Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.05.27 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 27, 2014 Please note that our Council Meeting will take place on Tuesday, May 27 as City Hall will be closed Monday, May 26 in honor of Memorial Day. I. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Recreational & Medical Marijuana Land Uses (MF# CA2013 -005): 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated May 22, 2014. 2. Recreational/Medical Marijuana - Proposed Prohibition Ordinance. (b) Recovery of Abatement Costs for 114 N. 4e Avenue (MF# LIEN2014 -004): 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated May 22, 2014. 2. Recovery of Abatement Costs - Demolition Invoice. 3. Recovery of Abatement Costs - Memo to the City Manager dated 2/14/14. 4. Recovery of Abatement Costs - City Attorney Memo dated 4/8/14. (c) New Police Facility Design, Phase 2: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated May 19, 2014. 2. New Police Facility Design, Phase 2 - Design Cost Feasibility Report (Phase 1). 3. New Police Facility Design, Phase 2 - Professional Services Agreement Summary. (d) Police Station Financing: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated May 20, 2014. 2. Police Station Financing - Debt Schedule. (e) Single -Family Lots in Multi -Family Zones (MF# CA2011 -003): 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated May 20, 2014. 2. Single Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones - Proposed Resolution. 3. Single Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones - Memo to the Planning Commission. 4. Single Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones - Planning Commission Minutes. (f) Annual Fire Department Performance Report: 1. Agenda Report from Robert Gear, Fire Chief dated May 22, 2014. 2. Annual Fire Department Performance Report - Report. (g) Water Resources Action Plan: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 23, 2014. 2. Water Resources Action Plan - Proposed Resolution. (h) Water Rights Fee: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 22, 2014. 2. Water Rights Fee - Proposed Ordinance. 3. Water Rights Fee - Water Market Value Report. (i) Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 and Other Interchange Access Improvements: 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated May 5, 2014. 2. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 - Vicinity Map. 3. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 - Figure 3. 4. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 - Professional Services Agreement Summary. 5. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 - Scope of Fees. (j) Charter Cable Franchise Extension: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated May 21, 2014. 2. Charter Cable Franchise Extension - Proposed Ordinance. 2014 5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (e) 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 7. ADJOURNMENT REMINDERS: 1. 7:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 28, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd — Tri- Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Rep.; TOM LARSEN, Alt.) 2. 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 28, Pasco Red Lion — Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce Luncheon Meeting — "State of the Cities" Address. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Gary Crutch Rick White, Director FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I & Economic Development V4 May 22, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 SUBJECT: Recreational & Medical Marijuana Land Uses (MF# CA2013 005) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Recreational /medical marijuana — proposed prohibition ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: DISCUSSION III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. In 2012, Council adopted Ordinance 4059 amending the zoning code to include language precluding land uses which violate local, State or Federal laws. This amendment applies to dispensaries of cannabis, collective gardens for the production, distribution and /or dispensing of cannabis for medical uses. B. 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. C. Since I -502 was passed, Council has adopted a moratorium on the location of both medical and recreational marijuana related uses within the city. The moratorium expires September 1, 2014. D. During the April 28, 2014 Workshop session Council generally indicated their desire to prohibit recreational marijuana businesses and collective gardens within the city. V. DISCUSSION: A. The State Attorney General has provided an opinion that indicates cities and counties may ban recreational marijuana land uses and a Court of Appeals decision indicates that cities and counties may also ban collective gardens. Several cities (Yakima and Wenatchee) have decided to outright ban land uses associated with recreational marijuana. B. Any regulation of marijuana land uses requires amending the zoning code; any amendment must be preceded by a public hearing. Staff requests Council's direction as to the appropriate venue for conducting the public hearing on this matter. The Planning Commission typically conducts public hearings on proposed zoning code amendments for development of a recommendation to Council: however City Council may elect to conduct the hearing on the code amendment. 4(a) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, PROHIBITING USES WHICH ARE ILLEGAL UNDER LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LAW IN ANY ZONE OF THE CITY AND APPLYING SUCH REGULATION TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND COLLECTIVE GARDENS. WHEREAS, in 1998, the voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 692. Now codified as Chapter 69.51A RCW, entitled the Medical Use of Marijuana Act, which created an affirmative defense to state criminal liability for seriously ill persons who are in need of marijuana for specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, the legislature adopted ESSSB 5073, with certain provisions vetoed by the governor, which became effective July 22, 2011, which enacted provisions authorizing establishment and operation of "collective gardens" for medical marijuana purposes subject to land use powers of municipalities within the State of Washington; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed ESSSB 5073 in 2011, which provides that a qualifying patient or his/her designated care provider are presumed to be in compliance, and not subject to criminal or civil sanctions /penalties/consequences, if they possess no more than 15 cannabis plants, no more than 24 ounces of usable cannabis (other qualifications apply); and WHEREAS, Chapter 69.51A RCW, as amended by E2SSB 5073, recognizes the authority and ability of municipalities to regulate medical marijuana within their jurisdictions and to adopt comprehensive land use regulations and licensing regulations concerning the establishment and operation of medical marijuana uses and facilities within such jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91 -513, 84 Star. 1236, to create a comprehensive drug enforcement regime it called the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 -971. Under the Controlled Substances Act (also "CSA' ), Congress established five "schedules" of controlled substances. Controlled substances are placed in specific schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their accepted medical use in treatment, and the physical and psychological consequences of abuse of the substance. See U.S.C. § 812(b); and WHEREAS, marijuana is currently listed as a "Schedule I" controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(10). For a substance to be designated a Schedule I controlled substance, it must be found: (1) that the substance "has high potential for abuse "; (2) that the substance "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States'; and (3) that "[t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1). The Controlled Substances Act sets forth procedures by which the schedules may be modified. See 21 U.S.C. § 811(a); and WHEREAS, under the Controlled Substances Act, it is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance," except as otherwise provided in the statute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Possession of a controlled substance, except as authorized under the Controlled Substances Act, is also unlawful; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has held in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2005), that Congress was within its rights and powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act. And that, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Controlled Substances Act will prevail over any conflicting State law; and WHEREAS, court decisions in other jurisdictions have held that local legislation authorizing conduct and uses in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act are in conflict with such federal legislation and thus preempted by the federal law (cf., Pack v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.0 1070, 11 Ca1.Daily Op. Serv.12,643_ Cal.Rptr.3d _ (October 4, 2011); Emerald Steel Fabricators v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 348 Or. 159, 230 P.3d 518 (2010)); and WHEREAS, Section 1102 of E2SSB 5073 specifically authorizes municipalities of the State of Washington to adopt and enforce zoning requirements regarding the production, processing and dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the general police powers of the City of Pasco empower and authorize the City of Pasco to adopt land use controls to provide for the regulation of land uses within the city and to provide that such uses shall be consistent with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco found and determined that Title 25 of the Pasco Municipal Code should be amended in Section 25.08.010 providing that no use in violation of local, state or federal law shall be allowed in any zone within the city, and that such amendment specifically applies to prohibit dispensaries of cannabis and collective gardens for the production, distribution and/or dispensing of cannabis for medical uses, all as specifically defined in Chapter 69.51A RCW and E2SSB 5073, Laws of 2011 of the State of Washington; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of dispensaries of cannabis and collective gardens for the production, distribution and/or dispensing of cannabis for medical purposes is subject to the authority and general police power of the city to develop specific and appropriate land use controls regarding such uses, and the City Council reserves its powers and authority to appropriately amend, modify and revise such prohibition to implement such land use controls in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that such amendments authorized herein are not intended to regulate the individual use of cannabis for medical purposes by qualifying patients and designated providers as authorized pursuant to Chapter 69.51A RCW; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that approval of such amendments is in the best interests of residents of the City of Pasco and will promote the general health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that Title 25.08.020 "Conflicting Provisions" of the Pasco Municipal Code be amended to add new section 25.08.020(2) prohibiting collective medical marijuana gardens and recreational marijuana related land uses within the city; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that approval of such amendments is in the best interest of residents of the City of Pasco; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I. That Section 25.08.020 entitled "Conflicting Provisions" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.08.020 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. UWhere this Title imposes a greater restriction upon land, buildings, or structures than is imposed or required by other rules, regulations, standards, policies, ordinances, contracts, covenants public or private, deeds, or statutes lawfully adopted by the City of Pasco, the provisions of this Title shall govern and take precedent. In the case of conflicts between the text, maps and tables of this Title, the text shall govern unless otherwise stated. (2) Mariivana related land uses such as marijuana production processing retail sales and/or collective gardens allowed by State law are expressly prohibited from locating within the City of Pasco. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City CZc it j May 22, 2014 TO: Gary t anager Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 i FROM: Rick White, �7 I Community & conomic Development Director SUBJECT: Recovery of Abatement Costs for 114 N 4' Avenue (MF# LIEN 2014 004) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Recovery of Abatement Costs - Demolition Invoice 2. Recovery of Abatement Costs - Memo to the City Manager dated 2/14/14 3. Recovery of Abatement Costs - City Attorney Memo dated 4/8/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: DISCUSSION III. FISCAL IMPACT: $29,224.30 abatement amount; interest on the unpaid abatement amount and possible penalties of $1,189 to the Abatement Fund. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On August 13, 2013, the old Liberty Theater located at 114 North 4th Avenue was destroyed by fire, leaving elevated portions of the structure in danger of collapse and without ground support adjacent to City utilities, sidewalks and the public street. B. The City declared the premises unsafe and initiated action to immediately mitigate the dangerous and unsafe conditions, as provided in Pasco Municipal Code Section 11.02.070 (2) Summary Abatement. C. As a result, the City, through the application of the Summary Abatement procedure, hired a contractor to remove the elevated unsafe portions of the building and make repairs to the adjacent portions of the utilities, sidewalk and street to make them safe and passable. D. The City incurred a cost of $29,224.30 for the abatement of the damaged and dangerous structure and reinforcement of the adjacent street, sidewalk and utilities. E. In November of 2013, the Pasco Code Enforcement Board ordered the abatement costs to be paid within 120 days or a penalty of $100 per day for 10 days would also be assessed against the property. F. On March 17, 2014 Council conducted a public hearing on the assignment of a special lien against 114 North 4"' Avenue for recovery of the abatement costs, and was interested in determining if interest rates on the unpaid balance of the abatement costs were required at the statutory default rate of 12 %, and if the penalty imposed by the Code Board was appropriate for reconsideration. G. The City Attorney has provided an opinion on the interest rate that responds to Council's concern and is included as Reference #3. H. The Code Enforcement Board has reconsidered their penalty for the abatement and determined that it could be held in abeyance until December 31, 2014 — given the complexities of dealing with the insurers for the structure. 