Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.09.30 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: September 30, 2013 (a) Police Vehicles and Street Crimes Presentation. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA). Presented by Bob Metzger, Police Chief. (b) TPA Room Assessment Increase: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated September 25, 2013. 2. Letter from Regional Hotel/Motel Commission dated 8/21/13. 3. Resolution of Hotel/Motel Commission. 4. Proposed Ordinance. 5. Proposed Interlocal Agreement Amendment. (c) LIDS 148/149: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated September 27, 2013. 2. Vicinity Maps. 3. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 9/25/13. (d) Interlocal Agreement for School Security Fencing: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated September 11, 2013. 2. Maps of Schools. 3. Proposed Amendment to Interlocal Agreements. (e) Library Improvements: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated September 25, 2013. 2. Letter from Mid - Columbia Library District. (t) Parking Ordinance Revisions: 1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated September 24, 2013. 2. Vicinity Map - Manzanita Lane. 3. Ordinance. (g) PMC Title 15 Telecommunications Amendments: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 20, 2013. 2. Proposed Ordinance, Title 15 Telecommunications. 3. Proposed Resolution Cable TV Customer Service Standards. Note: attachments are in Council packets only; copy available for public review in the City Manager's office, the Pasco Library and on the City's webpage at www.Dasco- wa. eov /citvcouncilrenorts. 5. OTHER ITEMS FOR (a) (b) (c) 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) Current or Potential Litigation (b) (e) 7. ADJOURNMENT Workshop Meeting 2 September 30, 2013 REMINDERS: 1. 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 2, 3521 W. Court Street —Goodwill Retail and Employment Center Ribbon Cutting Event. ( COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON) 2. 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 2, Three - Rivers Convention Center — American Public Works Association Fall Conference Welcome Address. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 2, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Meeting. ( COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) 4. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, October 3, P &R Classroom — Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting. ( COUNCILMEMBER SAUL MARTINEZ, Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.) 5. 6:00 p.m., Thursday, October 3, Red Lion Hanford House — AWC Regional Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK, SAUL MARTINEZ, AL YENNEY) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Counci FROM: Gary Crutch i Manager SUBJECT: TPA Room Assessment Increase I. REFERENCE(S): September 25, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 1. Letter from Regional Hotel/Motel Commission dated 8/21/13 2. Resolution of Hotel/Motel Commission 3. Proposed Ordinance 4. Proposed Interlocal Agreement Amendment II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/30: Discussion 10/7: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , increasing the Special Lodging Assessment to $2.00 per night and, further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION: I move to approve the Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for the Tri-City TPA and authorizing an increased room assessment and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the Amendment. III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The three cities (Kennewick, Pasco and Richland) as urged by the Visitor and Convention Bureau in 2004, created the Tri- Cities Regional Hotel/Motel Commission for the purpose of establishing a Tourism Promotion Area (TPA). The purpose of the TPA is to increase visitor utilization of the hotels and motels in the Tri- Cities. The promotional expenditures are supported by a special assessment of $1.50 /night for any of the hotel /motel rooms included in the TPA program (those facilities with more than 40 rooms). The TPA has operated for about eight years and has proven to be very helpful in not only increased promotion of visitor traffic, but the Commission has used a portion of the funds to encourage various organizations to select the Tri- Cities for their activity, whether a convention or sporting event. B) The Hotel/Motel Commission recently determined that the room assessment should be increased to $2 /night (statutory maximum), so as to increase revenue for the TPA by about 30 %. The additional revenue is desired by the Commission to increase the TPA support of the various efforts to expand tourism and visitor traffic to the Tri- Cities (see references #1 and #2). V. DISCUSSION: A) Inasmuch as the TPA room assessment is self - imposed by the hotel industry within the Tri- Cities, the requested increase should be accommodated by city action. The purposes for which the funds are used benefit the visitor economy of the Tri- Cities, generating additional economic benefit to the community in general (and the cities in particular via sales tax and lodging tax receipts). 4(b) �Z? �1L IL- VISITOR fi CONVENTION BUREAU KENNEWICK PASCO RICHVWD / WASHIN5TCN' LISA August 21, 2013 Mr. Gary Crutchfield City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99302 Dear Mr. Crutchfield: Pasco City Hall RECEIVED AUG 2 S 2013 City Manager's Office P.O. BOX 2241 Tri- Cities, WA 99302 -2241 509- 735 -8486 1 -800- 254 -5824 Fax 509- 783 -9005 www.VisitTR1- CITIES.com info @VisitTRI- CITIES.com The Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission was formed in 2004 for the purpose of establishing a tourism promotion area. As a result, with the support of the local hotel community, a tourism promotion assessment (TPA) was created to generate increased funding for the specific purpose of marketing the Tri- Cities as a preferred destination for conventions, sports tournaments and events, as well as leisure travel. The TPA has been an extremely successful endeavor for the Tri- Cities tourism industry. The collection of the assessment began in October of 2004 and since that time we have been able to provide grants and financial support to 152 conventions and sporting events, creating an economic impact of $130 million in visitor spending in the community. In addition we have been able promote the Tri- Cities with spring and fall television ad campaigns in the Greater Seattle Area for seven consecutive years. We have been able to improve our marketing materials, launch a new web site, create a destination video, and add sales staff to assist in convention and sports recruitment. Local hoteliers and city partners have been very pleased with the return on investment as a result of instituting the tourism promotion assessment. The current rate of the assessment in the Tri- Cities is $1.50 per room. The legislation (RCW 35.101) allows that the assessment can be increased to as much as $2.00 per room, as is the practice in Spokane, Yakima, Vancouver and Seattle. Recently the Commissioners of the Tri -City Hotel -Motel Commission unanimously passed a resolution to increase the assessment in the Tri- Cities from $1.50 to $2.00. On August 14 a meeting was held for all hotels that participate in the assessment to share the details about the increase and to ensure that the industry fully supports the increase. Although not every hotel invited chose to attend, there were representatives from Fairfield Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Red Lion Hotels (representing four hotel properties), Best Western, Courtyard by Marriott, Hilton Garden Inn, Baymont