Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.10.07 Council Meeting PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. October 7, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated September 16, 2013. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) 1. To approve General Claims in the amount of $2,430,678.67 ($253,559.56 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 16546, 16624, 16720 and 16776; and $2,177,119.11 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1359, 1360, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365 and 1368; and Claim Warrants numbered 194852 through 195078). 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $2,413,840.52, Voucher Nos. 46087 through 46197 and 80310 through 80319; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30061952 through 30062564. (c) Library Improvements: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated September 25, 2013. 2. Letter from Mid - Columbia Library District. To approve the expenditure, not to exceed $15,000 for exterior painting and sign replacement at the library facility at 1320 W. Hopkins. *(d) Resolution No. 3514, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of an unnamed street in the NP Plat. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated October 1, 2011 2. Overview Map. 3. Vicinity Map. 4. Proposed Resolution. 5. Vacation Petition. To approve Resolution No. 3514, setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 4, 2013 as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of the unnamed street right -of -way between South First Avenue and the BNSF railroad right -of -way. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) "Yard of the Month" Awards. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco residents have been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive Certificates of Appreciation from the City Council for "Yard of the Month," September 2013. 1. Jose and Maria Guzman, 931 W. Brown Street 2. Marcia Wickham, 1204 N. Road 37 3. Kirk and Tara Nebeker, 4916 Lucena Drive 4. Rosalio and Annet Prieto, 7814 W. Court Street (b) "Business of the Mouth" Appearance Award. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco business has been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive a Certificate of Appreciation from the City Council for "Business of the Month Appearance Award" for September 2013. 1. Best Western Plus Pasco Inn & Suites, 2811 N. 20s` Avenue Regular Meeting 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) (c) October 7, 2013 HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (a) LID 148 Final Assessment Roll. 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 2, 2013. 2. Vicinity Map, 3. Final Assessment Roll. 4. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 9/25/13. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: I move to direct that LID 148 include a Phase B to accommodate installation of additional utility stubs and driveways properly requested by owners of property therein. (b) LID 149 Final Assessment Roll. 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 2, 2013. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Final Assessment Roll. 4. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 9/25/13. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: I move to direct that LID 149 include a Phase B to accommodate installation of additional utility stubs and driveways properly requested by owners of property therein. (c) Recreational Marijuana (MF #CA2013 -005). 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated October 1, 2013. 2. Resolution No. 3507. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Q *(d) Street Vacation (MF #VAC2013 -005) A Portion of Sandifur Parkway (Old Standard Life Insurance). 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated September 30, 2013. 2. Overview Map. 3. Vicinity Map. 4. Proposed Ordinance. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. _, an Ordinance vacating a portion of Sandifur Parkway. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , vacating a portion of SandifuT Parkway and, further, authorize publication by summary only. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: (a) Ordinance No. . an Ordinance prohibiting parking on various streets, amending Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code. 1, Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated September 24, 2013. 2. Vicinity Map — Mauzanita Lane. 3. Ordinance. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , adding parking restrictions on certain streets and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Regular Meeting October 7, 2013 Q *(b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending the zoning classification of property located at 120, 124 and 132 W. Shoshone Street from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential). 1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner dated October 2, 2013. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Proposed Ordinance. 4. Report to Planning Commission. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/15/13 and 9/19/13. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the property located at 120, 124 and 132 W. Shoshone Street from C -3 to R -3 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (c) 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. 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. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , increasing the Special Lodging Assessment to $2.00 per night and, further, authorize publication by summary only. -AND - 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. Q *(d) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a Special Permit for Farming Operations in the 7500 block of Argent Road. L Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated October 3, 2013. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Proposed Resolution. 4. Report to Planning Commission. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/15/13 and 9/19/13. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, approving the Special Permit for farming operations on the 7500 block of Argent Road as recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (a) 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. 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. *(b) Customer Service Representative Position: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated October 2, 2013. MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to upgrade a 3/4 time Department Assistant I position to a full time Department Assistant II position in the Administrative and Community Services Finance Division. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (e) Regular Meeting 4 October 7, 2013 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) Real Estate Acquisition (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed MF# "Master File #...... Q Quasi - Judicial Matter REMINDERS: 1. 1:30 p.m., Monday, October 7, KGH — Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) 2. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, October 10 — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.). 3. 4:00 p.m., Thursday, October 10, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd. — TRIDEC Executive Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON) 4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, October 10, Transit Facility - Ben - Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.) REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief; Bob Gear, Fire Chief and Reuel Klempel, Plant Division Manager. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Easton Oberman, representing Boy Scout Troop #116. CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated September 3, 2013 (b) Bills and Communications: To approve General Claims in the amount of $1,603,914.30 ($120,317.98 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 16397, 16398, 16406, 16431, 16447 and 16448; and $1,483,596.32 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1357, 1358 and 1361; and Claim Warrants numbered 194644 through 194851). To approve bad debt write -offs for utility billing, ambulance, cemetery, general accounts, miscellaneous accounts, and Municipal Court (non - criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $213,917.13 and, of that amount, authorize $155,147.36 be turned over for collection. (c) Waiver of Sewer Utility Service Requirement (MF #USW2013 -009): To conditionally approve the sewer utility service waiver at 6405 Maverick Court. (d) Reappointment to Regional Public Facilities District Board of Directors: To reappoint Matt Watkins to the Board of Directors of the Tri- Cities Regional Public Facilities District, term to expire October 1, 2016. (e) Resolution No. 3509, a Resolution accepting work performed by Sharpe & Preszler Construction Company, Inc., under contract for the Commercial Avenue /US- 12/Lewis Street Water Line Project. To approve Resolution No. 3509, accepting the work performed by Sharpe & Preszler Construction Company, Inc., under contract for the Commercial Avenue/US -12 /Lewis Street Water Line Project. (f) Resolution No. 3510, a Resolution accepting work performed by Sharpe & Preszler Construction Company, Inc., under contract for the Maple Drive Sewer Extension Project. To approve Resolution No. 3510, accepting the work performed by Sharpe & Preszler Construction Company, Inc., under contract for the Maple Drive Sewer Extension Project. 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 (g) Resolution No. 3511, a Resolution accepting work performed by Apollo, Inc., under contract for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization Improvements, Project No. C3- 10- 51 -SWR. To approve Resolution No. 3511, accepting the work performed by Apollo, Inc., under contract for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization Improvements Project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Mac Miller, Boise Idaho, addressed Council concerning a rock in Volunteer Park. Dr. Robert Kopp, Blue Cross Animal Hospital, 1912 N. 4a' Ave., addressed Council concerning the Fourth Ave. Corridor Project parking lot plan for his business. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: Mr. Martinez and Mayor Watkins reported on the Fiery Foods Festival. Mr. Hoffinann reported on the Benton Franklin Council of Governments Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee meeting. Mr. Yenney attended the 9/11 Memorial Ceremony in Kennewick. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Final Assessment Roll for LID No. 148 — Kurtzman Park Street Improvements, Phase 2. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL. Mr. Bobby Sparks, representing New Hope Missionary Baptist Church, 630 S. Waldemar Ave., inquired about driveway placement and the cost of the LID. Mr. Wayne Jenkins, residing at 419 Arbutus Ave., asked if the city will cut in driveways even though the project has been completed. Mr. C.W. Brown, 631 S. Waldemar Ave., inquired about the placement of driveways and water /sewer stubs. Ms. Jackie Raines, 607 S. Sycamore Ave., noted she was not informed about possible driveway locations and inquired about prior LID assessments. Council and staff discussed the details of the LID. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to continue the public hearing to the October 7 regular meeting to consider changes before the final assessment. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Final Assessment Roll for LID No. 149 — Kurtzman Park Street Improvements, Phase 3. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL. Council and staff discussed the details of the LID. 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to continue the public hearing to the October 7 regular meeting to consider changes before the final assessment. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Ordinance No. 4119, an Ordinance amending PMC Title 25 and 26 dealing with Park Fees, establishing a new Chapter 3.133 -1 dealing with Park Fees, and amending PMC Title 3 regarding Park Impact Fees. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed Ordinance. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4119, amending PMC Title 25 and 26 dealing with Park Fees, establishing a new Chapter 3.133 -1 dealing with Park Fees, and amending PMC Title 3 regarding Park Impact Fees and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried 5 -2. No — Yenney, Larsen. Ordinance No. 4120, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, creating a new Section 9.44.060 "Solicitation to Occupants of Vehicles in Public Roadways Prohibited." Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed Ordinance. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4120, 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. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 4121, an Ordinance relating to automobile repair operations and land use amending Title 25 of the Pasco Municipal Code. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed Ordinance. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4121, relating to automobile repair operations and amending Title 25 of the Pasco Municipal Code and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. PMC Title 15 Telecommunications Amendments. Mr. Strebel explained the timeline of the renewal process. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to table this item until the October 7 regular meeting to allow time to respond to a letter from Charter. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3512, a Resolution approving the use of Subrecipient agreements for HOME programs and authorizing the City Manager to execute HOME Consortium Subrecipient agreements for Program Years 2011 -2013. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3512, authorizing the City Manager to execute Subrecipient Agreements with the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Lead Agency. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3513, a Resolution of the City of Pasco expressing the need to include the Lewis Street Overpass project in a Washington State transportation improvement funding package. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3513, expressing the need to include the Lewis Street Overpass in a state transportation improvement funding package. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried 6 -1. No - Larsen. NEW BUSINESS: Reject Bids for Road 68 Improvements, Phase 2 and Interconnect Road 68 Signals Project No. C2- 11- 16 -STR and C5- ST- 4A- 13 -01: Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to reject all bids for the Road 68 Improvements, Phase 2 and Interconnect Road 68 Signals Project in as much as all of the bids received significantly exceeded the Engineer's estimate and approved project budget. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Professional Services Agreement — Design for Butterfield WTP Traveling Screens, Phase II: Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the proposed agreement. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement with R112 Engineering, Inc., authorizing design services with respect to the Butterfield WTP Traveling Screens Project in the amount of $67,976 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Mr. Hoffmann seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Middleton Purchase Agreement: Mr. Crutchfield explained the details of the proposed purchase agreement. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the real estate purchase agreement with Middleton Six Sons Farms LLC and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign all documents necessary and appropriate to execute the agreement. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to postpone the September 23 workshop meeting to September 30, 2013. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to Executive Session at 9:11 p.m. for approximately 10 minutes to discuss collective bargaining strategy and proposals with the City Manager and the City Attorney. Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 9:22 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of October, 2013. CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: October 7, 2013 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the rvices rendered or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obli inst the city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Gary Crut9fi let , Cd)\MandVr Dunyele Ma n, Finance Services Manager We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this 7 day of October, 2013 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received: Check Numbers and 194852- 195078 In The Amount Of: $ 2,177,119.11 Electronic Funds Transfers: 1359, 1360, 1362 1363, 1364, 1365, 1368 In The Amount Of: $ 253,559.56 Electronic Funds Transfers: 16546, 16624, 16720 (Journal Entries) 16776 Combined total of $2,430,678.67 Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERALFUND: 66,597.48 Legislative 0.00 Judicial 45,46322 Executive 12,467.75 Police 103,031.06 Fire 19,905.97 Administration & Community Services 130,104.86 Community Development 4,135.82 Engineering 7,818.84 Non - Departmental 141,009.05 Library 95,835.47 TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 559,772.04 STREET 66,597.48 ARTERIAL STREET 4,029.71 STREET OVERLAY 0.00 C. D. BLOCK GRANT - 5,206.38 HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT 5,022.14 NSP GRANT 2,251.48 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 2,192,09 AMBULANCE SERVICE 13,430.71 CEMETERY 10,266.30 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 479,27 GOLF COURSE 95,287.74 SENIOR CENTER OPERATING 9,020.39 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 4,347.59 RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN 1,394.01 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 16,525.83 LITTER CONTROL 1,308.62 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 3,081.10 TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING 0.00 ECONOMIC DEVEL & INFRASTRUCT 23,806.58 STADIUM /CONVENTION CENTER 10,103.32 GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 8,278.39 WATER/SEWER 1,034,117.31 EQUIPMENT RENTAL -OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL 26,631.52 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS 19,483.42 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL 87,474.29 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS 0.00 MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE 290,145.26 CENTRAL STORES 0,00 PAYROLL CLEARING 44,885.03 LID CONSTRUCTION 0.00 PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 32,160.67 TRI CITY ANIMAL CONTROL 53,380.00 SENIOR CENTER ASSOCIATION 0.00 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 2,430,678.67 3(b).1 CITY OF PASCO Payroll Approval The City Council City of Pasco Franklin County, Washington The following is a summary of payroll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of September 2013 is arepit-s—e-ritedi herewith for your review and approval. � L Council Meeting of: October 7, 2013 Rick Tenvay, Administrative & Community Services Director We, the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received and that payroll voucher No's. 46087 through 46197 and 80310 through 80319 and EFT deposit No's. 30061952 through 30062564 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of $2,413,840.52 are approved for payment on this 7th day of October 2013. Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND GENERAL FUND: Legislative Judicial Executive Police Fire Administrative & Community Services Community Development Engineering TOTAL GENERAL FUND CITY STREET BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM NSP MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND CEMETERY ATHLETIC FUND SENIOR CENTER STADIUM OPERATIONS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY BOAT BASIN REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND TASK FORCE WATER /SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING OLD FIRE PENSION FUND GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS Payroll Summary Net Payroll Employee Deductions Gross Payroll City of Pasco Contributions Total Payroll 8,072.96 92,088.29 75,665.12 699,487.48 347,131.15 351,021.22 93,932.90 120,338.65 1 ,787,737.77 43,454.88 7,497.55 1,070.61 1,014.22 6,657.68 185,100.06 12,672.59 1,440.32 14,820.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 313,864.46 29,395.67 9,114.58 $ 2,413,840.52 1,044,404.72 650,944.44 1,695,349.16 718,491.36 $ 2,413,840.52 3(b).2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 25, 2013 TO: Gary Crutch QOt anager Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 FROM: Rick Terway, D or, A dministrative & unity Services SUBJECT: Library Improvements I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Letter from Mid - Columbia Library District II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/30: Discussion 10/7: Motion: I move to approve the expenditure, not to exceed $15,000 for exterior painting and sign replacement at the library facility at 1320 W. Hopkins. III. FISCAL IMPACT: General Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: 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. V. DISCUSSION: 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. 