4(b) DISCUSSION: A. As indicated in Reference #3, adoption of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings established an interest rate of 7% on the unpaid balance of the abatement lien. While this rate may be slightly higher than present market rates, it is considerably lower than the general default rate of 12% as authorized by RCW 84.64.070. B. A portion of the total cost of the abatement resulted from repairs to the public street and sidewalk system from the fire - fighting efforts. It may be reasonable to attribute $1,932 of the total costs for repair of public infrastructure though the repairs were needed only because of the fire. Such a deduction would result in a total abatement cost of $27,312.30 versus the previous total of $29,244.30. C. Although the property has an existing lien filed by the City in 2013 for recovery of the abatement costs, Council has the option of assessing the charges against the property as a special lien. This allows the City to place a tax lien on the property, making the abatement costs due and payable at the same time as the annual property taxes. D. The special lien method is a more certain way to guarantee the reimbursement to the Abatement Fund as it places the City's lien in the same position as unpaid taxes. It also allows foreclosure upon the property if taxes are delinquent. The special lien would also prevent the current owner from selling the property on a contract to avoid paying the lien. E. Staff will prepare a resolution for Council action to reflect Council direction on the following elements: Total abatement costs to be recovered from the property owner; Annualized rate of interest. City of Pasco Code Enforcement PO Box 293 PASCO, WA 99307 (609)544.3066 RODRIGUEZ, OCTAVIO 1389 BELMONT BLVD WEST RICHLAND. WA 99353.7es4 DESCRIPTION OF CHARGES Lien Abatement -Code Enfolcem Account Number 3SD88 Violation Number L13.2939 Date 091052013 CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION NUMBER: CEBW13 -2939 PROPERTYADDRESS: 114 N 4TH AVE, PASCO, WA99MI OUANfIlV UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1.0 29224.30 28224.30 Total Charges 29224,30 Total Credits 9,99 PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT -> $29224.30 ^DETACH ALONG ABOVE LINE AND RETURN STUB WITH YOUR PAYMENT^ RODRIGUEZ, OCTAVIO Violation Number 1-13 -2939 Amount Amoout $29224.30 Account Number: 36098 unnt Current Date; OB(OS/2013 Enclosed $ This invoice is for a Code Erdorcement Violation for an abatement penalty. if this balance Is not paid within 30 days, a Ilan will be placed on the property end it will be turned over to the Franklin County Treasurer to be Included on the property taxes.0 a Ilan is filed, an additional charge for $144.00 will be added to this abatement penalty for the Ilan filing tee. To make payment arrangements please call (509) 594.3066. City of Pasco Code Enforcement PO Box 293 PASCO, WA 99301 P.O. BOX 6772 5133 W COLUMBIA DRIVE KENNEWICK, WA 99336 City of Pasco 525 N Third Ave Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Mitch Nickolds 509 - 544 -6311 GENERAL CONTRACTOR RAYRDS243JE INVOICE WWW.Ri- SINCO C.COM 15091 SB6 -2158 FAX: 15091 S85 -0244 8/2912013 INVOICE W- 7379 -13 Re: For the removal of upper failing structures to Mike J Op / Form fire. The extra work needed for clean -up and make save for putting out remaining Mike J Op / Form Tyler G repair to damage around building. Patrick J Operator 8114/2013 Trk/E Descri Lion QTY Unil Amount Total Bryan K Prj Manager 90.00 $ 405.00 4.5 hrs $ 2 Pick -up $ e hrs $ 65.00 $ 390.00 Jason L Crane Foreman 110.00 6 hrs $ 20.00 $ 120.00 $ 335.00 5.5 him $ 68.00 8 473.00 408.00 301 -ton work Irk 4 OT hr $ 129.00 $ 516.00 Mike J Op / Form 301 JD 624 Loader 9.5 3 hrs $ hrs $ 30.00 115.00 $ 285.00 hrs $ 115.00 $ 345.00 $ 345.00 $ 30.00 4 OT hr $ 145.50 $ 582,00 Patrick J 7 1 -ton work Irk Operator 211 Hitachi 35 mini excavator 7 hrs $ 30.00 $ 210.00 $ 435.00 3 hrs $ 90.00 $ 270.00 Tyler Labor 4 OT hr $ 120.50 $ 482.00 3 hrs $ 51.00 $ 153.00 Darren C Trk Driver 117 Peterbilt w /skiedum p 3 Ors hr $ $ 81.50 145.00 $ 326.00 $ 435.00 8/1512013 4 OT hr $ 175.50 $ 702.00 Jason L Crane Foreman Mike J Op / Form 301 JD 624 Loader 7 1 -ton work trk Patrick J Operator 211 Hitachi 35 mini excavator Tyler G Labor Mike J Op / Form 8116/2013 258.00 Mike J Op / Form Tyler G Labor Dan S Labor Patrick J Operator Mike J Op / Form Bill L Trk Driver Jim S Trk Driver 103 Wt Trk 211 Hitachi 35 mini excavator 301 JD 624 Loader 7 1 -ton work irk 114 Western Star Dp Trk 117 Peterbillw /sidedump 3 hrs $ 86.00 $ 258.00 3.5 his $ 115.00 $ 402.50 3.5 hrs $ 30.00 $ 105.00 4.5 hrs $ 90.00 $ 405.00 4.5 hrs $ 51.00 $ 229.50 1 hrs $ 110.00 $ 110.00 5 his $ 67.00 $ 335.00 8 hrs $ 51.00 $ 408.00 8 hrs $ 51.00 $ 408.00 6.5 his $ 90.00 $ 585.00 3 hrs $ 115.00 $ 345.00 8 his $ 30.00 $ 240.00 1 his $ 120.00 $ 120.00 3 his $ 145.00 $ 435.00 8/21/2013 Mike J Mike J Op / Form Op / Form 301 JD 624 Loader 5 hrs $ 67.00 $ 335.00 7 1 -ton work bk 2 hrs 5.5 hrs $ 115.00 $ $ 230.00 Patrick J Operator 30.00 $ 165.00 Patrick J Operator 211 Hitachi 35 mini excavator 2.5 hrs 3 hrs $ 61.00 $ 90,00 $ 162.50 Tyler Labor $ 270.60 Ski K P Trk Driver 129 Kanworth Conc Trk 5.5 hrs 1.5 hrs $ 51.00 $ 126.00 $ 280.50 8122/2013 $ 189,00 Mike J Op / Form 301 JO 624 Loader 2 hrs $ 115.00 $ 7 1 -ton work trk 2 his $ 30.00 $ 230.00 Petrick J Operator 211 Hitachi 35 mini excavator 2 hrs $ 90.00 $ 60.00 Tyler G Labor 180.00 2 hrs $ 51.00 $ 102.00 Sub -total $ 11,869.00 Materials I Subcontractors L 8 I Paperwork 1 Is $ 125.00 $ 125.00 Concrete disposal 3 es $ 6.50 $ 19.50 Asphalt disposal 2.6 ins $ 6.50 $ 16.90 BDI Disposal 1 Is $ 493.27 $ 493.27 BOI Disposal 1 Is $ 805.00 $ 805.00 Sawcutkng(concrete) 60 It $ 3.30 $ 198.00 Sawcu0ing (asphalt) 1 min $ 150.00 $ 150.00 1 1/4" Base course 16.58 to $ 7.00 $ 116.06 Class A CDF 6 cy $ 35.70 $ 214.20 Concrete replacement per 4th water rlinel 206.00 $ 5100 contract Asphalt replacement per 4th water line contract 8.5 sy 13.86 sy $ 60,00 $ 40.00 0000 Lampson International 1 Is $ 9,670.83 $ S 554.40 9,670.83 RPS Mark -up 15% Sub -total Mark -up $ $ 13,079.16 1,961.87 Sub -total $ 15,041.03 SUB -TOTAL $ 26,910.03 SALES TAX 8.6% $ 2,314.26 AMOUNT DUE $ 29,224.30 Sincerely, Project Manager Bryan F Knapik MEMORANDUM DATE:, February 14, 2014 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Director SUBJECT: 114 N. Fourth Avenue Abatement Costs Please find below a summary of the equipment, personnel, materials and subcontractors costs for the emergency abatement for the fire involving the Liberty Theatre in August of 2013. Included after the summary is a brief explanation of the costs and practices for the utility, street and sidewalk repair on 4 " Avenue prepared by the City Engineer. Equipment I. Vehicle #2 - Pick -Up at 6 hours This involves the Project Manager's work truck which accompanied him and stayed at the site while he was present. 2. Vehicle #30 - One -Ton Work Truck at 9.5 hours This item references the one -ton work truck — tender that had tools, equipment and fluids needed for crane operations and onsite maintenance and repair. 3. #301 JD 624 Loader at 13.5 hours This item refers to the vehicle /loader used for the clean - up of the debris from demolition of the fire damaged walls and roof. 4. Vehicle #7 - One -Ton Work Truck at 26 hours This item references the one -ton work truck for crew transport to and from site and tools and equipment for onsite loader maintenance. 5. #211 Hitachi 35 Mini - Excavator at 23 hours This is the mini - excavator used for tight space debris cleanup and sidewalk restoration. 6. Vehicle #117 Peterbuilt with side dump at 10 hours and #114 Western Star dump truck at 1 hour These items reference the equipment used to remove building and fire debris from the site to the landfill. 7. Vehicle #103 WT Truck at 1 hour This is the work truck for the loader operator that was used for building debris loading and removal. 8. #129 Concrete Truck at 1.5 hours This item references the concrete truck for concrete pouring of the sidewalk. Personnel a. Mike J. — Foreman /Operator at 28.5 hours This refers to the foreman and operator for the loader that was used for building debris loading and removal. b. Bryan K. -Project Manager at 6 hours This refers to the onsite Project Manager and his related work with trades and equipment coordination. c. Patrick J. — Operator at 25.5 hours This item references the operator of the mini - excavator that was used for debris clean up and sidewalk restoration in tight space situations. d. Tyler G. and Dan B — Laborer at 27 hours and 8 hours respectively These items reference the laborers performing clean up, barricades and various other tasks. e. Darren C., Jim S. and Bill L. —Truck Drivers at 7 hours, 3 hours and I hour respectively These items reference the operators of the dump trucks that took building debris to the landfill. f. Jason L. — Crane Foreman at 12.5 hours This item references the foreman that oversaw crane operations, crew, movement and placement on the site while the crane was in use. g. Skip K. -Truck Driver at 1.5 hours This item references the driver for the concrete truck used for the concrete pour. Materials and Subcontractors a. L &I Paperwork at I item This involves the paperwork associated with Labor & Industries for labor rules compliance. b. Concrete and Asphalt Disposal at 3 tons and 2.6 tons respectably These items refer to the costs associated with disposal of concrete and asphalt from the debris removal. C. BDI Disposal This item involves the costs associated with depositing debris into the landfill. d. Saw - Cutting Concrete and Saw- Cutting Asphalt These items reference the costs associated with cutting concrete and asphalt so that the necessary sidewalk, utility and street repairs could be accomplished. e. 1 V4" Base Course This item references the crushed rocks associated with street repair. L Class `A' CDF This item references the 6 cubic yards of asphalt that was used for street repair. g. 4 X 8 X 1/4" Plate This item references the steel plate used to construct a protective cover for the gas meter. h. Concrete Replacement and Asphalt Replacement at 8.5 square yards and 13.86 square yards respectively These items reference the labor associated with concrete and asphalt placement to repair the street, sidewalk and curb after the utility lines had been reinforced. i. Lampson International This item involves the use of the overhead crane for debris removal. The contractor has listed the individual employees and the Regular and Overtime hours worked by each employee, for each calendar day. Also included are the various pieces of construction equipment and vehicles that were used on the jobsite. The notations for the "work trucks" are for vehicles that various staff (e.g. Crane Foreman, Operator/Foreman) drive to the worksite. These vehicles typically carry the individual's tools, supplies, parts, etc. that may be needed in order to accomplish the work. These vehicles typically remain onsite the entire time that the individual is there. It is normal that projects pay for the time these vehicles and their driver are onsite. Other equipment (e.g. Loaders, Water Truck, Side Dump, etc.) appear to have been charged to the job only for the time that each piece of equipment was being used. The notations regarding costs associated with the City's 4`h & Clark Waterline Project were for repair work to items previously completed on the project. The new watermain had been installed, and the trench backfilled & compacted immediately prior to the fire incident. The large volume of water from the fire- fighting efforts compromised the watermain installation requiring that the trench be re- excavated, the watermain inspected to make sure it had not shifted, and the trench backfilled and re- compacted. At one location where the new water service entered the Beauty Salon adjacent to the theater, the water from the fire- fighting efforts had completely undermined the waterline, sidewalk and part of the building foundation. Extra work was required to shore up that location and reconstruct the service line. The costs for these efforts are to restore damage caused by the results of the fire and like any other fire- caused damage should be borne by the property which had the fire. KERR LAW GROUP 7025 Grandridge Blvd., Suite A Kennewick, Washington 99336 -7724 (509) 735 -1542 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager City of Pasco FROM: Leland B. Kerr Attorney -at -Law DATE: April 8, 2014 RE: City Establishment of Interest Rates The question was recently asked at the City Council meeting whether the City may by Resolution or Ordinance set applicable interest rates for various obligations owed to the City. The beginning point in any discussion on interest is Article VIII, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution which prohibits the City from lending its credit by stating: "No ... city ... shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company, or corporation, except for the necessary support for the poor and infirm . . . " To comply with this Constitutional mandate, the City must charge interest for those obligations owed to the City to avoid lending its credit. There is no specific statute authorized for limiting the City's capacity to establish interest rates. Interest rates generally are determined by RCW 19.52.010 that provides in the absence of a specific interest rate established by agreement or statute, the interest rate is established at 12 %. RCW 19.52.020 establishes the permissible highest rate of interest to be the greater of either (a) 12% per annum; or (b) four percentage points above the average bill rate for 26 week treasury bill. Likewise, RCW 4.56.110 establishes interest on judgments at the rate of 12% per annum. There is an exception for judgments based upon the tortuous conduct of the City which utilizes the two percentage points above the treasury bill rate as defined above. Gary Crutchfield April 8, 2014 Page 2 There are places within the Revised Code of Washington which establishes separate interest rates generally depending upon the specific obligation ranging from a low of 5% for deferred real property taxes. While the City generally relies on the interest rate established by RCW 19.52.010, the Code does provide for certain circumstances and alternate interest rates. In PMC 3.200.140, an interest rate of 8% per annum is imposed on unpaid utility balances. More specific to the circumstances under which this question arose, the City's adoption of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings provides under Section 908.2: "All such assessments (abatement lien assessments) remaining unpaid after 30 days from the date of recording on the assessment roll shall become delinquent and shall bear interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from and after said date." The basis for the abatement costs for 114 North 4th arose out of the abatement procedure conducted pursuant to the Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings which, as designated above, provides at 7% interest on the assessment lien after it is filed. This would be the interest rate that would be applicable to the lien, rather than the general interest rate applicable to real property foreclosures as provided by RCW 84.64.070. As a result of my research, I believe the City has the capacity to establish a schedule of interest rates on various obligations owed to the City, and as demonstrated above, has done so. A certain amount of caution should be applied, however, to insure that the interest rates cannot be construed as "usurious" as defined by RCW 19.52.020, which incorporates the greater of 12 %, or four percentage points above the 26 week treasury bill rate which may expose the City to double damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs for violations. I would see that as being a remote possibility. The greater concern, however, is that the City will be held to the payment of 12% interest in its obligations as recently demonstrated in the IGI case. In the specific case in which this question arose, the City has established a reasonable interest rate at 7 %. Presently, it may be above market rate, however, it is significantly below the generally established rate for interest as established by RCW 19.52.010. If you have any other questions or concerns in this regard, please do not hesitate to give me a call. LBK/sla cc: Rick White AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Counci May 19, 2014 TO: Gary Crutch i Manager Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 Regular Mtg.: 6/2/14 FROM: Stan Strebel, D uty City Manage SUBJECT: New Police Facility Design, Phase 2 I. REFERENCE(S): 1. New Police Facility Design, Phase 2 — Design Cost Feasibility Report (Phase 1) 2. New Police Facility Design, Phase 2 — Professional Services Agreement Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: Discussion 6/2: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement (Phase 2) with Terence L. Thornhill, Architect, for the new Police Facility and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. HL FISCAL IMPACT: Phase 2: $550,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In April, the Council approved Phase 1 of a Professional Services Agreement with Terence L. Thornhill, to undertake a design cost feasibility report for the proposed new police facility. At a cost of $24,000, the study was intended to identify size requirements, construction methods and strategies and preliminary siting information in order to determine if the City's goal of developing the new facility within the targeted $8 million total budget was feasible. B) Over the last several weeks, the architect and staff have met on several occasions to complete and review the information developed from Phase 1. A summary of the architect's findings and cost estimates are attached. The project appears to be feasible within the targeted budget at the low range estimate while at the high range, costs could be over by an estimated $500,000; however, the design process can identify possible bid alternatives to consider as contingency when actual bids are received. If Council is satisfied with the findings and recommendations, approval of Phase 2, including complete design, bid preparation and construction management services is the next step to have the project bid and under construction by early next year. V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff recommends acceptance of the Phase 1 work and approval of the agreement for Phase 2 services. 4(c) O O O o co 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 h 0 1.� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o er V p d; 06 06 N o 0 0 o 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 m m T N m N m v 0 w a o v ^ N r^i b c b N M Ot n N N O V t 1� ul N m . N N^ V m I� N N n m R lo u) O u1 N CO ti O � ul M ti tD W u'1 H .y o0 1, l0 L00 ~ co co NO © O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O 0 O O O O LL N O O O O O O O O O O O Q m m m m m m m m m m ff m V V V V V a a V m N O N N N N N N N N N N F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 r-1 ul to w un N u1 I, l0 0 00 �o 00 N w N ,N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 ti O O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 u1 000 O o O 00 O O o O O o cn 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O t o Cl m O ^� lD d O� V M O O m m l0 O o7 m lD u1 Ql y1 N O to N bo m v v n v m ° a v n n Nw � m h •-i v .m v o 0o n w m M � M e ^� 0 3 � ke u; n ao J th t/? t/T t/T tR t? +/T t/T V/ O O O O O O O O O O 0 y_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O o O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O o v v v v v a a a v v m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 VI O d' w N o o N I� V O w to W H M N cr m m H N Vf lA t/? t/T N H ~ m in in c � a m c zi a co v m Chi Chi a a u 'j Q o a y Qj Ln L d W I- U L o c i 0 3 0 V O> n C o h O { N iv u m c o 0 x = U O O c w c E v z pi 0 LL N f` h ? u qu v u _ 3 w ]. Z:z > m u u v "" .c 'u E o u 4 U u 4 C GJ O N u Y G Y Y+ . ry m v Ln �o a m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E w Y o �> — �ou 2 w N T m C a n O. m c 0 O U m v c c a c m a a, y c o w o o v 'O m (U H O c N u > u w u O E c to p w O C O � m aJ aJ N N 'O c u on E c a o f p t aJ L MO p al O U bA = L p- O v— O w o a) N U DQ _ a 3 v aJ o c c O al p a am+ v v y v w a j a a v w Q :L �' y al 2 4J u a i E m -o E -o *rl > u °" u E u '. E L 0 m c o W u E v a) o a Q U vYi Q O c y N M d to O 0 O 0 0 0 Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Police Community Services Building (Phase 2) Consultant: Terence L. Thornhill Architect Inc. P.S. Address: 9221 Sandifur ParkwaL Pasco WA 99301 Scope of Services: Basic Design Services, including design construction documents bidding, construction management Term: six months Completion Date: December 3.2014 (ready to bid) Payments to Consultant: ❑ Hourly Rate: $ ® Fixed Sum of: $550.000 ❑ Other: Insurance to be Provided: 1. Commercial General Liability: ❑ $1,000,000 each occurrence; ❑ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or ❑ $ each occurrence; and $ general aggregate 2. Professional Liability: ® $1,000,000 per claim; ❑ $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit; or ❑ $ per claim; and $ per policy aggregate limit Other Information: Basic services (Phase 2) fee to be capped at $550,000 (7.86% of MACC) excluding any additional services TBD Agreement form to include AIA Document 13101 and A201, as applicable, and so long as not conflicting with City form professional services agreement. Signature by: ❑ Mayor ® City Manager O O O G1 0 Lu O O O p c u O c o O O On m 0 0 0 o r O00 Y c `• n J U u u i to C 0 rl� _w C 3 v O � LL ti a a° CO CL Vi 0 O E 00 > n Cl N O � N 3 LL O E 4- V E Q f0 0 > Y u a Y_ Lu N Q c u c o t c o t ~ Y c v J U u to C N Z _w 3 O � Q 3 a CO CL Vi O E W > n Cl N H 3 O E V E Q f0 v > r u E v o� Z O Q Q a° l0 O O C) m H Uf0 a C a LL O1 c v E n N v Q Q) r u v l0 O a C O1 a N n N C V1 Y 0) .O W > E > pYj a C U O y O OJ O! Ol (0 a d + 0 n cu w N 7 m 0 j c C U Y -O 00 N UO O 01 O t0 C C N _ co N .6 Y 10 w L (0 N O N u O 71 N C D ,C C w v c a E c o .m a '° E v v m °' o N to o v o m w c o a m— (; o u CL 0 3 a ` fO O C OJ Q) .� V > N 0 Y W E ai W a > Z' Z 2 Z Z o a E C O +• N f0 fO m NO � O n d C C C C C ate+ N N 0 u on o N c v a o a .E .E ,E .E CL ,� E 0.= o- o y '� v °' c u '� 0 a) M u v a a a a a o- ".� E a w u c Z' m c c o c c in E O> CL cu > _� o 00 O v C m n N N G v a m v m> v C v c � in a° 3 a E W w m v° ° " 4 N C> n v a N v a v t n c _ a c E= a E u ' 'n z a m a` o a` m ¢ u ¢ o ci uo voi �n CA E .-1 N M R lff W I, 00 011 IC s U d N p H o ° o 0 0 0 o ° o o CD, o M: O O O N Y C d E CL O i v 0 C DO d O Cii: 0 O O M C d E 7 0 c 0 u 7 N C O u 0 In 0 10 C O 0 n O a o v m a U O v ° CL c c a 3 m ° .v Y L v m > 0 0 0 c Y H CL m m m o m > m N m O c O a ° Y � z c � E a ac i m Y c L E 3 O m. >O O O ¢Y00 a E m a Y a �_ C c N u Y M a E 9 C! C 'n (n 0 YO C U c c m 4J N O on C - O m 3 O v a E = c E m .E o. 4 N a o O v -0 3 o c N > a a O 0 � C E o a a v o v C O Y 7 O U V C a E N U u 0 to N L N CE O N °. a a ? m .0 m Y a C O w a= N m o o u > N °'C' u H as 0.-0 E w v a c°" c m E ,c w V e� N M V Lm w c m O. w m u v u a L o 'Y E •,-. c .m W a U 0 C w U 4 � O O 0 C o u a.4 ^ a a m c a •E m E o° n. V) ¢ H U O M v� N N M V' V1 0 Cii: 0 O O M C d E 7 0 c 0 u 7 N C O u 0 In 0 :4: 0 O O N m C O 0 n a o v m U O v ° c c a 3 ° .v Y L m > 0 0 0 Y H CL m m m o m c m N m O c N a v Y � z c � E v ac i m Y c L E 3 O N >O O O ¢Y00 a E m a Y a �_ C c N N M a E 9 m (n 0 YO U N O C O m v a E = c E 2 o. 4 N C O 3 o c N > Y m on E o v c � c c o V C: a N U y N L N ° O a a O 0 S O u m Y a O w a= N m Y E o u > N °'C' u H as 0.-0 N Q C Q V e� N M V Lm w :4: 0 O O N C 0 o v @ U O ° c a Y H m C W o c c v a v � z CL ac i o 0 O c a n u° C N N M a 9 (n m 0 0 0 0 v ti T 0 0 N i C a C 0 O. U O U Y C O U V 0 0 0 0 0 .-i J C1 N 0 0 W O c 0 .Y w Q E O c C m a � O c h Gy 0 W w 0 _ m 3 w w L w u 0 c '> C N N M O O 0 O O O Ln N Vi N u U C1 H f0 C O v a wC WI w D W a` C IA N •L W N u .y m m L 0 w d LL 10 V rel w N m L a c to w 0 a w L C w r d w L 0 c 0 v m C N u w m c O v a m c Y O a C w > 0 .� o a = Q t c n U O H bq c m 0 C m Y C n c O Y v '> w E m EO O E W E c C v o u,0 m L W Q Y m 3 w Q 0 0 m v ry C O Y C C w Y_ \ w L g 'a r F E cr °o. C w L y > cc w o U K Q V > LL i N m a n ko n 0 0 0 0 0 .-i J C1 N 0 0 W O c 0 .Y w Q E O c C m a � O c h Gy 0 W w 0 _ m 3 w w L w u 0 c '> C N N M O O 0 O O O Ln N Vi N u U C1 H f0 C O v a wC WI w D W a` C IA N •L W N u .y m m L 0 w d LL 10 V rel w N m L a c to w 0 a w L C w r d w L 0 c 0 v m C N u w m c O v a m c Y O a w � v a = c U 0 bq c 0 m Y a m O v m ry C O Y C O O T d > Qai � T o C o V a c E` N a E c o E 0 c 0 ¢ v u V a) Y ) Y Q) w Q c t w E Y C m Y > m 0 0 c Z u v y c Y -a) h w E c m e w o y .0 o w w u � o m E c. w m '� v u a 0 'u a Y L v = w v "'� m` -0 Y m o' c > u a a y w c o >'¢0w o. " c m 3 m 0- :0 T a i+ 0 O Q w w 0 w O a Qj w 0 0 in N E m N ul '> w V) to N U N O_ - w 'o m c c w C W c w E 3 u 0 v v o Y w 0 w 0-0 E m a o 6 a? m w M O Y N Q) _ O 0 ¢ Q W Q m w H H a F- N M C vi 4! 09 C u V 4/ a d u m N L Y O c O Y m C N N a E m Y u m a v m cu m m a N Mm U 'a v u a a L v CL W O c O N L CL a v CL ` O O O. W N � a Q .T. U1 _ V O UY � V o .� u .O v v F- J c O m c V O u ca C 00 .a v E u Y C 0 C u° Y H C E m a � u d 2 m O O O u 04 N m 7 0 C no u 0 E a O F• W d N LL � LL G 'E O E E O u LA w n oo m V a u .2 a a u_ O 0 0 C O m 0 Y d J v ! .y Y u 00 C •X a O A a `m d O C O 3 C 60 D 0 ti E J N m c E T O Y c u m 'O m i N `m c a T Y C 7 E E O u C a O CL C A C m C m N a O c m a Y N Y m N d d H L O O. O. J H C O Y 7 m m N N C N 00 d C d N C � m a c L Y W O N � 0 0 ti m a s 3 m c c o N 'o u E w v u Al 0 O a 0. -o Oa O L C u N ` � m '0 � N J a E ° -o w > Q to ¢ C V V D O Q N C ? E v n N j C h0 ¢ N p N > O N c N u 0 m N O c 09 O C m .• N vii m T m > U w N W c o N aui c ti O — ,u c c N L— c ^ w v v on w NN _V 0 w O O E -O "o a o -O n v m m— o m va O g — c E o Q o •Y a :V (�0 w m O y ^ w m a N o 'a E a yai y 01 w m _ m C L z° w z¢° 0 3 m u 6 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Gary Crutchfi anager FROM: Stan Strebel, D. puty City Manager SUBJECT: Police Station Financing �/'�/ 1. REFERENCE(S): May 20, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 Regular Mtg.: 6/2/14 1. Police Station Financing - Debt Schedule II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: Discussion 6/2: MOTION: I move to authorize staff to prepare for the issuance of bonds to finance the new Police Community Services Building. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated $8 million in bonds financed with Public Safety Sales Tax Revenue IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Prior to voter approval of the Public Safety Sales Tax (PSST) in 2011, the City indicated that its priorities for the use of the sales tax proceeds, if approved by voters, would be to increase police expenditures for gang - related crime, and to provide for replacement housing for Municipal Court and the Police Department. B) The City's revenue stream from the approved .3 -cent sales tax is currently approximately $1,150,000 annually. The tax is authorized for 30- years, or through 2041. C) In order to project the City's ability to issue debt for the Police Facility, to repay the cost of the Court facility and to continue funding of the Street Crimes Unit, all from the PSST Revenue stream, staff prepared a spreadsheet to assess different revenue and debt scenarios (attached). D) The estimate for 15 -year financing assumes the City's AA- bond rating and "all in" total cost of interest at 2.79 %, with a total interest expense of $2.910 million over the life of the debt. For comparison, 20 -year financing would increase total cost of interest to 3.4% with interest expense of $4.157 million over the 20 -year life of the bonds. V. DISCUSSION: A) Using a conservative approach (1% annual growth in sales tax receipts and 2% annual inflation factor for Street Crimes Unit expense), the PSST is sufficient to retire an $8 million bond in 15 years at current interest rates. Using the 15 -year option not only minimizes interest expense over the life of the debt, the earlier payoff will make the PSST receipts available for other public safety expenses at least five years sooner than would a traditional 20 -year bond issue. B) The Municipal Court project consumed $3.7 million total, of which only $1.6 million was paid by PSST receipts thus far. In order to avoid debt (and interest expense) on the Municipal Court project, the general fund contributed the remaining $2.1 million. That figure could be recovered for the general fund through the PSST receipts over the next three years. However, rather than delay the Police Station project for another three years (to do so would significantly increase the likelihood of higher interest rate /cost for bonded debt), it is recommended that the general fund contribution be recovered over a longer period of time by use of any PSST receipts in excess of the annual debt service payment for the Police Station. Thus, as illustrated in the spreadsheet, the general fund should be made whole by 2034 (probably sooner, given the conservative nature of the projections). 4(d) L 0 0 u N W a C V d LL LO a 0 c m n g ao i a t 0 C O N O V => M a n u° H a M n 3 U c c C M T U O ) V w °m U 2 u00ig •0 �« U W Z M Q m a v ry N M M � E L N V � V 2 � V y } EN T O N a L u_ io u W LL N V d LO i O e-i c m n g ao i a t v N g t O N O V => M a n H a M J-I 3 U c C M T U ) °m U moo. u u00ig •0 �« U W Z M Q d � .0 2 } EN T O N N N m V _0 —_ Lq c G a 0 a i/- m ti N .ai tp M OD IH W 00 p N O ia N n N O W N M ul I!1 a N O 00 n M Ill O n M O a O ei N b N O e n I� ry p� O N N Of Oi Il1 N Ol Ip N Ip n O1 M VI tD N 00 M m IA H t0 N W M a0 M m a a m 0 N LL LD O a r A a w 'G v u O a y W a N u° 0 x a r H V 0 y O y U U�1 O O C � N C N w � H Z x w a N m m N O b N N n M to a .i v n m m ao m ry ao o m ry a n o ry o m o ao In N .y O IO n 00 n of N tp rb m e9 ei N m M O Y1 N b w Woo00 000000000000 $000000 vt In In m ei ry w a o o co ao o at o R ry N n n m Ic oo n � ai ri od of 6 of ui Io ul op ,� O ro ry m m M In0 1'C m 001 m n O O V1 W H N N p N O � p06p R N I~tf INIf Iml1 uml Imll Ya1 fait IQfl u1 t0 � b l0 tD IO IO b tp l0 b ID 1p b Ip 10 Op n m m a !b b t0 O N l0 m N n n N N Ill N N N m Yf co a co.ymm. -I ao m�onn tp tp b N V) b ass O N .i N vl W N O n .i n O ul N m O N M IO m n IO .y m n O ul .i Ot n lD CO N 00 n CO H n Ill l0 O t0 Ill 40 eai 00 OI N 01 00 .ai n t0 .m-I ry m � ao ai .ti ni IG of .ti e 'g ri < � ry ri ti i6 ri ri m c Io m Ill In ul val u�i I1pn ua0i 10n g e e e I'^u � e e n n n n n n n c'"o amo ro ro O 1l1 1p Yl N 0p ID Hl 00 m m m n Vt a o.r mlo aln oo m.+.y om.-I Ill N� 40 l0 n m N n T O� 0p m rl H I+i v Ic ae o ey ui I: o I+i Lt oc .: Lr Io naomoNmaln noomoNm H N '1 ti N N N N N N N N m Wl m r ti r .-i .d .ti .d .-i .-i .-T .ti .d .ti .d .-i In Io n ao m o .i N m e ul Ic n ao m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Inooln m.imnlnnln� b m n N N N N M m m a a Ol m m N N a n 'i n Ilf ao r vi of l+i rl� 'i uS o e of olonaoo.+maonco$ m T m m v v a v a v a In ti 'i o. N m a ul w n m m O r m m m m m m m m m m pp a N N N N N N N N N N N N C a E a Q> a Z C W E n z a O r a a O l7 C LL `a a WII V AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 20, 2014 TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 FROM: Rick White, Regular Mtg.: 6/2/14 � �Community & Economic Development Director v� SUBJECT: Single- Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones (MF# CA2011 003) 1. REFERENCE(S): I. Single Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones - Proposed Resolution 2. Single Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones -Memo to the Planning Commission 3. Single Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones - Planning Commission Minutes II. III. IV ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: DISCUSSION 6/2: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution declaring a moratorium on the submittal of subdivision applications for properties zoned R -2, R -3 and R -4. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts were established primarily for the development of multi - family housing. These zoning districts are used to provide transition areas between low- density residential areas and more intense land uses. B. Although not specifically intended for single - family development the multi- family zoning districts have permitted single - family homes on individual lots since the inception of zoning in Pasco. Single - family lots within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones can be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. C. A developer (Hayden Homes) recently applied for an R -2 rezone for a parcel of land (Three Rivers West) that is intended to be developed for single - family homes only. The R -2 zoning was requested on a portion of the developer's parcel to allow the platting of single - family lots as small as 5,000 square feet. Based on the designations of the Comprehensive Plan the rezone was granted earlier this year. D. In addition to applying for multi - family rezoning to allow smaller lots sizes for single - family development builders have the option of platting under the "Planned Density Development" standards which allows the developer to average lot sizes. Under this process some lots can be smaller than the underlying zoning and others are required to be larger while the over -all average lot size must conform to the zoning. This process allows for flexibility in the development process and encourages the development of a variety of housing types to better serve community needs. Although this process is permitted in the code it is not required. E. Applying multi- family zoning to single - family developments circumvents the Planned Density process and could lead to a series of single - family developments with only 5,000 square foot lots. F. The Planning Commission discussed this issue during their May 15th meeting and recommended a moratorium be established on platting applications within the R- 2, R -3 and R -4 districts. The moratorium will provide the city time to study the matter and develop solutions to prevent the possible abuse of the zoning process related to the creation of subdivision lots. 4(e) V. DISCUSSION: A. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation the attached Resolution could be used to establish the recommended moratorium. Following the establishment of a moratorium the Council must hold a public hearing within 60 days to make specific findings that either justifies the continuance of the moratorium or the cancellation thereof. B. Although the proposed Resolution would establish a moratorium on platting in multi - family zoning districts for six months, it is staff's intent to bring back to Council any applicable revisions to the zoning regulations by September of this year. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, declaring a moratorium prohibiting platting within the Residential Two, Three and Four Zoning Districts within the City and setting public hearing thereon. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Zoning Ordinance contains R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts primarily intended for multiple family dwellings with a range of minimum densities; and WHEREAS, those Zoning Districts also permit single - family dwellings on individual lots provided said lots are at least 5,000 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, developers often build to the minimum standard; and WHEREAS, the creation of 5,000 square foot lots without forethought to building design, subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods and overall acceptance by the community has the potential to harm the residents of Pasco; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Zoning Ordinance permits, but does not require, the use of the "Planned Density Development' process which allows an overall housing density based on the underlying zoning requirements to promote creativity in the design and layout of subdivisions for the development of a variety of housing types to better serve the citizens of Pasco; and WHEREAS, the City intends to review and if appropriate develop zoning and land use regulations within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts to accommodate smaller lots and at the same time address issues related to subdivisions developed to the minimum standard without forethought or consideration of adjoining neighborhoods; 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 on platting within R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts to provide the City an opportunity to study and develop regulations for minimum lot sizes for single family dwellings within said Zoning Districts; 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 acceptance of subdivision applications within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts. 