Inn, Clover Island Inn, Hampton Inn and the GuestHouse International in attendance and there was overall support by the hotels to increase the assessment to $2.00 per room, preferably as soon as January 1, 2014. The proceeds from an increase to the TPA would be used to further support the sponsorship of future conventions and sporting events, the addition of a sports marketing manager to assist in recruiting new tournaments and sporting events to the Tri- Cities, increased advertising, the addition of a marketing manager to promote the growing wine industry and the increase in accessibility to Hanford, especially as the Hanford Land Use Plan and Manhattan National Historical Park become a reality. The next step is to secure the support of the Pasco City Council, as well as the support of the Kennewick and Richland City Councils. We would welcome the opportunity to present the merits of an increase to the Pasco City Council. We have provided the attached copy of the resolution passed by the Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission on July 18, 2013. We are hopeful that the city council will support our request and will pass an ordinance to allow for the increase to $2.00 in Pasco, and will also approve an amendment to the interlocal agreement amongst the three cities allowing for the increase. Mr. Crutchfield, we appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to the Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission and welcome any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, Vijay Patel Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Pasco ` S _ Monica Hammerberg — H liday Inn Express Inn & Suites J y Be h, President Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Kennewick Hilton Garden Inn ww0 inda Hendricks Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Richland Hampton Inn Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Pasco Red Lion Hotels Ian Na v Tri -City a ionalHotel -Motel Commission — Kennewick Red Lion of s Kath oore Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Richland Courtyard by Marriott RESOLUTION NO. 102 -13 A RESOLUTION FOR THE INCREASE IN THE SPECIAL LODGING ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to the Commission to recommend an increase in the Special Lodging Assessment rates; and WHEREAS, the current assessment of $1.50 per room per day has not been changed since its adoption in 2004; and WHEREAS, increasing the marketing funds available to promote the Tri- Cities as a premier destination will translate into increased visitor spending and economic development for the entire region; and WHEREAS, the revenues resulting from the increase from $1.50 to $2.00 are to be invested in the recruitment of conventions and sports tournaments, and leisure travel for the Tri - Cities region; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.101.050 permits an assessment rate up to $2.00 per night of stay; %Tfl WHEREAS, any change in the Special Lodging Assessment rate must be initiated by the affirmative recommendation of the Tri-City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission, and thereafter, approved by the affirmative vote of a majority plus one of each City Council with the cities within the Tourism Promotion area; and WHEREAS, after due consideration to the proposal, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission recommend to the City Councils of the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland to, by appropriate legislation, amend the Special Lodging Assessment upon all Class A lodging businesses from $1.50 per night of stay to $2.00 per night of stay; and amend the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for establishment of the Tri-City Regional Tourism Promotion Area dated June 1, 2004. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary transmit to the City Councils of the City of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland a copy of this Resolution requesting their affirmative approval. The number of those voting in favor of the Resolution are 6 The number of those voting in opposition of the Resolution are 0 The Resolution is X approved o rejected. g ecretary Resolution No. 102 -13 Page I of 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Section 3.99.010 "Authorization of Special Lodging Assessment' Increasing the Assessment from $1.50 Per Night of Stay to $2.00 Per Night of Stay. WHEREAS, upon recommendation from the Tri-City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission for the increase of the Special Lodging Assessment from $1.50 per day of stay to $2.00 per day of stay; and WHEREAS, the cities have contemporaneously herewith, adopted the First Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Establishment of Tri-City Regional Tourism Promotion Area to provide for the increase in Special Lodging Assessment, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 3.99.010 entitled "Authorization of Special Lodging Assessment' of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follow: 3.99.010 AUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL LODGING ASSESSMENT. There is hereby assessed pursuant to RCW 35.101.050, a Special Lodging Assessment as a charge for the furnishing of lodging by lodging businesses located within the Pasco Tourism Promotion Area in the amount of: A) One DollaF and -50/Geats (Q? `0) Two Dollars and 00 /Cents ($2.00) per night of stay for each Class A Lodging Business as defined below. B) No charge ($0.00) per night of stay for each Class B Lodging Business as defined below. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect on the 1st day of September, 2013, contingent upon the adoption of similar Ordinances by the City Councils of the cities of Kennewick and Richland, Washington, on or before that date. 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: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF TRI -CITY REGIONAL TOURISM PROMOTION AREA PROVIDING FOR THE INCREASE IN THE LEVY OF THE SPECIAL LODGING ASSESSMENT ON LODGING BUSINSESS WITHIN THE TRI -CITY REGIONAL TOURISM PROMOTION AREA BY THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to that Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Establishment of Tri-City Regional Promotion Area dated the 1 st day of June, 2004, entered into by and among the City of Kennewick, the City of Pasco, and the City of Richland, Washington, the parties agree to the following. WHEREAS, the Special Lodging Assessment was established in 2004 at $1.50 per day of stay, and has since that time, remained unchanged; and WHEREAS, by Resolution received from the Tri-City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission, the Commission is recommending an increase in the Special Lodging Assessment from $1.50 to $2.00 per day of stay as permitted by RCW 35.101.050; and WHEREAS, the increase for the Special Lodging Assessment can only be enacted upon the approval of all of the cities, and amendment of the respective Ordinances establishing the assessment by a majority plus one of each of the City Councils. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the cities agree as follows: 1. That Section 3.A of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows. 3. Levv of Special LodEine Assessments on Lode_ ine_ Businesses within the Tri-City Regional Tourism Promotion Area. A. The City Council of each of the Cities shall levy a Special Lodging Assessment on the Operators of Lodging Businesses within their jurisdictions uniformly throughout the Tri-City Regional Tourism Promotion Area as follows: Classification A: $4,302.00 Classification B: $ -0- 2. All remaining terms, sections, subsections, and conditions of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Establishment of Tri-City Regional Tourism Promotion Area, dated the 1 st day of June, 2004, not inconsistent herewith, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Amendment to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Kennewick, the City of Pasco, and the City of Richland, Washington, by their authorized officials have executed this Agreement pursuant to all requirements of law on this day of 2013. CITY OF KENNEWICK 0 Attest: Steve C. Young, Mayor Valerie Loffler, City Clerk Approved as to form: Lisa Beaton, City Attorney CITY OF PASCO By: Attest: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Approved as to form: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney CITY OF RICHLAND 93 Attest: John Fox, Mayor Marcia Hopkins, City Clerk Approved as to form: Heather Kintzley, City Attorney Amendment to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - 2 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Gary Crutchfiel &anager SUBJECT: LIDs 148/149 I. REFERENCE(S): September 27, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 1. Vicinity Maps 2. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 9/25/13 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/30: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: See below. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) LIDs 148 and 149 were formed and the improvements constructed over the past two years. In conducting the final assessment roll hearings, it was learned that several property owners desire installation and financing of utility stubs and/or driveways for certain vacant parcels within the LID boundaries. Council has continued the assessment roll hearing to be apprised of its options in responding to the expressed concerns. B) In reviewing the record of the LID formation and construction, it appears that references were made during the neighborhood meetings that utility stubs and driveways could be included but the only letters that mentioned utility improvements were not very clear as to the owner's opportunity to do so. When the inspector contacted each household during construction, the vacant parcel owners were not contacted. Thus, the only vacant parcels requesting utility and/or driveway improvements were those that initiated contact with the inspector or the engineering office (perhaps because they understood from prior communications that they could do so, or perhaps from their own initiative to find out). In any case, some vacant property owners did not understand their opportunity to do so. C) The attorney employed by the city to advise on LID matters has reviewed the circumstances in LID 148 and 149 and has concluded that the city can lawfully include additional improvements (utility stubs and/or driveways) if carried out properly. In addition, the attorney notes that the city may include utility connection fees (capital reimbursement) for those property owners who desire to finance those fees via LID. In all cases, the attorney advises the city to use an "application and waiver" form to ensure a clear record of the owner's request and consent to accept the additional assessment. Once the additional work is completed, a new final assessment roll hearing process would be required to establish the revised and final assessment roll. V. DISCUSSION: A) The engineering office has reviewed both LID projects with regard to the desire for utility stubs and driveways on vacant properties (see exhibit 2). Cost considerations reflect that the installation of utility stubs "after the fact" (after the street was paved) will cost about 40% more because the street and sidewalk must be cut to accommodate the stub extension. The LID attorney advises that the city 4(c) could either: absorb the extra cost and assess the same cost per stub throughout the LID; or not assess any stub cost within the LID but require full payment of the actual stub cost at the time of connection (future). B) The construction records reflect a wide disparity in driveway cost between LID 148 and 149. Engineering estimates the expected cost to install a driveway "after the fact" at about $2,200. However, the LID attorney advises (again) that either all driveways in an LID be charged the same rate within the LID or exclude the driveway costs for assessment and collect the reimbursement at the time of development. To further complicate the driveway question, engineering advises the driveways are best left out until placement of the home is known, to avoid having to duplicate the expense by moving the previous driveway to fit actual development of the lot (in other words, it is likely cheaper for the lot owner to place the driveway when the house is built). C) If Council wishes to accommodate the desire of some owners of vacant properties to install utility stubs and their driveways, staff recommends the following process: • Explicit notice to owners of vacant property of their opportunity to add utility stubs and/or driveways with a fixed application deadline; • City design, bid and construct the additional work requested by owner applications; • Notify all LID participants of revised final assessment roll; • Conduct hearing on revised final assessment roll; • Approve ordinance adopting final assessment roll. D) Council is requested to discuss this matter at the September 30 workshop to ensure full understanding of its options and processes, so the continued hearing on October 7 can result in a conclusion regarding the concerns expressed by owners of vacant properties. H Z w w O a H w w Y Q a Z Y 0 J r. m • ,try � � � _ 1 a Y la I N N .+ i 3l1N3AV 2iVW30lVM r wF d K •N N N N� W' � OL 4 Y .F. ..� N t. - N r 3nN3AV oonH za - .Tr anNIV; li O,6 C 1 Q F- z w 2 U) U) w`^^ VJ Q J z LL CD LID 149 z >; Kurtzman Area Phase 3 Revised Bo_ undary S ST 28 29 _ Y cli ^:V iwY Y1 . -_ 3 �.25 •% 4 ,. 24 30 �„ 7r a _ iY J: -- 21 30 7 „ 1 8— _ 30 a > w o -- !•, j Vl L 112 31 31 rs Al TnN i r � o Number = LID Assessment Roll Number C7 + H U f ' MW U, Q Memo To: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director From: Michael A. Pawlak, PE, City Engineer Date: September 25, 2013 Public Works Department Engineering Division Re: LIDS 148 & 149 Additional Driveways & Utilities Memo Introduction. Both LID 148 and 149 constructed street improvements in the Kurtzman Park neighborhood including street reconstruction and paving, curb & gutter, storm drainage facilities, driveway approaches and sidewalks. In addition, the City constructed certain necessary water and sewer main improvements as companion projects to the LIDs. The cost for this utility work was not part of the LIDS, was paid for entirely by City water and sewer rate funds, and was not assessed to individual properties. During the Final Assessment Hearing held before City Council, a number of residents raised the question that they were not afforded the opportunity to have utility stubs extended to vacant lots that they owned, or to have driveway approaches installed at those lots. Council has requested that staff review these concerns and provide information regarding what information was provided to property owners during the LID process and the costs of installation of utility service stubs and driveway approaches. The LID Process. During the initial LID development process (formation) for both LIDs, property owners were notified of the efforts to form the LID and construct public infrastructure improvements along the frontage of their properties in the form of individual mailings (letters). Those letters invited each property owner to contact City staff for more information on the improvements and impacts and benefits to their property. In addition, at least two Public Open Houses were held to provide information to residents and property owners and