3(c) ;t idicolumbld ) L ; r TES GrowvofrrrnPnd! August 21, 2013 Mr. Gary Crutchfield City Manager City of Pasco 525 North Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Crutchfield: Neva Le8lond Bequette Service center 405S. Dayton a Kennewick, WA 99336 • (509) 582.4745. Fax (So9) 737-x+349 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. • Removal of unused wall unit heaters. • 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. • 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 work to 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 FOR: City Council October 1, 2013 TO: Gary Crutch 1 anager Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 Rick White, jj Community & Aconomic Development Director ( �4 FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner �/ SUBJECT: STREET VACATION (MF# VAC 2013 -006) A Portion of an unnamed street east of First Avenue (Junvenal) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Overview Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Proposed Resolution 4. Vacation Petition II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No3514 setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 4, 2013, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of the unnamed street right -of -way between South First Avenue and the BNSF railroad right -of -way. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE L►`�- .1[.�1L�J�3'I \� 7 a7C�11_KY13R 1 A. The owner of the property at 219 South First Avenue has submitted a petition for vacation of a portion of the unnamed right -of -way adjacent to the north line of his property. The street in question was established with the NP Plat in 1889 and has never been improved. B. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the vacation request. The earliest regular City Council meeting available for a public hearing, which provides the statutory 20 -day hearing notice, is November 4, 2013. 3(d) U c�3 i i W m lJ ct C° NM ct O Q U •• � N t} j k' OR RESOLUTION NO.I�{ A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED STREET IN THE NP PLAT. WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights -of -way; and WHEREAS, R.C.W. 35.79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a public hearing to consider vacating that portion of an unnamed street in the NP Plat located south of Columbia Street and east of First Avenue described as follows: The south 40 feet of right -of -way located between the east line of First Avenue and the west line of the BNSF railroad right -of -way in the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter and the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM. will be held before the City Council of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers at 525 N. Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on November 4, 2013. That the City Clerk of the City of Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7ch day of October, 2013. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Qj 0 om ct o� 0 �N om CITY OF PASCO STREET /ALLEY VACATION PETITION FEE $200 MASTER FILE #NjActot3 -oo6 . DATE SUBMITTED: S J2s i3 I, we the undersigned, owners of two- thirds of the privately owned abutting property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the following described street /alley rights -of -way: TH£ SOUTR yap OF N$0C KthF4Y- of -NAV LO"FICF�D P5e7WEeN 'n*e EAST UN6 of Fig_e T. AVrzNVt= ANo TA;e WEST UN6 aF THc F3NSF ?�A%OLOAO R \fiNZ -OF -WA's APPLICANT: Print Name: A VA %,%A, LAMA 3Q\j Al Sign Name: Address: tr w `f' a w N s r. Phone #­-;o3- 99- ?-gSz3 Date z5 It Print Name: t1 . Sign Name. - ��C•t3� Print Name: Sign Name: Date Print Name: Sign Naive: Date Print Name: Sign Name: Date PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Descri tion) PAP -CFL# its bt'o -59, (F-OW ApJACCHT� AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager SUBJECT: LID 148 Final Assessment Roll I. REFERENCE(S): October 2, 2013 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 1. Vicinity Map 2. Final Assessment Roll 3. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 9/25/13 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING 10/7: MOTION: I move to direct that LID 148 include a Phase B to accommodate installation of additional utility stubs and driveways properly requested by owners of property therein. 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. 7(a) 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 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) Staff recommends Council close the Final Assessment Roll hearing and direct that a Phase B for each of LIDS 148 and 149 be initiated to accommodate additional utility stub and driveway improvements requested by property owners within the respective LIDS. U) Z w 2 w O Of IL w w U) Y CL Z Q H Y 00 J N a 0 Z, m' g ° x j 0 4 tj P, 3 ?9 Am' § ? 3f1N3AV 2iVW30lVM z E(2) wz r W N OJ N M W L N 3f1N3AV 3NOWVOAS 1 ij y CL Q Z w U) w N Q J Z U- a 0 Z, m' g ° x j 0 4 tj P, 3 ?9 Am' § ? 3f1N3AV 2iVW30lVM z E(2) wz r W N OJ N M W L N 3f1N3AV 3NOWVOAS 1 ij y CL Q Z w U) w N Q J Z U- LID 148 - Kurtzman Park Area Ph.2 Compare Preliminary & Final Assessments 8/29/2013 Preliminary Final % Change COGBAssisetaue $ 333,540.00 $ 340,OD000 1.9 Amounttobe Assessed $ 330,085.00 $ 235,104.00 -288 Preminimu" anal I Acmt I Preliminary Final Total Total I Number I Forest Number Owner Name I Fron IN) FronN1{f IN) Assessment Assettm03 I X Change 1 1 113864016 1 MITCHELL, JOHN1. ]2 TL $ 5,274,06 $ 3,753.671 28.8 1 2 113864034 MITCHELL, JOHN 75 75 $ 5,505.35 $ 3,919.701 -28.8 1 3 113864052 FUENTES, JOSEPHINE O 63 63 $ 4,580.17 $ 3,255.571 -28.9 1 4 113864221 BELL, DEBBIE 70 70 $ 5,119.66 $ 3,642.971 -28.8 1 5 113964230 BELL, CLEVELAND I 50 50 $ 3,577.8913 2,536091 -29.1 I 6 113864123 SINGLETON, ROBERT 125 125 9,360.28 $ 6,686.931 -28.6 1 ] 113864212 SINGLETON, ELOISE 25 25 S IS 1,650.42 $ 1,152.471 -30.2 1 8 1131163179 BURNETT, SHIRLEY G (ETAL) 220 $ 16,684.66 15ee 451 -55 I 9 113863071 AUSTIN, THOMAS & MARGARET I 215 215 $ 16,299.16 $ 11,667.951 .28.4 1 ID 113863080 CACHUA, 105E C &NORMAJ 50 50 3,577.89 $ 2,536.091 -29.1 1 11 113863062 AUSTIN, THOMAS &MARGARET 60 60 $ I$ 4,348.87 $ 3,089.531 -29.0 1 12 113863053 PONCE, HUMBERTO INIGUEZ(ETAL) _ _50 _ 50 $ 3,577.99 $ 2,536.091 -29.1 1 13 113863026 HERNANDR FRACISCOlIAV1ER 87 I 87 $ 6,430.54 $ 4,583.84 1 -28.7 14 1 113863017 SCAT JOSl 5(III 47 47 1 3,346.59 $ 2,370.051 -29.2 15 113863044 ESCOBAR, JOSE F & MARIA E 15 75 5,505.35 $ 3,910.701 -28.8 1 1 16 1 113863124 MINES, JACQUEUNE F 320 320 $ 24,394.52 $ 17,479.141 -28.3 1 17 113862189 NORTHWEST BAPTIST CONVENTION 50 50 I $ I 3,577.89 2,536.091 -29.1 1 ]8 113862152 URBINA, ANTONIO 125 125 $ 9,360.28 $ I� 6,686.931 -286 19 113862143 1 YENNEY, GINGER 75 1 75 1$ 5,505.35 $ 3.919.701 -28.8 20 113862125 MORALAES, LUCINA 50 50 $ 3,577.89 $ 2,536.09 I -29.1 1 21 113862090 ROJAS ROSAS, CEPORA(ETUX) 70 70 $ S,119861$ 3,642.981 -28.8 22 113962072 SUAREZ, MARGARITA I 100 100 $ 7,432.82 $ 5,303.321 -28.6 1 23 113862054 CLARK, RUTH A (TRUSTEE) 1 50 50 $ 3,577.89 $ 2.536.091 -29.1 1 24 113862027 ENTRUST NOJ(TrWE7 LLC(UAL) 1 72 72 $ 5,274.06 $ 3,753.671 -288 1 25 113862018 SCALES,) PH 5111. ETAL) 47 47 $ 3,346.59 $ 2,370.05 -29.2 1 26 113862036 BARNES, ROSEMARY I 25 50 $ 1,650.42 $ 2536.09 Combined 27 113862045 BARNES, ROSEMARY 25 1 $ _1,650.42 _ -23.21 28 113862063 MRS HERNANQi2 co RU INC 50 1 50 $ 3,577.89 $ 2,536.091 -29.1 1 29 113862081 I BARNES, ROSEMARY 75 ` 75 $ 5,505.35 $ 3,919.70 1 -26.8 1 30 113862107 MILLER, ROCKY ALAN & BETH ANN 70 I 70 $ S,119.86 I3 3,642.98 1 -28.8 1 31 1 313862134 NEW HOPE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH 1 68 I 68 $ 4,965.661$ 3,532.291 -28.9 1 32 I 113861171 BROWN ,CW &LEDA I 70 70 $ 5,119.861$ 3,642.981 -28.8 1 33 113861153 WAIKER, CORNELIUS 50 50 $ 3,577.89 $ 2,536.091 -29.1 1 34 113861144 1 WOODS, BETTY IETAQ 50 50 S 3,57].891$ 2,536.091 -29.1 1 35 113861135 SECRETARY OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV 50 50 $ 3,577.89 $ 2,536.091 -29.1 36 113861108 NEW HOPE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH 125 tII 125 $ 9,360.28 $ 6,686.931 -28.6 37 113861082 INGLESIAAPOSTOLICA 95 95 $ 7,047.33 1 $ 5,026.591 -28.7 1 38 I 113861064 MILLER, ROCKY A AN &BETH ANN 120 I 120 _ $ 8.974.79 1$ _ 6,410.211 -286 1 39 113861215 MILLER, JERRY I 75 75 $ 5,505.35 I $ 3,919.701 -28.8 40 1 113861206 MILLER, JERRY I 50 1 50 $ I 3,577.89 A11$$ 2,536.091 -29.1 41 1 113861028 ALVAREZ, RAFAEL & VIRGINIA 47 47 $ 3,346.59 $ 2,370.051 -29.2 42 113861019 MARTINEZ, ANTONIA 46 46 1$ 3,269.491 2,314.71 -29.2 1 43 113861046 MILLER,JERRY 75 175 $ 550535 $ 9,454.16 ICOmbhn.d 44 113861055 MILLER, JERRY 75 1 $ 5,505.35 275 1 45 113861073 MILLER.JERRY 95 1 70 $ 7,047.33 1 $ 3,642.981 1 46 113861091 ABREGO, ALICIA 120 1 120 $ 8974.79 $ 6,410111 -28.6 47 113861117 ABREGO, ALICIA 100 1 100 $ 7,432.82 $ 5,303.321 -28.6 48 113861126 HOWARD, WALTER NR) 50 50 $ 3,577.89 $ 2,536.091 -291 1 49 113861162 OLVERA, MARTIN (ETAL) 170 1 170 1 $ 12,829.72 $ 9,177.44 1 -28.5 1 50 113890033 NAVARRO, DOMINGO 442 442 1 $ 33,800.5_6 $ 24,231.18 I -28.3 51 113863180 Burnett, Shirley G(ETAL) 0 ADDITI63.12 ONAL TOTAL 52 113963181 Burnett, ShirleYG (ETAL) 60 1 1$ 3,089.53 1 $ 2,2 $ 5,352.65 1 53 113863182 Burnett, ShirleYG (ETAL) 53 1 $ 2,702.12 1 -32.6 $ 2,263.12 $ 4,965.24 1 54 1 1IM63183 Burnett, ShirleYG (ETAL) 1 53 I $ 2,702.121 $ 2,263.12 $ 4,965.24 1 55 1 113863184 Burnett Shwi"G (ETAL) 54 I $ _ 2,757.461 $ 2,263.12 $ 5,020.513 I Totals 1 4462 4461 $ 330,084.79 $ 235,104.00 $ 9,052.48 $ 20,303.71 Memo To: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Ahmed Qayoumi, Public Works Director From: Michael A. Pawlak, PE, City Engineer Yom" 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 properly 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). Drivewav approaches: 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 bome 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 PARCEL ID FRONTAGE PARCEL PARCEL PARCEL #OFSUBDIVIDED INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY WATER SEWER # (LF) STREET NAME DEPTH (LF) AREA (SF) PARCELS FRONTAGE (LF) WIDTH (LF) co" SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE COSTI11 COST-111 COST" 6 125 SYCAMORE AVE 12S 15625 2 62.5 20 1 $ 2,546.001 $2,928.13 1 $3,626.12 9 170 HUGO AVE 125 21250 2 85 20 I $ 2,546.001 $3,487.25 1 $3,626.12 16 320 HUGO AVE 125 40000 5 64 20 i $ 2,546.001 $1,375.00 I $3,626.12 ( 31 • 220 WALDEMAR AVE 125 27500 2 77.5 20 I $ 2,546.001 $3,300.88 $6,017.00 36 125 WALDEMAR AVE 125 15625 1 2 62.5 20 1 $ 2,546.001 $2,928.13 1 $5,554.25 50 "' 1 442 CEDAR 480 212160 1 7 63 20 1 $ 2,546.00 1 $3,808.31 1 $6,616.35 COMMENTS: . 