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 Resolution - 1 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 minimum lot sizes for single family dwellings within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts within the City of Pasco. Section 3. Public Hearin e. A public hearing shall be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the 16th day of June, 2014, in 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, and determine whether a work plan is necessary to address the issues involving the platting of property for single family dwellings within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts and extending the moratorium to complete a work plan and implementation of appropriate regulations. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and signature below. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, at its regular meeting dated this day of 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Resolution - 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney MEMORANDUM DATE: May 15, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones The R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts in Pasco are primarily intended for development of multiple family dwellings. Each of these zoning districts is intended to allow a graduation of density from lower density neighborhoods. For multiple - family dwellings, the minimum lot size is based on a density of 1 unit for 5,000 square feet of lot area in the R -2 zone, 1 unit for each 3,000 square feet of lot area in the R -3 zone and 1 unit for each 1,500 square feet of lot area in the R4 zoning district. Each of these zoning districts also provides the same standard for minimum lot sizes for single- family dwellings at 5,000 square feet for single - family lots. The City also has a development tool titled "Planned Density Development". A planned density development allows a developer to average the residential density provided in the underlying zoning district and use a flexible approach to the number of dwelling units that will be platted. This allows the developer to use creativity in the design of parcels of property for residential uses and encourages development of a variety of housing types to better serve the citizens and better respond to market conditions. Although the Planned Density Development tool is allowed, it is not required. This could permit development of single family lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet without a benchmark for a creative and flexible product. For example, a development could be proposed for a series of single family lots — each of which is exactly 5,000 square feet and be acceptable under the existing zoning provisions. This provision in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones for minimum lot size for single - family homes at 5,000 square feet, allows the potential for abuse when applied in a non - comprehensive manner, especially when designed to maximize developer profit or minimize overall integration into the community. The question before the Planning Commission tonight is: Does the Planning Commission wish to recommend to City Council that the regulations for minimum lot sizes in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones be reviewed and addressed to minimize the potential for abuse? If the Commission feels that the minimum lot size regulations need to be reviewed, staff will bring that recommendation to City Council. Staff would also recommend that a moratorium on platting within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Districts be established to provide certainty that future development does not "vest" under the existing rules for minimum lot sizes. Suggested Motion: I move that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the review of the minimum single family dwelling lot sizes in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts. Planning Commission Minutes 5/15/2014 OTHER BUSINESS: A. Memorandum Minimum Lot Size in Multi - Family Zones Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the staff memorandum regarding minimum lot sizes in multi- family zones. He explained that the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones in Pasco are primarily intended for multi - family dwellings; however, each of these zones has a minimum lot size for single - family dwellings of 5,000 square feet. The City also has a development tool title "Planned Density Development" where developers can use some creativity as long as the overall density of the zone isn't exceeded in determining the lot size of a particular development. The use of the "Planned Density Development process is not mandatory. It was noted in discussions with potential developers that the provisions in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones for 5,000 square foot minimum lot sizes could be abused in that subdivisions could be developed meeting the code but possibly done in a manner that would not be of best interest to the community as a whole. This could create "cookie- cutter" subdivisions where every lot is exactly the same size with absolutely no forethought for integration into the community but instead designed to maximize developer profit. The question Mr. White presented before the Planning Commission was: Does the Planning Commission wish to recommend to City Council that the regulations for minimum lot sizes in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones be reviewed and addressed to minimize the potential for abuse? If the Commission felt that the minimum lot size regulations need to be reviewed, staff would bring that recommendation to City Council and would also recommend that a moratorium on platting within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Districts be established to provide certainty that future development does not "vest" under the existing rules for minimum lot sizes. All of the Commissioners voiced support for recommending to City Council the review of the minimum single - family dwelling lot sizes in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts as explained by staff. FOR: City Council TO: Gary FROM Robert W. Gear, AGENDA REPORT Chief SUBJECT- Annual Fire Department Performance Report I. REFERENCE(S): May 22, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 Regular Mtg.: 6/2/14 1. Annual Fire Department Performance Report - Report II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: Discussion 6/2; MOTION: I move to accept the Pasco Fire Department 2013 Performance Report. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) On February 21, 2006 the Pasco City Council adopted the performance standards and objectives as outlined in the Performance Standards Resolution No. 2938 and, as required by RCW 35.103.010. V. DISCUSSION: A) The 2013 report shows the following: 1. Call processing continues to significantly exceed our 60- second goal. 2. Turnout times continue to decrease from 2012 to 2013 with our 90% time being 2:14 seconds. This is a significant trend that we need to continue. 3. Travel times continue to be slightly over 6 minutes. 4. The total time from 911 call to arrival 90% of the time is an increase, from 11:03 in 2012 to 11:14 in 2013. B) We met our full fireground staffing goal 67% of the time, which is a decrease in the available staffing in the first 12 minutes as compared to our fireground staffing in 2012. Regionalization of the emergency communications system, particularly establishing a single dispatch center, will reduce the time required to engage assistance from neighboring agencies; doing so will increase the frequency of full response within the 12- minute goal. 4(f) 4 3 CITY OF PASCO FIRE DEPARTMENT RCW 35.103.010 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2013 REPORT x - i .r0 r � w ' P'ASCO TABLE OF CONTENTS MISSION STATEMENT: ............................................ 3 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION: 3 FIRE DEPARTMENT FUNCTIONS ................................................................. ............................... 4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUMMARY ........................................................... ............................... 5 DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART .............................................. ............................... 6 STAFFING LEVELS AND DISTRIBUTION ................................................... ............................... 7 CITYCOUNCIL RESOLUTION ........................................ ............................... ...........................8 -10 STANDARDS OF RESPONSE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS .... ..........................11 -20 PREDICTABLERESULTS ................................................................................. .............................21 TRAVEL TIME COMPLIANCE MAP ........................................................... ..........................22 -23 PLANOF ACTION .............................................................................................. .............................24 2013 RESULTS TABLE .................................................................................... .............................25 Pasco Fire Department Mission Statement: Make best use of department 3 resources to provide the Pasco community with effective mitigation of fire, rescue, hazardous materials and medical emergencies with compassion, integrity, and respect for its citizens. Department Information: Bob Gear, Fire Chief The City of Pasco Fire Department; Office of the Fire Chief was created by Ordinance # 73 on July 16, 1908 with the responsibilities of caring for the fire equipment. The fire department is currently staffed by 53 uniformed members and 1 admin personnel. Forty - eight members work a rotating 24 hours on duty followed by 48 hours off duty. The operational staff is divided into 3 sixteen member platoons operating out of 3 fire stations. They are supported by the Fire Chief, Administrative Assistant, Training and Safety Battalion Chief, and the EMS Captain who work a forty hour work week. Two members work variable shift schedule or "D" shift, and fill vacant positions on the regular shift staffing. Firefighters respond to an average of 12 calls for service per day with approximately 78% of them being medical emergencies. Additionally, the fire department provides aircraft rescue and firefighting services to the Tri Cities Airport, and Advanced Life Support (ALS) Ambulance service to the Burbank and North Franklin County areas. Further, the fire department actively participates in the regional Tri- County Technical Rescue Team and Hazardous Materials Response Team. 3 Fire Department Functions • Structural, Vehicle and Wildland Fire Suppression • Advanced Life Support (ALS) Emergency Medical Services and Transport • Public Information and Education • Hazardous Materials Operations Level Response • Hazardous Material Technician Level response with 6 members • Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARRF) capability within the airport as well as within the surrounding community • Technical Rescue Operations level Response • Technical Rescue Technician level Response with 9 members to include confined space, trench rescue, rope rescue • Machinery & Vehicle Operations level response • Machinery & Vehicle Technical Rescue level response To accomplish these tasks Pasco Firefighters will; • Study, Train and Practice the skills and tasks they are expected to master. • Maintain physical fitness • Check and Maintain the Apparatus and Equipment they work with • Be familiar with the community and any hazards they may encounter Emergency Response Summary 2009 2013 2012 • Emergency Medical Responses: 3382 3444 • Structural Fire Responses: 97 103 • Mobile Property Fire Responses 48 56 • Wildland Responses: 47 57 • Hazardous Materials Responses: 11 7 • Aircraft Responses: 6 3 • Technical Rescue Responses: 1 1 • Other Miscellaneous/ False Responses 749 729 • Total Responses: 4,341 4400 2009 2810 2811 2012 20,13 3836 3815 4238 4400 4341 Denotes all calls including mutual aid given, received and none received. 5 DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Program Management Responsibilities "A" Shift Battalion Chief: Facilities Maintenance & Repairs, Violent Incident Response Program "B" Shift Battalion Chief: Equipment Maintenance & Repair, Shift Fire Investigator Coordinator "C" Shift Battalion Chief: Apparatus Maintenance Repair, Technical Rescue Team Coordinator "D" Shift Battalion Chief: Safety, Training, ARFF and HazMat Team Coordinator Staffing Levels and Distribution In 2013, the City of Pasco Fire Department employed 53 career members. Three of the day staff are uniformed and 1 is a civilian. Four (4) of the shift positions are funded by contract with the Port of Pasco. This staffing level has been in place since 2005 when the city's population was approximately 44,000. We staff three fire stations with a minimum of 12 personnel and an additional one person to cover airport only emergencies. The 2013 staff are assigned as follows: Day staff Fire Chief Training and Safety Battalion Chief Emergency Medical Services Captain Secretary /Receptionist "D Shift Paramedic /Firefighter Paramedic /Firefighter Levels: Shift Staffing (each shift) Assigned Minimum • Shift Battalion Chief 1 1 • Station Captains • Shift Lieutenant • Firefighters • Firefighter /Paramedics • Aircraft Rescue FF Total staffing assigned to each shift Distribution: 3 3 1 1 4 4 6 3 1 (assigned to airport only) 1 16 13 Station 81 Oregon St. Station 82 Airport Station 83 Rd 68 RESOLUTION NO. 0 A Resolution approving performance standards for Pasco Fire Department emergency responses, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Fire Department is legally established as a fire department W provide certain emergency medical, fire and rescue services; and, WHEREAS, the Pasco Fin; Department has a mission statement and goals and objectives to guide the organization in providing fire and emergency medical services to our community; and. WHEREAS, the Pasco Fire Department has a basic organizational structure which includes the City Council, City Manager, Chief, Officers, Firefighters, Paramedics and EMTs; and, WHEREAS, the Pasco Fire Department is required by state law (SHB 1756, laws of 2005) to establish turnout and response time goals for various emergency responses; and, WHEREAS, the Pasco Fire Department has developed written response coverage objectives requited to comply with applicable provisions of SHB 1756; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves Vic attached Response Standards as the Pasco Fire Department policy for determining resource deployment for emergency medical, fire and rescue services; and, This resolution was adopted at a regularly scheduled publ'c meeting of the City of Pasco City Council for City of Pasco Fire Department on this 3/ $ r day of February, 2006. et-/ Joyc Ism Mayor ATT T: Sandy KenwQAhq, Deputy City lark APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney ID ASCO FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE STANDARDS 1. Mission Statement The Pasco Fire Department's mission is to provide rapid mitigation of fire, rescues, hazardous materials and medical emergencies with compassion, integrity, and respect for the people we serve. To be the premier provider of public safety services, utilizing our people as the critical resource to accomplish our goals. II. Response Standards The following standards represent the minimum desired service level for the respective emergency response services provided by the Fire Department. Affected managers shall deploy appropriated resources so as to best achieve the standards set forth herein. A. TURNOUT: A turn out time of two (2) minutes, which the department should meet 85% of the time. All firefighting safety equipment must be donned before the vehicle can leave the station for a fire response. B. FIRST ENGINE ARRIVAL: A response/travel time (after turnout) of six (6) minutes for the arrival of the first engine company (at least two (2) firefighters) to a fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 85% of the time. C. FIRST FULI, ALARM ARRIVAL: A response/travel time (after turnout) of twelve (12) minutes for the arrival of the full complement of a 0 alarm response to a fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 85% of the time. "Full complement" means at least two (2) engine companies (trucks) with associated firefighters and one (1) command officer. D. BLS AMBULANCE ARRIVAL: A response/travel time (after turnout) of six (6) minutes/seconds for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with at least one (1) EMT on board to an emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 85% of the time. E. ALS AMBULANCE ARRIVAL: A response/travel time (after turnout) of six (6) minutes for the arrival of an advanced life support unit with at least one (1) paramedic on board to an ALS emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 85% of the time. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: A responscltravel time (after turnout) of six (6) minutes for the arrival of the first unit with at least one (1) appropriately trained Hazardous Materials Technician on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 85% of the time. PASCO FIRE DEPARTMENT RFS'PONSE STANDARDS G. TECHNICAL RESCUE. INCIDENT: A response/travel time (after turnout) of six (6) minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 85% of the time. H. AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING: A total response/travel time of three (3) minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel on board to the site of an aircraft incident, which the department should meet 100' of the time (required standard of FAA). J. WILD LAND FIREFIGHTING: A response/travel time (after turnout) of six (6) minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped wild land firefighting personnel on board to a wild land fire incident, which the department should meet 85% of the time. HI, ANNUAL REPORT The Fire Chief shall report the department's performance relative to these standards to the City Manager and City Council annually. February 2006 10 Standards of Response Performance Measurement Definition: Call processing is the measurement of time from when the 911 call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) until appropriate units are notified to respond. This performance standard is not a Washington State required performance measurement but is included here to more clearly define the total time involved in a response. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard for call processing is 60 seconds, 90% of the time. The Franklin County Communications Center met the 60 second performance 40.4% of the time. 90% of the dispatches were processed in 141 seconds or less. 90% Call Processing 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 120 138 153 154 141 11 Definition: The time after notification to the fire department of the incident to the start of vehicles response to the incident (wheels rolling). Turnout Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a turn out time standard of 2 minutes, which the department should meet 90 % of the time. All firefighting safety eq uipment must be donned before the vehicle can leave the station for a fire response. Actual Department Performance for 2013 The Pasco Fire Department met the Turnout Performance Objective 85.2% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:14 minutes or less. 90% Turnout Time 2009 2010 20111 2012 2013 256 2:44 2:30 2:22 2:14 12 Fire SupUression Travel Time for Ist Arriving Engine Definition: Travel time for the arrival of the first arriving engine company at a fire suppression incident. Travel time starts after turnout when wheels are rolling and ends upon arrival at the incident. Travel Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 6 minutes for the arrival of the first engine company to a fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90 % of the time. Actual Department Performance for 201 The Pasco Fire Department met the Travel Time Performance Objective 87.6% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced a 1st unit travel time of 6:25 minutes or less. 90% Fire SuDDression Response Time fnr 1St Arrivina F.nainP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 6:16 6:19 6:04 6:17 6:25 13 Travel f Response time for the deployment of a full first alarm assignment at a fire suppression incident Definition: The total number of personnel and equipment the fire department has recognized as the minimum needed to combat a fire in a single family residence. We measured the travel time for only those incidents that we were able to assemble the required number of personnel. Incidents that we were not able to assemble the minimum number of personnel were not used in the time performance measurement. Response Time Standard for Full ist Alarm Response: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a response travel time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the full complement of a 15t alarm assignment to a fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 990% of the time. Further, the Pasco Fire Department has adopted a in alarm response of 11 firefighters and or 2 engine companies (if applicable), 2 aid units, 1 ladder truck and 1 Command Officer (if applicable). Actual Department Performance for 2013 The Pasco Fire Department met the standard of 11 or more personnel arriving on scene in 12 minutes or less 67% for residential structure fires where 11 or more personnel were initially dispatched. The 90th percentile for 11 or more arriving was 15:17. Full First Alarm Assignment % of Response Travel meeting 90% goal of 11 Firefighters in 12:00 minutes 2009 1 2010 1 2011 2012 1 2013 45.65% 1 81.8% 1 78.95% 1 87.5% 1 67% 14 Emergecv Medical Services Travel Time Basic Life Support Definition: Travel time for the arrival of the first arriving unit with a first responder or higher level capability at an emergency medical incident. Travel Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard time of 6 minutes for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with appropriately trained personnel on board to an emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Performance for 2013 The Pasco Fire Department met the Emergency Medical Services, Basic Life Support Performance Objective 903% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced an Emergency Medical Services travel time of 5.58 minutes or less. 90% Emergency Medical BLS Travel Time 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 6:39 6:10 6:07 6:00 5.58 15 Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Advanced Life Support Definition: Travel time for the arrival of an advanced life support unit to an emergency medical incident, where this service is provided by the fire department. Travel Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 6 minutes for the arrival of an advanced life support (ALS) unit with appropriately trained personnel (paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency medical incident within the city limits, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Performance for 2013 The Pasco Fire Department met the Emergency Medical Services Performance, Advanced Life Support Objective 90% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced an Emergency Medical Services travel time of 5.54 minutes or less. 90% EmerEencv Medical ALS Travel Time 2009 2010 2011 2013 3013 6:40 6:11 6:03 6:01 5:54 16 Hazardous Materials Travel Time Definition: Travel time for the arrival of the first arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Level "A" Technicians on board at a hazardous materials incident, where this service is provided by the fire department. Travel Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 6 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained Hazardous Materials Technicians on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 % of the time. Actual Department Performance for 2013 The Pasco Fire Department met the Hazardous Material Response time Performance Objective 100% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced a Hazardous Materials travel time of 5:08 minutes or less. 90% Hazardous Material Travel Time 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 4:06 4:44 9:00 5:58 5:08 17 Technical Rescue Travel Time Definition: Travel time for the arrival of the first arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technicians on board at the technical rescue incident, where this service is provided by the fire department. A. Travel Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 6 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped personnel on board to a Technical Rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Performance for 2013 The Pasco Fire department met the Technical rescue performance objective 100% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced a Technical Rescue travel time of 4:59 minutes or less. 90% Technical Rescue Travel Time 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 3:54 7:23 6 :51 6:52 4:59 18 Aircraft Rescue and Firefijhtingy Turnout and Travel Time Definition: Turnout and Travel time for the arrival of the first arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board at an aircraft incident, where this service is provided by the fire department. Travel Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a turnout and travel time standard of 3 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to an aircraft incident, which the department should meet 100% of the time. This standard is adopted to meet Federal Aviation Administration requirements, 14 CFR Parts 121 and 139. Actual Department Performance for 2013 The Pasco Fire Department met the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting performance Objective 83.3% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced an Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting travel time of 2:54 minutes or less. 90% Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Turnout and Travel Time 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1:23 3:52 2:37 1:37 F 2:54 19 Wildland Firefighting Response Time Definition: Travel time for the arrival of the first arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Wildland Firefighting personnel on board at a wild fire incident, where this service is provided by the fire department. Travel Time Standard: The Pasco Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 6 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Wildland Firefighting personnel on board to a wildland fire incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Performance for 201 The Pasco Fire Department met the Wildland Firefighting Performance objective, 81.1% of the time. 90% of the fire department incidents experienced a Wildland Firefighting response time of 6:25 minutes or less. 90% Wildland Response Time 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 5:53 5:26 6:59 5:46 6:25 20 Predictable Results The 2013 call volume decreased approximately 1.3% under 2012. This can be directly attributed to the reduction of ambulance services to Franklin County Fire District U. In 2012 we provided fire and ambulance mutual aid to FD #3 197 times while in 2013 we only assisted them 39 times. Reducing the total response time, which is call processing, turnout and travel, continues to be a goal of the fire department. Call processing continues to far exceed the national standard of 60 seconds. Turnout times were reduced again following the previous year's trends and are directly contributable to the efforts of the fire department staff. Travel times for medical calls reduced a very small amount while fire travel times increased again slightly. Reducing travel times significantly will require the addition of a fourth fire station in the south central area of the city. Modest reductions of travel time and improved firefighter and civilian safety can be achieved with traffic signal pre - emption. This project is moving into the implementation stages. Assembling our full effective force for a building fire continues to be a problem. The most significant issue is the use of two communications centers to dispatch the full effective force and the time delays associated with this. The larger and more visible the fire the more 911 calls generated and the longer it takes for a dispatcher to call the other dispatch center and request units be dispatched. Other major issues facing the fire department continue to be ongoing costs to maintain and replace equipment and apparatus, and an aging work force. The total costs to replace ambulance and fire apparatus continues to escalate, being driven by safety and technology changes. To a great degree the safety and technology changes results in a shorter service life as well as increased purchase costs. Fortunately, apparatus replacement funding was put into place many years ago and has helped budget for those expenses. The second major issue, an aging work force, is having a significant impact on our daily staffing through increased use of sick leave and disability. The addition of the variable "D" shift has reduced the overtime costs however; it's a challenge to hire and train personnel in a timely manner. Extensive use of the lateral hiring process allows us to utilize the individual in 6 to 8 weeks compared to 6 months for an untrained individual. 21 Travel Time Compliance Map 22 ° 1 a + :u � @ : ED W-Q ! . won L s mp- lu 2013 FIRE RESPONSE TIMES 2013 FIRE RESPONSE TIMES 90 %- 100 % UNDER 6MIN [� 70 %- 69.99 %UNDER6MIN 0% -68.99 %UNDER6MIN 22 Call Distribution ..W bbi e e F1 PASCO FIRE DEPARTMENT - 2013 TOTAL CALLS BY FMZ 25 CALLS OR LESS O 25 -75 CALLS ® 70- INCAUS _ 100CALLSORMORE ,t {ly9p V 1_ 23 Plan of Action The city will continue to face challenges in order to maintain and /or reduce response times. The expected growth in population and land area will impact our ability to maintain response times. The following goals are developed to decrease the impact in a systematic and fiscally responsible way. Call Processing • Maintain the goal of processing calls within 60 seconds 90% of the time. • Implement automated dispatching as soon as practical. Turnout Times • Develop alternative methods of fire station alerting that provides for the shortest alert processing. • Continue the past efforts by firefighting staff to reduce turnout times. • Continue efforts to provide reliable, updated, mobile data terminal maps. • Proceed with "vehicle routing' upgrade on the MDT's to reduce or eliminate the time spent looking at the wall map prior to responding. Travel Time • Plan for future station locations that cover concentrations of "yellow" and "red" response areas. • Implement Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) as a dispatch method to allow for the dispatch of the closest available unit. • Complete upgrade of intersection signals to provide emergency vehicle pre- emption. Full Effective Response Force • Regionalize PSAP and communications centers to maximize automatic aid responses. 24 2013 RESULTS TABLE ] —n ATTACHMENT B Response Number of Adopt¢dTwnouts Actiml _ •Y Percent •'• Adoped ,s Achul um Percent Adopted Arnml Percent Type Responses Smndard Performance Meeting IV Performance Meeting in Fun Standard Meeting (Minutes) (Minutes) Standard Arrival (MWums) Standard Arrival Performance Standard Travel T.rl (Minutes) Inams Minutes Fire Suppression Response (NFIR9 100. 281 2:00 3:00 55.6% 6:00 6:25 87.6% 12:00 15:17 67% 199) Flrst Arriving Medical Unit(RIS or A(S) 3,236 2:00 2:00 90.2% 6:00 5:58 90.3% N/A N/A N/A F1rstA lving AISUnit 2,643 2:00 2:00 90.7% 600 5:54 91% N/A N/A N/A Messedaw Mamrlol 10 2:00 2:23 67% 600 593 90.9% N/A N/A N/A Technical Rescue 2 2:00 1:54 66.7% 6:00 4:59 100% N/A N/A N/A ARFF 6 N/A N/A N/A 3:00 2:34 83.3% N/A N/A ry/p WUdlaOd 37 2:00 3:10 61.2% 6:00 5:25 01.1% N/A 8,810 meson 8,810 3¢911 alarms 2:00 2:14 85.2% 6:00 6:09 88.9% N/A N/A N/A 25 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Gary Crutchfie MManager SUBJECT: Water Resources Action Plan I. REFERENCE(S): Water Resources Action Plan — Proposed Resolution May 23, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 Regular Mtg.: 6/2/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: Discussion 6/2: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , establishing a Water Resources Action Plan. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Council adopted the Water Resources Management Plan in April and directed that an action plan be prepared for Council approval. The purpose of the action plan is to ensure active pursuit of the objectives outlined in the Management Plan, all of which collectively aim to optimize the city's use of its limited water rights for continued growth and development of the city. V. DISCUSSION: A) The action plan reflected in the proposed resolution addresses the key categories of recommendations within the Management Plan and focuses on those that can reasonably be accomplished within the next two years. The most notable of the first -year effort will be the feasibility of extending irrigation water to the Riverview Heights /Desert Plateau neighborhoods; if that can be accomplished, such an effort could restore an estimated 500 acre feet of potable water rights for the city water system. Over the second year, the most important effort will be the perfection of all irrigation rights as well as the transfer of the 935 acre feet of irrigation rights to the potable system. B) Staff recommends Council approval of the proposed action plan. 4(g) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION establishing a Water Resources Action Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Water Resources Management Plan by Resolution 3540 and directed the City Manager to prepare an action plan for immediate and short-term steps to be taken to implement said management plan; and WHEREAS, the City Manager, after considering the objectives of the Management Plan and the resources available to implement the plan, recommend certain actions be taken over the course of the next two years to achieve certain goals of the plan; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all appropriate administrative actions necessary to effect the following action plan for management of the city's water resources: a. Within the next year: i. Revise city ordinances to require compensation for consumption of city water rights by residential development outside the city. ii. Complete a ground water well inventory to document existing wells within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. iii. Evaluate the feasibility and cost/benefit of extending the city's irrigation water system to the Riverview Heights/Desert Plateau neighborhoods. iv. Complete perfection of all existing irrigation water rights. v. Incorporate the 01 Avenue sod pilot test results into city project standards as the preferred turf option for city projects reliant on the potable water system. b. Within two years: i. Convert all city irrigation water rights to "municipal use." ii. Transfer 935 acre feet of surface water irrigation rights to domestic (potable) use. iii. Develop xeriscape or dry landscape alternatives for use in appropriate city projects reliant on the potable water system. Section 2. The City Manager shall report at least annually to the City Council as to progress in accomplishing the action plan above. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this day of 2014. CITY OF PASCO: Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Gary Crutchfie 't , anager SUBJECT: Water Rights F! I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Water Rights Fee — Proposed Ordinance 2. Water Rights Fee — Water Market Value Report May 22, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 Regular Mtg.: 6/2/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/22: Discussion 6/2: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , revising the Water Rights Fee and requiring assignment of water rights for development outside the city. III. FISCAL IMPACT: See below. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The city has spent about 15 years working diligently with Ecology to erase the water rights deficit created by the combined forces of "no new water rights" from the state during a period of extraordinary growth in the community. With the issuance of the Quad Cities Water Rights permit a few years ago, and the recent commitment of 4,500 acre feet of new water rights from the state, the deficit is now gone. However, continued growth will increase demand for more water rights over time and the city may well need to acquire more water rights to accommodate the future growth. B) The city has, since 2002, required any new subdivision within the city to assign any water rights associated with the subdivision site. A factor not addressed in the 2002 ordinance is the effect of individual connections to the city's system by properties outside the city (i.e., the "donut hole "). Most homes built in the donut hole are on property served by Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) and, therefore, require only the domestic (in- house) consumption; this factor is generally fixed at three- tenths (0.3) acre feet per residence. If, however, such a property is not served by FCID or other reliable irrigation source, it could consume as much as 3.5 feet of water per acre for the irrigated portion of the property. This circumstance would present an even greater effect on the city's limited water rights. For example, a half -acre parcel irrigated with city potable water would consume nearly one -acre foot of water rights, in addition to the .3 /acre feet for the in -house use. C) hi addition to the exposure for the donut hole, there is growing expectation for subdivisions in the northwest portion of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) but outside the city. The city cannot place conditions on plats outside the city, but can require compliance with its utility system rules. As new subdivisions occur outside the city but within the UGA, the city's water system rules should include the requirement to offset the expected effect on its limited water rights that would occur as the associated new homes connect to the city's system. That offset could occur in two ways. One is for the developer to assign any water rights associated with the property to the city. The other method is to require each lot owner to pay the fee in lieu of assignment of water rights at the time the home is built. 4(h) V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed ordinance creates the obligation for any residential connection outside the city to pay for its reduction of the city's limited water rights. In addition, it establishes the requirement that any subdivision outside the city connecting to the city's water system likewise offset its effect on the city's water rights, either by assignment of its water rights or payment of a fee in lieu of assignment (or a combination of both). B) The amount of the fee in lieu must reflect "market value" of the water rights being consumed. The city recently contracted with the Pacific Northwest Project (Darryll Olsen, Ph.D.) to establish the current market value of water rights. Dr. Olson's advice is to use $1,725 per acre foot (this is the price the city should expect to pay if it is to acquire a water right). Thus, a typical single family dwelling would be required to pay a fee of $517 (.3 acre feet x $1,725) for in- house use. If irrigation is dependent on using the city's potable system, an additional fee would be required; it would be calculated based on the lot size and use an irrigation factor of 50% (assumes at least 50% of the lot can be irrigated). As an example, a 10,000 square foot lot would require a fee of $690 for the irrigation element (10,000 sf _ 43560 sf = 0.2296 ac x .50 = 0.1148 ac x 3.5 of = .40 of x $1,725 of = $690). C) The proposed ordinance will clearly establish the requirement that residential connections to the city's water system outside the city compensate the system for the consumption of limited water rights. It also establishes a current market value for the fee. Staff recommends Council approval of the proposed ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Creating a New Section 13.16.012 "Connection Outside City Limits - Water Rights "; amending Section 13.36.070 entitled "Assignment of Water Rights - Extension of Water Services Beyond City Limits "; Creating a New Section 13.36.075 "Installation of Irrigation Lines - Extension of City Water Service Beyond City Limits'; and amending Section 3.07.160 n "Water Rights Acquisition Fee - per acre." WHEREAS, the City of Pasco requires as a condition of extension of City water service beyond City limits that property owners or developers assign and transfer water rights to the City that are appurtenant to such property, or alternatively to pay a water rights acquisition fee; and WHEREAS, the rapid growth of the City has created increased demands for City water not only within the City, but also within the developing area around the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has commissioned the preparation of a Water Resources Plan for the purpose of establishing a Plan that most efficiently uses the City's existing water resources, assets and its domestic and irrigation rights; and providing for water rights to be included in all new developments brought into the City, as well as increase in the use of non- potable water for irrigation, easing the demand for potable water use; and to provide for the acquisition and more efficient use of water rights; and WHEREAS, the City has been required to secure additional water rights and will need to secure additional water rights to meet the present and anticipated future demand for potable water; and WHEREAS, the City has secured a Water Market Value /Acquisition Cost Study demonstrating the increase of costs of water rights, together with the present valuation to determine the costs of acquiring the necessary water rights required to serve future development; and WHEREAS, in order to insure that new water connections outside of the City limits do not deplete the City's water rights and provide the City with adequate funds to purchase water rights needed to supply water connections outside the City limits, the procedures and costs need to be more fully defined; and WHEREAS, the City has by its own investigation and demonstrated by the Water Market Value/Acquisition Cost Analysis, determined that a significant difference in consumption of potable water is evident between those residential connections that are served by an outside irrigation water source and those that are not so served; therefore, it is reasonable to adopt different water rights transfer or fee -in -lieu requirements for those new water users outside the city who utilize potable water for irrigation and those who have an alternate source of irrigation water available. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a new Section 13.16.012 entitled "Connection Outside City Limits - - Water Rights" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: 13.16.012 CONNECTION OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS - - WATER RIGHTS. Any application for a new water service connection to serve real property located outside the City limits of the City of Pasco, except for those properties for which water rights, or payment in lieu of water rights, have been received by the City pursuant to PMC 13.36.070, shall be conditioned upon the transfer to the City of water rights associated with the property; or, if such water rights are not available or are inadequate to meet the water needs of the property to be served, upon payment to the City of a water right acquisition fee in lieu of transfer, determined as follows: A) Amount of Water Rights or Payment in Lieu. The amount of transferred water rights or the fee in lieu of transfer pursuant to this section and Section 13.36.070 shall be sufficient to serve the number of residential units supplied by the connection for in -house domestic water service and irrigation water service sufficient to cover fifty percent (50 %) of the lot or parcel of real property to be served by the water connection. (1) Irrigation Water Service Available. If the property to be served by the City is located within and served by the Franklin County Irrigation District, or other public or private irrigation provider acceptable to the City for landscaping irrigation purposes, the property shall continue to be served by the District or other irrigation provider and the applicant for water service shall only be required to transfer three tenths (0.3) acre -foot of water rights per residential unit or its equivalent, or provide a payment in lieu for said quantity as directed by Subsection C below. (2) Irrigation Water Service Unavailable. If the property to be served by the City is not included within or served by the Franklin County Irrigation District or other public or private irrigation water provider acceptable to the City for landscaping irrigation purposes, the applicant for water service shall be required to transfer three tenths (0.3) acre -foot of water rights per residential unit or its equivalent and in addition, three and one -half (3.5) acre -feet per year per acre of irrigable land or fraction thereof, or provide a payment in lieu for said quantity as provided in Section 3.07.160 1). The requirement relating to irrigable land cannot be waived on the basis that the current owner or developer does not plan to irrigate said land. B) Excess Water Rights. To the extent the water rights associated with the subject property exceed the anticipated water requirement for the subject property as determined pursuant subsection A, the City in its sole discretion may require the owner(s) of the subject property to transfer any amount of the excess water rights to the City and the City shall pay the owner(s) of the excess water rights transferred to the City an amount representing the market value of the excess water rights as determined by subsection C, subject to the right of administrative appeal as provided in Chapter 1.17 PMC. Water Rights — Page 2 C) Determination of Market Value for Payment in Lieu. The market value of water rights shall be determined periodically by the City Engineer, but not less frequently than every five (5) years, based upon a water rights market study or similar investigation of the fair market value of perfected water rights that can be transferred to the City. D) Security for Water Right Transfers. Because the process for transferring water rights to the City may involve applications to the Department of Ecology or a water conservancy board and are subject to various legal standards and factual investigations over which the City has no control, the City shall require security in the form of a performance bond, deposit, or assignment of account in an amount equal to the payment in -lieu transfer as provided in Subsection A above, in the event that the water right transfer is not successful. In the event the water right transfer is not approved, the security will be forfeited in satisfaction of the obligation as provided in this Section. E) Process. Costs and Forms Required for Transfer of Water Rijzhts. If there are water rights appurtenant to the subject property, they shall be assigned and transferred to the City using forms approved by the City Attorney together with the water rights transfer fee required by PMC 3.07.160 I) for that purpose, including but not limited to the following: water right transfer agreement, assignment of water right permit, conveyance of water right claim or certificate (deed), application to change water rights, and bond, deposit, or assignment of account to secure payment in lieu of water rights if transfer of the water rights is not approved. The applicant shall pay the Water Rights Transfer Fee as provided in PMC 3.07.160 I), and shall provide the City with documentation of the validity of the water right as requested by the City Engineer. If there are no water rights appurtenant to the subject property, the applicant shall pay only the Water Rights Acquisition Fee in lieu of water rights. Section 2. That Section 13.36.070 entitled "ASSIGNMENT OF WATER RIGHTS - - EXTENSION OF CITY WATER SERVICES BEYOND CITY LIMITS" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 13.36.070 ASSIGNMENT OF WATER RIGHTS - - EXTENSION OF CITY WATER SERVICES BEYOND CITY LIMITS. A) As a condition for the extension of a City water main beyond the City limits as a primary source of City water for potable or irrigation used uses within a residential subdivision or other development any property owner or developer of such property shall assign and transfer to the City any certificate, permit or claim to a water right for the withdrawal of ground or surface waters, or such other water rights as may be appurtenant to such property including exempt well water rights, in the quantity and manner set forth in Section 13.16.012. .. suffieieflt iffigation water serAees previded tmder a pei:feeted water right from a Gity appmved Water Rights - Page 3 B) In the event there are no water rights pefinit "'" appurtenant to the real property defined in Section A) above, the property owner or developer shall pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights acquisition fee as established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance, Chapter 3.07, or won appropriate notice recorded with the real property subject to development defer payment in lieu to the time of application for connection of the new water service serving real property as provided by PMC 13.16.012. This water right acquisition fee shall be in addition to any other water rates or charges as established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance Chapter 3.07. saeh fee may be waived by implementation ef a soil additive pregmm, a"r-eved by the Direeter ef Publi Works, that pfeNides for the referAien of 3 0% or mere of the a"fied i1vigatien water. C) Excess Water Rights. To the extent the water rights associated with the subject property exceed the anticipated water requirement for the subject property. the City, in its sole discretion, may require the owners of the subject pLoperty to transfer any amount of excess water rights to the City, and the City shall pay the owners of the excess water rights transferred to the City an amount representing the market value of the excess water as determined pursuant to PMC 13.16.012(C), subiect to the right of administrative appeal as provided in Chanter 1.17 PMC. (Ord. 3795, 2006; Ord. 3547 Sec. 1, 2002.) Section 3. That a new Section 13.36.075 entitled "Assignment of Water Rights - - Installation of hrigation Lines" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is adopted and shall read as follows: 13.36.075 ASSIGNMENT OF WATER RIGHTS - - INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION LINES. As a condition of permitting the extension of City water main lines beyond the City limits for the purpose of division or development of real property for residential use not served by an existing irrigation water provider, the property owner or developer of such property shall provide such necessary easements, as approved by the Director of Public Works, or his designee, for the location of irrigation service components, and install irrigation service main lines to provide the availability of irrigation water to each lot to be created by the division or subdivision of land or benefitted by the extension of the City water mains prior to the approval of any application for a new water service connection to the property. In the event the irrigation water services are not available for connection to the irrigation lines required above, such lines shall be tested, sealed, and buried with the ends clearly marked to facilitate their connection when irrigation water services are available. Section 4. That Section 3.07.160 I), entitled "WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION FEE - PER ACRE" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be amended and shall read as follows: Fee /Charge Reference I) Water Rights Acquisition Fee - per acre foot $1,725.00 13.36.070(B) 26.040.115(B) 1) Base Water Rights Acquisition Fee ($1,725.00 per acre foot x potable use Water Rights — Page 4 factor .30 = $517.50 per residential unit). 