to seek input from them. Notices of these Open Houses were posted as legal notices in the Tri-City Herald as well as mailed to each property owner. City Council took public testimony at the Public Open Houses. That testimony was provided to staff who incorporated suggestions, as applicable, into the design of the project. At the start of the construction phase of each project, the Public Works Construction Inspector assigned to the projects attempted to contact each resident property owner to advise them of the construction activities that were about to start and coordinate the location of any utility service connections and driveway approaches. The Inspector did not contact property owners of vacant, undeveloped property. The assigned Inspector made numerous contacts with residents and owners throughout the construction phase, answering questions, providing information and assistance on coordination of construction and individual needs and schedules. • Page 1 Design & construction of utility connections and driveway access approaches. The design efforts included providing utility service connections and driveway approaches to all developed lots. Such improvements were depicted on the contract documents and included in the respective contract bid schedules. Engineering and Planning staff attempted to work with each property owner during the design phase and /or at the start of construction to install any utility service lines in the appropriate location and to coordinate the width and location of driveway approaches. During the construction phase, many driveways were adjusted, modified and relocated in response to property owner requests. Utility service connections were also adjusted and relocated to accommodate property owner requests. Utility stubs and driveway approaches were included in the project in accordance with the provisions of PMC 12.04.100 for the number and width of driveways to residential lots; and PMC 13.04.030 for water services and meters. In addition, the design was consistent with a long- standing Public Works policy to not install water or sewer service stubs or driveway access approaches to undeveloped lots, unless specifically requested by the property owner. LID 148: • The City paid to install nearly 800LF of new watermain in the area, at the same time as the LID street construction. • Thirty one (31) new water services and meters were set at the right -of -way (property) line of each property currently connected to City water in order that the City could, in the future, disconnect those properties from the old watermains located in the alleys and reconnect to the new mains in the street. The disconnect/reconnect efforts would be undertaken by Public Works Operations staff on some later developed schedule. Four (4) sewer service stubs were installed, by construction change order, at the request of the property owner at 615 S. Sycamore Avenue to facilitate the subdividing of that parcel. The amount of the change order for the four sewer stubs was added to the LID assessment for the newly created parcels. Other service connection fees (i.e. water frontage, area and system fees, water service and tap fees, sewer system fees and sewer tap fees) were paid by the property owner at the time of development. Sewer frontage and area fees were not charged as those were included with and paid as part of sewer LID 71 (1965). • Twenty -three (23) driveway approaches were included in the original design to transition access between the new street improvements and existing properties. • In addition, a total of twenty -one (21) driveway approaches to seventeen (17) properties - -- including 8 undeveloped lots -- were added by change order to the construction contract, at the request of the property owners. LID 149: • The City's companion utility project included 12 new water services to properties, in the design documents. The locations of these services were coordinated with property owners during the design phase. All of these new services were to developed properties, or undeveloped properties at the request of the property owner. • Page 2 • In addition, six (6) water services were added by change order to undeveloped properties that were being subdivided, at the request of the property owner. • Three (3) sewer service stubs were included in the original design. • During construction, seven (7) sewer stubs were added at the request of property owners who were developing or subdividing undeveloped lots. • Twenty (20) driveway approaches were included in the original design to accommodate existing properties. • In addition, seven (7) driveway approaches were added, by change order, during construction to accommodate property owner requests. Current Council Request. Engineering has reviewed the large undeveloped lots within both LIDs and worked with Planning staff to determine the number of legal lots which each could be subdivided. Staff has also estimated the costs of construction of water and sewer stubs, as well as, water and sewer service fees (including frontage and area fees, connection (stub) fees, system fees, meter, and tap fees). The cost to construct a nominal 20 -ft width driveway approach to each potential lot was also estimated. That information is detailed in the attached spreadsheet; and summarized below. Water fees: Front footage, area and system fees are based on the current established published rates and compensate the City for capital infrastructure previously installed. The water service connection fee of $1,015 covers the cost of City staff tapping the main and installing the water service to the meter box at the property line. The estimated total water connection fees for a typical 64 ft. by 125 ft lot (8,000 SF) would be $2,965.40. Sewer fees: Front footage, area, system, and tap fees are based on current established published rates and compensate the City for previously installed capital infrastructure. If the City installs the sewer stub from the main to the property line there is an additional Sewer Stub Fee of $4,000. The actual costs incurred for the additional sewer stubs installed with LID 148, as a change order, equaled $66.52 per linear foot. The estimated total sewer connection fees, including sewer stub, on the same 8,000 SF lot cited above would be $5,600.52 (using the actual linear foot cost paid during construction and assuming a stub length of 34 LF. The actual costs for installing the sewer stubs now will be greater than the costs incurred with the LID construction as the street has now been paved (current construction estimate is $92.00 per linear foot). Drvewav aDproaches: Driveway approaches could be installed at each of the potential lots and would require horizontally cutting the existing curb, excavation of the existing soil, cutting and removing of the existing 4-in. sidewalk, placing and compacting crushed surfacing base course and placement of the 6 -in. thick driveway approach slab and replacement sidewalk. The estimated cost (today) to install these approaches is $2,270.00. (The installation of nominal 20 -ft. wide driveway approaches during LID 148 was $2,546.04 and $1,262.83 during LID 149.) It should be noted that the City typically does not install nor require developers of subdivisions to install driveway approaches until a residence or business is permitted for construction on a given lot. Subdivisions are required only to install curb & gutter along the streets until a specific lot is permitted for home construction. This way, the driveway will be installed in the correct location. Both the development community and the City have found (through experience) that it is very costly to "estimate" the • Page 3 location of driveways only to have to come back later and tear out the approach, replace curb & gutter, and reconstruct the driveway approach in a new location. In essence, the builder expends more than twice the cost of a driveway that is constructed once the layout of the residence is established. Financing: Upon consultation with legal counsel, it has been determined that an additional construction contract could be established to construct the additional utility connections and driveway approaches. The costs of these improvements would be borne by either the individual property owner solely or by some partnership between the property owner and the City. The property owner's portion could be added to his /her LID final assessment amount and financed with the LID. This financed portion can include the actual sewer stub and driveway approach construction costs and City service connection fees (which are reimbursement for capital infrastructure previously constructed). If the property owner chooses to include only the driveway approach and sewer stub costs in the financing, he /she would still be liable for the other City service connection fees current at the time of building permit and connection application. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you need additional information or clarification of the information provided. Attachments: Estimate water & sewer connection fees for a typical 64 ft. by 125 ft. lot Table of estimated water & sewer connection costs and driveway approach costs • Page 4 LID #148 ID FRONTAGE PARCEL (PARCEL INDIVIDUAL STREET NAME If (LF) PARCELS ( 6 125 1 SYCAMORE AVE 9 170 I HUGOAVE 1 16 320 I HUGO AVE I 1 31" 220 WALDEMAR AVE 1 36 125 1 WALDEMAR AVE 1 1 50'• 442 CEDAR COMMENTS: PARCEL PARCEL If OF SUBDIVIDED INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY DEPTH (LF) AREA (SF) PARCELS FRONTAGE (LF) WIDTH (LF) 125 15625 2 62.5 20 125 21250 1 2 85 20 125 40000 1 5 64 20 125 27500 I 2 1 77.5 20 125 15625 I 2 I 62.5 20 480 212160 I 7 63 20 DRIVEWAY DRIV WATER SEWER COEW SERVICE SERVICE INDIVIDUAL COST", COSTI'I $ 2,546.00 $2,928.13 I $3,626.12 $ 2,546.00 $3,487.25 I $3,626.12 1 $ 2,546.00 $1,375.00 $3,626.12 1 $ 2,546.001 $3,300.88 1 $6,017.00 $ 2,546.001 $2,928.13 I $5,554.25 $ 2,546.001 $3,808.31 I $6,616.35 . PARCEL 31 COULD BE DIVIDED SO THAT THERE ARE THREE PARCELS, THE FIRST PARCEL WOULD HAVE A FRONTAGE OF 65 FT AND WOULD INCLUDE THE CHURCHES PARKING LOT. THE REMAINING TWO PARCELS COULD BE SOLD AND WOULD HAVE 77.5 FT FRONTAGES. " PARCEL 50 COULD POTENTIALLY BE SUBDIVIDED SIMILAR TO THE TWO CUL -DE -SACS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. THIS WOULD REQUIRE STREET INSTALLATION, AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ESTIAMTE, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE PARCEL WOULD BE SUBDIVIED INTO 7 LOTS ALL FRONTING CEDAR AVENUE. (1) Water costs include all applicable service connection fees. LID 148 Lot ID #16 would be exempt for paying FF & SF fees as this lot was part of previous LID 105 (1979) that paid for water. (2) Sewer costs include all applicable service connection fees and theactual LID 148 sewer stub installation cost of $2263.12. LID 148 Lot ID #6,9 and 16 would be exempt from paying FF and SF fees as these lots were part of LID 71 (1965) and LID 88 (1975) which installed sewer mains (3) Based on $127.30 per LF of width. LID #149 PARCELID FRONTAGE SEWER PARCEL PARCEL #OFSUBDIVIDED INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY # (LF) STREET NAME DEPTH (LF) AREA (SF) PARCELS FRONTAGE (LF) WIDTH (LF) 17 200 HUGO AVE 179 35800 5 66.7 20 28 175 HUGO AVE 179 31325 2 87.5 20 29 393 CEDAR AVE 164 64452 6 65.5 20 30' 134 CEDAR AVE 164 21976 2 67 20 30" 491 CEDAR AVE 164 80524 I 8 61 20 COMMENTS: • PARCEL 3015 LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF CEDAR AVE AND ALTON STREET "PARCEL 3015 LOCATED MIDBLOCK ON CEDAR AVE BETWEEN ALTON STREET AND LEWIS STREET (1) Water costs include all applicable service connection fees. (2) Sewer costs include all applicable service connection fees and the actual LID 149 sewer stub insatllation ocost of $1105.00. (3) Based on $63.25 per LF of width. DRIVEWAY WATER SEWER COST", SERVICE SERVICE COSTI'I COST( �1 $ 1,265.00 $3,172.24 $4,694.26 $ 1,256.00 1 $3,732.71 $5,388.51 $ 1,256.00 $3,101.79 $4,608.23 $ 1,256.00 1 $3,141.33 I $4,657.24 $ 1,256.00 $2,983.16 I $4,461.19 ty �, Account #: Lock Meter Off?: City of Pasco, Washington Application for Water / Sewer Services Estimate Only - Subject to Change What Services: WS Location Description: 1 - Single Family Home Billing Classification: Water Single Family Legal Description: Lot 017 Parcel Number: 113863124 Additional Legal Description: Meter Address: Name of Applicant. Block 007 Addition KURTZI Date: (Application No: E13 -0357 Service Type: RESIDENTIAL Service Area: Inside City Billing Classification: Sewer Single Family Frontage: 64 ft Depth: 125 ft Area: 8000 sf KURTZMANS 1ST LOTS 17 TO 28, BLK 7 TOG W 10' VAQnHENBt'ibAAgreement: Name of Owner: JACQUELINE F RAINES Billing Name: Site /Field Contact: Billing Address: City, State & Zip: Water Service Type: Meter and Service Meter Reconnection'?: Meter #: Date Installed: Make: Size (in): 3/4 Inch # of Digits: 0 # of Dials: 0 Water Patch Length (ft): 0 Sewer Patch Length (ft): 0 Explanation: FEES Sewer - Connect to Existing Stub W Fee - Front Footage (LF) W Fee - Square Footage (SF) W System Fees - Inside - 314 Inch S Fee - Front Footage (LF) S Fee - Square Footage (SF) S System Fees - Inside - Home Sewer Tap 314 Inch Displacement and Check Total Fees ko'b " = 11 �i�j/o54v �Su\•�-�F Reading: Sewer Depth (ft): 0 $4,000.00 $1,280.00 $310.40 $360.00 $1,600.00 $374.40 $1,288.00 $75.00 $1,015.00 $10,302.80 The sewer deposit for patch will be refunded after inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Department. Prepared By: Checked By: fti7 Date 09/26/2013 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 FROM: Rick Terway, Di ector, Admmis ati ommunity Services SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement for School Security Fencing I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Maps of Schools 2. Proposed Amendment to Interlocal Agreements II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/30: Discussion 10/7: MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreements with Pasco School District providing standards for security fencing at Maya Angelou Elementary, James McGee Elementary, Virgie Robinson Elementary and any future joint project sites and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City and Pasco School District have had joint park/school sites for many years with shared space and maintenance of these areas. This has been beneficial to both parties and provided additional space for the school and park users. A) Because of various incidents at schools around the nation, most recently at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the school district is fencing off access to schools during school hours, which will affect the joint park/school sites. B) Attached are maps showing where the school district and the city propose to place the fences at the joint sites. The school district will pay for all materials, installation and modifications to the fences at the current sites and future development, such as School #14 at Road 60 & Sandifer to be built in 2014. The placement of the fences was discussed at the August Park Board meeting and the Board concurs with staff that it is better to keep the field areas intact rather than splitting them up and losing the use of the field altogether. C) Gates will be added at various locations allowing for easy access during non- school hours. Most of the use of these parks is after school hours. Gates can be made easily identifiable by archways or decorative posts. D) City and District