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 (196S) and LID 88 (1975) which installed sewer mains. (3) Based on $127.30 per LF of width. LID #149 PARCEL ID FRONTAGE PARCEL PARCEL #OF SUBDIVIDED INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY WATER SEWER # (LF) STREET NAME DEPTH (LF) AREA (SF) PARCELS FRONTAGE (LF) WIDTH (LF) CO57Ial SERVICE SERVICE COSTI11 COST-111 17 I 200 I HUGO AVE 179 35800 1 5 1 66.7 1 20 I $ 1,265.00 $3,172.24 $4,694.26 28 I 175 I HUGO AVE 1 179 31325 2 87.5 20 $ 1,256.00 $3,732.71 $5,388.51 29 1 393 CEDAR AVE 164 64452 6 65.5 1 20 1 $ 1,256.001 $3,101.79 $4,608.23 ( 30` 1 134 CEDAR AVE 1 164 21976 2 67 1 20 I $ 1,256.001 $3,141.33 $4,657.24 30" 1 491 I CEDAR AVE 1 164 80524 8 61 I 20 I $ 1,256.00 $2,983.16 $4,461.19 COMMENTS: . PARCEL 3015 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST 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. Account #: Lock Meter Off?: Location Description: City of Pasco, Washington Application for Water / Sewer Services Estimate Only - Subject to Change What Services: WS 1 - Single Family Home Billing Classification: Water Single Family Date: I Application No: E13 -0357 Service Type: RESIDENTIAL Service Area: Inside City Billing Classification: Sewer Single Family Legal Description: Lot 017 Block 007 Addition KURTZ1 Parcel Number: 113863124 Frontage: 64 ft Depth: 125 ft Area: 8000 sf Additional Legal Description: KURTZMANS 1ST LOTS 17 TO 28, BLK 7 TOG W 10' VA4QiHW Q)AAgreement: Meter Address: Name of Applicant: 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: Reading: Size (in): 314 Inch # of Digits: 0 # of Dials: 0 Water Patch Length (ft): 0 Sewer Patch Length (ft): 0 Sewer Depth (ft): 0 Explanation: FEES Sewer - Connect to Existing Stub $4,000.00 W Fee - Front Footage (LF) $1,280.00 W Fee - Square Footage (SF) $310.40 W System Fees - Inside - 314 Inch $360.00 S Fee - Front Footage (LF) $1,600.00 S Fee - Square Footage (SF) $374.40 S System Fees - Inside - Home $1,288.00 Sewer Tap $75.00 3/4 Inch Displacement and Check $1,015.00 Total Fees $10,302.80 >uX �k'r �3'�7AV —1 4 ��31 5t v hob � 16' A v-t' b f The sewer deposit for patch will be refunded after Inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Department. > Prepared By: Checked By: KB Date 09/2612013 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council October 2, 2013 FROM: Gary Crutchfi �anager Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 SUBJECT: LID 149 Final assessment Roll I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Final Assessment Roll 3. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 9/25/13 H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING 1017: MOTION: I move to direct that LID 149 include a Phase B to accommodate installation of additional utility stubs and driveways properly requested by owners of property therein. 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. 7(b) 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 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 (fixture). 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) Staff recommends Council close the Final Assessment Roll hearing and direct that a Phase B for each of LIDs 148 and 149 be initiated to accommodate additional utility stub and driveway improvements requested by property owners within the respective LIDs. T o Number = LID Assessment Roll Number � w U i 2 r] w Kurtzman's Area Phase 3 - LID 149 Compare Preliminary and Final Assessment I Record Number I 1 i 2 1 3 I 4 I 5 1 6 I 7 I 9 10 11 1 12 I 13 1 14 1 I is 1 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31A 318 31C CDGB Assisstance Amount to be Assessed ParcelNumber _ Owner Name _ 113832014 Cardenas, Juan &Adeline 113832023 Cardenas, Juan &Adeline 113832201 Madden, Charles 113832041 GR8 House LLC 113832050 Delgado, Silvestre & Teresa 313832069 Hill, Celestine 113832078 Fabela, Joel P &Maria Angelica 113831268 Birrueta, Rosa (ETAL) 313832269 1 Nichole 113832270 Salagado, Rigoberto(ETAL) 113832239 Herrera, Jose A(ETAL) 113832148 _ Cruz, Antonio _ 113832257 Mancera, Salvador 113832103 _ Naranjo, Salvador& Carlota 113832221 Lucatero, Rudolfo & Gloria 113831042 _ Leon,Jesus _ 113831131 Garcia, Erasmo & Maria 113831205 Mendez, Maria(ETAL) 113831196 Ocampo, Jesus _ 113831187 Barajas, Jose G 113831159 _ Gomez, William 113831060 Mejla, Manuel C 113831079 Jackson, Gemello Smith 113831088 Silva, Veronica(ETAL) 113831097 ) Sreeatos, Javier 113831104 Montes, Rosa _ 7 113831113 _I Robertson, Bruce H 113831122 bibarren, J Ramie) 113831015 Rada &Sons, Inc 113831024 Murphy, Alice B 113831033 Robinson, Rikie 11390085 Salinas,Julion 113900075 Zepeda, Jose & Maria 113900066 Montez, Edward & Elizabeth 113900057 AmaraweSt Corporation 113900048 McClure, Jeffery & Jennifer 10 113900085 j Robinson, Rikie 113900075 I Robinson, Rikie 113900066 Robinson, Rikie I Totals NOTES: Accounts 32- 36 were deleted with the revised boundary. Account 31 was subdivided into 3 parcels by Short Plat 2012.14. f 111,nr \fa nna M \M,�imsm,\ Wv MMaAii,..l %Change -8.2 -13.8 -13.8 -18.8 -32.3 -32.3 -154 -22.0 -22.0 -22.0 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -18.8 -18.8 9.6 -7.8 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -15A -24.9 -24.9 -17.5 -20.4 -24.9 -20.4 -7.8 -5.2 -4.4 -39.5 8/29/2013 Preliminary Final % Change $ 200,000.00 $ 450,000.00 225.0 $ 427,625.00 $ 265,311.00 -62.0 Preliminary I Final ___I Preliminary Final Frontage (ft) I Frontage (ft) Total Assessment Tool Assessment 184 j 184 $ 16,509.72 $ 15,149.05 1 100 I 10 $ 8,021.89 $ 6,912.59 1 10 100 $ 6,021.89 $ 6,912.591 _ 75_ _ _ 75 _$ _ 5,495.75 $ 4,461.261 I 50 50 _ $ 2,969.61 $ 2,009.93 I 50 50 $ 2,969.61 $ 2,00.93 I _ 90 _ 90 $ _ _7,011.44 1 $ _ 5,932.05 1 66 66 $ 4,586.34 1 $ 3,578.78 1 _ 66 _ 66 $ 4,586.34 1 $ 3,578.78 1 65 66 $ 4,586.34 $ 3,578.78 I 67 67 $ 4,687.39 5 3,676.83 I _ 67 _ 67 _$ 4,687.39 $ 3,676.83 I 67 67 _ _$ _ 4,687.39 $ 3,676.83 1 I 75 75 $ 5,495.75 $ 4,461.26 1 75_ 75 $ 5,495.75 $ 4,46116 1 _ 150 _ _ 1 _ 150 J3 13,074.17 J $ 11,815.25 1 200 200 $ 18,126.45 $ 16,717.90 1 _ 67_ 67 I $ 4,687.39 I $ 3,676.83 1 67 67 1 $ 4,687.39 $ 3,676.83 I 67 67 _ $ _ A,687.39 $ 3,676.83 1 90 _ 90_ I $ 7,011.44 $ 5,932.051 60 _ 6_0 1 5 3,980.07 $ 2,990.46 1 60 60 $ _ 3,980.07 $ 2,990.46 1 80 80 $ 61000.98 $ 4,951.52 1 70 70 _ $ 4,990.53 1 $ 3,970.99 1 .I. 0 70 $SJ? - $ 70 1 _ _ 4,990.53 I 3,970.99 1 400 1 400 $ 8,335.57 I $ 36.328.54 640 640 I $ 62,586.52 $ 59,861.31 1 200 $ 18,126.45 I 330 _ $ 31,262.38 I 330 I $ 31,262.38 I I 325 _ $ 30,757.15 90 $ _ 7,011.44 i 220 _ $ 20,147.37 I 66.78 $ 3,655.261 I 66.78 I $ 3,655.26 1 1 66.78 I $ 3,655.26 1 1 4974 3679.34 $ 427,624.79 1 $ 265,310.85 1 %Change -8.2 -13.8 -13.8 -18.8 -32.3 -32.3 -154 -22.0 -22.0 -22.0 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -18.8 -18.8 9.6 -7.8 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -15A -24.9 -24.9 -17.5 -20.4 -24.9 -20.4 -7.8 -5.2 -4.4 -39.5 Memo To: From: Date: Re: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director Michael A. Pawlak, PE, City Engineer f 4 September 25, 2013 Public Works Department Engineering Division 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. a 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). Driveway approaches: 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 204 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. Fnnancing: 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 COMMENTS: " 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 LOTS ALL FRONTING CEDAR AVENUE. (1) Water costs include all applicabte service connection fees. UD 148 Lot ID #16 would be exempt for paying FF & SF fees w this tot 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 WATER SEWER PARCELID FRONTAGE PARCEL PARCEL AOF SUBDIVIDED INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY SERVICE SERVICE IPARCELID # (LF) STREET NAME DEPTH (LF) AREA (SF) PARCELS FRONTAGE (LF) WIDTH (LF) COSTIal CIYSIf'1 COSTFaI 6 125 SYCAMORE AVE 125 15625 2 62.5 20 $ 2,546.001 $2,928.13 $3,626.12 9 170 HUGO AVE 125 21250 2 85 20 $ 2,546.001 $3,487.25 $3,626.12 1 16 I 320 HUGOAVE 125 40000 I 5 64 20 $ 2,546.O0 1 $1,375.00 $3,626.12 1 31" 220 WALDEMAR AVE 125 2750D 2 77.5 20 $ 2,546.00 1 $3,300.88 $6,017.00 1 36 1 125 WALDEMAR AVE 125 15625 2 62.5 20 $ 2,546.00 $2,928.13 $5,554.25 1 50 "" 442 CEDAR 480 212160 7 63 20 1 $ 2,546.00 $3,808.31 $6,616.35 COMMENTS: " 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 LOTS ALL FRONTING CEDAR AVENUE. (1) Water costs include all applicabte service connection fees. UD 148 Lot ID #16 would be exempt for paying FF & SF fees w this tot 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 COMMENTS: " PARCEL 3015 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST 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 insathation ocost of $1105-00. (3) Based on $63.25 per LF of width. WATER SEWER PARCELID FRONTAGE PARCEL PARCEL #OFSUBDIVIDED INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY SERVICE SERVICE # I (LF) I STREET NAME DEPTH(LF) AREA(SF) PARCELS FRONTAGE (LF) WIDTH (LF) COST(l) COST"I COSTpi f 17 200 HUGO AVE 179 35800 _ 5 66.7 20 $ 1,265.00 $3,172.24 $4,694.26 f 28 I 175 _ HUGO AVE 179 31325 _ 2 I 87.5 I 20 I $ 1,256.00 $3,732.71 $5,388.51 393 CEDAR AVE 164 64452 6 65.5 I 20 $ 1,256.00 $3,101.79 $4,608.23 I29 30" 1 134 CEDAR AVE 164 21976 2 I 67 I 20 $ 1,256.001 $3,141.33 $4,657.24 30 " 491 CEDAR AVE 164 80524 8 1 61 1 20 $ 1,256.001 $2,983.16 1 $4,461.19 COMMENTS: " PARCEL 3015 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST 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 insathation ocost of $1105-00. (3) Based on $63.25 per LF of width. 5, p aYt qr 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 Date: I Application No: E13 -0357 Service Type: RESIDENTIAL Service Area: Inside City Billing Classification: Sewer Single Family Legal Description: Lot 017 Block 007 Addition KURTZ1 Parcel Number: 113863124 Frontage: 64 ft Depth: 125 ft Area: 8000 sf Additional Legal Description: KURTZMANS 1 ST LOTS 17 TO 28, BLK 7 TOG W 10' VA&MWQ)A Agreement: Meter Address: Name of Applicant: 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: Reading: Size (in): 3/4 Inch # of Digits: 0 # of Dials: 0 Water Patch Length (ft): 0 Sewer Patch Length (ft): 0 Sewer Depth (ft): 0 Explanation: FEES Sewer - Connect to Existing Stub $4,000.00 W Fee - Front Footage (LF) $1,280.00 W Fee - Square Footage (SF) $310.40 W System Fees - Inside - 3/4 Inch $360.00 S Fee - Front Footage (LF) $1,600.00 S Fee - Square Footage (SF) $374.40 S System Fees - Inside - Home $1,288.00 Sewer Tap $75.00 314 Inch Displacement and Check $1,015.00 Total Fees $10,302.80 �tialt' = dt 01105 �tU The sewer deposit for patch will be refunded after inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Department. Prepared By: KB Checked By: Date 09/26/2013 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Gary Crutchfie ', - anager / FROM: Rick White, Community & Economic Development I(, I/ Director SUBJECT: Recreational Mariivana (MF# CA2013 -005) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Resolution 3507 October 1, 2013 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct Public Hearing: 10/7: NO MOTION IS NECESSARY III. FISCAL IMPACT: 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. The licensing of marijuana production, processing and sales will be handled by the LCB similar to the process for liquor licenses. B. The LCB has announced that rules for production, processing and retail sales of marijuana will be effective on November 16, 2013 and that the LCB will accept applications for all license types on November 18, 2013. C. City Council approved Resolution 3507 on September 3, 2013 establishing a moratorium on City issuance of all types of licenses related to recreational marijuana. D. Instituting a moratorium requires that a public hearing be conducted to address the propriety of the moratorium. Through Resolution 3507, Council also set October 7th as the date for the conduct of that public hearing. Comments received may be catalogued for use in continuing, extending or repealing the moratorium, depending on the pace of developing specific land use and licensing regulations for Pasco. E. The State operating budget has directed the LCB to work with the Departments of Revenue and Health to develop recommendations to the Legislature regarding the interaction of medical marijuana and the recreational marijuana system. The deadline for these final recommendations is January 14th, 2014 so the recommendations are available for the 2014 Legislative Session. 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. As a controlled substance, the possession, sales, production and processing of marijuana is illegal at the Federal level. B. Statewide - there is a great amount of uncertainty on the direction of local regulations regarding this issue. Pasco's moratorium is intended to provide adequate time to clarify the Federal position on recreational marijuana, research 7(c) other examples of local regulations, learn from the experiences of other municipalities that have adopted local regulations, and incorporate any new legislative directives as a result of the 2014 Legislative Session. C. Once the 2014 State Legislative Session has concluded, staff will finalize proposed regulations with the Planning Commission and return to Council with a recommended set of local regulations. D. If Council concurs with this direction, staff will return to Council at the next regular meeting with a proposed resolution and work plan extending the moratorium for up to an additional 6 months — or September of 2014. RESOLUTION NO. SD 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 Hearina_. A public hearing shall be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the 7i6 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. PASS by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting dated this day of lx /, 2013. ���y Lam' 'L✓� Matt Watkins, Mayor A E S I� APP AS TO FORM: De ra . C ar, ity Clerk �� and B. Kerr, City Attorney Resolution - 2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 30, 2013 TO: Gary Crutchfi 66ager Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director�V FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: STREET VACATION (MF# VAC 2013 -005) A Portion of Sandifur Parkway (Old Standard Life Insurance) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Overview Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct Public Hearing: 10/7: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating a portion of Sandifur Parkway, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Old Standard Life Insurance, the owner of property abutting Sandifur Parkway, petitioned for the vacation of south 29 feet of right -of -way in the 9200 block of Sandifur Parkway. The right -of -way in question is located to the north of the Broadmoor Outlet Mall. B. The City Council set October 7, 2013 as the date to consider the vacation. V. DISCUSSION: A. Sandifer Parkway was developed in the mid- 1990's with a right -of -way of 102 feet with the exception of the portion of the right -of -way abutting the original Broadmoor Park plat. Most of the excess right -of -way adjacent to Broadmoor Park was vacated in 1996, shortly after the outlet mall was completed. However a small segment of Sandifur Parkway west of Road 92 was inadvertently excluded from the 1996 vacation. This segment of Sandifur Parkway still contains 131 feet of right -of -way. The current owner of the abutting property has petitioned for the vacation of the remaining 29 feet of excess right -of -way. B. Utility providers and the Engineering Division have reviewed the proposed vacation. The PUD has asked that an easement be retained to match the 20 foot easement to the east and west of the proposed vacation area Additionally two easements are needed for an existing sewer line and water line lying within the proposed vacation area. 7(d) c �4 C13 C4 Q � ct ct Q - 0 OE O Az u J r LtliinL-ll e A tK% . •� 4� i 1. .. Y,l _r ,I I 1 1NI Y 54 ' e^ •' �/'� � '�kSitZ�Y� �t�F e r i 4 . t k db Ap Ml •�� ,4 d �I <if' r s' I : r U• • M:: a Yt.:r N ?--1 ��- �, U LLI fr 'r v F VV "' � ♦ � �� r _.1; 11��11 VV y� �•' o r b ic' b. e t `§ y y .•afsi i WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3`d Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF SANDIFUR PARKWAY. WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate right -of -way; and WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said right -of -way have been duly taken and performed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the south 29 feet of Sandifur Parkway located between the east line of Lot 9, Binding Site Plan 96 -3 and the east line of Lot 1, Block 3, Broadmoor Park #1 as depicted in Exhibit "1" be and the same is hereby vacated subject to the easements retained in Section 2. Section 2. That the City shall retain an easement and the right to exercise or grant easements with respect to the northerly 20 feet of the vacated right -of -way described in Section 1 above and that additional easements shall be retained in said vacated right -of -way as follows: That portion of said vacated right -of- way located between the east line of Lot 9, Binding Site Plan 96 -3 and a line parallel to and 75 feet east of the east line of Lot 9, Binding Site Plan 96 -3 and that portion of said vacated right -of- way located between the southerly projection of the center line of Road 92 and the southerly projection of the west line of Road 92. All easements described herein are for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. Section 3. That a certified copy of this ordinance be recorded by the City Clerk of the City of Pasco in and with the office of the Auditor of Franklin County, Washington. Section 4. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this 7'h day of October, 2013. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, CMC Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney City Clerk City Attorney Kom (1) ct� N �O U 0 c w U H� • F* PC •^y y� Z6 OVOb } a D UL 0 a U) j A co It j W 0/ Cn f r Z- ba 13iino AGENDA REPORT NO. 41 FOR: City Council TO: Gary Cnttchfie anager Ahmad Qayoumi li Works Director ' Y FROM: Michael A. Pawl , City Engineer 1 a' SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Revisions I. REFERENCE(S): September 24, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 9/30/13 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 1. Vicinity Map — Manzanita Lane 2. Ordinance H. 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 further, 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. 8(a) a Q } F- 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 10th 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 44; 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 Sandifer Boulevard; Road 60 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifer Boulevard; Road 68 Place — Burden Boulevard to Sandifiir Boulevard; Road 68 — FCID canal north to City Limits; Road 68 —1-182 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 Sandifer 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; Sandifer Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Robert Wayne Drive; Sandifur Boulevard— (north side) Robert Wayne Drive to Road 60; Sandifer 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 hrter -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 October 2, 2013 TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager Regular Mtg.: 10/07/13 Rick White, f Community & 11conomic Development Director '� FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams SUBJECT: REZONE: (MF# Z2013 -004) Rezone Drooertv from C -3 (General Business) to R- 3 (Medium - Densitv Residential). I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. Report to the Planning Commission 4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 8/15/2013 & 9/19/2013 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/07: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the property located at 120, 124, and 132 W. Shoshone Street from C -3 to R -3, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On August 15, 2013 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend rezoning Lots 13 -17, Block 5, NP Plat located at 120, 124, and 132 W. Shoshone Street from C -3 to R -3. B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend a change in zoning for the property in question. C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(b) n M O '1 t W ` t' « 4T, r. ct Nv� S Aol � v U s • rl ti-{� r.� w p�_ _x .� • F* `rte S C � • ` K �� f � .. 1. �a WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 N. Third Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120,124 AND 132 W. SHOSHONE STREET FROM C -3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) TO R -3 (MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential). for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: Lots 13 -17, Block 5, NP Plat 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 this 7'h day of October, 2013. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney o� MO O -4mo .FE4 mm rm- w y2 i N oy N W FM rct� y, i om REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO. Z 2013 -004 HEARING DATE: 8/15/2013 ACTION DATE: 9/19/2013 APPLICANT: NICO Investment LLC 4216 Santa Ana Loop Pasco WA 99301 REQUEST: REZONE Rezone nronerty from C -3 !General Commercial) to R -3 (Medium - Densitv Residentiall. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 13 -17, Block 5, NP Plat. Location: 120, 124, and 132 W. Shoshone Street Property Size: Approximately 0.8 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from W. Shoshone Street along the northern property line and N. 1s' Avenue to the west. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -3 (General Commercial) and is occupied by apartment buildings. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North I -1 (Light Industrial) -Commercial South I -1 (Light Industrial) - Commercial East I -1 (Light Industrial) - Heavy Commercial West R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) - SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for high - density residential uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, city development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11 -158. ANALYSIS The property is approximately 0.8 acres fronting W. Shoshone Street along the northern property line and North 1st Avenue to the west. The lot was platted in 1889 by the Burlington Northern Railroad as one of the earliest additions to the 1 original Town of Pasco. By 1938 the block was zoned C -1 ( "Commercial District "), later to be rezoned to its current C -3 (General Commercial). The site is developed with four residential structures, including two multi- family units. The structures on site were built between 1961 and 1967. The current use is multi - family apartments and is considered a legal nonconforming use in the C -3 zone. Applicant wishes to bring the multi - family use into conformity with the zoning ordinance by rezoning the parcels to R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) so as to allow replacement, enhancement and /or expansion of the multi - family residential use. Properties to the north, east, and south are zoned industrial and contain general commercial and light industrial uses. Properties to the west are zoned medium - density residential and are developed primarily with single - family units, with a few multi- family uses. The site is also within walling distance of Downtown Pasco, the Pasco Intermodal Train Station as well as Pasco City Hall. The City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be within a high - density residential designation. The R -3 Zone allows for up to one dwelling per 3,000 square feet for multiple family dwellings, with up to 60% lot coverage and building heights up to 35 feet without a special permit. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the property in question should be utilized for high- density residential uses. Land Use Policy LU -3 -B encourages "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas, and provide recreational areas and amenities in support of more intensive, walkable neighborhoods." Land Use Policy LU -3 -E calls for designating "areas for higher- density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources." Housing Policy H -1 -B encourages "the location of medium and high density housing in locations that will avoid the need for access through lower density residential neighborhoods." Housing Policy H -1 -D directs the City to "avoid large concentrations of high- density housing." Housing Policy H -2 -A calls for the City to "allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing." Housing Policy H -4 -B requires the City to "maintain development regulations and standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses." The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: The City is gradually and consistently developing its vacant residential land. This location is part of the potential infill area still close to downtown. The 2 Comprehensive Plan Maps from at least 1963 to the present have designated this area for high- density residential uses. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The rezone will legalize and allow the continuance of a high - density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and industrial zones to the north, east and south. Land Use Policy LU -3 -B, was designed to encourage "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas," and allow for "higher- density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU -3 -E. This rezone would still align with that intended goal and also "allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing," consistent with Housing Policy H -2 -A. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan: This development would legalize and allow the continuance of a high- density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and industrial zones to the north, east, and south. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: If the request is not granted the property will continue as a legal nonconforming use, and /or change from multi family residential use to a use allowed in the C -3 (general commercial) zone. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site for high - density residential uses. The proposed zone change would not contravene the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is currently zoned C -3 (General Commercial). 2. Applicant is requesting a zone change to R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) to bring the current legal nonconforming residential use into conformity and to allow for expansion of the residential use. 3. The site was zoned C -1 ( "Commercial District ") in_ 1938 and rezoned sometime between then and the present to C -3 (General Commercial). 4. The site is developed with four residential structures, including two multi - family units. These structures were built between 1961 and 1967. 5. The site borders an R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone to the west which is developed with single - family dwellings and a few multi- family units, and an I -1 (Light Industrial) Zone to the north, east, and south, containing general commercial and light industrial uses. 6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for high- density residential uses. 7. The property was platted in 1889 by the Burlington Northern Railroad as one of the earliest additions to the original Town of Pasco. 8. The site is developed with four residential structures, including two multi - family units. 9. The purpose of the High- Density Residential area is to serve as a buffer or transition between low- density residential and commercial /industrial districts. 10. The R -3 Zone allows for one dwelling per 3,000 square feet for multiple family dwellings, or up to 68 units. 11. The R -3 Zone allows for building heights up to 35 feet without a special permit. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with many of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H -2) and the Plan supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (Goal H -5). 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. This development would legalize and allow the continuance of a high - density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and light industrial zones to the north, east, and south. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Adjacent residential development and growth within the City make the zone change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The rezone would create a high - density transition or 4 buffer between residential areas to the west and light industrial zones to the north, east, and south. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. No special conditions are necessary, as any future building would be required to comply with current city of Pasco site design and building standards. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. No concomitant agreement is necessary. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 19, 2013 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the applicant's request to rezone Lots 13 -17, Block 5, NP Plat to R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone. 5 M O l )I M O^ � h�l O ct O .ME) r nd a�1 -ate f r�6 f ti t 4 r f. F m {� � r z M i O M O O N �Oo ct O ct �N "r4 W C� i z M i O M O � Oo }' N 4k an N an AVM C NCO / ;l Jii 17j Mj 1 i n I. � t ✓ y � t r ✓.,,t iv ; R I ILI. Planning Commission Minutes 8/15/2013 B. Rezone Rezone from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium Densitv Residential) INICO Investments LLC) (MF# Z 2013 -0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained the property in question contains less than an acre and is currently developed with multi- family structures and is a legal non - conforming use in the C -3 Zone. It can continue to exist but when there is a legal non - conforming use there can be problems with a bank or lender. The applicant would like the ability to be able to replace, refinance, enhance or sell this property and making this a legal conforming use would allow the applicant to do so. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the area is reserved for high density residential development. Nicholas Cooper, 4216 Santa Ana Loop, spoke on behalf of this rezone application. Due to the legal non - conforming use it present many financing problems. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if there was anything in the staff report that gave him concern. Mr. Cooper replied no. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commission Kempf, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the September 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes 9/19/2013 A. Rezone Rezone from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium Densitv Residential) (NICO Investments LLCI (MF# Z2013 -0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there were no additional comments to add since the previous meeting. Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 19, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve the rezone from C -3 to R -3 for Lots 13 -17, Block 5, NP Plat. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA REPORT TO: City Counci FROM: Gary Crutch t 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). 