2) Potable Water Irrigation Fee (no irrigation water available ) shall be equal to 50% of the area of the lot or parcel to be served expressed in acres or portions of acres. x 3.5 acre feet of water x $1.725.00 (per acre foot) 3) Water Rights Transfer Fee $1,000.000. (Ord. 4139, 2014; Ord. 3961, 2010; Ord. 3827, 2007; Ord. 3693, 2004; Ord. 3655, 2004; Ord. 3610, 2003; Ord. 3575,2002; Ord. 3553, 2002; Ord. 3543, 2002.) Section 5. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law, whichever shall last occur. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this _ day of 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor Attest: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Water Rights — Page 5 Pacific Northwest Project Technical Memorandum DATE: May 15, 2014 TO: Mr. Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Pasco, Washington FROM: Darryll Olsen, Ph.D., Resource Economist/Regional Planner' SUBJECT: Water Market Values for the City of Pasco and Mid - Columbia Region, And Some Water Use Factors Associated with Residential Use Markets for Water: Water Market Values /Acquisition Costs For the City of Pasco And Mid - Columbia Region 3030 W. Clearwater, Suite 205 -4 Kennewick, WA, 99336 509- 783 -1623, FAX 509 -735 -3140 DOIsenEconC&AOL. com 1 Darryll Olsen, Ph.D., is WSU Adjunct Professor for Water Resources Economics and Management (ESRP -490 -590), and serves as Chairman of the Benton County Water Conservancy Board and Board Representative for the Columbia -Snake River Irrigators Association. He has 30 -years of experience in Western U.S. Water Resources Economics and Management. I I P a g e Capital Value Determination - Recommendation: • Given present water market conditions, the City of Pasco should expect to pay about $1,725/acre-ft. (2014$), for full ownership of a surface water right from the Mainstem Columbia -Snake River system. This would be an unencumbered water right not affected by additional state mitigation conditions or other long -term lease arrangements; nor would it be interruptive under a junior water right status? • The $1,725/acre-ft. value also should be viewed as the upper -end value range for other types of water rights, including long-term lease rights (permits) that would include some direct capital values, with mitigation costs and/or OM &R costs (such as U.S. Bureau of Reclamation costs). • The most recent Columbia River water right issued by the Office of Columbia River - Ecology retained a direct capital price of $1,500/acre-ft. (2013$), with additional OCR mitigation costs of $351acre -ft, per year, for 40 -years (constant 2013$). Taking into account private sector discounting, this represents about another $650 /acre -ft, in net present value terms' • All factors considered, including new water supply cost estimates, it is recommended that the direct net capital value included in future City water allocations be set at $1,725/acre -ft. (2014$). This conveys futurelnear -tom► marginal water costs, given uncertainty surrounding ownership- mitigation provisions and an unpredictable regulatory environment. Water Market Value Review - Discussion: Water market transactions effectively measure the marginal values or capital costs for current - future water supply. There has been, and is, an active water market in the Mid - Columbia Region, largely brought about by water code modifications to RCW 90.030.380 and the formation of Water Conservancy Boards (RCW 90.80), in the late 1990s and 2001; and the growing demand for new water supply. In the Mid - Columbia Region, most of the water change /transfers of relevance have been under the jurisdiction of the Water Conservancy Boards, and many transactions involve the sale and purchase of water rights. This market activity defines the willingness -to -pay for water, and is usually measured in terms of dollarslacre -ft. This value is the direct net value for water, or the capital cost for water, for the City of Pasco. • During the 2010 -11 period, the Columbia -Snake River Irrigators Association ( CSRIA) documented several water market transactions (see attached January 23, 2012, Technical Memorandum). From this review, it could be observed that the overall range of water market values was about $1,000.1,500 /acre -ft., depending on water right condition. The CSRIA viewed $1,250 to be a reasonable mid -point value estimate. z Water rights regulated under WAC 173 -563 are interruptive under extreme low flows, but RCW 90.90 does provide for partial mitigation for interruptive, junior water rights. 4 This present value could be financially acknowledged as either part of the direct capital costs or assessed as part of the long -term annual O &MR associated with the water right ownership and water distribution. 2 1 P a g e More recently in 2012.2014, the CSRIA and local Water Conservancy Boards have managed or facilitated several water market transactions, including some of those identified in Table 1. Most of these transactions have involved agriculture4o- agriculture water purchases, where the buyer has usually "moved the water" to a higher value crops and engaged in high - efficiency, water spreading practices.` For irrigated agriculture, the marginal value of water is highly dependent on the annual direct net returns to irrigated land, capitalized over time.' For the municipal sector, the marginal value of water is often a function of the marginal value of water for irrigated agriculture, where available. The marginal value of municipal water supply is equal to or greater than the marginal value of agricultural water. • In Table 1, the marginal value (willingness -to -pay) for several 2012.2014 water market transactions amounts to about $1,500 /acre -ft. This is for surface water transactions within the Mainstem or tributary water moving into the Mainstem. The transactions have been for both permanent capital acquisition and long -term leases (20- years). The CSRIA also has made a recent "Markets for Water" solicitation for Mainstem - tributary surface water rights. The public solicitation documented a willingness -to -pay at $1,750 /acre -ft., for April 2014 (see attached CSRIA "Markets for Water" solicitation). The results from this RFP yielded little available water, and identified market concerns that the current water code provisions related to water right relinquishment would constrict existing water rights subject to "de facto" relinquishment (under the administrative adjudication process involved in water right changettransfers). • The most recent Columbia River irrigation water right issued by the Office of Columbia River - Ecology revealed a indirect capital price of $1,500 /acre -ft. (2013$), with additional OCR mitigation costs of $351acre -ft. per year, for 40 -years (constant 2013$). Taking into account private sector discounting, this represents about another $600. 700 /acre -ft in net present value terms' • The OCR- Ecology also is allocating new Columbia River Mainstem municipal- industrial (M &I) water rights under long -term lease agreements with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Lake Roosevelt release water under RCW 90.90 structure). Per the lease terms, the new permits are roughly equivalent to about $700 /acre -ft., capital value (PV). New applications are being received by OCR- Ecology. Where the new M &I applications can be reassigned and transferred, there exists some capability to acquire a permit (application) under a reduced capital cost, and pay the associated lease costs over time. As depicted in Table 2, this scenario would be about ' This practice is best described at CSRIA.org, at "Conservation O &M Program Implementation." 5 The present value of annual returns based on a conventional commercial loan period and discount /interest rates. This present value could be financially acknowledged as either part of the direct capital costs or received as part of the long -term annual O &MR associated with the water right ownership and water distribution. Tables 2 and 3 provide ranges for capitalized and annualized values. 3 1 P a g e $1,300, with capital and lease present value included. The advantage here is that the permit (application) is immediately secured without having to enter into the new permit application process. Table 1 also includes some limited transactions for groundwater and groundwater -to- surface water transactions. This typically involves relatively small water quantities (Qa) and unique physical circumstances. The documented transactions here reflect about $2,500 /acre -ft. • In the tributaries, the state has recently introduced some water banking transfers directed toward exempt well and small residential developments, displaying costs above $2,5001acre -ft. But these "water banks" are highly regulated markets, invoke hyper - regulatory burdens, and are becoming less desirable for water purchasers and regulators! Separate from water right market transactions, replacement value or alternative costs also determine marginal water values —for inclusion in benefit -cost analyses and least cost water supply demand curves. Currently, Office of Columbia River -WA and the Water Resources Department -OR are reviewing a Water Release Contract tied to the construction of a new British Columbia hydro -water supply project (FortisBC, Similkameen Project). The present capital cost estimate for new water releases, for water right mitigation under RCW 90.90, is about $1,725.1,7501acre -ft.B The impact of changing regulatory circumstances should be acknowledged. Given a long- term marginal cost perspective, there is some risk to taking for granted that the current — reasonably favorable — regulatory climate will remain unaltered. State administrative changes, policy changes, and/or future litigation actions could affect new water supplies and the current process for water right changettransfers. This risk factor would argue for setting the City's capital costs at the higher end of the market value range. • All factors considered, including new water supply cost estimates, it is recommended that the direct net capital value included in future /near -term City water allocations be set at $1,725/acre-ft. (2014$). This conveys futurelnear -term marginal water values (costs), given uncertainty surrounding ownership - mitigation provisions and an unpredictable regulatory environment. Other Related Water Transfer - Allocation Factors: • Future water values are difficult to predict, but some of the most recent estimates for the real escalation of water values (40 -year period) are at about 2.5% annually, in real dollars' This suggests that future water supply costs will "lead" general inflation costs. ' The Benton County Commission has rejected the water banking scheme applied in the Upper Yakima River Basin. 8 This Water (Storage) Release Contract is subject to further review and environmental assessment, but the $1,725 /acre -ft. value has been accepted by CSRIA members for new, large blocks of water right mitigation water. 9 Real escalation rates are escalation rates above nominal inflation. The above real escalation rate was applied to the benefit -cost analysis for the Odessa Subarea surface water supply review (CSRIA.org), and for the Lake Powell Pipeline project in Southern Utah (Utah Dept. of Water Resources, 2012 -13, web site). 41 Page Transaction costs related to water right purchases and changettransfers vary greatly. These costs include due diligence to verify the right eligible for changeltransfer, public notice and administrative processing fees, and legal fees (if any). The predominant cost range is about $1,000 to $12,000 per change /transfer. Buyer transaction costs have been reduced by requiring the seller to complete water right due diligence verification, by the greater review standardization provided by the Water Conservancy Boards, and by the availability of numerous water right consultants. Most transfers do require annual consumptive quantity (ACQ) analyses, per RCW 90.03.380. Transaction costs are properly allocated to capital costs. The water duties (consumptive use) applicable for general residential and secondary (irrigation) are roughly within the 260.350 gpolhousehold range for potable water, and at least 800 gpcUhousehold with minimal residential irrigation needs (exempt well "six- pack" example). Water duties for turf in the Mid - Columbia area are at about 3.50.3.80 acre - ftJacre, with application efficiency losses included.10 Other, local water purveyor irrigation allocations (for turf) are based on about 3.5 acre - ftJacre —such as allotments by the Kennewick Irrigation District and Badger Mt. Irrigation District. For Pasco, future residential water allocation estimates should be based on the City's current empirical water use data, tempered by prospective efficiency improvements for potable and residential irrigation use. But for general illustrative purposes, future capital costs for residential allocations —not including any treated water costs, delivery system costs, or basic 08M —could be within the below range: Per Per Residence Residence Single Family EsL Turf Irrigated Total Total Potable Use Residences (Adjusted Acre -ft. Acre-ft. $IAcre•ft. Net Capital (Acre-ft.) Per Acre Acres $/Residence 0.30 2 .38 1.33 1.52 $1,725 $2,812 0.30 4 .10 0.35 0.65 $1725 $1,121 As a capital cost, this cost could be included within a new impact fee. Also, all future water allocations should include metering estimates at the mainline, for irrigation purposes (where secondary distributions lines are installed). io Water duties for turf irrigation are based on AgWeatherNet.com, WSU, and Washington Irrigation Guide, WSU, estimates; and water application efficiencies used by the Benton - Franklin County Water Conservancy Boards and Conservation District. 51 Page TABLES V O N N N 0 .m a O V 'd m N J C W M w L CL CL m f O) K 3 d F C O m m a 0° c c m .0 r Y O C O. VJ D W 2 B v E m U o v m T= r IL a CL E mc d m V P O m z d GW an 0v " w a d P m mR $ D A O � m pp D C � m 0° � m ac V N Lo L L° m a c`o O a wo m a t a ° m T c E m v imams a m Y q w � i ; s ! i i a p;w: LL' N tV O p NI p app N v 1 o `p 3m `o sw gw Im m ® n a a E_ o e q z z a z r m • a Ia o o a EL rc c r$ a d d d .� « wm o w o E E o r IL a n n n o o S w E z Z, � a w a 2 z! qr Z e t 1 l t r e h' ti' .4 ' qm � �Qqf m m m q p w l w N w w a wbw & m ' I1 d a a n IL 12L ILL _ •L n �; n t n = a < u i am a Iv c° CO in ew m 'w a' o o v a_ a o ~ c di O a 0. m m iz d LL a I w 0 $AiV J 3 $ J� ° O d,0 m LL Q q Pl q O! N W W_ zN lV P C O m m a 0° c c m .0 r Y O C O. VJ D W 2 B v E m U o v m T= r IL a CL E mc d m V P O m z d GW an 0v " w a d P m mR $ D A O � m pp D C � m 0° � m ac V N Lo L L° m a c`o O a wo m a t a ° m T c E m v imams a m Y q w � m J e m m A N N s CL t W R Ls V A w a 0 W C R c LL V 0 0 W N d Q ICL f •fn+✓• T 1I b 1t1 l l� r ~ 40T i I i IN w N N N I ' ! N N I nlm N; i!w10 ��pp W I �mml0bb K NIw� I'N N NiN w _ I •t ?w �i 0 0 -L w'. Q b 010 oN b o 0 b b N O b W O b Z w N N4Wq a q, MNwwN I I 3 3 VI; I I I e 1p �> m- n' V N N boa p�{p pmp u I�� .y i .N � � �IPY:m b im� m I 140 40 W w 9 I i i I3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ ilia o o m o om°m�°o -�$ a II � I i j ! j i I > CIS d ???111 w Nw :$� wwwNw 411 U) to N N NIN N- � a _i p d jN.a N O I��yV lYla is oal f Ida O a C V,.. tlOi 1 j`, I , it I W 'cl � -.I I ; m 3C o`� .`e e e 'poo:jo� q, 0000, d m '00000 a a v ri u>', v v a v1a a b.Yf %10 Yl N c c m� I ;mom c a I ;sdC iC I I a �il j � I m o 0 0 m 3 - d d s. «iml i « m I i C m.m y I m E �mI m m: I y N 44 "i �p O O O� «IO..O O O!O O'OI yy lr I�r� dp ' 'O 8�0 Oj0 m, O O O O O! N 6: Z Q njm C A O. Z Q 1�'61O lbw Q 0 W o 0 O w z E Im c m B c 10 9 W w 00 O Im W m m a !9 0 c €a CL 0 p m N d a « 6 C O m � W t Q•, E m E m e c m c W $ 'E 0 m Ta V � m m W d C O.gym. m V •E c m .� W 'y� u o ' c « E O q No � v « c � o 7 � W O « 9 m 'o o. 'c z m a to r- c ; 0 a i o y « w w E > t O 0 L W a We E 19 m t r m p > .c ,oi L L L L C H H H F r aoie s. economic- i-manclai Evaluation for WRC and New Permit Obligations ,Acre R ___ Discount Rate - 1�g.00t� pV Value Acre 'annualized Capital 20 $1,116 _ 154,000 5 30% apital _ ._ 20, - 000 154, _- Annualized - Total - Tot LBhI€ Discount Rata - _._. Years 3.0% Value S /AII 20 gcre _ Annual Vali - 3.0% 20 $1,726 - -- 5 --- 201 1,500 3.0 °k 15 . - E726� - 154,000, $19,350,01 1500 .. _ ._ . 3 SX 4.0 %, `- 15 - --5130 51,165 - a 154 000 $20 '- 056,5! 1.500 - 4.0% 20 $135 .- -__. -_ __.. 154 000 -- $20,776,31 1,500 I 5 0 %- - -- 4.0 %. 15 - 5145 154,000 $22,255,01 -- - -- 3.0 4.0% - 15 $144 154,D00 154,0001 $22,262,51 1 ±726 - 3.5% - - 15 $1,831 $150 -_- 154,0001 $23,065,Dt 4 0% 4.0 %; 75 $155 27.00 164,000 - -- _ $23,892,8! 1,725 5 0 %i 15 $186 154,000 S25,593,3: 1500 -- 3.0% Y0I ._._ - 5101 154 ,000 -- - $15,52B,8i 1,500 3.5% -- . - _ -- _ 20 - - $106 _- 154.000 $16,253 4Q 1,500 40% - -: ij 2U +.. -- S110 . 154000 -_d __. $16,997,38 ! j . _ 3__ 0% __- _ 20 : -.- $116 154,000 -- -- $17,855'a 1,725 3.5% 20 f121 154,000 518,691,42 725 4.0% 20 -- $127 154,000 - $19,546,89 1,500 _ 3.0% 25 $86 154,000; $13,265,83 1,500 - -- 35 %, . _ 25 - S81 154,000, $14,015,70 1,500 4 0 %' 25 S96 154,000 - $14,785,76 1,725 __ __ 3 0% _.. 25 - $99 154 000 � _ $15,255,71 1,725 3.5% 25 $1051i _._. 154,000 516,118,05 1,725 - - 4.0% 25 -_ -- , 5110 i 154,000 $17,004.77 ublic Sector PereOective � - - et Present Value of Annual Paymen� $2014;) - -- - I nnual Payment j - - Total - TotaL Tefaf a ,Acre R ___ Discount Rate - 1�g.00t� pV Value Acre 20 $1,116 _ 154,000 5 30% 20, 51,265 000 154, 5 - 3.0% 20: - _._. 