staff met and discussed the issues brought up at the Council Workshop on August 12. The placement of gates will be coordinated with Police and Fire Departments. It was determined that moving fences closer to the schools would be a safety issue for evacuation purposes. Locating the fences where they are proposed would allow enough room to evacuate the school and also keep track of where the children are during an emergency. E) Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Interlocal Agreements 4(d) F (yam,, _ M 1 4,i e - -- - �v I*# VIRGIE ROBINSON EIEMENTAR ilk x. CITY OF PASCO � �+ W � •'4 f � f AN CITY OF PASCO CITY OF PA5C0 r v 9 GATE EXISTING FENCE �`���� �� `� � � ,� ';,� � � � ► - PROPOSED FENC A COACHELLA C� � � TUSAYAN DR Al �R r � VERD�(�T•', t � � �, '�' �� � w f�, JAMES Mc3EEI I ELEMENTARY olkllft—l"— AIL a��` - ■ • n � GATE EXISTING FENCE - PROPOSED p m CITY OF PASCO r ti. .r.l O M *: W L�ti i �1 r - a r 1 MAYA .,,,, •e ANGELOU ELEMENTARY, lit f 3 � �•OZ t� I �3.1� _� s E' O.' D F, y a ,ter. �' e . CITY OF PASCO r'= GATE -4`1 EXISTING FENCE 1 PROPOSED FENCE a 7 T °-� AMENDMENT No. 1 Pursuant to Ch. 39.34 RCW, the City of Pasco and Pasco School District have entered into a Master Interlocal Cooperation Agreement dated June 8, 2004 and an Agreement dated July 7, 1980 for joint use of City Parks. The Agreements provide they may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties expressed by the adoption of appropriate resolution by the governing body of each party. Accordingly, the City and the District agree to the following Amendments to each respective Agreement: 1. The District will provide additional security fencing at the following school campuses: Maya Angelou Elementary, James McGee Elementary, Virgie Robinson Elementary and any future joint project sites. The District will be responsible for repair and maintenance of fences that pertain to the security perimeter. 2. Each security fence will have an access gate (between sixteen and eighteen feet wide) for emergency vehicles. The District agrees to install a Knox box for each large gate and provide keys in the Knox box(es) for each gate. 3. The District will provide a key to the City for maintenance access purposes. 4. District staff will lock all access gates at approximately fifteen (15) minutes after school take -up time and unlock the gates approximately five (5) minutes prior to school release time on scheduled school days. All gates will be unlocked during holidays, weekends, after school, and during scheduled school breaks. 5. The District may lock the gates for safety purposes during outdoor maintenance activities. 6. There will be no public access to district playgrounds and fields from adjacent City parks during the normal school day. 7. If it is mutually determined by the parties that security fencing would have a detrimental impact to the City Park, the District will be responsible for the cost of relocating any security fencing to the District property line. 8. Location of all initial and future gates (if required) to be agreed to by both parties. All gates to be designed to stand out with arch or other design designating an entrance. 9. Any costs associated with gate opening and closing by City staff will be reimbursed by the District. Dated this day of Pasco School District John Morgan Assistant Superintendent ,2013 City of Pasco Gary Crutchfield City Manager Approved as to Form: City Attorney FOR: City Council TO: Gary FROM: Rick Terway, SUBJECT: Library Improvements I. REFERENCE(S): AGENDA REPORT Manager September 25, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 Administrative & Community Services 1. Letter from Mid - Columbia Library District II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/30: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: $13,700 General Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. A) The Library facility located at 1320 W. Hopkins was constructed in the 1960's and various updates have occurred during the last 50 years. The Library is currently operated under contract by the Mid - Columbia Library District. The library, until April 2013, was the only library in Pasco and consequently was heavily used; the facility remains consistently busy. A) The District has requested to make some modification to the interior of the building to give the facility a more modern feel and facilitate additional area for the expanding need for electronic media, as well as a new coat of paint to brighten the interior space. Staff has evaluated the request from the district and does not see any structural reasons for concern with any of the items listed in the attached letter. The district estimates their cost of this project will be approximately $100,000 dollars. Due to funding constraints and project schedules throughout the District the project needs to be completed by December 31, 2013. B) The District has also requested that the city participate in this renovation project by updating the sign that is located on the northwest corner of the property. It is in need of some repairs and this would be a good time to replace the sign. Along with the sign replacement the district has also asked the city to repaint the exterior of the building with a new color to blend with the repainting of the interior space. The cost to the city is estimated to be $13,700. C) The District anticipates the library will be closed from November 28, 2013 to January 2, 2014 and advises that the holiday season is a relatively "slow" period for library use (as opposed to summer, when it is heavily used for reading programs, etc.). Every effort will be made to open the library sooner if all goes well. D) Staff recommends Council concurrence with this project. 4(e) midcolumbiaC) LIUM ' Growyourmfnd." August 21, 2013 Mr. Gary Crutchfield City Manager City of Pasco 525 North Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Crutchfield: Neva LeBlond Sequette Service [enter 405 S. Dayton • Kennewick, WA 993360 (509) �a1.474.5 • Fax (509) 737-6349 As a heavily -used library system, we often see the need to update and improve our facilities due to regular wear and tear. We are establishing a four -year cycle for facilities improvements system -wide, and the Pasco Branch is slated for improvements in late 2013. We would like to work together as move on to the next steps of this proposed project. As we evaluated the Pasco Branch for updates and improvements, we created a plan that would include the following work: ® Removal of remaining, original wooden shelving and facings along outer interior walls. W Removal of unused wall unit heaters. a Rerouting of AC/Heating vents in current wooden shelving to floor vents to allow for placement of new metal shelving around outer interior walls. Rerouting of electrical outlets in current wooden shelving to wall outlets. ® Repainting of the interior to include new branding color palette. m Replacement of stained and worn carpet squares. * Installation of two to four drop poles for added electrical outlets for customer use in seating areas of branch. ® Purchase and installation of new shelving. • Purchase and placement of new furniture for seating areas. The library system will assume the costs of these improvements. With your permission, we would like to move forward with these plans to improve the Pasco Branch library, and schedule the workto be performed in late- October, early - November. We anticipate that this work could be completed in three weeks, and would require the library to be closed for this period of time. 1 if this is acceptable to the City, communications to our Pasco customers will include posted signs, website announcements, and direct email notifications of the project and the closure. The communications would also direct customers to the West Pasco Branch and other library branches for services during the closure. We anticipate providing extended open hours at the West Pasco Branch during this project. The proposed schedule at the West Pasco Branch while the Pasco Branch is closed is: Monday- Thursday 9 AM to 9 PM Friday 9 AM to 7 PM Saturday 9 AM to 5 PM Sunday 1 PM to 5 PM Mid- Columbia Libraries Board of Trustees and I appreciate the efforts the City of Pasco has put forth to improve library services to its community. We are excited to move forward with the project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (509) 737 -6357. Sincerely, Kyle P. Cox Executive Director 2 AGENDA REPORT NO. 41 FOR: City Council TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Abroad Qayoum1 li Works Director' w FROM: Michael A. Pawl ,City Engineer SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Revisions I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map — Manzanita Lane 2. Ordinance September 24, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 09/30: Discussion 10/07: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , adding parking restrictions on certain streets, and finther, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Engineering Division received a request from a resident and a Council Member to review the parking conditions along Manzanita Lane just north of "A" Street. The Council Member and resident both expressed concern with allowing parking along both sides of the street during evening hours. There is significant use of on- street parking due to limited parking spaces inside the new apartment complex, the Tierra Vida Apartments. Manzanita Lane is a 36 -foot wide section (measured face -of -curb to face -of- curb). Parking is currently allowed along both sides of the street. V. DISCUSSION: A) Engineering staff has performed an evaluation of Manzanita Lane and noted limited street width to accommodate emergency vehicles and limited sight distance when vehicles are parked close to "A" Street. Allowing parking on both sides of the street results in a very narrow travel path, ultimately causing vehicle congestion and more importantly pedestrian safety issues and emergency response access issues. D) Engineering recommends restricting parking along both side of Manzanita Lane from "A" Street to approximately 150 feet north. This restriction will provide additional width for emergency response vehicles, improve pedestrian safety and sight distance for south bound drivers on Manzanita Lane. E) This ordinance will amend Section 10.56.080 (Schedule III, Parking Prohibited at All Times on Certain Streets) of the Pasco Municipal Code to add and/or revise the following streets to the list of prohibited parking streets: Add: Manzanita Lane. both sides from "A" Street to 150 feet North. 4(f) a Q } H Z U ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE prohibiting parking on various streets, amending Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has determined that it is necessary for public safety to prohibit parking on certain streets; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has determined that it is necessary to permit limited time (two -hour) parking on certain streets; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to add the following underlined language and read as follows: 10.56.080 SCHEDULE III - PARKING PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS. In accordance with Section 10.56.080, and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall at any time park a vehicle upon any of the following described streets or parts of streets: "A" Street - both sides of street from Elm Avenue to SR -12; "A" Street - both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; "A" Street - from Main Avenue to Beech Avenue; "A" Street - 300 feet west of 4th Avenue to three hundred feet east of 4th Avenue; "A" Street - both sides from 20th Avenue to a point two hundred fifty feet west of 20th Avenue; "A" Street — both sides, corner of "A" Street and 28th Avenue; Agate Street - between Fourth and Fifth Avenues; Ainsworth Avenue - north side from Railroad Avenue to Oregon Avenue; Ainsworth Avenue - south side from 10th Avenue to Fourth Avenue; Argent Road — 20th Avenue to Road 44; Argent Road — Road 84 to Road 76; Autoplex Way — from Court Street south to 160 feet north of Marie Street; Bonneville Street - the south side of Bonneville Street from a point 150 feet east of the east curb line of I Oth Avenue to the east curb line of 10th Avenue; Billings Street - from Lewis Street to "A" Street Broadmoor Boulevard — FCID canal to Nottingham Drive; Brown Street - north side from Road 28 to Road 26; Brown Street - south side from Road 28 to a point 130 feet to the east; Burden Boulevard — Road 76 to Road 36; Chapel Hill Boulevard — Road 68 to Saratoga Lane; Chapel Hill Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Road 84; Chapel Hill Boulevard - from Crescent Road to Broadmoor Boulevard; Clark Street - both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; Clemente Lane — Burden Boulevard to Wrigley Drive; Commercial Avenue — both sides from Hillsboro Avenue south 1 mile; Court Street - from Fourth Avenue west to SR -395; Court Street — east of Fourth Avenue; Court Street - from Road 68 to Road 84; Court Street — Rd. 100 to I -182 Hwy overpass; Court Street —1,000 feet south of Harris Road; E. Broadway Street — (north side) Wehe Street to Franklin Street; First Avenue — Court Street to Sylvester Street; Fourteenth Avenue — both sides from Clark Street north 100 feet; Fourteenth Avenue — both sides from Clark Street south to the alley; Fourth Avenue — (east side) 50 feet north of Columbia Street; Fourth Avenue —100 feet south of Columbia Street; Fourth Avenue — east side from Shoshone Street to Court Street; and on the west side from Shoshone Street to 125 feet north of vacated Park Street and from 115 feet north of Octave Street to Court Street; Fourth Avenue - east side from Sylvester Street north 140 feet; and on the west side from Sylvester Street north 200 feet; Fifth Avenue (west side) Park to Octave; Fifth Avenue — (east side) north of Court Street; Fifth Avenue - (east side) Nixon Street to Park Street; North Fourth Avenue - between Court and Ruby Streets; Heritage Boulevard - both sides from US -12 to "A" Street; Hillsboro Street and Commercial Avenue - both sides of Hillsboro Street from a point 100 feet east of the center line of Commercial Avenue to SR 395, and on both sides of Commercial Avenue from a point 100 feet south of the center line of Hillsboro to Hillsboro; Homerun Road — both sides, from Convention Boulevard to end; James Street — south side from the far east end of James Street to 400 feet west; James Street — north side from the far east end of James Street to 340 feet west; Jay Street - north side from the east curb line of Road 22 to a point 50 feet west of the east curb line of Road 22; Lewis Street - from First Avenue to 70 feet east; Lewis Street - north side from Fourteenth Avenue to 130 feet west; and north side from Fourteenth Avenue to 80 feet east; Lewis Street — south side from Fourteenth Avenue to 100 west; and south side from Fourteenth Avenue to 100 feet east; Lewis Street - Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; Lewis Street - north side of Lewis Street from the east curb line of Seventh Avenue to a point 135 feet east; Lewis Street - South side of Lewis Street, from 150 feet east of the center line of First Street running easterly a distance of 165 feet; Lewis Street (east) - both sides from Wehe Avenue east to Cedar Avenue; Lewis Street (east) - both sides from Oregon Avenue east to Wehe Avenue; Lewis Street — from Cedar Ave. to Billings Street; Madison Avenue - both sides from Burden Boulevard to Road 441 Manzanita Lane- both sides from "A" Street to 150 feet north; Ninth Avenue — Washington Street to Ainsworth Street; Octave Street - the south side of Octave Street from 1 point 280 feet east of the east curb line of Road 34 to a point 420 feet east of the east curb line of Road 34; Oregon Avenue between "A" Street and Ainsworth Avenue; Oregon Avenue — (west side) 350 feet north of Bonneville Street; Oregon Avenue — Hagerman Street to James Street; Road 22 - east side from the north curb line of Jay Street to a point 50 feet south of the north curb line of Jay Street; Road 26 — from Court Street to Brown Street Road 28 — west side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street; Road 28 — east side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street except for 315 feet starting from a -point 360 feet north of the intersection of Sylvester Street and Road 28; Road 34 - both sides of the street from Henry Street to Court Street; Road 36 - both sides of the street from its intersection with Argent Place to a point 1,200 feet north of Argent Place; Road 36 — Burden Boulevard. to 200 feet south of Meadow Beauty Drive; Road 44 - east side from Meadow View Street to Argent Place; Road 44 - west side from Desert Street to Argent Place; Road 44 — west side from Desert Street to Burden Boulevard; Road 44 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 52 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 60 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 68 Place — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 68 — FCID canal north to City Limits; Road 68 — I -182 to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 76- east side from Sandifur Parkway to a point 620 feet south of Wrigley Drive; Road 76 - (west side) Wrigley Drive to Burden Boulevard; Road 76 - west side from Sandifur Parkway to Wrigley Drive; Road 80 - from Court Street south; Road 84 - from Sunset Lane south; Road 84 — Argent Road to Chapel Hill Boulevard; Road 100 — Court Street to FCID canal; Rodeo Drive — Road 68 to Convention Place; Ruby Street - between Fourth and Fifth Avenues; Sandifur Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Robert Wayne Drive; Sandifer Boulevard — (north side) Robert Wayne Drive to Road 60; Sandifur Boulevard — from Road 60 to Road 62; Sandifer Parkway - from Road 60 to Road 44; Seventeenth Avenue - (west side) "A" Street to Washington Street; Shoshone Street - 22nd Avenue to 23rd Avenue; Sun Willows Boulevard - both sides of street from its intersection with 20th Avenue to its eastern terminus; Sylvester Street — (south side) 20th Avenue to 28th Avenue; Sylvester Street — (north side) one hundred feet east of 26th Avenue to 28th Avenue; Sylvester Street - From the east line of 20th Avenue to a point 290 feet east thereof; Tenth Avenue - both sides of street from "A" Street to `B" Street; Tenth Avenue - from `B" Street to and including the Inter -City Bridge; Tenth Avenue - both sides of street from Lewis Street to Clark Street; Third Avenue — (east side) fifty feet south of Columbia Street; Third Avenue - (east side) fifty feet north of Columbia Street; Third Avenue — both sides of street 100 feet north of Sylvester Street; Third Avenue — both sides of street 100 feet south of Sylvester Street; Third Avenue - On the west side from a point five hundred seventy-five feet north of Margaret Street to a point six hundred fifty feet north of Margaret Street; Twentieth Avenue — From Lewis Street to Argent Road except on the east side of 20th Avenue only from a point one hundred seventy feet south of Hopkins Street to Lewis Street; Twenty Second Avenue — (west side) to 550 feet south of West Henry Place; Twenty Eighth Avenue — (west side) Lewis Street to Sylvester Street; Washington Street — 9th Avenue to 10th Avenue; Wrigley Drive — Road 76 to Clemente Lane; Road 26 - Both sides of Road 26, from a point 120 feet south of the south curb line of Court Street on the east side and 245 feet south of Court Street on the west side, to 250 feet north of the north curbline of Court Street. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this 7th day of October, 2013. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 20, 2013 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manage SUBJECT: PMC Title 15 Telecommunications Amendments I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Ordinance, Title 15 Telecommunications 2. Proposed Resolution Cable TV Customer Service Standards Note: attachments are in Council packets only; copy available for public review in the City Manager's office, the Pasco Library and on the City's webpage at www.nasco- wa. eov /citvcouncilreoorts. H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/30: Discussion 10/7: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending Sections 15.10.020 "Definitions," and Section 15.080.020 "Application and Review Fee" of the Pasco Municipal Code; creating Section 15.40.030 "Cable Franchise," and creating Chapter 15.95 "Cable Systems and Open Video Systems" of the Municipal Code, regulating the occupancy and use of public rights -of- way by cable systems and open video systems, providing for establishment of customer service standards; establishing franchise and licensing requirements for operators of such systems and prescribing minimum charges, terms and conditions for and upon the construction, maintenance and repair of such systems and, further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. adopting Cable Television Customer Service Standards. III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Note: consideration of the Ordinance and Resolution were tabled from the meeting of September 16 after the City had received a letter from an attorney representing Charter Communications. As the City had not had a chance to respond to the letter it was determined to postpone final action. The City's letter in response has been provided in Council's meeting packet. A) The City is in the process of renewing the non - exclusive cable franchise (agreement) with Charter Communications for use of the public rights -of -way. B) To better utilize resources, the City has partnered with the City of Richland to co- negotiate with Charter in the renewal process. To insure the cities receive the best possible agreement for its citizens, the cities retained The Buske Group for guidance and advice through the renewal process. C) As part of the review process, the consultant has recommended updating PMC Title 15, last amended in 1998, and has recommended several changes contained in the proposed language. 4(g) D) Additionally, formal customer service standards, in conformance with FCC regulations, are proposed in a separate Resolution as referenced by Section 15.95.240(H)(4) of the Ordinance. (Council please note revisions have been made to Section 2.4.3 and 24 of the Resolution to reference appropriate PMC sections) V. DISCUSSION: A) While the proposed changes in Title 15 may seem lengthy, much of the language would be necessarily captured in some form in every franchise agreement. B) Since franchise agreements are a negotiated document, the possibility exists of changing City right -of -way requirements depending on a number of factors during the renewal (or first -time application) process. Including these basic requirements in the PMC minimizes the need to negotiate these items within individual franchise agreements. C) These amendments will help insure Charter and potential new cable providers meet the same requirements ("level playing field "). D) Charter has been advised of the Council meeting schedule for considering these amendments and has been provided with an advance copy of this proposed Ordinance.