HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.08.26 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. August 26, 2013
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR
(a) Storm Sewer Presentation. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) Presented by
Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director.
(b) Surplus Fire Department Vehicle:
1. Agenda Report from Debbie Clark, City Clerk dated August 21, 2013.
2. Correspondence from Chief Gear, Pasco Fire Department.
3. Proposed Resolution.
(c) Park Planning Districts:
1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
August 15, 2013.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Park District Map.
4. Memorandum from City Attorney.
(d) Code Amendment: (MF# CA2013 -002) Park Fees:
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated August 20, 2013.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Memos to the Planning Commission dated 4/25/13 and 7/18/13.
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/21/13, 4/18/13 and 7/18/13.
5. Letter from Tri- Cities Home Builders Association and City Response.
(e) Recreational Marijuana (MF# CA2013 -005):
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated August 19, 2013.
2. Proposed resolution establishing a moratorium.
(f) Amendment of HOME Annual Action Plans for HOME - Rental Assistance Activities:
1. Agenda Report from Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator dated August 21, 2013.
2. Proposed Resolution.
(g) Lewis Street Overpass Demolition Plan:
1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated August 21, 2013
2. Demolition Phasing Map.
(h) Ordinance Prohibiting Soliciting of Vehicle Occupants on Public Roadways:
1. Agenda Report from Bob Metzger, Chief of Police dated August 16, 2013.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a) Acquisition of Real Estate
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
1. 4:00 p.m, Monday, August 26, Ben - Franklin Transit Office - Hanford Area Economic Investment
Fund Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.)
2. 7:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 27, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd - Tri- Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Rep.; TOM LARSEN, Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manag
Rick Terway, Administrative an mmunity
Services Director
FROM: Debbie Clark, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Surplus Fire Department Vehicle
I. REFERENCE(S):
August 21, 2013
Workshop Mtg.: 08/26/13
Regular Mtg.: 09/03/13
A. Correspondence from Chief Gear, Pasco Fire Department
B. Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
08/26: Discussion
09/03: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. authorizing
the sale of one vehicle considered surplus to City needs.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
$45,000.00
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In 1998 the City purchased a 1998 HME Ladder Truck. This vehicle has now
acquired 122,778 in mileage plus 10,000 hours of response time service. Due to
the age and maintenance issues regarding the 1989 HME Ladder Truck, in July
2013 the City purchased a Rosenbauer Ladder Truck as a replacement, said
vehicle is currently in- service, which moved the 1998 ladder truck to "surplus"
status.
B) The City does not have equipment or personnel to equip and staff g ladder trucks.
Because of this and the age of the ladder truck, Fire Chief Gear has requested the
1998 HME Ladder Truck be declared as surplus to City needs. Estimated value
of said vehicle $45,000.00.
C) Recently the North Lincoln Fire & Rescue District #1, Lincoln City, Oregon
contacted Fire Chief Gear regarding purchase of the 1998 HME Ladder Truck for
a sales price of $45,000.00.
D) Staff recommends the 1998 HME Ladder Truck be sold to North Lincoln Fire &
Rescue District #1 for a price of $45,000.00 - which is in the best interest of the
City. The attached resolution will serve to authorize the sale of the vehicle.
4(b)
luM[I;
TO: Debbie Clark
FROM: Chief Bob Gear
RE: Ladder Truck
DATE: August 16, 2013
With the recent purchase of a new Rosenbauer Ladder Truck, the fire department would
like to excess the 1998 HME Ladder Truck ( VIN 44KFT6489WWZ18687) currently in use.
North Lincoln Fire & Rescue District #1 has agreed to purchase the 1998 HME ladder truck
(VIN44KFT6489WWZ18687) for the purchase price of FORTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($45,000.00).
North Lincoln Fire & Rescue District #1 would like to take possession of the ladder truck on
September 4, 2013.
If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding the excess and
sale please let me know.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the disposal of a Fire Department vehicle considered
surplus property to City needs.
WHEREAS, there is one vehicle considered surplus property to City needs; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO:
SECTION 1: The one item of property listed below is declared surplus:
1998 HME Ladder Truck Vin No. 44KFT6489WWZ18687
SECTION 2: The City staff is hereby authorized to sell said surplus property to North
Lincoln Fire & Rescue District #1, Lincoln City, Oregon for a price of $45,000.00 - which is in
the best interest of the City.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this _ day of September, 2013.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lee Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
AUGUST 15, 2013
TO: Gary Crutchfi it anager Workshop Mtg.: 8/26/13
Regular Mtg.: 9/3/13
FROM: Rick Terway, Director, Administrative &' mmunity Services
SUBJECT: Park Planning Districts
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Park District Map
3. Memorandum from City Attorney
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
8/26: Discussion
9/3: MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. , amending PMC Section
3.29.020 "Park Planning Districts "; Section 3.29.030 "Deposit of Moneys "' and
Section 3.29.050 "Expenditure of Funds" establishing Park Planning Districts
and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Ordinance No. 2139 was enacted in 1980, pre Growth Management Act, with the
obvious intent to meet the strict construction originally thought necessary under
RCW 58.17 which originally provided alternatives of land dedication or fee
payment in lieu of construction of parks and subdivisions.
B) Even with the advent of the GMA and the formalization of impact fees under
RCW 82.02.020, the funds collected could only be used within the specific
neighborhood of the subdivision. As a result, the City created multiple service
areas to accomplish this purpose.
C) In 2006, the Washington Supreme Court in the City of Olympia v. John Drebick,
dealt specifically with this issue. In that case, the City of Olympia had taken a
fairly drastic step in applying its traffic impact fee to a single service area
covering the entire city. In affirming this position, the Court concluded:
"In sum, we conclude that, in RCW 82.02.050 (3) and 82.02.090 (3),
the legislature unambiguously provided that the impact fees were to be
a 'proportionate share' of the costs of 'system improvements' (that is,
roads, parks, schools, or fire stations identified in the capital facilities
plan) that are 'reasonably related to' and 'reasonably benefit' the
particular development seeking approval."
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Currently the city has 23 small park districts. It is the city's policy to develop
neighborhood parks when the subdivision is 75 to 80 percent developed using the
funds accumulated from that district. Generally, the cost of the park somewhat
exceeds this accumulated amount knowing that more development will occur (the
remaining 20 to 25 percent). There are generally monies left over in each
neighborhood district as the development continues over several years after
completion of the park.
4(c)
B) Park impact fees can only be used for acquisition of park land and development of
that property for park purposes. This leaves several thousand dollars in the district
that is unused and is not enough for further development of the site completed earlier.
C) Creating larger districts will allow these funds to be used in a number of parks to add
significant features as required and/or allowed by law. The City of Richland has
reduced their number of park districts from over 20 to 5 and has improved their
ability to manage development and shift funds where there is a greater demand for
services. Staff will continue to develop neighborhood parks as development occurs
as stated in the Park, Recreation and Forestry Master Plan approved by Council.
D) Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Amending Sections 3.29.020 "Park Planning Districts ";
Section 3.29.030 "Deposit of Moneys "; and Section 3.29.050
"Expenditure of Funds" Establishing Park Planning Districts
WHEREAS, the City is authorized pursuant to the Washington State Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A and RCW 82.02) to insure that adequate facilities, including
parks, are available to serve new growth and development; promote orderly growth and
development by establishing standards by which the cities may require an Ordinance that new
growth and development pay a proportionate share of the costs of parks needed to serve new
growth and development; and to insure impact fees proposed for that purpose establish
procedures and criteria so the specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees
for the same impact; and
WHEREAS, the growth of the City has made the current system of park planning district
impractical; and
WHEREAS, all of the City's parks are available to and used by its residents residing in
all parts of the City, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 3.29.020 entitled "Park Planning Districts" of the Pasco
Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follow:
3.29.020 PARK PLANNING DISTRICTS.
A) Neighborhood park planning districts are established and identified by numbers one
through and including
ordinance eea 'ea in this eh to and incorporated in this :.hapt, by this er ren The three
neighborhood nark planning districts are described as follows:
(1) Neighborhood Park Planning District 1 bounded by the existing or future
Pasco urban growth boundary on the north and east, Road 36, I -182 and Hwy 395 on the
west, and the Columbia River on the south.
