Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.08.04 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. August 4, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated July 21, 2014. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) 1. To approve claims in the total amount of$2,784,154.04. (c) Appointment to Regional Hotel/Motel Commission: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel,Acting City Manager dated July 22,2014. 2. Appointment to Regional Hotel/Motel Commission — Tri-Cities Hotel and Lodging Association Letter dated 7/16/14. 3. Appointment to Regional Hotel/Motel Commission—Section 5,Interlocal Agreement. To reappoint Vijay Patel (Holiday Inn Express) to a two-year term on the Tri-Cities Regional Hotel/Motel Commission,term to expire 8/31/16. (d) Resolution No. 3576, a Resolution approving the 2015 NSP Program Year Annual Work Plan and Allocation. 1. Agenda Report from Angela Pitman,Block Grant Administrator dated July 29,2014. 2. NSP Annual Work Plan Allocation 2015—Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 3576, allocating the estimated 2015 NSP Funds. (e) Resolution No.3577, a Resolution approving Federal 2015 HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation. 1. Agenda Report from Angela Pitman,Block Grant Administrator dated July 29,2014. 2. HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation 2015—Resolution. To approve Resolution No.3577,allocating the estimated 2015 HOME Funds. (f) Resolution No. 3578, a Resolution approving the Program Year 2015 Community Development Block Grant Allocations and Annual Work Plan. 1. Agenda Report from Angela Pitman,Block Grant Administrator dated July 29,2014. 2. CDBG Annual Work Plan and Allocation 2015—Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 3578,allocating the estimated 2015 CDBG Funds. (g) I Resolution No. 3579, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated July 29, 2014. 2. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave,Utah Ave& Spokane St—Overview Map. 3. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave,Utah Ave& Spokane St—Vicinity Map. 4. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave,Utah Ave& Spokane St—Proposed Resolution. 5. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave,Utah Ave& Spokane St—Vacation Petition. To approve Resolution No. 3579, setting 7:00 pm, Tuesday, September 2, 2014 as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Regular Meeting 2 August 4,2014 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) "Yard of the Month" Awards. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco residents have been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive Certificates of Appreciation from the City Council for"Yard of the Month,"July 2014. 1. Zaira Mosqueda,208 N.Pennie Lane 2. Pedro and Mary Medina, 1540 N. 16s Avenue 3. Monte and Debbie Kelsey,4702 Desert Plateau Drive 4. Melody Rojas,4303 Holland Lane (b) "Business of the Month" Appearance Award. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA)The following Pasco business has been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive a Certificate of Appreciation from the City Council for "Business of the Month Appearance Award"for July 2014. 1. Harms Engineering,Inc., 1632 W. Sylvester Street (c) Presentation of Proclamation for "National Night Out." Council to present Proclamation to Police Chief Bob Metzger. 5. VISITORS-OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) (c) 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (a) I Easement Vacation(MF VAC2014-004)Road Easement on Lot 5,Shaundee Estates. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated July 29, 2014. 2. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates—Overview Map. 3. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates—Vicinity Map. 4. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates—Proposed Ordinance. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. ,an Ordinance vacating a road easement in Shaundee Estates. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , vacating the Road Easement across the south 30 feet of Lot 5, Shaundee Estates and, further, authorize publication by summary only. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: (a) Fire Safety Inspection Program. 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated July 24,2014. 2. Fire Safety Inspection Program — Proposed Resolution No. 3574 Implementing the Program. 3. Fire Safety Inspection Program—Proposed Ordinance Amending Applicable Fees. 4. Fire Safety Inspection Program—Memo Distributed January 13,2014. Resolution No. 3574, a Resolution establishing a Fire Safety Inspection Program for the City of Pasco. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3574, establishing a Fire Safety Inspection Program for the City of Pasco. -AND- Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Title 3 of the Pasco Municipal Code by Establishing Fees for a Fire Safety Inspection Program and Maximum Penalties for Noncompliance. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. establishing fees for a Fire Safety Inspection Program and setting penalties for noncompliance and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Regular Meeting 3 August 4,2014 (b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington adopting Chapter 13.62 "Pretreatment Regulations'; amending Section 13A.52.220"Specific Prohibitions for Discharge," Section 13A.52.270"Preliminary Treatment by Owner'; and repealing Section 13A.52.230"Limitations on Wastewater Strength," Section 13A.52.280"Permit Required," Section 13A.52.290 "Maintenance of Pretreatment Equipment and Facilities," Section 13A.52.300 "Acceptable Types of Pretreatment Facilities," Section 13A.52.310 "Location of Facilities," Section 13A.52.320 "Installation of Facilities," Section 13A.52.330 "Installation Schedule," Section 13A.52.340 "Pretreatment Waste Disposal," Section 13A.52.350 "Pretreatment Accidental Spill Containment Program," Section 13A.52.360 "Pretreatment Records Required," Section 13A.52.380 "Testing Methods and Responsibility," Section 13A.52.390 "Special Arrangements Concerning Industrial Wastes,"and Section 13A.52.400"Powers and Authority of Inspectors." 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated July 18, 2014. 2. Pretreatment Program—Amended Administrative Order from W SDOE. 3. Pretreatment Program—Final Sewer Ordinance. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , adopting the Wastewater Pretreatment Requirements and, further,authorize publication by summary only. (c) E Ordinance No. . an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending the zoning classification of property located at 909 North 3rd Avenue from C-3 (General Business)to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential). 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill,Planner I dated July 30,2014. 2. Solano Rezone—Vicinity Map. 3. Solano Rezone—Proposed Ordinance. 4. Solano Rezone—Report to the Planning Commission. 5. Solano Rezone—Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/19/14 and 7/24/14. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ,rezoning the property located at 909 N. 3rd Avenue from C-3 to R-3 and,further,authorize publication by summary only. (d) Resolution No. , a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington accepting the 2014 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Work Plan. 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated July 29, 2014. 2. Downtown Pasco Development Authority Work Plan—Proposed Resolution. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No._, accepting the DPDA Work Plan of June 2014. (e) E Resolution No. a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a Special Permit for a church at 1734 North 5h Avenue. 1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams,Associate Planner dated July 30,2014. 2. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit—Vicinity Map. 3. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit—Proposed Resolution. 4. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit—Report to Planning Commission. 5. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit — Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/19/14 and 7/24/14. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No._, approving a Special Permit for the location of a church at 1734 North 5d' Avenue, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Process Water Treatment System Optimization Phase HI-Part H: 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated July 22,2014. 2. Process Water Phase III-Part II—Vicinity Map. 3. Process Water Phase III-Part II—Professional Services Summary Sheet. 4. Process Water Phase III-Part II—Scope of Work. MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with CH2MHi11 authorizing professional services with respect to Phase III-Part 11 of the Process Water Treatment System Optimization project in the amount of$98,000 and,further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Regular Meeting 4 August 4,2014 (b) Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges: 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated July 21,2014. 2. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges—Vicinity Map. 3. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges — Professional Services Agreement Summary. 4. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges—Scope of Services. 5. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges—Scope of Fees. MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Burger ABAM Inc., authorizing design services with respect to the Interchange Feasibility Study in the amount of$379,083 and,further,authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the agreement. (c) I Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit Project: 1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak,City Engineer dated July 31,2014. 2. Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit—Vicinity Map. 3. Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit—Professional Services Summary Sheet. MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with SWCA Environmental Consultants authorizing Cultural Resource Services with respect to the Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit Project in the amount of $15,266 and, further, authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the agreement. (d) I US395/Court Street Pedestrian Overpass Repair,Project No.Ml-ST-9M-13-05: 1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak,City Engineer dated July 29,2014. 2. US395/Court Street Overpass—Vicinity Map. 3. US395/Court Street Overpass—Bid Summary. = MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the US395/Court Street Pedestrian Overpass Repair Project to C&E Trenching, LLC in the amount of$25,096.42 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. (e) I Road 60/Three-Rivers Drive Park: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated July 31, 2014. 2. Road 60/Three Rivers Drive Park—Bid Summary. 3. Road 60/Three Rivers Drive Park—Vicinity Map. 4. Road 60/Three Rivers Drive Park—Site Plan. = MOTION: I move to approve the bid amount for the Road 60/Three Rivers Drive Park to DGR Grant Construction in the amount of$149,900(park portion) and to authorize staff to complete the project in accordance with the applicable agreements. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. rRoll Call Vote Required Item not previously discussed Quasi-Judicial Matter MF# "Master File#...... REMINDERS: 1. 1:30 p.m., Monday, August 4, KGH — Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN,Rep; AL YENNEY,Alt.) 2. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 6, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; AL YENNEY,Alt.) 3. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, August 7, P&R Classroom — Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER SAUL MARTINEZ,Rep.; MIKE GARRISON,Alt.) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Robert Hoffinann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief; Bob Gear, Fire Chief and Mike Pawlak, City Engineer. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated July 7, 2014. Bills and Communications: To approve Claims in the amount of$1,492,955.05 ($444,593.38 in Check Nos. 199219- 199377; $260,147.53 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 801923-801924, 801946-802016; $60,052.41 in Check Nos. 46981-47060; 900000057; $561,189.01 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30071045-30071544; $8,252.61 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 72-74; $158,720.11 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 61-62). To approve bad debt write-offs for utility billing, ambulance, cemetery, general accounts, miscellaneous accounts, and Municipal Court(non-criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of$207,620.82 and, of that amount, authorize $128,571.91 be turned over for collection. Road 60/Three Rivers Dr. Park: To approve Schedule 3, an attachment to the Master Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for Development of Joint Playground and Park Facilities with Pasco School District No. 1 for the Road 60 and Three Rivers Dr. Park and School Ground and, further, authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the document. Water Line Easement(MF#ESMT2014-004): To accept the water line easements from TSK, LLC and Fifties I, LLC. Dedication Deed for a Portion of Commercial Avenue(MF#DEED2014-007): To accept the dedication deeds from TSK 2013, LLC and Fifties I, LLC for a portion of Commercial Avenue. Oregon Avenue Street Dedication (MF#DEED2014-005): To authorize the Mayor to sign the dedication deed, deeding Parcel#112351018 to the City for right-of-way purposes. Resolution No.3571, a Resolution amending Federal CDBG Program Years 2014, 2013 and 2012 Annual Work Plans. To approve Resolution No. 3571, amending the CDBG Annual Work Plans for Program years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Resolution No.3572, a Resolution accepting work performed by Sierra Electric, Inc., under contract for the Pasco Safe Route to Schools— 1 Project. 1 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 2014 To approve Resolution No. 3572, accepting the work performed by Siena Electric, Inc., under contract for the Pasco Safe Route to Schools— 1 Project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Yenney attended a meeting to discuss a possible LID on E. Bonneville St. and the Benton Franklin Council of Governments meeting. Mr. Hoffman attended the BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee meeting. Mayor Watkins attended the Ben Franklin Transit Board meeting and the Franklin County Emergency Management Council meeting. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Recreational& Medical Marijuana Land Uses (MF#CA2013-005): Ordinance No. 4166, 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 recreational marijuana retail sales,processing and production, and medical marijuana dispensaries and collective gardens. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed ordinance. David Morgan, 1827 W. Octave St., spoke in favor of retail sales. Jedidiah Haney,405 S. 34a'Ave.,Yakima, spoke in favor of retail sales. Carl Holder,402 W. Lewis St., spoke in favor of retail sales. Teri Henricks, 8401 Tucker Dr., spoke in favor of retail sales. MOTION: Mr. Garrison moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4166,prohibiting recreational marijuana retail sales,processing and production, and medical marijuana dispensaries and collective gardens and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes-Watkins,Yenney, Garrison, Hoffmann, Larsen,Martinez. No -Francik. Resolution No.3573, a Resolution of the City of Pasco,Washington, terminating the moratorium prohibiting production,processing and retail sale of recreation or medical marijuana within the City. MOTION: Mr. Garrison moved to approve Resolution No. 3573,repealing the moratorium established by Resolution No. 3507 and extended by Resolution No. 3516. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes—Watkins, Yenney, Garrison, Hoffmann, Larsen, Martinez. No - Francik. Fire Safety Inspection Program: Resolution No.3574, a Resolution establishing a Fire Safety Inspection Program for the City of Pasco. Council and staff discussed the details of the Fire Safety Inspection Program. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3574, establishing a Fire Safety Inspection program for the City of Pasco. Mr. Garrison seconded. MOTION: Mr. Yenney moved to table this item to a future meeting to consider penalties for noncompliance. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried 6-1. No—Watkins. 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 2014 Resolution No. 3575, a Resolution approving the Capital Improvement Plan for Calendar Years 2015-2020. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3575, adopting the Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2015-2020. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 2014 Sewer Re-Lining Project#CP7-SE-2R-14-01: Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the proposed project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the low bid for the 2014 Sewer Re-Lining to PEC in the amount of$361,759.63 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. School Zone Safety Improvements: Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed improvements. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the low bid for the School Zone Safety Improvements Project to Sierra Electric, Inc., in the amount of$79,223.00 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. School Zone Flashing Beacons Upgrade: Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the proposed project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the low bid for the School Zone Flashing Beacons Upgrade Project to Sierra Electric, Inc., in the amount of$25,656.00 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Mayor Watkins recognized government students in the audience and noted that due to recent resignations from the DPDA Board,he will be reviewing recent applications to fill the vacancies. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to Executive Session at 8:16 p.m. for approximately 30 minutes to establish sales price or lease amount of real estate and discuss litigation or potential litigation with the Acting City Manager, the City Attorney and the Administrative and Community Services Director. Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 8:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 4th day of August, 2014 3 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: August 4,2014 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco,Franklin County,Washington We,the undersigned,do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just,due and unpaid obligation against the city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Stan SVebel,Acting City=ag# Dunyele MaAOn,Finance Services Manager We,the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco,Franklin County,Washington,do hereby certify on this 4 day of August,2014 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment: Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'I Bank Electronic Bank Combined Check Numbers 199378-199579 4706147137 900000060.900000061 Total Check Amount $1,044,926.75 $56,326.81 Total Checks $ 1,101,253.56 Electronic Transfer Numbers 801648-801820 30071545-30072048 75 63-67 801824-801848 801850-801922 801925.801945 801947-802015 802017-802228 802247 Total EFT Amount $974,476.40 $560,610.18 $2,000.00 $145,813.90 Total EFTS $ 1,682,900.48 Grand Total $ 2,784,154.04 Councilmember Counalmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND 322,95119 STREET 42,008.67 ARTERIAL STREET 949.41 STREET OVERLAY 73,670.21 C.D.BLOCK GRANT 30.70 HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT 10,000.00 NSP GRANT 10,000.00 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 1,369.50 AMBULANCE SERVICE 8,567.30 CEMETERY 2,634.32 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS _ 1,756.17 GOLF COURSE 91,838.51 SENIOR CENTER OPERATING 3,836.35 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 2,575.03 RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 974.28 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 0.00 LITTER CONTROL 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 1,923.66 TRAC DEVELOPMENT&OPERATING 0.00 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33,165.98 STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER 10,050.45 GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 21,068.79 WATERISEWER 368,147.54 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL 28,870.06 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING BUSINESS 11,226.99 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL 130,898.89 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS 29,020.84 MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE 265,444.84 FLEX 4,093.70 PAYROLL CLEARING 1,307,080.66 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 2,784,154.04 3(b)J AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council July 22, 2014 FROM: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 7/28/14 Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 SUBJECT: Appointment to Regional Hotel/Motel Commission I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Appointment to Regional Hotel/Motel Commission-Tri-Cities Hotel and Lodging Association Letter dated 7/16/14 2. Appointment to Regional Hotel/Motel Commission- Section 5, Interlocal Agreement H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/28: Discussion 8/4: MOTION: I move to reappoint Vijay Patel (Holiday Inn Express) to a two-year term on the Tri-Cities Regional Hotel/Motel Commission; term to expire 8/31/16. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Pasco, along with the cities of Kennewick and Richland, entered into an interlocal agreement in June 2004 to create a regional "Tourism Promotion Area" (TPA). The TPA is an organization formed as authorized by state law to levy special assessments for the use of lodging facilities within the respective area. In the case of the Tri- Cities, all hotels/motels within the boundaries of the three cities are required to collect from users of their facilities the fee of$2.00 for each room night used. That fee is remitted by each of the hotels/motels to the state; the state, in turn, distributes the funding back to the respective cities within which it was collected (much like the long-standing 2% hotel/motel tax) and the cities distribute it to the TPA for expenditure in accordance with the business plan and budget established by the Regional Hotel/Motel Commission. B) The Regional Hotel/Motel Commission is established under Section 5 of the Interlocal Agreement. The Commission consists of six voting members; two appointed by each of the three cities from nominees offered by the Tri-City Hotel Lodging Association. Any vacancy is to be filled by the respective city from a list of nominees offered by the Association. C) The Tri-Cities Hotel Lodging Association recommends, as evidenced by the July 16 letter, that Vijay Patel (manager of the Holiday Inn Express)be reappointed. V. DISCUSSION: A) Mayor Watkins recommends that City Council appoint Mr. Patel as recommended by the Tri-Cities Hotel Lodging Association,without interview. 3(c) Tri-Olies Bole] Wiling 4uodaUn s JUL 2 2 2014 a P.O. Box 1739 Richland, WA 99352 July 16, 2014 Mr. Stan Strebel Third Floor 525 N. Third Ave Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Strebel: This letter is in reference to the Pasco TPA Commissioner position currently held by Mr. Vijay Patel from the Holiday Inn Express in Pasco. Mr. Patel's term expires August 31, 2014 and he is eligible for re-election. Vijay Patel has been selected to continue to serve as a TPA Commissioner to represent the City of Pasco. General Manager Amy Smith from the Holiday Inn Express in Pasco was nominated as the alternate candidate. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me at 509-942-9400. Si (Q� a y re President Tri-Cities Hotel & Lodging Association Cc Kris Watkins—President CEO Tri-Cities Visitors&Convention Bureau Tourism Promotion Area 5. Creation of Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission. A. It is understood and agreed that it is hereby created, pursuant to RCW 35.101.130 (1), the Tri-City Regional Hotel and Motel Commission ("Commission") to advise the Cities on the expenditure of Special Lodging Assessment revenues to fund tourism promotion within the Tri-City region. B. The Commission shall consist of six (6) voting Members and three (3) ex officio Members. Two voting members shall be selected by the Kennewick City Council from a list of nominees prepared by the Tri-City Hotel and Lodging Association from Operators of Lodging Businesses within the city limits of the City of Kennewick. Two (2) voting members shall be selected by the Pasco City Council from a list of nominees prepared by the Tri-City Hotel and Lodging Association from Operators of Lodging Businesses within the city limits of the City of Pasco. Two voting members shall be selected by the Richland City Council from a list of nominees prepared by the Tri-City Hotel and Lodging Association from Operators of Lodging Businesses within the city limits of the City of Richland. In no event shall fifty percent(50%) or more of the voting membership of the Commission be selected from the same Lodging Ownership or Management Company within the Tri-City Regional Area. The City Manager or his or her Designee from each of the three Cities shall serve as an ex officio member. All Commission members, voting and ex officio may participate in all discussions regarding proposed activities and programs by the Tri-City Regional Tourism Promotion Area for promotion and marketing of tourism. Ex officio members shall not have voting rights, except in the event of a tie vote among the voting members at which time, each ex officio member may cast a vote to break the tie. Any vacancy on the Tri-City Regional Hotel and Motel Commission shall be filled by the appointing City, from a list of nominees prepared by the Tri-City Hotel and Lodging Association for voting memberships within thirty (30) days from the date the vacancy occurs. C. It is understood and agreed that the initial voting members of the Commission shall serve staggered terms, with one member serving a one-year term and the second member serving a two-year term. The length of the term for each individual voting member of the initial Commission shall be chosen by lot at the first meeting of the Commission. Thereafter, all voting members subsequently appointed to the Commission shall serve a term of two years. No voting member shall serve more than two consecutive terms as a Member of the Commission unless such subsequent term is separated by at least twelve (12) months from the last date of service as a Member of the Commission. A Member may be removed from the Commission by three- fourths (3/4) affirmative vote of the Commission for actions deemed to be adverse to the interest of the Commission. Such actions may include unexcused absences from three meetings of the Commission within a twelve (12) month period; failure to perform assigned duties and responsibilities; and conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Commission. Succeeding and replacement voting members shall be selected by each City as provided above for the selection of the initial voting members of the Commission. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council Date: July 29, 2014 TO: Stanley Strebel,Acting City ManagbI2� Workshop Mtg.: 7/28/14 Rick White, � Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 Community&Economic Development Directo FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator [�-w Community&Economic Development Department SUBJECT: N_eighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)Annual Work Plan Allocation 2015 (MF#BGAP 2014-005) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. NSP Annual Work Plan Allocation 2015 -Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/28: DISCUSSION 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. �74�7 allocating the estimated 2015 NSP funds. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $197,073 from NSP Program Income ($155,385) and Entitlement funds ($41,688). IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On March 15, 2010 Council approved Resolution No. 3220 amending the NSP Allocation and Work Plan increasing funding to $426,343 and adding acquisition and rehabilitation activities to the down payment assistance activity for foreclosed properties. B. To date, the City has utilized NSP funds to recover 15 foreclosed properties. Three homes were also purchased and rehabilitated with NSP and HOME. The program income from the sales of those homes is available for use in 2015. V. DISCUSSION: A. The City is able to use NSP funds for down payment assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties. Staff proposes that the 2015 annual work plan allocation continue activities previously approved as follows: 2015 Proposed Activities Budget Units Admin from Program Income $ 8,964.00 Acquisition&Rehabilitation Projects $ 188,109.00 1 $ 197,073.00 1 B. Staff presented recommendations for funding at the June 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding recommendations as presented. C. If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the proposed resolution will be returned for Council action. 3(d) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2015 NSP PROGRAM YEAR ANNUAL WORK PLAN AND ALLOCATION WHEREAS,the Neighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP) is authorized under Title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), administered by the US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), and subject to both CDBG and HOME regulations for the purpose of stabilizing neighborhoods negatively affected by foreclosures and abandoned properties, and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has $155,385 in unallocated program income from the sale of foreclosed homes acquired and rehabilitated with NSP funds, and $41,688 from unallocated entitlement funds; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the 2015 Neighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP)Plan work plan allocation as follows: 2015 Proposed Activities Budget Units Acquisition&Rehabilitation $ 188,109.00 1 Administration from PI $ 8,964.00 $ 197,073.00 1 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr CMC City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council Date: July 29,2014 TO: Stanley Strebel,Acting City Manage0 K , Workshop Mtg.: 7/28/14 Rick White, P-1 Mtg.: 8/4/14 Community& Economic Development Director FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator 6406 0 Community&Economic Development Department SUBJECT: HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation 2015 (MF#BGAP2014-004) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation 2015—Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/28: DISCUSSION 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No.,8577 allocating the estimated 2015 HOME funds. III. FISCAL IMPACT Pasco share of Federal HOME funds $116,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1996 making the City eligible for Federal HOME funds. Every three years, during the renewal cycle member cities are given the opportunity to withdraw from the consortium, make changes to the cooperative agreement, or select a new Lead Agency. In May 2010, the City renewed the Agreement through December 31, 2014. B. HOME funds are allocated based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits, however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council receive first consideration. Funding is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low-moderate income census tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as needed within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low-moderate income families. V. DISCUSSION: A. The City is restricted to using HOME funds for down payment assistance for first time homebuyers in accordance with the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Cooperative Agreement. 2015 ProposedActitities Budget Units First Time HomebuyerAssistance $ 116,000 11 $ 116,000 11 B. Staff presented recommendations for funding at the June 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding recommendations as presented. C. If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the proposed resolution will be returned for Council action. 3(e) RESOLUTION NO. 35 t r A RESOLUTION APPROVING FEDERAL 2015 HOME ANNUAL WORK PLAN AND ALLOCATION WHEREAS, the City of Pasco entered into an Agreement with Kennewick and Richland in 2010 continuing participation in a Consortium originally formed in 1996 under the Home Investments Partnership(HOME)Program; and WHEREAS, the Consortium allows the three cities to be eligible for federal HOME funds; and WHEREAS, the City has established a Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP); and WHEREAS, $116,000 is expected to be available from entitlement funds for Pasco HOME projects in program year 2015, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. 2015 HOME funds received by the City of Pasco shall be allocated to the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) which operates city-wide. Priority will be given to neighborhood improvement areas and low-moderate income census tracts as needed for the activities below: Activity Budget Units First Time Homebuyer Assistance $ 116,000 11 $ 116,000 11 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: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr CMC City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council p / Date: July 29,2014 TO: Stanley Strebel, Acting City Managere ZLt Workshop Mtg.: 7/28/14 Rick White, ( 1,pj Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 Community&Economic Development Director FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator a4w Community& Economic Development Department SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Annual Work Plan and Allocations 2015 (MF#BGAP2014-003) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. CDBG Annual Work Plan and Allocation 2015—Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/28: DISCUSSION 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3s M allocating the estimated 2015 CDBG funds. III. FISCAL IMPACT CDBG Entitlement$640,072 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. A Request for Proposals for 2015 CDBG funds was published in the Tri-City Herald and Tu Decides newspapers in June. Fifteen (15) requests were received totaling $1,420,500. B. The Planning Commission held public hearings and discussion on June 24 and July 24, 2014. The public hearings solicited public comment on any application for fimding, or reallocation for the City of Pasco 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. At the public hearings, fifteen (15) presentations were made relating to proposed activities. V. DISCUSSION A. Staff presented recommendations for funding at the July 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding recommendations as presented. B. There is always some question regarding funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available finding for these FY 2015 activities will remain in question until the early part of 2015 when the award is made. An amendment to the Annual Action Plan may be necessary to allocated unobligated funds. If funding levels are lower than estimated, activity funding may need to be reallocated accordingly. C. If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the proposed resolution will be returned for Council action. 3(f) RESOLUTION NO. ?� A RESOLUTION approving the Program Year 2015 Community Development Block Grant Allocations and Annual Work Plan. WHEREAS, staff has prepared the Program Year 2015 Annual Work Plan for activities totaling$640,072 from estimated entitlement;Now,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the Annual Work Plan as follows: Activity Funding CDBG Program Administration $120,000.00 Civic Center-Youth Recreation Specialist $20,000.00 Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist $20,000.00 Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist $30,000.00 YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Programs $20,000.00 Pasco Downtown Development Commercial Kitchen $50,000.00 BF CAC CHIP Minor Rehabilitation Program $40,000.00 Kurtzman Park Playground Equipment $125,000.00 Volunteer Park Playground Equipment $125,000.00 Code Enforcement Officer $48,000.00 Sidewalk replacement&ADA ramp installation/replacement Program $42,072.00 TOTAL $640,072.00 Section 2. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the Pasco Specialty Kitchen flooring replacement and fagade improvement projects for consideration for funding as contingencies. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 29,2014 TO: Stan Strebel,Acting City Manageg� Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: STREET VACATION (MF# VAC 2014-005) A Portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave, Utah Ave& Spokane St- Overview Map 2. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave, Utah Ave& Spokane St-Vicinity Map 3. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave, Utah Ave& Spokane St-Proposed Resolution 4. Street Vacation,Nevada Ave, Utah Ave& Spokane St-Vacation Petition II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , setting 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 2, 2014, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The owners of Block 5, Fry's Addition have petitioned for vacation of all of Nevada Avenue, and 10 feet of Utah Avenue and Spokane Street abutting said block. B. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the vacation request. The earliest regular City Council meeting available for a public hearing, which provides the statutory 20-day hearing notice, is September 2, 2014. 3(g) Lom �S ,i rVI vp dw ' \ a SSr ar''�<hr^••�1/aa Lean® �W�� ♦� 'caY 1, ii• �� v r d { na^Ee¢M I e �ar DVS��� .. _17 • S S e � p_ a P�i` :�i�.� � A9 �il fit} n ..9� F.n�7\.c 111 S'.N r •1.�''��� �j \ Jr :1 y`.�en�a J qL ;IiW�k�7 ■..� `n .eflrli.i @I d � �tejr;a d ■ Iti . 9rf! t 1 l:rs'ir�'S�I.fs♦ ly o•r3RLBf/.i5 '.d i"PSrYi�6i a. k ev ..�=F:I1.: Pi.,I'FS.d Qk\Ya+I 4�9k1 F' 1)I?Pty �qP a ea .n Prs t [P+1 Jlt 1110'1+0.1 r •" nlri,t 2._1.'# ' -• f . r rC' A nn. `5d{+ SE V. -Fla 19 rl+lfte t ,f , - -:'a nt3r1\a31 i1+1YE1! S:,I#9L 1 .Y,.: A\f . Se"Sn .IIllt '9ee,.1 �L . 7R1±4i4tllEUi4$'a°1 YiiBttYl �\�4i a.• ncira39\ a . f i t(ils dla�iiiti6 St?I i ifR, ■�ttst P: 5 \� '1iY 1517 i1G'aGS yl� s+ r� ♦�, i Ar • � J �' _ �' .Ai S A' All NEU l jet � ��III ' ;; y w � � 1 J�7yr,�j 9� ,,((�..G}J•���°, 1 • t ',. �+ r^F..* ',': r 1 � .� Ya I, �^yip yY■",�'a a �1 {'a +� � .� W a ® ��, f t y •• 'fin+ � , ,.�r'`vS � � S �7' ix t;•17*�ri.��a{ rr,���� ��T�dt� r „ r Yl..�„ �� v ia » _kp kt r' ,)yt sc l ✓G' 1�7 9 # R < '✓ x`� ,.r. �, "^. x • �� ®f > '` • ✓ `;�`" r��t :r ,�s v��r� t �iC-turf � f ra >wr rr �. , 'f'' ���T} l r�,,.A 3�''N y. Tk'r . •m� ,�r�� T � +L, � lip Fk Qm � � x�f ct txrs. �f�.. S� r �! •_ k Y 5 ! yqy y ��ilS� yL�G^I.� M✓.AT y M� lot � r to- $i � c✓ { �"�'d ��S °7 � x !` p 1�.W. n� d 1 4f #��:Y 1� � �h� � •�� � 1 r M r �q'h5t +Y4�'�1F r r� i�re�f�"�r*rt"i•."`r eN t. '" . �� - 1r 9 SrL 4 ,��j a„ S' .�'�d.4�1A'+A . `I, if;::.. RESOLUTION NO.3 1 A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF NEVADA AVENUE. WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, R.C.W. 35.79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by Resolution, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a public hearing to consider vacating Nevada Avenue between the south right-of- way line of Duluth Street and the west right-of-way line of North Wehe Avenue and vacating the east 10 feet of Utah Avenue and the north 10 feet of Spokane Street adjacent to Block 5, Freys Addition, will be held before the City Council of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers at 525 N. Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on September 2, 2014. That the City Clerk of the City of Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of August, 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, MMC Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney 1 FEE $200 CITY OF PASCO STREET/ALLEY VACATION PETITION MASTER FILE k Ya -oo5 DATE SUBMITTED: 7 1 I, we the undersigned, owners of two•;hirds of the privately owned abutting property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the foam=cribed? ss t repet/alley rihway: AVF- -[?Nj�:. �LLLrtXI �l�r= -f � s pp�G— THE NO SH 1v' vr- ¢A AA g Vf . t.l - Tug F0.sr ia• Ar APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Description( Print Name: JeeE.er'JS v Sign Name: Address:313 Lt.n .� Phone#,r-4 Yz'? .o Date Print Nam V �� Sign Nam Dater t; Print Name: -JALCU Sign Name: Datc https://does.google.com/viewer?attid=0.1.1&pid=gmail&thid=14736b39 19ded6b6&url=https%3A%2F%2F... AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council / July 29, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Managed Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 Rick White, �V L Community& Economic Development Director `I FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: EASEMENT VACATION (MF# VAC 2014-004) Road Easement on Lot 5 Shaundee Estates I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Overview Map 2. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Vicinity Map 3. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct Public Hearing: 8/4: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating the Road Easement across the south 30 feet of Lot 5, Shaundee Estates, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Anthony Bachart submitted a petition for vacation of a 30-foot road easement across the southern portion of his lot. The road easement was established in the County with no provisions for future improvements or conversion to a public right-of-way. B. The City Council set August 4, 2014 as the date to consider the vacation. V. DISCUSSION: A. The road easement in question was only for a road, consequently there are no utilities within the road easement. There is no need to retain an easement for the benefit of utility providers. 7(a) 1�A�LjS "� © � w�y.w ■4 �� 1 ay' .♦.� �� � itiE�!' � Fw.t4r w►..}� B ■ ., �� Ile :a n ZE VIM �s aWJ 141-4 din 1.:rS1*:J 111111 E33 NO s�d1� 11 i ®en a 3 IlwYtn� K/a _$ r S:s ` ✓'L:Si\iIT:Y � 'Fe Y'p 1� y� !� n.o.�r n•1 f��, �llc..l�,w, > r. > rayv.'� 6 sa 7 ;I�>:� `� a6 'A C4 C�. 4S d� !� f � T sill , : PALL -4 .0 J// ¢ ♦ vaa a; s11 t KKK �v C ■ kr 'vata AP�j � d�..� r ?sx;WSy'8 xas ��+ sat MA • ' k I 2;A7 Ll " s os OV08 xf. t f M V 1 4 lSS �"• it �Sq t (j ct IWO NO Z. J ."t Ys Mrl� � �[�r��i �� �i � .•.Y 5 yx� f yS t W u w ' • • ;' 1 r i � DIY rN k�• { S s n fop � r 7 ( f �vM s b • r q •� � �� t .a - i ' is� • �,Sk�i .' WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3rd Pasco,WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A ROAD EASEMENT IN SHAUNDEE ESTATES. WHEREAS, a qualified petition has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Pasco requesting vacation of certain road easement within the City of Pasco; and WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City,the City Council may vacate streets,alleys and easements; and WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said easement have been duly taken and performed;NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That east/west road easement across the southerly 30 feet of Lot 5, Shaundee Estates, as depicted in Exhibit"l"be and the same is hereby vacated. Section 2. That a certified copy of this ordinance be recorded by the City Clerk of the City of Pasco in and with the office of the Auditor of Franklin County,Washington. Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five(5)days after approval,passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco,this 4th day of August 2014. Matt Watkins,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk,MMC Leland B.Kerr, City Attorney 1 os ovoa ct � z 0 � � Z J O U VO �9 aeoa I W M .-- w AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 24,2014 TO: Stanley Strebel,Acting City Manag� Workshop Mtg:.7/28/14 Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 FROM: Rick White, /Zvi t Community&Economic Development Director Y SUBJECT: Fire Safety Inspection Program I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Fire Safety Inspection Program—Proposed Resolution 3574 implementing the Program 2. Fire Safety Inspection Program—Proposed Ordinance amending applicable fees 3. Fire Safety Inspection Program—Memo distributed January 13,2014 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/28: DISCUSSION 8/4: MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution 3574, establishing a Fire Safety Inspection Program for the City of Pasco. 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance , establishing fees for a Fire Safety Inspection Program and setting penalties for noncompliance, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated at$65,000 annual costs of which$28,125 is expected to be paid annually through the General Fund. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The City of Pasco has not had a formal fire safety inspection program since 1987. During this time the City has experienced rapid commercial and industrial development. In the last rating by the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau (Bureau) in 2007, the City received 595 deficiency points out of a possible 650 in fire safety control. B. Pasco will receive a revised rating from the Bureau in 2015 or 2016. With the continued growth since the 2007 rating,the City could receive additional deficiency points and a re-classification. The Bureau and local commercial insurance vendors estimate that changes up or down from our current class 5 would result in an increase or decrease in the overall insurance premium between 5% and 10%depending on occupancy type, building construction, loss history and occupancy risk. C. Efforts already undertaken to improve the City's rating include automatic aid for building fires, training program improvements, ongoing regionalization of the communications system, smoke detector services, public fire safety educator certification and fire safety education programs, fire investigation certification program and juvenile fire setting intervention. The implementation of a Fire Safety Inspection Program will result in the highest chance to improve the City's rating from the Bureau. D. The International Fire Code (IFC) is adopted by the City in conjunction with the adoption of the State Building Code, and through the IFC, the City has the authority to implement an Inspection Program and establish appropriate fees. The IFC also establishes categories for hazard occupancies. E. City Council received a preliminary report on possible implementation of a Fire Safety Inspection Program at the January 13,June 9,June 23 2014 and July 14, 2014 Workshops. F. At the July 21,2014 Meeting, Council requested additional qualifications regarding fees. V. DISCUSSION: A. As provided to Council through memo (Reference #3) earlier this year, the proposed Inspection Program is expected to require 875 annual inspections of which 375 are estimated to be re- inspections. It was noted that the estimated annual 1200 hours required to implement the Program would be offset by the use of a contract inspector, paid for through the inspection fee of $75. Elimination of re-inspection fees will result in a General Fund subsidy of approximately$28,125 per year. 8(a) B. Currently, construction inspections follow the protocol described below. The exception in the Fire Safety Program will be the advance notification and provision of the Fire Safety Inspection checklist: • The applicable business will receive an introductory letter and the Inspection Checklist to initiate the inspection process. • The Fire Safety Inspection will occur and any violations will be provided to the business. Depending on the complexity, the business will have between 10—30 days to correct the violations. • if the corrections do not occur,the business and violation information will be forwarded to the Code Enforcement staff for follow-up. • Code Enforcement staff will contact the business through a Correction Notice to advise of the pending enforcement action. Corrective action will be requested within 10 days of the date of the Correction Notice. • If the corrections do not occur,the business will sent a Notice of Civil Violation(NCV). The NCV will require corrective action between 14 to 30 days of the date of the NCV. • If corrective actions have not occurred, the case will be scheduled for a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board. • Up until two days before the Code Enforcement Board hearing— the owner may enter into an administrative Voluntary Correction Agreement pledging corrective action within an acceptable timeframe. • The Board may grant an extension to the business for corrective actions within a certain timeframe; may find the business in non-compliance and issue a penalty pending corrective actions or may dismiss the violation—all depending on particular facts of the issue. C. The Fire Safety Inspection Program is one of several actions the City will undertake in order to maintain or improve the existing Class 5 rating. Other activities within the "Fire Safety Control' area include: • Certifying three Fire Investigators and conducting fire investigations of all fires; • Certifying three Public Fire Safety Educators to conduct the following: • Juvenile Fire Setter Intervention Program • School Fire Safety Program • Senior Fire Safety Program • Fire Drill Assistance Program • Fire safety news releases • Educational Station Tours D. In addition to the activities within the Fire Safety Control area, enhancements action must be taken in the following general areas: • Water Supply improvements - including additional fire hydrants and hydrant maintenance; • Fire Department improvements- including unit staffing and training;and • Communications improvements—including modernization and a single communications center with auto aid agencies. E. Approval of the proposed Resolution and adoption of the proposed Ordinance will enable implementation of the Fire Safety Inspection Program in conjunction with the 2015 Business License renewal process. RESOLUTION NO.3574 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF PASCO. WHEREAS,the City is preparing for a Washington Survey and Rating Bureau rating process in 2015 or early 2016; and WHEREAS,adoption of the Uniform Fire Code provides the authority for the City to establish a Fire Safety Inspection Program and related fees; and WHEREAS, Implementation of a Fire Safety Inspection Program is likely to improve the City's Fire Rating,thereby minimizing increases or potentially realizing decreases in insurance rates;and WHEREAS, an effective Fire Safety Inspection Program is likely to reduce loss and injuries from fires and evacuations;and WHEREAS, a review of existing City business licenses indicates that there are approximately 130 High Hazard Occupancies and 730 Moderate Hazard Occupancies conducting business within Pasco; and WHEREAS, an effective Fire Safety Inspection Program will consist of yearly inspection of High Hazard Occupancies and biennial inspections of Moderate Hazard Occupancies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to establish the following Fire Safety Inspection Program effective January 1,2015: • In conjunction with the annual business license renewal cycle, the City will provide advance notice of the requirement for a fire safety inspection and a fire inspection checklist to High Hazard and Moderate Hazard occupancies. • High Hazard occupancies will require an annual inspection and Moderate Hazard occupancies will require a biennial inspection. • Apartments and multi-family units will have fire safety inspections conducted through the existing biennial rental inspection program. • City Staff will accommodate requests for pre-inspection walkthroughs as resources allow. Section 2. The City Manager shall report annually to the City Council as to the cost and effectiveness of the Fire Safety Inspection Program. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of 12014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debbie L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 3 OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING FEES FOR A FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM AND MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE. WHEREAS,adoption of the Uniform Fire Code provides the authority for the City to establish a Fire Safety Inspection Program; and WHEREAS, Section 16.04.045 of the Pasco Municipal Code provides for a fee for fire and building code inspections not related to issued and active permits; and WHEREAS, implementation of a Fire Safety Inspection Program is likely to improve the City's Fire Rating and minimize increases or potential realize decreases in insurance rates; and WHRERAS, an effective Fire Safety Inspection Program is likely to reduce loss and injuries from fires and evacuations and reduce fire insurance rates city-wide; WHEREAS, the Fire Safety Inspection Program is a new Program and the business community will benefit from imposing less than the current maximum penalties in instances of noncompliance; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That PMC Section 3.07.030 shall be amended as set forth below. 3.07.030 BUILDING PERMITS: A) State: Fee/Charge Reference 1) State Bldg Code Council —charged on $4.50 16.04.040 All building permits issued. B) Building: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Building Permit Based on Improvement 16.04.040 Value. Value of Improvement: Permit Fee: $1 to $101000 $50.00 $10,001 to $11,000 $195.25 $11,001 to $12,000 $209.25 $12,001 to $13,000 $223.25 $13,001 to $14,000 $237.25 $14,001 to $15,000 $251.25 $15,001 to $16,000 $265.25 $16,001 to $17,000 $279.25 $17,001 to $18,000 $293.25 $18,001 to $19,000 $307.25 $19,001 to $20,000 $321.25 $20,001 to $21,000 $335.25 $21,001 to $22,000 $349.25 $22,001 to $23,000 $363.25 $23,001 to $24,000 $377.25 $24,001 to $25,000 $391.25 $25,001 to $50,000 $391.75 for the first $25,000+$10.10 for each add'I $1,000, or fraction thereof $50,001 to $100,000 $643.75 for the first $50,000+$7.00 for each add'I $1,000, or fraction thereof $100,001 to $500,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000+$5.60 for each add'I $1,000 or fraction thereof $500,000 to $1,000,000 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000+$4.75 for each add'I $1,000 or fraction thereof $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000+$3.65 for each add'I $1,000 or Fraction thereof 2) Plan Review 16.04.035 a) Improvement value less than No plan review fee 2 $10,000 b) Improvement value greater than 65% of Bldg permit $10,000 permit fee (when a plan review is required) 3) Fast Track Plan Review 100% of Bldg permit Admin fee Order#76 C) Plumbing: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Minimum Permit Fee $50.00 16.08.020 2) Gas appliance and piping installation $50.00 16.12.160 Permit Fee D) Restoration of surface by City and inspection: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Restoration + 1 yr. of maintenance Cost 16.12.070 E) Testing New Piping: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Expense tests and inspections Cost 16.12.300 F) Factory Assemble/Mobile Homes: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Placement Permit $50.00 19.24.050 G) Moving Buildings: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Without use of public R.O.W. $25.00 16.28.030 2) With use of R.O.W. $100.00 16.28.030 3) Into city limits from outside city limits $100.00 16.28.030 4) From within city limits to outside city limits $25.00 16.28.030 H) Mechanical Permit: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Minimum Permit Fee $50.00 16.32.030 1) Fire Safety Inspections: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Initial Inspection $75.00 16.40.010 2) Re-inspection (first re-inspection is w/o feel $75.00 J) Signs: Fee/Charge Reference 1) Application Fee $50.00 17.16.030 K) Demolition Permits: $50.00 16.04.040 L) Right-of-Way Permits: $50.00 12.04.050 3 M) Street Cut— including inspection of surfaces Fee/Charge Reference 1) Unpaved Surfaces $10.00 12.24.100 Section 2. That PMC Section 3.07.070 shall be amended as set forth below. 3.07.070 CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM: A) PMC Violations: Fee/Charge Reference 1) The maximum monetary penalty $500 11.02.050 for each separate violation per day or portion thereof(to a maximum of$5,000) 2) The maximum daily Penalty $50.00 11.02.050 for violations Per day Per site for infractions resulting from the Fire Safety Inspection Program 2-) 3) Repeat Violation Doubled daily 11.02.060(4) Monetary 4) Repeat Violations resulting from the Fire Maximum of 11.02.060(4) Safety Inspection Program $200 (separate violations are aggregated and considered as one) 5) Fire Safety Program violations scheduled for hearing before the Code Enforcement Board shall not be assessed penalties if resolved prior to the hearing. Section 3. 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 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 12, 2013 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager FROM: Rick White, Director Community&Economic Development SUBJECT: Fire Safety Inspections To determine possibilities for a Fire Safety Inspection Program, the number of active City business licenses was inventoried. This resulted in a determination of 1,500 various types of commercial business licenses. These business licenses were broken down into the following categories: • Low Hazard Licenses (559) such as retail stores, beauty salons, business offices or small groceries without food preparation or fuel services... • Moderate-Hazard Licenses (730) such as restaurants, contractors with construction equipment and/or storage, used tire businesses, larger retail stores and dance halls or nightclubs... • High-Hazard Licenses (130) such as food processing and warehousing, automotive repair or body shops, welding,painting, roofing companies, materials storage, auto wrecking... • Others (49) such as schools, day cares, motels... The Fire Safety Inspection Program is proposed to include a yearly inspection of all high hazard occupancies and a biennial inspection for all moderate hazard occupancies. For planning purposes, it's assumed that apartments and multi-family units will be inspected through the existing Rental Inspection Program with revisions to the existing inspection checklist. These revisions would include inspections of fire extinguishers, door closures, automatic lighting and other fire related safety provisions. It is also assumed in order to accomplish fire safety inspections during the Rental Inspection Program, the Code Enforcement Officers will need to acquire additional training but not necessarily need to be certified as Fire Safety Inspectors. Based on the above,this results in an additional inspection workload of approximately 875 fire safety inspections per year. This figure assumes that there will be 500 initial fire safety inspections and that three fourths (375)will require follow-up inspections. At 875 additional total inspections per year, this is an estimated increased inspection workload of greater than 1,000 man hours per year plus an estimated 200 man hours for administration. This is proposed to be accommodated by use of an existing City building inspector for the Fire Safety Inspection Program. This of course, will leave a service gap with the existing construction inspection workload that is proposed to be made up by the use of a contract building inspector. This division of duties will enable the Fire Safety Program to be initiated in-house. It is more efficient for the City's construction inspection services to be conducted by a contract building inspector. Any downtime in the construction inspection demand can be accommodated by deferring use of the contract inspector. Any downtime in the Fire Safety Program can be accommodated by using the existing building inspector for construction inspections. AGENDA REPORT NO. 23 FOR: City Council July 18, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manage FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director Workshop Mtg.: 07/28/2014 Regular Mtg.: 08/04/2014 SUBJECT: Pretreatment Program I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Pretreatment Program—Amended Administrative Order from WSDOE 2. Pretreatment Program—Final Sewer Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 07/28: Discussion 08/04: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. adopting the Wastewater Pretreatment Requirements. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Sewer Funds $184,000/PWRF$200,000 Pretreatment Permit Cost Recovery$200,000 (2015) IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City has been going through rapid growth in the past 15 years in both residential and commercial development. The growth has significantly increased sewer flows to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Currently flows to the WWTP are over 5 MGD (peak). B) The Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) oversees the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the City operates under its guidelines and conditions. Before reaching the threshold of 5 MGD, WSDOE was managing the pretreatment permits, municipal requirements and compliance for the food processors. C) WSDOE issued Administrative Order (AO) Docket No. 10241, dated October, 2013 stating that the City must begin IMMEDIATE implementation of an "Industrial Pretreatment Program" and comply with the regulation `promulgated in 40 CFR Part 403" (General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution) "and any additional regulations that may be promulgated under Section 307(6) (pretreatment)and 308(reporting) of the Federal Clean Water Act" in order to protect the City's Publicly Owned Treatment Works(POTWs).Failure to comply with the AO "may result in the issuance of civil penalties or other actions"to enforce the terms of the AO.(see reference 1). D) The WSDOE requires the City to begin to manage the pretreatment for both industrial and municipal facilities by January, 2015. The order outlines a number of items that need to be in place such as staffing and an ordinance. Staff has been meeting with WSDOE to go over the requirements and will continue to work with WSDOE during the transition. E) On April 28, 2014, a presentation on the draft Sewer User Ordinance was given to City Council. During this workshop it was discussed that after incorporating comments received from WSDOE, the final Sewer User Ordinance would be presented to City Council for formal adoption. V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff has prepared a final ordinance that meets the minimum requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and WSDOE. This final ordinance S(b) incorporates comments received from WSDOE. WSDOE believes the final ordinance meets the standard for a delegated pretreatment program. B) The City is required to adopt a pretreatment ordinance that requires a number of regulatory implementations. One of the important aspects of this ordinance is to protect and keep the City in compliance with the NPDES permit for the wastewater treatment plant. C) The City's WWTP is a biological wastewater treatment plant that is very cost efficient, yet at the same time any deviations from customers will have a major impact to the plant, resulting in possible violations to the NPDES permit. The City has received recognition as one of the best treatment plants in Washington State and will want to continue to operate the plant efficiently. Srn a `1 W4. h2 y A9NP a',v STATE Of W SHiNCTOIN DEPARTMENT C-)F ECOLOGY 4601 N Monroe Street • Spokane, Wd,hingron 99205-1395- (509).'129.3400 October 2,2013 Mr. Abroad QayoumL P.E. City of Pasco Public Works Director Amended Order Docket# 10241 PO Box 293 Order Docket# 9737 Pasco,WA 99301 Re: Amended Administrative Order Dear Mr. Qayoumi: The Department of Ecology(Ecology)has issued the enclosed amended Administrative Order(Order) requiring the City of Pasco(City)to comply with: • Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington(RCW)—Water Pollution Control • Chapter 173-208 Washington Administrative Code(WAC)—Grant of Authority Sewerage Systems • Chapter 173-240 Washington Administrative Code(WAC)-- Submission of plans and reports for construction of wastewater facilities • Chapter 40 CFR Part 403 General Pretreatment Standards and New Sources of Pollution • City of Pasco National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit No. WA-004496-2 • City of Pasco State Waste Discharge Permit No. ST005369. This Order Amendment changes the schedule dates in Order#9737 per your July 22,2013 request. If you have questions please contact Scott MaAery at(509)329-3473 or sma1461 @ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, .1 /b. M- James M Bellatty Section Manager Water Quality Program Eastern Regional Office CERTIFIED MAIL 7010 0290 0003 5679 0584 JMB:MH:red Enclosure: Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 WQ—Order Amend(9/2011) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THE MATTER OF AN ) AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ADMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ) ORDER DOCKET#10241 AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER City of Pasco ) DOCKET#9737 Abroad Qayoumi To: Ahmad Qayoumi, P.E. City of Pasco Public Works Director PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 . Amended Order Docket# 10241 Order Docket# 9737 The Department of Ecology(Ecology)has issued this amended Administrative Order(Order) Docket#10241 to amend Order Docket#9737 dated February 1,2013 issued to the City of Pasco. This Order Amendment describes the corrective actions rewired at the location known as the City of Pasco Public Works Department located at 525 North 3 Avenue,Pasco, WA. This Order Amendment changes the schedule dates in Order#9737 per your July 22,2013 request. q" -V l tzeerstrx± i Rrsinmsm�ie �y Ecology's determination that a violation/violations has/have occurred is based on the violations listed below. Violation(s)and associated corrective action(s): Violation(s)description: Chapter 40 C.F.R. §Part 403.8 requires a Publicly Owned Treatment Works(POTWs)(or combination of POTWs operated by the same entity)with a total design flow of greater than 5 MGD and receiving wastewater from industrial users subject to pretreatment standards to establish a pretreatment program unless the state exercises its option to assume authority for pretreatment. Effective January 1,2015,Pasco needs to take authority for their pretreatment program because on that date Ecology will no longer assume authority for pretreatment for the City. Corrective actions required: For these reasons and in accordance with RCW 90.48.120(2)Ecology orders that the City of Pasco take the following actions. Ecology requires these actions at the location known as City of Pasco Public Works Department located at525 N. Third Ave., Pasco, WA 99301. Ecology WQ—order Amend(92011) Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 2 revised the submittal dates in Order#9737 to those in this Order per the DATE request of the City of Pasco. On or before January 1,2015,the City must implement an Industrial Pretreatment Program in accordance with the legal authorities,policies,procedures,and financial provisions described in a pretreatment program approved by Ecology. The following pretreatment implementation activities must occur starting immediately: A. General Requirements 1. The City must work with Ecology to ensure all commercial and industrial users of the POTWs comply with the pretreatment regulations promulgated in 40 CFR Part 403 and any additional regulations that may be promulgated under Section 307(b)(pretreatment)and 308 (reporting)of the Federal Clean Water Act. 2.This order requires the development of a program under which the City administers the Federal Pretreatment Program and State Waste Discharge Permit program for control of discharges to the publicly owned municipal and industrial sewer from tributary industries. Section E through I contains a schedule of submittals related to pretreatment program development. Sections B, C, and D apply until program delegation.Upon delegation the City takes over implementation of the pretreatment program. The City must then submit copies of permits to Ecology upon issuance providing the basis for Ecology to terminate its permits for indirect discharges. Ecology updates the Cities discharge permits to include conditions and requirements for the delegated systems. B. Wastewater Discharge Pennit Required Until delegated,the City must not allow Significant Industrial Users(SIUs)to discharge wastewater to the City's sewerage system until such user receive a wastewater discharge permit from Ecology in accordance with Chapter 90.48 RCW and Chapter 173-216 WAC, as amended. C. Identification and Reporting of Existing New, and Proposed Industrial Users 1. The City must take continuous,routine measures to identify all existing,new,and proposed SIUs and Potential Significant Industrial Users(PSIUs) discharging or proposing to discharge to the City's sewerage system. 2. Within 30 days of becoming aware of an unpermitted existing,new,or proposed industrial user who may be an SIU,the City must notify such user by registered mail that,if classified as an SILT,they must apply to Ecology and obtain a State Waste Discharge Permit.A.copy of this notification letter must also be sent to Ecology within this same 30-day period. 3. The City must also notify all PSIUs,as identified,that if their classification should Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 3 change to an SIU, they must apply to Ecology for a State Waste Discharge Permit within 30 days of such change.. D. Duty to Enforce Discharge Prohibitions I. In accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(a),the City must not authorize or knowingly allow the discharge of any pollutants into its POTWs which cause pass through or interference,or which otherwise violates general or specific discharge prohibitions contained in 40 CFR Part 403.5 or WAC-173-216-060. 2. The City must not authorize or knowingly allow the introduction of any of the following into their treatment works: a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTWs (including, but not limited to waste streams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21). b. Industries with pollutants which cause corrosive structural damage to the POTWs, must not discharges pH lower than 5.0, or greater than 11.0 standard units, unless the works are specifically designed to accommodate such discharges. c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts that could cause obstruction to the flow in sewers or otherwise interfere with the operation of the POTWs. d. Any pollutant,including oxygen demanding pollutants, (BOD,etc.)released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause interference with the POTWs. d. Petroleum oil,non-biodegradable cutting oil,or products of mineral origin in amounts that will cause interference or pass through. e. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases,vapors,or fumes within the POTW in a quantity which may cause acute worker health and safety problems. f. Heat in amounts that will inhibit biological activity in the POTWs resulting in interference but in no case heat in such quantities such that the temperature at the POTW headworks exceeds 40°C (1047)unless Ecology, upon request of the City, approves, in writing,alternate temperature limits. g. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the City. h. Wastewaters prohibited to be discharged to the POTWs by the Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC),unless authorized under the Domestic Sewage Exclusion(WAC 173-303-071). 3. All of the following are prohibited from discharge to the POTWs unless approved in writing by Ecolo gy under extraordinary circumstances(such as a lack of direct discharge alternatives due to combined sewer service or the need to augment sewage flows due to septic conditions): a. Noncontact cooling water in significant volumes. Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 4 b. Stormwater and other direct inflow sources. c. Wastewaters significantly affecting system hydraulic loading,which do not require treatment,or would not be afforded a significant degree of treatment by the system. 4. The City must notify Ecology if any industrial user violates the prohibition listed in Us section. The following information must be submitted by the dates indicated in order to constitute a complete application for a pretreatment program delegation. E. Industrial User Survey The City must complete and submit to Ecology an Industrial User Survey listing all Sills and PSIUs discharging to the POTW. The survey must be received by the Water Quality Program at ERO by Match 1,2014. At a minimum,the list of SIUs and PSIUs must be developed by means of a telephone book search,a water utility billing records search, and a physical reconnaissance of the service area. Information on PSIUs must at least include:the business name;telephone number;address;description of the industrial process(es);and,the known wastewater volumes and characteristics.For assistance with the development of the Industrial User Survey,the City must refer to Ecology's guidance document entitled"Performing an Industrial User Survey." F. Logal Limits Evaluation 1. Sampling to Determine Local Limits a. The City must analyze for the priority pollutants listed in Tables H and III of Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 122 as amended. The City must conduct sampling quarterly starting 4th Quarter 2013(October-December)for one year at both of the City's POTWs.Each quarter will have a minimum of two samples per quarter. The City must conduct semiannual sampling once during the wet season and once during the dry season, approximately six months apart. b. The City must sample the influent and effluent on days when industrial and commercial discharges occur at normal to maximum levels. c. The City must use the procedures listed in 40 CFR 136 for collections, preservation, storage, and analysis of samples. d. Sludge 1) The City must take sludge samples as the sludge leaves the dewatering device . or digesters before mixing with sludge of different ages. 2) The City must report sludge analytical results in mg/kg(dry weight) Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 5 e. The City must sample as described in Table 1. Table 1: Local Limits Sampling Parameter Sample Point Sample Type Minimum Number of Samples Per Sampling Event Conventional Pollutants, Influent 24-hour Composite Three discrete 24- Metals,Acid hour samples within Compounds, a week (Mon-Fri) Base/neutral and 2)(3) Pesticides Effluent 24-hour Composite Three discrete 24- hour samples within a week(Mon-Fri) (2)(3) Sludge Grab Once, during the same time period influent and effluent samples are taken. Hauled Waste Grab Once, during the same time period that influent and effluent samples are taken (5) Volatile Organics Influent Eight grab samples Three 24-hour collected over 24- samples within a hours week (Mon-Fri) (2)(4) Effluent Eight grab samples Three 24-hour collected over 24- samples within a hours week Mon-Fri (2)(4) Sludge Grab Once, during the same time period influent and effluent samples are taken. Hauled Waste Grab Once, during the same time period influent and effluent samples are taken (5) Note: (1) Influent and effluent samples for cyanide must'be collected and analyzed as required in paragraph F.1.g. 4). (2) Sample days need not be contiguous. (3) Each 24 hour composite sample must be analyzed and reported as a discrete sample. 4 A single analysis for volatile pollutants may be run for each 24-hour monitoring day. Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 6 (See paragraph F.1.h.2). (5) Need to be sampled if considering to authorization of discharging hauled waste at the POTWs' f. Metals, Cyanide, Percent Solids 1). The City must sample influent, effluent, and sludge from its facility for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,silver,and zinc and report percent solids for the sludge. 2). The City must analyze and report Metals as total metals. 3). For pretreatment sampling,the City must use EPA-approved analytical methods that achieve the method detection limits(MDLs)in Table 2,unless higher detection limits are approved by the Water Quality Program at the Eastern Regional Office(ERO). Requests for higher MDLs must be submitted in writing to the ERO Pretreatment Engineer at the address below. 4). Cyanide sampling:Influent and effluent sampling for cyanide must be conducted as follows. Eight discrete grab samples must be collected over a 24-hour day. Each grab sample must be at least 100 ml. Each sample must be checked for the presence of chlorine and/or sulfides prior to preserving and compositing(refer to Standard Methods,4500-CN B). Table 2: Method Detection Limits Parameter MDL, u /I Arsenic 1.0 Cadmium 0.2 Chromium 1.0 Copper 1.0 Cyanide 10.0 1) Lead 1.0 Mercury 0.1 Molybdenum 4.0 Nickel 1.0 Selenium 2.0 Silver 0.2 Zinc 4.0 Note: (1) This value represents a minimum level, not an MDL. Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 7 g. Toxic Organics 1) The City must perform chemical analyses of its influent,effluent,and sludge for all specific toxic organic pollutants listed in Table IYo f Appendix D of 40 CFR 122. 2) Volatile Organic Sampling: eight discrete samples must be collected over the 24 hour day using 40 ml VOC vials with Teflon septa. During sampling,the flow from the discharge will be controlled to produce smooth laminar flow to prevent agitation and aeration of the sample. The VOC vials will be filled to the top such that there is a meniscus present. There must be no visible air space or air bubbles in the VOC vials when capped, A single analysis for volatile pollutants may be run for each monitoring day by compositing equal volumes of the individual discrete VOC vials(at the analytical laboratory using extreme care not to introduce air/air bubbles)directly into the GC purge and trap apparatus, with no less than 1 ml of each grab included in the composite. The composite sample must be analyzed immediately. 3) In addition to priority pollutants, a reasonable attempt must be made to identify and quantify the ten most abundant substances of each fraction (excluding priority pollutants and un-substituted aliphatic compounds)shown to be present by peaks on the total ion plots(reconstructed gas chromatogram) more than ten times higher than the adjacent background noise which produces an identifiable spectra, and more than five scans wide. Identification must be attempted by a laboratory whose computer data processing programs are capable of comparing the sample mass spectrum to a.computerized library of mass spectra,with visual confirmation by an experienced analyst. Quantification may be an order of magnitude estimate based on comparison with an internal standard. 4) Sample Handling: All samples must be prepared,preserved,shipped,and analyzed in accordance with USEPA Methods 624 and 625, 2. Local Limits Evaluation Requirements a. By June 1,2014,the City must submit a complete local limits evaluation to the Water Quality Program at ERO. b. The evaluation must propose limits that protect water quality in the receiving stream,biological processes in the treatment plant, and sludge quality goals. c.At a minimum,the evaluation must address fats, oils&grease,conventional pollutants(i.e.BOD and TS S),pH,TKN,and propose limits for each metal(above) and each priority pollutant listed in Tables II and III of Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 122 which has been observed to be entering the POTWs at levels of concern for pass through or interference. WQ—Order Amend(91201 I) Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 8 d. The submittal must include proposed local limits, maximum allowable headworks loading, all supporting calculations, data from which calculations were based, and clear explanations of all assumptions. e. The monitoring to support development of these local limitations must be conducted as required in section F.1. f. For assistance with the development of Local Limits,the City must refer to Ecology's guidance document entitled, "Model Guidance Manual for Using NEWLL8.xls to Develop Local Discharge Limitations"and EPA's "Local Limits Development Guidance" dated July 2004. g. The City can request for a waiver from Water Quality Program at ERO if their current local limits meet the requirements in sections F.1 and F.2. G. Sewer Use Ordinance The City must develop and adopt a sewer use ordinance according to the following schedule: 1. By April 1,2014,the City must submit a proposed sewer use ordinance and evaluation of legal authority to the Water Quality Program at ERO. a. The ordinance must incorporate the local limits developed under paragraph S6.F and the general pretreatment requirements of 40 CFR 403. b. The evaluation of legal authority,as minimum,will be an evaluation by the City's attorney of the legal authorities to be used by the City to apply and enforce the requirements of Sections 307(b)and(c)and 402(b)(8)of the Clean Water Act, including those requirements outlined in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1).The ability of the POTW's program to administer the program to any tributary industries outside (i.e.Port of Quincy)the City limits through adequate multijurisdictional agreements must also be addressed. 2. Within three months of approval of the proposed sewer use ordinance by the Water Quality Program at ERO,the City must codify the ordinance, incorporation with such modifications as required by Water Quality Program at ERO. 3.For assistance with the development of Sewer Use Ordinance,the City must refer to Ecology's guidance document entitled, "Model Pretreatment Ordinance"and EPA's "Model Ordinance for Pretreatment". 4. The City can request for a waiver from the Water Quality Program at ERO if their current Sewer Use Ordinance meets the requirements in section G.La and b. H. Mercury Control Plan The City must revise and submit to Ecology an updated Mercury abatement and control plan. The plan must be expanded as Ecology develops and releases further guidance. The Mercury Control Plan must be submitted to Ecology by June 1,2014 Mercury Plan development guidance can be found at the following locations: Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 9 Ecology mercury web site http ://www.ecy.wa. gov/mercury/ For Dental Plan guidance hUp://www. egy_wa eov/dentalbmps/index html Reduction plan guidance bttp://www. ecy.wa. gov/biblio/0303001 html I. Pro ram Proced igees Manual The City must develop and adopt a Program Procedures Manual (PPM) according to the following schedule: I. By June 1,2014,the City must submit a draft PPM to the Water Quality Program at ERO. The manual will contain,at a minimum,provisions implementing State Waste Discharge Permit program of Chapter 173-216 WAC,Plans for Pollution Control Facilities of Chapter 173-240 WAC, and the federal pretreatment program requirements of 40 CFR 403. 2. Upon Ecology's review and feedback,the City will resubmit the final PPM and addresses Ecology feedback by August 1,2014. 3. At a minimum,the PPM will contain the following: a. An evaluation of the financial programs,staffing,and revenue sources,as required by 40 CFR 403.8(f)(3),required to implement the pretreatment program; b. Policies and procedures(e.g. locating industries,notification, engineering, permitting,inspection, data management,handling hauled waste,sampling,spill plan review, and enforcement—Enforcement Response Plan),needed to implement local,state, and federal pretreatment standards and requirements in particular those of 40 CFR 403.8 and 403.12; c. List of monitoring equipment required by the POTWs to implement the pretreatment program and a description of municipal facilities to be constructed or acquired for monitoring or analysis of industrial wastes; and, d. Procedures for submitting,reviewing, and approving Engineering Reports,Plans and Specifications, and Operational Manuals as outlined in WAC 173-240 for industrial facilities. J. Schee}ule,for Pretreatment Program Development 1. By November 1,2014,the City must submit three copies of their Pretreatment Program to the Water Quality Program at ERO for approval in accordance with the general pretreatment regulations(40 CFR 403). 2. At a minimum,the pretreatment program must include the following: a. Results of an industrial waste survey(Industrial User Survey) as required by 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(i-iii),including identification of non-domestic users and Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 10 the character and volume contributed to the POTWs by the non-domestic users and developed as required in paragraph E.; b. Local limits for pollutants, developed as required in section F.2; c. The City's sewer use ordinance,developed as required in section G; d. An evaluation by the City's attorney of the legal authorities used by the City to apply and enforce the requirements of Sections 307(b)and(c)and 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act,including those requirements outline in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1). The City must address multijurisdictional issues as required in paragraph G; e. An evaluation of the financial programs, staffing, and revenue sources, as required by 40 CFR 403.80(3) and paragraph I, employed to implement the pretreatment program; f. Policies and procedures (e.g. permitting, inspections, compliance and enforcement—Enforcement Response Plan), required to implement the Chapter 40 CFR 403 and in particular those requirements in 40 CFR 403.8 and 403.12 and as required by section I; g. List of monitoring equipment required by the POTWs to implement the pretreatment program and a description of municipal facilities to be constructed or acquired for monitoring or analysis of industrial wastes and as required by sections F.and I; h. Copy of any statutes,ordinances,regulations,agreements, or other authorities relied upon by POTWs for City's administration of their Pretreatment Program; i. Mercury Control Plan and as required by section H;-and, j. Procedures for submitting,reviewing, and approving Engineering Reports, Plans and specifications, and Operational Manuals as outlined in Chapter WAC 173240 for industrial facilities. K. Continuing Monitoring for Pollutants of Concern 1. Following the completion of the local limit sampling required under Section F, the City must continue to monitor for pollutants of concern identified in the local limits evaluation on a semi-annual basis. Sampling events must be once during the wet season and once during the dry season, approximately six months apart. 2. The influent and effluent must be sampled on days when industrial and commercial discharges are occurring at normal to maximum levels. 3. The City must sample as described in Sections F.3 through F.6 above. Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 11 L. ftorts and Information All reports and information required to be submitted under this part must be submitted to the following addresses: Original: Pretreatment Engineer Department of Ecology,Eastern Regional Office Water Quality Program 4601 N. Monroe Street Spokane, WA 99205 SUMMARY OF NECESSARY SUBMITTAL DATES Section Submittal Frequency Submittal Due Date E Industrial User Survey Once March 1,2014 F.1 Sampling to Determine Local Twice a quarter for Begin 4thQuarter2013 Limits four quarters in 2013 —f—.2.a Submit Local Limits Evaluation Once June 1,2014 G.1 Submit Proposed Sewer Use Once April 1,2014 Ordinance H. Mercury Control Plan Once June 1, 2014 I.1 Submit draft Program Once June 1,2014 Procedures Manual I.2 Submit Final Program Once August 1,2014 Procedures Manual J.1 Submit Pretreatment Program Once November 1,2014 No other condition or requirement of Order Docket#9737 is hereby affected by this amendment. Under RCW 34.05.110, small businesses are eligible for a waiver of a fast-time paperwork violation and an opportunity to correct other violations. We have made no determination as to whether you meet the definition of a"small business"under this section. However, we have determined that the requirements of RCW 34.05.110 do not apply to the violation(s)due to a conflict with federal law or program requirements,including federal requirements that are a prescribed condition to the allocation of federal funds to the state. Failure to comply with this.Order may result in the issuance of civil penalties or other actions, whether administrative or judicial,to enforce the terms of this Order. Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Pj�agee 12 ;!.O�4'T�YPI.'.ia`I r `Rw. w ... F.` 5.�i9s:nw.ieic ��s8� You have a right to appeal this Order to the Pollution Control Hearing Board(PCHB)within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order. The appeal process is governed by Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. "Date of receipt"is defined in RCW 43.21B.001(2). To appeal you must do both of-the following within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order: • File your appeal and a copy of this Order with the PCHB(see addresses below). Filing weans actual receipt by the PCHB during regular business hours. • Serve a copy of your appeal and this Order on Ecology in paper form-by mail or in person. (See addresses below.)E-mail is not accepted. You must also comply with other applicable requirements in Chapter 43.21 B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. Your appeal alone will not stay the effectiveness of this Order. Stay requests must be submitted in accordance with RCW 43.21)3.320. Street Addresses Mailing Addresses Department of Ecology Department of Ecology Attn: Appeals Processing Desk Attn: Appeals Processing Desk 300 Desmond Drive SE PO Box 47608 Lacey, WA 98503 Olympia,WA 98504-7608 Pollution Control Hearings Board Pollution Control Hearings Board 1111 Israel Road SW PO Box 40903 STE 301 Olympia, WA 98504-0903 Tumwater, WA 98501 Please direct all questions about this Order to: Scott Mallery Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office 4601 North Monroe Spokane,WA 99205 Phone: (509)329-3473 Email: smal461@ecy.wa.gov Amended Administrative Order Docket#10241 September 24,2013 Page 13 Pollution Control Hearings Board Website www.eho.wa.govBoards_PCHB.aspx Chapter 43.21B RCW-Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office—Pollution Control Hearings Board http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defaull.aspx?cite=43.21E Chapter 371-08 WAC—Practice and Procedure http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default,aspx?cite=371-08 Chapter 34.05 RCW—Administrative Procedure Act http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defaWt.aspx?cite=34.05 Laws: www,ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/ecyrcw.html Rules: www,ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/ecywac.htnil James M.Bellatty Date Water Quality Section Mana Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, adopting Chapter 13.62 "Pretreatment Regulations"; amending Section 13A.52.220 "Specific Prohibitions for Discharge", Section 13A.52.270 "Preliminary Treatment by Owner"; and repealing Section 13A.52.230 "Limitations on Wastewater Strength", Section 13A.52.280 "Permit Required", Section 13A.52.290 "Maintenance of Pretreatment Equipment and Facilities", Section 13A.52.300 "Acceptable Types of Pretreatment Facilities", Section 13A.52.310 "Location of Facilities", Section 13A.52.320 "Installation of Facilities". Section 13A.52.330 "Installation Schedule", Section 13A.52.340 "Pretreatment Waste Disposal", Section 13A.52.350 "Pretreatment Accidental Spill Containment Program", Section 13A.52.360 "Pretreatment Records Required", Section 13A.52.380 "Testing Methods and Responsibility", Section 13A.52.390 "Special Arrangements Concerning Industrial Wastes", and Section 13A.52.400 "Powers and Authority of Inspectors" WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, as a result of its increase in population and the size of its wastewater utility facility, has become responsible, under the Regulatory Standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the assumption of the regulation of pretreatment of domestic and industrial wastewater, and to establish uniform requirement for dischargers into the City of Pasco wastewater treatment facilities; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to assume regulatory responsibility for pretreatment of generated wastewater to protect the public health within the City, and to protect the transmission and treatment components of its wastewater system, it is necessary for the City to enact regulations creating a pretreatment program that meets the Washington State and Federal rules regarding the treatment of wastewater, comply with the conditions of its natural pollutant discharge elimination system permit. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a new Chapter 13.62 entitled "Pretreatment Regulations" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is adopted and shall read as follows: 7/23/14 Clia ter 13,6 PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 13.62.010 General Provisions, 13.62.020 General Sewer Use Requirements. 13.62.030 Pretreatment of Wastewater. 13.62,040 Wastewater Discharge Permits -Required. 13.62.050 Wastewater Discharge Permits -Issuance. 13.62.060 Reporting Requirements. 13.62.070 Compliance Monitoring. 13.62.080 Confidential Information. 13.62.090 Publication of Users in Significant Noncompliance. 13.62.100 Administrative Enforcement Remedies, 13.62.110 Judicial Enforcement Remedies. 13.62.120 Supplemental Enforcement Action. 13.62.130 Affirmative Defenses to Discharge Violations. 13.62.140 Wastewater Treatment Rates and Surcharges (Reserved). 13.62.150 Miscellaneous Provisions. 13.62.010 GENERAL PROVISIONS. A) P=ose and Policy. This Chapter sets forth uniform requirements for dischargers into the City of Pasco's, hereinafter referred to as "the City", domestic and industrial publically owned treatment works (POTW), and enables the City to protect public health in conformity with all local, state, and federal laws relating thereto, including the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [USC] 1251 et seq.) and the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 403). In this regard,the objectives of this Chapter are the following: 1) To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the domestic or industrial sewer which could cause interference with the operation of the POTW; 2) To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the domestic or industrial sewer which could pass through the POTW, inadequately treated, into the environment or otherwise be incompatible with the POTW; 3) To prevent damage to the transmission or treatment systems; 4) To ensure that the qualities of the domestic and industrial biosolids are maintained at a level that allows their use and disposal in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations; 7/23/14 5) To protect personnel who may be affected by wastewater and biosolids in the course of their employment, and to protect the general public; 6) To improve the opportunity to reuse and reclaim wastewater and biosolids of the domestic and industrial POTW; 7) To promote strategies which reduce the amounts of pollution generated by Users of the domestic and industrial POTW, thereby reducing the associated hazards to the POTW and the environment; 8) To enable the City to run a pretreatment program that meets Washington State rules in Chapter 173-216 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), federal rules of 40 CFR part 403, conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, State Waste Discharge Permit (SWD), sludge use and disposal requirements, and any other Federal or State laws to which the POTW is subject; and 9) To provide for fees for the equitable distribution of the cost of operation, maintenance, and improvement of the POTWs. This Chapter shall apply to all persons connected (or believed connected) to the sanitary sewer or industrial sewer collection systems. The Chapter compels the production of information, authorizes the issuance of wastewater discharge permits; provides for monitoring, compliance, and enforcement activities; establishes administrative review procedures; requires User reporting; and provides for the setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs resulting from the program established herein. B) Administration. This Chapter provides for the regulation of discharges to the City's domestic and industrial. POTWs through the enforcement of administrative regulations. The Public Works Director shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this Chapter, except as otherwise provided herein. Any powers granted to or duties imposed upon the Public Works Director may be delegated by the Public Works Director to other City personnel. C) Abbreviations, The following abbreviations, when used in this Chapter, shall have the designated meanings: 1) AKART-All known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment. 2) ASPP• Accidental Spill Prevention Plan. 3) BMPs - Best Management Practices. 4) BMR- Baseline Monitoring Report. 5) BOD5-Biochemical Oxygen Demand. 7/23/14 6) CFR- Code of Federal Regulations. 7) CIU - Categorical Industrial User. g) cm- Centimeter. 4) COD- Chemical Oxygen Demand. 10) CWA- Clean Water Act, 11) CWF- Combined Wastestream Formula. 12) DMR- Discharge Monitoring Report. 13) DOE- Washington State Department of Ecology. 14) EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 15) gpd - gallons per day. 16) IU- Industrial User. 17) LEL- Lower Explosion Limit. 18) MD'L- Maximum Daily Limit. 14) mg/1 - milligrams per liter, interchangeable with part per million (ppm). 20) NAICS-North American Industry Classification System. 21) am-Nanometer, 22) NPDES-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 23) NSCIU—Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User. 24) 0&M- Operations and Maintenance. 25) POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works. 26) ppb- parts per billion, interchangeable with ug/l. 27) ppm- parts per million, interchangeable with mg/1. 7/23/14 28) PWRF- Process Water Reuse Facility. 29) RCRA- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 30) RCW-Revised Code of Washington. 31) SIC- Standard Industrial Classification. 32) SIU- Significant Industrial User. 33) SWD- State Waste Discharge Permit. 34) TDS- Total Dissolved Solids. 35) TRC- Total Residual Chlorine. 36) TSS - Total Suspended Solids, 37) TTO-Total Toxic Organics. 38) ug/1-micrograms per liter, interchangeable with parts per billion(ppb). 39) USC -United States Code. 40) WAC- Washington Administrative Code. D) Definitions. Unless a provision explicitly states otherwise, the following terms and phrases, as used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings hereinafter designated. 1) Act, "the Act", or CWA. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act(CWA), as amended, 33 USC Section 1251 et. seq. 2) Applicable Pretreatment Standards. For any specified pollutant, the more stringent of the City's prohibitive discharge standard, local limit, or categorical pretreatment standard, and any other local, state, or federal standard. 3) Approval Authority. The Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program Manager. 4) Authorized or Duly Authorized Representative of the User. a) If the User is a corporate entity: (1) The president, manager, member secretary, treasurer, or a vice-president or manager in charge of a principal business function, or any 7/23/14 other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporate entity; or (2) The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided the manager is: authorized to make management decisions which govem the operation of the regulated facility, including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiate and direct other comprehensive measures to provide long-term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; can provide that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for control mechanism requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. b) If the User is a limited partnership or sole proprietorship: a general partner,partner, or proprietor, respectively. C) If the User is a federal, state, or local governmental facility: a director or highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and performance of the activities of the government facility, or their designee. d) The individuals described in sections a, b, or c above, may designate another authorized representative if the authorization is in writing, the authorization specifies the individual or position responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates or having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company and the written authorization is submitted to the City. 5) Best Management Practices (BMPs). Means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to implement the prohibitions listed in Section 13.62.020(A) and (B) as well as [40CFR 403.5(a)(1) and (b)]. BMPs may also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, drainage from raw materials storage, FOG (fats, oils, or greases) waste management, or mercury waste management. 6) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS). The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory procedures for five (5) days at 20 degrees centigrade, usually expressed as a concentration(e.g., mg/1). 7) Biosolids. Municipal sludge that meets federal and state standards for beneficial use application to the land. 8) Bypass. The intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of the 7/23/14 pretreatment or treatment process. 9) Categorical Pretreatment Standard or Categorical Standard. Any regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by EPA in accordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 USC Section 1317) which apply to a specific category of Users and which appear in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471. 10) Categorical Industrial User (CIU). An Industrial User subject to a Categorical Pretreatment Standard or Categorical Standard. 11) City. The City of Pasco or the City Council of the City of Pasco, or its authorized officer, employee, agent, or representative. 12) Chemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the decomposable substances in water or wastewater which uses a chemical oxidant instead of bacteria as in the BODE test. 13) Color. The optical density at the visual wave length of maximum absorption, relative to distilled water. One hundred percent transmittance is equivalent to zero optical density. 14) Composite Sample. A representative composite of samples of a waste stream taken throughout the period of a day when discharges are produced by a regulated activity. Samplers and sample techniques are subject to approval by the Public Works Director. Composite samplers must interface with a flow metering device to produce a representative "flow proportionate" composite sample unless the Public Works Director has determined that flow proportionate samples are not required or the analyte is not amenable to composite sampling (pH,temperature, oil, etc.). 15) Control Authority. The local government entity recognized by Washington State Department of Ecology or the EPA with the responsibility to enforce the pretreatment program applicable to an area with flows received at the POTW. 16) Conventional Pollutants. Pollutants typical of municipal sewage and defined as BOD, TSS, fecal coliform,pH, and oil/grease (40 CFR 401.16). 17) Daily Concentration. The concentration obtained through analysis of a composite sample of all discharges over a day (or 24-hour period) or the average of all discrete samples taken over such period. 18) Daily Limit (Maximum Daily Limit or MDL), The maximum allowable discharge of a pollutant over a calendar day or equivalent 24-hour period. Where daily limits are expressed in units of mass, compliance is the product of the Daily Concentration and the flow over the same period. 7/23/14 19) Department of Ecology (DOE). The Washington State Department of Ecology. 20) Discrete Sample. A single sample of wastewater taken at neither set time nor flow. Also known as a grab sample or single sample. 21) Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). A report submitted by a permittee (usually monthly or quarterly), which gives the results of the monitoring tests performed. 22) Domestic Publically Owned Treatment Works. That portion of the POTW intended primarily for the collecting, pumping, treating, and disposing of domestic wastewater. 23) Domestic Wastewater. Wastewater of a similar volume and chemical makeup to that from a residential dwelling unit. Discharges from a residential dwelling unit typically include up to 900 cubic feet of flow per month, with a concentration of up to 300 mg/l of BOD, 300 mg/l TSS, and 60 mg/l Ammonia. 24) Draft Permit. A document which, usually in the form of a permit, indicates a decision to issue or deny, modify, revoke and reissue, terminate, or reissue a permit. A Proposed Permit is not a Draft Permit(40 CFR 122.2). 25) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, where appropriate, the Regional Water Management Division Director, the Regional Administrator, or other duly authorized official. 26) Existing Source. Any source of discharges subject to pretreatment standards and discharging prior to the promulgation of those standards or otherwise not meeting the definition of a"New Source"in this section. 27) General Permit. A wastewater discharge permit issued to a group of Users with similar types of operations, waste discharges, limits, and monitoring requirements; must meet all applicable requirements for a wastewater discharge permit. See wastewater discharge permit. 28) Grab Sample. A sample which is taken from a wastestream without regard to the flow in .the wastestream and over a period of time not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes. 29) Indirect Discharge or Discharge. The introduction of pollutants into the POTW from any nondomestic source subject to this Chapter, Section 307(b), (c), or(d) of the Act, or any other State or Federal regulations. 30) Industrial Wastewater. Water or liquid-carried waste from commercial or industrial processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater, These wastes may result from 7/23/14 any process or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business, from the development of any natural resource, or from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities. 31) Instantaneous Limit. The maximum concentration of a pollutant allowed to be discharged at any time, determined from the analysis of a discrete sample. For analyzes for which Users must take a grab sample for compliance purposes, this standard is the same as the MDL standard. For all other pollutants the Instantaneous Limit shall be twice the Daily Limit. 32) Interference. A discharge which causes (either by itself or in combination with other discharges) a violation of the City's NPDES permit, SWD permit, or prevents the intended biosolids sludge use or disposal by inhibiting or disrupting the POTW, including its collection systems, pump stations, and wastewater and sludge treatment processes. For example, a discharge from a User which causes a blockage resulting in a discharge at a point not authorized under the City's NPDES permit or SWD permit. 33) Local Limits. Effluent limitations developed for Users by the Public Works Director to specifically protect the POTW from the potential of Pass Through, Interference, vapor toxicity, explosions, sewer corrosion, and intended biosolids uses. Such.limits shall be based.on the POTW's site-specific .flow and loading capacities, receiving water and or receiving land considerations, and reasonable treatment expectations for non-domestic wastewater. See Section 13.62.020(D)(E) and (F) for a full list of Local Limits, 34) Lower Explosive Limit (LEL). The lowest concentration of a gas-in-air mixture at which the gas can ignite. 35) Maximum Allowable Discharge Limit. The maximum concentration (or loading) of a pollutant allowed to be discharged by a User at any time, determined from the analysis of a discrete or composited sample collected. 36). Medical Waste. Isolation wastes, infectious agents, human blood and blood products, pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, potentially contaminated laboratory wastes, and dialysis wastes. 37) Monthly Average. The arithmetic mean of the monitoring sample results collected during a calendar month or specified 30-day period. Where the Control Authority has taken a sample during the period, it must be included in the monthly average if provided in time. However, where composite samples are required, grab samples taken for process control or by the Control Authority are not to be included in a monthly average. 38) Monthly Average Limit. The limit to be applied to the Monthly Average to 7/23/14 determine compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, 34) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A national program under Section 402 of the Act for regulation of discharges of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States. Discharges are illegal unless authorized by an NPDES permit. The authority for issuing these permits has been delegated to the State. NPDES permits issued by State permit writers are NPDES / State permits issued under both federal and state law. 40) New Source. a) A facility whose construction began after categorical pretreatment standards applicable to its operations were proposed and with a real or potential discharge provided the facility is: (1) Constructed at a site at which no other source is located; (2) Totally replaces the process or production equipment that generate regulated process waste streams at an existing source; or (3) The new processes are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. b) Construction on a site with an existing source does not make the source a new source if the construction merely alters, partially replaces, or adds to an existing process or production equipment. c) Construction of a new source is considered to have begun when the owner or operator either began significant site preparation work, including earthwork or removal of structures, to allow the new facilities or equipment, began constructing a facility or emplacing equipment, or entered into a binding contract to purchase necessary facilities or equipment within a reasonable time prior to operation. Users must provide documentation sufficient to conclusively substantiate any Existing Source claim with their initial permit application. Once categorized as a New Source, Users may not assert "Existing Source" status in subsequent permit renewals. 41) Non-contact Cooling Water. Water used for cooling which does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product, or finished product. 42) Nonconventional Pollutants. Any pollutants which are not defined as Conventional Pollutants or Toxic Pollutants. Includes pollutants such as COD, nitrogen, 7/23/14 phosphorus, and fluoride. 43) Pass Through. A discharge which exits the POTW into waters or environment of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the City's NPDES permit or SWD permit, including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation. 44) Permit. An authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by EPA or an approved state or local agency to implement the requirements of 40 CFR parts 122.2, 123 and 124. Permit includes any NPDES General Permit or SWD Permit. Permit does not include any proposed or draft permit which has not yet been the subject of public comment,EPA, or State review, if necessary. 45) Permittee. Any person or User issued a wastewater discharge permit. 46) Person. Any individual, partnership, co-partnership, limited liability company, firm, company, corporation, association, joint stock company, trust, estate, governmental entity, or any other legal entity; or their legal representatives, agents, or assigns. This definition includes all federal, state, and local governmental entities. 47) pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, expressed in standard units ranging from 0-14. A solution with a pH of 7 is neutral; a pH less than 7 is acidic; and a pH greater than 7 is alkaline(or basic). 48) Pollutant. Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, medical wastes, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, municipal, agricultural and industrial wastes, and certain characteristics of wastewater (e.g., pH, TSS,turbidity, color, BOD, COD,toxicity, or odor). 49) Pretreatment. The reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to, or in lieu of, introducing such pollutants into the POTW. This reduction or alteration of pollutants can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes, by process changes, or by other means, except diluting the concentration of pollutants unless allowed by an applicable pretreatment standard. Dilution is not considered pretreatment. 50) Pretreatment Requirements. Any substantive or procedural requirement related to pretreatment imposed on a User other than a pretreatment standard such as the proper operation of pretreatment devices,record keeping, and reporting. 51) Pretreatment Standards or Standards. Discharge prohibitions [Section 13.62.020(A)], categorical pretreatment standards [Section 13.62.020(B)], state pretreatment standards [Section 13.62.020(C)], local limits [Section 13.62.020(D)(E) and 7/23/14 (F)], and site specific limits based on potential for vapor toxicity, explosion, sewer corrosion, or other detrimental effects to the POTW. 52) Primary Industry Categories. A group of 34 industry groups for which EPA has or will develop effluent guidelines(40 CFR part 122 Appendix A). 53) Priority Pollutant (Toxic Pollutant). A group of chemicals specifically listed in Federal Regulations and with priority for regulatory control (40 CFR 401.15). 54) Process Wastewater. Any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with, or results from, the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product,byproduct, or waste. 55) Proposed Permit. A permit prepared after the close of the public comment period (and when applicable, any public hearing and administrative appeals) which is sent to the Approval Authority for review before final issuance by the Control Authority. A Proposed Permit is not a Draft Permit(40 CFR 122.2). 56) Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). A treatment works, as defined by Section 212 of the Act (33 USC Section 1292), which is owned by the City. This definition includes any devices or systems used in the collection, storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature and any conveyances which convey wastewater to a treatment plant. This term refers to both the treatment works for the domestic wastewater and the treatment works for the industrial wastewater. 57) Public Works Director. The person designated by the City to supervise the operation of the POTW, and who is charged with certain duties and responsibilities by this Chapter. The term also means a duly authorized representative of the Public Works Director. 58) Schedule of Compliance. A schedule of remedial measures included in a permit or an enforcement order, including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with the effluent limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard (CWA 502, 40 CFR 122.47). 59) State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A state law which requires an examination of the environmental effects of development projects (RCW 43.21, Chapter 197-10 WAC). 60) Septic Tank Waste (Septage). Sewage and typically associated solids from domestic activities pumped from a septic tank serving one or more private residences. The Public Works Director may also consider wastes from other holding tanks such as boat blackwater, bilge water, cesspools, and treatment lagoons to be Septic Tank Waste so long as they are absent chemicals which might inhibit biological activity. 7/23/14 61) Sewage. Human excrement and gray water (From household showers, toilets,kitchens, clothes and dish washing, and related domestic activities). 62) Significant Industrial User (SIU). Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this section, a Significant Industrial User is: a) A User subject to categorical pretreatment standards; or b) A User that; 1) Discharges an average of twenty-five thousand (25,000) gpd or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater); 2) Contributes a process wastestrearn which makes up five (5) percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or 3) Is designated as such by the City on the basis that it has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement. d) Upon a finding that a User meeting the criteria in Subsection 2 of this part has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, the City may at any time, on its own initiative or in response to a petition received from a User, and in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 403.8(f) (6), determine that such User should not be considered a Significant Industrial User. 63) Slug Load or Slug Discharge. Any Discharge of a non-routine, episodic nature, including but not limited to an accidental spill or a non-customary batch Discharge, which has a reasonable potential to cause Interference or Pass Through, or in any other way violate the POTW's regulations, local limits or Permit conditions. This includes discharges at a flow rate or concentration which could cause a violation of the prohibited discharge standards of Section 13.62.020 of this Chapter. 64) Soluble BOD5. The BOD5 test ran on a sample of water that has been filtered through a TSS filter. 65) State, The State of Washington. 66) State Waste Discharge Permit (SWD), A wastewater discharge permit issued under State authority (90.48 RCW) to control the discharge of pollutants to waters of the State. Generally issued for discharge to ground water and for industrial discharges 7/23/14 to a municipal sewage system when that municipal system does not have a delegated pretreatment program. 67) State Waters. Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington. 68) Storm Water. Any flow occurring during or following any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation, including snowmelt. 69) Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The total suspended matter that floats on the surface of, or is suspended in, water, wastewater, or other liquid, and which is removable by laboratory filtering. 70) Toxic Pollutant. Those pollutants listed in the federal priority pollutant list (40 CFR 423, Appendix A) and any other pollutant or combination of pollutants listed as toxic in regulations promulgated by the EPA under Section 307 of the Act(33 USC 1317). 71) Upset. An exceptional incident in which a discharger unintentionally and temporarily is in a state of noncompliance with the standards set forth herein due to factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee, An upset does not exclude noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation thereof. 72) User or Industrial User. A source of indirect discharge. Any Person with a source of discharge that does not qualify as Domestic Wastewater who discharges an effluent into the POTW by means of pipes, conduits, pumping stations, force mains, tank trucks, constructed drainage ditches, intercepting ditches, and all constructed devices and appliances appurtenant thereto, shall be considered a User. 73) Wastewater. Liquid and water-carried industrial wastes and sewage from residential dwellings, commercial buildings, industrial and manufacturing facilities, and institutions, whether treated or untreated, which are contributed to the POTW. 74) Wastewater Discharge Permit, A document prepared by a permitting authority (Federal, State, or Local Government) which limits the pollutants to be discharged by the holder of the permit(permiee). 75) Wastewater Treatment Plant or Treatment Plant. That portion of the POTW which is designed to provide treatment of municipal sewage or industrial waste. 13.62.020 GENERAL SEWER USE REQUIREMENTS. A) Prohibited Discharge Standards. 7/23/14 1) General Prohibitions. No User shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW any pollutant or wastewater which causes Pass Through or Interference. These general prohibitions apply to all Users of the POTW whether or not they are subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards or any other National, State, or local pretreatment standards or requirements. 2) SRgcific Prohibitions. No User shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW the following pollutants, substances, or wastewater. These specific prohibitions apply to all Users of the POTW whether or not they are subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards or any other National, State, or local pretreatment standards or requirements. a) Pollutants which either alone or by interaction may create a fire or explosive hazard in the POTW, a public nuisance or hazard to life, or prevent entry into the sewers for their maintenance and repair or are in any way injurious to the operation of the system or operating personnel. This includes waste streams with a closed-cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21, b) Wastewater having a pH less than 6.0 or more than 9.0, or otherwise having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment, or personnel. Discharges outside this pH range may be authorized by a permit issued by the City pursuant to a finding that the system is specifically designed to accommodate a discharge of that pH; or for Users with a permit discharging to the PWRF. c) Wastewater having a BOD5 greater than 300 mg/1, Soluble SODS greater than 150 mg/1, or a TSS greater than 300 mg/1. Discharges above these limits may be authorized by a permit issued by the City pursuant to a finding that the treatment system has the capacity to handle the increased loading or for Users with a permit discharging to the PWRF. Surcharge rates may be applied to levels exceeding these limits. d) Solid or viscous substances in amounts which may cause obstruction to the flow in the sewer or other interference with the operation of the system. In no case shall solids greater than 1/4 inch(0.64 cm) in any dimension be discharged. e) Pollutants, including oxygen-demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.), released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants, will cause interference with the POTW. f) Wastewater having a temperature which will interfere with the 7/23/14 biological activity in the system, has detrimental effects on the collection system, or prevents entry into the sewer. In no case shall wastewater be discharged which causes the wastewater temperature at the POTW headworks to exceed 104 degrees F (40 degrees Q. g) Petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin, in amounts that will cause Interference or Pass Through. h) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems. i) Trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the Public Works Director in accordance with Section 13.62.030(D) of this Chapter. j) The following are prohibited unless approved by the Public Works Director under extraordinary circumstances, such as lack of direct discharge alternatives due to combined sewer service or need to augment sewage flows due to septic conditions (As required under WAC 173-216-050). (1) Noncontact cooling water in volumes large enough to adversely affect the POTW; (2) Stormwater or other direct inflow sources; or (3) Wastewaters significantly affecting system hydraulic loading, which do not require treatment or would not be afforded a significant degree of treatment by the POTW. k) Noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, solids, or other wastewater which, either singly or by interaction with other wastes, are sufficient to create a public nuisance or a hazard to life, or to prevent entry into the sewers for maintenance or repair. 1) Wastewater which imparts color which cannot be removed by the treatment process, such as, but not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions, which consequently imparts color to the treatment plant's effluent, thereby violating the City's NPDBS or SWD permit. m) Wastewater containing any radioactive wastes or isotopes except in compliance with applicable State or Federal regulations. n) Storm water, surface water, ground water, artesian well water, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, condensate, deionized 7/23/14 water, noncontact cooling water, and unpolluted wastewater, unless specifically authorized by the Public Works Director. o) Sludges, screenings, or other residues from the pretreatment of industrial wastes. p) Medical wastes, except as specifically authorized by Public Works Director in a wastewater discharge permit. q) Wastewater causing, alone or in conjunction with other sources, the treatment plant's effluent to fail toxicity testing. r) Detergents, surface-active agents, or other substances which may cause excessive foaming in the POTW. s) Fats, oils, or greases of animal or vegetable origin in concentrations and or amounts which will cause blockage, interference, or pass through in the POTW system. t) Total Petroleum hydrocarbons, petroleum oils, non-biodegradable cutting oils in concentrations and or amounts which will cause blockage, interference, pass through, or upset in the POTW system. u) Wastewater causing two readings on an explosion hazard meter at the point of discharge into the POTW, or at any point in the POTW, of more than ten percent (10%) or any single reading over twenty percent (20%) of the Lower Explosive Limit based on an explosivity meter reading. Pollutants, substances, or wastewater prohibited by this section shall not be processed or stored in such a manner that they could be discharged to the POTW. B) National Categorical Pretreatment Standards. The categorical pretreatment standards found at 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471 are hereby incorporated. 1) Where a categorical pretreatment standard is expressed only in terms of either the mass or the concentration of a pollutant in wastewater, the Public Works Director may impose equivalent concentration or mass limits in accordance with Section 13.62.020(E), (F), and (0); (see 40 CFR 403.6(c)). 2) When categorical Pretreatment Standards are expressed in terms of a mass of pollutant which may be discharged per unit of production, the Public Works Director may either impose limits based on mass or equivalent effluent concentrations. The User must supply appropriate actual or projected long term production rates for the unit of production specified in order to facilitate this process (See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(2)). 7/23/14 3) The Public Works Director may allow wastewater subject to a categorical pretreatment standard to be mixed with other wastewaters prior to treatment. In such cases, the User shall identify all categorical wastestreams and provide sufficient information on each non-categorical wastestream to determine whether it should be considered dilute for each pollutant. Absent information showing that non-categorical wastestreams contain the pollutant in question at levels above that of the supply water, such wastestreams shall be considered dilute. In such situations, the Public Works Director shall apply the CWF as found at 40 CFR 403.6(e)to determine appropriate limits. 4) A CIU may request an adjustment to a categorical standard to reflect the presence of pollutants in the Industrial User's intake water when its water source is from the same body of water that the POTW discharges into. a) Any CIU.wishing to obtain credit for intake pollutants must include, in their permit application, sample data showing influent water pollutant levels which form the basis for the credit requested in their permit application. b) Unless the categorical standard was written to be applied on a net basis, the information supplied by the CIU must also demonstrate that the treatment system it proposes or uses to meet the categorical standards would, if properly installed and operated, meet.the Standards in the absence of pollutants in the intake waters. c) In response to an acceptable application, the Public Works Director may adjust the categorical standards to the extent necessary to meet the applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard(s), up to a maximum value equal to the influent pollutant concentration. d) The Public Works Director may waive the requirement for the intake water to be drawn from the same body of water the POTW discharges to if the Public Works Director determines that no environmental degradation will result. 5) When a categorical pretreatment standard is expressed only in terms of pollutant concentrations, an Industrial User may request that the City convert the limits to equivalent mass limits. The City may establish equivalent mass limits if the Industrial User meets all of the conditions set forth below. a) To be eligible for equivalent mass limits, the.Industrial User must submit .information with its permit application or permit modification request which: (1) Shows it has a pretreatment system which has consistently met all applicable Pretreatment Standards and maintained compliance without using dilution; 7/23/14 (2) Describes the water conserving practices and technologies it employs, or will employ, to substantially reduce water use during the term of its permit; (3) Includes the facility's actual average daily flow rate for all waste streams from continuous effluent flow metering; (4) Determines an appropriate unit of production, and provides the present and long-term average production rates for this unit of production; (5) Shows that long term average flow and production is representative of current operating conditions; (6) Shows that its daily flow rates, production levels, or pollutant levels do not vary so much that equivalent mass limits would be inappropriate; and (7) Shows the daily and monthly average pollutant.allocations currently provided based on the proposed unit of production. b) An Industrial User subject to equivalent mass limits must: (1) Maintain and effectively operate control and treatment technologies adequate to achieve compliance with the equivalent mass limits; (2) Continue to record the facility's flow by continuous effluent flow monitoring; (3) Continue to record the facility's production rates; (4) Notify the Public Works Director if production rates are expected to vary by more than 20 percent from the baseline production rates submitted according to Section 13.62.020(B)(5)(a)(4)). The Public Works Director may reassess and revise equivalent limits as necessary to reflect changed conditions; and (5) Continue to employ the same or comparable water conservation methods and technologies as those implemented pursuant to Section 13.62.020(B)(5)(a)(2)) so long as it discharges under an equivalent mass limit, c) Equivalent mass limits: 7/23/14 (1) Will not exceed the product of the actual average daily flow from the regulated process or processes of the User, the applicable concentration-based daily maximum standard,the applicable concentration- based monthly average standard, and combined with the appropriate unit conversion factor; (2) May be reassessed and the permit revised upon notification of a revised production rate, as necessary to reflect changed conditions at the facility; and (3) May be retained in subsequent permits if the User's production basis and other information submitted in Section 13.62.020(13)(5)(a) are verified in their reapplication. The User must also be in compliance with Section 13.3 regarding the prohibition of bypass. 