8(c) August 21, 2013 Mr. Gary Crutchfield City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99302 Dear Mr. Crutchfield: Pasco City Hall RECENED AUG 2 8 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 w .VisitTRI- 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, A0_/_ Vijay Patel Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Pasco H liday Inn Express Inn & Suites President Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Kennewick Hilton Garden Inn inda Hendricks Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Richland Hampton Inn Monica Hammerberg Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission — Pasco Red Lion Hotel Ian Na Tri -City 0ional ot el -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 premier destination will translate into increased the entire region; and funds available to promote the Tri-Cities as a visitor spending and economic development for 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; and 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. B ecretary Resolution No. 102 -13 Page 1 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) 9»e Va"- mi Eg'r~ 1-50) 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 Snecial Lodging Assessments on Lodeine 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: $1- 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 M 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 in Attest: John Fox, Mayor Marcia Hopkins, City Clerk Approved as to form: Heather Kintzley, City Attorney Amendment to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - 2 FOR: City Council ( TO: Gary Crutchfie Rick White, Community & FROM: AGENDA REPORT Shane O'Neill, Planner I Development Director October 3, 2013 Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 2013 -013): Farming_ On_ erations in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Report to Planning Commission 4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 8/15/13 and 9/19/13 IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving the special permit for farming operations on the 7500 Block of Argent Road as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On August 15, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for farming operations on the 7500 Block of Argent Road. B. Following the conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special permit for the farming operations. C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution. D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(d) 0 N ��M r--� �QO ��� M ��� •� o ••N � a C� •� � U� �� � � �� �, � � '-' � � C� •� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FARMING OPERATIONS IN THE 7500 BLOCK OF ARGENT ROAD. WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources submitted an application to renew their special permit to conduct farming operations in the 7500 Block of Argent Road; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 15, 2013 to review the proposed farming operations; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on September 19, 2013 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the farming operations with certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a Special Permit is hereby granted to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to conduct farming operations in an RT (Residential Transition) District under Master File # SP2013 -013 with the following conditions: a) The special permit shall apply to that portion of parcel # 117510016 lying south of the Franklin County Irrigation District canal; b) The special permit is personal to the applicant; c) The applicant shall submit a copy of the applicable Resource Management Plan prior to beginning farming operations on the site; d) Prior to beginning farming operations on the site, the applicant must submit 24 hour contact information where complaints can be submitted; e) The applicant must manage the farm to control dust from leaving the site; f) Cereal grains may only be used as a winter cover crop or for green manure; g) Prior to July 1, 2015 staff will review with the Planning Commission the status of the special permit in relation to the DNR budgetary disposal directive; h) The special permit shall expire on July I, 2015. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7s' day of October, 2013. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: SP2013 -013 APPLICANT: WA DNR HEARING DATE: 8/15/2013 713 Bowers Rd. ACTION DATE: 9/19/2013 Ellensburg, WA 98926 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming Operations in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal; That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. lying south of the Franklin County Irrigation District canal. General Location: 7500 Block of Argent Road Property Size: The entire parcel is approximately 411.6 acres; a 25 acre portion of the parcel is the subject site. 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Argent Road. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities exist in Argent Road and are currently available to serve the site. Water from the FCID irrigation canal is currently used to irrigate the existing farm. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and contains an irrigated quarter crop circle. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RT - Agriculture SOUTH: RS -20 (County) - Single - Family Residence EAST: RS -20 (County) - Single - Family Residence WEST: RS -1 - High School 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low - Density Residential uses. The Plan does not specifically address agricultural uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11 -158. 1 ANALYSIS The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has applied to renew their special permit allowing farming operations on a site zoned Residential Transition (RT) within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. Pursuant to PMC § 25.20.040(1) commercial agriculture is a permitted conditional use in the RT zone; thereby requiring special permit review. Also, pursuant to PMC § 25.70.110(2)(b) the production of alfalfa or pasture grasses on acreage of any size are permitted uses within all zoning districts. Finally, pursuant to PMC § 25.86.035(1) for commercial agricultural uses listed as conditional uses [PMC 25.20.040(1)] the applicant shall be required to submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency. In 2008, DNR received special permit approval for farming on the site under Master File #SP08 -001; with a validity period of up to five (5) years. The special permit has since expired, creating the need for renewal. Approval conditions of the 2008 special permit limited crop types to alfalfa and pasture grasses. As part of this application the applicant is currently requesting not to be limited in the types of crops to be grown on the site. The site currently contains less than one quarter of a full crop circle with the eastern one third being unfarmed and in a natural sagebrush condition. The unfarmed portion serves as a physical buffer between the farm and the residence to the east. In review of this proposal staff has identified three issues for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise and 3) the eventual conversion to a residential use. During grading and tilling of the site between harvests and plantings, fugitive dust could potentially impact adjacent lands if not properly monitored and controlled. This impact would be eliminated once a crop is planted. Staff suggests the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during soil disturbing activities to prevent dust from leaving the site. The existing FCID irrigation water is a sufficient source to manage dust. Often commercial agricultural activities occur at odd hours which could potentially impact adjacent residences. Staff suggests the applicant be required to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate these impacts. At minimum, the plan should include potential hours of operation, a contact person where complaints can be submitted and a preliminary plan outlining how noise complaints will be addressed. The planting of wheat and other similar cereal grains, within a suburban neighborhood brings with it a concern for fire safety. Wheat fields become very dry prior to harvest surrounding the site and other homes nearby; planting 2 wheat in a neighborhood is a concern. The simplest way to address the fire safety concerns is not to permit the planting of grains. However, grains can sometimes be an effective cover crop to prevent dust from blowing. If grains are to be used for a cover crop, restrictions should be placed on their usage to address fire safety concerns presented by wheat. The DNR owns approximately 400 acres (including the subject property) west of Road 68. The property is encircled with urban development. The city has made substantial effort to facilitate the urban development of this property, including a conceptual land use plan reviewed by the Commission in late 2012. The recently adopted State budget contains a provision that will require portions of this DNR ownership to be sold and /or developed. Staff will research the budget provisions applicable to the subject property and report to the Planning Commission in September. Additional or revised conditions may be appropriate as a result of this research. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The parcel is currently 411.6 acres in area. 2. The "site" is an approximately 25 acre portion of the parcel lying south of the FCID irrigation canal. 3. Parcel number 117 - 510 -016 is zoned RT (Residential Transition). 4. The site fronts Argent Road. 5. The subject site is within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. 6. The subject site is bordered on the east and south by the City Limits boundary. 7. The subject site is located within the I -182 Overlay District. 8. The subject site is bordered to the west by Chiawana High School. 9. The subject site is bordered to the north by the FCID irrigation canal. 10. The site is within the Urban Growth Area boundary. 11. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel for low- density residential uses. 12. The FCID irrigation water system serves the site via a pump located on an undeveloped portion of the Chiawana High School property. 3 13. The applicant is requesting not to be limited in the types of crops to be grown on the site. 14. Washington State Department of Ecology water rights permit # 53 -28876 (assigned to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources) applies to the site. 15. Farms are listed as permitted conditional uses in the RT zone [PMC 25.20.040(1)]. 16. Pursuant to PMC § 25.70.110(2)(b) the production of alfalfa or pasture grasses on acreage of any size are permitted uses within all zoning districts. 17. Pursuant to PMC § 25.86.035(1), commercial agricultural uses listed as conditional uses requires the applicant to submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low- density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan encourages urban development within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. Agricultural uses are not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use will have negligible impacts on public infrastructure. Crop circle farms are visited infrequently, generating almost no vehicle traffic on a regular basis. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The existing character and intended character of the vicinity is predominately residential. Residential development in the vicinity has developed around and a variety of agricultural uses for many years. No additional site modifications beyond ones existing are proposed as part of this special permit application. El (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? No construction of any kind is proposed and no development will occur if the special permit is granted. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed farm lies south of the I -182 freeway. The farming operation will not create more noise, fumes, vibrations, traffic and flashing lights than the freeway. Dust and noise may potentially impact nearby uses. To address the issue of dust, staff suggests the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during soil disturbing activities to prevent dust from leaving the site. Staff suggests the applicant be required to submit 24 -hour contact information where complaints can be submitted. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed farm is only an interim use, and will not impede the development of future uses; nor will it become a nuisance to future permitted uses. The existence of numerous farming operations within the I -182 area generally demonstrates that the proposed use should not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor endanger public health and safety. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to that portion of parcel # 117510016 lying south of the Franklin County Irrigation District canal; 2. The special permit is personal to the applicant; 3. The applicant shall submit a copy of the applicable Resource Management Plan prior to beginning farming operations on the site; 4. Prior to beginning farming operations on the site, the applicant must submit 24 -hour contact information where complaints can be submitted; 5. The applicant must manage the farm to control dust from leaving the site; E 6. Cereal grains may only be used as a winter cover crop or for green manure; 7. Prior to July 1, 2015 staff will review with the Planning Commission the status of the special permit in relation to the DNR budgetary disposal directive; 8. The special permit shall expire on July 1, 2015, RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 19, 2013 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow farming operations on that portion of parcel # 117- 510 -016 lying south of the FCID irrigation canal. ri Lr(r N O N H �Qo •� o •0 U .. •0 KNO om- N n� M d Y y d i w .Ir w� /� 0 0 s u s on am a I' I If F N � �I Q o •� U .. n� M d Y y d i w .Ir w� /� 0 0 s u s on am a I' I If F N � �I n� M d Y y d i w .Ir w� /� 0 0 s u s on am a I' I If F N � Kama C) N �Qo ••N w C U .. to N� Y �llAA Ki71�U Ar h xoo��xva a a `N 13 c E � C? a fn I� Planning Commission Minutes 8/15/2013 A. Special Permit Farming Operations in an RT (_Residential Transition) Zone (Washington Dept. of Natural Resources) IMF# 3P 2013 -0131 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained the application involved the renewal of the Department of Natural Resources special permit for a farming operation in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone. Mr. O Neill reviewed the site on Argent Road east of the high school. The farm contains about a 1/4 of a crop circle and is irrigated from the Franklin County Irrigation Canal. Various aspects of the written report were then reviewed along with a discussion on proposed conditions that were similar to the conditions for the original application. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, briefly reminded the Planning Commission that late in 2012 they reviewed a draft concept plan developed for the DNR property located east of Road 68 that included the proposed farm site. He recommended the public hearing be opened and continued to allow more research for the record at the September meeting. Staff would like to research the budget provisions to make sure when DNR is required to dispose of the property and under what circumstances that disposal might occur under. Chairman Cruz stated that he didn't have an issue with cereal grains on this land based on its size and distance from development. Toby McKay, 2708 N. Road 60, spoke on behalf of the application. He stated that he was supportive of continuing the permit. He stated the DNR already has a resource management plan that is in place and is just as strict as any conservation plan that would be developed so he did not feel that should be a condition as it would complicate things. He addressed the complaint monitoring plan and said that they haven't received a single complaint in the past five years so perhaps they don't need a plan. Lastly, the permit is limited to two years. He would like the permit to be valid for five years in case plans change. Commissioner Hoekstra asked the applicant to explain DNR's contribution is to the local area in regards to proposed site. Mr. McKay responded that the Department of Natural Resources leases the property to local farmers at fair market rates. They lease out some of the land to other local businesses as well, such as Lowe's and Maverick. They are not well suited for residential which is why there is a need to transition the parcel. The State doesn't pay property taxes. In lieu of property tax, the lessees pay a lease hold excise tax which is equivalent to 12.84% of the value of the lease. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant what his thoughts were on cereal crop limitations. Mr. McKay answered that he doesn't believe cereal crops pose a large threat but if the City felt strongly on limitations the they would include that condition into the lease. It is important to have some flexibility on the crop to recover investment and it would also allow for the rotation of crops to lessen the needs for chemicals for pest control. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to continue the public hearing, schedule deliberations and adoption of the findings of fact and development of a recommendation for the City Council for the September 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes 9/19/2013 A. Special Permit Farming Operations in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone (Washington Dept. of Natural Resources) (MF# SP 2013 -0131 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 15. 2013 MEETINGI Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for farming operations in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone. Since the previous meeting, a few changes had been made and one condition added to the approval conditions, including; The applicant shall submit a copy of the applicable Resource Management Plan prior to beginning farming operations on the site, Prior to beginning farming operations on the site, the applicant must submit 24 -hour contact information where complaints can be submitted and prior to July 1, 2015 staff will review with the Planning Commission the status of the special permit in relation to the DNR budgetary disposal directive. Commissioner Hilliard asked if the condition added regarding the review of the special permit in relation to the DNR budgetary disposal directive was a staff responsibility to bring back to the Planning Commission. Mr. White responded that is was a staff responsibility. The public hearing was opened and closed without public comment. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 19, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow farming operations on that portion of parcel # 117 - 510 -016 lying south of the FCID irrigation canal. The motion passed unanimously. 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 i 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: 9130: 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 fixture 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. V. DISCUSSION: 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 & Sandifixr 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. 10(a) .1 lot ALL HUDSON CT — - y b t t Fib.. ! _ . � e aF•Ci ^n`1 e t.?��., rg� r r 6 ,y MAYA uses o _ ANGELOU :.: t �` ELEMENTARY , tmm • � rye � � as B, F _,r► [y O 4r D f: wL O � r Y �I L GATE EXISTING FENCE r PROPOSED FENCE COACHEI;LA C, TUSAYAN DR s �VERD�"T., JAMES McGEE `.', %'ELEMENTARY VAWW h i O o - ' CITY OF PASCO P' a ' GATE EXISTING FENCE PROPOSEDFENC y, -__ Y X 61 pit .. � !,, AN�'-•° - x� —s.,h VIRGIE ROBINSON ELEMENTARY S Allow lip Amu � 4.1 f 'I CITY OF PASCO • '' ; WIN I (a4 CITY OF PASCO CITY OF PASCO •I - _, GATE ' ~ AL T i EXISTING FENCE - h ct y r- ± PROPOSED FENCII e f sff� 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 F.T44 30 WWWWAI FOR: City Council 1 October 2, 2013 TO: Gary Crutchfie i Witanager Regular Mtg.: 10/7/13 t FROM: Rick Terway, Director, Administr G Community Services SUBJECT: Customer Service Representative Position I. REFERENCE(S): None II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/7: MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to upgrade the % time Department Assistant I position to a full time Department Assistant II position in the Administrative and Community Services Finance Division. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV, HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The 2013 licensing cycle highlighted the issue of trying to meet continuing increases in customer service volume using the same staffing levels from nearly eight years ago. The last time positions were added to the Customer Service Unit was in 2006. From 2006 -2010 licensing and permit volumes remained fairly constant while the number of utility billing services continued to grow. V. DISCUSSION: A) From 2010 -2013, July year -to -date animal licensing activity has tripled and the licensing "peak period" has shifted from 3 heavy months in 2010 to 6 heavy months in 2013. Business licenses follow a similar pattern, but also rise again later in the year as Code Enforcement activities occur. This prompts additional customer traffic, animal licenses in the first half of the year and business licenses in the second half of the year. Staff will be creating a fourth window to better serve the public during the peak times stated above and dates close to pay days when lines are the longest. B) In 2013 the business license function was moved to Finance from the City Clerk's office. This was done for two reasons: 1) increased number of public records request in City Clerk's office and 2) one -stop service where an applicant can apply for a business license and pay at the same time and location. This combined the duties of the clerk's assistant and Customer Service Representative, leaving a staff shortage due to approximately .5 FTE being re- assigned from business license support to public records requests (due to the swell in volume of those requests); thus actually reducing the CSR resources to meet the growing utility/licensing demand. C) After this reorganization there remains an unfilled N time Department Assistant I position. Staff is requesting this position be upgraded to full time Department Assistant II, Customer Service Representative and to fill the position this October to allow for training to be ready for the December rush. Funding for this will come from the unfilled Department Assistant I and Lead Accounting positions in 2013. D) Staff is requesting approval to upgrade the 3/4 time Department Assistant I position to a full time Department Assistant II. 10(b)