could not be blown by the wind and they would not be directly exposed to the atmosphere, there would be a mitigating effect. Commissioner Cruz does not see that happening. It is not a Ziploc bag. The one thing to remember is that the plant is set down and back away and cooling will happen before it even pulls out of the lot. Commissioner Anderson agrees with Commissioner Cruz and wants to point out the location of the driveway and the location of the residents is far enough which will allow for some cooling to take place. Chairman Samuel proposes that operations of the CPM plant be reviewed after the first year of operation and subsequently be reviewed every three years after that. Commissioner Little stated that is a little short sided and tends to think no longer than five years. A review in one year is too short and the sizeable investment that CPM is putting into this, you would assume they are going to run it as a good project and meet all criteria. Chairman Samuel questioned if he would be in favor of a review in five years. Commissioner Cruz stated he would support a review in five years and is a term that is used frequently and provides operationally reasonable amount of time for CPM to recoup their investment and we need to be mindful that we do not want to set the City up for further litigation. With the knowledge that we can provoke the special permit if the conditions aren't adhered to and CPM knows that on a certain date they are coming back for a special condition review and if the audience is full with people who oppose the plant, then there would be a legitimate basis for denying the permit at that time. Commissioner Anderson questioned if they put a five year review on the special permit, does that mean CPM would come back to the Planning Commission, a staff review, or how would that work for us. Mr. White stated he heard two different things. A five year review period and some indication of a five year term period and needs clarification on that. He 42 suspects that a five year review would simply be an examination of the history of any complaints, the history of the plant and anything that is appropriate towards making sure that the mitigation conditions have been met or adhered to. He does not see as reopening the entire issue again and making a discretionary decision on whether they are allowed to continue or not. It would be a review of the adherence to the conditions. Commissioner Rose questioned if that means it would be a staff review. Mr. White stated no, there wouldn't be any problems with it coming back to the Planning Commission for an update or that the information gets transmitted to the Planning Commission somehow. Commissioner Anderson mentioned holding a workshop to discuss it if there were complaints and then they could recommend a hearing. Mr. Kerr stated there would have to be a reasonable expectation at the end of five years and CPM would know what they need to prepare for. If their permit is simply subject to expiring and burden of starting the process all over again, they would need to be made aware right now. If the five year is simply a review for compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing permit, then a review would be conducted with a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission which would determine whether or not they have fulfilled the mitigation of it. If they have not, then the question is if they would be subject to revocation for failing to live up with the terms. If they have, then they would continue approval and then go on for another five years. There needs to be clear direction on what alternative the Planning Commission suggests. Commissioner Cruz stated under the review process it does not give them the same ability to influence technology. That is continuing on with the same set of mitigating actions and performance and is not opposed to it; rather he wants to understand the difference. Mr. Kerr's suggestion should be kept in mind as far as the expectation because they do not want to be overly punitive they want to be responsible. He is ok with either and just wants to make sure know what they are getting out of either choice when they have the discussion. Commissioner Anderson favors a review with a public hearing and reviews any complaints as well as review if CPM has met the mitigating conditions. If they have not, then they would recommend to the City Council that they revoke the special permit. He does not feel CPM would not need to go through this process again. Chairman Samuel stated his proposal would be that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing in five years. CPM would present how the plant is operating, staff would provide testimony as to the number of complaints, and the public would be able to provide any testimony. That would allow for the Planning Commission to decide if there are issues and what direction they would need to go. 1a Chairman Samuel proposed to revise the storm water and spill response plans for the site to address new hot mix asphalt activities. CPM would submit them to the City for review and approval prior to the hot mix asphalt plant activity and initiation. The reason being when the operations are over, a lot of the plans he has seen turn into a marina or where water develops. His concern is having control over rain water, storm water and spill should be a big deal which ensures the future of the site. Commissioner Cruz agrees and mentions that SPCC which is in active legislation. Franklin County PUD had to put berms and containment around all transformers located a certain number of feet from the river. The one just down the way from the plant on Court Street had to undergo this. That is a part of the States permitting process. The likelihood of a spill from a transformer wouldn't be called high but at $25,000 to $30,000 a pop they are subject to the same kind of rules and regulations. It is not under the purview of the City it is under the State. Commissioner Anderson referenced it is present as #8 in the proposed conditions. Commissioner Little mentioned the hours of operation from 6 am to 5 pm with the option to extend if a massive project needs to expand past those hours. He would not want operations on Sundays and if on Saturdays hours would be from 7 am to 3 pm. He does not think the $250,000 is not sufficient and the City may need to reconsider. Commissioner Anderson does not agree with hours of operation. Reason being the plant will operate March through the fall. When they have a project they need to be able to put in the time to get the project done. Time is money and he referred to the fact the trucks will not be running by any residences. The noise level of the plant is at or below the present levels that are currently going on. The berm and other mitigation conditions already are going to be applied and he feel they are trying to micro-manage their business. He does want to protect the residents and he does not feel that will significantly protect the residents in the area. Commissioner Hay feels it is too restrictive. Commissioner Kempf feels it is not their job to dictate their hours of operation. Commissioner Rose is opposed to restricting the time from 6 am to 6 am five days a week. Commissioner Cruz took into consideration the realities of construction projects and they are mostly done at night. They have a need to operate at night to feed construction projects. He is not happy about it and Commissioner Anderson brought up the access road being further and feels that is not a reasonable option. 44 Commissioner Anderson stated the new interchange at the Blue Bridge will cause the bridge to close for paving and if we restrict their hours, we take away their ability to operate their business and that is not the role of the Planning Commission. Chairman Samuel stated the special condition would not be added. Commissioner Rose was originally opposed to the general idea and now with the proposed mitigated measures they are more generous than expected. He is in favor of the special permit. Commissioner Cruz stated based on citizen concerns he is not in support of the plant. He does not believe CPM would cease to operate in the Tri-Cities if they were not allowed to put their asphalt plant here in Pasco. A lot of the energy did not have to occur because of choices CPM made in the past and the current situation is their doing. He reiterated that the focus is on giving the City the leverage for ongoing requirements and regulation by the State and not duplicating. He feels CPM should pay the City a fee for the special permit to ensure the citizens are protected through those avenues. Most of the mitigating actions are ok and the evidence they provided is sound and supports the case. If we focus on giving the City the ability to respond appropriately and quickly we can demonstrate protection of the citizens. With the time frame of the permit, whether it is for review or expiration, we have given CPM all the incentive to be the good neighbor they say they are. Commissioner Anderson questioned on which odor response program they are going to recommend. Chairman Samuel stated it is currently listed as a special condition #3 which implements a continuous odor response program. Exhibit #27 was discussed and decided it was too restrictive. Commissioner Anderson questioned Mr. White if this was sufficiently broad enough to negotiate with CPM and create an odor response program the City would be happy with. Mr. White stated yes, he stated the kind of assurances the Chairman and Commissioners are referencing can be incorporated into the special permit. Which will still leave the technical enforcement piece to the people best equipped to do that, which would be the Dept. of Ecology? What is really important is that the continuous odor response program has a local face on it which would be the City. We would have a proper relationship with CPM so that any complaint will be resolved quickly and a paper trail would be created for all that occurs. Commissioner Anderson stated that was his concern and further mentioned the relationship with CPM and the City in the past compared to the present and he now has faith it will work out the best for everybody. 1S Commissioner Cruz states he has a lot of faith that the City staff can work something out with CPM and gives them the opportunity to do that when this comes back for approval. Commissioner Rose questioned if this has been advanced to the State Dept. of Ecology to see what their opinion is on the odor control. Mr. White stated no it has not but will after the resolution of the land use process. Commissioner Rose further stated the City is not in a position to get into the sophisticated business of odor evaluation. Chairman Samuel questioned City staff if they had sufficient guidance to develop the Findings of Fact and the special conditions. Mr. White stated yes. The staff report introduced a number of mitigating measures. The most complicated among those is the continuous odor response program. Many of the other will be left to State jurisdiction and in essence we do not have to double our efforts as long as we propose a continuous odor response program that incorporates their ability to enforce the technical aspects of the permit. What is important is that there is a manner for the City to be involved in a complaint resolution process and that we are working closely with CPM to make certain that we have the right procedure in place to accommodate that or to come to resolution quickly with the importance to be able to review the permit and having a punitive hammer in case the conditions are not adhered to. The Planning Commission is looking at approving the plant with the proper mitigation measures and then the City will bring back the findings many of them are perfunctory, and then the conclusions and a draft of the responses the Planning Commission can consider for the criteria that is important for the special permit application. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. White mentioned training from the Washington State Insurance Commission for land use liability is available to the Commissioners. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:23 pm. David McDonald, Secretary Ira REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-003 APPLICANT: Salvation Army HEARING DATE: 4-16-09 PO Box 9219 ACTION DATE: 5-21-09 Seattle, WA 98109 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Salvation Army Corp Community Building 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: A portion of Tracts B and D, Replat of Columbia River Addition and a portion of Lot 1, short Plat 77-32 General Location: 1900 Block of West Lewis Street Property Size: Approximately 4.5 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Lewis Street and 201h Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water is available in Lewis Street and 20th Avenue. The nearest available sewer to the site is at the corner of 20th avenue and West "A" Street. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and C-3 (General Business) and is vacant. The zoning and land uses of the surrounding properties are as follows: North: C-1/ motel and offices South: C-3/vacant land and heavy commercial uses West: 1-1/Vacant land, the Crazy Moose Lodge 8v Mayflower Moving East: C-1 & C-3 Offices 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for future commercial uses. The plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a Determination of Non-significance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 (c) (RCW). I ANALYSIS The application involves the development of a portion of the vacant land located at the southeast corner of West Lewis Street and 20th Avenue for a Salvation Army Corp Community Center. The proposed Community Service Facility is a 22,000 square foot multi-purpose building used to provide church services, youth services and social services. The church (called a Temple by the Salvation Army) portion of the building will contain classrooms, offices, and a worship area with seating for up to 300 people. The social service functions will occur on the south end of the building and will consist of a food bank, a clothing and furniture distribution area, a storage area, a retail sales area and a counseling area. Various portions of the building will be used to provide homework assistance, computer technology assistance and recreational opportunities for young people. The Salvation Army is currently providing community services from two separate buildings in the downtown area and would like to consolidate their services into one functional building meeting current building codes. Churches are often approved for locations in residential areas. The Salvation Army proposal stretches beyond the functions typically found in churches and therefore would not be appropriate in a residential location. Churches typically do not have warehouses for food, clothing and furniture distribution. Warehousing, distribution and retail sales (such as thrift stores) all require commercial zoning. The northerly 200 feet of the proposed site is zoned C-1 and the balance of the site is zoned C-3. The social service aspects of the proposed facility will be located on the south end of the building (in the C-3 area) while the church, office and classroom portion of the building will be located along Lewis Street in the C-1 area of the property. The proposed location of the Corp Community Center leaves the corner of 20th Avenue and Lewis Street undeveloped and available for future commercial retail or office development. The churches and community service facilities (food banks and facilities providing social, health and welfare services) are unclassified uses within the Pasco zoning regulations. Such uses are only permitted in the community after review through the special permit process, hence the need for this Special Permit review. The proposed development plan includes a parking lot with approximately 90 parking spaces. Parking for churches is based upon the seating capacity in the main worship area of a church. The worship portion of the proposed building will require 60 parking spaces. The warehouse portion of the building will require 14 parking spaces. 2 One of the potential problems with locating a church in a commercial area is that some commercial establishments such as restaurants often sell or serve liquor. This issue is typically addressed by placing a condition on the Special Permit approval limiting the church's ability to object to a liquor license. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Churches and Community Service Facilities are unclassified uses and require review through the Special Permit process prior to locating or expanding within any zoning district. 2. The proposed Church/Community Service Facility site is zoned C-1 and C-3. 3. The C-3 zone permits heavy machinery sales and service, lumber yards, mobile homes sales and other outdoor business activities. 4. The proposed site is located in the 1900 block of West Lewis Street. 5. The site is vacant and has been since the development of surrounding streets more than 50 years ago. 6. The proposed Salvation Army development plan leaves 1.5 acres on the corner of 20th Avenue and Lewis Street available for future commercial development. 7. Heavy commercial development (in the form of warehouse buildings) is located to the south and west of the proposed Corp Community Center. 8. The warehousing/storage and social service function in the proposed building will be located in the southern third of the building. 9. The site is located on two arterial streets. 10. The proposal will consolidate all Salvation Army services in Pasco into one building, whereas services are currently being provided from two separate buildings. 11. The proposed building will require at least 74 parking spaces. 12. The site development plan provides for 90 parking spaces. 3 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. and determine whether or not the proposal: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The property in question is zoned for commercial development. Most commercial activities will impact traffic to a greater extent than a church or community center. The proposed facility will create less of a demand on water and sewer service than permitted uses within the district and the proposed facility will generate less traffic on a daily basis than many permitted uses. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed facility will be constructed to meet the International Building Code as all new buildings are required to do so. The site will be landscaped and developed to meet or exceed development existing on nearby parcels and in that respect, the proposal will be in harmony with the general vicinity. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof The proposed facility will be located more than 300 feet east of 201h Avenue leaving the highly visible corner available for future commercial development. The building will be similar in height to the motel located to the north and consistent with the height permitted within the C-1 and C-3 zoning districts. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or 4 flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The church and community service facility will generate less dust, vibrations, flashing lights and fumes than many of the uses permitted in the district. Heavy machinery sales and service and lumber yards are permitted within the district and would create more noise, fumes, vibrations, dust and traffic than the proposed use. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed facility, if approved, will be constructed to meet all applicable building and site code requirements. These requirements are designed to address the concerns of public health and safety. The proposed facility will have its highest activity on Sunday's when most neighboring businesses are closed. TENATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The Special Permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted, except as revised herein; 3) All unused existing driveway entrances on Lewis Street and/or 20th Avenue must be removed and the curbing restored to its proper height; 4) Sewer service to the site must come from the main at the intersection of 20th Avenue and West "A" Street. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the sewer main north in 20th Avenue consistent with City standards; 5) The applicant shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; 6) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is not obtained by June 30, 2011. 5 RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed Salvation Army Corp Community Center and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 21, 2009 meeting. 6 • Item: Special Permit - Church Complex Vicinity Applicant: Salvation Army N Map 09-003 File #. SP J NONWRO'LLE LLI JU T ,., . - 00 r . jW SITE w l f f F ' s P r w - t OW r r-J i l " _ 1 ' rte. ► ' Land Item: Special Permit - Church Complex � Use Applicant : Salvation Army -(x - Map File #: SP 09-003 ` BONNEVILLE ST Motel Industrial 00 r I � Q 0 SIT Office Casino � Industrial Heavy Commercial r � "A" 5T Zoning Item: Special Permit - Church Complex Applicant: Salvation Army N Map File #: SP 09-003 BONNEVILLE ST C_1 w R-1 w R I-1 � SITE' C= 1 C) N C-3 "A" ST !' iiiiiiilllll'. �I ""ii'� ���� i ( IIIIIIIIII6 '���II I MI6 � Il��00000llili i IIIIIiiiiiil�����iiil����''. �I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z09-002 APPLICANT: Chad D. Bagley HEARING DATE: 4/16/2009 91 Frasier Drive ACTION DATE: 5/21/2009 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from R-2 to R-3 (921 N 24th Avenue) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec 25, T9N, R29E WM Excluding the S 165 ft. General Location: 921 North 241h Avenue Property 1.19 Acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from North 24th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available at the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and contains a 784 square foot single-family home. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: East: R-2/Duplexes West: R-2/Single-family South: C-1/Rowena-Chess Elementary School playground. North: R-2 and R-3 (Medium Density Residential) single-family homes and a two story duplex. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for mixed (density) residential uses. This designation encourages the development of 5-20 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation in the Comprehensive Plan Section 3.15 (Volume 11, page 38) encourages residential development of lands when sewer is available and where the land is suitable for dwelling sites. Plan Goal H-2 suggests the City should strive to maintain a variety of housing options for the residents of the community. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking a rezone for the property in question from the current R-2 zoning to R-3 zoning. The applicant proposes to develop the site in a similar fashion to the surround multi-family properties by cleaning the land, extending sewer service into the site and completing any required right-of-way improvements. The property was annexed into the City in 1977 and has essentially remained undeveloped while surrounding properties have developed with duplexes and four-plexes. Since annexation, the properties to the north along Henry Street have developed with four-plexes and the Dani's Addition to the south and west of Rowena Chess Elementary School has developed with four-plexes. Other multi-family and single-family dwellings have been constructed in the neighborhood since 1977. More recently, property located 375 feet to the east on 2nd Avenue has been developed with an apartment complex owned by the Catholic Family Housing Services of Spokane. This 34 unit complex was constructed in 2006. The Pasco Housing Authority also maintains a small complex of duplexes on 1.5 acres directly east of the proposed rezone site. The site benefits from being conveniently located to nearby shopping and employment areas as well as the Ben Franklin Transit transfer station on 22nd Avenue. The Rowena Chess Elementary School is located directly to the south of the site. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • Since 1977 when the site was annexed nearby properties have been zoned R-3 and developed with multi-family dwellings. • The Pasco/Franklin County Housing Authority maintains and operates a complex of duplexes directly east of the proposed rezone site. • The Ben Franklin Transit Authority constructed a transit transfer center on 22nd Avenue approximately 15 years ago. • A number of retail facilities and restaurants have been built on Court Street and 20th Avenue since the property was annexed. • The Rowena Chess School was built directly south of the site in 2003. • Water and sewer utilities have been installed in 241h Avenue and surrounding streets since the property was annexed. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: 2 The rezone will enhance development opportunities which may lead to the property being utilized for a productive purpose. Development of the property will eliminate a substandard housing unit and the unkempt condition of the property. Developed properties contribute more fully (through taxes, fees and licenses) to the funding of municipal services thereby promoting the general welfare. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the plan. Rezoning the property would provide the opportunity for additional housing located near shopping and employment centers as-well-as near Transit routes. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: The property is currently developed with a small substandard single family home. Razing the house and rebuilding one single-family dwelling is not cost effective. Without the ability to develop the property in a similar manner as nearby properties, it will be difficult to cover the costs of water and sewer improvements. S. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed residential development. The proposed rezone is for R-3 (Medium Density Residential) which is consistent with the Plan. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential). 2) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed residential uses. 3) Mixed residential land uses include densities from 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. 4) Nearby properties have been zoned R-3 and developed with multi-family dwellings since the site was annexed in 1977. 5) In 2006, a 34 unit housing complex was constructed east of the proposed rezone site on 22nd Avenue. 3 6) The site is conveniently located near shopping areas, employment areas, and transit routes. 7) Water and sewer utilities are located in 24th Avenue. 8) The site contains a substandard dwelling that is in need of substantial repair and connection to utilities; or demolition. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal supports the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in Section 5 above. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. According to records Franklin County Assessor records, property values in the neighborhood for both single-family and multi family units have increased over the last 5 years. The proposal will involve the removal of a substandard dwelling from the neighborhood and the redevelopment of the property consistent with development on surrounding properties thereby improving conditions in the neighborhood. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Enabling the property to redevelop will eliminate the unsightly conditions that currently exist as the result of the property being poorly maintained. Cleaning up a mostly vacant property and removing a substandard dwelling has merit and value for the community because it will have a positive impact on the neighborhood and will provide additional housing opportunities for Pasco residents. The proposal also has merit because it will allow infill development to occur consistent with the direction provided in the comprehensive Plan. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposal will eliminate the negative impacts the property currently creates for the neighborhood. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. 4 A concomitant agreement is not needed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 21, 2009 meeting. 5 • Item: Rezone R-2 to R-3 Vicinity Applicant: Chad Bagley N Map File #. Z 09-002 W4 HENRY mpg v raw* qK- N F' , Ira SITE PE Ask PARK ST � N ��� • . � � � . � • Land Item: Rezone R-2 to R-3 � Use Applicant : Chad Bagley -(x - Map File #: Z 09-002 ` n Church Ll W HENRY PL N ;- SFDU 's � ; Multi- w � Q 1 Family Q � SITE o � z School N PARK ST Zoning Item: Rezone R-2 to R-3 Applicant : Chad Bagley x Map File #: Z 09-002 _ � _ ' l R-2 R-3 F W HENRY PL N R-3 L R_2 � > � R-2 ! > � Q Q � SITE o � z -7- N C= 1 PARK ST MEMORANDUM DATE: April 9, 2009 TO: Planning Commission a/4) FROM: Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator Community& Economic Development SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 CDBG Formula Allocation HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The purpose of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 is an effort to jumpstart the economy, create or save jobs, and address under-funded challenges in our country. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers formula grants to entitled states, cities and counties to develop viable communities. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Title XI1 allocated $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Communities receiving CDBG funds are permitted to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed toward revitalizing neighborhoods, economic development, and providing improved community facilities and services. Priority will be given to projects that can award contracts based on bids within 120 days. As a CDBG entitlement city, the City of Pasco was allocated $163,082 by a formula grant. Use of these funds requires a substantial amendment to the 2009 Annual Action Plan. The due date for submission to HUD has not yet been determined. However, grantees have been informed there will only be four weeks to submit the amendment after notification. Release of funds is expected by July 15, 2009. A substantial amendment occurs when the original purpose of the project is changed to a new eligible activity, or when a change in the allocation exceeds 10 percent of the current year's CDBG allocation, including program income. The substantial amendment is forwarded to Planning Commission, and made available for a period of at least 30 days for public review and comment. Upon approval by City Council and expiration of the 30-day review and comment period, the proposed change is submitted to HUD for final approval. The 30-day review and comment period may be shortened to 12 days by HUD to meet the four week submittal requirement. Selected projects should be "shovel ready" at release of funds to meet timeliness ratios required by HUD. DISCUSSION: Preparation of a work plan to allocate the limited funds has begun. The approved work plan will form basis for preparation of the substantial amendment required by HUD. The City utilizes a semi-formal process of requesting proposals from external and internal subrecipients to determine how the funds will be allocated. Utilizing this RFP method is not a HUD requirement and may delay preparation of the substantial amendment. As the grantee, the City has the discretion of identifying a feasible project for completion as long as it meets the same criteria as is required in the competitive proposal process. Unsolicited proposals from Administrative & Community Services, Boys & Girls Club, and Public Works have been received since the beginning of the year requesting additional funds for proposed changes to their 2009 project scope of work. All three projects were approved in the 2009 Annual Action Plan, and met all necessary criteria. The proposed modifications also meet all necessary criteria. Staff recommends Planning Commission consider the projects summarized in the attached project description summary and ARRA Work Plan Summary Table for selection of an appropriate project or projects. There is a possibility of using other funding sources, such as 2010 CDBG or other stimulus funds, for all or portions of these requests. That possibility can be further explored by staff. The commission should also note that this is the first of two public hearings. It is probable that other options will be presented to the Planning Commission at the next public hearing. This hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2009 at which time the Commission should also make a formal recommendation to City Council. CDBG RECOVERY ACT PROPOSAL SUMMARY Boys & Girls Club Gym Lighting and Reroof- Requested: $101,620 Recommended: $83,023 The Boys & Girls Club received $156,000 in 2008 to remodel the games room this project required installation of fire doors resulting in the removal of a traffic control check point from the project. In 2007, two of three aging roofs were replaced on the facility further improving energy efficiency at the facility. Additional funds are being requested to replace original gymnasium light fixtures from 1954 with modern, energy efficient lights, provide a check gate for traffic control within the center (removed from the 2008 scope of work), replace the one aged roof remaining on the facility from the 2007 project, seal asbestos hallway floor tiles and cover with carpet tile, and replace classroom flooring in one room. Overall this public facility improvement would improve programmable space with enhanced safety and energy efficient features. The Boys & Girls Club is requesting $101,620 these additional projects. Currently the Boy & Girls Club is approved for $50,000 in program year 2009 to remodel the stage area of the gymnasium to improve program area for the kindergarten. The additional tasks recommended above would increase the project cost by $83,023, bringing the revised contract ceiling for this project to $133,023 if funded. The public facility improvements would benefit low-moderate income children in Census Tracts 201, 202, 203 and 204. Martin Luther King Center HVAC System -Requested: $85,000 Recommended: $80,059 The HVAC system at the Martin Luther King Center is 35 years old and in need of replacement. Two units that failed were replaced at the facility in 2008, there are five units remaining to be replaced. In addition, there are six aging hot water heaters that are incorrectly sized. For better energy efficiency and enhanced safety they will be replaced with six instant hot water heaters. The Martin Luther King Center is requesting $85,000 for this project. Currently, MLK Center is approved for $100,000 in program year 2009 for completion of the gym remodel project begun in 2007. This prior year project has $32,446 available as carry over bringing the project funding to $132,446. The increased funding of $80,059 would bring the contract ceiling to $212,505 for the Martin Luther King Remodel project, and result in improved public facility, and program space benefiting low-moderate income youth and their families in Census Tracts 201, and 202. Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvement Plan - Requested: $163,082 Recommended: $0 In 2007 Council approved the Neighborhood Improvement Plan for Kurtzman Park. Neighborhood meetings identified street lights, sidewalks, code enforcement and an increased police presence as priority needs. Further analysis of neighborhood needs indicated replacement of water/sewer infrastructure and roadway improvements were also necessary. A significant amendment in 2008 provided $40,000 for project design. The project design did not move forward in 2008, therefore, all but $4,965 was reallocated for Volunteer and Kurtzman Parks pubic facility projects. An Environmental Assessment is currently underway. The Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvement Plan is requesting $163,082 in additional funding, or any portion thereof. Currently the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvement Plan is approved for $294,175 for roadway improvements in 2009 together with the 2008 carryover the available balance is $299,140. Additional funding would allow for one phase to be completed while moving forward with design for the second phase of construction. Option 1. Accept Martin Luther King Center and Boys & Girls Club request for amended scope of work for a combined total of $163,082 in additional funding. Option 1. ARRA Work Plan Summary Non-CDBG CDBG Funds Nat Activity Funds Requested Recommend Obj Boys&Girls Club Gymnasium LMA Gym Lighting& Control Point $0 $18,628 $18,628 Gym Roof Replacement 25,000 25,000 Hallway Floor Seal &carpet tile 20,795 20,795 Classroom flooring replacement 37,200 18,600 Short fall for 1 room $18,600 Martin Luther King Center LMA HVAC Unit Replacement(5) $0 $85,000 $80,059 Hot Water Heater Replacement 6 Kurtzman Park Neighborhood $700,000 $163,082 LMA Improvement Plan TOTALS $700,000 $349,705 $163,082 2 \ 8 § 8 w ■ § 2 k 2 § § / \ % URI % \ o . m . o k \ 2 r \ % - % n / Go/ k 0 k $ § s ; ; 0 0 co 0 0 £ % / o § o 0 0 2 4 _ 0 ) » k » # 0 U) E k f § { § d k d 0 �_ 0 e $ 2 j f 2 f s 2 \ - \ a \ Qo� - L \ w ) w % 0 G m / a m 2 k $ / � ] ] ) ¢ \ \ 0 0 \ E § E / _ LO ; LO ; � $ k / \ > \ \ t E � . . ■ f y 2 0 0 0 § k j \ j \ \ V 2 .0 G .0 G 0 _/ ._ § k § a § a Cl) � S S , § ) \ v 2 \ \ \ $2 ] e o EE1 0 0o '� 2 O]I �� E �_ 00 .0 x t � E° _ f»I - Q ± » % k ' § k j > k � ¢ E 0kf k \ oa k 3k [ k \ p f =mw O 2 you 2 2 moo£ 2 M. 4�. '01 9 9 E k FZ 2 2 q a 2 q 2 2009 CDBG ARRA Fund Summary - 4-16-09 Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Proposals-Recommendations ACTIVITY/AGENCY CDBG NonCDBG FUNDS STAFF PLANNING LOCID Recipients COMMISSION NAME REQUEST Contribution RECOMMEND RECOMMEND Boys&Girls Club of Program Space Benton & Franklin Expansion, Safety 14 Counties Enhancement $101,623.00 $0.00 $83,023.00 City of Pasco- Martin Luther King Administrative& Community Center- South 15 Community Services End Gym Remodel $85,000.00 $0.00 $80,059.00 Kurtzman Park City of Pasco-Public Neighborhood 16 lWorks Improvement $163,082.00 $700.000.00 $0.00 $349,705.00 $700,000.00 $163,082.00 FY 2009 Entitlement $ 163,082 Total Funds Available $ 163,082 Proposals Received $ 349,705 SURPLUS/DEFICIT $ (186,623) 4/9/2009 RECEIVED 1 ' 1 MAR 2 5 2009 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEIIEWPMENT APPLICATION FOR CITY OF PASCO 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG)FUND AGENCY: City of Pasco—Administrative and Community Services/YMCA PROJECT TITLE: Martin Luther King Center Gym Remodel—Supplemental Request ADDRESS: 205 S. Wehe Pasco WA 99301 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION: South end of the gymnasium CONTACT PERSON: Stan Strebel,Administrative and Community Services E-MAIL: strebels @pasco-wa.gov PHONE: (509)543-5757 FAX: (509)543-5758 AMOUNT OF CDBG FUNDS REQUESTED: $ $85,000 as supplement to existing$125,000 grant. $210,000 total. AMOUNT OF NON-CDBG MATCH: $ -0- 1. DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM OR NEED(AS RELATED TO THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN ATTACHED): The Martin Luther King Community Center currently has seven roof top units for the HVAC system. These units are 35 years old and they are starting to fail.The City has replaced one unit early January 09 because the smoke stack was cracked allowing carbon monoxide into the building another unit failed a month later allowing natural gas into the building. This unit is turned off until it can be replaced. All of these units have a manual economizer which is very inefficient.We would like to replace these units with more efficient and modern units.Due to the volume of spectators to this facility and the safety factor we feel this is a high priority project. It would be logical to do the replacement of HVAC units with the interior remodel project. 2. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL-Give a complete detailed description of your proposal including a description of the clientele you will be serving: The remodel will convert five small rooms to 3 more functional rooms. This new space in the gym will provide programmable space for recreation for citizens of low—moderate income who have been under-served because of restricted facilities. The program that will be expanded will utilize the YMCA character development model. The additional space will also allow for a greatly expanded computer lab/homework center and a multi-purpose classroom,all of which benefit both boys and girls and their families. 3. CONSOLIDATED PLAN: The City of Pasco is required to adopt a long-range community action plan to determine where the use of Block Grant funds should be focused. List the identified objective(s)listed in the City of Pasco Consolidated Plan that the proposal addresses and explain how your proposal meets that need. (See STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN GOALS attached) This project will improve a public facility(Goal III)that serves low—moderate income households. It will support priority public services(Goal V)that include supervised recreation of children and youth. 4. ALLOCATION POLICY: Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy. Identify the priority(A, B,C or D)that matches your project(see Section II in Allocation Policy): Priority: ®A ❑B ❑C ❑D and explain how your proposal satisfies that priority: This project addresses national objectives and it is a bricks and mortar project. 5. GENERAL SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION: May 2009—June 2009 6. SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT CDBG FUNDS WOULD BE USED FOR: Construction contract 7. DOES YOUR PROJECT CREATE INDIVIDUAL/BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT OR RELOCATION? ❑ YES ® NO MLK Gym Remodel-supplemental Page 1 2009 CDBG ARRA Fund Summary - 4-16-09 Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Real locate-Carryover ACTIVITY ACTIVITY/AGENCY PY HUD FUNDING Expended Carryover NAME ID City of Pasco-Administrative Martin Luther King &Community Services Renovation 2007 243 $ 40,000.00 $ 7,554.00 $ 32,446.00 $ 40,000.00 $7,554.00 1 $32,446.00 4/9/2009 8. ELIBIBILITY: The proposed project benefits low-moderate income persons by meeting the CDBG Goals&Objectives (See ELIGIBILITY attached): ❑ Public Acquisition of Property 24 CFR 570.201(a): ❑ Public Facilities(new construction or capital improvements)24 CFR 570.201(c): ® Public Services 24 CFR 570.201(e): ❑ Economic Development 24 CFR 570.201(0)/24 CFR 570.203: ❑ Housing rehabilitation and preservation 24 CFR 570.202: ❑ Code Enforcement 24 CFR 570.202(c): ❑ Plannin¢24 CFR 570.205: ❑ Other(describe): 9. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE: How does your proposal meet the National Objective of benefiting low and moderate-income persons?(See ELIGIBILITY attached)(SELECT ONLY ONE!) 1)❑ You receive household/family income and size data from each participant in the program(LMH)(LMC) 2)2 Your project serves a limited area that is proven by census tract or survey to be a low-income area(LMA): ❑ Downtown Revitalization Zone ❑Census Tract 4 3)❑ Your project serves only the following clientele(check appropriate box)(LMC): ❑ Elderly person's ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ At Risk Youth ❑ Other: 4)❑ Your project will create or save jobs that employ low/moderate income employees(LMJ) 5)0 Your project addresses a slum/blight condition(SBA/SBS) LMA—Low-moderate income area(Census Tract or Survey Area) LMC—Low-moderate income clientele LMH—Low-moderate income household/family LMJ—Low-moderate income job creation/retention SBA/SBS—Slum& Blight Area/Spot(as designed by local government) 10. PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES Is this the first year for the program? ❑Yes []No Year program began? If you receive funding for 2009,how will your program be funded in 2010? NOTE: To be eligible for CDBG assistance,a public service must be either a new service or a quantifiable increase in the level of an existing service. If services are a continuation of existing services,this does not apply. Explain how your application qualifies: ❑ Continuation of Services ❑ New Service ❑ Increase in Service 11. WHAT AMOUNT OF BLOCK GRANT FUNDING HAS YOUR AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT RECEIVED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS? 2008 2007 2006 Pasco(MLK) $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ Richland $ $ $ MLK Gym Remodel-supplemental Page 2 Kennewick $ $ $ To what other agencies have you applied for funding and what commitments have you obtained for this proposal? MLK Gym Remodel-supplemental Page 3 12. PROVIDE A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT OR SERVICE AREA: INSERT MAP HERE MLK Gym Remodel-supplemental Page 4 13. PROJECT TIMELINE-Establish milestones or goals of accomplishments by calendar quarter from the start of the project until completion: Date Milestone/Goal include numerical performance progress if an 2008 Complete Design 2008 CDBG allocation 2009 2" Quarter—Bid project 2009 3d —Complete project Occupy news aces Continue program expansion 14. BUDGET-Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project including major expense line items(salaries, rent/supplies,office equipment,capital expenses,new construction/vehicles etc.). Show how the CDBG funds will be applied toward expenses and the amount and source of any other revenue you will be using. Total expenses should equal the total of CDBG plus Other Revenue. Be prepared to explain the budget and provide a copy of full agency budget upon request. EXPENSES REVENUES LINE ITEM $TOTAL BUDGET $CDBG FUNDS $OTHER FUNDS SOURCE OF OTHER FUNDS PERSONNEL: Salaries Benefits OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Architectural Engineering $210,000 $185,000 $25,000 CDBG (2007) Materials Labor/Contracts PROPERTY: Purchase price Closing cost OTHER: (describe) TOTAL $ 210,000 $ 185,000 $ 25,000 Additional explanation of the above budget: Anticipate$25k in carryover over CDBG from 2007 allocation. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,how will the goals of your project be adjusted? What portion of your project will be abandoned,will fewer persons be served,etc.? 15. PROJECT BENEFICIARIES-List the client data of persons whom you ESTIMATE you will serve with this project. Is your count by: ®Person,or by❑Household(family)? MLK Gym Remodel-supplemental Page 5 Total Number to be served 4,800 Number of clients below 50% median 1,800 Number of clients below 80% median 4,000 Number of elderly clients 25 Number of minority clients 4,775 Number of Pasco residents 4,800 (Should=total#above) What is the data source for the information provided above? Actual attendance figures compiled by the YMCA. 16. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ONLY-Show the number of new/permanent jobs to be created through block grant funding and the number of jobs to be staffed by or made available to low-moderate income individuals this program year. Total to Date This Program Year Number of new jobs expected to be created/retained Number of new jobs expected to be filled or offered to low-or moderate-income persons(Must be at least 51%) Position Titles Expected to be Created this program year SUBMITTED BY: 3/25/09 Signature of uth0rized Official Title Date MLK Gym Remodel-supplemental Page 6 RECEIVED BOYS &GILLS CLUBS APR 0 8 2009 OF BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES COMMUNRY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Potential Project List Boys & Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties TO: Angie Pitman, City of Pasco FROM: Ron McHenry, Vice President of Finance RE: CDBG 2009 Potential Amended Projects Angie, The Boys & Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties are interested in pursuing funding for several projects at our facility which may be covered by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. We understand that the nature of the funding may require swift processing of information and a close attention to detail for reporting standards—both areas in which we feel we have been quite successful at in years past. We have identified several projects for your department to consider and have received preliminary cost estimates from local contractors. This project list was created to resolve immediate health and safety concerns in our community facility and is prioritized based on need. While we hope to receive full funding for our projects we understand that the amount and nature of the ARRA funding may resolve in slightly less than needed to completely finish all projects listed. We are investigating ways in which we may be able to trim from individual projects to meet funds distributed by the City of Pasco and successfully complete all projects requested. Project: Gymnasium Safety Lighting& Control Point Construction Cost: $18,628 Time to Complete: 5-9 Days Construction Windows: June 8-12/Aug. 31-Sep. 1 1 Current lighting fixtures in the gymnasium date to the original construction of the building. The fixtures are incredibly unsafe by today's standards and codes and bulbs are in constant danger of impact, whereupon toxic chemicals and substances can be released into the environment. This project would replace all 24 lighting fixtures in the gymnasium with implements which would be protected by Plexiglas and wire cage material and have the added benefit of being much more energy efficient. Construction of a Control Point in the hallway will complete a project begun in 2008, but had to be abandoned because of additional life-safety measures required by the City of Pasco. Completion of the Control Point will assist in security for our youth as well as temper energy consumption in that zone. Project: Gymnasium Roof Replacement Cost: $25,000 Time to Complete: 6-8 Days Construction Window: June 8-Sep. I 1 The roof in the gymnasium has far outlived its life span and during any rainfall, regardless of severity, causes safety concerns on the floor below as water just seeps through in several places. This project would remove deteriorated portions of the roof structure, replace the sub-roof where needed and provide a new roof overlay and sealant. Project: Hallway Floor Sealed and New Floor Installed Cost: $20,795 Time to Complete: 5-9 Days Construction Windows: June 8-12/Aug. 31-Sep. 11 The current front hallway at the facility presents our staff with quite a challenge. Tile from the 1950's has a propensity to be slick when wet and carries with it concerns from the asbestos used to glue it down. Recently more and more of these tiles have become chipped, cracked and warped and have become safety concerns. Our project would seal these tiles and overlay them with new carpet tiles which will provide a safer floor surface, seal hazardous materials and provide for easier facility maintenance. Project: Classroom flooring replacement Cost: $18,600 Time to Complete: 8-10 days Construction Windows: June 8-12/Aug. 31-Sep. 11 Two programs spaces currently have stretch carpet which has long passed its usable life span. Unfortunately, during a previous construction project we have found that there is asbestos underneath the carpet which prevents us from using volunteers to simply replace the carpet ourselves. Replacing the carpet in the Learning Center program space has become a high priority for us as more and more areas are becoming unsafe because of runs in the carpet and subflooring being exposed. While the carpet in the Computer Lab is also in poor condition, it is in slightly better condition and receives less foot traffic, allowing us to postpone replacement until additional funding come available in the future. We understand that a major component of ARRA is expediting processes wherever possible. To that effect we are prepared to send solicitations out for bids within three days of approval of funding. Many of our projects have limited construction windows so as to limit negative impacts on current program levels though some flexibility may be available to fully carry-out objectives and criteria set by the City of Pasco. If you desire additional clarification on these items please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Ron McHenry Vice President of Finance Boys&Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties s1 owe RECEIVED APPLICATION FOR CITY OF PASCO MAR 13 2009 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG) FUND COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Boys& Girls Clubs of Benton& Franklin Counties PROJECT TITLE: Gymnasium Safety Lighting and Control Point Construction ADDRESS: 801 N 18th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION: 801 N 18th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 CONTACT PERSON: Ron McHenry E-MAIL: Ron @kidexpert.org PHONE: 509-543-9980 FAX: 509-543-9981 AMOUNT OF CDBG FUNDS REQUESTED: S 18,628 4- 60 tSb� _ 063i 4 AMOUNT OF NON-CDBG MATCH: $ 1. DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM OR NEED(AS RELATED TO THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN ATTACHED): The Boys& Girls Clubs Main Branch facility is located within an old elementary school building. Both components of the project relate to safety. The original light fixtures from 1954 in the gym are still being used, have no safety covers and are built of materials long classified as hazardous. Additionally, some have literally already fallen to the floor and broken and with no replacement parts available because of their unsafe nature, the Gym experiences lighting issues during the winter and at night when outside light does not exist. Originally intended for construction in 2008, the Control Point which was to be established between two areas with heavy foot traffic and incidents of youth injury had to be abandoned because of significant cost increases to the 2008 project due to the unexpected finding of Asbestos and Lead in other areas of the project. 2. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL-Give a complete detailed description of your proposal including a description of the clientele you will be serving: The services that the Boys & Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties offer are specifically related to the strategic priorities. The youth served in our program are predominantly from low-income households and would otherwise be unsupervised during program hours; 86.3% and 92.2% of the youth from the two schools closest to our building are receiving free or reduced lunches. These youth will be more safely served educationally and recreationally through this project. Goal III, Strategy I addresses the improvement of community or neighborhood centers. Additionally, the work of the Boys & Girls Club and this project will address Goal V, Strategy 2 by providing services to children and youth, homeless families, and lower-income families. We propose to replace all lighting fixture inside the gymnasium with lighting fixtures approved by the State of Washington for use in educational and recreational facilities. These fixtures feature low-energy using bulbs and plexiglass covers surrounded by a metal protection frame. This will allow for an increase of youth participation in the gym upon the removal of safety concerns. The Control Point will be a new wall with swinging doors which will separate two halves of the building, serving as a natural `speed bump' for youth and allowing the building to be secured in a new way, allowing for new models for serving our neighborhood community while not impacting youth programs. 3. CONSOLIDATED PLAN: The City of Pasco is required to adopt a long-range community action plan to determine where the use of Block Grant funds should be focused. List the identified objective(s)listed in the City of Pasco 2009 A CDBG Application-Pasco Page I Consolidated Plan that the proposal addresses and explain how your proposal meets that need. (See STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN GOALS attached) Goal # 3 Strategy# 1 Objective#1.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT STATEMENT:Success of the project will be measured based on increased physical activities programming for all members and a decrease in incidents between program areas. DESCRIPTION OF MEETING THE NEED: We are pleased about the possibilities this capital improvement project will give to our youth. By increasing safe program areas for kids and reducing the likelihood of lighting fixtures of breaking and falling on kids, we will be better able to safely serve youth at the Boys & Girls Club. 4. ALLOCATION POLICY: Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy. Identify the priority(A, B,C or D)that matches your project(see Section 11 in Allocation Policy): Priority: ®A ❑B ❑C ❑D and explain how your proposal satisfies that priority: Improve public facility to ensure increased safety, security, and services to disadvantaged youth. 5. GENERAL SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION: Bids will be solicited upon notification of funding approval, a contract will be signed two weeks after bids are initially sent out and construction will begin within 45 days upon notification of funding. We anticipate construction activities to take less than 15 days. 6. SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT CDBG FUNDS WOULD BE USED FOR: CDBG funds will be used to engage a lighting contractor to demolish current lighting fixtures, address electrical circuit issues and replace lighting fixtures in the gymnasium. Another contractor will be engaged to provide construction services needed in regards to the Control Point. 7. DOES YOUR PROJECT CREATE INDIVIDUAL/BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT OR RELOCATION? ❑ YES ® NO 8. ELIBIBILITY: The proposed project benefits low-moderate income persons by meeting the CDBG Goals&Objectives (See ELIGIBILITY attached): ❑ Public Acguisition of Property 24 CFR 570.201(a): ® Public Facilities(new construction or capital improvements)24 CFR 570.201(c): ® Public Services 24 CFR 570.201(e): ❑ Economic Development 24 CFR 570.201(o)/24 CFR 570.203: ❑ Housing rehabilitation and preservation 24 CFR 570.202: ❑ Code Enforcement 24 CFR 570.202(c): ❑ Plannine 24 CFR 570.205: ❑ Other(describe): 9. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE: How does your proposal meet the National Objective of benefiting low and moderate-income persons?(See ELIGIBILITY attached)(SELECT ONLY ONE!) 1)❑ You receive household/family income and size data from each participant in the program(LMH)(LMC) 2)® Your project serves a limited area that is proven by census tract or survey to be a low-income area(LMA): ❑ Downtown Revitalization Zone ®Census Tract#201,202,203,204 3)❑ Your project serves only the following clientele(check appropriate box)(LMC): 2009 A CDBG Application-Pasco Page 2 ❑ Elderly person's ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ At Risk Youth ❑ Other: 4)❑ Your project will create or save jobs that employ low/moderate income employees(LMJ) 5)❑ Your project addresses a slum/blight condition(SBA/SBS) LMA—Low-moderate income area(Census Tract or Survey Area) LMC—Low-moderate income clientele LMH—Low-moderate income household/family LMJ—Low-moderate income job creation/retention SBA/SBS—Slum & Blight Area/Spot(as designed by local government) 10. PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES Is this the first year for the program? ❑Yes ❑No Year program began? If you receive funding for 2009,how will your program be funded in 2010? NOTE: To be eligible for CDBG assistance,a public service must be either a new service or a quantifiable increase in the level of an existing service. If services are a continuation of existing services,this does not apply. Explain how your application qualifies: ❑ Continuation of Services ❑ New Service ❑ Increase in Service 11. WHAT AMOUNT OF BLOCK GRANT FUNDING HAS YOUR AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT RECEIVED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS? 2008 2007 2006 Pasco $ $157,083 $ $100,000 $ $35,000 Richland $ $ $ Kennewick $ $106,813.04 $ $ To what other agencies have you applied for funding and what commitments have you obtained for this proposal? The Boys & Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties have applied to private foundations for funding of this proposal with no success. There are currently no other avenues for completion. 2009 A CDBG Application-Pasco Page 3 12. PROVIDE A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT OR SERVICE AREA: INSERT MAP HERE Court St. 39 20th St 18" St Bovs & Girls Club —60 Edgar Brown Sylvester 2009 A CDBG Application-Pasco Page 4 13. PROJECT TIMELINE- Establish milestones or goals of accomplishments by calendar quarter from the start of the project until completion: Date Milestone/Goal include numerical performance progress if an Date Milestone/Goal Upon Notification of Bids Immediately Sent Out Award 15 Days After Award Bids opened, contracts awarded and signed with City of Pasco Within 45 Days of Construction to begin Award Within 60 Days of Construction complete Award 14. BUDGET-Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project including major expense line items(salaries, rent/supplies,office equipment,capital expenses,new construction/vehicles etc.). Show how the CDBG funds will be applied toward expenses and the amount and source of any other revenue you will be using. Total expenses should equal the total of CDBG plus Other Revenue. Be prepared to explain the budget and provide a copy of full agency budget upon request. EXPENSES REVENUES LINE ITEM $TOTAL BUDGET $CDBG FUNDS $OTHER FUNDS SOURCE OF OTHER FUNDS PERSONNEL: Salaries Benefits OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Architectural Engineering Materials $10,200 Labor/Contracts $7,000 PROPERTY: Purchase price Closing cost OTHER:(describe) TAX $1,428 TOTAL $ $18,628 Additional explanation of the above budget: Cost estimate provided are based on those received from qualified local sources while preparing other funding requests. 2009 A CDBG Application-Pasco Page 5 If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,how will the goals of your project be adjusted? What portion of your project will be abandoned,will fewer persons be served,etc.? Depending upon the amount of money received we would either reduce the quality of some of the material, if possible, or delay making the needed improvements. 15. PROJECT BENEFICIARIES-List the client data of persons whom you ESTIMATE you will serve with this project. Is your count by: ❑Person,or by❑Household(family)? Total Number to be served Number of clients below 50% median Number of clients below 80% median Number of elderly clients Number of minority clients Number of Pasco residents (Should=total#above) What is the data source for the information provided above? 16. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ONLY-Show the number of new/permanent jobs to be created through block grant funding and the number of jobs to be staffed by or made available to low-moderate income individuals this program year. Total to Date This Program Year Number of new jobs expected to be created/retained Number of new jobs expected to be filled or offered to low-or moderate-income persons(Must be at least 51%) Position Titles Expected to be Created this program year SUBMITTED BY: VP of Finance March 13, 2009 Signature of Authorized Official Title Date 2009 A CDBG Application-Pasco Page 6 1 l' ' ' $owe 1B RECEIVED APR p 2 2009 APPLICATION FOR CITY OF PASCO COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG)FUND AGENCY: City of Pasco PROJECT TITLE: Curb,Gutter,Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements-Supplement ADDRESS: 525 N 3`d Ave. PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION: City Wide CONTACT PERSON: Robert Alberts E-MAIL: albertsb(apasco-\Na.vo\ PHONE: 545-3444 FAX: 543-5728 AMOUNT OF CDBG FUNDS REQUESTED: $ Additionalt 63,082 AMOUNT OF NON-CDBG MATCH: $ 0 1. DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM OR NEED(AS RELATED TO THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN ATTACHED): Portions of the proposed project location require improved access due to lack of existing infrastructure (Goal II. Improve Community Infrastructure) 2. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL-Give a complete detailed description of your proposal including a description of the clientele you will be serving: The project will install new curb,gutter,sidewalk,and roadways or repair and update the existing infrastructure throughout the proposed area. The existing infrastructure in this area is incomplete or non-existent. Clientele served by this project will be residents of the City of Pasco,residing within the proposed area and include:elderly,disabled,low-income,and children. 3. CONSOLIDATED PLAN: The City of Pasco is required to adopt a long-range community action plan to determine where the use of Block Grant funds should be focused. List the identified objective(s)listed in the City of Pasco Consolidated Plan that the proposal addresses and explain how your proposal meets that need. (See STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN GOALS attached) Goal 11,Strategy 1,Objective 1.2 Assist eligible infrastructure activities that revitalize and stabilize older or declining neighborhoods or areas with a majority of lower-income persons. 4. ALLOCATION POLICY: Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy. Identify the priority(A, B,C or D)that matches your project(see Section II in Allocation Policy): Priority: ®A ❑B ❑C ❑D and explain how your proposal satisfies that priority: 5. GENERAL SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION: This is a multi-year proiect. 6. SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT CDBG FUNDS WOULD BE USED FOR: Share in the cost for installation and/or improvement of infrastructure within the proposed area including curb,gutter,sidewalk,handicap ramps.and roadway. 7. DOES YOUR PROJECT CREATE INDIVIDUAL/BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT OR RELOCATION? ❑ YES ® NO 8. ELIBIBILITY: The proposed project benefits low-moderate income persons by meeting the CDBG Goals&Objectives (See ELIGIBILITY attached): ❑ Public Acquisition of Propertv 24 CFR 570.201(a): ® Public Facilities(new construction or capital improvements)24 CFR 570.201(c): ❑ Public Services 24 CFR 570.201(e): 2009 CDBG Application-Electronic(supplement).doc Page I ❑ Economic Development 24 CFR 570.201(o)/24 CFR 570.203: ❑ Housing rehabilitation and preservation 24 CFR 570.202: ❑ Code Enforcement 24 CFR 570.202(c): ❑ Planning 24 CFR 570.205: ❑ Other(describe): 9. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE: How does your proposal meet the National Objective of benefiting low and moderate-income persons?(See ELIGIBILITY attached)(SELECT ONLY ONE!) 1)❑ You receive household/family income and size data from each participant in the program(LMH)(LMC) 2)® Your project serves a limited area that is proven by census tract or survey to be a low-income area(LMA): ❑ Downtown Revitalization Zone ®Census Tract# 201 3)❑ Your project serves only the following clientele(check appropriate box)(LMC): ❑ Elderly person's ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS ❑ Battered spouses ❑Migrant farm workers ❑ At Risk Youth ❑Other: 4)❑ Your project will create or save jobs that employ low/moderate income employees(LMJ) 5)❑ Your project addresses a slum/blight condition(SBA/SBS) LMA—Low-moderate income area(Census Tract or Survey Area) LMC—Low-moderate income clientele LMH—Low-moderate income household/family LMJ—Low-moderate income job creation/retention SBA/SBS—Slum&Blight Area/Spot(as designed by local government) 10. PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES Is this the first year for the program? ❑Yes ❑No Year program began? If you receive funding for 2009,how will your program be funded in 2010? NOTE: To be eligible for CDBG assistance,a public service must be either a new service or a quantifiable increase in the level of an existing service.If services are a continuation of existing services,this does not apply. Explain how your application qualifies: ❑Continuation of Services ❑ New Service ❑ Increase in Service 11. WHAT AMOUNT OF BLOCK GRANT FUNDING HAS YOUR AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT RECEIVED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS? 2008 2007 2006 Pasco $ 114 0104b $ 138,750 $ 100,000 Richland $ $ $ Kennewick $ $ $ To what other agencies have you applied for funding and what commitments have you obtained for this proposal? none 2009 CDBG Application-Electronic(supplemc11t).doc Page 2 M w O M v OD :C a 0 0 M C M fA ki J T O O N N N O C C iA CU y cam. o c L G : W o� o 0 r � s C U O L N ! oc v 12. PROVIDE A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT OR SERVICE AREA: INSERT MAP HERE -(X14 PPSt ciq r.o� 2009 CDBG Application-Electronic(supplement).doc Page 3 _ t r: r i co ry m O tM I Z rA f r f { f a � f t 7 I 1 t L r � I n}�{ ��� I..r �+i NT _ (� � frt (r.+'• 1 r 5��.` i Y f f 1 l , �- � 1`I r ^ .. h' iii tt � -`° ( '—'"-�'t,:.,:•-o. S.,R (r. �� 1 Y�t 1 ct Y' -_,r r .,( 1 ��vr2 z( -r a .. I M1� ,. .v �r•,t,�`x:�^ ..r. _ r �.�C.l�t.�"i i�,.. �r _rj'•'• 'j; ? (""J l 'Ti '• _ A Fs 10,1 f T^�• r � -� f Y�.�i 1 j i rT RV 0 l w I r - 1 J- FT, a (t I c.l i €•' f k- „ pq �nr r }Sti:- �y. J L� ,� !k.,, �k�I��i + " .s. � �,.� _'( iee, T39,v a y k #f r s �� J 7.E �I r� r l mgr. tk ( a _a m+14is'-�-.� ( ;•, z >,:uz• !�' Y` 't �'.'t°' �i_+P c-4taa 1 .�L _ I i �i :p { lf. t d3 t �i ':. I kI� r.; o,'f i r Y '` i t•� Yt r��f�T"�,- G (�( 1+'��•� '�. � {t�! l•;!. � M.f ! 9.mac,*ate� ��o�...�{ t j,���... � I .�rr°�i I�-i: '�J!'�,"��',�J_ n Syr .. �- , ctr���� 7, 13. PROJECT TIMELINE-Establish milestones or goals of accomplishments by calendar quarter from the start of the project until completion: Date Milestone/Goal(include numerical performance progress if any) June 2009 Solicitation for bids Phase I July 2009 Contract Award Phase I August 2009 Construction Begins Phase I December 2009 Construction Completed/Project Completed Phase I January 2010 Prepare and submit end of year report Phase I 14. BUDGET-Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project including major expense line items(salaries, rent/supplies,office equipment,capital expenses,new construction/vehicles etc.). Show how the CDBG funds will be applied toward expenses and the amount and source of any other revenue you will be using. Total expenses should equal the total of CDBG plus Other Revenue. Be prepared to explain the budget and provide a copy of full agency budget upon request. EXPENSES REVENUES LINE ITEM $TOTAL BUDGET $CDBG FUNDS $OTHER FUNDS SOURCE OF OTHER FUNDS PERSONNEL: Salaries Benefits OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Materials& Labor $285,000 $285,000 Engineering Materials Labor/Contracts PROPERTY: Purchase price Closing cost OTHER: (describe) $15,000 $15,000 TOTAL $300,000 $300,000 $ Additional explanation of the above budget: If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,how will the goals of your project be adjusted? What portion of your project will be abandoned,will fewer persons be served,etc.? Less infrastructure will be improved, and less people will be served as a result. 15. PROJECT BENEFICIARIES-List the client data of persons whom you ESTIMATE you will serve with this project. Is your count by: ❑Person,or by®Household(family)? 2009 CDBG Application-Electronic(supplcmcnt).doc Page 4 4 = ± o � 0 ) / f (n ■ k 2 \ 0 E % 2 ) f « f > .. 2 c E � \- \\ »% n / 2 a $ 6 0 o 2 S 5 ° e - (n o o c .g q « & $ 5U) > � ma % » 4f .m $ £ Q0- ■ cn � km = � % £ k N < C: a � Vic § < e e O = _ � / � E / c - / \ / 3:0 co \ Q o & s e o e e : < o = 2 o n c e .- > � o - § R 3 0 & 2 / 7 0 G 8 / o § w 0 / \ § E / 2 § e _ Co �\ E E > _ § 7 0 % § 0 £ � $ f g / S 9 § ° § \ ƒ % f / f : - c = - m I . c o / / � > k2 / / / � ( « � � / § \ % E � m c .0 2 m C / cgo3 \ \ y § « eE < o2 e = 5a) $ \ QE © � ' soSEaR ƒ £ = t = c o cn o >, = E o = > L o : c m ± 0- cn o I o » o ° o e c D 8 3 2 U I m E c m E g D cj I I U U L O m Cl. s 0 / z 0 7 0 � 0 � o 7 E w ƒ U C \ \ \ f § $ / b q o 0) r R C\l E # gym m % / $ mm _ to � 2 20 00 « CL § E / / 22 S k o .57 e ° 2 cl- 0 cu § ) n LL = S o / // / 0 _) \ \ f a. a i - 0 C) � g c) ■ § \ \ < 0 U 2 Total Number to be served 1,575 Number of clients below 50%median 1,320 Number of clients below 80%median 1,200 Number of elderly clients 236 Number of minority clients 1,181 Number of Pasco residents 1,575 (Should=total#above) What is the data source for the information provided above? Observation of the Proposed Proiect area 16. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ONLY-Show the number of new/permanent jobs to be created through block grant funding and the number of jobs to be staffed by or made available to low-moderate income individuals this program year. Total to Date This Program Year Number of new jobs expected to be created/retained Number of new jobs expected to be filled or offered to low-or moderate-income persons(Must be at least 51%) Position Titles Expected to be Created this program year SUBMITTED BY: /M.M — I✓1 T1-�(�/W�� Signature of Authors d Official Title Date 2009 CDBG Application-Electronic(supplement).doc Page 5