6) The Public Works Director may convert the mass limits of the categorical pretreatment standards of 40 CFR Parts 414 (organic chemicals), 419 (petroleum refining), and 455 (pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging) to concentration limits in permits for such Users. In such cases, the Public Works Director will document the basis and the determination that dilution is not being substituted for treatment in the permit fact sheet. 7) The Public Works Director is obliged under federal regulations to make the documentation of how any equivalent limits were derived(concentration to mass limits or vice versa)publicly available. 8) Once incorporated into its permit, the User must comply with the equivalent limits in lieu of the Categorical Standards from which they were derived. 9) The same production and flow estimates shall be used in calculating equivalent limits for the monthly(or multiple day average) and the maximum day. 10) Users subject to permits with equivalent mass or concentration limits calculated from a production based standard shall notify the Public Works Director if production will significantly change. This notification is required within two business days after the User has a reasonable basis to know that that production will significantly change in the next calendar month. Users who fail to notify the Public Works Director of such anticipated changes must meet the more stringent of the equivalent limits or the User's prior limits. C) State Pretreatment Standards. Washington State pretreatment standards and requirements contained in Chapter 173-216 7/23/14 WAC, were developed under authority of the Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 RCW, which pursuant to RCW 35.21.180 together with any amendments and additions thereto, are incorporated by reference. All waste materials discharged from a commercial or industrial operation into the POTW must satisfy the provisions of Chapter 173-216 WAC. In addition to some slightly more stringent prohibitions, (merged with Section 13.62.020(D)), the following provisions unique to Washington State are required by this chapter for discharges to a POTW. 1) Any person who constructs or modifies or proposes to construct or modify wastewater treatment facilities must first comply with the regulations for submission of plans and reports for construction of wastewater facilities, chapter 173-240 WAC. Unless and until the City is delegated, the authority to review and approve such plans under RCW 90.48.110, Users with non-domestic discharges shall request approval for such plans through the Department of Ecology. To provide conformance with this requirement, proof of the approval of such plans and one copy of each approved plan shall be provided to the Public Works Director before commencing any such construction or modification. 2) Users shall apply to the Public Works Director for a permit at least 60 days prior to the intended discharge of any pollutants other than domestic wastewater or wastewater which the Public Works Director has determined is similar in character and strength to normal domestic wastewater with no potential to adversely affect the POTW (WAC 173-216-050(1)). 3) All Significant Industrial Users must apply for and obtain a permit prior to discharge. 4) All Users shall apply all known, available, and reasonable methods to prevent and control waste discharges to the waters of the state (AKART). (WAC 173-216- 050(3)) 5) Discharge restrictions of Chapter 173.303 WAC (Dangerous Waste) shall apply to all Users. (Prohibited discharge standards have been merged with Federal prohibitions in Section 13.62.020(D)). 6) Claims of confidentiality shall be submitted according to WAC 173-216- 080. Information which may not be held confidential includes the: Name and address of applicant, description of proposal, the proposed receiving water, receiving water quality, and effluent data. Claims shall be reviewed based on the standards of WAC 173-216-080, Chapter 42.17 RCW, Chapter 173-03 WAC, and RCW 43.21A.160. 7) Persons applying for a new permit or a permit renewal or modification which allows a new or increased pollutant loading shall publish notice for each application in the format provided by the City. Such notices shall fulfill the requirements of WAC 173-216-090. These requirements include publishing: a) The name and address of the applicant and facility/activity to be 7/23/14 permitted; b) A brief description of the activities or operations which result in the discharge; c) Whether any tentative determination which has been reached with respect to allowing the discharge; d) The address and phone number of the office of the Public Works Director where persons can obtain additional information; e) The dates of the comment period (which shall be at least 30 days); and f) How and where to submit comments or have any other input into the permitting process, including requesting a public hearing. 8) The Public Works Director may require the applicant to also mail this notice to persons who have expressed an interest in being notified, to state agencies and local governments with a regulatory interest, and to post the notice on the premises. If the Public Works Director determines there is sufficient public interest the City shall hold a public meeting following the rules of WAC 173-216.100, The Public Works Director may assume responsibility for public notice requirements for any person, and may waive this requirement for persons applying for a general permit, model permit, short term discharge authorization, or for a food service establishment. 9) Permit terms shall include, wherever applicable, the requirement to apply all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART). 10) All required monitoring data shall be analyzed by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of Chapter 173-50 WAC, except for flow, temperature, settleable solids, conductivity, pH, turbidity, and internal process control parameters. However, if the laboratory analyzing samples for conductivity, pH, and turbidity must otherwise be accredited, it shall be accredited for these parameters as well. D) Local Limits. 1) The Public Works Director may establish local limits pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5(c). a) The following pollutant limits are established to protect against pass through and interference and reflect the application of reasonable treatment technology. No person shall discharge wastewater in excess of the limits. 7/23/14 b) The below limits apply at the point where the wastewater is discharged to the POTW. All concentrations for metallic substances are for total metal unless indicated otherwise. The Public Works Director may impose mass limits in addition to a concentration based limits. C) Users discharging pollutants in excess of the concentration limits by more than the threshold amount must apply for a permit. Such Users shall be subject to surcharges as established by the Public Works Director under the authority of this chapter up to the "ceiling" loading limit established by permit. Formula: surcharge concentration = (discharge concentration—threshold concentration) x flow, MGD x 8,34 lbs/gal. For example, a User discharges 2,000 gallons per day of BOD at 450 mg/1. The surcharge concentration would,be 450 mg/1 — 300 mg/l, or 150 mg/1, which when multiplied by 0.002MGD (2,000 gpd divided by 1,000,000 to convert to million gallons) and 8.341bs/g yields 2.5 lbs/d. 2) Users shall be subject to "instantaneous limits" (as determined by a grab sample) of equal to twice the "daily maximum" concentration established below, for any pollutant for which a composite sample is required in a permit. This provision is inapplicable to .Users without permits, or without the permit requirement to collect a composite sample for the analyte in question. E) Municipal POTW Local Limits Pollutant Concentration TOXIC METALS 5.000 mg/1 chromium(Total) 1.370 mg/I copper(Total) 0.423 mg/l lead(Total) 0.030 mg/1 mercury(Total) 0.047 mg/1 molybdenum (Total) 0.222 mg/1 nickel (Total) 0.753 mg/1 zinc (Total) CONVENTIONAL SURCHARGE 300 mg/I BOD5 150 mg/I Soluble BODE 300 mg/1 total suspended solids 6.0 Minimum pH in Standard Units 9.0 Maximum pH in Standard Units 10% reduction in effluent UV transmissivity(per cm at 254nm wavelength) 7/23/14 10% decrease in the maximum effluent concentration which has no observable detrimental effect(NOEC)in any whole effluent toxicity test. F) PWRF POTW Local Limits CONVENTIONAL SURCHARGE 6.0 Minimum pH in Standard Units 12.0 Maximum pH in Standard Units G) The Public Works Director shall use the individual permit process to establish ceiling limits for compatible pollutants and appropriate discharge limits for all other pollutants not listed under Section 13.62.020(D). This includes pollutants subject to regulation under RCRA, volatile or semi-volatile organics, halogenated or brominated compounds, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, polymers, surfactants,pesticide active ingredients, etc. H) The Public Works Director may establish and require BMPs for any User or type of commercial or industrial process which creates a non-domestic waste stream. Such requirements may be applied either in lieu of or in addition to the local limits of Section 13.62.020(D). BMPs may also include alternative limits which may be applied at the end of a specific process or treatment step instead of at the combined effluent. I) Right of Revision. The City reserves the right to establish, by Ordinance or in wastewater discharge permits, more stringent standards or requirements on discharges to the POTW. J) Dilution. No User shall ever increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a discharge, as a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with a discharge limit unless expressly authorized by an applicable pretreatment standard or requirement. The Public Works Director may impose mass limitations on Users where deemed appropriate to safeguard against the use of dilution to meet applicable pretreatment standards or requirements, or in other cases when the imposition of mass limitations is appropriate. 13.62.030. PRETREATMENT OF WASTEWATER A) Pretreatment Facilities. Users shall provide wastewater pretreatment as necessary to comply with this Chapter and shall achieve compliance with all categorical pretreatment standards, local limits, and the prohibitions set out in Section 13.62.020(A) of this Chapter within the time limitations specified by EPA, the State, or the Public Works Director, whichever is more stringent. Any facilities necessary for compliance shall be provided, operated, and maintained at the User's expense, and 7/23/14 satisfy state requirements for review and approval of Plans for Wastewater Facilities as described in Section 13.62.020(C). Such plans (Engineering Report, Plans and Specifications, and O&M Manuals) shall be submitted as required by Chapter 173-240 WAC to either the Public Works Director or the Department of Ecology for review and Users shall obtain approval prior to construction. The review of such plans and operating procedures shall in no way relieve the User from the responsibility of modifying such facilities as necessary to produce a discharge acceptable to the City under the provisions of this Chapter. B) Additional Pretreatment Measures, 1) The Public Works Director may immediately and effectively halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the POTW which reasonably appear to present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare of persons. In such cases, the Public Works Director will provide the User advance notice if possible, but shall not delay a response to imminent endangerment. 2) The Public Works Director may immediately and effectively halt or prevent any discharge to the POTW which presents or may present an endangerment to the environment or which threatens to interfere with the operation of the POTW(including the collection system and pump stations). In such cases, the Public Works Director shall attempt to provide not only notice to the affected User(s), but the opportunity to respond. 3) Any User causing the Public Works Director to exercise the emergency authorities provided for under Section 13.62.030(B)(1) and (2) shall be responsible for reimbursement of all related costs to the City. 4) The Public Works Director may require Users to reduce or curtail certain discharges to the sewer, restrict discharges to peak flow periods, designate that certain wastewater be discharged only into specific sewers, relocate and/or consolidate points of discharge, separate sewage wastestreams from industrial wastestreams, and take any other measures to protect the POTW and determine the User's compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. 5) The Public Works Director, based on the determination that such devices are necessary for implementation of pretreatment requirements, may require any User to install, operate, and maintain, on their property or in an easement and at their expense the following devices(as approved by the Public Works Director); a) A sample taking facility, accessible to the Public Works Director. b) Sampling equipment, approved by the Public Works Director. c) Flow and/or pH monitoring equipment, approved by the Public Works Director, 7/23/14 d) A suitable storage and/or flow equalization tank. A permit may be issued solely for flow equalization. e) Grease, oil, and/or grit/sand interceptors, approved by the Public Works Director. fj A combustible gas detection meter, approved by the Public Works Director. g) A dental amalgam separator and/or mercury removal filters, approved by the Public Works Director. 6) Users installing any of the above devices shall demonstrate they are of the type and capacity approved by the Public Works Director; meet applicable building and plumbing codes; and conform to any separate requirements established by the City, such as BMPs. Users shall locate units in areas easily accessible for cleaning, by the User, and inspection by representatives of the Public Works Director. Users shall be responsible for all periodic inspection, cleaning, and repair of such devices. Users may be required to keep and/or submit periodic maintenance reports to the City to show devices are being serviced and maintained in a working order, C) Accidental Discharge/Slug Discharge Control Plans. The Public Works Director may require any User to develop and implement an accidental discharge / slug discharge control plan and take other actions the Public Works Director believes are necessary to control discharges which may be caused by spills or periodic non-routine activities. Accidental discharge/slug discharge control plans shall include at least the following: 1) A description of all discharge practices, including any non-routine batch discharges such as from cleaning, replenishment, or disposal; 2) A description of all stored chemicals, disclosing all ingredients in formulations which could violate a discharge prohibition if discharged to the sewer; 3) The procedures for immediately notifying the Public Works Director of any accidental or slug discharge, as required by Section 13.62.060(F)of this Chapter; and 4) The procedures that will be taken to prevent the occurrence or adverse impact from any accidental or slug discharge. Such procedures shall address the inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site runoff, worker training, building of containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic pollutants (including solvents), and/or measures and equipment for emergency response. D) Hauled Wastewater. 7/23/14 1) Residential wastes meeting the definition of"Septage" may be introduced into the POTW at locations designated by the Public Works Director, and at such times as are established by the Public Works Director. The hauler of such wastes shall be responsible for ensuring such wastes comply with all discharge prohibitions (Section 13.62.020(A) of this Chapter) and other applicable requirements of the City. The Public Works Director may require septic tank waste haulers to obtain wastewater discharge permits and/or provide a manifest at the time of discharge identifying the customer name, address, and volume from each residence, and that the hauled waste is of residential nature only. 2) The Public Works Director shall require the hauler, and may also require the generator, of non-domestic waste to obtain a wastewater discharge permit. The Public Works Director also may prohibit the disposal of any or all hauled industrial waste. The discharge of hauled industrial waste is subject to all relevant requirements of this Chapter. 3) Industrial waste haulers may discharge loads only at locations designated by the Public Works Director and with the prior consent of the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director may collect samples of each hauled load to provide compliance with applicable standards, and halt the discharge at any point in order to take additional samples or hold the load pending analysis. The Public Works Director may require the industrial waste hauler to provide a waste analysis of any load prior to discharge, to characterize the waste, 'or to certify that the waste does not meet the definition of a"Hazardous Waste"under chapter 173-303 WAC, 4) Industrial waste haulers must provide a waste-tracking form for every load. This form shall include at least: a) The name and address of the industrial waste hauler; b) Hauler's permit number; c) Truck and driver identification; d) The names and addresses of the sources of waste; e) For each pickup, the type of industry, volume, brief description, known characteristics and presumed constituents of waste; and f) Any wastes which are "hazardous wastes"under RCRA. 13.62.040 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS -REQUIRED, A) Industrial User Surveys. The City is obligated under Federal law to identify all Users potentially subject to the pretreatment program, and the character and volume of pollutants 7/23/14 discharged by such Users. To satisfy this requirement, all sources of non-domestic discharges to the POTW must, upon request of the Public Works Director, periodically complete an Industrial User Survey form. Users shall fully disclose the information requested and sign the completed form in accordance with Section 13.62.040 (G). Proper completion of survey requirements is a condition of initial and continued discharge to the public sewer system. Users failing to fully comply with survey requirements within 30 days shall be subject to all enforcement measures authorized under this chapter including termination of service. The Public Works Director is authorized to prepare several forms for this purpose and require completion of the particular form which the Public Works Director determines appropriate to provide the information needed to categorize each User. The Public Works Director shall be authorized to categorize each User, provide written notice of a User's categorization and what it means, and revise this categorization at any time. B) Wastewater Discharge Permit Requirement. 1) No User categorized by the Public Works Director as a Significant Industrial User shall discharge wastewater into the POTW without first obtaining an individual wastewater discharge permit or, where applicable, a general permit from the Public Works Director. A Significant Industrial User that has filed a timely application pursuant to Section 13.62.040(C) of this Chapter may continue to discharge unless and until notified otherwise by the Public Works Director. 2) The Public Works Director may require all other Users to obtain wastewater discharge permits, or implement Best Management Practices as necessary to carry out the purposes of this Chapter. For example, a wastewater discharge permit may be required solely for flow equalization. 3) Any failure to complete the required survey form, apply for and obtain a required permit, or violate the terms and conditions of a wastewater discharge permit shall be deemed violations of this Chapter and subject the wastewater discharge permittee to the sanctions set out in Sections 13.62.100 through 13.62.120 of this Chapter. Obtaining a wastewater discharge permit does not relieve a User of its obligation to comply with all Federal, State, and Local pretreatment standards or requirements or with any other requirements of Federal, State, and Local law. C) Wastewater Discharge Permitting: Existing Connections. Any User required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit who was discharging wastewater into the POTW prior to the effective date of this ordinance and who wishes to continue such discharges shall, within thirty (30) days after said date, apply to the Public Works Director for a wastewater discharge permit in accordance with Section 13.62.040(E) of this Chapter, and shall not cause or allow discharges to the POTW to continue after sixty (60) days of the effective date of this ordinance except in accordance with a wastewater discharge permit issued by the Public Works Director. 7/23/14 D) Wastewater Discharge Permitting; New Connections, Persons wishing to discharge non-domestic wastewater must first complete either a survey form (if they do not expect a permit is needed) or a permit application, Any User identified by the Public Works Director through the survey as needing a permit must file a permit application. Applications for wastewater discharge permits, in accordance with Section 13.62.040(E) of this Chapter, must be filed at least ninety (90) days prior to the desired date of discharge, and the discharge permit obtained prior to commencing discharge. E) Wastewater Discharge Permit Application Contents. 1) All Users required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit must apply using the form provided by the Public Works Director. Users eligible for coverage under a General Permit may request such coverage using an industry specific form if one has been developed (see Section 13.62.040(G)). Users must supply the Public Works Director the following information as part of the permit application if relevant to the Users operation unless waived by the Public Works Director. a) Identifying information: (1) The name and physical address of the facility, the names of the operator/ facility manager and owner, and the name and address of the point of contact; and (2) A description of activities, facilities, and plant production processes on the premises; b) A list of any environmental control permits held by or for the facility, c) A description of operations and facilities including: (1) A brief description of the operations, average rate of production, and industrial classification (SIC or NAICS codes) of the operation(s) conducted on site; (2) The number and type of employees, and proposed or actual hours of operation; (3) The type, amount, rate of production, and process used for each product produced; (4) The type and amount of raw materials used (average and maximum rates); 7/23/14 (5) The raw materials and chemicals to be routinely stored at the facility (including products in rail cars and tank trucks located on site); (6) The types of wastes generated on a routine and periodic basis; (7) The times and durations when wastes will be discharged; (8) A schematic process diagram showing each process step, waste stream, treatment step, internal recycle, and point of discharge to the POTW. This diagram should identify which streams are subject to categorical standards; (9) Site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, floor drains, and appurtenances by size, location, and elevation, and all points of discharge; (10) The sampling locations and provisions for monitoring discharges; and (11) Indicate whether plans for wastewater facilities under Chapter 173-240 WAC have been developed, and their approval status (Engineering Report, Plans and Specifications, and an O& M Manual). d) Flow data. The average daily and maximum daily flow, in gallons per day, to the POTW from each waste stream; Information shall be complete enough to allow use of the CWF per Section 13.62.020(B)(3) and (40 CFR 403.6(e)) where applicable. e) Pollutant data. (1) The categorical pretreatment standards applicable to each regulated process; (2) The results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration (and mass where required by the standard or the Public Works Director) of regulated pollutants in the discharge from each regulated process; and (3) The estimated peak instantaneous, maximum daily, and long-term average discharge concentrations (and mass) based on the sampling results. f) Sampling data to show samples are: 7/23/14 (1) Representative of daily operations; (2) Taken just downstream from pretreatment facilities, if such exist, or just downstream of the regulated processes if no pretreatment exists; (3) Collected as required by Section 13.62.060(J) of this Chapter; and (4) Analyzed according to Section 13,62.060(K) of this Chapter. g) Information confirming BMPs. Where standards specify BMPs or pollution prevention alternative, the User mast include the information needed by the Public Works Director or the applicable standard to determine whether BMPs are (or will be) implemented. h) Any requests for a monitoring waiver (or a renewal of an approved monitoring waiver) for a pollutant neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge must include new sampling showing(continued) absence of the pollutant in the raw wastewater and satisfying Section 13.62.060(D)(2). i) Any request to be covered by a general permit shall satisfy Section 13.62.040(F)below. j) Any other information deemed necessary by the Public Works Director to evaluate the situation and prepare a discharge permit. 2) Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be processed and will be returned to the User for revision. The Public Works Director shall be held harmless for delays caused by returned applications. F) General Permits. 1) The Public Works Director may use general permits to control discharges to the POTW from all Users. Significant Users covered by a general permit will be those that the Public Works Director finds: a) Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations; b) Discharge the same types of wastes; c) Require the same effluent limitations; d) Require the same or similar monitoring; 7/23/14 e) Are more appropriately controlled under a general permit; and 0 Are not subject to production-based standards, mass limits, or require use of the C WF to calculate limits. 2) To be covered by the general permit, the User must file a written request for coverage. The request must identify: a) Contact information; b) Production processes; c) Types of wastes generated; d) The general permit under which coverage is requested; e) The basis for believing the general permit is applicable; f) The location for monitoring all wastes covered by the general permit; g) The User must provide any other information the Public Works Director has requested to properly evaluate the situation; and 3) The Public Works Director will retain the following for 3 years after the expiration of the general permit: a) A copy of the general permit; b) The fact sheet; c) The most recent industrial user survey; d) Each User's request for coverage; and e) The POTW's determination to extend coverage to each User. G) Application Signatories and Certifications. 1) All survey forms, wastewater discharge permit applications, and User reports must be signed by an authorized representative of the User and contain the certification statement in Section 13.62.060(N)(1), 7/23/14 2) Users shall submit a new authorization if the designation of an authorized representative is no longer accurate. This includes when a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, or overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. The User must submit the new authorization prior to, or with, any reports to be signed by the new authorized representative. II) Wastewater Discharge Permit Decisions, After receipt of a complete wastewater discharge permit application, the Public Works Director will determine whether or not to issue a wastewater discharge permit. The Public Works Director may deny any application for a wastewater discharge permit or require additional safeguards, reports (including plans under Chapter 173-240 WAC), or information. For Users not meeting the criteria of Significant Industrial Users, the Public Works Director may also waive or defer a permit, or allow discharges in the interim while a permit is being prepared. 13.62.050. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS - ISSUANCE. A) Wastewater Discharge Permit Duration. The Public Works Director may issue a wastewater discharge permit for a period of up to five (5) years from its effective date. Each wastewater discharge permit will indicate its expiration date. B) Wastewater Discharge Permit Contents. Wastewater discharge permits will include conditions the Public Works Director deems reasonably necessary to carry out the goals of the pretreatment program (Section 13.62.010(A)), Federal and State regulations, and the requirements of this Chapter. 1) Wastewater discharge permits will contain: a) The permit issuance date, effective date, and expiration date; b) A statement that the wastewater discharge permit is nontransferable without prior notification to the City in accordance with Section 13.62.050(E) of this Chapter, and provisions for furnishing the new owner or operator with a copy of the existing wastewater discharge permit; c) Effluent limits, including Best Management Practices, based on applicable pretreatment standards and requirements to apply AKART (see Section 13.62.020(C)(9); d) The pollutants to be monitored and specific monitoring requirements. This shall include the sampling location(s), sampling frequencies, and sample types consistent with federal, state, and local law (See Section 7/23/14 13,62.020(C)(10); e) Requirements to submit certain reports (as reflected in Section 13.62.060), provide various notifications, keep records, and implement Best Management Practices; f) The process to be used to request a waiver from monitoring for a pollutant neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge in accordance with Section 13.62.060 (D), or a specific waived pollutant in the case of an individual permit; g) A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of pretreatment standards and requirements; and any applicable compliance schedule. Such schedule may not extend the time for compliance beyond that required by applicable Federal, State, or Local law; h) Requirements to control slug discharges, including to develop, update, and implement slug discharge control plans (find required content in Section 13.62.030(C) where the Public Works Director determines such plans are important to preventing accidental,unanticipated, or non-routine discharges; i) Any monitoring which has been conditionally waived by the Public Works Director according to Section 13.62.060(D), but which automatically applies at any time the requirements of the conditional waiver are not met; and j) Reapplication requirements. 2) Wastewater discharge permits may contain, but need not be limited to, the following conditions: a) Pretreatment facilities and measures required by Section 13.62.030(A) and (B) of this Chapter; b) Limits on the average and/or maximum rate of discharge, time of discharge, and/or requirements for flow regulation and equalization; c) Requirements to install pretreatment technology, pollution controls, or to construct appropriate containment devices to reduce, eliminate, or prevent the introduction of pollutants into the treatment works, ground, or stormwater; d) Requirements to develop and implement of waste minimization plans to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to the POTW; e) Requirements to pay charges or fees for discharge to the POTW including high strength charges; 7/23/14 f) Requirements to install and maintain inspection and sampling facilities and equipment, including flow measurement devices; g) Notice that compliance with the wastewater discharge permit does not relieve the User of responsibility for compliance with all applicable federal, state and local pretreatment standards, including those which become effective during the term of the wastewater discharge permit; and h) Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Director to provide compliance with this Chapter and federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations. C) Permit.Issuance Process. 1) Public Notice. Users shall follow the procedures for public notice found in Section 13.26.020(7) and (8). The Public Works Director shall consider and respond to public input as appropriate prior to issuance of a permit. The Public Works Director shall arrange a public meeting if there is interest. 2) Permit Appeals, The Public Works Director shall provide public notice of the issuance of a wastewater discharge permit. Any person, including the User, may petition the Public Works Director to reconsider the terms of a wastewater discharge permit within thirty(30) days of notice of its issuance. a) Failure to submit a timely petition for review shall be deemed to be a waiver of the administrative appeal. b) In its petition, the appealing party must indicate the wastewater discharge permit provisions objected to, the reasons for this objection, and the alternative condition, if any, it seeks to place in the wastewater discharge permit. C) The effectiveness of the wastewater discharge permit shall not be stayed pending the appeal. d) If the Public Works Director fails to act within forty-five (45) days, a request for reconsideration shall be deemed to be.denied. Decisions not to reconsider a wastewater discharge permit, not to issue a wastewater discharge permit, or not to modify a wastewater discharge permit shall be considered final administrative actions for purposes of judicial review. e) Aggrieved parties seeking judicial review of the final administrative wastewater discharge permit decision must do so by filing a complaint in the Franklin County Superior Court within twenty-one days from the final administrative action. 7/23/14 D) Wastewater Discharge Permit Modification. The Public Works Director may modify a wastewater discharge permit for good cause, including, but not limited to,the following reasons: 1) To incorporate any new or revised federal, state, or local pretreatment standards or requirements including new or revised local limits; 2) To address new or changed operations, processes, production rates, waste streams, or changes in water volume or character; 3) To reflect conditions at the POTW requiring an authorized discharge to be reduced or curtailed. Such requirements may be either temporary or permanent; 4) Based on information indicating that a permitted discharge poses a threat to the City's POTW or staff, the receiving waters, or violates a prohibition of this Chapter; 5) To address violations of any terms or conditions of the wastewater discharge permit; 6) To address misrepresentations or failures to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater discharge permit application or in any required report; 7) To incorporate revisions based on a variance from categorical pretreatment standards approved pursuant to 40 CFR 403.13; 8) To correct typographical or other errors in the wastewater discharge permit; or 9) To reflect a transfer of the facility ownership or operation to a new owner or operator as required under Section 13.62.050(E). E) Wastewater Discharge Permit Transfer. Wastewater discharge permits may be transferred to a new owner or operator only if the permittee gives at least thirty (30) days advance notice to the Public Works Director and the Public Works Director approves the wastewater discharge permit transfer. Failure to provide advance notice of a transfer renders the wastewater discharge permit void as of the date of facility transfer. The notice to the Public Works Director must include a written certification by the new owner or operator which: 1) States that the new owner and/or operator have no immediate intent to change the facility's operations and processes; 2) Acknowledges the obligation to apply for a Permit modification, should any change be planned, prior to implementing any change; 7/23/14 3) Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is to occur; and 4) Acknowledges full responsibility for complying with the existing Wastewater discharge permit, F) Wastewater Discharge Permit Revocation. The Public Works Director may revoke a wastewater discharge permit for good cause, including, but not limited to, when a User has: 1) Failed to notify the Public Works Director of significant changes to the wastewater prior to the changed discharge to the POTW; 2) Failed to provide prior notification to the Public Works Director of changed conditions pursuant to Section 13.62.060(B) of this Chapter; 3) Misrepresented or failed to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater discharge permit application; 4) Falsified self-monitoring reports or tampered with monitoring equipment; 5) Refused to allow the Public Works Director timely access to the facility premises and records; 6) Failed to meet effluent limitations or permit conditions; 7) Failed to pay applicable fines or sewer charges; 8) Failed to.meet compliance schedule deadline dates; 9) Failed to complete an industrial survey or wastewater discharge permit application; 10) Failed to provide advance notice of the transfer of business ownership; 11) Violated any pretreatment standard or requirement, or any terms of the wastewater discharge permit or this Chapter; or 12) Ceased operations, Wastewater discharge permits issued to a User are void upon the issuance of a new wastewater discharge permit to that User, G) Wastewater Discharge Permit Reissuance. A User with an expiring wastewater discharge permit shall apply for wastewater discharge permit 7/23/14 reissuance by submitting a complete permit application, in accordance with Section 13.62.040(E) of this Chapter, a minimum of one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the User's existing wastewater discharge permit. H) Regulation of Waste Received from Other Jurisdictions 1) Prior to allowing wastewater to be received for treatment from another agency, or from a User located outside the municipal corporate boundaries of the City, the City shall be empowered and obliged to enter into a multi jurisdictional agreement with the contributing agency (County, City, Town, Sewer District, Port, or other municipal corporation recognized under State Law). Such agreement shall affix responsibilities in an enforceable manner to provide that the pretreatment program is fully and equitably administered in all contributing jurisdictions. Any such agreement or modification to such an agreement shall be reviewed by the City's legal counsel and shall be submitted, together with the opinion that it is legally sufficient, to the Approval Authority (DOE) and processed as a minor program modification. 2) Prior to entering into an agreement required by paragraph A, above, the Public Works Director shall request the following information from the contributing municipality: a) A description of the quality and volume of wastewater discharged to the POTW by the contributing agency; b) An inventory of all Users located within the contributing municipality that are discharging to the POTW; and C) Such other information as the Public Works Director may deem necessary. 3) A multi jurisdictional agreement, as required by paragraph A above, shall contain the following provisions: a) Requirements for contributing agencies to adopt a sewer use Chapter which establishes pretreatment standards and requirements as stringent as in this Chapter (Sections 13.62.020(A) through (J). The agreement's provisions and limits must be revised to conform within a reasonable time frame (within 9 months)to any future revisions of the City's ordinance; b) Requirements for the contributing agency to submit a revised User inventory on at least an annual basis, and reinforce requirements to obtain a permit prior to discharge; e) A clear division of responsibilities for implementing each pretreatment related activity under this Chapter or in the City's National Pollutant 7/23/14 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or in the City's SWD permit. Such tasks include reinforcing prohibitions, locating Users, issuing wastewater discharge permits, conducting inspections, sampling, evaluating compliance, initiating enforcement, and reporting compliance. Any activities which will be conducted jointly by the contributing agency and the Public Works Director must also be identified; d) Requirements for the contributing agency to provide the Public Works Director access to all information that the contributing agency obtains as part of its pretreatment activities; e) The nature, quality (e.g. conventional and toxic pollutant concentrations), and volume (peak and average flow rates) the contributing municipality is allowed to discharge to the City. Including, how and where compliance will be measured, how fees for service and surcharges will be established and how additional loading capacity, if needed, will be negotiated; f) Provisions ensuring the Public Works Director may enter and inspect Users located within the contributing agency's jurisdictional boundaries to confirm that the pretreatment program is being properly administered; Users are properly categorized, etc,; and g) Provisions for addressing any breach of the terms of the multi- jurisdictional agreement. 13.62.060 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. A) Baseline Monitoring Reports. 1) When standards for an industry category are published (promulgated), Users that perform that process and either currently discharge or are scheduled to discharge wastewater from the process to the POTW, must submit a "baseline monitoring report" to the Public Works Director. This report must contain the information listed in paragraph C, below. The report is due within one hundred eighty (180) days after the effective date of a categorical pretreatment standard, unless the final administrative decision on a category determination comes later(reference 40 CFR 403.6(a)(4) for details in that event). 2) Users that wish to begin discharging wastewater to the POTW from operations subject to categorical standards after EPA has published the standards (called New Sources), shall also submit a "baseline monitoring report" to the Public Works Director containing the information listed in Section 3, below. However, for New Sources, the report must be provided at least ninety (90) days before desiring to discharge. New Sources shall describe the method of pretreatment they intend to use to meet applicable categorical standards. Because monitoring data will not be available for proposed facilities, New Sources instead must provide estimates of the anticipated flow 7/23/14 rates and quantity of pollutants to be discharged. 3) The Baseline Monitoring Report shall include the following information: a) All information required in Section 13.62.040(E)(1)(a)through(i); b) Additional Conditions for Existing Sources Measuring pollutants. (1) Users shall take a minimum of one representative sample to compile the data for the Baseline Monitoring Report; (2) Users shall take samples immediately downstream from pretreatment facilities if such exist or immediately downstream from the regulated process if no pretreatment exists. If the User mixes other wastewaters with the regulated wastewater prior to pretreatment, the User must provide the flows and concentrations necessary to apply the CWF of Section 13.62.020(B)(3) and CFR 403.6(e). Where the User wants an alternate concentration or mass limit, and it is allowed by federal rules at CFR 403.6(e), the User shall propose the adjusted limit and provide supporting data to the Control Authority; (3) Sampling and analysis shall be performed in accordance with Section 13.62.060(J), (sample collection), and Section 13.62.060(K), (analytical requirements); (4) The Public Works Director may allow the report to use only historical data if the data is good enough to allow the evaluation of whether (and which) industrial pretreatment measures are needed; and (5) The baseline report shall indicate the time, date, place of sampling, and methods of analysis. The User shall certify that the sampling and analysis presented is representative of normal work cycles and expected pollutant discharges to the POTW. c) Compliance Certification. A statement, reviewed by the User's authorized representative as defined in Section 13.62.010(D)(4) and certified by a qualified professional, such as a Professional Engineer indicating whether pretreatment standards are being met on a consistent basis, and, if not, whether additional O&M and/or additional pretreatment steps are required to meet the pretreatment standards and requirements. d) Compliance Schedule. While New Sources must install the treatment required for meeting the Pretreatment standards prior to operation, Existing Sources may be granted a compliance schedule where they must provide additional pretreatment and/or O&M to meet the pretreatment standards. In such 7/23/14 cases, the User shall propose the shortest schedule by which they can provide the additional pretreatment and/or O&M. The completion date which the User proposes in this schedule may not be later than the compliance date established for the applicable pretreatment standard. Any compliance schedule authorized pursuant to this section must also meet the requirements set out in Section 13.62.060(B)of this Chapter. e) Signature and Report Certification. All baseline monitoring reports must be certified in accordance with Section 13.62.060(N)(1) of this ordinance and signed by an authorized representative as defined by Section 13.62.010(D)(4). B) Compliance Schedule Progress Reports. The following conditions shall apply to compliance schedules proposed by Existing Sources according to Section 13.62.060(A)(3)(d) of this Chapter and incorporated into permits: 1) The schedule shall contain progress increments in the form of dates for the commencement and completion of major events leading to the construction and operation of additional pretreatment facilities required for the User to meet the applicable pretreatment standards (such events include, but are not limited to, hiring an engineer, completing preliminary and final plans, executing contracts for major components, commencing and completing construction, and beginning and conducting routine operation); 2) No increment referred to above shall exceed nine (9)months; 3) The User shall submit a progress report to the Public Works Director no later than fourteen (14) days following each date in the schedule and the final date of compliance which shall include, at a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress, the reason for any delay, and, if appropriate, the steps being taken by the User to return to the established schedule; and 4) In no event shall more than nine (9) months elapse between such progress reports to the Public Works Director. C) Reports on Compliance with Categorical Pretreatment Standard Deadline. Both Existing Sources and New Sources must submit a report indicating if compliance has been initially achieved. For Existing Sources, the report is due ninety (90) days after the date applicable categorical standards give as the final compliance date. For a new source, the report is due 90 days after starting to discharge to the POTW. In both cases, the report must contain the information described in Sections 13.62.040(E)(1)(c) through (f). For existing sources, it must also contain the compliance certification of Section 13.62.060(A)(3) and, if needed, the compliance schedule described in 7/23/14 Section 13.62.060(A)(5)(d). Users subject to equivalent mass or concentration limits, as allowed by Section 13.62.020(B), must include a reasonable measure of their long-term production rate. Other Users subject to standards based on a unit of production (or other measure of operation) must include their actual production during the sampling period. All compliance reports must be signed and certified in accordance with Section 13.62.060(N) of this Chapter. D) Periodic Compliance Reports. 1) The Public Works Director may specify the necessary minimum sampling and reporting frequencies and include applicable requirements in permits. Industrial Users must: a) Report at least twice a year, in January and July unless otherwise specified in a permit; b) Report the flows and concentrations of regulated pollutants in all discharges subject to pretreatment standards; C) Report average and maximum daily flows for the reporting period and identify where flow estimates are used; and d) Include the documentation needed to show compliance with applicable BMPs, pollution prevention alternatives, maintenance, treatment, or record keeping requirements. 2) The Public Works Director may authorize a CIU to forego sampling of a pollutant regulated by a categorical Standard when it is not present in raw wastewater provided: a) The CIU submits a request for the waiver with their permit application or reapplication(see.Section 13.62.040(E)(1)(h)). b) The CIU analyzes a sample (or samples) representative of all wastewater from all processes before any treatment and includes all results with the request. c) The CIU demonstrates through source water and untreated process water sample results that the pollutant never exceeds intake water levels. (Pollutants simply reduced by treatment to background levels are ineligible for the waiver.) d) The CIU shows, where non-detectable sample results are returned in (b) or (c) above, that they used the method from 40 CFR Part 136 with the lowest detection level. e) The duly authorized representative of the CIU signs the request 7/23/14 using the certification statement of Section 13.62.060(N)(1), 0 The CAI includes, in routine monitoring reports, the statement in Section 13.62.060(N)(2), certifying that there has been no increase in the pollutant in its waste stream due to activities of the Industrial User. g) The CIU reports and immediately resumes the monitoring which would otherwise have been required upon discovering that a waived pollutant is present or expected to be present based on changes to the User's. The Public Works Director will document the reasons supporting the waiver in the Permit Fact Sheet, and keep any information submitted by the User and the fact sheet for 3 years after the waiver expires. Monitoring waivers are valid after being incorporated in a User's permit. The waiver is in effect while the Permit is effective, up to S years. The Public Works Director may cancel a monitoring waiver at any time for any reason. 3) Users must sign and certify all periodic compliance reports in accordance with Section 13.62,060(N)of this Chapter. 4) Users must take wastewater samples which are representative of their range of discharge conditions and of any discharge not disclosed in their permit application. Users must properly operate, clean, and maintain sampling and flow metering facilities and devices and provide they function properly. The Public Works Director may not allow User claims that sampling results are unrepresentative due to a User's failure to meet this requirement. S) Users subject to the reporting requirements in this section must report any additional monitoring which might determine compliance with permit requirements. This includes any additional monitoring of regulated pollutants at their respective effluent monitoring locations using procedures prescribed in Section 13.62.060(J) of this Chapter. In such cases, the results of this monitoring shall be included in periodic monitoring reports. 6) Users that send electronic (digital) documents to the City to satisfy the requirements of this section must meet all state and federal electronic signature requirements. Electronic data shall be in the format required by the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director may also require reporting in both digital and traditional format. 7) The City reserves the right to require User's to submit reports electronically at such time as the City implements the ability to handle electronic reporting as per state and federal rules pertaining to electronic reporting. E) Reports of Changed Conditions. 7/23/14 Each User must notify the Public Works Director of any significant changes to the User's operations or system which might alter the nature, quality, or volume of its wastewater. This notification must be made at least thirty (30) days before the desired change and be sent to both the Public Works Director and the receiving POTW if they are different. In such cases: 1) The Public Works Director may require the User to submit whatever information is needed to evaluate the changed condition. The Public Works Director may also require a new or revised wastewater discharge permit application under Section 13.62,040 of this Chapter. 2) The Public Works Director may issue, reissue, or modify a wastewater discharge permit applying the procedures of Section 13.62.050 of this Chapter in response to a User's notice under this section. F) Reports of Potential Problems. 1) Any User which has any unusual discharge that could cause problems to the POTW must immediately notify the Public Works Director by telephone of the incident. This notification shall include the location of the discharge, type of waste, concentration and volume, if known, and corrective actions taken by the User to control and curtail the discharge. Such discharges may include spills, slug loads, accidental discharges, or other discharges of a non-routine, episodic nature. Problems to the POTW which require reporting under this section include violating pretreatment prohibitions, treatment standards, or other requirements of Section 13.62.020 of this Chapter such as vapor toxicity and explosivity limits. 2) Within five (5) days following such discharge, the User shall submit a detailed written report describing the cause(s) of the discharge and the measures to be taken by the User to prevent similar future occurrences, Such notification shall not relieve the User of any expense, loss, damage, or other liability which may be incurred as a result of damage to the POTW, natural resources, or any other damage to person or property; nor shall such notification relieve the User of any fines, penalties, or other liability which may be imposed pursuant to this Chapter. 3) Regardless of whether the User has been required to submit a Slug Discharge Control Plan (per Section 13.62.030(C)), all Users shall post notice in a prominent location advising employees who to call at the POTW to inform the Public Works Director of a potential problem discharge (Section 13.62.060(F)(1)). Users shall provide that all employees who may cause or witness such a discharge are advised of the emergency notification procedures. 4) All Users must immediately notify the Public Works Director of any changes at their facility which might increase their potential for a slug discharge. This includes increasing the volume of materials stored or located on site which, if discharged to the POTW, would cause problems. Users required to prepare a Slug Discharge Control 7/23/14 Plan under Section 13.62.030(C) shall also modify their plans to include the new conditions prior to or immediately after making such changes. G) Reports from Unpermitted Users. All Users not required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit or general permit shall provide appropriate reports to the Public Works Director as the Public Works Director may require. This includes, but is not limited to, periodically completing and signing Industrial User Surveys. H) Notice of Violation/Repeat Sampling and Reporting. If sampling performed by a User indicates a violation, the User must notify the Public Works Director within twenty-four(24) hours of becoming aware of the violation. The User shall also repeat the sampling and analysis and submit the results of the repeat analysis to the Public Works Director within thirty (30) days after becoming aware of the violation. The Public Works Director may waive the repeat sampling requirement where the City has sampled the effluent for the pollutant in question prior to the User obtaining sampling results. 1) Notification of the Discharge of Hazardous Waste. 1) Any User who discharges any substance which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261, or Chapter 173-303 WAC must also comply with the following requirements: a) Notify the Public Works Director, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division Director, and State hazardous waste authorities, in writing, of the discharge. Maintain a copy of this notification and include it in all subsequent permit application or re-applications under this Chapter; b) Include the following information in the notification: (1) The name of the hazardous waste as found in 40 CFR Part 261; (2) The EPA hazardous waste number; and (3) The type of discharge (continuous, batch, or other). C) If the discharge totals more than 220 pounds in any month, also provide: (1) The hazardous constituents contained in the wastes; (2) An estimate of the mass and concentration of hazardous constituents in the wastestream discharged during that calendar month; and (3) An estimate of the mass of constituents in the wastestream 7/23/14 expected to be discharged during the following twelve(12)months. d) This notice shall be repeated for new or increased discharges of substances subject to this reporting requirement; e) All notifications must take place prior to discharging a substance for which these reporting requirements apply. If this is not possible, the notice must be provided as soon after discharge as practical and describe why prior notice was not possible; f) Users must provide notifications under this paragraph only once to EPA and the State for each hazardous waste discharged. However, all of the information of these notices shall be repeated in each new permit application submitted under this Chapter; g) This requirement does not relieve the User from requirements to provide other notifications, such as of changed conditions under Section 6.5 of this Chapter, or applicable permit conditions, permit application requirements, and prohibitions; h) The notification requirements in this section do not apply to pollutants for which routine monitoring and reporting is required in a permit under this Chapter. 2) Users must report all discharges of more than thirty-three (33) pounds per month of substances which, if otherwise disposed of, would be hazardous wastes. Users must also report any discharge of acutely hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e). Subsequent months during which the User discharges more of a hazardous waste for which notice has already been provided do not require another notification to EPA or the State, but must be reported to the Public Works Director. 3) If new regulations under RCRA describe additional hazardous characteristics or substances as a. hazardous waste, the User must provide notifications under paragraphs A, if required by paragraph B within ninety (90) days of the effective date of such regulations. 4) For any notification made under this Section, the User shall certify that it has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated to the degree it has determined to be economically practical and shall describe that program and reductions obtained through its implementation. 5) This provision does not create a right to discharge any substance not otherwise permitted to be discharged by this Chapter, a permit issued thereunder, or any applicable Federal, State, or Local law. 7/23/14 J) Sample Collection. Users must provide all samples they collect to satisfy sampling requirements under this Chapter are representative of the range of conditions occurring during the reporting period. Users must also provide that, when specified, samples are collected during the specific period. 1) Users must use properly cleaned sample containers appropriate for the sample analysis and sample collection and preservation protocols specified in 40 CFR Part 136 and appropriate EPA guidance. 2) Users must obtain samples for oil and grease, temperature, pH, cyanide, total phenols, sulfides, and volatile organic compounds using grab collection techniques. 3) For certain pollutants, Users may composite multiple grab samples taken over a 24-hour period. Users may composite grab samples for cyanide, total phenols, and sulfides either in the laboratory or in the field, and may composite grab samples for volatile organics and oil and grease in the laboratory prior to analysis, provided all test method provisions are followed concerning the collection and preservation of the sample. 4) For all other pollutants, Users must employ 24-hour flow-proportional composite samplers unless the Public Works Director authorizes or requires an alternative sample collection method. 5) The Public Works Director may authorize composite samples for parameters unaffected by the compositing procedures, as appropriate. 6) The Public Works Director may require grab samples either in lieu of or in addition to composite sampling to show compliance with instantaneous discharge limits. 7) In all cases, Users must take care to provide the samples are representative of their wastewater discharges and that all samples ate collected, preserved, and that appropriate holding requirements are followed according to test methods. 8) Users sampling to complete baseline monitoring and 90-day compliance reports required by Section 13.62.060(A) and (B), must satisfy some specific requirements. These reports require at least four grab..samples for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide and volatile organic compounds. Users may composite samples prior to analysis if allowed in Section 13.62.060(7)(3). Where historical sampling data exists; the Public Works Director may also authorize fewer samples. 9) For periodic monitoring reports, (Section 13.62.060(D), the Public Works Director may specify the number of grab samples necessary to assess and provide compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. R) Analytical Requirements. All pollutant sampling and analyses required under this Chapter shall conform to the most current version of 40 CFR Part 136, unless otherwise specified 7/23/14 in an applicable categorical pretreatment standard. If 40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sampling or analytical techniques for a pollutant, or the Public Works Director determines that the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques are inconsistent with the goal of the sampling, the Public Works Director may specify an analytical method. If neither case applies, Users shall use validated analytical methods or applicable sampling and analytical procedures approved by EPA. L) Date of Receipt of Reports. The Public Works Director will credit written reports as having been submitted on the date of the post mark when mailed through the United States Postal Service. Reports delivered in any other manner will be credited as having been submitted on the business day received. M) Record Keeping. Users subject to reporting requirements of this Chapter shall retain the below records for all monitoring required by this Chapter and for any additional monitoring which could be used to satisfy minimum monitoring requirements. Users must make these records available for inspection and copying at the location of the discharge. Users must similarly maintain documentation associated with any BMPs required under authority of Section 13.62.020(IT). Monitoring records shall include at least: 1) The time, date, and place of sampling; 2) The sampling and preservation methods used; 3) The person taking the sample and persons with control of the sample prior to analysis; 4) The person performing the analyses and the date the analysis was completed; 5) The analytical techniques or methods used; and 6) The results of analysis. Users are encouraged to retain quality control and quality assurance information provided by the laboratory and submit this information in routine reporting. This information also has value in the event that the sample data is called into question. For analytes for which Washington State requires use of a certified/accredited laboratory, Users must maintain the scope of accreditation for laboratories performing any analyses for them. Users shall maintain the above records for at least three (3) years, until any litigation concerning the User or the City is complete, or for longer periods when the User has been specifically notified of a longer retention period by the Public Works Director. N) Certification Statements. 1) The following certification statement must be signed by an authorized 7/23/14 representative as defined by Section 13,62.010(D)(4) and included when submitting any of the following: a) A permit(re-)application in accordance with Section 13.62.040(G); b) A baseline monitoring report under Section 1.62.060(A)(3)(c); e) A report on compliance with the categorical pretreatment standard deadlines under Section 13.62.060(0); or and(2).d) A periodic compliance report required by Section 13.62.060(D)(1) "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to provide that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." 2) The following certification statement must be signed by an authorized representative as defined by Section 13.62,010(1))(4) and included when submitting any of the following: a) A permit(re-)application in accordance with Section 13.62.040(G); b) A baseline monitoring report under Section 13.62.060(A)(3)(c); c) A report on compliance with the categorical pretreatment standard deadlines under Section 13.62.060(C); or d) A periodic compliance report required by Section 13.62.060(D)(1) and (2). "Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for managing compliance with the Pretreatment Standard for 40 CFR [specify applicable National Pretreatment Standard part(s)], I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,there has been no increase in the level of [list pollutant(s)] in the wastewaters due to the activities at the facility since filing of the last periodic report under Section 13.62.060(1))(1)." 13.62,070 COMPLIANCE MONITORING. 7/23/14 A) Right of Entry: Inspection and Sampling. The Public Works Director shall have the right, to the extent permitted by law, to enter all private and public premises at any time for the purpose of inspecting for potential violations, connections, or for any other lawful purpose of this Chapter and any wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder. This authorization includes but is not limited to inspection, sampling, testing, photographic documentation, records examination, records copying, and installation of monitoring devices. 1) Where a User has security measures in force which require proper identification and clearance before entry into its premises, the User shall make necessary arrangements with its security guards so that, upon presentation of suitable City photographic identification, the Public Works Director will be permitted to enter without delay for the purposes of performing specific responsibilities. 2) Entry may not be conditioned upon the Public Works Director signing any type of confirmation, release, consent, acknowledgement, or other type of agreement. 3) The Public Works Director shall have the right to set up on the User's property, or require installation of, such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling and/or metering of the User's operations. 4) Users shall provide full. access to all parts of the premises to the Public Works Director, to use any monitoring facilities, and utilities available or required in accordance with Sections 13.62.030(A) and (B)(6) and (7) to confirm that the standards or treatment required for discharge to the sewer are being met. S) The Public Works Director will comply with reasonable, routine safety and sanitary requirements of the facility or site as provided by the facility operator at the time of entry. The facility operator must provide the Public Works Director with any facility- specific safety protective equipment necessary for entry. 6) Any temporary or permanent obstruction prohibiting safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the User at the written or verbal request of the Public Works Director and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be home by the User. 7) Any unreasonable delay in allowing the Public Works Director full access to the User's premises and wastewater operations shall be a violation of this Chapter. B) Search Warrants. The Public Works Director may seek issuance of a search warrant from the Franklin County District Court. Such warrants may be secured when: 1) The Public Works Director has been refused access or is unable to locate a representative who can authorize access to a building, structure, or property, or any part thereof, and the Public Works Director has cause to believe that a violation of this Chapter 7/23/14 is occurring on the premises; 2) The Public Works Director has been denied access to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program of the City designed to verify compliance with this Chapter or any permit or order issued hereunder; or 3) The Public Works Director has cause to believe there is imminent endangerment of the overall public health, safety and welfare of the community by an activity on the premises. 13.62.080 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, Generally, information submitted to demonstrate compliance with pretreatment standards and requirements will be freely available to the public. However, Users may have certain information withheld as confidential if the following process is followed. A) When a User submits information to the Public Works Director, or provides information to inspectors, Users may request that specific information be maintained as confidential. Users must promptly identify the specific information in writing, and describe why the release would divulge information, processes, or methods of production entitled to protection as trade secrets or confidential business information under applicable State or Federal laws. B) The Public Works Director shall review and approve or deny such requests. When approved, the information shall not be available as public records and shall be marked Confidential, unless required by State or Federal law. C) All other information submitted to the Public Works Director and obtained from the Public Works Director's oversight shall be available to the public, subject to the City records review policy. D) Information held as confidential may not be withheld from governmental agencies for uses related to the NPDES, SWD, or pretreatment program, or in enforcement proceedings involving the entity furnishing the report. E) Federal rules prevent wastewater constituents and characteristics and other effluent data, as defined by 40 CFR 2.302 from being recognized as confidential information. 13.62.090 PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE. A) Publishing: The Public Works Director must annually publish a list of the Users which, at any time during the previous twelve (12) months, were in significant noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. The list will be published in a newspaper of general circulation that provides meaningful public notice within the jurisdictions served by the POTW. B) Definition: The term significant noncompliance means: 7/23/14 1) Any violation of a pretreatment standard or requirement, including numerical limits, narrative standards, and prohibitions, that the Public Works Director determines has caused, alone or in combination with other discharges, interference or pass through, including endangering the health of POTW personnel or the general public; 2) Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to the public or to the environment, or has resulted in the Public Works Director's exercise of its emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge; 3) Any violation(s), including violations of BMPs, which the Public Works Director determines will adversely affect the operation or implementation of the local pretreatment program; 4) Chronic.violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those in which sixty-six percent (66%) or more of all of the measurements taken for the same pollutant parameter taken during a rolling six (6) month period exceed, by any magnitude, a numeric pretreatment standard or requirement, including instantaneous limits of Section 13.62.020; 5) Technical Review Criteria(TRC)violations, defined here as those in which thirty-three percent (33%) or more of wastewater measurements taken for each pollutant parameter during a rolling six (6)month period equal or exceed the product of the numeric pretreatment standard or requirement, (including instantaneous limits, as defined by Section 13.62.010(D)(30) and Section 13.62.020), multiplied by the applicable criteria. Applicable criteria are 1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oils and grease, and 1.2 for all other pollutants except pH; 6) Failure to meet, within ninety (90) days of the scheduled date, a compliance schedule milestone contained in a wastewater discharge permit or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance; or 7) Failure to provide any required report within forty-five (45) calendar days after the due date. This includes initial and periodic monitoring reports, and reports on initial compliance and on meeting compliance schedules; or 8) Failure to accurately report noncompliance, C) Applicability: The criteria in Section 13.62.090(8)(1) through(3) are applicable to all Users, whereas the criteria in Section 13.62.090(3)(4)through(8) are only applicable to SIUs. 13.62.100 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES. In administering the City Pretreatment Program, the Public Works Director is obliged to follow the City Pretreatment Program's approved procedures. In response to non-compliance with any requirement of this Chapter, the Public Works Director shall apply its Enforcement Response Plan, which is a part of 7/23/14 these approved procedures. This plan provides that the application of remedies provided for in Sections 13.62.100, 13.62.110, and 13.62.120 of this Chapter is appropriate to the violation, and consistent with the treatment of other Users. Any person may review or obtain a copy (for a nominal charge) of the Enforcement Response Plan by contacting the Public Works Director or the City. A) Notification of Violation. The Public Works Director may serve a written Notice of Violation on any User that the Public Works Director finds has violated any provision of this Chapter, including terms or requirements of a permit, order, or a pretreatment standard or requirement. In all cases in this Chapter, a continuation of a violation of a provision of this Chapter is a "violation". Users shall, in response to a Notice of Violation, provide the Public Works Director a written explanation of the violation, its cause, and a corrective action plan within thirty (30) days of the receiving this notice. Users submitting plans to correct noncompliance must include the specific actions they will take to correct ongoing and prevent future violations at the soonest practicable date. The Public Works Director's acceptance of a plan does not relieve a User of liability for any violations. The Public Works Director may also take any action, including emergency actions or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a Notice of Violation. B) Voluntary Compliance Agreement. The Public Works Director may enter into a voluntary compliance agreement to memorialize agreements with Users violating,any requirments of this Chapter. Such agreements must include the specific action(s)required and the date(s)they are to be completed to correct the noncompliance. Such agreements shall be judicially enforceable manner, and have the same force and effect as administrative orders issued pursuant to Sections 13.62.100(D) and (E) of this Chapter. C) Show Cause Hearing. The Public Works Director may propose actions in response to a violation of any provision.of this Chapter, including a provision of a permit, order, or a pretreatment standard or requirement. The Public Works Director may order a User in violation to appear at a date, time, and location set by the Public Works Director to show why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken. The Public Works Director will notify the User of the violation, the proposed action, the rationale, and the Users rights and obligations to provide evidence why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken, and to provide its support for any alternative it proposes at this meeting. This notification shall be served personally or by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by electronic mail (confirmed by delivery receipt) at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Such notice may be served on any authorized representative of the User as defined in Section 13,62.010(D)(4). A show cause hearing shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any other action against the User. D) Compliance Orders, The Public Works Director may issue a compliance order to any User which has violated any provision of this Chapter including a requirement of a permit, order, or a pretreatment standard or requirement. The compliance order may direct that the User come into compliance within a specified time, install and properly operate adequate treatment facilities or devices, or take such measures as the Public Works Director finds are reasonably necessary. These measures may include additional self-monitoring and management practices 7/23/14 designed to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged to the sewer. A compliance order may not extend the deadline for compliance established for a pretreatment standard or requirement, or relieve a User of liability for any violation, including a continuing violation. If the User does not come into compliance within the time provided, sewer service may be discontinued. Issuance of a compliance order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the User. E) Cease and Desist Orders. When the Public Works Director finds that a User has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this Chapter, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, or that the User's past violations are likely to recur,the Public Works Director may issue an order to the User directing it to cease and desist all such violations and directing the User to: 1) Immediately comply with all requirements; and 2) Take such appropriate remedial or preventive action as may be needed to properly address a continuing or threatened violation, including halting operations and/or terminating the discharge. Issuance of a cease and desist order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the User. F) Administrative Fines. 1) When the Public Works Director finds that a User has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this Chapter, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the City may fine such User in an amount not less than five-hundred dollars, nor more than ten thousand dollars. Such fines shall be assessed on a per-violation, per-day basis. In the case of monthly or other long-term average discharge limits, fines shall be assessed for each day during the period of violation. 2) The City may add the costs of any emergency response, additional monitoring, investigation, and administrative costs related to the noncompliance and the Public Works Director's response to the situation to the amount of the fine. 3) The City will consider the economic benefit enjoyed by a User as a result of the noncompliance in cases where there appears to have been a monetary benefit from not complying. In such cases, the City shall provide that fines, to the maximum amounts allowable, exceed the benefit to the User from the noncompliance. 4) Unpaid charges,fines, and penalties shall, at thirty (30) calendar days past the due date, be assessed an additional penalty of five percent (5%) of the unpaid balance, and interest shall accrue thereafter at a rate of one percent (1%) per month. After thirty days the City shall be authorized to file a lien against the User's property for unpaid charges, fines, and penalties. 7/23/14 5) Users desiring to dispute such fines must file a written request with the Public Works Director to reconsider the fine along with full payment of the fine amount within fifteen (15) days of being notified of the fine. Where a request has merit, the Public Works Director may convene a hearing on the matter. In the event the User's appeal is successful, the City shall rebate the difference between the initial and final penalty amounts to the User. 6) Issuance of an administrative fine shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the User. G) Emergency Suspensions. The Public Works Director may immediately suspend a User's discharge (or threatened discharge) when it reasonably appears to present a substantial danger to the health or welfare of persons and/or damage to the POTW. In such cases, the Public Works Director will first provide reasonable notice to the User. The Public Works Director may also immediately suspend a User's discharge, after notice and opportunity to respond, that threatens to interfere with the operation of the POTW, or which presents or may present, a danger to the environment. 1) Any User notified of a suspension of its discharge shall immediately stop or eliminate its discharge. If a User fails to immediately comply voluntarily with the suspension order, the Public Works Director may take such steps as deemed necessary to protect the public and its interest in the sewer system. Remedies available to the Public Works Director include immediately severing the sewer connection, at the Users expense, turning off pump stations downstream of the User, and utilizing the assistance of law enforcement. The Public Works Director may not allow the User to recommence its discharge until the User has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that the situation warranting the suspension has been properly addressed and any proposed termination proceeding has been resolved. 2) A User that is responsible, in whole or in part, for any discharge presenting imminent endangerment shall submit a detailed written statement, describing the causes of the harmful contribution and the measures taken to prevent any future occurrence. Users shall submit this report to the Public Works Director prior to the date of any show cause or termination hearing under Sections 13.62.100(C) and(H)of this Chapter. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as requiring a hearing prior to any Emergency Suspension under this section. H) Termination of Discharge (Non-Emergency). Any User who violates the following conditions is subject to having the privilege of discharging to the POTW withdrawn: 1) Discharge of non-domestic wastewater without a permit, including: a) Where the appropriate permit has not been requested; 7/23/14 b) Where the appropriate permit has not yet been issued; or c) Where the permit has been denied or revoked based on the provisions of Section 13.62.050(F)of this Chapter. 2) Violation of permit terms and conditions including: a) Exceeding any permit limit; b) Failing to meet other pretreatment standards or requirements; C) Violating any prohibition; or d) Failing to properly monitor and report discharges or changed conditions. 3) Refusal of reasonable access to the User's premises for the purpose of inspection, monitoring, or sampling(whether subject to a permit or not); or 4) Violation of the pretreatment standards and requirements in Section 13.62.020 of this Chapter, including failure to satisfy Industrial User Survey requirements. When the Public Works Director determines this remedy is necessary and appropriate to fulfill the intentions of this Chapter, such User will be notified of the proposed termination of its discharge and given notice to show cause under Section 13.62.100(C) of this Chapter why the proposed action should not be taken. Exercise of this option by the Public Works Director shall not be a bar to, or a prerequisite for,taking any other action against the User. 13.62.110 JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES. A) Injunctive Relief. The City may seek injunctive relief when a User has violated, or continues to violate a provision of this Chapter, including a pretreatment standard or requirement, or a permit or order issued hereunder. In such cases, the City may petition the Franklin County Superior Court through the City's attorney for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, or temporary or permanent injunction, as appropriate, which restrains or compels the specific performance of the wastewater discharge permit, order, or other requirement imposed by this Chapter on activities of the User. The City may also seek such other action as is appropriate for legal and/or equitable relief, including a requirement for the User to conduct environmental remediation. A petition for injunctive relief shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for,taking any other action against a User. B) Civil Penalties. 1) A User which has violated, or continues to violate a provision of this Chapter, including a pretreatment standard or requirement, or a permit or order issued 7/23/14 hereunder shall be liable to the City for a maximum civil penalty of$10,000 per violation, per day. In the case of a monthly or other long-term average discharge limit, penalties shall accrue for each day during the period of the violation. 2) The City may recover reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with any emergency response, enforcement activities, additional monitoring and oversight, and costs of any actual damages to the City. 3) In determining the amount of civil liability, the Court shall take into account all relevant circumstances. The City shall provide the Court a recommended civil penalty amount, and its basis. This basis shall address, as available, the extent of harm caused, the magnitude and duration of the violation, any economic benefit gained, the timing of Users actions and responses, corrective actions by the User, and the Users compliance history. The City will provide the range of penalty amounts its Enforcement Response Plan suggests if it addresses the situation and provides such guidance. The City will provide any other facts the Court requests, or the City believes important for the Court to have to render a just determination. 4) Filing a suit for civil penalties shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, any other action the City may take to resolve noncompliance by a User. C) Criminal Prosecution. 1) A User who willfully or negligently violates any provision of this Chapter, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, per day and costs of prosecution, or imprisonment for not more than 364 days, or both. 2) A User who willfully or negligently introduces any. substance into the PQTW which causes personal injury or property damage shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and be subject to a penalty of a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, per day and costs of prosecution, or imprisonment for not more than 364 days, or both. This penalty shall be in addition to any other criminal charges or judicial remedies, including remedies for causing personal injury, endangerment, or destruction of public property available under State law. 3) A User who knowingly makes any false statements, representations, or certifications in any application, record, report, plan, or other documentation filed, or required to be maintained, pursuant to this Chapter, wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under this Chapter shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punished by a fine of$1,000 per violation, per day, or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. 7/23/14 D) Remedies Nonexclusive. The remedies provided for in this Chapter are not exclusive. The City may take any, all, or any combination of these actions against a noncompliant User. Enforcement of pretreatment violations will generally be in accordance with the City's enforcement response plan. However, the City may take other action against any User when the circumstances warrant. Further, the City is empowered to take more than one enforcement action against any noncompliant User. 13.62.120 SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION. A) Penalties for Late Reports, The City may assess a penalty fee to any User for each day that a report required by this Chapter, a permit or order issued hereunder is late. Penalties accrue beginning the fifth day after the report is due. The City's actions to collect late reporting penalties shall not limit the City's authority to initiate any other enforcement action. B) Performance Bonds. The City may require a satisfactory bond, payable to the City, in a sum not to exceed a value determined by the City as necessary to provide the User will achieve consistent compliance with this Chapter. The City may require this bond as an enforcement response or as a prerequisite to issue or reissue a wastewater discharge permit. Any User who has failed to comply with any provision of this Chapter, a previous permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement may be subject to this requirement. This bond may also be required of any category of User which has led to public burdens in the past regardless of the compliance history of the particular User. The City may use this bond to pay any fees, costs, or penalties assessed to the User whenever the Users account is in arrears for over 30 days. This includes the costs of cleanup of the site if the User goes out of business, sells the business to a person that does not first assume the bond, or goes bankrupt. Users may petition the City to convert their performance bond to a requirement to provide Liability Insurance, or to forego any such safeguard based on their performance. User may petition no more frequently than once in any twelve month period. C) Liability Insurance. The City may require any User to provide insurance if they previously failed to comply with any provision of this Chapter, a previous permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement. The City may also require Users in businesses which historically have left a public burden to clean up pollution to obtain this insurance, regardless of their compliance history. In such cases, Users must provide proof that the insurance is sufficient to cover any liabilities incurred under this Chapter, including the cost of damages to the POTW and the environment caused by the User. The City may require Users to provide the proof of such insurance either in response to non-compliance or prior to issuing or reissuing a wastewater discharge permit. D) Payment of Outstanding Fees and Penalties. The Public Works Director may decline to issue or reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any User who has failed to pay any outstanding fees, fines or penalties incurred as a result of any provision of this Chapter, a previous permit or order issued hereunder. 7/23/14 E) Water Supply Severance. The Public Works Director may order water service to a User severed whenever a User has violated or continues to violate any provision of this Chapter, a permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement. Users wishing to restore their service must first demonstrate their ability to comply with this Chapter and pay the related costs of this action. F) Contractor Listing. Users which have not achieved compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements are not eligible to receive a contractual award for the sale of goods or services to the City. Existing contracts for the sale of goods or services to the City held by a User found to be in significant noncompliance with pretreatment standards or requirements may be terminated at the discretion of the Public Works Director. 13.62.130 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS. A) Upset. 1) For the purposes of this section, a) Upset means an exceptional incident in which a discharger unintentionally and temporarily is in a state of noncompliance with the standards set forth herein due to factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. b) An upset does not exclude noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation thereof. 2) An upset shall constitute an affirmative defense to punitive actions in response to noncompliance with . categorical pretreatment standards (Section 13.62.020(B)), but not local limits (Section 13,62.020(1)),(E), and (F) when the requirements of Section 13.62.130(A)(3)(c)below are met. 3) A User who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: a) An upset occurred and the User can identify the cause(s) of the upset; b) The facility was at the time being operated in a manner according with AKART (WAC 173-216-050(3) and Section 13.62.020(c)(4)) and was in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance procedures; c) Where the upset involved reduction, loss, or failure of its treatment 7/23/14 facility (e.g. a power failure), the User controlled production of all discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with categorical pretreatment standards until the facility was restored or an alternative method of treatment was provided; and d) The User submitted the following information to the Public Works Director within twenty-four hours of becoming aware of the upset. When initially provided orally,the User must have provided a written report within five days: (1) A description of the indirect discharge and cause of noncompliance; (2) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; and (3) Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. 4) In any enforcement proceeding, the User seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof. 5) Users will have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards. B) Prohibited Discharge Standards. A User will have an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought against it for noncompliance with the prohibitions in Section 13.62.020(A)(1), and 13.62.020(A)(2)(d) through (h) of this Chapter in certain cases. The User must be able to prove that it did not know, or have reason to know, that its discharge, alone or in conjunction with discharges from other sources, would cause pass through or interference and that either: 1) A local limit exists for each pollutant discharged and the User was in compliance with each limit directly prior to, and during, the pass through or interference; or 2) No local limit exists, but the discharge did not change substantially in nature or constituents from the User's prior discharge when the City was regularly in compliance with its NPDES or SWD permit, and in the case of interference, was in compliance with applicable sludge use or disposal requirements. C) Bypass. 1) For the purposes of this section: 7/23/14 a) Bypass means the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of the pretreatment or treatment process. b) Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. 2) A User may allow a bypass to occur if it does not cause pretreatment standards or requirements to be violated and is for essential maintenance to provide efficient operation. 3) Any other bypass must meet the following requirements: a) Users knowing in advance of the need for a bypass must submit prior notice to the Public Works Director, at least ten (10) days before the bypass wherever possible; and b) Users must inform the Public Works Director of any unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable pretreatment standards within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the bypass. Users must provide a written follow-up report within five (5) days. The Public Works Director may waive the written report if the oral report was timely and complete. Unless waived, the written report must contain: (1) A description of the bypass (volume,pollutants,etc.); (2) What caused the bypass; (3) When, specifically, the bypass started and ended; (4) When the bypass is expected to stop (if ongoing); and (5) What steps the User has taken or plans to take to reduce, eliminate, and prevent the bypass from reoccurring. 4) Bypass. a) Bypass is prohibited, and the Public Works Director may take an enforcement action against a User for a bypass, unless (1) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; 7123/14 (2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and (3) The User submitted notices as required under Section 13.62.130(0) of this section. b) The Public Works Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the Public Works Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed in Section 13.62.130(0)(4)of this section. 13.62.140 WASTEWATER TREATMENT RATES: Refer to chapters 13.40 and 13.41A of the Pasco Municipal Code for applicable rates. 13.62.150 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A) Pretreatment Charges and Fees. The City may adopt reasonable fees for reimbursement of costs of setting up and operating the City's Pretreatment Program which may include: 1) Fees for wastewater discharge permit applications including the cost of processing such applications; 2) Annual permit fees will be charged at the amounts set forth by the State of Washington for permitting industrial facilities per WAC 173-224. For Users that do not fit into an existing category, the City reserves the right to place that User into a category that the City determines to be appropriate, or create a new category if the need exists; 3) Fees for monitoring, inspection, and surveillance procedures including the cost of collection and analyzing a User's discharge, and reviewing monitoring reports submitted by Users; 4) Sampling Fees. a) The expenses for sample analysis required by the user's permit will be charged to the user. For analyses conducted by a third party commercial laboratory the permittee will be charged the actual fees charged by the laboratory. For analyses conducted by the City laboratory the permittee will be charged the actual cost of the analyses, not to exceed fees established by locally available commercial laboratories. 7/23/14 b) Any user establishing a pattern of noncompliance, or having a history of noncompliance, or suspected of being in noncompliance, may require additional monitoring visits as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Director. Any additional analysis performed which detects noncompliance will be billed directly to the user. 4) Fees for reviewing and responding to accidental discharge procedures and construction; 5) Fees for transferring a permit; 6) Fees for permit modifications. Permit modification fees will only be charged in a case where the User's operation requires a modification, or when a User requests a modification to the permit; 7) Fees for a one-time batch discharge; 8) High Strength Waste Fees. a)Users having effluent concentrations in excess of established local limits, or limits included in authorized permits, may be billed a high strength waste surcharge or a charge for excessive maintenance and/or inspections to ensure compliance. Surcharge rates will be established by the Public Works Director, and based on cost of conveyance and treatment in the POTW. b) All fees or charges will be collected by direct billing. Unless the Public Works Director has been made aware of extenuating circumstances that would prevent prompt payment, all fees are payable within 30 days of the billing. Fees past due will be considered a violation of this chapter. Users not paying fees within 60 days of the billing period will be subject to termination of service. The Public Works Director may change existing or adopt new fees to comply with the actual cost of service. 9) Fees for filing appeals; 10) Fees to recover administrative and legal costs (not included in Section 13.62.150(A)(2)) associated with the enforcement activity taken by the Public Works Director to address User noncompliance; and 11) Other fees as the City may deem necessary to carry out the requirements contained herein. These fees relate solely to the matters covered by this Chapter and are separate from all other fees, fines, and penalties chargeable by the City. Section 2. That Section 13A.52.220 entitled "Specific Prohibitions for Discharge" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 7/23/14 13A.52.220 SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS FOR DISCHARGE, No User shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW or any natural outlet, any pollutants, substance, or wastewater whether or not they are subject to categorical pretreatment standards or any other national, state, or local pretreatment standards or requirements which are prohibited in Section 13.62.020 of this Code. (Strikethroughs and underlines are deleted due to the volume of material.) Section 3. That Section 13A.52.270 entitled "Preliminary Treatment by Owner" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 13A.52.270 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT BY OWNER. The admission into the public sewer, POTW, of any waters or wastes having the potential to cause interference with the natural flow of wastewater within the sewer collection system, cause degradation of, or interfere with the operation of the POTW shall meet the requirements as described in this Chapter 13A.52 and 13.62 of this Coda. Plans, specifications, and any other pertinent information relating to proposed preliminary treatment facilities shall be submitted fe subject to review and approval of the Director and the DepaFtnie ' of Eeelegy e f the State of Washington and no construction of r sT such facilities shall be commenced until theall required approvals are obtained in writing. (Ord. 3702 Sec. 2, 2004.) Section 4. The following Sections of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby are repealed in their entirety and shall be of no further force and affect: A) 13A,52.230 Limitations on Wastewater Strength. B) 13A.52.280 Permit Required. C) 13A.52.290 Maintenance of Pretreatment Equipment and Facilities. D) 13A.52.300 Acceptable Types of Pretreatment Facilities. E) 13A.52.310 Location of Facilities. F) 13A.52.320 Installation of Facilities. G) 13A.52.330 Installation Schedule. H) 13A.52.340 Pretreatment Waste Disposal. 1) 13A.52.350 Pretreatment Accidental Spill Containment Program. J) 13A.52.360 Pretreatment Records Required. 7/23/14 K) 13A,52.380 Testing Methods and Responsibility, L) 13A.52.390 Special Arrangements Concerning Industrial Wastes. M) 13A.52.400 Right of Entry --Powers and Authority of Inspectors. Section 5. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not as a result of said section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be held unconstitutional or invalid. Section 6. The City Clerk shall pursuant to RCW 35.21.180 maintain no less than one copy of Chapter 173-216 WAC and Chapter 90.48 RCW, and any amendments and additions thereto, including those portions which are adopted by reference by this Ordinance, for use and examination by the public prior to the effective date of the Ordinance. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect on January 1, 2015. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this_day of 12014. Matt Watkins, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney 7/23/14 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 30, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director y —1 FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: REZONE: (MF#Z2014-003) Rezone Property from C-3 (General Business) to R- 3 (Medium-Density Residential). I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Solano Rezone-Vicinity Map 2. Solano Rezone- Proposed Ordinance 3. Solano Rezone-Report to the Planning Commission 4. Solano Rezone -Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 6/19/14 & 7/24/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/4: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the property located at 909 N. 3rd Avenue from C-3 to R-3, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On June 19, 2014 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend rezoning 909 N. 3rd Avenue from C-3 to R-3. B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend a change in zoning for the property in question. C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(c) Ix" ct dlr 07— l -) r C) ` • �. r ILI a . 4� W M .ri.Mf7aK ' . yr. ir rE �rcl •r�M a �� "�4 �� ��� ` °' koo e vi ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 909 NORTH 3RD AVENUE FROM C-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) TO R-3 (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: Block 11, Northern Pacific Plat First Addition Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4"'day of August, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FOR: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney z s� m Ln4 ® w � c4do w HAd H.Lb h w w x H � o •�I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014-003 APPLICANT: Solano Enterprises LLC HEARING DATE: 6/19/2014 5311 Eisenhower Ct ACTION DATE: 7/24/2014 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium- Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Parcel # 112-023-042: Block 11 Northern Pacific Plat First Addition General Location: 909 N 3rd Avenue Property Size: The parcel is approximately 3.4 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from 3rd Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: The site is currently served only by municipal water service. The site contains a septic system. The sewer line lying approximately 240 feet south of the site is not available to serve the site due to its shallow depth. There is a sewer line which terminates near the northeast corner of the site; however, the line is on Pasco Housing Authority private property. It is uncommon for sewer lines to be extended from adjacent private parcels. A private sewer lift-station may be needed. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-3 (General Business) and contains a commercial building. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-1 - Commercial SOUTH: RP - Mobile Homes EAST: R-3 - Multi-Family Residences WEST: R-1 - City Park 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential uses. Goal LU-3-B encourages infill and (higher) density to protect open space and critical areas in support of more walkable neighborhoods. Goal LU-3-E encourages the city to designate area for higher density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. 1 ANALYSIS Santos Solano of Solano Enterprises LLC has applied to change the zoning designation of Block 11, Northern Pacific Plat First Addition from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) to allow for multi-family residential development. The subject site is approximately 3.4 acres in area. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses which allows for a variety of residential (density) zones ranging from RS-20 (Suburban) through R-3. Of the allowable zones under the Mixed Residential designation, the R-3 zone permits the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,OOOft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre. For comparison, the single-family R-1 zone permits an approximate density of 6-units per acre. Currently the site appears to be an isolated C-3 (General Business) zoned site among a variety other zoning districts in the surrounding vicinity. Generally, the uses permitted in the C-3 zone are heavy commercial in nature such as contractor's yards and heavy equipment sales and services. These heavy commercial uses are potentially disruptive to lifestyles enjoyed in residential neighborhoods. It is common urban planning practice to assign higher-density residential zones or sometimes office zones, to transitional areas to serve as buffers between contrasting zoning districts. For this reason it may be appropriate to assign the R-3 zone to the site. This relatively large site can be characterized as underdeveloped. The asphalt parking area is highly weathered. The east 2/3 of the site remains unimproved. Recently, the City completed the 4th Avenue corridor capital improvement project whereby a round-a-bout and street frontage improvements were installed directly in front of the site. Due to the investment of public funds into the roadside appearance of the vicinity it may be in the best interest of the public to promote full site development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established over 35-years ago. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: Over the years adjacent parcels to the east and south have been developed with a variety of multi family and single-family residential developments aimed mostly at providing housing opportunities for low to moderate income families. 2 Of particular importance is Council's adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan which occurred after the C-3 zone was assigned to the site. A change in zoning classification to the R-3 zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with existing land uses in the vicinity. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: Changing the zoning classification of the site will likely lead to the development of a largely unimproved/undeveloped parcel of land near the central downtown core of the city. Development of this site would contribute to the city's recent investment into right-of-way infrastructure along the 4th Avenue corridor; thereby enhancing the overall character of the vicinity. There is also merit in the elimination of an underdeveloped site near the central core of the city as it is likely to foster further development in the area. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: A change in zoning classification resulting in a multi family residential development will enhance the residential character of the vicinity by providing an increased number of housing opportunities. The rezone from C-3 to R-3 will encourage "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas," as per Land Use Policy LU-3-B, and allow for "higher-density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU-3-E. This rezone would still align with that intended goal and also "allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing," consistent with Housing Policy H-2-A. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without transitioning the site to a residential zoning classification residential development will not occur on the property. The applicant may not wish to proceed with any site development if it cannot be residential in nature. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is currently zoned C-3 (General Business). 2. The site contains a commercial building. 3 3. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning be assigned to the site. 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site and much of the vicinity for Mixed-Residential uses which allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R-3 (Medium-Density Residential). 5. The R-3 zone is the highest density allowed under the Mixed Residential land use designation, allowing 1 dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of land area. 6. The site is approximately 3.4 acres in area. 7. Municipal water currently serves the site from 3rd Avenue. 8. The site to the east is similarly zoned R-3 and contains a multi-family residential development. 9. The site to the southeast is similarly zoned R-3 and contains a multi-family residential development CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages "infill" development while H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. The zoning standards for proposed rezone would be similar to the standards for the multi family development to the south. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed R-3 zoning will permit site development similar to the density of the Pasco Housing Authority residential development to the east/southeast. Based on past experience with rezoning and development of vacant land adjacent to existing single-family and multi family developments, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the value of properties within immediate vicinity. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Establishment of zoning and development on the subject site will further establish the multi family character matching much of the vicinity. These similar developments in the area have consistently experienced high rates of occupancy. From this we can 4 infer that there is a need in the community for affordable multi family housing opportunities. There is merit in providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in those areas currently served by municipal utilities and public transportation and will enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. No special conditions are proposed. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not needed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact:. I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 24, 2014 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C-3 to R-3 for 909 N. 3rd Avenue. 5 t> vow w4_ .,,1 Iek r2 Y a`r,t �yrX E{ N p-� 6{', \ it � !1•! R �, JLY 1L•s d. j C�//3 � •I�t S_] Vic ar. i s Ell, r. f (, ■rh 4--A� u d V] � ® \Z� ct o N 31xRd f4i3 � v N ... dAd Hlt, Qm � o c �n� ygt P-� g,3 Resae�pa �tos" aa � � ac r7l y v N �- Planning Commission Minutes 6/19/2014 Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 B. Rezone (Medium Density Residentiall (Solano Enternrisesl (MF# Z 2014-0031 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located 909 North 3rd Avenue and is nearly surrounded by mostly residential properties with only one commercial property to the north. Most of those residential uses are multi-family or high density. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site for residential uses which allows for zones from RS-20 through R-3. The site zoned as R-3 could accommodate up to 49 units, roughly 14.5 units per acre. Recently the City completed a capital improvement project putting in a roundabout and street frontage improvements directly in front of the site. Residential development on this site would bolster the City's recent investment along the 4th Avenue Corridor. Commissioner Khan asked if there would be any requirements to the facade of multi-family residential pertaining to the downtown area. Mr. O'Neill answered that there are no additional design requirements. Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that this site is outside of the boundary of Downtown Pasco Development Area. With no comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the July 17, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes 7/24/2014 B. Rezone Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Solano Enterprises) IMF# Z 2014-0031 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there was no further evidence or testimony to add. Commissioner Bachart asked if this application would be affected by the minimum lot size moratorium. Mr. White responded that the applicant had previously stated that their intent was for multi-family dwelling units which would not require subdividing the property. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kempf move, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C-3 to R-3 for 909 N. 3rd Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 29,2014 TO: Stan Strebel,Acting City Manag Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 FROM: Rick White, Community&Economic Development Director l� -1 r SUBJECT: Downtown Pasco Development Authority(DPDA)Work Plan I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Downtown Pasco Development Authority Work Plan—Proposed Resolution H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. accepting the DPDA Work Plan of June 2014. HL FISCAL IMPACT IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF A. City Council approved funding for preparation of the DPDA Work Plan in January this year. Council recognized that a multi-year work plan would establish working priorities for the DPDA Board and Executive Director, and is essential for the long term success of the DPDA and its revitalization efforts. B. The DPDA Board had chosen a consultant to develop the Work Plan and that process took place between February and June of this year. C. The development of the Work Plan included public meetings with business and civic interests in the Downtown by the DPDA Board on June 4'"and July 17,2014. D. The DPDA Board has approved the Work Plan. V. DISCUSSION: A. Preparation of the Work Plan included an inventory of parcels, structures and business types in the Downtown. Stakeholder interviews were conducted as was an analysis of the market demographics and retail sales leakage. B. Three separate strategic options for the focus of the Work Plan were discussed with the DPDA Board and included: • Status Quo—largely continue the course the Downtown has taken in recent years; • Retail Enhancement—building on the anchors and attractions proven successful to date; and • Mixed Use Development — a broad strategy to attract creative businesses and professional services in conjunction with enhancing the ability for residential densities in the Downtown. C. The DPDA Board concluded that the Work Plan should focus on retail core enhancement for the next 1-3 years with a transition to a focus on mixed use development in years 3-5. D. More than one-half of Year 1 project actions are focused on customer outreach and building greater awareness of Downtown Pasco. Other Year 1 actions focus on building better business to business communications. E. Project actions in Years 3-5 involve the more challenging process of increased business and property investment in the Downtown. F. The Downtown Pasco Work Plan summary, which includes the entire list of action items, is contained on pages 33 and 34 of the Work Plan. G. As the final Work Plan has been approved by the DPDA Board, staff recommends its acceptance by Council. 8(d) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, accepting the 2014 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Work Plan. WHEREAS, City Council approved funding for preparation of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA) Work Plan in January of 2014; and WHEREAS, Council recognized that a multi-year work plan would establish working priorities for the DPDA Board and Executive Director, and is essential for the long term success of the DPDA and its revitalization efforts; and WHEREAS, The development of the Work Plan included public meetings with business and civic interests in the Downtown by the DPDA Board on June 4th and July 17, 2014; and WHEREAS, The DPDA Board has approved the Work Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The DPDA Work Plan prepared in June of 2014 is accepted by the City Council of Pasco, Washington. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and signature below. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting dated this day of 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 30,2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manage Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 Rick White, �� Community&Economic Development Director 1"f '1 FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams,Associate Planner SUBJECT: Casa de Avivamiento - Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone Zone(MF# SP 2014-006) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit-Vicinity Map 2. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit-Proposed Resolution 3. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit-Report to Planning Commission 4. Casa de Avivamiento Special Permit- Planning Commission Minutes: 6/19/2014 and 7/24/2014. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a Special Permit for the location of a church at 1734 North 5th Avenue, as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On June 19, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend approval of a Special Permit to allow the location of a church at 1734 North 5th Avenue. B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the church in question be granted a Special Permit with a number of conditions. C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution. D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(e) r �0. � •f . `mat.. � I '� ffimwffa�AL" ;1 Lj � v "- E , yy Ad MA ;. h av �r TV till ell - wl n i d �� 1 I CO ® .� �( , - _I! RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHURCH AT 1734 NORTH 5TH AVENUE. WHEREAS, Casa de Avivamiento submitted an application for the location of a church to be located at 1734 North 5th Avenue (Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt's Addition; Parcel #113 391 027); and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19, 2014 to review the proposed church; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on July 24, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the church with certain conditions; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Casa de Avivamiento for the location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) District under Master File # SP 2014-006 with the following conditions: a. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel #113 391 027 (1734 North 5th Avenue); b. The church shall not object to the issuance, transfer, or renewal of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; c. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the occupancy class applicable to the use; d. Paved and striped parking shall be provided at the rate of one space for each four seats based upon maximum seating capacity or at least one space for every ten lineal feet of bench seating, as per PMC 25.78.170(2); e. Landscaped areas shall be restored and maintained, as per PMC 25.75. f. The Special Permit shall be null and void if an occupancy registration has not been obtained by August 30,2015. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4`"day of August,2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Ken•, City Attorney REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2014-006 APPLICANT: Casa de Avivamiento HEARING DATE: 6/19/2014 1734 North 5th Ave. ACTION DATE: 7/17/2014 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt's Addition General Location: 1734 North 5th Avenue Property Size: Approximately 0.57 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from 5th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and contains a church structure. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: R-1 -Apartment Building EAST: C-3 - WA State Department of Transportation SOUTH: R-1 - SFDUs WEST: R-1 - SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low-density residential uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to operate a church in an existing 4,650 square- foot structure located in a C-1 zone. Churches require special permit review regardless of the zone. 1 In 1992 Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church (Frank Blanchard) obtained a Special Permit to operate a church at this location with the following conditions: 1) This special permit shall be personal to the applicant. 2) Thirty-two (32) off-street parking spaces shall be maintained. 3) Two percent (2%) of the net lot (approximately 450 sq. ft.) shall be landscaped by November 1, 1992. 4) All signs not pertaining to the church activity shall be removed by July 6, 1992. 5) This permit shall be null and void if a valid business license has not been obtained by July 6, 1992. The church name was changed in 2008 to Faith Center International. The building has been used as a church from 1992 to the present. Since the special permit granted in 1992 was personal to the applicant, and has now been abandoned, a new special permit application process is required. The church plans on holding services Tuesday 7:00 pm to 8:30/8:45 pm; Thursday 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm; Sunday 11:OOam to 2:OOpm and/or 5:OOpm to 8:OOpm. Estimated attendance is 60-80 parishioners. Required parking for church uses is one space for each four seats based upon maximum seating capacity or at least one space for every ten lineal feet of bench seating. The church sanctuary has seven 15' benches and thirteen 7' benches with a total of 196 lineal feet of seating. This would require 20 paved and striped parking spaces. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Churches are considered Unclassified Uses and thereby require special permit review (PMC 25.86.020). 2. The site is located at 1734 North 5th Avenue. 3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 4. The site comprises approximately .57 acres. 5. The proposed church will occupy an existing 4,650-square-foot structure. 2 6. The municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking space for every four fixed seats or at least one space for every ten lineal feet of bench seating. 7. A church (Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church/Faith Center International) was previously granted a Special Permit to operate on the site. 8. The Casa de Avivamiento is a non-profit organization. 9. Casa de Avivamiento is defined as a church in the Pasco Zoning Code. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Plan does not specifically address churches, but Policy LU-2-13 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the support of facilities for educational and cultural activities. Elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including zoning standards for landscaping and off- street parking. Parking and landscaping improvements may be required as conditions of the special permit. The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential use. Church uses are allowed in residential zones with a special permit. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? Churches are generally used during off-peaks hours, on Sundays and during evenings in the middle of the week. The church will use existing City utilities and infrastructure. The proposal will generate little demand for public utilities, operating for only a few hours per week. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants. Impacts to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the fact the facility will only be open a few hours per week. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The building proposed for worship use is currently in place and has existed for over 40 years. No changes are planned for the exterior of this 3 commercial building. The proposed use will have minimal impact on the existing and intended character of the neighborhood. 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? Casa de Avivamiento is proposing to occupy an existing building in a fully built-out neighborhood. No changes are planned for the height and size of the structure. The current building has not discouraged development in the general area. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Churches typically operate two or three days per week and generate traffic during off-peak times such as Sunday mornings and weekday evenings. The proposed facility will only be open for religious services a few hours per week. There will be no excessive fumes, vibrations, dust, noise, or flashing lights as a result of this activity. 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Church operations within the City typically do not endanger public health or safety. Churches are a generally accepted use within the community. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel #113 391 027 (1734 North 5th Avenue); 2. The church shall not object to the issuance, transfer, or renewal of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; 3. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the occupancy class applicable to the use; 4. Paved and striped parking shall be provided at the rate of one space for each four seats based upon maximum seating capacity or at least one space for every ten lineal feet of bench seating, as per PMC 25.78.170(2); 4 5. Landscaped areas shall be restored and maintained, as per PMC 25.75. 6. The Special Permit shall be null and void if an occupancy registration has not been obtained by August 30, 2015. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a church at 1734 North 5th Avenue (Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt's Addition; Parcel #113 391 027), with conditions as listed in the July 17, 2014 staff report. 5 f c lam LE 1 L LPN Oilur Ir v r v v c - 4 'e � a � ilk".�::1�- �1. t°I,�e��. i a i�i•j� ..d..v. a Wt UP MAI v . 4 .r 1 ' , 3 ` II` N 1 r Nil A,� � � °i � z J Q sluaua:asdV 77 e� a L Q� E and Hlt7 O E V LL i E a. N 3AV H15 0 N .� Q 4) 3nb H19 Q Lu U y 3AV H1L •U) 4) 4) a 0 r V a r 3nb Hit O W om o • y N 3nb Hl5 U ,� o r � ct rci o N Q 3Ad H19 a ct C/) a Q Ax Uv . . 4 r 3n`d HiL a a O i �wiK Iq AW 1 "jA" Er'q) tiv a s i I'. s i '� 4^ iS :+ 1•€y a .�`a,. y/1a1 �� �'114r vy�'�ppyyr t 1�"'� r, ` v t trC�7 eAy V=� Ct•P+P ,�+`'1:4r+�.� A ay Y aae 45.k h c"Y tF �/�ry�d f!(-0RM 1 J �p�f 66 i QO1y/JYlry� • � A irl ° i IY b� !f '�,,�'N'fv " sih �9�'�en��i� 8{�".. 5 � jai Oj � L #* , •fit i' <! .4 4 N '":;° 1 0 '.�;� i , ���- � �, _ - I �.;` � F r ,;-�„ � �. i � I a i• ,� — � �,. i � ' _ .i i -_�`'i .._ � r:� s�';y ' X41' 1 I� • • �5 1 I l I ` 11 (�•/.Y ^ H� i �r, 1 V,J 4f ~� lk ♦r. r 4 � tY . Y. �^ i y• Y _ f� L . J , #t Z • �' $ lL A T+v 2 M is b m I i I L` :s I k O h 16 1 t.� f l I J' _ _ ,�_ �� �� 4 t' � fy^ !. 5 � . +'.• ^��_ �!,� •\i l of r � ,. '.,m —T� '*' I t tV rxxvWpt`P'ih Y_t_rc] i�t r. � n , � 3xs1�iNj f3, r �.Y i�F.,,' •;r ,fyw (<>'r f �✓p� f jam, � ��.�,,, _� P .� i i � � 't �qyr'• sy .-y�� �� is r �� �A �`� f C REGULAR MEETING June 19, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Businessl Zone iManuel Diaz) IMF# SP 2014-0061 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. Churches in any zone require a special permit through provisions in the Municipal Code. In this particular case, this church was first initiated in the early 1990's and has been a church ever since, however in those days special permits were personal to the applicant rather than the property. The applicant wishes to continue the current use as a church. The previous special permit for the existing church was abandoned and the new applicant needed to submit an application for a special permit for their use and one of the approval conditions would be that the special permit be subject to the property rather than the applicant. Antonio Diaz, 1734 North 5th Avenue, spoke on behalf of his special permit application. Chairman Cruz asked if Mr. Diaz was alright with all of the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Diaz replied that everything was fine. Rosa Perez, 1711 North 6th Avenue, gave her support of this special permit application. Ms. Perez stated that she is a neighbor to this property and feels that the church would improve the neighborhood and keep it safer. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the July 17, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. -1- REGULAR MEETING July 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 Zone (Casa de Avivamiento) IMF# SP 2014-0051 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there was no further evidence or testimony to add. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a church at 1734 North 5th Avenue (Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt's Addition; Parcel #113-391-027), with conditions as listed in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. -1- AGENDA REPORT NO.25 FOR: City Council July 22,2014 TO: Stan Strebel,Acting City Manage FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director Workshop Mtg.: 07/28/2014 Regular Mtg.: 08/04/2014 SUBJECT: Process Water Treatment System Optimization Phase III—Part II I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Process Water Phase III—Part II—Vicinity Map 2. Process Water Phase III—Part II—Professional Services Summary Sheet 3. Process Water Phase III—Part II-Scope of Work II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 07/28: Discussion 08/04: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with CI-I2MHill authorizing professional services with respect to Phase III —Part II of the Process Water Treatment System Optimization project in the amount of $98,000, and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. HL FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City treats and re-uses the process water generated by the Pasco Processing Center during vegetable processing by applying it to agricultural crops grown on the City's farm circles. The agronomic capacity of the land dictates the maximum process water volume that can be delivered from the processing center to the City for -treatment and reuse. Without additional land or other changes, the City cannot accommodate significant new volume. B) In Fall of 2011, CES completed the optimization plan that included improvement plans divided into four phases. Phases I & II include improvements to remove biosolids, grit and sediment, which were causing reduction in agronomic capacity. Phase Is& II were completed in early 2014 and facilities are now operational. C) In previous years large amounts of biosolids, grit and sediment were pumped to farms through pivots, causing constant maintenance, clogging and damage to pivots and crops. This also prevented optimization of agronomic capacity. The improvements produced by Phase I & II have shown to be significant in reducing these issues. D) Phase III includes B.O.D. removal. This process will allow the storage of water at the ponds for longer periods, and allow for the application of more wastewater on the farms and less reliance on well water, thus creating additional capacity at the processing center. E) Phase III — Part I included design of an additional 35 MG winter storage pond, an 8 MG B.O.D.pond and exploring the most efficient way to remove B.O.D. F) Phase III — Part H includes completing the design for B.O.D. removal, design for construction of a building to house the B.O.D removal equipment and design to optimize the Equalization Basin. G) The improvements are paid through debt service by the food processors. V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff proposes to complete Phase III — Part II design which will include the following: • Further reduction in BOD concentration allowing for longer storage time • Reduce hydraulic loading to the entire system in early spring and late fall • Increase the percentage of process water that can be used as part of total irrigation by using it instead of a portion of the fresh groundwater later in the season • Improve soil conditions during spring crop emergence • Reduce the odor potential in the spring 10(a) • Reduce aerator operation thus reducing power costs • Reduce organic matter to minimize the volume of biosolids produced in the storage pond • Increase process water delivery capability • Increased storage volume B) The improvements will create additional capacity for additional loading or reuse water volumes. The improvements will also optimize the Equalization Pond operations. } �A 1 � M S . � 3 v " c p ' �1R Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Phase III - Part II (Process Water Treatment System Optimization) Consultant; CH2MHILL Address: 295 Bradley Blvd. , #300, Richland, WA 99352-4486 Scope of Services: Exhibit A Term: 6 months T Completion Date: 2/2015 Payments to Consultant: ❑ Hourly Rate: $ M Fixed Sum of: $ 95,000 ❑ 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 $2,000,000 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: EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK City of Pasco Process Water Reuse Facility Aeration and Equalization Pond Improvements Introduction The City of Pasco owns and operates the Process Water Reuse Facility(PWRF), located north of the City Limits on Foster Wells Road.The PWRF accepts wastewater from several food processors on the north side of the City.This water has high TSS and BOD(BOD up to 12,000 mg/L has been measured, but is typically in the in the range of 5,000 or so)and is conveyed to an existing 115MG pond for storage/mixing, then on to a combination aeration/equalization basin in advance of discharge to irrigated farmland. At the completion of this project, process water will be conveyed to a new aerated pond (depending on time of year,either the existing 115MG pond or the newly constructed 35MG pond could serve as storage).At ADF,the aerated pond will provide about 1-1/2 days of HRT and the aeration system (aeration blowers selected and procured by others)will serve to remove a portion of the incoming BOD.There are no water quality parameters to be met as a result of the project—throughput is controlled, ultimately, by the agronomic loading rate of the crop areas. The scope of work for the Process Water Reuse Facility(PWRF)Aeration and Equalization Pond Improvements Project shall consist of performing the elements described below. Prior to the commencement of the design work, a Project Chartering meeting will be held with the City stakeholder team and confirm critical success factors that will guide CH2M HILL's project delivery. The scope of this project is to complete Phase 3 of the City',s PWRF upgrades.CH2M has four major tasks to complete: 1. Develop flow regimes based on time of year and anticipated loadings for BOD and nitrogen components.This will include work by the aeration manufacturer to supply air calculations—CH2M HILL will provide the vendor with load data, and the vendor will be responsible for performing calculations to estimate the required air flow. 2. Design site civil improvements to include: a. A submerged berm across the current EQ basin to provide a settling/stilling area has already been "designed" and installed.The civil drawing will reflect the new condition. b. A withdrawal system for settled solids with underf low returning to an existing screw press. c. A connecting pipe from the 8MG pond to the new EQ/Stilling basin. 3. Design an aeration diffuser system for the 8MG pond.The intent is for the City to select a specific aeration system.The current preferred alternative is the Triple Point Aeration system, and this scope of work is predicated on this system. CH2M HILL will rely on the design of the manufacturer for the number and placement of the aerators, but will show the alignment and the air laterals on our drawings. CH2M HILL's scope of work for the aeration diffuser system will be limited to the following activities: a. Aeration header and lateral pipe sizing, material selection,and layout,developed working in conjunction with the aeration blower and aeration diffuser vendors b. Aeration header pipe structural design, including supports that resist buoyancy uplift c. Aeration header pipe thermal expansion design 4. Layout and specify a new non-occupied pre-engineered metal building to house: a. The existing screw press b. The blowers(these will be either new turbo blowers or relocated centrifugal blowers from the domestic WWTP). c. Electrical and mechanical equipment for blowers, screw presses, HVAC(fans/louvers only) d. Storage space for rolling stock(backhoe and other site equipment)with rollup doors e. Develop design drawings and specifications for installation of items a, b,and c, and foundation/slab design for the pre-engineered metal building. The design shall be developed so that the constructed improvements will integrate into the operating facility with minimal disruptions During meetings with the City at intervals to be defined during chartering, the project team will measure the decisions and direction of the design solutions against these goals and objectives. Basis of Scope of Work Delivery of this project will consist of preparation of two work packages, as follows: • Work Package 1: • Equalization Pond configuration • Work Package 2: • 8MG Pond aeration improvements • Settling basin improvements • PWRF Building • Flow splitting/routing Technical Memorandum Work Package 1 will result in sketches,correspondence and other direction/recommendations for placement of an earthen berm in the existing Equalization/Aeration basin. Due to the nature of available construction materials and resources,the City desires this work to be accomplished very early in this project, so a formal set of construction documents shall not be provided. Work Package 2 will provide construction documents for the completion of the aeration improvements, required flow splitting structures, and appurtenances for the 8MG Pond as well as a steel building to house the existing screw presses,separately procured 6000 SUM blowers, and storage facilities for the site backhoe,various vehicles, and maintenance equipment.An addition,CH2M HILL shall provide a technical memorandum discussing potential flow conditions and resulting recommendations for routing. Deliverables Three deliverables will be produced: 1. Summary of Basis of Design.This report is intended to document the design criteria and decisions, but not necessarily to meet the requirements of a Department of Ecology Engineering Report as we understand that such report is not required. 2. Technical memorandum discussing possible flow regimes based on time of year and loading conditions. 3. 85%drawings and specifications(based on the preliminary drawing list attached), 4. Final signed drawings and specifications. Deliverables shall be provided in electronic and hard copy formats. It is assumed that the City shall reproduce drawings for bid and construction purposes. For this scope of work,CH2M HILL shall provide four hard copies of the deliverables described above plus electronic files in Microsoft Office,Adobe PDF, and AutoCAD 2013 formats. Assumptions: The level of effort and resulting fee is based on the following assumptions.Should any of these assumptions turn out to be incorrect,CH2M HILL and the City shall develop an alternate approach to project completion, which could result in additional work and fee. 1. City staff shall prepare site civil drawings based on design input provided by CH2M HILL using AutoCAD 2013. 2. City staff shall provide programming for the building,showing gross layout of equipment, electrical panels, and space for rolling stock/site maintenance equipment. 3. Kick-off meeting included in scope. 4. TESC plans are shown on the civil drawings. S. No site lighting is required. 6. No emergency generator is required. 7. No new electrical service (upgrade to the service) is required. 8. Pre-engineered building will be used to house the existing screw press, new blowers, and electrical panels. In additional there will be bays to store two pieces of equipment such as a backhoe. Pre- engineered building vendor will be required to develop and furnish all calculations, specifications, and drawings necessary to define the building for purposes of permits and installation. 9. Electrical panels will not be located in a separate room in the building. 10. The building will be designated as non-occupied. 11. Building will not be heated and,therefore,will not require to be designed to meet the energy code. The design will only provide a louver and supply fan sufficient to de-rate the building with respect to NRC issues. 12. There are no-flammable gases or liquids in the building. 13. The client.will provide the blowers.The blowers will be either new turbo blowers or relocated centrifugal blowers from the domestic W WTP. 14. The Client will select a specific aeration system.CHZM Hill will rely on the design of the manufacturer for the number and placement of the aerators, but will show the alignment and the air laterals on the drawings. 15. The CADD files for the civil work(Cascade Earth Science files)can be provided for this follow on work and the files have been updated for the current condition of the site including submerged berm across the current EQ basin to provide a settling/stilling area. 16. No additional survey will be required. 17. There is no SCADA on this site. Motorized valves on the air headers will not be used. Design will provide capability at the control panels to report out run/stop and runtime information only. 18. Specifications will be standard CH2M HILL master(49 sections) specifications. 19. Geotechnical report is available for design parameters for the building foundation and piping systems. No geotechnical investigation will be required. 20. All required permits will be obtained by the City and/or its construction contractor. 21. The design, construction, and inspection of the pond and liner system is the responsibility of other parties. CH2M HILL shall bear no responsibility for this work. It is assumed that the pond and liner system work will be performed with a standard of care that results in a complete and workable installation,free of leaks, under-liner gas accumulation, under-liner groundwater pressure (when lagoon is drained), or other defects that could compromise the integrity or long-term operation of the pond system. 22. CH2MHILL-designed elements will be constructed and inspected with a standard of care that ensures their Installation conforms to the specifications and drawings, and applicable codes. Where the CH2M HILL design requires clarification or modification,CH2M HILL shall be promptly notified, and given an opportunity to respond or comment, by means of a written Request for Clarification furnished by the construction contractor. 23. Bid Phase Services and Services during Construction are not included in the LOE budgets. Preliminary Drawing List Sheet Drawing Drawing Title Responsibility Number Number 1 G-1 Vicinity Map and Sheet Index CH2M HILL 2 G-2 Abbreviation List CH21M HILL 3 G-3 Civil and Mechanical general notes and legends City and CH21A HILL 4 G-4 Architectural and Structural Notes CH2M HILL 5 G-S Electrical notes and Legend CH2M HILL 6 Q-1 Statement of Special Inspection-1 CH2M HILL 7 Q-1 Statement of Special Inspection-2 CH2M HILL 8 Q-1 Statement of Special Inspection-3 CH2M HILL 9 C-1 Civil TESC Plan City of Pasco 30 C-2 Civil Plan City of Pasco 11 C-3 Civil Sections City of Pasco 12 C-4 Civil Details City of Pasco 13 A-1 Architectural Plan CH2M HILL 14 A-2 Architectural Elevations CH2M HILL 15 A-3 Architectural Sections CH2M HILL 16 A-4 Architectural Details and Schedules CH2M HILL 17 S-1 Structural Foundation Plan CH2M HILL 18 S-2 Structural Sections CH2M HILL 19 S-3 Structural Details CH2M HILL 20 S-4 Structural Diffuser Support Details CH2M HILL 21 M-1 Mechanical Plan CH2M HILL 22 M-2 Mechanical Sections CH2M HILL 23 M-3 Mechanical Details CH2M HILL 24 E-1 Electrical Site Plan CH2M HILL 25 E-2 Electrical One-Line Diagram CH21VII HILL 26 E-3 Electrical Power and Lighting Plan CH2M HILL 27 E-4 Electrical Schedules CH2M HILL Julissa Valdez From: Tom.Helgeson @CH2M.com Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:36 AM To: Ahmad Qayoumi Cc: Tom.Helgeson @CH2M.com;Julissa Valdez•, Reuel Klempel Subject: PWRF Scope of Work Attachments: 20140722 Pasco_PWRF_SOW.docx Ahmad, Here is the scope of work for the PWRF Phase 3 project. I have shown that the City will be responsible for Civil Drafting and the initial programming/layout of the building, There is a bundle of assumptions there that you should read pretty carefully. As discussed,we are rolling back some of our labor rates due to the fiscal situation and have reduced our level of effort to reflect those tasks the City will perform. We are proposing to execute this scope of work for a $98,000 lump sum fee that will be billed on a percent complete basis monthly. A task breakdown is below: Total WBS Total j Tas,klD ` _. Task Name I Project Management Monthly Reporting, 60 $ 7,909.51 n4 Schedule and Progress r', >r Reports Aa °c ;.ffrR $ 7,909.51 s'78 Basis of Design Report s 2.1 Basis of Design Report 63 5 8,580.17 " a 8,580.17 f, ; r �* I Design Phase ; Y 11 Intial Design (85% Level) 488 $ 57,623.72 Final Design 178 $ 21,775.05 rt' j $ 79,398.77 789 Direct Expenses Direct Expenses-Displayed $ 2,100.00 in each Task Totals uirJo Task 4 $ 98,000.00 At this time, we are not providing bid or construction phase services—we will need to discuss those later on. With your vacation and mine happening about the same time, I am targeting a kickoff/chartering for the week of August 25`n. Since I am returning to work on the 25`n, I'd suggest we hold the meeting on Wednesday,Thursday,or Friday of that week(27tH 28`h or 29`n). We anticipate a five to six week delivery schedule once we have chartered. 1 I suggest we meet next week to discuss the scope and other project details. Perhaps we could do this over breakfast or lunch. Thanks again for the opportunity—this will be a great project! T T�i,v�nas J. �tet9esoro., �* w eH2MHnLL 295 Bradley Blvd., #300 Richland, WA 99352-4486 Direct 509.967.7531 Switchboard 509.375.3444 x20531 Cell 509.492,0188 (Will not be answered while driving) FAX 509.252.1549 Tom.Hellgeson(ilCH2M.com Y WORLD'S MOST TM ETH CAL N CLOMP NII E.SO W W W.L'THISPHERE.COM *WA APlease conslder the environment before printing this email This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the a-mail or any of its attachments.please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use dissemination,distribution,fonvarding,printing,at copying of this e-mail or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,please Immediately purge it and all attachments and notify the sender by reply e-mail or contact the sender at the number listed 2 AGENDA REPORT NO. 24 FOR: City Council July 21, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel,Acting City Manager FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Direct Workshop Mtg.: 7/28/14 Regular Mtg.: 8/04/14 SUBJECT: Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges I. REFERENCE(S): I. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges - Vicinity Map 2. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges -Professional Services Agreement Summary 3. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges- Scope of Services 4. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges- Scope of Fees II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/28: Discussion 8/04: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Burger ABAM Inc. authorizing design services with respect to the Interchange Feasibility Study in the amount of $379,083, and further, authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: STP Funds—$327,907.00 Arterial Street Fund—$51,176.00 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Growth in the past five years has resulted in high levels of congestion throughout the City and particularly in corridors that provide access to regional facilities. Current planning efforts estimate additional population growth between 50 and 75 percent over the next 20 years. Existing population levels, as well as expected growth, are driving the need to identify the best way to redistribute regional traffic within the City's transportation network. B) There has been a number of indications that there is a need for another access point within the I-182 Interstate between SR-395 and the Road 68 Interchange. In the past 5-6 years staff began working with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to allow commencement of an the Interchange Justification Report(IJR)to begin. At that time, they indicated that more internal City street networks would need to be completed before there could be further consideration. C) The City completed the Road 68 Corridor Study which indicates congestion for commuters in the residential area west of the airport. These commuters utilize the interchange at Road 68 to access their homes, putting additional demand on the interchange. D) In late 2012 staff met with key personnel at WSDOT and FHWA to discuss the City's growth and rising need to provide additional transportation improvements. After sharing the City's growth experience FHWA indicated that a Feasibility Traffic Study needs to be completed prior to permitting an IJR. E) The Feasibility Traffic Study is the first phase of a multi-phased project to identify, recommend, approve, and design a solution to the traffic congestion thought-out the City. Under this scope of work, the consultant will study the feasibility of redistributing traffic to meet current and future traffic demands and identify transportation improvement projects to reduce congestion. F) Based on the results of the Feasibility Traffic Study, future phases of the project could include completion of an IJR, environmental documentation, and a Preliminary Study and Engineering document. G) The projected limits center along I-182 from the Columbia River Bridge east to SR 395 and bounded by Court Street on the south and Powerline Road on the north. The roads, intersections, and interchange improvements, if implemented, would reduce 10(b) congestion at the I-I82/Road 68 Interchange and improve regional traffic mobility in the Pasco area. V. DISCUSSION: A) In December 2013, Staff issued a Request for Proposals for the Feasibility Traffic Study. The City received three proposals from three consultants. In January 2014, Staff conducted interviews. Berger ABAM was selected to be most qualified to complete the design of this project by the interview panel. B) As part of the study two committees need to be formed: a. Executive Committee - that will need to include one member each from the City Council, Planning Commission, Port of Pasco, Chamber of Commerce, as well as neighborhood representatives. These need be by Mayoral appointments. b. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - that will consist of WSDOT, Port Staff, City Staff, BFCG. The selection of the TAC members can be at the City staff level. C) Staff has worked with Berger ABAM to finalize the scope and fees with City, WSDOT and FHWA. Staff recommends approval of the professional services agreement. Ln y V,T M r � / r • f Iy r : Q {toad 6$ I Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges Consultant: Berger ABAM Address: 33301 Ninth Ave South, Suite 300, Federal Way, WA 98003 Scope of Services: Exhibit A Term: 6 months Completion Date: 2/2015 Payments to Consultant: ❑ Hourly Rate: $ ® Fixed Sum of: $ 379,803 ❑ Other: Insurance to be Provided: 1. Commercial General Liability: ❑ $1,000,000 each occurrence; ❑ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or lM $1,000,000 each occurrence; and$2,000,000 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: Exhibit A Scope of Services City of Pasco Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges Submitted to City of Pasco Pasco, Washington July 2014 Submitted by BergerABAM Inc. 33301 Ninth Avenue South,Suite 300 Federal Way,Washington 98003.2300 Job No.P14.0125.00 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................................iv EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES FEASIBILITY TRAFFIC STUDY FOR INTERCHANGES 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1 PHYSICALPROJECT LIMITS...............................................................................................................1 Freeway...................................................................................................................................................1 Roadways................................................................................................................................................1 Intersections...........................................................................................................................................1 SCOPEOF SERVICES.............................................................................................................................2 GENERAL ASSUMPTION(S)................................................................................................................2 Phase 1—Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges......................................................................2 WorkPerformed by the CITY.............................................................................................................3 WORK ELEMENT 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT............................................................................3 Task 1.1—Implement Quality Control Program.............................................................................3 Task 1.2—Monthly Progress Reports and Billings.........................................................................3 Task1.3—Progress Meeting(s) ............................................................................................................4 Task1.4—Project Administration......................................................................................................5 Task1.5—Phase 2 Scoping..................................................................................................................5 Task1.6—Project Schedule.................................................................................................................5 WORK ELEMENT 2: BACKGROUND/DATA COLLECTION......................................................5 Task2.1—Base Map..............................................................................................................................5 Task 2.2—Previous Studies and Reports..........................................................................................6 Task2.3—Traffic Counts.....................................................................................................................6 Task 2.4—Collect AirSage O-D Data(Optional).............................................................................6 City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page ii WORK ELEMENT 3: CONSENSUS BUILDING...............................................................................7 Task 3.1—Technical Advisory Committee Support.......................................................................7 Task 3.2—Executive Committee Support.........................................................................................7 WORK ELEMENT 4: 2040 TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING........................................................8 Task4.1—BFCOG Coordination........................................................................................................8 Task 4.2—Review and Assess Traffic Model...................................................................................9 Task 4.3—Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report.........................................................9 WORK ELEMENT 5: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION................................................................10 Task 5.1—Identify Network Scenario Alternatives......................................................................10 Task5.2—Evaluate Network Scenarios..........................................................................................10 WORK ELEMENT 6: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.............................................................................11 Task 6.1—Public Involvement Plan................................................................................................11 Task6.2—Open House.......................................................................................................................11 WORK ELEMENT 7: COST ESTIMATE...........................................................................................12 Task 7.1—Preliminary Cost Estimate..............................................................................................12 PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................13 Washington State Department of Transportation Publications.................................................13 U.S. Department of Transportation Publications.........................................................................13 Washington State Department of Ecology Publications.............................................................13 OtherPublications..............................................................................................................................13 Computer Hardware and Software..................................................................................................14 City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page iii ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are referred to throughout this scope of work. AASHTO American Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials BFCOG Benton-Franklin Council of Governments CAD Computer Aided Design DOE Washington State Department of Ecology EC Executive Committee FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System IJR Intersection Justification Report I-182 Interstate 182 LAG Local Agency Guidelines PIP Public Interaction Plan PS&E Plans,Specifications,and Estimates QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control ROW Right-of-Way SOW Scope of Work TAC Technical Advisory Committee USDOT U.S.Department of Transportation WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation City of Pasco BergerABAK P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page iv EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES FEASIBILITY TRAFFIC STUDY FOR INTERCHANGES INTRODUCTION The City of Pasco(CITY)has experienced recession-defying growth over the past five years. This growth has resulted in high levels of congestion throughout the city and particularly in corridors that provide access to regional facilities. Current planning efforts estimate additional population growth between 50 and 75 percent over the next 20 years. Existing population levels, as well as expected growth, are driving the need to identify the best way to redistribute regional traffic within the CITY's transportation network. The Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges (PROJECT)is the first phase of a multi-phased project to identify,recommend,approve,and design a solution to the traffic congestion thought-out the CITY.Under this scope of work(SOW),the CONSULTANT shall study the feasibility of redistributing traffic to meet current and future traffic demands and identify transportation improvement projects to reduce congestion. Based on the results of the Feasibility Traffic Study, future phases of the project could include completion of an Interchange Justification Report(IJR),environmental documentation, and PS&E document.The CITY may elect to do any or all of the additional work noted under a separate scopes of work. PHYSICAL PROJECT LIMITS The immediate PROJECT area is approximately located along I-182 from the Columbia River east to SR 395 and bounded by Court Street on the south and Powerline Road on the north. The roads,intersections,and interchange improvements,if implemented,would reduce congestion at the I-182/Road 68 interchange and improve regional traffic mobility in the Pasco area. The PROJECT limits for the traffic analysis and modeling will include: Freeway • I-182 from Columbia River to SR 395 Roadways • On Court Street—From Road 68 to Road 20 • On Road 20—from Court Street to Powerline Road • On Powerline Road—from Road 20 to Road 68 • On Road 68—from Powerline Road to Court Street Intersections • In addition to the freeway segments listed above,and the interchanges within the limits of those segments,the project limits will include up to 20 intersections. Any new intersections created by the proposed access point revision will be included in the 20 intersection total. City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 1 Alternative intersection configurations,geometries, and traffic control strategies do not constitute additional intersections. SCOPE OF SERVICES This SOW details work elements needed to support the CITY in the selection of a preferred configuration. The SOW shall consist of the following major work elements. • Work Element 1-Project Management • Work Element 2-Background/Data Collection • Work Element 3-Consensus Building • Work Element 4-Alternatives Evaluation • Work Element 5-Public Involvement • Work Element 6-Estimates and Writing Grants GENERAL ASSUMPTION(S) • All communications with resource agencies and the CITY will be coordinated through CITY's public works director and/or his designee,unless otherwise authorized. • h1 addition to PROJECT limits identified above,it is assumed that intersections analyzed will be generally bounded by Powerline Road to the north,Road 20 to the east, Court Street to the south,and Road 100 to the west. • Work detailed in this SOW shall be completed in accordance with the schedule below and per the project schedule developed under Task 1.6. Phase 1- Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges CONSULTANT Notice to Proceed August 2014 Feasibility Study February 2015 • This SOW assumes that the CONSULTANT shall perform all design tasks necessary to complete the traffic feasibility study. • The CONSULTANT shall operate similar to and shall fully support the CITY's Public Works Department. When alternatives are being considered or decisions are being made,the CITY, along with WSDOT and/or FHWA,will make final decisions. • For any field investigations,acquiring the permission of private landowners whose property would be visited will be the responsibility of the CITY. Permission must be obtained prior to fieldwork on privately owned land. Right-of-entry permits may take up to 60 days to acquire. • The CONSULTANT shall use the following computer software in the performance of the engineering and design work for this contract. All files shall be provided in an IBM- compatible format. - Engineering software: InRoads(version 08.08.00.46, or latest) City of Pasco BergerABAK P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 2 - CAD software: Bentley MicroStation(version 8.05.02.70,or latest)and AutoCAD (version currently used by CITY) - Scheduling software: Microsoft Project or Primavera P6 - Microsoft Office,Word,Excel(latest version) - English units for plans,engineering, and documents • When used,the term"minor revisions,"denotes revisions that address typographical, and/or grammar edits, and or specific comments from a reviewer that do not require additional analysis and that will not expand the scope of work and/or prior work findings. Work Performed by the CITY Throughout the duration of the project,the CITY will perform services,furnish information, and answer questions on CITY standard procedures for plan preparation. The following services will be performed by the CITY. • The CITY will acquire any rights-of-entry required to perform this task work. • The CITY will assist the CONSULTANT, if required,in obtaining information from and/or coordination with other agencies. WORK ELEMENT 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT The CONSULTANT shall conduct general Project Management and Project Administration activities throughout the life of the PROJECT. Management and Administration activities will include Quality Control,Monthly Progress Reporting and Billing,and Progress Meeting(s)as described in Subtasks 1.1 to 1.5 below. Task 1.1- Implement Quality Control Program The CONSULTANT shall conduct quality control on all PROJECT deliverables as outlined in BergerABAM's internal Quality Assurance/Quality Control(QA/QC)Plan. The CONSULTANT shall develop a memorandum that outlines how the QA/QC plan will be applied to the project and will identify the CONSULTANT's and CITY's responsibility throughout the life of the project. Deliverable(s) • QA/QC memorandum(electronic copy) Task 1.2- Monthly Progress Reports and Billings The CONSULTANT shall prepare monthly progress reports,in a form approved by the CITY, that outlines in written and graphical forms the various phases of the work,and the order of performance,in sufficient detail so that the progress of the work can be easily evaluated. These reports shall • Highlight project milestones City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 3 • Target potential problem areas needing special attention or coordination prior to delays occurring and provide a proposal for addressing problem areas • Outline activities planned for the next period • Compare actual work progress with contractual obligations • Show work complete(%)versus budget expended(%)for major tasks Progress reports shall include current scheduling reports,indicating all progress to date and resources expended. Progress shall be monitored and reported in diagram and quantitative forms to present a clear,concise,and understandable picture of the project status. This update shall also include any changes in schedule,sequence,or resource loading. If any schedule delays have occurred,a plan for bringing the work back on schedule, and back on budget,shall be included. Invoices shall be prepared by the CONSULTANT in a form and detail as approved by the CITY, and submitted on a monthly basis. These shall be supported by detailed record keeping closely tracking the project budget and expenditures. Deliverable(s) • Monthly progress reports,incorporating project schedule revisions as appropriate (electronic copy) • Monthly invoices Task 1.3 -Progress Meeting(s) The CONSULTANT and a representative from the CITY's Public Works Department shall meet on a regular basis to review the progress of the project. Meeting(s) shall be conducted on an informal basis and held at a location chosen by the CITY,or at the CONSULTANT's Vancouver office. Progress meetings shall include in attendance two staff(on average)from the CONSULTANT at each meeting,in addition to representatives from subconsultant team members when appropriate. Assumption(s) • For budgeting purposes it was assumed that progress meetings would be held every month with an option of two additional progress meetings,for a maximum of eight progress meetings. • Five progress meetings will be held in Pasco at a location chosen by the CITY. • Three progress meetings will be held in the CONSULTANT's Vancouver office. Deliverable(s) • Eight meeting agendas • Eight meeting notes City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 4 Task 1.4- Project Administration The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with subconsultants regarding contracting procedures, shall prepare and execute contracts with individual subconsultants,and shall address contract- related issues with the subconsultants as they arise during the project.As part of this task,the CONSULTANT shall also provide as-needed support to the CITY in the internal administration functions of the PROJECT. This support may include participation at Council briefings. Assumption(s) • The CONSULTANT shall participate in a maximum of two Council briefings. Task 1.6- Phase 2 Scoping The CONSULTANT shall prepare a detailed SOW document for work to be performed for Phase 2. In addition to describing the activity the SOW shall also describe the level of detail expected for each work element. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft scope for the CITY to review. Following the CITY's review,the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final scope that incorporates CITY comments. Deliverable(s) • Draft Phase 2 Scope • Final Phase 2 Scope Task 1.6- Project Schedule The CONSULTANT shall prepare a project schedule that includes completion of all items identified in this SOW.The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft project schedule for the CITY to review. Following the CITY's review,the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final project schedule that incorporates CITY comments. The CONSULTANT's project manager shall conduct the project tracking,document control, and coordination efforts necessary for project execution. These efforts shall include the continuous tracking of schedules,budgets,and products;coordination with subconsultants relating to work in progress;and coordination with WSDOT. Deliverable(s) • Draft project schedule • Final project schedule WORK ELEMENT 2: BACKGROUND/DATA COLLECTION Task 2.1- Base Map The CONSULTANT shall prepare a refined topographic base map of the project area described in the PROJECT limits section of this contract using GIS data,and existing base mapping information provided by the CITY. The CONSULTANT shall use this GIS base map in the development of the PROJECT feasibility study. Assumption(s) • The CITY will provide available base mapping information City of Pasco BergerABAK P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit Pages • The CITY will obtain base mapping information of I-182 and I-395 from WSDOT • ROW and property boundary information will be provided by the CITY in electronic shapefile format • There is no specific deliverable anticipated for this task The results of this task are needed to complete deliverables for Work Element 4 Task 2.2 - Previous Studies and Reports The CITY will provide useable transportation data and analysis files to the CONSULTANT for review. A maximum of four background studies coordination meeting between the CITY and CONSULTANT shall be conducted to evaluate previously developed information and alternatives to be evaluated as part of the feasibility study PROJECT. Assumption(s) • A maximum of 10 studies or plans will be reviewed • Maximum of four background study coordination meetings, assumed to be held via conference call or video conference Deliverable(s) • Background Studies Coordination Meeting minutes(4 max-one electronic copy per meeting) Task 2.3-Traffic Counts The CITY will provide PM peak traffic volume data from prior studies to the CONSULTANT for review. The CITY will provide new weekday PM peak period(4pm to 6pm)intersection turning movement counts for study intersections where identified. Assumption(s) • The CITY will provide all traffic data required for the feasibility study • There is no specific deliverable anticipated for this task • The results of this task are needed to complete deliverables for Work Element 4 Task 2.4-Collect AirSage 0-D Data(Optional) Upon authorization from the CITY,the CONSULTANT shall review the Origin-Destination(O- D)information and estimation methodology from the regional travel demand model. If the project team determines that supplemental O-D data is required for analysis or calibration of travel forecasts, CONSULTANT shall obtain additional data,which could include B1ueTooth surveys or archived cell phone O-D information from AirSage. This data must identify weekday PM peak hour O-D data within Pasco(at a TAZ level resolution)and to/from surrounding areas. Deliverable(s) • O-D data and summary City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 6 WORK ELEMENT 3: CONSENSUS BUILDING Task 3.1-Technical Advisory Committee Support The CITY will identify,recruit, and/or appoint Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)members. The CONSULTANT shall serve the TAC in an advisory capacity and as a meeting facilitator and organizer,and shall not be included as a member of the team. The TAC's participation in the PROJECT will loosely follow some of the guidelines in Section 220.04(3)of WSDOT's Design Manual. The CONSULTANT shall provide support to the CITY at a maximum of four TAC meetings. The CONSULTANT will,in collaboration with the CITY,prepare a draft and final TAC charter and operational protocols,meeting agenda, distribute meeting notices to the members of the TAC,facilitate TAC meetings,and prepare and distribute meeting summaries to TAC members. Assumption(s) • TAC meetings will be held in Olympia or Vancouver,Washington. • The CITY will prepare and process selection/appointment letters to the TAC members. Mesting(s) • Maximum of four 2-hour meetings Defiverable(s) • Draft and final TAC charter and operational protocols • Meeting agendas,notification,facilitation,and summaries for six meetings(one electronic copy) Task 3.2- Executive Committee Support The CITY will identify,recruit,and/or appoint potential Executive Committee(EC)members. The EC members shall consist of at least two CITY council members,two planning commission members,the port commissioner,Columbia Basin College board member, and the WSDOT regional administrator. The CONSULTANT shall serve the EC in an advisory capacity and as a meeting facilitator and organizer,and shall not be included as a member of the team. The CONSULTANT shall provide support to the CITY at a maximum of two EC meetings. The CONSULTANT will,in collaboration with the CITY,prepare a draft and final EC charter and operational protocols, meeting agenda, distribute meeting notices to the members of the EC,facilitate EC meetings, and prepare and distribute meeting summaries to EC members. Assumption(s) • EC meetings will be held at the CITY's Public Works office • The CITY will determine the makeup and number of individuals on the PROJECT's EC.The CITY will prepare and process selection/appointment letters to the EC members Meeting(s) • Maximum of two(2)2-hour meetings City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 7 Deliverable(s) • Draft and final EC charter and operational protocols Meeting agendas,notification,facilitation,and summaries for two meetings(one electronic copy) WORK ELEMENT 4: BASELINE ANALYSIS AND 2040 TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING Task 4.1- BFCOG and Partner Agency Coordination To meet the requirements for Interchange Justification Reports,a year 2040 forecast is needed. Based on the size of the study area and the range of network alternatives that will be explored, extrapolating post-processed 2030 volumes from the current(Benton-Franklin Council of Governments)BFCOG regional travel demand model is not the preferred approach. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with BFCOG and CITY staff to determine a methodology for developing a 2040 land use forecast for Pasco, as well as an approach for scaling growth in surrounding areas and the external model gateways. The CONSULTANT shall then work with CITY staff to develop the City 2040 land use data and supply that to BFCOG in order for BFCOG to create a new travel demand model scenario. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the CITY and partner agencies to identify forecasting and analysis methods. CONSULTANT shall prepare an Analysis Methods and Assumptions document that describes proposed analysis and forecasting methods and tools, data requirements, study locations, time periods for analysis,design year,and key assumptions.The document will be utilized to guide all ongoing studies in the vicinity. Assumption(s) • A maximum of three coordination meetings with the CITY and/or BFCOG staff,two meetings assumed to be held via conference call and one meeting in Pasco • CITY staff will lead the development of the land use data for the year 2040 forecast, including identifying the allocation of future land use growth to TAZs within the CITY's urban growth area. The CONSULTANT shall provide input to the CITY to help determine the year 2040 growth increment and to determine the methodology for allocating the land use. The CONSULTANT shall review the land use allocations and support the CITY in providing the information in a format acceptable by BFCOG. • Study intersections for operations analysis are assumed to include interchange ramp terminals and up to 20 additional arterial/arterial or arterial/collector intersections • The analysis time period is assumed to be the weekday PM peak hour • Intersection operation metrics are assumed to include volume to capacity,delay,and level of service,which will be determined using Synchro Deliverable(s) • Draft and final Analysis Methods and Assumptions document • Three meeting agendas • Three meeting minutes City of Pasco BergerABAK P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 8 Task 4.2 - Review and Assess Traffic Model The CONSULTANT shall review the travel model zone and network structure for the study area to determine necessary refinements for representing a collector-level network and the corresponding land use loading. The CONSULTANT shall create focused(i.e.,a refined model scenario within the study area that maintain full regional model functionality) travel demand model networks (existing year and 2040 baseline scenarios)that will be used to reassign PM peak period trip tables from the BFCOG regional travel demand model for analysis. The CONSULTANT shall assess the study area roadway network for existing and future year 2040 baseline scenarios based on the performance measures created in Work Element 3. The network performance measures are assumed to be metrics that can be evaluated with the regional travel demand model network,possibly including: • Total System Congestion(hours of delay) • Average Trip Length for trips accessing I-182 • Vehicle Miles Travelled(VMT)in the study area • VMT by Trip Type(through, regional,local)by Functional Class(freeway,arterial, collector,local) • Travel Time and Travel Routes between Key Origins and Destinations The study intersection performance measures are assumed to be metrics that can be evaluated with travel demand model data and Highway Capacity Manual methodology operation analysis,possibly including: • PM peak hour volume-to-capacity ratio,level of service, and delay • PM peak hour merge, diverge,and weave capacity calculations on I-182 • Growth in traffic volume at study intersections,including the growth of movements accessing I-182 at interchange locations Deliverable(s) • Draft Future Year 2040 land use scenario data table •: Final Future Year 2040 land use scenario data table Task 4.3- Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Draft Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report that describes the network traffic conditions and identifies opportunities and constraints for developing network improvement scenarios. The report will be presented to the TAC and EC to validate findings and to begin brainstorming network improvement scenarios. Comments from the TAC and EC will be incorporated into a Final Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report. Deliverable(s) • Draft Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report • Final Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report City of Pasco BergerABAK P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 9 WORK ELEMENTS: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Task 5.1- Identify Network Scenario Alternatives Based on the Final Existing and Future Conditions Report,as well as input from TAC and EC Meetings,the project team shall conduct a work session with CITY staff(and relevant project partners)to develop a maximum of six initial network scenario alternatives,including options such as: • Enhance the City arterial/collector grid connectivity • Enhance the network with additional state highway crossings • Enhance the network with additional or improved state highway connections • Enhance the network City arterial/collector grid with a combination of added connections and corridor widening As part of the work session,the CONSULTANT shall conduct and document a qualitative feasibility screening of network improvements concepts based on factors such as construction feasibility,potential environmental impact,potential property impacts,and the ability to meet design standards. Assumption(s) • One work session with CITY staff to develop and screen network scenarios • A maximum of six initial network scenario alternatives will be developed Deliverable(s) • Initial network scenario alternatives and screening results Task 5.2- Evaluate Network Scenarios The CONSULTANT shall conduct an evaluation of the initial network scenarios compared to the network-based performance measures developed in Work Element 4 using the focused travel demand model. The results of the initial network scenario evaluation will be documented in a Draft Network Evaluation Report and will be presented to the TAC and EC to identify scenario refinements or hybrid scenarios,resulting in refined network alternatives(up to 3). The CONSULTANT shall conduct an evaluation of the refined network alternatives,including PM peak hour intersection operations,network performance measures,environmental and constructability screening,and preliminary cost estimates. The findings from this analysis will be documented in a Revised Draft Network Evaluation Report. The report will include a recommendations section that identifies a preferred improvement scenario, cost estimates, potential phasing,and a clear identification of any interchange area improvements. The Revised Draft Network Evaluation Report will be presented to the TAC and EC to discuss final recommendations. Assumption(s) A maximum of three(3)refined network alternatives will be studied further City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington FExhibit A Page 10 Deliverables) • Draft Network Evaluation Report • Revised Draft Network Evaluation Report • Final Network Evaluation Report WORK ELEMENT 6: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Task 6.1- Public Involvement Plan The CONSULTANT shall develop a public involvement plan(PIP)that includes the following elements. • Public involvement goals(i.e.,education on the project and environmental process,effective stakeholder engagement), and public involvement schedule • Target audiences(i.e.,businesses, community groups,public agencies,Tribes,key stakeholders,public officials,and broader public interests) • Outline the focus and timing of the stakeholder,community,and public open house meetings • Identify communication tools(newsletters,posters,interactive web site,presentations,and media release content), including approaches to solicit input of those traditionally underserved by transportation(environmental justice and Title VI populations) • The procedures for acknowledging,considering,and responding to public comments • Gather demographic data from the 2010 Census to identify the general locations of minority and low-income populations within the study area. The 2010 Census data and local school districts data shall also be reviewed to determine if populations in the study area will require special accommodations in compliance with the Limited English Proficiency(LEP) Act to include citizens who may traditionally be left out of the public process. The CONSULTANT shall modify this public process as appropriate for the specific customers identified for these project improvements. Assumption(s) • CITY will respond to all media inquiries and serve as the public information officer for this PROJECT • CITY will provide input on targeted audiences • The CITY will provide any additional information on hand regarding minority and low- income communities,and any known stakeholders from these communities that should be engaged in the design process Deliverable(s) • Minority and low-income population maps • Draft PIP(electronic copy) (one review) • Final PIP(electronic copy) (one review) Task 6.2 -Open House The CONSULTANT shall support the CITY in the planning, preparation,and facilitation of two public open houses. The focus of the open houses will be to inform local residents, area City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington - Exhibit Page 11 businesses,property owners,and the community at large of the project features and schedule, and gather input on the draft design alternatives. The CITY will identify and secure an appropriate venue(location)for the open houses. The CITY will develop a public meeting plan that identifies process,format,necessary displays, staffing for the meeting,advertising/public notice needs,and preparation schedule. The CITY will prepare all open house materials,such as a PowerPoint presentation,comment forms/questionnaires, sign-in sheets, staff name tags,and meeting signage. Limited copies of the most current project fact sheet will also be available explaining the project background, purpose and need of the project,project area,project schedule, design alternatives, and project contact information. All printed materials will promote the available on-line open house option for people unable to attend the live event. The CONSULTANT shall prepare exhibit boards that identify the project area,proposed alternatives,areas of impact,alternative evaluation criteria, and the project schedules. The comment form shall solicit comments from the meeting attendees. The CITY will prepare a summary of the meeting including tabulation of the written comments received. Assumption(s) • The CITY will provide key staff to attend the open houses The CITY will reserve a venue and pay any potential room rental fees • The CITY will set-up and facilitate the public open house meetings • The CITY will write,prepare,print, and mail fact sheets and newsletters • The CITY will write,prepare public meeting materials including sign-in sheets and comment forms • The CITY will develop,host,maintain, and update the project website • The CITY will provide meeting notes and summarize the written comments received from each open house • Open houses will be advertised through the mailed fact sheet update described in Task 6.2, and through display advertising in the local newspaper • All printed and/or e-mailed information will include link URL to the project website,which will be identified as the project information hub Meetings) • Two open house planning meetings with CITY staff • Two public open house meetings Deliverable(s) • Maximum of six 2-by 3-foot exhibits/boards for each open house(one draft and final) WORK ELEMENT 7: COST ESTIMATE Task 7.1- Preliminary Cost Estimate The CONSULTANT shall prepare preliminary cost estimates for the PROJECT.The cost estimate for the alternatives screening process will consist of estimates developed for a City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit Page 12 maximum of six alternatives using square footage costs for major items such as structures,new roads/alignments,walls,and additional ROW. Assumptlon(s) • The CITY will provide approximate square footage costs for additional ROW Deliverable(s) • Cost estimates for six alternatives analysis(electronic and five hard copies) PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS It is anticipated that all design and engineering for facilities located within WSDOT ROW will be developed using English units in accordance with the latest edition,amendments, and revisions of the publications listed below. Design and engineering of facilities located within the CITY will comply with CITY standards and design policies or in accordance with the following publications as directed by CITY staff. Washington State Department of Transportation Publications • Design Manual(M 22-01) • Highway Runoff Manual(M31-016.1)in conjunction with Hydraulics Manual(M 23-03) • Plans Preparation Manual(M 22-31) • Amendments and General Special Provisions • Standard Item Table • ROW Manual • Environmental Procedures Manual(M31-1) • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Publications(Latest Versions) • A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets • Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,Sixteenth Edition • A Guide for Highway Landscape and Environmental Design • Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety(Yellow book) • Roadside Design Guide • Any American Association of State Highway Officials policy applicable where said policy is not in conflict with the standards of State U.S. Department of Transportation Publications • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways • Highway Capacity Manual Washington State Department of Ecology Publications • 2004 DOE Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington Other Publications • National Electrical Code • Applicable County and CITY Publications City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 13 Computer Hardware and Software The CONSULTANT shall provide the PS&E package in the IBM-compatible format of • Microsoft Office-Windows NT Version 4.0 or latest • Microsoft Project-Version 4.1a or latest • Internet Access with Transport Control Protocol/File Transfer Protocol(TCP/FTP) capabilities and the CONSULTANT shall have an e-mail address • CAD-MicroStation,Bentley Systems,Inc.-MicroStation J or latest version,including continuous updates and AutoCAD 2013 • Design Software-Inroads latest version,including continuous updates The CONSULTANT shall obtain the latest versions of CITY's manuals. Obtaining AASHTO,USDOT, and other non-WSDOT or CITY publications shall be the CONSULTANT's responsibility. City of Pasco BergerABAM,P14.0125.00 Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges July 2014 Pasco,Washington Exhibit A Page 14 Exhibit B Scope of Fees City of Pasco Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges Submitted to City of Pasco Pasco, Washington July 2014 Submitted by BergerABAM Inc. 33301 Ninth Avenue South,Suite 300 Federal Way,Washington 98003-2300 Job No. P14.0125.00 EXHIBIT E-1: Consultant Fee Determination Analysis of Costs-BergerABAM Inc. Direct Salary Cost IOSC) PERSONNEL Hours Pay Rate Cost Principal 19 $87.74 $ 1,667 Project Manager 481 $71.64 34,459 Project Engineer 212 $47.08 9,981 Engineer/Designer 180 $34.94 6,289 Planner/Scientist 0 $44.23 - Planner/PI 134 $35.67 4,760 Graphics/CADD 54 $36.01 1,945 Project Coordinator 66 $35.20 2,323 Direct Salary Cost Total 1146 $ 61,444 Salary Escalation(see escalation tab) $ Overhead Cost 179.33% of DSC $ 110,187 Net Fee 30.00% of DSC $ 18,433 SUBTOTAL $ 190,063 Reimbursables Travel/Parking $ 6,872 Reproduction/Postage 1,750 Computer/Special Equipment - Miscellaneous 1,750 SUBTOTAL 10,372 BergerABAM SUBTOTAL 52.8% $ 200,435 Subconsultants:(See Exhibit G) DKS Associates 47.2% Participation $ 179,368 SUBCONSULTANTS SUBTOTAL $ 179,368 GRAND TOTAL $ 379,803 -c-s Alma Jim€nez 21-Jul-14 Prepared By. Date BergerABAM Inc. Labor Estimate City of Pasco-Feasibility for Interchanges DKS ABAM Associates TOTAL DESCRIPTION 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Implement QC Program — 901 01 90 1.2 Monthly Progress Reports and Billing Monthly Progress Reports(6 max) 6 12 18 Monthly Invoicing (6 max) 18 12 30 SubTotal 24 24 48 1.3 Progress Meetings Meeting Agendas(8 max) 6 12 18 Meeting Attendance(8 max-5 Pas/2 Van) 46 68 114 Meeting Notes(8 max) 12 0 12 SubTotal 64 80 144 1.4 Project Administration Project Administration 104 0 104 Council Briefings(2 Max-2 Pas) 18 21 39 SubTotal 122 21 143 1.5 Phase 2 Sco ing Draft Phase 2Scope 50 20 70 Final Phase 2 Scope 8 0 8 SubTotal 58 20 78 16 Project Schedule Prepare Project Schedule 28 0 28 Ongoing Schedule Tracking and Maintenance 36 0 36 SubTotol 64 0 64 TASK HOURS 422 14S 567 Cost subtotals= $ 80,500 $ 24,000 $ - 104,500 2.0 BACKGROUND/DATA COLLECTION 2.1 Base Ma Prepare topographic base map from existing GIS data 14 11 25 Map of existing utilities via GIS and field observations 0 0 0 SubTotal 14 11 25 2.2 Previous Studies and Reports Review Background Studies(10 max) 12 23 35 Background Study Coordination Meeting(4 max-4 Remote) 8 17 Coordination Meeting Minutes(4 max) 8 0 8 SubTotol 28 40 68 2.3 Traffic Counts Review Traffic Data 2 15 17 SubTotal 2 15 17 Page 2 of 16 BergerABAM Inc. Labor Estimate City of Pasco-Feasibility for Interchanges DKS ABAM Associates TOTAL DESCRIPTION 2.4 Collect AirSage O-D Data(Optional) Review Travel Model OD Data 0 29 29 Review New OD Data and Summarize for Travel Model 2 68 70 SubTotol 21 97 99 TASK HOURS 46 163 209 Cost Subtotals= $ 9,100 $ 18,600 $ 27,700 3.0 CONSENSUS BUILDING 3.1 Technical Advisory Committee Support Meeting Agenda and Preparation(4 max) 241 38 62 Meeting Attendance(4 max-2 Oly/2 Van) 44 38 82 Meeting Notes(4 max) 12 0 12 Team Chartering Tech Memorandum 28 0 28 SubTotol 108 76 184 3.2 Executive Committee Support Meeting Agendas and Presentations(2 max) 4 21 25 Meeting Attendance(2 max-2 Pas) 14 21 35 Meeting Notes(2 max) 6 0 6 SubTotol 24 42 66 TASKHOURS 132 118 250 Cost Subtotals= $ 23,400 $ 16,800 $ 40,200 4.0 2040 TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING 4.1 BFCOG Coordination Methods and Assumptions Memorandum 4 47 51 Develop 2040 Land Use Scenarios 2 40 42 Meeting Agenda and Preparation(3 max) 2 0 2 Meeting Attendance(3 max-1 Pas/2 Remote) 18 40 58 Meeting Notes(3 max) 11 0 11 SubTotol 37 127 164 4.2 Review and Assess Traffic Modeling Travel Demand Model Focus Area Refinements 0 92 92 Travel Demand Model System Performance Measures 0 54 54 Study Intersection and Segment Performance Measures 2 61 63 SubTotol 2 207 209 4.3 Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report Draft Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report 2 55 57 Final Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report 2 24 26 SubTotol 4 79 83 TASK HOURS 43 413 456 Cost Subtotals= $ 8,600 $ 43,500 $ $2,100 Page 3 of 16 BergerABAM Inc. Labor Estimate Ci o Pasco•Feosibility for Interchanges DKS ABAM Associates TOTAL DESCRIPTION 510 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 51 Identify Network Scenario Alternatives Prepare Build Alternatives Development Session Materials 128 0 128 Identification of Alternatives and Brainstorming Session 401 46 86 SubTotal 168 46 114 5.2 Evaluate Network Scenarios Refine Network Alternatives(6 max) 92 142 234 Draft Network Evaluation Report 4 57 61 Revised Draft Network Evaluation Report 2 143 145 Final Draft Network Evaluation Report 2 56 58 SubTotol 100 398 498 TASK HOURS 268 444 712 Cost Subtotals= $ 35,500 $ 47,500 $ 83,000 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6.1 Public Involvement Plan Draft PIP 28 0 28 Final PIP 11 0 11 SubTotal 39 0 39 6.2 Open House Open House Planning Meetings(2 max-2 Pas) 56 0 S6 Graphics and Boards(6 max per meeting) 48 0 48 Open House Attendance(2 max) 30 20 50 Review Open House Meeting Notes(2 max) 6 0 6 SubTotol 140 20 160 TASK HOURS 179 20 199 Cost Subtotals= $ 24,900 $ 3,600 $ 28,500 7.0 COST ESTIMATE 7.1 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternatives Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternatives(6 max) 56 0 56 SubTotal 56 0 56 TASK HOURS 56 0 56 Cost Subtotals= $ 8,000 $ $ 81000 TOTAL PROJECT HOURSI 1,146 11303 2,449 Page 4 of 16 EXHIBIT E•1 Emiation Ea0nat6 City al Paco-FeaNWllty Far Inl rnhanaea NEPA and IJR-Phaial Eeculat/on ErtlPlate•DPnWQ Y-ae"SuppNment pe Salary Irt Year Rrld Year ardyear R 'Me Total Eaalotlon Total Firm % Year Total DSC %ol Gntract Esca Ilan%%of COnH ea ascibtlan Escalation%%o/Cantgtt E Mon tatlaa%%af Ca rael ""won 3nd•4N Teas Contras[ aerpefAEAM 0.00% Jul-Jun $ 61,MMIS 306% 5% m $ - 5% 0% - $ 5 - 100% DRSA1O1hate9 1.16% lair Dec $ 48,987.59 63% 4% 33% $ 565.81 5% 036 $ - _,_ gds_ _,-£. ; s 564.81 1" 01:\SeeIRE\WOrkInglSChOnnenlPai6o IJR1201d 07-21,FINAL_Fee_E9Eme16.xlix EXHIBIT E-1 BergerABAM Inc. Reimbursable Estimate BergerABAM Inc. REIMBURSABLES Units at Cost Travel/Parking Airline Travel 15 $ 300.00 $ 4,500.00 Per Diem 15 $ 52.00 $ 780.00 Lodging 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 Miles 1900 $ 0.565 $ 1,073.50 Parking 6 $ 3.00 $ 18.00 Travel Subtotal $ 6,871.50 Reproduction/Postage 2 X 3 Boards 6 $ 50.00 $ 300.00 Facts Sheet Printing(1200) 1200 $ 0.50 $ 600.00 Facts Sheet Postage and Mailing 1000 $ 0.75 $ 750.00 Courier 4 $ 25.00 $ 100.00 Reproduction Subtotal $1,750.00 Computer/Special Equipment Computer Time $ _ Computer Subtotal $ - Miscellaneous $ - Document Translation 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Other Miscellaneous Expenses 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Miscellaneous Subtotal $1,750.00 Total $10,371.50 Page 6 9ergerADAM Inc.Labor Estimate Ber erABAM In<. Project Project Engineer/ GmPhiw/ Project CI of Pasco-Feasibility for Interchanges Principal Manager Engineer Designer Pinner/PI CADD Coordinator TOTAL DESCRIPTION $ 271.41 $ 221.60 $ 145.63 $ 108.08 $ 110.34 $ 111.39 $ 10188 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Implement CSC Program a 18 60 4 90 1.2 Monthly Progress Reports and Blllin Monthly Progress Reports(6 max) 6 6 MorthIV Invoicing IS max) 121 1 1 61 38 SubTatal 0 18 0 0 0 0 6 24 1.3 Progress Meetin s Meefinj,Agendas IS max) 6 6 Meeting Attendance Bmaz-S Pas/2 Van 40 6 46 Meeting Notes IS max) 6 6 12 Sub7otal 0 52 0 0 6 0 6 64 1.4 Proect Administration Project Administration 4 80 1 20 104 Council Briefin s(2 Max-2 Pas) 121 1 6 1 18 SWohol 4 92 0 0 0 6 20 122 1.5 Phase 2 Sco In Draft Phase 2Scope 2 40 - 8 50 Final Phase 2 Scope 4 4 8 SubTotal 2 44 0 0 0 0 12 58 1.6 Project Schedule Prepare Project Schedule 20 8 28 Ongoing Schedule Tracking and Maintenance 12 24 36 SubTatol 0 32 32 0 01 0 0 64 TASK HOURS 14 256 92 0 6 6 48 422 Cost Subtotals= $ 3,800 $ 56,731 $ 13,398 $ $ 662 $ 668 $ 5,216 $ 80,485.32 Rounded; $ 801500 2.0 BACKGROUND/DATA COLLECTION 2.1 Base Ma Prepare topographic base map from existing GIS data 2 8 - 4 14 SubTotall 0 - 2 8 4 0 0 0 14 Page 7 of 16 BergerABAM Inc.Labor Estimate Ber erASAM Inc. Project Project CI Of Pasw•Feasibiil for lnterchan es Engineer/ Grapla Project Principal Manager Engineer Designer lanner/PI CARD Coordinator TOTAL DESCRIPTION $ 271.41 1$ 22160 $ 143.63 108.08 1$ 11034 $ 111.39 $ 308.86 2.2 Previous Studies and Reports Review Background Studies 10 max) 12 12 Bac round Study Coordination Meeting 14 max-4 Remote 8 8 Coordination Meeting Minutes(4 max) 8 8 SubTatol 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 28 2,3 Traffic Counts Review Traffic Data 21 1 1 2 3abT0tal 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 M$ 9,13 T11Tfthnical lr$age O-D Data Optional) Travel Model OD Data New OD Data and Summarize for Travel Motlel 2 Subtotal D 2 0 0 0 0 0 TASK HOURS 0 34 8 4 0 0 0 Costsubtotalc $ - S 7,535 $ 1,165 $ 432 $ - S -ul US BUILDING Adviso Committee SU ort Meetin endaand'Preparation(4 max) 8 16 Meeting Attendance(4 max-201/2 Van) 22 22 Meetin Notes(4 max) 4 8 Team Charterin Tech Memorandum 4 16 SubTatal 0 38 62 0 0 0 8 108 3.2 Executive Committee Support Meeting Agendas and Presentations 2max 4 4 Meeting Attendance 2max-2 Pas 14 14 Meeting Notes(2 max) 4 2 6 SubTotal 0 22 0 0 0 0 2 24 TASKNOURS 0 60 fit 0 0 0 10 132 Cost Subtotals= $ -T-5,2-96 $ 9,029 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,089 $ 23,414 $ 23,400 Page 8 of 16 BergerASAM Inc.Labor Estimate tier erABAM Inc. Project Project Engineer/ Graphics/ Project aty of Pasco-Feasibill for Interchanges Principal Manager Engineer Designer Planner/PI CADD Coordinator TOTAL DESCRIPTION $ 271.41 $ 221.60 $ 14£63 $ 108.08 $ 120.34 $ 111.39 $ 30888 4.0 2040 TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING 4.1 IBFCOG Coordination Methods and Assumptions Memorandum 4 4 Develop 2040 Land Use Scenarios 2 2 Meeting Agenda and Preparation(3 max) 2 2 Meeting Attendance 3 max-1 Pas/2 Remote 18 18 Meeting Notes(3 max) 31 11 SubTOtal 0 29 0 0 0 0 8 37 4.2 Review and Assess Traffic Modeling Travel Demand Model Focus Area Refinements 0 Travel Demand Model System Performance Measures 0 Study Intersection and Segment Performance Measures 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.3 Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report Draft Ex1AInj and Future Baseline Conditions Report 2 2 Final Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report 2 2 SubTotal 0 4 01 0 0 0 0 0 TASK HOURS 0 35 0 0 a 0 8 43 Cost Subtotals= $ - S 7,756 $ - $ - $ $ - $ 871 $ 8,627 $ 8,600 5.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 5.1 Identify Network Scenario Alternatives Prepare Build Alternatives Development Session Materials 24 80 24 128 Identification of Alternatives and Brainstorming Session 16 24 40 SubTand) 0 40 0 104 0 24 0 168 5.2 Evaluate Network Scenarios Refine Network Alternatives 6 max 8 60 24 92 Draft Network Evaluation Report 4 4 Revised Draft Network Evaluation Report 2 2 Final Draft Network Evaluation Report 2 2 SubTotol 0 16 0 60 0 24 0 100 TASK HOURS 0 56 0 164 0 48 0 268 COASubtotals-I $ 12,410 $ - $ 17,725 $ $ 5,347 S - $ 36482 Rounded: $ 35,500 Page 9 of 16 BargerABAM Inc.Laopr E4bMate _ Per erA9AM Inc_ Project Project Engineer/ Graphics/ Project CltV of Pasco•Feasibility for Interchanges Pdnd at Manage Engineer Designer Planner/PI CADD Coordinator TOTAL DESCRIPTION 271:42 S 221.60 S 145.63 $ ]08.08 T11-a34 S .111.39 108.88 6.0 IPUBLICINVOLVEME NT 5.1 PubIIC Involvement Plan Draft PIP 4 24 28 Final PIP 1 30 11 SubTowl 5 0 0 0 34 0 0 39 6.2 -6pen Mouse Open House Planning Meetin 2 max-2 Pas 16 40 56 Graphics and Boards(6 max per meeting) 8 401 48 Open House Attendance(2 max) 10 10 10 30 Review Open House Meeting Notes 2max 2 4 6 Subtotal 0 36 10 0 94 0 0 140 TASK HOURS 5 36 10 0 128 0 0 179 Cost Subtotals= $ 1957 S 7,978 S IA56 $ $ 14,123 $ $ - S 24,914 Rounded: $ 24,900 7.0 COST ESTIMATE 7.1 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternatives Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternatives(15 max) 4 40 12 56 Sub7ot01 0 4 40 12 0 0 0 56 TASK HOURS 0 4 40 12 0 0 0 56 Cost Subtotals= $ $ $86 $ 5,825 $ 2,297 $ - $ . $ 81009 Rounded: $ 8000 TOTAL PROJECT HOURSI 19 1 481 212 180 134 54 66 1146 Page 10 of 16 EXHIBIT G-1: Subcontract Work/Fee Determination Subconsultant Analysis of Costs- DKS Associates Direct Salary Cost IDSCI PERSONNEL _ Hours Pav Rate Cost Traffic EngrTask Leader 286 $57.70 $ 16,502 Senior Transp Engineer 102 $50.49 5,150 Transp Engineer 302 $34.62 10,455 VISSIM Modeling Specialist 4 $40.39 162 TranspEngrAssistant 496 $27.41 13,595 Support/Graphics 56 $28.85 1,616 Admin 57 $26.45 1,508 0 Direct Salary Cost Total 1303 $ 48,988 Salary Escalation(see escalation tab) $ 565.81 Overhead Cost 177.10% of DSC $ 87,759 Net Fee 30.00% of DSC 14,866 SUBTOTAL $ 152,178 Reimbursables Travel/Parking $ 7,190 Reproduction/Postage Computer/Special Equipment _ Miscellaneous 20,000 SUBTOTAL $ 27,190 TOTAL $ 179,368 EXHIBIT G-1 DKS Associates Reimbursable Estimate DKS Associates Reimbursables Units at Cost Travel/Parking Airline Travel 15 $ 300.00 $ 4,500.00 Hotel 15 $ 90.00 $ 1,350.00 Per Diem 15 $ 52.00 $ 780.00 Miles $ 0.565 $ - Zipcar 8 $ 70.00 $ 560.00 Travel Subtotal $ 7,190.00 Reproduction/Postage Repruduction $ 1.00 $ - Reproduction Subtotal $0.00 Computer/Special Equipment Computer Subtotal $ - Miscellaneous $ - Traffic 0-D Data 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Miscellaneous Subtotal $20,000.00 Page 12 DO Associates Labor Estimate OKS Assoclates Inc. 1 21 Senior 7ran�p VISSIM 1'ransp EnB! CI of Pasco-_ easlbIN for Interchanges In Inee! Modeling Assistant $u o Gr Admin TOTAL DESCRIPTION 69 S 308.81 $ 126.95 $ 86.15 $ 90.68 S 83.13 1.0 PROIECTMANAGEMENT 1.2 Monthl ProgressR rtrand Billing _ Month Prowess Reports(6 Max) 12 Monthly invoicing (6 max) 6 12 SubTotal 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 24 1.3 Progress Meetin s Meeting endas(8 max 12 Meeting Attendance 8 max-5 Pas/2 Van) $ 6 4 68 Meetn Notes(8 max 0 SubTotal 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 80 1.4 Project Administration Project Administration 0 Council Briefing 2 Max•2 Pas) 1 21 5070tol 20 0 0 - 0 01 01 1 01 24 1.5 Phase 2 Stoning _ Draft Phase 2 Scope 8 2 4 4 - 2 20 Final Phase 2 Scope 0 SubTotol 8 2 4 4 0 0 2 0 20 TASK HOURS 116 2 10 4 0 0 13 0 245 Cost Subtotals- 22,037 $ 317 $ 1,068 $ 508 S $ s 1,081 S . $ 24,030.83 Rounded: 24,000 2.0 BACKGROUND/DATA COLLECTION 241 Base Ma Prepare topographic base map from existing GIS data 1 21 8 31 Map of existing utilities via GIS and Reid observations 0 SubTotal 0 1 2 0 8 0 0 0 11 2.2 Previous Studies and Reports Review Sackgroun2udies 1G max 4 2 4 12 1 23 Bat round Stutl Coordination Meetin i4 max-4 Remote 8 4 4 1 17 Coordination Meeting Minutes i4 max) 0 SubTotal 32 6 8 0 12 '0 2 0 40 Page 13 of 18 DKS Associates Labor Estimate DKS Associates Inc. _ Tnfflc Engr Senor Transp VISSIM Tramp Engr CI of Pasco-Feasibill for Interchanges Task Leader Train Engineer Mcdelin Assistant SupwrttGr Admin TOTAL DESCRIPTION $ 181.3S $ 158.69 $ lag-81 $ 126.95 $ 86.15 $ 90.681$ 83.13 2.3 Traffic Counts Review Traffic Data 1 2 12 15 $uRionot 0 1- 2 0 12 0 0 0 15 2.4 Collect AlrSa e0-D Data(Optional) Review Travel Model OD Data 2 2 16 B 1 29 Review New OD Data and Summarize for Travel Model 4 16 72 32 4 bg - SubioWl 6 18 28 0 40 4 1 01 97 TASKHOURS 18 26 401 0 72f 4 3 0 163 Cwt subtotals- $ 3,264 $ 4,126 $ 4,3S2 $ S 6,203 $ 363 $ 249 S - S 18,558 18,600 3.0 ICONSENSUS BUILDING 3.1 Technical Advisory Committee Support Meeting Agenda and Preparation 4 max 4 4 16 8 4 2 38 Meeting Attendance is Max-201/2 Van) 41 12 2 38 Meeting Notes(4 Max) 0 Team Chartering Tech Memorandum 0 SubTotal 28 16 16 0 8 4 4 01 76 3.2 Executive Committee Support Meeting Agendas and Presents 10n1(2 max 2 2 8 4 4 1 21 Meeting Attendance(2 max-2 Pas) 20 1 21 Meeting Notes 12 max 0 SubTOml 22 2 8 0 4 4 2 0 42 TASK HOURS 5o 18 24 0 12 8 6 0 118 Cost Subtotalsa $ .9,068 $ 2,856 $ 2,611 $ $ 1,034 $ 725 $ 499 $ - $ 16,794 $ 16,800 4.0 2040 TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING 4.1 BFCOG Coordination Methods and Assumptions Memorandum. 6 8 32 1 47 Develop 2040 Land Use Scenarios 8 24 2 40 Meeting Agenda and Preparation 3 max) d 0 Meeting Attendance(3 max-1 Pas2Remote 20. 20 40 Meeting Notes(3 max) 0 SubTotol 32 0 36 0 56 0 3 0 127 Page 14 of 16 DKS Associates Labor Estimate DKS Associates Inc, _ Traffic Engr Senior Tnnsp VISSIM Transp Entir Cit of Pasco-Feasibili for Interchanges Task Leader Trans En at Modell Assistant Su ort/Gr Admin TOTAL DESCRIPTION $ 181.39 $ 158.69 f$ 108.81 i ffl036 $ 90.68 $ 93.13 4.2 Review and Assess Traffic Modeling Travel Demand Model Focus Area Refinements a 40 4 92 Travel Demand Models stem Performance Measures 2 2 16 2 S4 Stu Intersection and Segment Performance Measures 2 4 12 3 61 SubToml 12 6 68 0 9 0 207 4.3 Existin and Future Baseline Conditions Report Draft Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report 1 4 8 16 2 55 Final Existing and Future Baseline Conditions Report 1 2 4 4 1 24 SubTbWI 2 6 12 20 3 0 79 TASK HOURS 46 12 ilfi 0 204 20 15 0 413 Con Subtotals= $ 8,342 $ 1,904 $ 32,622 $ - $ 17,575 $ 1,814 T 1,247 $ - $ 43,504 S 43,500 5.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 5.1 identify Network Scenario Alternatives Prepare Build Alternatives Development Session Materials 0 Identification of Alternatives and Brainstorming Session 16 4 24 2 46 $01rotol 161 4 24 0 0 0 2 0 46 5.2 Evaluate Network Stenados Refine Network Alternatives IS max) 8 16 32 80 6 142 Draft Network Evaluation Report 2 4 12 24 12 3 57 Revised Draft Network Evaluation Report 8 16 32 90 7 143 Final Draft Network Evaluation Report 2 4 12 24 12 2 56 SubTotal 20 40 88 0 208 14 18 0 398 TASK HOURS 36 44 312 0 208 24 20 0 444 Can Subtotals= $ 6,529 $ 6,982 $ 12497 - $ 17,919 S 2,176 $ 3,663 $ - $ 47,456 Rounded: $ 47,500 610 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6.2 Open House Open House Planning Meetings(2 max-2 Pas) 0 Graphics and Boards 6 max per meeting 0 Open House Attendance(2 max) 20 20 Review Open House Meeting Notes 2 max) 0 5ubTnm1 20 01 01 0 0 0 0 01 20 Page 16 of 16 OKS Associates Labor Estimate DRS AS30Clatee Inc. Tnfgc Enir Senior Transp VISSIM Transp En$r City of Pasco-Feasibility for Interchanges Task Leader Trans En sneer modeling AssI nt Su orVGr Admin TOTAL DESCRIPTION $ 181.35 $ 158.69 $ 108.81 $ 126.95 S 86.25 90.68 $ 83.13 TASK HOURS 20 0 0 q$ -O 0 0 0 0 20 Cost subtotRlsa $ 3,627 . $ . S • $ • $ • $ - $ 3,627 TASKHOURS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cost Subtotals= $ - $ • $ $ $ $ . $ Rounded: $ TOTAL PROJECT HOURS 286 102 3021 4 1 4961 561 57 3,303 Page 76 0f 16 AGENDA REPORT NO. 25 FOR: City Council July 31,2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manageye� Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 SUBJECT: Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit project I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit-Vicinity Map 2. Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit-Professional Services Summary Sheet H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with SWCA Environmental Consultants authorizing Cultural Resource Services with respect to the Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit project in the amount of$15,266, and further, authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the agreement. HI. FISCAL IMPACT: Dept. of Ecology Grant IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In 2013, similar to other years, we applied for available grants to help us address stormwater mitigation measures within the City in order to remain complaint with Ecology's NPDES Permit requirements. B) Typically we receive $50,000 to $100,000 annually. The funds have been helpful in funding some of the Permit's project and public education and outreach requirements. We also utilized previous grants to purchase equipment, such as street sweepers, to help reduce stormwater pollution. C) Late 2013, the City was awarded$170,000 in Dept. of Ecology grant monies to perform a retrofit design to infiltrate approximately 25% of the runoff from the stormwater basin that discharges to the Columbia River via the pipe located near the Pasco Marina. D) January 2014, the City began in-house development of engineering plans for this project, with an ultimate goal of eliminating all our surface water discharges to the Columbia River, V. DISCUSSION: A) The final infiltration rate used to design underground stormwater facilities must be calculated by geotechnical consultants utilizing ground disturbing activities. B) Ecology requires the cultural resources review process be completed prior to ground- disturbing activities (this includes geotech borings). Ecology will not reimburse any ground-disturbing activities until the cultural resources process is completed. C) SWCA worked with staff to finalize the scoping and level of effort needed to complete the cultural resources portion of this project to satisfy Ecology's requirements. D) Scope of services include: cultural resource investigation,documentation, and reporting. E) Staff recommends Council authorization of this professional services agreement so that the design process may proceed. 10(c) 'IiilYri�IS7i1L1N r�� //,,/ INS LU . �• Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater Retro-fit Consultant swCA Address: 1220 SW Morrison, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 Scope of Services: The Consultant will provide archaeological, historical, and cultural resources investigation/assessment work to collect data and prepare a cultural resources assessment report for infiltration facilities in Volunteer and Sylvester City parks.The Consultant will review existing information site records, historical documents, ethnographic accounts, and summaries of archaeological research previously found in the areas; develop a survey design that details anticipated discoveries, actual methods to be employed to conduct the search, and how findings will be recorded; and then conduct a physical inspection of the project areas according to the developed survey design to search for artifacts or evidence of human activity. Term: 2 months Completion Date: 9/31/2014 Payments to Consultant: ❑ Hourly Rate: $ ® Fixed Sum of: $ 15,266 ❑ 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$2,000,000 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: AGENDA REPORT NO. 24 FOR: City Council July 29, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel,Acting City Manager Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer �— Regular Mtg.: 8/4/14 SUBJECT: Bid Award: US395/Court St. Pedestrian Overpass Repair Project#Ml-ST-9M-13-05 I. REFERENCE(S): 1. US395/Court St Overpass -Vicinity Map 2. US395/Court St Overpass-Bid Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 08/04: MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the US395/Court St. Pedestrian Overpass Repair Project to C&E Trenching, LLC in the amount of $25,096.42, and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. HI. FISCAL IMPACT: Arterial Street Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The project involves installation of channel drain systems, anchored concrete approach slabs, installing infiltration trenches and other associated work. B) An invitation to bid the project was forwarded to applicable contractors listed on the City's Small Works Roster. Bid documents were requested by and sent to two (2) companies. The bid opening was held on July 28, 2014. V. DISCUSSION: A) On July 28, 2014, the City received two (2) bids for the project. The low bid was received from C&E Trenching, LLC in the amount of$25,096.42. The second lowest bill was received from Bestebreur Brothers Construction in the amount of $53,936.19. The Engineer's Estimate is $26,477.77. The bid is within the available project budget. B) Staff has reviewed the bid submittal and found no exceptions or significant irregularities. C) Staff recommends award of the contract to C&E Trenching, LLC in the amount of $25,096.42. 10(d) AP AP v l V H Z 0 l H V w s z �00 0. a Q / uj F— O I F- z ~O 9E avow / > TAW � I I I City of Pasco US395/Court St. Pedestrian Overpass Repair July 28, 2014 BID SUMMARY Engineers Estimate $26,477.77 C&E Trenching $25,096.52 Bestebreur Bros. $53,936.19 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 31, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel,Acting City Manager._� Regular Mtg.: August 4, 2014 FROM: Rick Terw� ctor Admin& C mm Services SUBJECT: Road 60/Three Rivers Dr. Park Bids I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Road 60/Three Rivers Dr. Park—Bid Summary 2. Road 60/Tbree Rivers Dr. Park—Vicinity Map 3. Road 60/Three Rivers Dr. Park—Site Plan II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 8/4: MOTION: I move to approve the bid amount for the Road 60/Three Rivers Dr. Park to DGR Grant Construction, in the amount of$149,900 (park portion), and to authorize staff to complete the project in accordance with the applicable agreements. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $149,900 -Park Development Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In 2004, Council approved the Master Interlocal Agreement for Development of Joint Playground and Park Facilities with Pasco School District. On July 21, 2014 Council approved Schedule 3 to that agreement providing for joint development of the park and school playground at Road 60 and Three Rivers Drive. V. DISCUSSION: A) The joint school/park project will be administered by the School District as the majority of the project is the school. Bids were received and tabulated as shown on the attached bid summary. The bids were well within the engineers estimate. B) Staff recommends approval to proceed with the project. 10(e) �0'' 8 dad a E 8a< sf c 10ar C C f i f0u 2E � o a E E a E S 6 W 2 6 w Z 6 W m p O N d' N O N F 00 m e m � 00 a Ln o a m C N p0 O O N d xt O TT u of I� m Q N c1 m d . O O p N a C N O 01 O N N 7 aLO+ 01 Ol ^ e-1 N H Q O ON N C N y 3C aEi � m Tj W O p p O 5 7 n to O O O O N 0 N u Lr) m N o0 -e W In p M O D u A 00 ri m N C m N o 'u `o m u u H a ino�ea�g ldSO X X X O m m •neax3 yauaJ.L X X X m`o m Co pauals swioi X X X e g wnpuapptl X X X —�° Z wnpuaPPtl X X X a c T wnpuapptl X X U X Puog Pig X X X L7 z w 0 C y V �. a c v 0 E — o v U c o c ., c m c T, 2 o � 3 � y o 0 a � m � p a C y m c : m u m 0 U 3a � U �' O1m d Nm m °-' am c am 9 C ¢` u m c y `�° C7 a 3 m d dm t7 � v Z w cLA m E yn mop mx � pm� Z y�j y 0 (7 m u 0 0 ti u U 1� Y N C r C � LL N 2 .N_. I kd -d t Ly IL low VIM 'All fill wilm r. ._ ��J�L�:y rF Berbera McClintock Stem Elementary School 06/26/2014 CO C7 \ CO -D C7 Tq IV D z I+ 0 0 CD I' 1 ;3. I CO rn - ` n zJ tt -< - TV t - t PC) 0 - / 1+ -G rn � n0 rn / ::D a cn CO M 1 0 can O � 1 I I � SCHOOL AND PARK SI %k it arddects www