05 3.0% 20 $1.562 154,000+ 16 3.0% 20 $1,726 164000 - 5 4.0% 201 51,019 154,000 i 4.0 %, `- 26 51,165 154,000 _ 5 4.0% 20 $1,291 - -- 154,000 . OS - - -- 4.0 %. 20 154,000 15 4.0% - ._.. 20 154,D00 20 4 0% 20 $1,831 164000 _. 2ii 4 0% 20 $1,699 27.00 4.00k 20 $1,726 154,000 ATTACHMENTS Columbia -Snake River Irrigators Association Technical Memorandum DATE: January 23, 2012 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Darryll Olsen, Ph.D. Regional Planner/Resource Economist SUBJECT: Estimated Economic Value -Water Market Price: Irrigation (other) Water Subject to Columbia -Snake River System Operations and Inter - Related Tributary Sources The below information is supplemental to previous water market value analyses conducted by CSRIA. The CSRIA has previously reviewed water market transactions in 2008, 2009, and 2010 (in more detailed technical reviews). This valuation is based on more recent 2010 -2011 water market activity, and it reflects the value of water placed into a market sale (both capital and annualized values). The below observations are approximately equivalent - -in context, substance, regional market relationship, and water right change /transfer capabilities —thus appropriate for inclusion within this water market offers /transactions review: In 2011, Stemilt Ice Harbor Farms operations finalized a water right purchase from upriver tributaries to the Lower Snake River, for about 100 acre -ft., for $1,500 /acre -ft. (capital value). 2. In 2011, The Port of Walla Walla and WA State Dept. of Ecology offered a conditional, annual lease agreement (water from the McNary Pool) for about 2,000 -6,000 acre -ft., for $105 /acre -ft.; or about $1,090 /acre -ft. capital value. Offers are under review at this time for a 15 -year lease agreement. 3. In 2011, the WA State Dept. of Ecology and Pitney Farms (with lenders) finalized a water right sale from an upper tributary to the mainstem Columbia River for about 600 acre -ft., for $1,300 /acre -ft. (capital value). 4. In 2011, Grimmway Farms accepted a Purchase and Sales Agreement (PSA) prepared by Columbia -Snake River Irrigators Association (CSRIA), for a reactivated water right application (food processing purpose), for use along the mainstem Columbia River for 500 acre -ft., for $1,000 /acre -ft. 3030 W. Clearwater, Ste. 205-A, Kennewick, WA 99336 509 - 783 -1623, FAX 509 - 735 -3140 DOlsenEcon @AOIL.com 5. In 2011, the Columbia -Snake River Irrigators Association ( CSRIA) estimated mainstem Columbia River water market value(s) at about $1,500 /acre -ft., in assessing irrigated land values for the CSRIA Odessa Subarea (see CSRIA Economics and Technical Review, CSRIA.org). The CSRIA Review was prepared for the Adams County Commission and the Columbia River Office, WA State Dept. of Ecology. The final land value included in the CSRIA review was set at $4,250 per acre (per regional market clearing prices 2007 - 2010), with 2.5 acre -ft. /acre, or about $1,700 per acre -ft. (including the value of water distribution systems on the ground). 6. In 2011, the T &R Farms provided the CSRIA with a standing water right purchase offer of $1,400 /acre -ft. (mainstem Snake - Columbia River system and tributaries), for up to 1,000 acre -ft. A previous offer for a mainstem Columbia River water right was accepted by a buyer (about 100 acre -ft.), but the sale was interrupted by administrative actions taken by WRP- Ecology to relinquish the right. In 2010, a small scale acre-ft. sale was conducted at $1,500 /acre -ft. 7. In 2011, West Enterprises provided the CSRIA with a standing water right (application) sales offer of $1,000 /acre -ft. (mainstem Snake - Columbia River system), for up to 1,250 acre -ft. (purpose of use limited to food processing). 8. In 2011, some reactivated mainstem Columbia River applications (municipal and industrial purpose only) were placed on the market for $300 -500 /acre -ft., for about 1,000 acre -ft. The City of Pasco has informally agreed to a PSA at $300 /acre -ft. (public sector time value and amortization period). 9. In 2011, the new Columbia River mainstem municipal and industrial water rights (issued by CRO- Ecology) cant' provisions for annual USBR O &M costs at $35 /acre -ft. In capital value terms, this amounts to about $680 /acre -ft. 10. In 2010 -11, a short-term, water lease agreement was in place for about 175 acres (wine grapes) within the McNary -John Day Pools, for $35 /acre -ft. In capital value terms, this amounts to about $360 /acre -ft. (commercial amortization rates over 15 years). Given the above market sales /transactions data for 2011, the capital value of an acre -ft. of water -- equivalent to Columbia -Snake River use - -is estimated to range between $1,000 to $1,500 /acre -ft. A reasonable mid -point value would be about $1,250 /acre -ft. In annualized value terms, $1,250 (capital value) is about $120 (15 years commercial amortization at 5% interest/discount rate), or about $120 /acre -ft. on an annualized basis, per an annual lease (or annual Trust Water Program donation) value. These values also are consistent with other water market sales negotiations within the Lower Snake River and McNary -John Day Pools area —as well as reflective of value levels within Eastern WA more generally. Technical Memorandum Markets for Water The Columbia -Snake River Irrigators Association (CSRIA) is actively seeking additional water rights for mainstem Columbia -Snake River irrigation operations. Parties interested in and capable of selling state - issued water rights should meet the following criteria: • Privately held or ownership verified surface water rights. • The water right is perfected (permit- certificate stage) and has been put to verifiable beneficial use. • The water right holder is responsible to verify the right for formal change - transfer under RCW 90.03.380 criteria; water right must be eligible for change- transfer to irrigation purposes. • The water right amount is greater than 200 acre -ft. • The water right diversion point is from a surface water tributary stream to the Columbia -Snake River system; or directly within the mainstem system. • The market sale price for a transferrable right in good standing is $1,750 per acre -ft., non - negotiable. • Long -term lease agreements will be considered for an initial $160 /acre- ft. /year, with a minimum lease period of 15 years and an annual escalation rate of 2.5% (non - negotiable). Willing sellers should call 509 - 783 -1623 and be prepared to identify the actual water right tracking number and specific features of the right, including purpose of use, period of use, and authorized gpm -csf, and acre -ft., acres (if irrigation right). All information received is considered non - proprietary. Ad Contact for publication: Darryll Olsen, Ph.D., CSRIA, 509 - 783 -1623. AGENDA REPORT NO. 14 FOR: City Council May 5, 2014 TO: Gary Crutchfie nager FROM: Ahmad Qayo Public Works Direc or Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 Regular Mtg.: 6/02/14 SUBJECT: Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 and Other Interchange Access Improvements I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 — Vicinity Map 2. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 — Figure 3 3. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 — Professional Services Agreement Summary 4. Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 — Scope of Fees II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: Discussion 6/02: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Kittelson & Associates authorizing design services with respect to Dual RT SB Lanes - Road 68 project in the amount of $280,000, and further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. HI. FISCAL IMPACT: STP Funds — $242,200 Arterial Street Fund — $37,800 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Road 68 Corridor is a significant corridor in the city. It serves the city's highest concentration of commerce. Approximately 48,000 to 50,000 cars travel daily through the intersection of Road 68 and Burden Blvd. B) In September 2012, the City Council adopted the Road 68 Corridor Study findings that identified safety and capacity constraints. The study identified a number of short term (0- 5 year) and long term (5 -20 year) improvements to address current and future transportation and safety needs. C) Staff used the findings and recommendations to apply for available grants. To date, the City has allocated $748,550 in STP Funds and has been awarded $500,000 in HSIP Safety Grants for design and construction of Phase II Improvements. Construction has started and is expected to be complete in Fall 2014. D) The proposed design is for the next phase of Road 68 Improvements, principally the long desired dual right turn lanes to WB I -182. V. DISCUSSION: A) In December of 2013, Staff issued a Request for Proposal for the design of Dual Right Turn South Bound Lanes - Road 68 project. The City received three proposals from three consultants. In January 2014, Staff conducted interviews. Kittleson & Associates was selected to be most qualified to complete the design of this project by the interview panel. B) The project will include the following elements in the design. a. There is a significant level of effort required for an interchange modification and environmental process at freeways within WSDOT and FHWA jurisdictions. b. Interchange modification approval process through WSDOT & FHWA. c. Traffic Modeling and environmental process for dual right turns. d. Bid ready design to build the roadway to accommodate the dual right turn lanes and the possible triple right turn lane at Road 68 and interchange signal. e. Complete a traffic study and modeling for improvements at the west bound to north bound at Road 68 intersection to increase capacity, improve safety and reduce weaving between the interchange and Burden Blvd. intersections. f. Start the dual right turn lane through Road 68 at Burden Blvd. intersection as shown in Reference 2. This will allow a triple left turn southbound onto Road 68 during high traffic or events from Gesa Stadium, TRAC and soccer complex. 4(i) co GC J D c 0Z,5-1 1 ;4 E0_ v f AW Nom; e i : 7i Sp' hl �h r -,r:on 1 i -6 yep 1 a.� �1 ( n t'� =- " ✓:. 'mew- �: s; ,.�..... v f AW 1 � m� a Y m 0 11 a w 9 F C f to H t lilt'• J '1,• A AA a „• `'+"4i ii ed aga °9 c u° _.>faicia�R'' ir• �' a 1'1 Em y c ill E G u r 12 OIC : �A%f jA�ro O.�« �.. i Ec 3u;Cn0 .. t'� =- " ✓:. 'mew- �: s; ,.�..... Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Dual Right Turn South Bound Lanes - Road 68 Kittelson &Associates 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700 Address:_ Portland Oreqon 97205 Scope of Services: Exhibit A Term: 9 MONTHS Completion Date: Payments to Consultant: ❑ Hourly Rate: $ ® Fixed Sum of: $ 280,000 ❑ Other: Insurance to be Provided: 1. Commercial General Liability: ❑ $1,000,000 each occurrence; ❑ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or ® $1,000,000 each occurrence; and $ 2,000000 general aggregate 2. Professional Liability: IN $1,000,000 per claim; ❑ $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit; or ❑ $ per claim; and $ per policy aggregate limit Other Information: / /N \\ \ T \ / e . fA § m In ( <x ) (ck.. N\ s/ �f / 4 LA )kog $$aj§} rA 2x m �5 §$ §§ ° \§\ ID ca 4.6 § }®@ � � §@a= � §&& LL z� m\ §Aoo Ln Id . Ch z � S ) 2 § § _ 2 2 ( g —§.// ) \ / }< a ± /22§ z 8 D F & ` o °c ®F 2 / £ / 2 f ƒ # z } \\\§Z( q §$$2 5� kEm@b§ \k < = =o�w « 2F- 2 ¥g u�77$0 u ) § } / § }k§ � 2 � at (D < ))aQaG(Q ; »k)$))«) ` CL ! \ bo ( e } ) \ §Ju ( \ 2 \ ) LD ( \ \ ai / \ \ / ( Qj \ Z AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Counci , TO: Gary Crutch it anager FROM: Stan Strebel, D put City Manager SUBJECT: Charter Cable Franchise Extension I. REFERENCE(S): May 21, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 5/27/14 Regular Mtg.: 6/2/14 1. Charter Cable Franchise Extension - Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/27: Discussion 6/2: MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. , extending the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Charter Communications (Falcon Video Communications, L.P.) through September 30, 2014 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City has been preparing for and conducting negotiations with Charter for renewal of the franchise agreement for the last 27 months. While a great deal of progress has been made on basic issues the cities (Richland and Pasco are partnering in the process) and Charter are working to finalize the specific language issues in the proposed agreement before July 30. (This date is set so as to preserve the rights of both parties to resolve franchise renewal under the formal Federal process, should that be necessary. Both parties have already agreed on a September 30, 2014 date to initiate the formal process if necessary.) The current franchise is set to expire June 26, 2014. B) In order to provide additional time to complete the renewal /negotiations process, staff proposes to extend the franchise to September 30 of this year. In the event that a new franchise can be completed for approval prior to expiration of the extension, the new franchise will serve to cancel the remainder of the extension. C) Under the proposed ordinance, Charter must provide its acceptance of the extension within 12 -days of passage by the City (Charter has indicated its acceptance of the extension to staff). V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing the extension. 40) ORDINANCE NO. An ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Extending the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Falcon Video Communications, L.P., locally known as Charter Communications, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Grantee" Through September 30, 2014 WHEREAS, cable providers are required to hold a franchise agreement with the City of Pasco ( "City ") to use the City's public right -of -way to provide cable services; and WHEREAS, the current cable franchise agreement was entered into pursuant to Ordinance No. 3304 ( "Cable Franchise ") on June 20, 1998; and WHEREAS, control of Grantee was subsequently transferred from Falcon Communications, L.P., to Charter Communications Holding Company, L.L.C., pursuant to Resolution No. 2468; and WHEREAS, the Cable Franchise is due to expire on June 26, 2014; and WHEREAS, Grantee and the City have been engaged in informal renewal negotiations in accordance with Section 626(h) of Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Cable Act "); and WHEREAS, the City has been conducting franchise renewal ascertainment in accordance with Section 626(a)(1) of the Cable Act; and WHEREAS, the parties continue to reserve all rights under the formal procedures of Section 626 of the Cable Act, and do not waive any rights related thereto; and WHEREAS, Grantee has filed timely notice of intent to renew its Franchise Agreement with City pursuant to Section 626 of the Cable Act; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant an extension of the current Franchise until September 30, 2014, to give the parties additional time to complete the renewal process. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Extension of the Term of the Franchise Agreement throu lgil September 30 2014. The Cable Franchise, as amended, is hereby extended, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, until the earlier of September 30, 2014, or when a new franchise agreement is agreed to by the parties and enacted by the City. Section 2. Terms and Conditions of Extension of the Franchise Agreement. The City's consent to the extension, described above, is subject to, and conditioned upon, the following terms and conditions: A. All terms and conditions of the existing Franchise Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the extension period. B. The extension shall have no adverse effect on Grantee's compliance, nor shall the extension be grounds for any change or modification in the remaining terms, conditions and obligations of the Franchise Agreement. C. The City and Grantee's agreement to extend the Franchise Agreement, as set forth herein, shall not be construed, in any manner whatsoever, to constitute a waiver or release of any rights that the City or the Grantee may have under the Franchise Agreement. D. Both parties hereby reserve all rights under applicable provisions of the Cable Act, including, without limitation, Sections 626 and 635 of the Cable Act. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as a waiver, release or surrender of any right that either party may have under the Cable Act or any applicable law. E. Within twelve (12) days after passage of this Ordinance by the City Council, Grantee shall file with the City Clerk its written acceptance of this Ordinance, substantially in the form of Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this _ day of 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor Attest: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Acceptance of Ordinance No. TO: City of Pasco, Washington Attention: Gary Crutchfield Pasco City Hall P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 This is to advise the City of Pasco that Falcon Video Communications, L.P. (the "Grantee'), hereby unqualifiedly accepts Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council on 2014, regarding the extension of the Franchise Agreement between Grantee and the City. FALCON VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, L.P. ( "Grantee ") Name: Mark Brown Title: V.P., Government Affairs Date: