Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.10.29 Council Special Meeting PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. October 29, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS (a) Area #2 Annexation: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 25, 2012. 2. Map, Annexation Options 2012. 3. Map, Annexation Area #2. 4. Incorporation Process. 5. Area #2 Fiscal Impact Table. 6. Proposed Ordinance. 7. Annexation Facts Comparison. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington relating to annexation and annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. 4. ADJOURNMENT TO: City FROM: Gary SUBJECT: Area I. REFERENCE(S): AGENDA REPORT I . Map, Annexation Options 2012 2. Map, Annexation Area #2 3. Incorporation Process 4. Area 42 Fiscal Impact Table 5. Proposed Ordinance 6. Annexation Facts Comparison October 25, 2012 Special Mtg.: 10/29/12 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/29: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING 10/29: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Certain taxes and fees will be received by the City for the annexation area and the City will spend more for certain service functions. Overall, the City will receive more than it expends on this area alone, as some of the major service functions (police and fire services) are already in place and sufficient to absorb the new service area without additional expense. See table (Reference No. 4). IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) At the invitation of the City, Franklin County Fire District #3 and Franklin County Commission entered into negotiations for an agreement covering the eventual annexation of the donut hole area of Pasco's UGA in late summer 2011. As a part of the negotiation process, Franklin County desired the preparation of a matrix to compare the regulatory and cost considerations for affected residents. The matrix, clearly reflecting no meaningful difference in regulatory matters (except dog control), very similar annualized household costs and (arguably) improved service levels (police, fire, garbage, etc.), was completed in May. A group of donut hole residents filed notice of intent to incorporate (rather than be annexed) with Franklin County on May 21, 2012. B) On June 18, 2012, the City Council passed Resolution No. 3407 establishing an annexation boundary for the proposed Area #2 annexation. Council chose to initiate annexation of Area #2 rather than allow the incorporation of a "city within the city" together with the numerous problems that would be created by such a scenario, including: • Perpetuation of gross inefficiencies in Pasco's daily operations (police, utilities, parks and streets) associated with the requirement to drive through another city to serve portions of Pasco west and north of the donut hole; • Potential dead - ending of the City's utility systems (water and sewer) and/or exorbitant franchise fees /onerous conditions required by the new city; 3(a) • Relocation of the City's Fire Station #3 (Road 68 and Argent) so that it is not on the edge of Pasco; • Continued impact on the City's traffic system without contribution by new development in the new city via traffic impact fees; • Use of Pasco facilities created and maintained at Pasco taxpayer expense without financial participation by residents of the separate city (senior citizens' center, Chiawana Park, etc.). C) Annexation Area 42 contains 608 acres, an estimated 528 dwelling units and a population of approximately 1500. The current assessed value of the proposed annexation area is $120,865,200. D) As discussed by Council in June, completion of annexation of Area #2 will reduce the number of possible residents of the proposed new city to less than 3,000, the minimum requirement. While incorporation proponents have represented that the proposed new city would be able to function without any new taxes or rate increases above those currently imposed in the unincorporated area and would be able to purchase all required services by contract, no details or specifics have been released (to the knowledge of staff). The City has developed a fiscal impact analysis of the effect of the annexation of Area #2, as attached. Due to investments that the City has already made and given the ability to absorb most of the relatively small workload with existing staff resources, the City would realize net positive financial benefits from the annexation. E) A 60% petition for the annexation boundary approved in Resolution 3407 was prepared and submitted to the County Assessor for certification. The petition has been reviewed by the County Assessor and has been determined to be sufficient to constitute a legally acceptable petition under the 60% petition method of annexation. The next step in the annexation process requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on the proposed annexation. F) Before proceeding with a public hearing on the proposed annexation, the City solicited input from affected citizens in Area #2 and formed an "Annexation Facts Committee," consisting of 12 area residents, to review and refine the previously completed cost and regulatory matrix. The completed matrix and statement, approved by 10 of the 12 members of the Committee, was mailed to Area #2 residents on October 2, 2012. The mailing also included an invitation to attend a neighborhood meeting to discuss the various regulation and cost items, plus any other issues related to annexation. The neighborhood meeting was held on October 17; it was attended by most of the Committee members, Mayor Watkins and Councilmember Hoffmann and approximately 80 Area #2 residents. G) On October 18, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the zoning plan for the area. The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded for separate Council action in November. V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed annexation ordinance, if adopted, will cause the properties in question to be annexed to the City on January 1, 2013 subject to the following conditions: 1. The Comprehensive Plan of the City will continue to be applicable to the area. 2. The annexation area will not assume any existing bonded indebtedness. 3. The annexation area will be assigned to Voting District #5. B) The delayed effective date is recommended to provide ample time for notice to residents and utility providers alike, so the transition can be as smooth as practicable. Zoning must be assigned by separate ordinance and Council action in November. Annexation Options, 2012 4 , , 3 Oil Annexation Area #2 -�- i . �a Incorporation Process 1. Notice filed with County Commission. 2. Within 30 days of filing, Commission holds public meeting (scheduled for 6/13). 3. Within 180 days of meeting, Petition equal to 10% of voters must be filed with auditor. 4. City Annexation may be initiated any time prior to or 90 days following filing of incorporation petition. 5. Within 30 days of receipt of petition, Auditor determines petition validity. 6. Within 60 days of notice of publication validity by Auditor, County Commission holds public hearing. 7. Election at next special election date that is more than 60 days following public hearing. AREA #2 ANNEXATION FISCAL IMPACT Estimated: Population Annexation Details: Assessed Val # homes CITY REVENUE IMPACTS State Shared Revenue' Gas Tax Liquor Fees Liquor Tax* Crim Justice Sp Crim Justice Pop Sub -total Taxes Property Sales Tax Const Public Safety Misc Taxes Z City Area #2 % 62,670 1584 2.53% 3,214,780,310 121,165,400 3.77% 16,000 528 3.30% P/C Amt $20.64 $8.97 $3.00 $0.89 $0.26 $33.76 Rate (2012) 1.968 0.85% Utility Est /hh General Fund Telephone $46 Electricity $138 Water /sewer $ (12) S. Waste $14 Cable (5 %) $43 Cable (8.5 %) $61 Sub-total $ 291 Fees 4,752 Ambulance $75 Stormwater $36 Bldg Permit Fees3 1,410 Water Fees (124) TOTALREVENUE Total Impact General Fund Streets Utility Ambulance $ 32,694 $ 32,694 $ 14,208 $ 14,208 $ 4,752 $ 4,752 $ 1,410 $ 1,410 $ 412 $ 412 $ 238,454 $ 238,454 $ 34,144 $ 34,144 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 5,980 $ 5,980 $24,288 $ 21,471 $2,817 $72,864 $ 64,412 $8,452 (4,250) (4,250) $7,392 $ 6,535 $857 $6,819 $6,819 $9,662 $ 8,542 $1,121 $116,775 $ 96,708 $20,067 $39,600 $39,600 $19,008 $19,008 $ 28,842 $ 28,842 (45,830) (45,830) $ 635,223 $ 549,617 $ 72,828 $ (26,822) $ 39,600 CITY OPERATING EXPENSE IMPACTS Animal Control Jail ° $1,164,473.80 Dispatch 6 $888,584.53 DEM 6 2010 Voter Reg 2010 Streets Park Maint Misc Exp (AWC, BFCC) CITY CAPITAL EXPENSE IMPACTS (Syr Amortization) Park Development' Arterial Streets 8 Fire Hydrants TOTAL EXPENSE NET FINANCIAL IMPACT NOTES 1. 2013 Estimates MRSC *Est for 2013 is $.84; 2014 is $3.24 2. PUD Priv;Nuclear,City- County; Sales Tx Mit ($590K est 2013) 3. Construction in UGA county has averaged (2011 -2012 YTD) 3.2 SFR permits /mo; 39 /yr; avg val: $308,993 For est. use 1/3 =13; Taxable Val= $4,016,909 Permit on $308k = $2168; Add $50 pin ck 4. Jail Cost 2011: $1,135,767 5. Dispatch Cost 2011: $866,679 6. DEM (County -79k, City 60K) Assessment is approx $10.7K Capital Expense 7. New park land /development est. $500,000 8. Possible improvements to Argent, Court or Sylvester Streets $500,000 9. Fire hydrant upgrades; est. 30ea @ $5,000 Total Impact General Fund Streets Utility Ambulance $ (7,000) $ (7,000) ($28,707) $ (28,707) ($21,906) $ (21,906) $ (185) $ (185) $ (1,442) $ (1,442) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (1,600) $ (1,600) $ (100,000) $ (100,000) $ (100,000) $ (100,000) $ (150,000) $ (150,000) $ (450,839) $ (330,839) $ (120,000) $ - $ $ 184,384 $ 218,778 $ (47,172) $ (26,822) $ 39,600 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington relating to annexation and annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has declared its intent to annex the following described territory known as Riverview Annexation Area #2 to the City of Pasco pursuant to RCW Chapter 35A.14; and WHEREAS, a legally sufficient intent to commence annexation proceedings by the petition method of annexation was prepared by City officers and received by the City; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council passed Resolution No. 3407 on June 18, 2012 accepting the proposed territory for annexation, determining that zoning will be established with input from affected property owners and that the annexation area will not require the assumption of existing City bonded indebtedness; and WHEREAS, the Franklin County Assessor on October 23, 2012 officially certified the sufficiency of the petitions prepared and filed by City officers as representing more than 60% of the assessed value of the Riverview Annexation Area #2; and WHEREAS, the Riverview Annexation Area #2 is situated within the designated Pasco Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, City of Pasco utilities, police, fire and other services are adequate and available to serve the proposed annexation area; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed annexation has been published and posted as required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed annexation was held on October 29, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that annexation of Area #2 will improve the efficiency and distribution of necessary municipal services within the City's designated Urban Growth Area, to the benefit of all Pasco residents and taxpayers; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to -wit, shall be annexed to the City of Pasco: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 4, Lamb Estates, said comer being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence easterly along the south line of Lots 4, 3, 2 and 1 of Lamb Estates to the intersection with the west right -of -way line of Road 62; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of the south line of Lot 1, Lamb Estates to the east right -of -way line of Road 62; Thence northerly along said east right -of- way line to the north line of Lot 8, Sunflower Estates; Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 8 to the intersection with the west right -of -way line of Road 60; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of the north line of said Lot 8 to the intersection with the east right -of -way line of Road 60; Thence southerly along the east right -of -way line of Road 60 to the intersection with the north right -of -way line of Sylvester Street; Thence easterly along the north right -of -way line of Sylvester Street to the intersection with the east right -of -way line of Road 52; Thence northerly along the east right -of -way line of Road 52 to the intersection with the easterly projection of the south right -of -way line of West Agate Street; Thence westerly along the easterly projection of the south right -of -way line of West Agate Street to west right -of -way line of Road 52; Thence westerly along the south right -of -way line of West Agate Street to the northwest comer of Lot 7, Farrell Addition said northwest corner being on the east line of the west half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 9, North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence northerly along the east line of west half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 9, North, Range 29 East W.M to the intersection with the northeast corner of Lot 4, Bales Place; Thence westerly along the north line of Lots, 4, 3, 2, and 1 of Bales Place to the intersection with the east right -of -way line of Road 56; Thence northerly along the east right -of -way line of Road 56 to the intersection with the easterly projection of the north line of Lot 1, Block 2, Jensen Estates; Thence westerly along the easterly projection of the north line of said Lot 1 to the intersection with the west right -of -way line of Road 56; Thence northerly along the west right -of- way line of Road 56 to the intersection with the easterly projection of the south line of Lot 13, Park Knoll Subdivision ; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of said Lot 13, to the point on the north right -of -way line of West Wernett Road said point being 89.71 feet west of the southeast corner of Lot 40, Park Knoll Subdivision; Thence easterly along the north right -of -way line of West Wernett Road to the intersection with a point on the north right -of -way line of West Wemett Road said point being 101.28 feet east of the southwest corner of Lot 1, Diamond Ridge; Thence along a 25 foot radius to the left having an arc distance of 38.81.feet and a central angle of 88 degrees, 57 minutes, and 2 seconds to a point on the west right -of- way line of Road 52 said point being 174.49 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 1; Thence northerly along the west right -of -way line of Road 52 to a point on said right -of -way being 245.23 feet north of the southeast corner of Lot 2 , Short Plat 2008 -13; Thence along a 25 foot radius to the left having an are distance of 39.75 feet and a central angle of 91 degrees, 05 minutes and 31 seconds to a point on the south right -of -way line of Richardson Road, said point being 155.12 feet east of the northwest corner of Lot 2, Short Plat 2008 -13; Thence westerly along the south right - of -way line of Richardson Road to a point 223.49 feet west of the northeast comer of Lot 9, Diamond Ridge; Thence north to the north right -of -way line of Richardson Road; Thence westerly along the north right -of -way line of Richardson Road to the intersection with the southerly projection of Lot 7, Riverhills Addition; Thence northerly along the southerly projection of said Lot 7, to the southeast corner of said Lot 7; Thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 7 , and northerly along the east line of Lot 5, Riverhills Addition to the south right -of -way line of West Livingston Road; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the east line of said Lot 5, to a point on the north right -of -way line of West Livingston Road, said point being the southeast comer of Lot 3, Riverhills Addition; Thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 3, and northerly along the east line of Lot 1, Riverhills Addition to the south right -of -way line of West Dradie Street; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of said Lot 1, to the intersection with the northwest corner of Lot 1, Short Riverview Annexation Area #2 Page 2 Plat 76 -23, said northwest corner being on the south right -of -way line of West Dradie Street; Thence easterly along the south right -of -way line of West Dradie Street to the intersection with the southerly projection of Lot 1, Bosch Estates II; Thence northerly along the southerly projection of said Lot 1 to the southeast comer of said Lot 1: Thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 1 and the east line of Lots 2, 3, and 4 Bosch Estates Il to the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the east line of Lot 4 , Bosch Estates to the north line of West Argent Road; Thence easterly along the north right -of -way line of Argent Road to the intersection with the east line of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence northerly along the east line of said Section 15 to the south right -of -way line of the Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1 canal; Thence westerly along the south line of said irrigation canal right -of -way to the intersection with northeast corner of Lot 2, Binding Site Plan 2006 -06. Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 2 to the north right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence easterly along the north right -of -way line of West Argent Road to the intersection with the northerly projection of the North 210' of East 150' of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 27, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.; Thence southerly along the northerly projection of said line to the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence easterly along the south line of West Argent Road to the intersection with the northerly projection of the west line of Lot 1, Quail Run; Thence southerly along said northerly projection to a point on the east right -of -way line of Road 64 said point being 221.81 feet from the southwest comer of said Lot 1; Thence southerly along the east right -of -way line of Road 64 to the intersection with the southwest comer of Lot 4, Quail Run; Thence easterly along the south line of said Lot 4 and easterly along the south line of Lot 5, Quail Run to the southwest comer of Lot 5, Shaundee Estates; Thence easterly along the south line of said Lot 5, to the intersection with the west right -of -way line of Road 61; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of the south line of said Lot 5 to the southwest corner of Lot 6, Shaundee Estates; Thence easterly along the south line of said Lot 6 and easterly along the south line of Lot 7, Shaundee Estates to the west right -of -way line of Road 60; Thence northerly along the west right -of -way line of Road 60 to the intersection with a point on the west right -of -way line of Road 60 said point being 115.73 feet north of the southeast corner of Lot 10, Shaundee Estates; Thence easterly to the east right -of -way line of Road 60; thence northerly along the east right -of -way line of Road 60 to the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence easterly along the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road to the intersection with a line 825 east of the west line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence southerly along said line to the intersection with the westerly projection of the south line of Lot 4, Bosch Estates said intersection being on the west right -of -way line of Road 57; Thence southerly along the west right -of- way line of Road 57 to the intersection with the south line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence westerly along said south line to the west right -of -way line of Road 57; Thence southerly along the west right -of -way line of Road 57 to the intersection with the north line of Lot 1, Short Plat 2000 -09; Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 1 to the intersection with the northeast corner of a parcel described as follows: The south 594.16 feet of the west 227.73 feet of the east 495 feet of the west 825 feet of southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 22, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M., except 30 feet for Wemett Road; Thence westerly along the Riverview Annexation Area #2 Page 3 north line of said described parcel to the northwest comer thereof, Thence southerly along the west line of said described parcel to the intersection with the northeast corner of Lot 1, Short Plat 76 -9; Thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 1 to the east right -of -way line of Road 60; Thence westerly along the westerly projection of the north line of said Lot 1 to the intersection with the west right -of -way line of Road 60; Thence northerly along the west right -of -way line of Road 60 to the intersection with the northeast comer of Lot 6, Block 2, Deschane's Subdivision the same being the intersection of Road 60 and West Richardson Road; Thence westerly along the south right -of -way line of West Richardson Road to a point on the north line of Lot 1, Block I Buttercreek Estates Phase 1 said point being 133.70 feet west of the northeast comer of said Lot 1; Thence along a 25 foot radius to the left having an are distance of 38.68 feet and a central angle of 88 degrees, 39 minutes, and 10 seconds to a point on the east right -of -way line of Road 68 said point being 127.66 feet north of the southwest corner of said Lot 1; Thence southerly along the east right -of -way line of Road68 to the intersection with the westerly projection of the south line of Buttercreek Estates Phase 2; Thence easterly along said westerly projection and along the south line of Buttercreek Estates Phase 2 to the east line of Buttercreek Estates Phase 2; Thence southerly bearing south 00 degrees, 47 minutes and 36 seconds west for a distance of 15 feet; Thence easterly bearing north 89 degrees, 36 minutes and 44 seconds to the intersection with the east right -of -way line of Road 64; Thence southerly along the east right -of -way line of Road 64 to the intersection with the westerly projection of the north line of Binding Site Plan 2001- 05; Thence easterly along the north line of said Binding Site Plan to the east right -of- way line of Road 64; Thence southerly along the east right -of -way line of Road 64 to the point of beginning. Section 2. That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Pasco be and the same is hereby adopted for the above described properties. Section 3. That the above described properties shall not assume any portion of the existing bonded indebtedness of the City of Pasco. Section 4. That the above described properties shall be in Voting District #5. Section 5. That a certified copy of this ordinance be and the same shall be filed with the Franklin County Commissioners. Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2013. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 29th day of October, 2012. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Riverview Annexation Area #2 Page 4 ANNEXATION FACTS COMMITTEE STATEMENT The "Cost and Regulatory Comparison" document dated September 12, 2012 has been reviewed in detail over the course of six weeks and revised as appropriate by the Annexation Facts Committee, consisting of 12 residents of the unincorporated island. The Committee believes the comparison is an accurate summary of the key cost and regulatory considerations one should use when comparing daily life under Franklin County or City of Pasco rules. While the Committee takes no position regarding the question of annexation, we do encourage residents of the island to use this written factual comparison rather than perceived misconceptions regarding annexation. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Anthony Bachart Len Harms Robert Kiddy Il Mark MacFarlan* Gabriel Portugal Don Story* Leo Faust Jeff Hendler Samuel Kniveton Sally Merk Curt Rabideau Davida Wright * Participated in document review but declined to endorse Committee Statement COST AND REGULATORY COMPARISON FRANKLIN COUNTY ISLAND vs. CITY OF PASCO (September 12, 2012) Service / Issue Unincorporated County Fann animals are permitted in the county's residential city Farm animals are permitted in the city's RS12 and Notable Differences City limits Farm Animals zones. Each property is permitted to house one RS20 zones. Each property is permitted to house one number of "animal unit" (horse, cow, three sheep, etc.) for each "animal unit" (horse, cow, three sheep, etc.) for each chickens, fowl or 10,000 sq. ft. of land area exceeding the first 12,000 sq. 10,000 sq. ft. of land area exceeding the first 12,000 sq. rabbits to 40; ft. (Examples: a one -acre site could house one horse, ft. (Examples: a one -acre site could house one horse, County has no one cow and three sheep; or three horses or three cows one cow and three sheep; or three horses or three cows limit in RS -20 or nine sheep. A five -acre site could house 20 horses or nine sheep. A five -acre site could house 20 horses zone. or any combination of cows and horses up to 20; or 60 or any combination of cows and horses up to 20; or 60 Otherwise, no sheep). County limits number of chickens, fowl or sheep). City limits number of chickens, fowl or rabbits difference on rabbits to two animal units (40) in RS -12 zone but has to two animal units (40) in RS -12 and RS -20 zones. farm animals. no limit in RS -20 zones. Pasco Municipal Code 25.12 Franklin County Cade 17.28.030(E) Dogs No annual license requirement; limits number of dogs Annual license required ($10 altered; $45 unaltered); City requires to three (unless licensed as a kennel). No leash law. limits number of dogs to three (unless licensed as a annual license; Sheriff responds to dog complaints; "potentially kennel); has leash law (when off owner's property); leash law; dangerous dog" is one which acts aggressive toward or "potentially dangerous dog" is one which acts requires bites a human and Sheriff notifies owner in writing — aggressive toward or bites human once (regardless of enclosure, permit no restrictions required of dog; "dangerous dog" is one need for stitches) or any pit bull - all required to get and insurance for which a) has been previously classified as a special license, and provide insurance and enclosure of "potentially "potentially dangerous dog" and acts aggressive or dog on property. "Dangerous dog" is one which kills a dangerous" bites a human a second time or b) bites a human for the domestic animal or livestock; enclosure, permit and dogs; regular first time and the injury is severe (multiple stitches) or insurance required. Enforcement under direction of Tti- patrols for c) kills a domestic animal or livestock. Enclosure of Cities Animal Control Authority with regular patrol by pickup of stray dog on property and insurance and permit required for animal control officers. dogs. "dangerous dog." Pasco Municipal Code Title 8 RCW 16.08.070(2) and (3) and Franklin County Code 17.38.030 9/12/12 Page 1 Service/ Issue Unincorporated Existing wells may continue to be used, maintained Existing wells may continue to be used, maintained �� Differences None Domestic Wells and repaired, per health department and Department of and repaired per health department and Department of Ecology requirements. Ecology requirements. No new wells allowed for new development, unless waiver allowed for extenuating circumstances. City Water If property owner desires connection to city water, Connection to city water is not required if well exists Reduced rate in owner must pay proportionate share of city waterline or property does not contain habitable building. At city; new extension. A $23.75 base fee per month is charged time of building permit (habitable building), owner development or outside city, with a use charge of $1.24 per 100 cubic may elect to continue to use well, but must pay connection must feet of water used (monthly charges do not apply if proportionate share of city water line extension (PMC pay using existing well). 16.06). A $12,50 base fee per month is charged inside proportionate the city, with a use charge of $0.65 per 100 cubic feet share of water of water used (monthly charges do not apply if using line extension. existing well). Pasco Municipal Code 3.07.160(B) Irrigation Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) water is Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) water is None Water available to properties that are within the district available to properties that are within the district boundaries. boundaries. Septic Tanks State law (WAC 246 -272A -0025) requires connection State law (WAC 246 -272A -0025) requires connection None to sewer if sewer line is within 200 feet of house served to sewer if sewer line is within 200 feet of house served by failed septic system and is deemed necessary by by failed septic system and is deemed necessary by local health officer. Installation of new septic tank is local health officer. Installation of new septic tank is allowed on property over 1 acre in size regardless of allowed per health department rules if sewer is not water source and on % acre site if property connected available and city grants waiver from sewer connection to city water system (per health department). Existing requirement. Existing septic tanks can continue to be septic tanks can continue to be used in accordance with used in compliance with health department rules. health department rules. 9/12/12 Page 2 Service Issue Unincorporated Connection to city sewer is not required if septic Differences Reduced rate in Sewer If property connects to city sewer, owner must pay proportionate share of city sewer line extension. Must system is operational or property does not contain city; otherwise, connect to sewer if within 200 feet of sewer line and no habitable building. At time of building permit (new no change. operational septic system. Sewer use rate is habitable building), must connect to sewer only if $37.20 /month. within 200 feet of sewer line and no operational septic system. City Code (PMC 16.06) allows waivers for extenuating circumstances. Sewer use rate is $24.80 /month. Pasco Municipal Code 3.07.170(A)(1) RID/LID Road Improvement District (RID) is a method of Local Improvement District (LID) is a method of Street and utility financing local street improvements in unincorporated financing local public improvements like streets, water improvements neighborhoods. lines, sewer lines, etc., in city neighborhoods. An LID may be financed A RID occurs only when qualified improvements are can be proposed by affected property owners or the by city, if proposed and, after a public hearing, the proposed City of Pasco. An LID occurs only if, after a public majority of street financing plan is approved by a majority of the hearing and notice to affected property owners, the owners desires. affected property owners and the County Commission. proposed financing plan is approved by a majority of the affected property owners and the City Council. See Exhibit D. Solid Waste Solid waste service is provided by Basin Disposal but All households/businesses are obligated to subscribe to Lower cost in subscription is optional to resident. The service option the solid waste service provided by Basin Disposal Inc. city; free pickup is one 96 gallon can weekly for $17.85 /month; each (BDI). The service provides a 96 gallon can for of certain items; additional can is $17.85 /month. This rate excludes any weekly automated pickup at the street edge for two free trips to "extra" bags or bundles; each bag or bundle not in a $15.00 /month; each additional can is $2.00. Pick -up of transfer station can costs $2.27. Pickup of appliances with Freon cost appliances and four tires each year are free. This rate annually; $15.00, each. Pickup of old tires cost $2.72 each. includes "unlimited" pickup service so long as the compulsory Tariff No. 92 of Basin Disposal Co. extra waste is bundled or bagged and at the street edge. service. Effective. 217103 hi addition, each household can use the BDI transfer station twice each year at no charge. Pasco Municipal Code 6.04 9/12/12 Page 3 Service / Issue Unincorporated 1 Notable Differences Fire Services Fire District No. 3 currently serves the island as well as Pasco fire department will become first responder to Quicker the rest of Fire District No. 3 from six stations, two of fire calls. The city's fire stations at Road 68 and at the response with which are located in the island. Average response time Tri- Cities airport will respond to the area. Average full crew; district- wide is just over 11 minutes. Fire insurance response time with a four - person city crew is under 6 probable rating is "Class 7." minutes, city wide. Fire insurance rating is "Class 5" reduction of fire (about 15% reduction in fire insurance premium). insurance premium in city. Ambulance City fire department currently provides first - response City fire department provides first response ambulance For those with Service ambulance service to district under contract with Fire service to city. Monthly 2013 fee will be $6.25 ($75 property value District #3. No monthly or annual fee to residents. annual). Transport charge is $660. higher than (EMS levy expected in 2013; median annual property Pasco Municipal Code 3.07.010(A)(2) $200,000, lower tax of $77 for ambulance services.) Transport charge is annual cost in $990. city. Sheriff (27 commissioned officers for 1200 square Police department (73 commissioned officers for 34 Law miles of county) provides law enforcement in the square miles of city) provides law enforcement in the Enforcement island. The island is part of the south county patrol City. The island would be part of two city patrol zones, zone; the south zone is about 380 square miles in size each about 6 square miles in size and containing at and usually has 2 -3 officers on duty in that zone. least one officer on duty; will result in at least 2 officers on duty in the island. Building County uses International Building Code (IBC)', same City uses International Building Code (IBC), same No change, Permits code state wide. County requires dedication of half code state wide. City requires dedication of half except addition standard right -of -way (30 feet)' for residential street standard right -of -way (30 feet) for residential street of impact fees adjacent subject property. County requires source of adjacent subject property. (see references, potable water for habitable buildings per health (See also Domestic Wells; City Water; Septic Tanks; page 5). department (well or city water)' and provision for Sewer) sanitary waste water per health department (on -site Pasco Municipal Code 1606 septic system or city sewer connection). (See also Domestic Wells; City Water, Septic Tanks; Sewer) '- Franklin County Code 15.12.020 -070 ?- Franklin County Resolution No. 2002 -270 '- Franklin County Code 1628.020(B) 9/12/12 Page 4 Service / Issue Unincorporated Notable Differences Non - Any lawfully existing land use /structure which does Any lawfully existing land use /structure prior to None Conforming not conform to applicable development regulations annexation which does not conform to applicable Property Uses may continue to exist and be maintained but not development regulations may continue to exist and be expanded. Can be transferred to a new owner provided maintained but not expanded. Can be transferred to a it is not discontinued for one year or more. Cannot be new owner provided it is not discontinued for one year rebuilt if destroyed more than 50% of tax assessed or more. Cannot be rebuilt if destroyed more than 50% value by fire, etc, of tax assessed value by fire, etc. Franklin County Code 17.70.040 Pasco Municipal Code Title 25 Park Impact $300 for new (2002 or later) residential lots in a short $687 per lot assessed at time of building permit Higher fee in Fee plat or subdivision. No park fee for a new home on a issuance for each new residential unit, regardless of city. lot platted prior to 2002. when the vacant lot was created. Franklin County Ordinance No. 2 -2008 (Chapter 13) Traffic Impact None. $709 per lot assessed at time of building permit Additional fee in Fee issuance for each new residential unit, regardless of city. when the vacant lot was created. School Impact None. $4,700 per single - family unit and $4,525 per multi- Additional fee in Fee family unit at time of building permit issuance city. regardless of when the lot was created. Road Standards Hard surface road standards require a minimum of 28 Hard surface street standards require minimum of 38 Possible wider feet width (no parking), 32 feet width (one -side feet width (both sides parking). Curb, gutter, streets in city. parking), or 38 feet width (both sides parking). Wider sidewalks and street lights are not required for streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street lights are residential but some or all may be installed at not required but some or all may be installed at developer discretion. City may require school district developer's discretion. or developer to install sidewalks in school zones and Franklin County Code 1612.020(A) commercial or other high traffic areas. Franklin County Resolution No. 2002 -270 (Roadway Width) Property Tax See Exhibit A See Exhibit A See Exhibit A 2012 Property Tax Levies 2012 Property Tax Levies 9/12/12 Page 5 Service / Issue Unincorporated See Exhibit B See Exhibit B Differences See Exhibit B Household Costs Household Fees and Taxes Comparison Household Fees and Taxes Comparison Zoning, See Exhibit C See Exhibit C No difference in Development Residential Zoning Comparison Chart Residential Zoning Comparison Chart RS -1, RS -12 and Density, Set RS -20 zones Back Distances, Other Development Standards 9/12/12 Page 6 EXHIBIT A 2012 Property Tax Levies State Schools $2.293 $2.293 County Regular Levy $1.439 $1.439 City Regular Levy 2 - - - $1.968 TRAC Bonds (expire 12/1/2013) $0.065 $0.065 Courthouse Remodel Bond (expire 12/1/2022) $0.149 $0.149 City Library Bond (expire 12/1/201 9) 3 - - - - - - City Fire Station Bond (expire 12/1/201 9) 3 - - - - - - City Hall Bond (expire 12/1/2013) 3 - - - - - - Fire District No. 3 $1.035 - - - County Road $1.441 - - - Mid- Columbia Library 4 $0.380 - - - School $6.602 $6.602 Port of Pasco $0.332 $0.332 Mosquito Control $0.178 $0.178 Miscellaneous Assessments 5 - - - - - - TOTAL $13.914 $13.026 1. County's Regular Levy rate is $1.439, but can go up to a statutory maximum of $1.80 depending on the overall assessed value of the County. 2. City's Regular Levy rate is $1.968, but can go up to a statutory maximum of $3.60 depending on the overall assessed value of the City. Effective maximum rate for 2012 is $2.37. 3. City does not require annexed properties to pay for bonds approved by voters prior to annexation (City Resolution No. 3403). 4. City provides library service through contract with Mid - Columbia Library District without additional property tax. 5. Miscellaneous Assessments apply as follows: • Weed Assessment: paid by both County and city - $5.00 per parcel and $0.30 per acre. • Pest Assessment: paid by both County and City - $1.50 per parcel. • Ground Water Management Area Assessment: paid by the County only - $5.00 per parcel and $0.10 per acre. 9/12/12 Page 7 EXHIBIT B 2012 Fees and Taxes Comparison 70% of the homes in the island are connected to City water and use a septic tank. —List of Costs Property Tax City Water & Septic County City $2,962 1 $2,773 Well & Septic County City $2,962 $2,773 City Water & Sewer County City 2,962 1 1 Well & Sewer County City ,962 $2,773 Well 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water $285 $150 0 0 $285 $150 0 0 Septic Tank 3 $81 $81 $81 $81 0 0 0 0 Sewer 0 0 0 0 $446 $298 $446 $298 Ambulance ° 0 $70 0 $70 0 $70 0 $70 Stormwater 0 $36 0 $36 0 $36 0 $36 Solid Waste $219 $180 $219 $180 $219 $180 $219 $180 Utility Tax on Cable TV 5 0 $61 0 $61 0 $61 0 $61 Utility Tax on Phone 6 0 $46 0 $46 0 $46 0 $46 Utility Tax on Electricity/Natural Gas' 0 $138 0 $138 0 $138 0 $138 $3,547 $3,535 $3,262 $3,385 $3,912 $3,752 $3,627 $3,602 1. Property tax calculated using median value of residential property in the island ($212,900), April 2012. 2. Well costs for maintenance and electrical use depend on equipment and other factors and are, therefore, not estimated. 3. Benton Franklin Health Department recommends septic tank pumping (depending on household size) every three -five years. Pumping cost is estimated at $325 with tax; assume pumping every four years. 4. City ambulance fee goes to $75 per year on Jan. 1, 2013. Fire District EMS levy for 2013 will establish median annual tax of $77 annually for households outside city. 5. 8.5% City Tax. Assumes expanded basic cable rate ($60 /month); utility tax does not apply to satellite TV service or to cable internet service. 6. 8.5% City Tax. Assumes the monthly taxable phone charge is $45 (Quest land line); utility tax applies to cell phones and land lines, but does not apply to long distance charges or internet phone service. 7. 8.5% City Tax. Assumes median residential electricity bill per the Franklin PUD (2011); also assumes natural gas energy cost offsets equivalent electricity cost (tax does not apply to propane). 10/4/12 Page 8 EXHIBIT C Residential Zoning Comparison City County City County City I County Permitted Use(s) SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD Density (units/ft) 1/20,000 1/20,000 1/12,000 1/12,000 1 /10,000 1 /10,000 Lot Coverage 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Accessory Structures Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Minimum Lot Area 20,000 20,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 Front Setback 25' 25' 25' 25' 20' 20' Side Setback 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' Rear Setback 25' 25' 25' 25' Ht of bldg Ht of Bldg Maximum Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 25' 25' Farm Animals Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted City I County I City I County I City I County Permitted Use(s) SFD SFD SFD /MFD SFD /MFD SFD /MFD SFD /MFD Density (units/ft) 1/7,200 1/7,200 115,000 1 15,000 1/3,000 1/3,000 Lot Coverage 40 % 40% 40% 40 % 60% 60% Accessory Structures Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Minimum Lot Area 7,200 7,200 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Front Setback 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Side Setback 5' 5' 5' 10' 5' 5' Rear Setback Ht of bldg Ht of bldg Ht of bldg Ht of bldg Ht of bldg Ht of Bldg Maximum Height 25' 25' 35' 35' 35' 35' Farm Animals 3 chickens No 3 chickens* No 3 chickens* No • SFD = Single Family Dwelling • MFD = Multiple Family Dwelling * Single Family lots only 9/12112 Page 9 EXHIBIT D LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT A Local Improvement District (LID) is a mechanism used by cities to finance public improvements that benefit adjacent private properties (such as streets, water and sewer lines, etc). Formation of an LID is subject to approval of the property owners that would pay the majority of the project cost — it is not automatically formed by the city and it is not required in conjunction with or following annexation to the city. The outline below explains the general process used by cities to consider forming an LID, how the decisions are made and your role in making the decisions. Resident requests sewer or water extension via Local Improvement District (LID). Staff determines potential extension project and reviews with affected property owners by conducting a neighborhood meeting (inviting all owners of property within the potential LID area). If general desire to move forward, staff proposes formation of LID to City Council. Council discusses at workshop and staff sends notice to each property owner of potential LID, estimated cost and public hearing date. Unless strong opposition at hearing, City Council will usually form the LID. If LID is formed by City Council action, 30 -day protest period starts. If owners representing 60% or more of the estimated LID assessments file written protests within the 30 -day protest period, City Council must terminate LID. If less than 60% but more than 50% object, City Council will typically choose to terminate the LID (majority rule concept). If less than 50% protest, project will likely move forward (though the project can be modified to delete properties if deemed appropriate by City Council after the public hearing). • If LID project moves forward, staff designs and bids the project; construction follows and is temporarily financed by the city, Once the construction is complete, written notice is provided to property owners for "final assessment hearing." City Council approves final assessments (if construction costs exceed the preliminary assessments, city usually absorbs the extra costs so final assessments do not exceed preliminary assessments). After approval of final assessments, owners have 30 -day "prepay" period in which all or any portion of the assessment can be paid. Any portion of the assessment remaining unpaid at the end of the 30 -day period will be financed by the selling of municipal bonds maturing in 10 or 15 years (sewer projects can be financed over 15 years). The first of annual payments is due one year after the bond sale and will carry interest on the declining balance at a "tax- free" rate fixed at the time of bond sale (the rate is usually about one -third less than typical taxable rate). Total time between start of LID and first payment requirement is two years (typical). 9/12/12 Page 10