(2) Neighborhood Park Planning District 2 bounded by the existing or future
Pasco urban growth boundary on the north and west, Road 36 on the east, and I -182 on
the south; and
(3) Neighborhood Park Planning District 3 bounded by I -182 on the north,
Hwy 395 on the east and the Columbia River on the south.
Ordinance Amending Sections
3.29.020, 3.29.030 and 3.29.050 - 1
B) The Community park planning district shall consist of neighborhood park
planning districts one, two and; three„ f _ , five, en, eigh4, nine, ten, eleven, sixteen-,
twenty twe and twenty three.
G) Community padE planning distriet 11 shall eensist of neighbeFheod p" planning
dist6ets twelve, thii4eea, faui4een, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty .
13C) The park fund shall have separate accounts numbered to correspond to the park
planning districts described in this section.
Section 2. That Section 3.29.030 entitled "Deposit of Moneys" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
3.29.030 DEPOSIT OF MONEYS.
A) Ninety percent of all moneys derived from the fees collected pursuant to Chapters
25.80 and 26.20 shall be credited to the account corresponding to the Neighborhood Park
Planning District from which the fees were derived.
B) Ten percent of all moneys derived from the fees collected pursuant to Chapters
25.80 and 26.20 shall be credited to the account corresponding to the Community Park Planning
Dlstri t 4-afn ...hieh the fees wefe deri e
Section 3. That Section 3.29.050 entitled "Expenditure of Funds" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
3.29.05 EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.
A) Moneys credited to a Neighborhood Park Planning District shall only be
expended for park purposes in that district or in that portion of an adjoining district that is within
one -half mile of the district boundary.
B) Moneys credited to the a- Community Park Planning District account shall only be
expended for community nark purposes in a c ; : munity park in that distr-i 4 "Community park,"
as used in this chapter, shall include the existing Memorial Park -and any other park of fifteen
acres or larger in size. To be a community park, the park must be utilized in a manner generally
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, or as it may be hereafter
amended. Community park shall-- mAK-also include a eemmunity pafk dist.:..4wide or
eommnaaity-wicle trail systems.
C) No monies shall be expended from this fund without the approval of a majer-ity-e€
the City Council. Before ruling on any proposed expenditure, the Council shall receive a report
from the City Planner reviewing the proposal for its impact on community planning and from the
City Attorney reviewing the proposal for its legality under this chapter. The Administrative &
Community Services Director shall provide all needed information for these reviews and shall
report on the proposal as it relates to park and recreation plans and needs of the City.
Ordinance Amending Sections
3.29.020, 3.29.030 and 3.29.050 - 2
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this 3rd day of September, 2013.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Sections
3.29.020, 3.29.030 and 3.29.050 - 3
M
ti
i -
T
N
k _ 1
KERR LAW GROUP
7025 West Grandridge Blvd., Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 99336 -7724
(509) 735 -1542
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Terway, Director
Administrative & Community Services
City of Pasco
FROM: Leland B. Kerr
Attorney -at -Law
DATE: June 29, 2012
RE: Park Funds
The question asked was whether under PMC 3.29.020 it is still necessary to divide the
neighborhood park planning districts into 21 different districts. The short answer to the question
is no.
Ordinance No. 2139 was enacted in 1980, pre GMA, with the obvious intent to meet the strict
construction originally thought necessary under RCW 58.17 which originally provided
alternatives of land dedication or fee payment in lieu of construction of parks and subdivisions.
Even with the advent of the Growth Management Act and the formalization of impact fees under
RCW 82.02.020, the funds collected could only be used within the specific neighborhood of the
subdivision. As a result, the City created multiple service areas to accomplish this purpose.
In 2006, the Washington Supreme Court in the City of Olympia v. John Drebick, dealt
specifically with this issue. In that case, the City of Olympia had taken a fairly drastic step in
applying its traffic impact fee to a single service area covering the entire city. In affirming this
position, the Court concluded:
"In sum, we conclude that, in RCW 82.02.050 (3) and 82.02.090 (3), the
legislature unambiguously provided that the impact fees were to be a
'proportionate share' of the costs of 'system improvements' (that is, roads, parks,
schools, or fire stations identified in the capital facilities plan) that are 'reasonably
related to' and 'reasonably benefit' the particular development seeking approval."
In that case, the city had made a persuasive argument that the development in one area had a
traffic impact throughout the city due to the city's compact size and traffic studies that
demonstrated that people within the new subdivisions utilized roads on the far side of town.
Rick Terway
June 29, 2012
Page 2
The standard imposed by the Court was that there must be a reasonable relationship between the
purpose for which the funds were collected and the utilization of those funds, and a "reasonable
benefit" attributed to the new development.
The City can demonstrate that a similar regional use of neighborhood parks is present and those
service areas may be expanded to coincide with the regional use. Under the present system
where there is city -wide participation in youth sports and other activities that are distributed
throughout the City, it seems highly probable that individual parks are drawing residents from
distant neighborhoods.
At the very least, PMC 3.29.020 may be amended so that the City would have no more than four
service areas - - being those created by the natural barriers of I -182 and Highway 395.
Likewise, if you have any questions or concerns in this regard, please do not hesitate to give me
a call.
LBK/sla
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council L August 20, 2013
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager t'1 FAA Workshop Mtg: 8/26/13
Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Director
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Code Amendment: (MF # CA2013 -002) Park Fees
I. REFERENCES
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Memos to the Planning Commission dated 4/25/13 and 7/18/13
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/21/13, 4/18/13 and 7/18/13
4. Letter from Tri- Cities Home Builders Association and City Response
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
8/26: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. In March of this year the Planning Commission held a workshop to discuss the
current park fees that apply to all new residential construction. During the course of
the workshop the Community and Administrative Services Director presented
information on how the current park fee has not kept up with development costs for
new park construction.
B. Following the March workshop the Planning Commission held a public hearing in
April to consider a code amendment to increase the park fees and bring them in line
with development costs.
C. Action on the park fee code amendment was held until the Community and
Administrative Service Department prepared draft modifications to the City's park
district map.
D. At their regular July 18, 2013 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the
City Council amend the park development fees.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The park development fee was first established in the early 1980's. The original
$200 fee was replaced in 1997 with a $450 fee that increased annually at a rate of
3.25 percent. The fee is currently $709 per dwelling unit payable at the time a
building permit is issued.
B. While the City has been somewhat successful in ensuring parks are being provided
with new development, the Administrative and Community Services Department has
indicated the annual fee increase has not kept pace with finished park improvement
costs.
4(d)
C. After considering the full cost of developing a five acre neighborhood park including
the purchase of land and development of infrastructure in advance of the actual park
installation, the average cost is about $1,500 per dwelling unit. The current park fee
is less than half of the estimated cost to fully develop a neighborhood park.
D. The Planning Commission recommended the base park fee be set at $1,500 per
dwelling unit with steep discounts for developments that provide land and
infrastructure for parks. For example, developments that provide a five acre park site
with all infrastructure improvements will have the park fee reduced by $750 per
dwelling unit.
E. Another major change provided in the code amendment is the removal of the park
fees from both the zoning and subdivision regulations and consolidating them with
the other impact fees in Title 3.
F. Following Council review and discussion staff will prepare a final ordinance for
adoption.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 AND PMC
26 DEALING WITH PARK FEES, ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER 3.133 -1 DEALING
WITH PARK FEES, AMENDING PMC CHAPTER 3.07 REGARDING PARK IMPACT FEES
AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3.29.010 REGARDING THE PARK FUND.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco is required by State Law to determine that adequate
provisions are made for parks and playgrounds within each subdivision, shot plat and other
divisions of property used for residential purposes; and,
WHEREAS, without ensuring the adequacy of parks and playgrounds for new residential
development the City is prohibited from approving new subdivisions; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has fulfilled the State requirement for ensuring parks and
playgrounds are provided with new residential development by the imposition of a park fee to
cover the proportionate cost of park development attributed to new development; and,
WHEREAS, the current park fee was established in 1997 with an annual 3.25 percent
escalator; and,
WHEREAS, the Community and Administrative Service Department has determined
through a cost analysis that the current park fee has not kept pace with park development costs;
and,
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public workshop to
review the costs of park construction. Information about said workshop was made available to
the public through the City's web site; and,
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider amending the park fee. Notice of said hearing being provided in the Tri -City Herald
and through the City's web site; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community and meeting the park and recreation needs of Pasco residents, it is necessary
to amend PMC Title 25, Title 26 and Title 3; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Chapter 25.80 entitled "Park Fund Fees" be and the same is
hereby repealed in its entirety:
1
Section 2. That PMC Chapter 26.12 entitled "Dedications for Parks and
Playgrounds" be and the same is hereby repealed in its entirety:
Section 3. That PMC Title 3 be and the same is hereby amended to include a new
Chapter 3.133 -1 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 3.133 -1 PARK IMPACT FEES
3.133 -1.010
PURPOSE ..................................................
............................... 2
3.133 -1.020
FINDINGS ..............................................................................
..............................2
3.133 -1.030
IMPOSITION OF PARK IMPACT FEE ..........................
............................... 2
3.133 -1.040
APPLICABILITY ................................................................
............................... 2
3.133 -1.050
EXEMPTIONS .....................................................................
............................... 3
3.133 -1.060
DEFINITIONS .......................................................................
..............................3
3.133 -1.070
IMPACT FEE REDUCTION ..............................................
............................... 4
3.133 -1.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure new residential
development contributes a proportionate share to the capital costs necessary to provide parks,
recreational open space and related amenities for residents of the City of Pasco. It is further the
intent of this chapter to assist in the implementation of the City's Park, Recreation and Forestry
Plan and Capital Facilities Plan.
3.133 -1.020 FINDINGS. The City Council finds and determines that residential
development within the city will create additional demand and need for parks, recreation and
open space within the city. The City Council further finds the city does not have sufficient
resources to meet anticipated park and recreation needs created by new residential growth and
that said growth should pay a proportionate share of the costs of park, recreation and open space
facilities needed to serve new growth. It is the intent that the provisions of this Chapter shall be
liberally construed to effectively carry out the purposes of the Council in establishing this impact
fee.
3.133 -1.030 IMPOSITION OF PARK IMPACT FEE. A park impact fee as provided
in PMC 3.07.240 is hereby imposed for the City of Pasco and is required for all new residential
development. The park impact fee must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Compliance with the provisions of this chapter is required prior to the issuance of a
building/development permit authorizing construction of a residential park (mobile home park)
in accordance with Title 19 and Chapter 25.40 (RP Zone). The total impact fee shall be based on
the number of mobile home spaces to be authorized under the permit.
3.133 -1.040 APPLICABILITY. The park impact fee as provided in PMC 3.07.240
applies to all new residential development within the City of Pasco regardless of geographic
location.
2
3.133 -1.050 EXEMPTIONS. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the
following:
(1) Rebuilding of lawfully established dwelling unit(s) destroyed or damaged by fire,
flood, explosion, act of nature, or other accident or catastrophe; provided, that such rebuilding
takes places within one (1) year after destruction and provided no additional dwelling units are
created;
(2) Alteration, expansion, reconstruction, remodeling, or rebuilding of existing single -
family dwellings, multifamily dwelling units, factory assembled dwellings and mobile homes;
provided, no additional dwelling units are created;
(3) Condominium projects in which existing dwelling units are converted into
condominium ownership and where no new dwelling units are created.
(4) Construction of residential accessory structures.
(5) Installation of individual mobile homes or recreational vehicles within a
residential park.
3.133 -1.060 DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the
indicated meanings:
DEDICATED PARK LAND means a 5 acre parcel dedicated to the city with approval of
a final plat and containing the adjoining infrastructure improvements.
FULLY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK means dedicated park land that is
developed with lawn, an irrigation system, pathways, trees, playground equipment, ball courts
and sun shelters according to a plan approved by the city prior to construction.
INFRASTRUCTURE means curb, gutter, sidewalks, handicap ramps, street lights, fire
hydrants, storm drainage facilities, road base, road pavement to the center line of the street, street
signs, provisions for electrical power, one water stub and one sewer stub, site rough grading and
hydro seeding for dust control.
NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT means the construction or placement of single -
family site built dwellings, factory assembled dwellings including mobile homes and multi-
family dwellings within the City of Pasco. Included within this definition are the terms
residential subdivision, apartment complex and residential park.
OPEN RECREATION AREA means areas of land, at least improved with lawn and
irrigation, intended and designed for unorganized, passive or active recreation and may include
minor recreation improvements such as children's playground equipment and children's wading
pool, provided such minor improvements do not occupy more than half (1/2) of the total open
recreation area. Open recreation areas must equal at least 100 square feet of area for each
dwelling unit within the development. Open recreation area shall not include parking lots,
3
driveways and other automobile - oriented areas or recreation improvement areas and swimming
pools as defined herein below.
PARK IMPACT FEE means a payment of a fee imposed upon new residential
development as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the costs
to provide park and recreational facilities needed to serve new growth and development. The
park impact fee does not include building permits or permit application fees or any other fee
required of new development.
PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY PLAN means the Park, Recreation and
Forestry Plan adopted by the City Council for the City of Pasco and used as a planning document
that provides policies and guidance on developing citywide park and recreation facilities.
RECREATION IMPROVEMENT AREA means an area developed with recreation
facilities such as, but not limited to, basketball, tennis and similar playing courts, saunas, hot
tubs, recreation buildings and similar improvements. Recreation improvements shall not include
parking lots, driveway and other automobile - oriented areas, habitable buildings, swimming
pools, or minor recreation improvements.
SWIMMING POOLS. Means a pool for swimming which contains at least five hundred
(500) square feet of water surface area and is at least four (4) feet in depth at the deepest point.
3.133 -1.070 IMPACT FEE REDUCTION. The base impact fee per dwelling unit may
be reduced per the following:
(1) Open Recreation Area. For new residential developments that provide one or
more open recreation areas the base fee will reduced at the rate of one percent (1 %) for each ten
(10) square feet of open recreation area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet
of open recreation area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed thirty percent
(30 %).
(2) Recreation Improvement Area. For new residential developments that provide
recreation improvement areas the base fee will be reduced at the rate of one percent (1 %) for
each ten (10) square feet of recreation improvement area per unit (as determined by dividing the
total square feet of recreation improvement area by the total number of dwelling units), not to
exceed thirty percent (30 %).
(3) Swimming Pools. For new residential developments that provide one or more
swimming pools the base fee shall be reduced at the rate of one -half percent (1/2 %) for each
square foot of water surface area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of
water surface area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed fifteen percent (15 %).
(4) Dedication of Park Land. New residential developments that provide dedicated
park land as a part of the platting process shall have the base fee reduced by fifty percent (50 %).
H
(5) Dedication of a Fully Developed Neighborhood Park. New residential
developments that dedicate a fully developed neighborhood park shall have the neighborhood
park portion of the impact fee waived.
(6) Residential subdivisions with privately maintained and operated recreation
facilities must contain final plat conditions ensuring the perpetual maintenance of the recreation
facilities.
Section 4. That PMC Chapter 3.07 be and the same is hereby amended to include a
new Section 3.07.240 to read as follows:
3.07.230 PARK IMPACT FEES
Base Fee /Charge Reference
A) Single - Family Dwelling $1,500.00 3.133 -1.030
B) Multi - Family Dwelling $1,500.00 3.133 -1.030
C) All other dwelling units $1,500.00 3.133 -1.030
The base fee established herein shall increase by 3.25 percent on January 1 of each year without
notice.
Section 5. That PMC Chapter 3.29.010 be and the same is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.29.010 ESTABLISHED. There is established a fund to be called the "Park Fund." All
moneys derived from the fees collected pursuant to Chapters 25 90 and 26.20 3.133 -1 shall be
deposited in and disbursed from this fund only. All interest earned that is attributable to moneys
in the fund shall be deposited in and credited to the fund.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
.2013.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
5
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 25, 2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Park Fees (MF# CA 2013 -002)
During the workshop of March 21, 2013 the Planning Commission heard a
report for the Director of Community and Administrative Services about the
need to amend the municipal code with respect to the park fees.
While the city has been successful for ensuring parks are being providing for
with new development the Administrative and Community Services
Department has indicated the current fee structure has not kept pace with
finished park improvement costs. As was explained on March 21, 2013 the
current fee is approximately half of what is needed to cover the cost of
developing a neighborhood park within a subdivision with 600 to 700
dwelling units. The attached spreadsheet prepared by the Director
Community and Administrative Services highlights park development costs
over the past several years. The Director is suggesting the park fee should
increase to $1,500 per dwelling unit to more accurately cover the costs for
new park development.
In addition modifying the park fee there is also a need to restructure the
format of the park fee code by consolidating the park fee with other
development impact fees (traffic and schools) that are found in Title 3, under
Revenue and Finance. Consolidating the park fee with the other impact fees
will require repeal of the park fee chapters in both the zoning (25.80) and
subdivision regulations (26.20).
The proposed code will establish a new Chapter 3.133 -1 for park impact fees.
The proposal contains a purpose statement and various sections that impose
a park impact fee, provide definitions, explain applicability, explain
exemptions and explain how the inclusion of certain parks and recreation
features incorporated into new developments can offset or reduce the impact
fee.
The proposed code amendment may need to be coordinated with changes in
PMC Chapter 3.29 dealing with the park fund and park districts. As a result
the proposed impact fee regulations could be changed or modified slightly
over the next few months.
As a public hearing has been set for April 25, 2013 to consider this matter
staff is recommending the hearing be conducted to provide staff with direction
on the proposal and then closed with no action. Staff is not requesting action
at this time because coordination is needed with other code revisions related
to park districting. The impact fee works in tandem with Chapter 3.29 of the
Municipal Code and any changes in the park fee code should be coordinated
with updates in Chapter 3.29. Staff will schedule one or more workshops for
the purpose of reviewing additional code changes in the near future and then
follow up with scheduling a final hearing. It is anticipated that a new hearing
will be schedule for early summer.
Recommendation
Motion: I move to close the public hearing on the proposed
park fee code amendment.
2
Park Costs /Impact fees
2011
Construction
Capitol Park
674
Construction
362,285
Land
160,000
Cost/ home
Community Park
District balance
Total Land /Con
$522,285
Average
20%
Per House
$774.90
$154.98
$619.92
Restrooms
120,000
$863,92
Sub Total
642,285
$952.95
Street /sidewalk
340,539
982,824
Per House
$1,458.20
2007
N Burden Parks
1,174
Construction
502,066
Land
320,000
Total Land /Con
822,066
Per House
$700.23
Restrooms
240,000
$802.44
$160.49
$641.95
sub total Total
$1,062,066
Per House
$904.66
Street /sidewalk
681078
$1,743,144
Per house
$1,484.79
Current fee
$709.00
$141.80
$567.20
Proposed fee
$1,500.00
$300.00
$1,200.00
Current park fees for cities listed
Richland
Kennewick
W. Richland
$1,187
$300 -$1000
$860
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 18, 2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Park Fee Code Amendment (MF# CA 2013 -002)
At the April meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider consolidating the park fees with the other development impact fees
(traffic and schools) that are found in Title 3, under Revenue and Finance.
In addition to consolidating the park fees the Director of Administrative and
Community Services indicated the current fee structure has not kept pace
with finished park improvement costs. The Director suggested the park fee
should increase to $1,500 per dwelling unit to more accurately cover the
costs for new park development.
During the hearing the Planning Commission was informed that other code
revisions were need related to the park fund and park districts. As a result
the public hearing on the park fees and consolidation in Title 3 was closed
with no action. Staff explained that once work was completed on the park
districting the matter would be returned to the Planning Commission for final
recommendation. Because the park districting and park fees are somewhat
related staff was endeavoring to have the two issues forwarded to the City
Council simultaneously.
The Administrative and Community Services Department has now completed
park districting work enabling the park fee ordinance to move forward.
Only one hearing is necessary for the changes in the park fees and that was
held in April. The park districting code does not require a hearing before
being modified. No action on the park districting will be required of the
Planning Commission. However staff has attached a map of the proposed
district modification to make the Planning Commission aware of the
districting layout. The City currently has 23 neighborhood park districts and
two community park districts. Redistricting has created a third community
park district. The neighborhood park districts have remained unchanged, The
districts are used to assign park fees to geographic areas of the community.
Currently the park fees are split between the community districts and
neighborhood districts with 90 percent of the fee assigned to neighborhood
districts and 10 percent to community districts.
The proposed code will establish a new Chapter 3.133 -1 for park impact fees.
The proposal contains a purpose statement and various sections that impose
a park impact fee, provide definitions, explain applicability, explain
exemptions and explain how the inclusion of certain parks and recreation
features incorporated into new developments can offset or reduce the impact
fee.
The proposed code amendment may need to be coordinated with changes in
PMC Chapter 3.29 dealing with the park fund and park districts. As a result
the proposed impact fee regulations could be changed or modified slightly
over the next few months.
As a public hearing has been set for April 25, 2013 to consider this matter
staff is recommending the hearing be conducted to provide staff with direction
on the proposal and then closed with no action. Staff is not requesting action
at this time because coordination is needed with other code revisions related
to park districting. The impact fee works in tandem with Chapter 3.29 of the
Municipal Code and any changes in the park fee code should be coordinated
with updates in Chapter 3.29. Staff will schedule one or more workshops for
the purpose of reviewing additional code changes in the near future and then
follow up with scheduling a final hearing. It is anticipated that a new hearing
will be schedule for early summer.
Recommendation
Motion: I move to close the public hearing on the proposed
park fee code amendment.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
3/21/13
B. Code Amendment Park Fees (MF# CA 2013 -002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed park fee update. The city
has had a park fee in place for many years. The original fee of $200 was modified
in 1997 to $450 per dwelling which increased annually at 3.25 %. The fee is
currently $709.
Mr. McDonald explained the process used in the recent past to obtain a
combination of park land and fees to acquire and develop neighborhood parks.
The park sites are typically identified on the preliminary plat and dedicated to the
city as plats are recorded. Developers build the entire infrastructure around the
park including the sidewalks and sewer and water stubs to each park site and
then dedicated the park with the filing of a final plat. A reduced park fee is then
collected at the time permits are issued.
While the city has successfully ensured park are provided with new development,
the Administrative & Community Services Department has indicated the annual
fee increase has not kept up with the costs of finished park improvements.
Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director, briefly discussed the
park fees update. He explained that construction and land costs which increased
roughly 55 -65% in the same time that the park fees have increased 30 -35 %. The
Park Commission feels that a new base fee needs to be set to match the rising
construction costs.
Mr. Terway made a comparison of the park fees stating that the City of Richland's
current fees are $1,187 per household, the City of Kennewick's current fees range
from $400 - $1,000 per household and the City of West Richland's current fees are
at $860 per household. He stated that the Park 8v Recreation Board discussed
the fees at length and made a motion to increase the base fee from $450 to $800.
The board also cited the increased demand for more amenities at new park
facilities.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if these fees are only for new housing permits or for
new developments.
Mr. Terway answered that the fees are paid with each building permit that is
issued.
Commissioner Hilliard replied that his concern is that recently there have been
several fee increases for building permits and in return less permits have been
issued. The numbers for building permits this year have decreased and if fees
1
continue to increase he is concerned as to what it will do for new development. He
believes that the City might need to look into alternative ways to generate money
to pay for the development and upkeep of parks as the city might not always be
able to rely on the development of new homes.
Commissioner Greenaway was in agreement with Commissioner Hilliard. Since
the School Impact Fee, development has slowed down. She asked if there is a way
to combine park money when new schools are built to create larger shared
playgrounds with the schools and the neighborhoods.
Mr. Terway responded that the city currently does share property and facilities
with the School District however this cannot always happen as facilities need to be
developed throughout the community. Kurtzman Park was used as an example
that is shared with the School District and responsibilities are shared.
Commissioner Kempf believed that the park fee was reasonable and still seems low
compared to other cities in the area.
Commissioner Anderson requested clarification for the amount of the base fee
increase to $800.
Mr. Terway stated that staff would like to request a base price of $1,500. The
$800 would be sufficient if it didn't include streets and sidewalks.
Commissioner Anderson stated that either way he is supportive of the park fee
increase. Community and neighborhood parks are critical to the fabric of a
neighborhood and are needed for quality life in Pasco.
Chairman Cruz was in agreement with Commissioner Anderson. The parks are a
big amenity, where the per capita income lags behind Kennewick and Richland
substantially. In neighborhoods in Pasco there are many basketball hoops out in
the streets and he would rather see the parks have higher standards and
amenities to get kids out of the streets. He also agreed with the idea of starting
the fee high and allowing the developers to reduce the fee by doing much of the
work themselves. Having lived in the Sunny Meadows area he said that the park
was nice but a little sparse and would like to see equipment and things to do such
ask basketball hoops, soccer fields, a skate park, etc. With higher fees those are
amenities that Pasco residents would like to see and could keep kids out of
trouble.
Commissioner Hilliard agreed with Chairman Cruz and mentioned the DNR
property that the Planning Commission has discussed in previous meetings as a
good time for the city to plan for parks in the community.
Mr. Terway responded that a park is part of the preliminary development plan for
that area adjacent to school.
2
Chairman Cruz summed up that the Commissioners want to set park expectations
high and with funding those expectations.
Commissioner Hilliard asked a question about road development and why the
developer isn't putting in the road infrastructure.
Mr. White answered that at times the park might be at the edge of a subdivision as
the park site might be possible to put in the middle of the subdivision. With the
location on the edge of a subdivision the developer may not feel any responsibility
to improve one or both sides of the road the city may have to finish that
infrastructure.
Mr. Terway added that if a street might have a land owner on each side of the
street and each land owner has to develop their half of the street. If the park is on
one half of the street then the city has to develop that half which is where the
infrastructure cost comes from.
With no further comments the workshop ended.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
4/18/13
E. Code Amendment Park Fees Update IMF# CA 2013 -002
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for Park Fee Updates.
The current fee has not kept up with the construction costs for the development of
new parks.
Staff is proposing that the current regulations be repealed completely and those
regulations be combined and located with the other impact fees, such as the School
Impact Fees and Traffic Impact Fees. The Park Impact Fee will have to be paid prior to
the issuance of any building permit and would be applicable to all new residential
development within the City of Pasco. Mr. McDonald briefly listed some exemptions to
the fee, definitions, possible reductions in the fee and the proposed amendments. The
proposed fee would be $1,500 per dwelling unit.
Commissioner Khan asked if there is a minimal amount of acreage for dedicated park
land.
Mr. McDonald answered that the standard size for a neighborhood park is 5 acres for
a 160 acre subdivision.
Commissioner Khan asked if there is a minimal amount of facilities that the City
would require the developer to put in the park.
Mr. McDonald stated that the City does not require specific items to be placed in
parks. Typically land has been dedicated to the City along with infrastructure
improvements and the collection a reduce fee. When a development is nearly finished
the Parks Department will hold public meetings for the neighborhood to receive input
on the types of facilities to be placed in the park.
Commissioner Khan asked if the neighborhood decided that they wanted a swimming
pool if it would be the City's responsibility to maintain.
Mr. McDonald answered if a pool was built in a City Park it would be the City's
responsibility to maintain however neighborhood parks won't have swimming pools.
Commissioner Polk asked if the ratio is for the size of parks for the other cities in the
area.
Mr. McDonald stated that every City has a different ratio within their comprehensive
park plan. The City of Pasco has a Comprehensive Park Plan in which the ratio is
based on population of people for a neighborhood park.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked what is driving costs so high to propose $1,500 per
dwelling unit for Park Impact Fees.
Mr. McDonald answered that much of the costs for the parks revolve around the
equipment that's placed in the parks. There are new enhanced national safety
requirements that the City didn't have years ago, such as the rubberized matting that
goes around the equipment. Material costs have also increase substantially.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the neighborhood could vote for a pool at the public
meetings held prior to completion of development.
Mr. McDonald answered they could but there wouldn't be enough funds to build the
pool. The neighborhood is typically given a range of items that could be built and a
budget.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if there is any other funding that helps pay for
community parks.
Mr. McDonald stated that there is the Park Impact Fee along with state grants that the
City can apply for and local taxes.
Commissioner Khan asked how staff calculated a 3.25% annual increase of the fee.
Mr. McDonald answered that when it was initiated in 1999 that was roughly the cost
of inflation. Since that time the costs have escalated more.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification on the fee for multi - family units.
Mr. McDonald answered that the $1,500 fee would be per unit, so if there are 60 units
in the complex the fee would be $90,000. But typically what happens with larger
apartment complexes is that they will have swimming pools, basketball courts and a
recreation building. If they have any of those amenities their fee is reduced
Commissioner Hilliard stated that the fee is good for the community but will hurt
development. He would encourage staff to find other avenues for park funding.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Mr. McDonald added that the recommendation is for the hearing to be closed at this
time and staff will bring an ordinance back for approval once the City Attorney
completes his review.
Commissioner Polk stated that she agrees with a reduced fee for the developers who
dedicate park land but felt that a 50% reduction is a large reduction and 5 acres
doesn't always feel like a lot of park land for a large neighborhood that may have 600
homes.
Mr. McDonald responded that the developer is not only dedicating the land for the
park but they would also be providing all of the infrastructure, streets, sewer, water,
storm drainage and street lights which a significant amount of capital cost.
Commissioner Hoekstra stated that as the parks get developed so does the cost for
maintenance. There needs to be a balance between stimulating park development to
2
create a healthy neighborhood environment but at the same time be able to afford the
parks.
Mr. McDonald responded that the money for the impact fee does not cover the
maintenance. The maintenance is covered through annual taxes on homes.
Chairwoman Kempf stated that the 50% reduction is very workable and is appealing
for the developer to dedicate the land.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that staff can take
a look at the reductions and ratios that go along with a "typical" development and a
"non- typical" development with more dwelling units.
Commissioner Hoekstra added that it would make sense in terms of congestion in the
park to have larger park space for larger developments.
Commissioner Polk responded that after some thought the 50% does seem reasonable
since the developer is also making infrastructure improvements but agrees that for
larger developments more park space should be developed.
Commissioner Hilliard stated that since the fee is doubling from its current amount to
$1,500 with a 3.25% annual increase, he is concerned what it will look like in 5 -10
years. Instead of the automatic 3.25% annual increase he would like to see this come
back to the Planning Commission in five years to make any needed adjustments.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification from Commissioner Hilliard.
Commissioner Hilliard stated that with the 3.25% increase annually, in ten years the
fee will be substantially higher and he is concerned with the fee getting too high.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if staff could look at the fee being locked at $1,500 for
the next five years.
Mr. McDonald stated that they will discuss the concern with the Parks Department
Commissioner Polk asked the Commissioners if they would accept a higher fee if it
was guaranteed to be a locked in rate for the next five years.
Commissioner Hilliard responded no. He stated that there needs to be other sources
of funding for the parks.
Commissioner Hoekstra added that costs should be controlled for the developers
because development should be encouraged.
Mr. White stated that impact fees are hard and people either like them or they don't.
He posed the question of how much does new growth need to pay for the impact they
produce. If they aren't paying any impact then the public is picking up all of it
because someone has to pay. It is not an issue strictly between the developer and the
government but the public has to pay as well. The deductions that are in the
proposed update add incentives for the developer to provide fully dedicated park sites.
If the City has to put in the same improvement in the neighborhood it will cost much
more because the City will have to pay a different wage scale and comply with bidding
laws. The developer does not necessarily have to follow those same rules.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the public
hearing on the proposed park fee code amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
7/18/13
D. Code Amendment Park Fees Update IMF# CA2013 -0021
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Park Fee Updates. At the April
meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider consolidating
the park fees with other development impact fees (traffic and schools). During the
prior workshop the Director of Administrative & Community Services indicated the
current park fees for park development have not kept pace with the rising costs of
new park construction. The Director suggested the park fee should increase to
$1,500 per dwelling unit to more accurately cover the costs for new park
development.
As a result of the public hearing, staff prepared a code amendment that would
establish a higher base fee and also move the park fees and place them with the
other fees in Title 3 rather than Title 25 and 26. Staff also prepared proposed
district modification for park locations although no action on this item will need to
be taken by the Planning Commission. The park districts were also briefly
explained.
Commissioner Polk asked if a sliding scale as mentioned in the April meeting was
investigated any further.
Mr. McDonald explained under the proposal if a developer provides a 5 acre park
with infrastructure, grades the park and hydro -seeds it and dedicates it to the City
as part of the plat, he would receive a 50 percent deduction regardless of how
many homes are in the subdivision. If the developer provides the park with all of
the infrastructure, playground equipment, pathways, and so forth, all of the
neighborhood park fee would be taken care of and the developer would only be
required to pay the community park portion of the fee.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if the fee was per acre or per home.
Mr. McDonald answered per home.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
the findings of fact as contained in the July 18, 2013 staff memo on the park fee
amendments. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed park fee
amendments as attached to the July 18, 2013 staff memo to the Planning
Commission. The motion passed unanimously.
Is.
Building the Tri- Cities since 1958
Pasco Planning Commission & City Council
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
July 18, 2013
On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri -Cities (HBA), I would like to submit our
opposition to proposed increase in park impact fees currently being considered in the City of
Pasco. The HBA is vehemently opposed to impact fees across the board. Regarded as a tax on
development by government, impact fees are in fact computed in the price of a new home.
True, developers and builders initially the pay impact fees. However, like any other tax or fee
associated with the production of a product, the costs are then passed along to the consumer.
This cost goes beyond the initial cost because most consumers finance these fees into their loan
and pay interest on these fees. Impact fees are wholly manifested in higher prices of homes and
a reduction in growth and development of an area.
If you look at the permit statistics for the City of Pasco after the implementation of the school
impact fees, you can see the true "impact" at work. In 2012, Pasco saw a 35% decrease in the
number of single family home permits. As of June 30, 2013, permits in Pasco are down an
additional 40%. While there is no way to say that this decline is only because of the school
impact fees, when no other local jurisdiction saw anywhere near that big of a decline, it would
be hard to argue that impact fees didn't have a huge impact.
Increasing the price of a home through new fees and taxes simply prices more and more people
out of the market — depriving people of the American Dream. In fact, according to a national
study conducted by the National Association of Home Builders, for every $1,000 increase in the
price of a home, more than 217,000 people are priced out of the market. New developments
and homes already pay significant amounts in fees and other taxes —just like everyone else —
and because of that, they should not be unfairly burdened with new taxes and fee structures.
Growth and development benefits the entire community — not just one neighborhood.
The HBA believes that impact fees are an unfair tax on an industry that already pays their own
way, and a way to stifle growth and economic development. We urge the City of Pasco to
consider these arguments and discontinue the use of impact fees. The best alternatives to
impact fees are broad based - solutions where new construction is not singled out. Broad -based
taxes or fees allow the entire community to pay for something that we all benefit from. At the
Home Builders Association of TO-Cities, WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick, WA 99336
(509) 735 -2745 or (877) 842 -8453 1 Fax: (509) 735 -8470 1 www.hbatc.com
very least, we would ask that the City of Pasco leave the park impact fees at their current level
and forgo the proposed increase. If the City insists on keeping and increasing the fees, we
would then ask that these fees be paid by the homebuyer at the time of closing, rather than by
the builder /developer.
Feel free to contact me to discuss our comments.
Sincerely,
- R� .BrU$,l{
Renee Brooks
Director of Government Affairs & Communications
Home Builders Association of Tri- Cities, WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick, WA 99336
(509) 735 -2745 or (877) 842 -8453 1 Fax: (509) 735 -8470 1 www.hbatc.com
COMMUNITT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 509 -545 -3441 /FAX 509 -545 -3499
z75, 02D r Uldil iHU U AVhNUE, PASCO, WASHINGTON 99301
August 2, 2013
Ms. Rene6 Brooks
Home Builders Association of Tri- Cities, WA
10001 W. Clearwater Avenue
Kennewick, WA 99336
Subject: Park Impact Fees
Dear Renee,
Thank you for your letter of July 18, 2013 indicating your opposition to impact fees in general and the
increase in park impact fees in Pasco, in particular. I understand the position of the HBA regarding
impact fees. I did want to take this opportunity to point out that the park fees Pasco implemented in the
early 1980's were established to provide a direct benefit to those neighborhood areas that the parks serve,
not only in terms of safe and nearby recreation — but also as a way to preserve value in the homes within
the neighborhood. I believe that the creation, furnishing and maintenance of neighborhood parks does
directly benefit those homes by making them more valuable (and sellable) than similar homes without
that park amenity.
Your July 18 letter used impact fees as an example of a targeted fee paid by a market segment when the
community at large actually benefits from (in this case) the park. My observation is that Pasco's
neighborhood parks serve very few residents outside of walking distance to those parks. In fact, vehicle
parking lots are purposely not provided at those parks to reinforce the immediate benefit to the
neighborhood service area.
I also wanted to point out that the provision of the impact fee (although increased) does offer the
opportunity for steep discounts in the fee provided that land and infrastructure for parks is provided by the
subdivision developer. As an example, a five acre dedicated park site with infrastructure and
improvements will have the proposed maximum base park fee decreased by 50 %.
Thank you for your letter and attention to this matter. Please let me know if I can provide additional
information.
Sincerely,
L Ltz�
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
Rick White, Community & Economic Developmer�
Director �i{ /�-�/`�
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Recreational Mariivana (MF# CA2013 -005)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed resolution establishing a moratorium
August 19, 2013
Workshop Mtg.: 8/26/13
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
8/26: DISCUSSION
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. In 2012, Initiative 502 (I -502) legalizing the recreational use of marijuana was
approved by the electorate. I -502 establishes a system, overseen by the State Liquor
Control Board (LCB), to license, regulate and tax the production, processing and sale
of marijuana.
B. The LCB is charged with administration of the procedures and criteria for producers,
processors and retailers of recreational marijuana. The licensing of marijuana
production, processing and sales will be handled by the LCB similar to the process
for liquor licenses.
C. The LCB had announced that September 16, 2013 was to be the effective date for the
adopted rules and also the date the LCB would accept applications for all license
types, however, that effective date has been extended until November 16, 2013 and
the acceptance date has been extended until November 18, 2013.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Issuing city business licenses for possession and sale of marijuana conflicts with
Federal law as marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 drug under the Federal Controlled
Substances Act. In a similar situation involving changes in State law allowing
medical marijuana collective gardens, Council amended the Zoning Code (PMC
25.08.010) to disallow land uses in violation of any local, State or Federal laws or
regulations.
B. As a controlled substance, the possession, sales, production and processing of
marijuana is currently illegal at the Federal level, and the Justice Department has not
announced its position on the matter.
C. Options for addressing the situation could include:
Approving a moratorium to allow the City more time to decide how to
address the issue. Moratoriums are initially good for six months. If the City
wishes to continue the moratorium, then a work plan must be developed and
used in extension of the moratorium for up to an additional six month period.
Formation of land use regulations for growing, processing and sale of
recreational marijuana, or
Reliance on the City's current prohibition of land uses that are illegal under
Federal law.
4(e)
D. At this time staff recommends implementing a moratorium on licensing prior to
November 16, 2013. This will provide the City an opportunity to fully study the rules,
determine if there is a change in the Federal government's position regarding
inclusion of marijuana as a scheduled drug and observe the experiences of other
cities. Until the legality impasse is resolved staff recommends retaining the
prohibition against permitting uses that are in violation of Federal, State or local laws
in our zoning code.
E. If Council concurs with the recommended action, the proposed resolution
establishing a moratorium on licensing and setting a public hearing on the
moratorium for October 7, 2013 will be brought to Council for consideration at the
September 3rd Regular Meeting.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DECLARING A
MORATORIUM PROHIBITING PRODUCING, PROCESSING AND RETAIL SALES OF
RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON.
WHEREAS, Initiative 502 was passed by the voters of the State of Washington in November
2012 providing a framework which marijuana producers, processors, and retailers can become licensed by
the State of Washington; and
WHEREAS, under Initiative 502, the Washington State Liquor Control Board (Board) is tasked
with the responsibility to adopt regulations governing the licensing and operation of marijuana producers,
processors, and retailers, and the Board is currently working on the regulations and is projecting that the
regulations will be issued later this year; and
WHEREAS, collective gardens and marijuana production, processing, and retailing uses must be
addressed in the City's zoning code, but the impacts of these uses are still largely unknown and the
regulations that the City will need to address them are uncertain pending the Board's adoption of its
licensing regulations and procedures; and
WHEREAS, possession and use of marijuana for any purpose, including medical use, remains
illegal under Federal Law. Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I drug under the Federal Controlled
Substance Act. Despite efforts by the Governor and the State Attorney General to get some clarity from
the U.S. Attorney General, it is still unclear, how the federal government would respond to the state and
local governments who issue permits in compliance with state law; and
WHEREAS, there are several lawsuits pending, which would eventually impact regulations
related to marijuana production, distribution, sales and use; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that producing, processing, and retail sales of recreational
marijuana may require an increased risk to health and safety, require increased police and code
enforcement activities, and affect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties without appropriate
regulations; and
WHEREAS, unless the City acts immediately to address production, processing and retail sales
of marijuana, and other marijuana- related uses, such uses may be able to locate in the city without
regulation and thereby have adverse impacts on the city and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to develop appropriate zoning and land use regulations to
accommodate the production, processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana to the extent such
activities do not conflict with Federal Law; and
WHEREAS, Washington law authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium with a public hearing
which must be held within sixty (60) days of the date of the adoption of a moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City that a
moratorium be established to provide the City an opportunity to study appropriate regulations for
Resolution - 1
production, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana and to develop a work plan for the
implementation of such regulations that comply with Federal Law; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Moratorium Established. A moratorium is imposed prohibiting the production,
processing, and/or retail sale of recreational marijuana within all zoning districts within the City of Pasco;
and a moratorium is imposed on the filing with the City, or the Courts of Competent Jurisdiction, any
applications for licenses, permits, or other approvals for the processing, production, and/or retail sale of
marijuana.
Section 2. Term of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Resolution shall become
effective on the date hereof, and shall continue in effect for an initial period of six (6) months, unless
repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after a public hearing and the entry of appropriate
findings of fact as required by RCW 35A.63.220, provided, however, that the moratorium shall
automatically expire upon the effective date of zoning regulations adopted by the City Council to address
the processing, production, and/or retail sales of recreational marijuana within the City of Pasco.
Section 3. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the 7`s day of October, 2013, at the City Council Chambers of
the Pasco City Hall, where it will hear evidence and consider the comments and testimony of those
wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium.
Section 4. Preliminary Findings. Following the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt
Findings of Fact justifying its actions before the public hearing, and determine whether a work plan is
necessary to address the issues involving the processing, production, and/or retail sales of recreational
marijuana within the City and if appropriate, extending the moratorium to complete the work plan and
implementation of appropriate regulations.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and signature below.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting dated this
day of 2013.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
Resolution - 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council I �. August 21, 2013
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager l� {Yk Workshop Mtg.: 8/26/13
Rick White, ► /vJ Regular Mtg.: 9/3/13
Community & Economic Development Director
FROM: Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator
SUBJECT: Amendment of HOME Annual Action Plans for HOME - Rental Assistance Activities
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
8/26: Discussion
9/3: Motion: I move to approve Resolution authorizing amendment of
HOME Annual Action Plans for conversion of homebuyer activities to
HOME - Assisted rental activities.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) used Housing Investment
Partnership (HOME) and Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds to purchase
and rehabilitate four foreclosed and two donated homes in Pasco in 2011. Since then, three
of the homes have been purchased by low /moderate income families and an offer is
pending on the fourth.
B) One of the remaining homes is a manufactured home that has proven problematic to sell.
Banks often require up to 20% of the purchase price be paid prior to closing, which lower
income buyers have trouble providing. Interest rates for manufactured housing are often
greater than that charged for site -built housing. In 2012, the City had only received one
offer to buy the property, and that buyer was turned down by separate lenders.
C) A local non - profit agency (Columbia Basin Veterans Coalition) has expressed an interest
in utilizing this property for transitional or supportive housing.
D) Council concurred with the concept of adding "Rental Rehabilitation" to prior year Annual
Action Plans at the workshop meeting of July 23, 2013. The Planning Commission
considered the amendment at their August 15, 2013 meeting and has recommended the
amendment be approved.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Recent changes to the HUD HOME Final rule imposed a nine -month sale deadline for
homebuyer (owner- occupied) units. A homebuyer unit that is not sold to an eligible
homebuyer within nine months of construction completion must be converted to a HOME -
assisted rental (rehabilitation) unit. The Tri- Cities HOME Consortium will need to amend
the applicable prior's year Annual Action Plan to allow for this conversion.
B) The City has received several requests in recent years from non - profits asking for grants
for single family properties to be used in their transitional or supportive housing programs.
Housing of this nature is an eligible activity under the HOME program when the tenant is
low /moderate income and expected to remain in the home for two years or greater.
C) By adding "HOME- Assisted Rental Activities" to the 2010 HOME Annual Action Plan,
the City may be able to transfer ownership of the above home to a non - profit agency that
agrees to comply with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations associated
with the provision of rental housing that has been rehabilitated with federal funds. The
HOME Consortium and HUD both agree that a project of this nature would help fill a gap
in housing for low income persons.
4(f)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF PRIOR YEAR HOME
ANNUAL ACTION PLANS FOR CONVERSION OF HOMEBUYER ACTIVITIES
TO HOME - ASSISTED RENTAL ACTIVITIES.
WHEREAS, Council approves federally- funded HOME Work Plan Allocations for each
program year; and
WHEREAS, recent changes to the HUD HOME Final Rule imposes a nine -month sale
deadline for homebuyer (owner - occupied) units requiring them to be converted to a HOME -
assisted rental unit; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1. The Council approves substantial amendment to prior year HOME Annual
Action Plans to convert homebuyer activities to suitable HOME - assisted rental activities when
appropriate.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this
CITY OF PASCO:
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark
CMC City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
2013.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 36
FOR: City Council August 21, 2013
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director Workshop Mtg.: 8/26/13
SUBJECT: Lewis Street Overpass Demolition Plan
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Demolition Phasing Map
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
8/26: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
$78,000 Local Match (Arterial Street Fund) to STP Grant ($500,000)
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Lewis Street Overpass is one of the critical transportation improvements to replace a
functionally obsolete and deteriorating underpass between I' Street and Oregon Avenue.
B) There have been a number of milestones achieved with the project including the
following:
a. Design of the project.
b. Completion of right of way acquisition for properties needed to complete
construction of the overpass.
c. Relocation of businesses per Federal Funding guidelines.
d. Completion of environmental documentation approval including the most
complicated Environmental Justice document in the state, according to WSDOT.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff is currently working to complete the following tasks:
a. Right of way certification as part of federal and state funding requirements.
Upon completion of right of way acquisition, the WSDOT Department of Real
Estate has to complete a review the right of way documents for federal and state
compliance prior to authorization for construction. Right of way certification will
be completed upon expiration of lease agreements with St. Vincent de Paul
(4/2014) and the Union Gospel Mission (3/2014) and their subsequent relocation.
The City allowed continued occupation of their buildings while they were
building new sites, or relocating.
b. Finalizing negotiations with BNSF for construction easements for the new
overpass.
c. Staff is seeking grant opportunities for construction of the project. Based on the
latest estimate the project would cost over $30 million to construct. Funds to
complete construction of the project are not guaranteed.
d. Request for proposal for consultants to complete a building assessment evaluation
for hazardous materials at each building.
B) All of the buildings with of exception of St. Vincent de Paul and the Gospel Mission, are
vacant. As staff continues to seek funding, the vacant buildings are becoming a safety
and liability concern.
C) Staff has evaluated plans for the demolition of the existing buildings. $500,000 of 2016
STP funds are allocated for the demolition to reduce safety and liability concerns.
D) A demolition plan has been developed that would complete the removal of the buildings
necessary for construction of the overpass. The City proposes to complete demolition
according to the phasing plan, and as funding allows, depending on bids.
E) Staff plans to bid the demolition project in late October for a December or January start
date.
F) Staff requests City Council's concurrence with the Lewis Street Overpass Demolition
Plan.
4(g)
)MMM
amwaaoud
m �60%)
SX90A onand OXVcf dO AJJ9
A() I.T.T.1) I ssvcw@Ao mws smEn
A
R
'01
ZVC�'%
-541
I- Irr
V Id
d d
r14-
r14
rn
A
R
I
ml
'01
I
ml
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City
FROM: Bob Metzger, Chief of
AGENDA REPORT
Date: 08/16/2013
Workshop Mtg.: 08/26/2013
Regular Mtg.: 09/3/2013
SUBJECT: Ordinance Prohibiting Soliciting of Vehicle Occupants on Public Roadways
I. REFERENCE:
1. Proposed Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
8/26: Discussion
9/03: MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. , creating a New Section
9.44.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "Solicitation to Occupants of
Vehicles in Public Roadways Prohibited ", and further, to authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the City's fundamental interest in public
peace, health, and safety, by regulating acts of solicitation that occur under
circumstances which pose substantial risks to the solicitor, as well as, to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The Police Department consistently receives complaints regarding solicitation on or
near City streets. Police are called upon to respond to situations in which a solicitor's
activity presents a substantial safety risk.
B) Currently, the only enforcement tool available is PMC 9.44.050, which criminalizes
the intentional obstruction of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. While this is a useful
tool, it does not adequately address the safety concerns posed by solicitation under
certain circumstances.
C) This proposed ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to enter upon or stand
within the public roadway or, while occupying any sidewalk or public property
adjacent to a public roadway within the City, to knowingly conduct a solicitation
directed to, or intended to attract the attention of, the occupant of any vehicle
traveling on or stopped on the roadway. A person who violates this ordinance would
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
D) Many cities throughout Washington have adopted similar ordinances as that proposed
here, including, Kennewick, Seattle, Issaquah, Spokane Valley, Tacoma, and
Spokane, to name a few.
E) The experience in Kennewick has been positive and they are looking to expand their
ordinance to cover more intersections that were not originally covered.
F) The adoption of this ordinance will provide the Police Department with a tool to
significantly reduce these life safety risks, which occur regularly within the City of
Pasco.
4(h)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Creating a New Section 9.44.060 "Solicitation to Occupants of
Vehicles in Public Roadways Prohibited"
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has received complaints regarding solicitations on City
streets which poses a significant distraction to passing motorists, posing a risk to the driving
public; and
WHEREAS, soliciting pedestrians within the roadway poses significant risk of injury to
the pedestrian as well as traffic accidents resulting from avoiding the pedestrian or the slowing or
stopping of vehicles within the roadway; and
WHEREAS, the regulation of such conduct is necessary to provide for the health and
safety of the citizens using the roadways and sidewalks of the City. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That a new Section 9.44.060 entitled "Solicitations to Occupants of
Vehicles on Public Roadways Prohibited" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is
created and shall read as follows:
9.44.060 SOLICITATIONS TO OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLES ON PUBLIC
ROADWAYS PROHIBITED.
A) It is unlawful for any person to enter upon or stand within the public roadway or,
while occupying any sidewalk or public property adjacent to a public roadway within the City, to
knowingly conduct a solicitation directed to, or intended to attract the attention of, the occupant
of any vehicle traveling on or stopped on the roadway, unless there is a parking lane adjacent to
said roadway and the vehicle is lawfully parked. An offense occurs with the solicitation is made,
whether or not an actual transaction is completed, or an exchange of money, goods, or services
takes place.
B) For the purpose of this section, "solicitation" shall mean any conduct or act
whereby a person:
1) Either verbally or in writing, requests employment, goods, services,
financial aid, monetary gift, or any article representing monetary value, for any purpose;
2) Either verbally or in writing, sells or offers for immediate sale, goods,
services, or publications;
3) Distributes without remuneration goods, services, or publications; or
Ordinance Creating Section 9.44.060 - 1
4) Solicits signatures on a petition or opinion for a survey.
C) For the purpose of this section, "roadway" shall mean that portion of any City
street, avenue or road improved or designed, for ordinary use for vehicular traffic, exclusive of
the sidewalk or shoulder. In the event a City street, avenue, or road includes two or more
separate roadways, the term "roadway" shall refer to any such roadway separately, but shall not
refer to all such roadways collectively.
D) Exceptions. Exempt from the provisions of this section are actions:
1) Summoning aid or requesting assistance in a bonafide emergency
situation.
2) Law enforcement officers, public works or utility workers in the
performance of official duties.
3) Engaging transportation licensed for hire.
4) Permitted advertising by licensed businesses within the City upon
sidewalks adjacent to the business for transaction or services that are not occurring within
the roadway or sidewalk.
E) Penal t . A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this _ day of 2013.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Clark, City Clerk
Ordinance Creating Section 9.44.060 - 2
Approved as to Form:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney