Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.09.15 Council Meeting PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. September 15, 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 September 2, 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 $2,543,257.33. 2. 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 $226,899.52 and, of that amount, authorize $145,225.53 be turned over for collection. (c) Appointments to Downtown Pasco Development Authority: (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) To appoint A. Yesenia Celestino to Position No. 1, Rolando Rodriguez to Position No. 2 and Ana Cecilia Lopez to Position No. 4 (all with the expiration date of 12/20/16) to the Downtown Pasco Development Authority. (d) Waiver of Sewer Utility Service Requirement (MIT #USW2014 -001): 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated September 3, 2014. 2. Sewer Waiver — Vicinity Map. 3. Sewer Waiver — Overview Map. 4. Sewer Waiver — Proposed Utility Service Waiver Agreement. To conditionally approve the sewer utility service waiver at 1916 Road 64 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the waiver agreement. (e) Amendment No. 1 to Water System Extension Agreement: 1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated September 3, 2014. 2. Amendment No. 1 — Water System Extension — Vicinity Map. 3. Amendment No. 1 — Water System Extension — Proposed Amendment No. 1. To approve Amendment No. 1 to the Water System Extension Agreement with Big Sky LLC and Ted Tschirky and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. (fl I Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Appointments: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 8, 2014. 2. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Resolution No. 2314. To confirm the Mayor's reappointment of the following individuals to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: Hotel Representatives Monica Hammerberg, Red Lion and Allison White, Sleep Inn; User Representatives: Colin Hastings, Pasco Chamber of Commerce and Michael Goins, Downtown Pasco Development Authority; City Council Mike Garrison. (g) ' Resolution No. 3584, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider vacating the right -of -way for undeveloped streets and alleys in the Whitehouse Addition. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated September 9, 2014. 2. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition — Overview Map. 3. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition — Vicinity Map. 4. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition — Proposed Resolution. 5. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition — Vacation Petition. Regular Meeting 2 September 15, 2014 To approve Resolution No. 3584, setting 7:00 pm, Monday, October 20, 2014 as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating portions of the undeveloped right - of -way in the Whitehouse Addition. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) (b) (e) 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (e) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) Finance Manager: General Fund Operating Statement through August 2014. (c) 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (None) 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: (a) I Ordinance No. 4171, an Ordinance vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated September 9, 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 Ordinance. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4171, vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (b) Ordinance No. an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington extending the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Falcon Video Communications, L.P., locally known as Charter Communications, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Grantee" through December 31, 2014. 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 3, 2014. 2. Charter Cable Franchise Extension — Proposed Ordinance. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , extending the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Charter Communications (Falcon Video Communications, L.P.) through December 31, 2014 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (c) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance amending PMC Title 25 dealing with minimum lot sizes in the R -2 and R -3 Zoning Districts. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated September 3, 2014. 2. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones — Proposed Ordinance. 3. Code Amendment Single- Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones — Memo to the Planning Commission dated 8/21/14. 4. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones — Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/24/14 and 8/21/14. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending Title 25 modifying minimum lot sizes in multi - family zoning districts and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (d) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington repealing Chapter 2.04 "Emergency Powers of Mayor "; and creating a new Chapter 2.05 "Emergency Powers" establishing the Powers and Procedures for the Declaration of an Emergency. 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 2, 2014. 2. Emergency Powers of Mayor— Proposed Ordinance. 3. Emergency Powers of Mayor — Current PMC Chapter 2.04. Regular Meeting 3 September 15, 2014 MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending the Pasco Municipal Code regarding Emergency Powers of the Mayor and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (e) Resolution No. , a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington relating to Public Improvements; declaring its intention to order the improvements; declaring its intention to order the improvements of Road 76 (Wrigley to Walmart property line) to create a Local Improvements District to assess the cost and expense of carrying out those improvements against the property specially benefitted thereby; and, notifying all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held on October 6, 2014. 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated August 26, 2014. 2. Road 76 Local Improvement District — Map of the Proposed Local Improvements District. 3. Road 76 Local Improvement District — Resolution. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, relating to public improvements; declaring the City's intention to order the improvements of Road 76 (Wrigley/Walmart Property Line) and to create a Local Improvement District to assess a portion of the cost and expense of carrying out those improvements against the property specially benefited thereby; and, notifying all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held on October 6, 2014. (t) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting a Notice of Intent (ten percent petition) to commence annexation proceedings, providing a determination on the territory to be annexed and whether simultaneous zoning and the assumption of bonded indebtedness will be required. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated September 9, 2014. 2. Rogers Annexation — Overview Map. 3. Rogers Annexation— Vicinity Map. 4. Rogers Annexation — Proposed Resolution. 5. Rogers Annexation — Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, accepting a Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceedings for the Rogers Annexation Area and providing a determination on the boundary, zoning and indebtedness related thereto. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (None) 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. 6:00 p.m., Monday, September 15, City Hall Conference Room #1 — LEOFF Disability Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS and COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK) 2. 6:15 p.m., Tuesday, September 16, Pasco Senior Center — "A Short Course on Local Planning." ( COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNED 3. 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 16, TRAC — TRAC Advisory Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS and COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY) 4. 11:30 a.m., Friday, September 19 — Benton - Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting. ( COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 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 Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Abroad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Bob Gear, Fire Chief; Jim Raymond, Police Captain and Kate Thompson, Civil Engineer. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated August 4, 2014. Bills and Communications: To approve Claims in the amount of $7,751,397.40 ($4,013,629.55 in Check Nos. 199580- 200068; $2,027,247.36 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 802137- 802226, 802229- 802246, 802248 - 802602; $119,759.64 in Check Nos. 47138 - 47299; 900000064- 900000065; 900000067; $1,133,497.76 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30072049 - 30073045; $13,486.33 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 76 -80; $443,776.76 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 68 -73). 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 $257,865.77 and, of that amount, authorize $169,118.92 be turned over for collection. Chapel Hill Park and Street Deeds (MF #DEED2014 -006): To accept the quit claim deed from American Home Centers Tri- Cities LLC for the Chapel Hill Park Site. To accept the dedication deed from Envision Homes for a portion of Chapel Hill Boulevard. East Side Booster Pump Station Upgrade (BS 2.1) Project — Engineering Services: To approve the Professional Services Agreement with RH2 Engineering, hic., authorizing professional engineering services with respect to the East Side Booster Pump Station Upgrade project in the amount of $107,538 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit Project — Geotechnical Services: To approve the Professional Services Agreement with PBS Engineering & Environmental, Inc., authorizing professional geotechnical services with respect to the Pasco Boat Basin Stormwater RetroFit project in the amount of $16,900 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 30" Main (NW Area) — Geotechnical Services: To approve the Professional Services Agreement with STRATA, Inc., authorizing professional geotechnical services with respect to the 30" Main (NW Area) sewer project in the amount of $22,470 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Removed from Consent Agenda and moved to New Business - Item 10(b). 30" Main (NW Area) — Survey Services: To approve the Professional Services Agreement with Skillings Connolly, Inc., authorizing professional survey services with respect to the 30" Main (NW Area) sewer project in the amount of $41,160 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Removed from Consent Agenda and moved to New Business - Item 10(c). 30" Main (NW Area) — Cultural Resources Assessment Services: To approve the Professional Services Agreement with SWCA, Inc., authorizing professional cultural resources assessment services with respect to the 30" Main (NW Area) sewer project in the amount of $23,929 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Three Rivers West, Phase 1— Final Plat (MF #FP2014 -006): To approve the Final Plat for Three Rivers West, Phase 1. Reappointment to Regional Public Facilities District Board of Directors: To reappoint Saul Martinez to the Board of Directors of the Tri- Cities Regional Public Facilities District, term to expire October 1, 2017. Appointment to TRAC Advisory Board: To appoint Matt Watkins to the TRAC Advisory Board for years 2014 -2015. Resolution No. 3582, a Resolution of the Pasco City Council forming an ad -hoc Interchange Feasibility Study Executive Committee and confirming appointments thereto: To approve Resolution No. 3582, confirming the Mayoral appointments to the Executive Committee of the Interchange Feasibility Study. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Mayor Watkins presented Certificates of Appreciation for August 2014 "Yard of the Month" to: Irma Vargas, 440 N. Beech Avenue Mick and Liz Mikulecky, 3719 W. Nixon Street Doug Christiansen and Jodi Mix, 5211 Santa Fe Lane Anthony and Ginger Simpson, 5308 Bakerloo Lane Mayor Watkins presented a Certificate of Appreciation for August 2014 "Business Appearance of the Month" to: Yakima Federal Savings and Loan, 3604 W. Court Street MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: Mr. Garrison attended the Tri- Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau Board meeting, the TRIDEC Board meeting and along with Mr. White, the Benton & Franklin Counties, Department of Human Services, 2060 Interlocal Agreement Steering Committee meeting. Ms. Francik attended the League of Women Voters Picnic at Chiawana Park. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Rezone (MF #Z2014 -003) Rezone Property from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential). Mr. White explained the background of the proposed rezone. Mr. Kerr explained the role of Council in a Quasi-judicial matter. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE CLOSED RECORD HEARING OPEN. Council and staff discussed the record. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE HEARING CLOSED. Ordinance No. 4170, 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). MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4170, rezoning the property located at 909 N. 3rd Avenue from C -3 to R -3 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes — Martinez, Watkins, Yenney, Francik, Garrison. No — Hoffmann, Larsen. Street Vacation (MF #VAC2014 -005) A Portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. Mr. Yenney declared he owns property in the vicinity, but noted he has no financial interest in the subject property. There was no objection to his participation. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED VACATION. FOLLOWING THREE CALLS FOR COMMENTS, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, AND THERE BEING NONE, MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed vacation. Ordinance No. 4171, an Ordinance vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4171, vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Yenney seconded. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to table the ordinance to the next regular meeting for further information on the amount of right of way needed for sidewalks. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: A Resolution accepting a notice of intent to commence annexation proceedings, providing a determination on the territory to be annexed and whether simultaneous zoning and the assumption of bonded indebtedness will be required. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed annexation. Mr. Richard Rogers, read a letter from the property owners outlining the reasons they have requested annexation of their property. Council concurred to discuss this item further and review the City's annexation policy at the next workshop meeting. No action taken, no resolution number assigned. Resolution No. 3583, a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington adopting the Sylvester's Addition Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3583, adopting the Sylvester's Addition Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Road 40 East Storm Drainage: Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the proposed project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the low bid for the Road 40 East Storm Drainage Project to C &E Trenching, LLC in the amount of $61,215.18 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. 30" Main (NW Area) — Geotechnical Services: Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement with STRATA, hic., authorizing professional geotechnical services with respect to the 30" Main (NW Area) sewer project in the amount of $22,470 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes — Martinez, Watkins, Yenney, Francik, Garrison, Hoffmann. No — Larsen. 30" Main (NW Area) — Survey Services: MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Skillings Connolly, Inc., authorizing professional survey services with respect to the 30" Main (NW Area) sewer project in the amount of $41,160 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Council concurred to send a letter of support for the Union Gospel Mission's New Market Tax Credit Grant. Mr. Hoffmann commented on the General Fund Operating Statement through July 2014. 4 REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. APPROVED: Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of September, 2014. CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: September 15, 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 vie are authorized to authenticate and Certify to said claim. —� Dade bell, C anger unyele Masoi , 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 15 day of September, 2014 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment: SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND Claims Bank Payroll Bank n'I Bank Electronic Bank Combined Check Numbers 200069- 200271 47300 -47376 5,391.68 HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT 19,900.00 NSP GRANT 0.00 900000070 - 900000071 457.05 AMBULANCE SERVICE 42,734.83 Total Check Amount $1,098,417.63 $64,487.36 2,035.20 Total Checks $ 1,152,904.99 Electronic Transfer Numbers 802603;802753 30073046- 30073536 81 -85 74 -78 366.04 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 802766 - 802759 LITTER CONTROL 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 576.70 Total EFT Amount $371,026.19 $662,932.72 $334,097.77 $132,295.66 Total EFTS $ 1,390,352.34 GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 40,197.81 WATER/SEWER 681,867.64 Grand Total $ 2,543,257.33 Councilmember 7,149.42 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL 1,980.81 Councilmember 590.82 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND 444,047.86 STREET 21,789.14 ARTERIAL STREET 0.00 STREET OVERLAY 25,524.68 C. D. BLOCK GRANT 5,391.68 HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT 19,900.00 NSP GRANT 0.00 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 457.05 AMBULANCE SERVICE 42,734.83 CEMETERY 6,093.65 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 2,035.20 GOLF COURSE 40,462.81 SENIOR CENTER OPERATING 1,609.90 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 2,801.42 RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN 366.04 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 32,485.83 LITTER CONTROL 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT 576.70 SCHOOL IMPACT FEE 69,929.00 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 6,500.00 STADIUM /CONVENTION CENTER 0.00 GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 40,197.81 WATER/SEWER 681,867.64 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL 29,019.07 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS 7,149.42 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL 1,980.81 EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS 590.82 MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE 130,847.61 FLEX 1,448.05 PAYROLL CLEARING 927,448.31 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 2,543,267.33 3(b).1 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council DATE: TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager RE��,'//��yTgLAR: Rick Terway, Administran e & Community Services Dir$'ifgdll 1 FROM: Dunyele Mason, Financial Services Manager 7 J�" SUBJECT: BAD DEBT WRITE -OFF'S /COLLECTION. I. REFERENCE (S): Write -off and collection lists are on file in the Finance Department. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIIJSTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: III. September 10, 2014 September 15, 2014 MOTION: I move 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 $226,899.52 and, of that amount, authorize $145,225.53 be turned over for collection. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: 1. UTILITY BILLING - These are all inactive accounts, 60 days or older. Direct write -offs are under $10 with no current forwarding address, or are accounts in "occupant" status. Accounts submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 2. AMBULANCE - These are all delinquent accounts over 90 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct write offs including DSHS and Medicare customers; the law requires that the City accept assignment in these cases. 3. COURT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - These are all delinquent non - criminal and criminal fines, and parking violations over 30 days past due. 4. CODE ENFORCEMENT — LIENS — These are Code Enforcement violation penalties which are either un- collectable or have been assigned for collections because the property owner has not complied or paid the fine. There are still liens in place on these amounts which will continue to be in effect until the property is brought into compliance and the debt associated with these liens are paid. 5. CEMETERY — These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 6. GENERAL - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 7. MISCELLANEOUS - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 3(b).2 Amount Direct Referred to Total Write -offs Collection Write -offs Utility Billing $ 803.97 4,954.16 5,758.13 Ambulance $ 80,870.02 27,664.85 108,534.87 Court A/R $ .00 111,067.00 111,067.00 Code Enforcement $ .00 1,463.00 1,463.00 Cemetery $ .00 .00 .00 General $ .00 76.52 76.52 Miscellaneous $ .00 .00 .00 TOTAL: $ 81,673.99 145,225.53 226,899.52 3(b).2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 3, 2014 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manage Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/2014 Regular Mtg.: 9/15/2014 FROM: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Waiver of Sewer Utilitv Service Reouirement (MF# USW 2014 -001) I. REFERENCE(s): 1. Sewer Waiver— Vicinity Map 2. Sewer Waiver — Overview Map 3. Sewer Waiver — Proposed Utility Service Waiver Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/8: DISCUSSION 9/15: MOTION: I move to conditionally approve the sewer utility service waiver at 1916 Road 64 and authorize the City Manager to sign the waiver agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The applicant has applied for a utility service waiver to install a septic system for new construction of single family dwelling at 1916 Road 64 on an existing lot. PMC 16.06 requires connection to the utility system when a building permit is issued unless such requirement is waived by action of City Council. B. Utility waivers are granted/denied by City Council in accord with the requirements of PMC 16.06.050. This section of the PMC requires that City Council base their decision on the following criteria: • Special circumstances applicable to the property in question or the intended use that do not generally apply to either properties or classes of uses in the same vicinity or zoning classification. • A waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and same zoning classification, which because of special circumstances is denied to the property in question. • The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or egregious to.other property improvements in such vicinity and zoning classification, which the subject property is located. • The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the general intent of this chapter. C. The above criteria contained in PMC 16.06.050 is established to measure unusual or unique circumstances peculiar to a certain property that would justify waiver of a requirement for utility connections similar to the way a land use variance would be evaluated. _ 3(d) D. The recent annexation of Riverview Area #2, to which the subject parcel belongs, poses a different set of circumstances where most developed and undeveloped properties share a common condition — unavailability of sewer service. V. DISCUSSION: A. Presently, there is no sewer service provided near the property. The existing closest sewer line is approximately 3,500 feet from the applicant's property and it is not cost effective for a private party or the City to provide for the extension of such line. In addition, the Sewer Master Plan shows this area is served by lift stations expected to be provided approximately in the year 2025. While the date could change depending on the rate of development, it is accurate to state that sewer infrastructure is not in place now or in the near future for extension to the properties in question. B. The applicant's property is similar and in some respects identical to much of the surrounding residential development. All of the single family homes in this vicinity have been developed with septic systems on relatively large lots. A local improvement district to extend sewer to this part of Pasco is not likely in the near future due do the existing development pattern in the area. C. Standards for septic systems are administered through the Benton Franklin Health Department and will apply to the installation of septic systems on this property. It is not expected that the waiver will be detrimental to public health or welfare in this vicinity. D. The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the intent of Chapter 16.06 of the PMC. The significant costs associated with sewer line extension, the timeframe expected for the provision of infrastructure to allow the area to be served by city sewer, and the unlikelihood of a local improvement district in the near future, leads staff to recommend that a sewer connection waiver be granted for the property. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Pasco, Washington Engineering Department 525 North 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER AGREEMENT (CHAPTER 16.06 PMC) 1) The undersigned is the owner of the real property situated in Franklin County, Washington addressed as 1916 Road 64 and described as: Tax Parcel #: 118 -591 -044 Legal: Lot 2, Short Plat 2013 -011, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 1 of Plats Page 930, records of Franklin County, Washington 2) The undersigned has made application for waiver of the utility service requirements of Chapter 16.06 PMC and the Pasco City Council has by motion approved said waiver based on the following Findings: a) Presently, there is no sewer service provided near the property. The existing closest sewer line is approximately 3,500 feet from the applicant's property and it is not cost effective for a private party or the City to provide for the extension of such line. In addition, the Sewer Master Plan shows this area is served by lift stations expected to be provided approximately in the year 2025. While the date could change depending on the rate of development, it is accurate to state that sewer infrastructure is not in place now or in the near future for extension to the properties in question; b) The applicant's property is similar and in some respects identical to much of the surrounding residential development. All of the single family homes in this vicinity have been developed with septic systems on relatively large lots. A local improvement district to extend sewer to this part of Pasco is not likely at this time due do the existing development pattern and conditions in the area; c) Standards for septic systems are administered through the Benton Franklin Health Department and will apply to the installation of septic systems on this property. It is not expected that the waiver will be detrimental to public health or welfare in this vicinity; d) The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the intent of Chapter 16.06 of the PMC. The significant costs associated with sewer line extension, the timeframe expected for the provision of infrastructure to allow the area to be served by city sewer, and the unlikelihood of a local improvement district in the near future support the granting of a waiver for connection to the city sewer system for the property. 3) The waiver is conditioned upon the undersigned making the following agreements and acknowledgments with the City, which the undersigned does hereby freely and voluntarily make: a) The undersigned agrees to provide the City of Pasco with all necessary Health District approvals for the use of a septic tank system at the above referenced property; b) The undersigned acknowledges that the granting of a sewer utility waiver does not exempt him/her from any obligation that results from the formation of a Local Improvement District to provide sanitary sewer to the undersigned's property; c) The undersigned shall pay an equitable share of any private sewer utility extensions abutting the undersigned's property; d) The above covenants to the City shall run with the land and be binding on the owner, on the undersigned, his/her heirs, devisees, successors and assigns and all owners now or hereafter of the land above described, or of any of said land described above; e) A violation of any of the above covenants may be enjoined and the same enforced at the suit of the City. This utility waiver and agreement has been approved by the Pasco City Council on day of 20 Signature of Legal Property Owner(s) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of Franklin On this day personally appeared before me , to be known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER AGREEMENT (MF# USW2014 -001) -PAGE 2 GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of 20—. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: ................................................ •.............................t This utility service waiver and agreement has been approved by the Pasco City Council on - day of 20 Dave Zabell, City Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) as. County of Franklin On this day personally appeared before me, Dave Zabell" to be known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing. instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of 20. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My Commission Expires: UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER AGREEMENT (MF# USW2014 -001) –PAGE 3 AGENDA REPORT NO. 26 FOR: City Council September 3, 2014 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manag Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14 FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14 SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Water System Extension Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Amendment 1 -Water System Extension - Vicinity Map 2. Amendment 1 -Water System Extension — Proposed Amendment No. 1 Il. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 09/08: Discussion 09/15: MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Water System Extension Agreement with Big Sky LLC and Ted Tschirky and, further, authorize the City Manager sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Water Utility Fund ($50,145) IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Owners of two parcels of land in the northwest quadrant of the Pasco Urban Growth Area (UGA) have planned for residential development of their respective parcels. Both parcels are currently outside the City boundaries but within the Pasco UGA. Consequently, they have determined it most appropriate for their developments to extend City water for domestic use. Doing so allows half -acre lots with septic tanks, rather than one -acre lots with septic tank and on -site well. Franklin County has approved the zoning to accommodate half -acre lots dependent on City water service. B) The developers (Big Sky LLC and Ted Tschirky) have coordinated with City staff over the past several months to identify an appropriate extension of the City's water system. A water extension agreement was approved by City Council on October 21, 2013 to memorialize the obligations of the developers and the City, respectively, in terms of cost- sharing for the extension as well as design requirements, annexation agreements and water rights. In essence, the developers will pay the cost equivalent to an 8" waterline (minimum size) the entire length of the extension, while the City will pay the equivalent cost of "oversizing" the waterline (to 12" and 16" sizes) so it can function as a distribution main for the water system and serve the larger vicinity in the future (this will avoid duplicate line installations in the future). C) The City's share of the extension project as described in the original agreement is not to exceed $290,000, or about 43 percent of the total project cost. The developers will pay the balance of the project costs and the City will provide them a "latecomer agreement ", whereby future connections to the water main will reimburse the developers their fair share of the developers' expense not attributable to their own properties. Participation in the developers' extension results in a much lower cost project, as it is a private project not subject to prevailing wages; consequently, the City's cost is likewise lower. D) The original agreement includes provision to ensure the developments provide for or offset their consumption of the limited pool of water rights owned by the City. The calculation of average domestic use by a home which has separate lawn irrigation water is .45 acre -feet. At a market value of $1,500 per acre -foot, that represents approximately $700 per dwelling unit. The agreement provides for payment of that amount before the City accepts the waterline improvements. 3(e) V. A) The original agreement ensures appropriate extension of the City's water system to a portion of its UGA that is quite likely to experience growth over the next decade. B) During construction of the water system extension, the City was approached by other potential water users north of the subject development (Spencer Estates). City staff recognized the long -term need to provide a reliable water system along Kohler Road north of the Spencer Estates subdivision, and determined that the prudent course of action would be to upsize the watermain along the Kohler Road frontage of Spencer Estates. Staff proposes that the City cost share the upsizing of their section of watermain in the same manner as specified in the original agreement. City share of the costs is estimated at $14,145. C) The City requires a particular pre - packaged Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly and Vault (PRV) for use in the City's water systems. The size and cost of the required PRV was not known at the time of the original agreement. Staff recommends that the City share 75% of the cost of the PRV as it is a system component that will regulate water pressures to a larger area that the Spencer Estates subdivision. City share of the costs is estimated at $36,000. D) Due to certain construction difficulties and the delay in receiving the PRV, the construction has taken longer than originally anticipated. The term of the original agreement needs to be extended to reflect construction delays. E) Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 of the Water System Extension Agreement. 4.L L U "•' ..�. . d . I , a l -7g R K a Y K 2 U Ln i H • .s �' *M�1 d i •� A K4 'is rr [o D N LL J N % LL JC J AY v a Q N. .. -'° _. �! ii3lNM i's, U J fhpppJJJg�1 i d LwL y� Z W 1 _W yQFI A 4, J Yty � yy r r ��� ,•. W a-I � jfl r ti & � 4 � {� c L_ •- _ V �4- �L < Lo ;'a Z a CL J 1 [o D N LL J N % LL JC J AY v a Q N. .. -'° _. �! ii3lNM i's, U J uj '^ LU ti Y I i C0 LU w LJJ Z z Z J � � W W L a lD N Ln Ln z O O !' O O LU d a AMENDMENT No. I to WATER SYSTEM EXTENSION AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 amends and modifies the WATER SYSTEM EXTENSION AGREEMENT entered into on October 30, 2013, by and between Big Sky Developers, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as Big Sky), Ted Tschirky, an Individual (hereinafter referred to as Tschirky), and the City of Pasco, Washington, a Washington Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), for the purpose of extending water system improvements for the benefit of the properties to be developed by Big Sky and Tschirky. WHEREAS, certain construction activities have caused the need to extend the term of the original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the cost of certain facilities of the Project have exceeded the estimated costs contained in the original agreement and all parties recognize the need to construct those facilities in order to have a complete and operational system; and WHEREAS, all parties recognize the importance of the water system extension and desire to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in the original Agreement, as modified by this Amendment No. 1, do agree as follows: 1. BIG SKY OBLIGATIONS. Big Sky shall: A. Upsize the waterline along its Kohler Road frontage, approximately 1,320 LF, from an 8 -1n. Ductile Iron pipe to a 12 -In. Ductile Iron pipe to permit possible future extension to include potential service connections to the north, and shall be responsible for the equivalent cost of an 8 -In. Ductile Iron pipe. B. Install the pre - packaged Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly and Vault (PRV) as specified by the City, and shall be responsible for one - quarter of the cost of the furnishing and installation of the PRV; such cost estimated at $12,000. 2. CITY OBLIGATIONS. The City shall: A. Be responsible for the costs associated with the upsizing of the waterline and appurtenances along the Kohler Road frontage of Big Sky's development, approximately 1,320 LF, consistent with the unit prices and calculation methods contained in the original Agreement, such cost estimated at $14,145. B. Be responsible for three - quarters of the cost of the Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly and Vault in recognition that the PRV is a system component that will serve a larger area than the Big Sky development, such cost estimated at $36,000. Amendment No. 1 to Water System Extension Agreement City of Pasco, Big Sky Developers, LLC and Ted Tschirky September 3, 2014 C. Shall be responsible for a share of the additional costs as defined in this Amendment No. 1, not to exceed $50,145. The total City share of all costs for the water system extension shall not exceed $339,933. 3. TERM. This Amendment No. 1 shall extend the original Agreement until November 1, 2014, or until the completion and acceptance of the water system extension improvements, whichever is sooner. 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. All other conditions, terms and covenants of the Water System Extension Agreement, except as expressly modified by this Amendment No. 1, shall remain in full force. DATED this CITY of PASCO Dave Zabell City Manager day of BIG SKY DEVELOPERS, LLC Dave Greeno Managing Member Amendment No. 1 to Water System Extension Agreement City of Pasco, Big Sky Developers, LLC and Ted Tschirky September 3, 2014 2014 TED TSCIIIRKY Ted Tschirky Property Owner AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manage FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Managg,�� SUBJECT: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Appointments I. REFERENCE(S): II. III. IV. Op Lodging Tax Advisory Committee - Resolution No. 2314 September 8, 2014 Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14 ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/15: MOTION: FISCAL IMPACT: None I move to confirm the Mayor's reappointment of the following individuals to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: • Hotel Representatives: Monica Hammerberg, Red Lion and Allison White, Sleep Inn; • User Representatives: Colin Hastings, Pasco Chamber of Commerce and Michael Goins, Downtown Pasco Development Authority; City Council: Mike Garrison. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) was established under Resolution No. 2314 in June 1997 to comply with state requirements imposed at that time relating to the use of the city's lodging tax ( "hotel /motel tax "). The purpose of the committee is to advise the City Council on use of lodging tax each year. DISCUSSION: A) The appointments in the past have been structured so as to typically appoint the manager of the Red Lion (representing the largest hotel in Pasco) and the manager of one of the smaller facilities (Sleep hm). The "user" representative positions have been the executive directors of the respective organizations noted (Pasco Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Pasco Development Authority). B) The Mayor has identified individuals willing to fill the current vacancies. Council is requested to confirm the nominees so that the required meeting of the Advisory Committee can occur timely for budget consideration. 3(f) RESOLUTION NO.c� A RESOLUTION establishing a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco currently levies a lodging tax pursuant to Chapter 67.28 RCW; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has enacted Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 5867, enacted as Chapter 452, Laws of 1997, which modifies or repeals certain previous lodging tax authority and adds new lodging tax authority; and WHEREAS, SSB 5867 requires any new imposition of a lodging tax enacted dunder Chapter 67.28 ROW in a city with a population over 5,000, be first submitted for consideration to a lodging tax advisory committee not less than 45 days in advance of final action on a lodging tax by the city; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 5867 replaces the current lodging tax authority with a new statutory scheme effective July 27,1997; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco relies on the receipts of the current lodging tax to fulfill its contractual obligation to Franklin County for its share of the debt and operating expenses associated with the TRAC facility, as well as the bands issued to finance construction of the professional baseball stadium in Pasco; and WHEREAS, to ensure continued authorization for the imposition of the lodging tax within the City of Pasco, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the city that a lodging tax advisory committee be created immediately and that a proposal be submitted to this committee regarding continuation of a lodging tax; NOW, THF.REFORA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DORESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. There is hereby created a City of Pasco Lodging Tax Advisory Committee to serve the functions prescribed in Senate Bill 5867, which was enacted as Chapter 452, Laws of 1997. Section 2. The membership of the lodging tax advisory committee shall consist of five persons appointed by the City Council. One member shall be an elected official of the city, who shall serve as chair. Two members shall be representatives of businesses required to collect the tax and two members shall be persons involved in activities authorized to be funded from revenue received from the tax. The City Council will review the membership on an annual basis and make changes as appropriate. Any appointments to the committee shall be made by the City Council. Section 3. The following persons are hereby appointed to initially serve as members of the lodging tax advisory committee: (A) Elected Official: Councilman Mike Garrison. (B) Businesses required to collect the lodging tax shall be represented by: (1) Alan Paty, General Manager, Doubletree Hotel. (2) Dorothy Hildebrant, Manager, Goal Post Motel. (C) Persons involved in activities authorized to use proceeds of the lodging tax shall be represented by. (1) Dorothy Schoeppach, Executive Director, Pasco Chamber of Commerce. (2) Rosemary Doupe, Executive Director, Pasco Downtown Development Association. Section 4 In accordance with SSB 5867, the City Council shall submit to the lodging tax advisory committee, for its review and comment, proposals on the imposition of any tax authorized under SSB 5867; any increase in the rate of such a tax; repeal of any exemption from such a tax; or a change in the use of the revenue received from such a tax. Comments by the committee should include an analysis of the extent to which the proposal will accommodate activities for tourists or increase tourism and the extent to which the proposal will affect the long -range stability of the special fund created for the lodging tax revenues. Section 5. In accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution, the City Council hereby submits to the lodging tax advisory committee the following proposal for its immediate review and comment: To ensure the continued levy of the lodging tax as authorized by Chapter 67.28 RCW, the city should re- enact an Ordinance levying a special excise tax on the sale or charge made for furnishing of lodging that is subject to tax under Chapter 82.08 RCW. Section 6. In order to take all steps necessary or indicated by SSB 5867 with regard to re- enactment of lodging taxes levied by the city, the lodging tax advisory committee is hereby requested to conduct its first meeting not later than June 30, 1997, and to report back to the City Council its comments with respect to the tax proposal set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution no later than July 19,1997. Secdon7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at a regular meeting this 16th day of June, 1997. Charles D. Kilbury, ayor ATTEST. Catherine D. Seaman, Deputy City Clerk APPRO TO FORM �� la►-� Leland,U Kerr, City Attorney Resolution establishing a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee - Page 2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council] September 9, 2014 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager U'V Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director � W FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: STREET & ALLEY VACATION (MF# VAC 2014-006) Portions of undeveloped right -of -way in the Whitehouse Addition I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition - Overview Map 2. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition - Vicinity Map 3. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition - Proposed Resolution 4. Street & Alley Vacation, Whitehouse Addition - Vacation Petition H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/15: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 35'9 , setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, October 20, 2014, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating portions of the undeveloped right -of -way in the Whitehouse Addition. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The owners of Block 3, and the east half of Block 2, Whitehouse Addition have petitioned for vacation of the undeveloped streets and alleys within said blocks. The vacation request is being made to facilitate the replating the blocks into new single - family lots. 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 October 20, 2014. 3(g) ,m ii r 134 ll7.iTINA PT_, f OI t V0 0 e j � Item: Whitehouse Vacation �� Applicant: R. & J. Welch p File #: VAC2014 -006 � 1+t• p 4; "rp�A o� 2r R " ILI 80 GRO ,ST ROE- I r -�� z 041 R 4' P 20` .= s b Ilip .�•- - ny` \X 80 GRO ,ST ROE- I r -�� z 041 R 4' P 20` 'Y*' r -NA ST b Ilip .�•- 'Y*' r -NA ST RESOLUTION NO.3S�1{ A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING THE RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR UNDEVELOPED STREETS AND ALLEYS IN THE WHITEHOUSE ADDITION. 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 East Adelia Street from the west line of North Charles Avenue to the west line of North Franklin Avenue and North Franklin Avenue from the north line of East Adelia Street to the east line of California Avenue, together with East George Street from the west line of North Charles Avenue to the east line of North Franklin Avenue and the north/south alleys in Blocks 2 and 3, Whitehouse 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 October 20, 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 15`" day of September, 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Exhibit 11 40' Item: Whitehouse Vacation Applicant: R. & Jo Welch File #: VAC2014 -006 20' AI 80' GEORGE ST a r r W a v ALVINA ST w FEE $200 r CITY OF PASCO STREET /ALLEY VACATION PETITION MASTER FILE # &,?,ZLtl - t'J�DATE SUBMITTED: 1, we the undersigned, owners of two- thirds of the privately owned abutting property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the following described street /alley rights -of -way: ..owvi ufa HVCf1Ue together with East GeOige Street from the west tine of North Charles Street to the east line of North Franklin Avenue and the north south alleys in Blocks 2 and 3 Whitehouse Addition. APPLICANT: -taus} PROPERTY OWNEI? (Legal Description) Print Name:, Lots 11 -24 of Block 2 and all of Block 3 of Sign Nam +A nS�J�n Whi�use Addition to asco Address: "�`°`�•"rr`,� X9.9891)b Phone # 5c19- Nr. F-�I si Dateu Print Name: R1 1) ,rA E b, %l( 11 Trask P, Sign Date Q Q- / 4 Print Name: •J , f_4't-i-Pp Sign Name: - rjuj-'" 'zs?„ ate _R -,P-i4 REVENUE SOURCES: TAXES: PROPERTY SALES PUBLIC SAFETY UTILITY OTHER LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOV'T REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISC. REVENUE DEBT AND TRANSFERS IN TOTAL REVENUES BEGINNING FUND BALANCE TOTALSOURCES EXPENDITURES: CITY COUNCIL MUNICIPAL COURT CITY MANAGER POLICE FIRE ADMIN & COMMUNITY SVCS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING LIBRARY NON - DEPARTMENTAL DEBT AND TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND OPERATING STATEMENT THROUGH AUGUST 2014 YTD 2014 % OF YTD 2014 AMENDED ANNUAL 2013 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL 3,889,391 6,845,170 6,782,521 8,207,000 813,773 1,100, 000 5,658,343 7,789,544 797,372 1,090,000 1,314,468 1,124,800 1,359,984 1,496,000 4,160,686 5,391,233 590,445 882,000 464,546 581,160 1,118,299 4,077,956 26,949,817 38,584,863 5,264,801 5,902,824 32,214,618 44,487,687 68,698 113,152 946,070 1,481,060 823,002 1,041, 567 7,708,574 12,428,014 3,425,532 5,207,376 4,806,663 7,161,101 949,776 1,442,650 1,082, 085 1,771,200 815,132 1,148, 380 1,339,535 1,739,143 1,555,628 5,511,838 23,520,696 39,045,481 8,693,923 5,442,206 TOTAL EXPEND & END FUND BAL 32,214,618 44,487,687 AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE 6,101,427 PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR 8 MONTHS These statements are intended for Management use only. 56.8% 82.6% 74.0% 72.6% 73.2% 116.9% 90.9% 77.2% 66.9% 79.9% 27.4% 3,726,117 6,277,547 744,907 5,225,119 827,290 1,252, 342 1,162,455 3,142,233 625,239 427,890 603,596 2013 AMENDED BUDGET 6,400,000 9,095,000 1,000,000 7,798,000 1,065, 000 1,708,200 1,463, 700 4,536,509 792,650 626,850 1,295,303 69.8% 24,014,735 35,781,212 8,546,455 7,573,573 72.4% 32,561,190 43,354,785 60.7% 63.9% 79.0% 62.0% 65.8% 67.1% 65.8% 61.1% 71.0% 77.0% 28.2% 72,245 874,082 665,502 7,661,247 3,800,094 4,285,193 813,563 1,085, 873 764,616 1,160,530 1.059.894 121,315 1,376,639 967,130 12,145,846 5,577,366 6,421, 954 1,332,076 1,535,558 1,148, 380 2,353,476 8,927,792 60.2% 22,242,838 41,907,532 10, 318,352 1,447,253 32,561,190 43,354,785 3,055,507 67% 6(b) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 9, 2014 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Directo'r'�I-- 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 Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/15: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4171, an Ordinance vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue and Spokane Street and further, authorize publication by summary only. 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. The vacation was requested to facilitate future multi - family development. B. On September 2, 2014 the Council held a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Nevada Avenue adjacent to Blocks 4 and 5, Freys Addition. Following the hearing staff was instructed to prepare an ordinance that included the requirement for the property owner to dedicate a parcel from each block needed for the future right -of -way for North Wehe Avenue. V. DISCUSSION: A. The right -of -way involved in the proposed vacation has not been fully developed therefore there are no utilities that need to be protected with an easement however, not all of the unimproved right -of -way dedicated for Nevada Avenue can be vacated. B. Wehe Street will eventually be improved from Spokane Street to Salt Lake Street. The west half of Wehe Avenue south of Spokane Street contains 30 feet of right - of -way. For the proper alignment of future improvements on Wehe Avenue north of Spokane Street, 30 feet of right -of -way will also be needed for the west half of Wehe Avenue. As a result 30 feet will need to be held out of Nevada Avenue for the future extension of Wehe Avenue. The need for the dedication for Wehe Avenue was fully explained by staff prior to submittal of the vacation request and the applicant is aware of such need. 8(a) !r `rkk'Y JlrV �+b� 5 3 9F � " p )lfa Y' Qq`q 4➢p .0 ^ArF� 'q � m'c •• .�g( ✓� #`C ' �t q�N �,} �L ��➢ PN a .r � . s }��l�v' v F iM A i irtt � �`:�krot�r�i'�i'kb t' 9 J 'A ^r (J � t .�� �. � � ➢fir �^A€ r 4" # �• y, n 3 p.. WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3`d Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. 4171 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF NEVADA AVENUE, UTAH AVENUE AND SPOKANE STREET. WHEREAS, a qualified petition has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Pasco requesting vacation of certain public rights -of -way 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 rights -of -way; and WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said right -of -way have been duly taken and performed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Nevada Avenue between south right -of -way line of Duluth Street and a line parallel to and 30 west of the east line of Section 20, Township 9 North Range 29 East W.M., together with the north 10 feet of Spokane Street from the east right -of -way line of Utah Avenue to appoint 19 feet west of the west right -of -way line of Wehe Street and the east 10 feet of Utah Avenue from the south right -of -way line of Duluth Street to the north right -of -way line of Spokane Street except that a 25 foot radius shall be retained at the northeast corner of Utah Avenue and Spokane Street, as depicted in Exhibit "1" be and the same is hereby vacated subject to the conditions identified in Sections 2 and 3 below. Section 2. That Chester and Jacqueline Fortune Jr., the petitioners and property owners, shall comply with the following: A. That portion of Block 4, Freys Addition located east of a line parallel to and 30 west of the center line of Wehe Avenue together with that portion of Block 5, Freys Addition located east of a line parallel to and 30 west of the center line of Wehe Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Pasco for public right -of -way. Section 3. That the street vacation established herein shall be null and void if the dedication required in in Section 2 (A) has not occurred by December 31, 2014. Section 4. 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 5. 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 15a' day of September 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney z 0 � Q J p = ct 3nd 3H3M cd z 000 o �U� w AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Managpe SUBJECT: Charter Cable Franchise Extension/ I. REFERENCE(S): September 3, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14 Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14 1. Charter Cable Franchise Extension - Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/8: Discussion 9/15: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , extending the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Charter Communications (Falcon Video Communications, L.P.) through December 31, 2014 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City has been preparing for and conducting negotiations with Charter for renewal of the franchise agreement for the last 36 months. While a great deal of progress has been made on issues the cities (Richland and Pasco are partnering in the process) and Charter, are in need of additional time to review outstanding issues in light of the request received in June from Comcast (who is in the process of acquiring all of Charter's systems in the state) for approval for it to succeed Charter as the franchise holder. The current franchise is set to expire September 30, 2014. B) In order to provide additional time to complete the transfer agreement process, staff proposes to extend the franchise to December 31 of this year. C) Staff would anticipate another extension, possibly to December 31 into 2015, to complete a renewal franchise agreement with Comcast. C) Under the proposed ordinance, Charter must provide its acceptance of the extension within 12 -days of passage by the City (Charter has indicated its acceptance of the extension to staff). V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing the extension. 8(b) ORDINANCE NO. An ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Extending the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Falcon Video Communications, L.P., locally known as Charter Communications, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Grantee" Through December 31, 2014. WHEREAS, cable providers are required to hold a franchise agreement with the City of Pasco ( "City") to use the City's public right -of -way to provide cable services; and WHEREAS, the current cable franchise agreement was entered into pursuant to Ordinance No. 3304 ( "Cable Franchise ") on June 20, 1998; and WHEREAS, control of Grantee was subsequently transferred from Falcon Communications, L.P., to Charter Communications Holding Company, L.L.C., pursuant to Resolution No. 2468; and WHEREAS, the Cable Franchise is due to expire on September 30, 2014 pursuant to Ordinance No. 4159; and WHEREAS, Grantee and the City have been engaged in informal renewal negotiations in accordance with Section 626(h) of Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Cable Act'); and WHEREAS, the City has been conducting franchise renewal ascertainment in accordance with Section 626(a)(1) of the Cable Act; and WHEREAS, the parties continue to reserve all rights under the formal procedures of Section 626 of the Cable Act, and do not waive any rights related thereto; and WHEREAS, Grantee has filed timely notice of intent to renew its Franchise Agreement with City pursuant to Section 626 of the Cable Act; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant an extension of the current Franchise until December 31, 2014, to give the parties additional time to initiate a transfer of control process of this franchise; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Extension of the Term of the Franchise Agreement through December 31 2014. The Cable Franchise, as amended, is hereby extended, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, until December 31, 2014. Section 2. Terms and Conditions_ of Extension of the Franchise Agreement. The City's consent to the extension, described above, is subject to, and conditioned upon, the following terms and conditions: A. All terms and conditions of the existing Franchise Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the extension period. B. The extension shall have no adverse effect on Grantee's compliance, nor shall the extension be grounds for any change or modification in the remaining terms, conditions and obligations of the Franchise Agreement. C. The City and Grantee's agreement to extend the Franchise Agreement, as set forth herein, shall not be construed, in any manner whatsoever, to constitute a waiver or release of any rights that the City or the Grantee may have under the Franchise Agreement. D. Both parties hereby reserve all rights under applicable provisions of the Cable Act, including, without limitation, Sections 626 and 635 of the Cable Act. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as a waiver, release or surrender of any right that either party may have under the Cable Act or any applicable law. E. Within twelve (12) days after passage of this Ordinance by the City Council, Grantee shall file with the City Clerk its written acceptance of this Ordinance, substantially in the form of Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this _ day of 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor Attest: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Acceptance of Ordinance No. TO: City of Pasco, Washington Attention: Dave Zabell, City Manager Pasco City Hall P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 This is to advise the City of Pasco that Falcon Video Communications, L.P. (the "Grantee "), hereby unqualifiedly accepts Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council on 2014, regarding the extension of the Franchise Agreement between Grantee and the City. FALCON VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, L.P. ( "Grantee ") Name: Mark Brown Title: V.P., Government Affairs Date: AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 9, 2014 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Mtg: 9/15/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director l ale FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones (MF # CA2014 003) I. 1. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones — Proposed Ordinance 2. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones — Memo to the Planning Commission dated 8/21/2014 3. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones — Planning Commission Minutes dated 7 /24/2014 and 8/21/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/15: MOTION: I moved to adopt Ordinance No. , an ordinance amending Title 25 modifying minimum lots sizes in multi -family zoning districts zones and, fiuther, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On June 2, 2014 the Council passed a resolution establishing a moratorium on the platting of single - family lots in multi - family zoning districts. B. The Planning Commission held a workshop on the single - family lot question during their July 24, 2014 meeting followed by a public hearing on August 21, 2014. V. DISCUSSION: A. The R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts were established primarily for the development of multi- family housing. These zoning districts are used to provide transition areas between low- density residential areas and more intense land uses. B. Although not specifically intended for single - family development the multi- family zoning districts have permitted single - family homes on individual lots since the inception of zoning in Pasco. Single - family lots within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones can be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. C. As the result of concerns over the development of large single - family developments in multi- family zones without forethought to building design, subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods and overall acceptance by the community the moratorium was established. D. During their workshop and subsequent hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the history of single - family lots sizes including past trends and current development activity. The Commission also considered the minimum lot size standards in surrounding cities. E. Following considerable discussion on the matter the Planning Commission recommended the minimum size for single - family lots be increased to 6,000 square feet in the R -2 zone, 5,500 square feet in the R -3 zone and that there be no change in the 5,000 square foot minimum for R -4 zone. 8(c) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES IN THE R -2 AND R -3 ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, on August 21, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the minimum lot size requirements for the R -2 Medium Density and R -3 Medium Density zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: follows: Section 1. That PMC Section 25.34.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as 25.34.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five4heesand -(s,, N)- Six thousand (6.000) square feet; (2) One single family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in Section 25.34.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling per 5,000 - 6.000 square feet of lot area for single famil dwellings and 5.000 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwelling except as provided in 25.34.030 (8), (4) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40) percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley the setback shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line, may not exceed six (6) feet in height and thirty (30) square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five (5) feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor; (6) Maximum building height: (a) Principal building: Twenty-five (25) feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit. (b) Accessory buildings: Fifteen (15) feet. (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.75; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.78; (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.75; and (10) Residential Design Standards: See Chapter 25.70.085. follows: Section 2. That PMC Chapter 25.36.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as 25.36.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five thettsefid (5,000) Five thousand five hundred (5,500) square feet; (2) One single family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in Section 25.36.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling unit per 55,098 5,500 square feet of lot area for single family dwellings and 3,000 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings except as provided in 25 34 030 (4) Maximum Lot Coverage: Sixty (60) percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the setback shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line, may not exceed six (6) feet in height and thirty (30) square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five (5) feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor, (6) Maximum building height: (a) Principal building: Thirty-five (35) feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit. (b) Accessory buildings: Fifteen (15) feet. (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.75; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.78; and (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.75; (10) Residential Design Standards: See Chapter 25.70.085. Section 3. That the moratorium established by Resolution 3557 and continued by Resolution 3566, is hereby terminated. Section 4. 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 September 15, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size in Multi - Family Zones (CA2014 -003) Introduction On June 2, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution No. 3557 imposing a six month moratorium on the acceptance of plat applications for properties in R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts. The R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts are primarily intended for the development of multiple family structures such as duplexes, four - plexes and apartment buildings. Although not specifically intended for single - family development the multi - family zoning districts have permitted single - family homes on individual lots since the inception of zoning in Pasco. Single family lots within the R -2, R -3, and R -4 zones must be at least 5,000 square feet. Earlier this year a developer applied for R -2 zoning with the intent of building only single - family homes. Although most of the lots in the proposed development will be in excess of 6,000 square feet there was potential for a development with numerous 5,000 square foot lots. The creation of 5,000 square foot single - family lots without forethought to building design and subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods has the potential to impact those neighboring developments. As a result the Planning Commission was asked to provide some input on the matter as to whether or not the multi - family zoning districts should be reviewed as it relates lot sizes. From the Planning Commission's original discussion on this matter in May, the City Council established the moratorium to provide an opportunity to study the matter before any additional single - family plats are considered for approval. Background The earliest zoning ordinance to be found for the City dates to 1939. Between 1939 and 1965 the minimum lot size for single family lots in the R -1 district was 4,500 square feet; a 37.5 foot by 120 foot lot. There was no separate R -2 zoning district in the early code. 1 In 1965 the code was amended to add regulations for R -2 and R -3 districts. The minimum lot sizes were established by lot dimensions. No lot within those two districts could be smaller than 50 feet by 100 feet. This 5,000 minimum lot size has been in the code in one form or another since 1965. Many of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment of zoning. The general practice for platting in the early years was to divided blocks into 25 foot wide lots. Builders would then buy two or more lots to build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon to find single - family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of town. The smallest lots in central Pasco between Pasco High School and Sylvester Park (Zoned R -1) are 4,750 square feet. Other lots in that area of town range in size from 5,550 square feet to over 7,000 square feet. There are many lots in the range of 5,750 to 6,000 square feet. The smallest lots south of "A" Street are just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250 square feet and others are slightly larger at 5,400 square feet. The Kurtzman Park area east of Wehe Avenue which is also zoned mostly R -2, has lots ranging size from 6,000 square feet to over 7,500 square feet. In recent years smaller single - family lots have been created in the following subdivisions: Sun Willows (5,200 sq. ft.)* Sunny Meadows (4,876 sq. ft.)* Three Rivers (5,000 sq. ft.)* Columbia Place (5,400 sq. ft.)* Loviisa Farms (5,100 sq. ft.)* * (Smallest lot created) These subdivisions are zoned R -1 and developed with Planned Density Development plats permitting single - family lots smaller than 7,200 square feet; Sun Willows being the exception. Sun Willows is a Planned Unit Development. The developer of Sunny Meadows and Loviisa Farms (AHO Construction) subdivisions used the smaller lots to build cottage style homes providing some variety in the housing market. Three Rivers West is the only subdivision in the City that has ever included an R -2 zoning element specifically for the construction of single - family homes. Due to the requirement for 60 feet of frontage and the configuration of the streets, the average lot size in the R -2 portion of this proposed development is 6,812 square feet. Considerably larger than the lots developed under the planned density process in the subdivisions listed above. The City currently has approximately 57 acres of vacant land zoned for various multi - family uses. This multi- family zoning includes seven acres of R -4 ground, 2 24.5 acres of R -3 zoning (not including the Housing Authority Property) and 25 acres of R -2 zoning. In addition, there are 26 individual lots of varying sizes zoned R -2 located south of "A" Street and in the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies several hundred acres of land in various locations within the Urban Growth Area for mixed residential uses. Approximately 500 acres remain to be developed. The mixed residential land use category allows zoning that would permit a full range of residential development including single - family, multi- family, townhomes, patio homes and condominiums. Zoning in these areas could range from RS -20 to R -3. The largest (300 acres) single area containing the Mixed Residential designation is located along the Columbia River west of Road 100. The Mixed Residential designation was chosen for this area because it would permit the development of townhouses and condominiums within close proximity to the river similar to Columbia Point in Richland. Given past experience it is highly unlikely the Mixed Residential sites will be rezoned R -2 and R -3 strictly for single - family development. Market demand and the highest and best use doctrine generally determine the zoning developers seek. The Chapel Hill development for example was designated for Mixed Residential development and zoned R -1, R -3 and R -4. Single - family homes were constructed in the R -1 areas and apartments were built in the multi - family areas. Once a developer goes through the process (which sometimes is a struggle) to obtain multi- family zoning he does not usually squander his potential return by building single - family homes. Not all Mixed- Residential areas will be or have been rezoned for multi- family development. This land use designations provides a range of options for the developers but does not require lands within the designated areas to be zoned multi - family. The Linda Loviisa subdivision located east of the soccer complex is partially in a Mixed Residential area but, the developer requested and received approval for R -1 zoning for single family lots. The Sun Willows development is also within a Mixed Residential area but, is developed with mostly single - family homes (91 %). There are fifteen condo units in Sun Willows each on a lot that is equal to or larger than the lots occupied with single - family homes. One of the problems with choosing multi - family zoning for single - family lots is the apprehension it may create for some home buyers who do not want a single - family home in a multi - family district. If a family buys a single - family home in a multi - family zoning district they have no guarantee there will always be single - family development around them. The fundamental question remains this: what is the smallest single - family lot size the city is willing to permit in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts? 3 Zoning Comparisons Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R -2 and R -3 zones with a minimum of 4,000 square feet. Lots sizes for single family homes in multi- family zoning districts for surrounding communities is as follows: Richland R -2s 4,000 sq. ft. R -3 4,000 sq. ft. Kennewick RM -2 4,000 sq. ft. RM -3 4,000 sq. ft. West Richland MR -2 4,000 sq. ft. MR -3 4,000 sq. ft. Spokane RSF 4,350 sq. ft. RSF -C 3,000 sq. ft. The cities listed above all have minimum lot standards for comparable districts with less square footage than currently required in Pasco. Non - Conforming Questions Increasing the minimum lot size in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts will create some minor non - conforming issues for owners of existing lots that meet the current standards. The non - conforming issue will mainly create confusion for insurance companies and real estate agents. It may also prohibit a property owner that may have been planning to develop some lots in older portion of the town from developing his property to match existing lots in the neighborhood. This would only impact properties that need to be short platted or re- platted. Legal lots of record would still be able to be developed even if they were only 5,000 square feet. 4 Options #1 Increase the minimum lot size in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones to 6,000 square feet or increase the minimum in the R -2 zone to 6,000 square feet, the R -3 zone to 5,500 square feet and leave the R -4 zone at 5,000 square feet. #2 Some other variation of Option # 1. #3 Allow lot dimensions to control lot size. #4 Permit lot size averaging based on the existing lots within a given block. #5 Reduce the minimum site development area for Planned Density Development projects to make the process available to more properties #6 Maintain the current standard. Planning Commission Direction Following a workshop on this item in July the Planning Commission generally determined Option # 1 above would be appropriate to address the concern about single - family development within multi - family zoning districts. The 6,000 square foot minimum lot size for R -2 districts corresponds to the minimum lot dimensions required by the subdivision regulations. The attached code amendment includes the minimum lot sizes highlighted in Option # 1. This item has been schedule as a public hearing. The Planning Commission will need to hold the hearing prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Pasco Zoning Ordinance contains R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts primarily intended for multiple- family dwellings with a range of minimum densities. 2) Single - family homes are permitted in all multi- family zoning districts in Pasco. 3) The current minimum lot size in multi - family zones is 5,000 square feet. 4) Developers often build subdivisions to the minimum standard with respect to lot sizes. 5) The creation of 5,000 square foot lots without forethought to building design, subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods 5 and overall acceptance by the community has the potential to harm the residents of Pasco. 6) Single - family lots within the most recent R -2 development (Three Rivers West) averaged 6,800 square feet due to dimensional requirements and due to street configuration. 7) The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 21, 2014 to receive public comment on the proposed code amendment. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on minimum lot size in multi - family zoning districts. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for minimum lot size requirements in multi - family zoning districts as attached to the August 21, 2013 staff memo to the Planning Commission. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/24/14 WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi - Family Zones IMF# CA 2014 -0031 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot size in multi - family zones. Mr. McDonald explained the City Council recently approved a resolution establishing a moratorium on the acceptance of any plats for single - family development within multi - family zoning districts (R -2, R -3 and R -4). The concern that caused the moratorium to be established was the fear that perhaps a developer could take a plat and rezone it R -2 or R -3 for the purpose of building single - family dwelling units on 5,000 square foot lots. As a result of the moratorium, the Planning Commission has been tasked with the job of reviewing the code to provide input as to whether or not the code needs to be changed or to determine whether the concern is more perceived than real. Mr. McDonald explained the background for minimum lot sizes within the community and stated the original zoning ordinance established 4,500 square feet as the minimum size for single - family development. The 5,000 square foot standard was established in 1965. Discussion then centered on lots sizes in the central core of the community where they range from 4,000 to 7,500 square feet. Smaller lots in the new subdivisions in the I- 182 area were also discussed. It was pointed out there are roughly 57 acres of land available with multi - family zoning, and roughly 26 lots in the older parts of the community that are vacant that are also zoned R -2. Most of these lots are in the 5,000 -6,000 foot range. The Comprehensive Plan identifies several hundred acres that could in theory be zoned for multi - family residential. The largest such area is located along the Columbia River west of Road 100 and the gravel pit. The thought was that area is well suited for condos and townhouses to take advantage river views similar to the development on Columbia Point in Richland. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the minimum lot size in other local jurisdictions. He also discussed non - conforming issues that may create some confusion. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the following options available to the the Planning Commission; (1) Increase the minimum lot size in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones to 6,000 square feet or increase the minimum in the R -2 zone to 6,000 square feet, the R -3 zone to 5,000 square feet and leave the R -4 zone at 5,000 square feet; (2) Some other variation of Option 1; (3) Allow lot dimensions to control lot size; (4) Permit lot size averaging based on the existing lots within a given block; (5) Reduce the minimum site development area for Planned Density Development projects to make the process available to more properties; (6) Maintain the current standard. Questions for the Planning Commission to ask were; (1) Will increasing the minimum lot size for multi - family zones discourage developers from requesting R -2 or R -3 zoning to develop single- family lots? (2) Will market forces and current minimum lot dimensions be enough to address the concern? (3) Does the current Planned Density Development process provide enough flexibility for the development community to create a wide range of lots for single - family development? (4) Why do neighboring cities have smaller minimum lot sizes in multi - family zoning districts? (5) Have the smaller lot sizes in the neighboring cities encouraged rezones for single - family development in multi- family zones? After considering the issue, staff asked the Planning Commission to provide direction as to whether or not a code amendment is necessary. Commissioner Greenaway asked how this would affect the former "donut- hole" area. Mr. McDonald answered that it would have minimal to no impact. A developer could possibly request an R -2 or R -3 rezone but it would have to be in the corridor along Road 68 or Court Street where the mixed - residential designations are. Another problem in that area is the lack of sewer so lots would have to be a little over a half acre per. Commissioner Bachart asked what the row homes by Walmart are zoned. Mr. McDonald answered R -4 and the lots are roughly 2,400 square feet. Commissioner Bachart asked if the lot size minimum was increased if it would limit the ability to build those types of homes. Mr. McDonald responded he didn't believe so since they are treated as a multi- family complex which is why the R -4 zoning was used. Chairman Cruz discussed that Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots at 4,000 square feet. He asked if they had anything to fit a planned development to allow for the row type of homes. Mr. McDonald answered that when he talked to the Planner in Richland, he stated that their developers use the PUD process, such as Sun Willows, to get a mix of smaller and larger lots. Kennewick uses the same process. Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if they had any issues with continuing to use the Planned Unit Development process. He added that using the PUD would prevent having an area of high- density of single- family homes on small lots, rather a mix of small lots and larger lots. Chairman Cruz wanted to look at Options 1, 2 and 6. Increasing the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet doesn't seem consistent across the Tri- Cities. Chairman Cruz discussed variability in lot sizes adding character to a neighborhood and he would not have an issue with that. He asked what would be the advantage to increasing the minimum lot size relative to the other jurisdictions in the area. And in clarifying Option 1, it is for minimum lot sizes for single - family dwellings in the mixed- residential areas. Commissioner Bachart was in agreement with Chairman Cruz. Commissioner Kempf stated that she wouldn't mind maintaining the current standard and didn't understand the need to change. Chairman Cruz responded that he didn't know how attractive it is to developers to allow for a large block of 5,000 square foot lots for single - family homes. He stated that at 6,000 square feet it would be a skinny lot and would not want any smaller. Commissioner Khan agreed with Commissioner Kempf and didn't feel that there really needed to be an amendment and would like to maintain the current standard. Commissioner Khan asked if there is a special permit process for a developer to build a single - family in the R -2 zone. Mr. McDonald answered that single- family dwelling units are listed as permitted uses in R -2, R -3 and R-4 zoning districts. Commissioner Khan tried to clarify some of the concerns if the lots were too small. Mr. McDonald added that in all cases a 5,000 square foot lot wouldn't allow for anything other than a single - family home. A duplex requires 10,000 square feet in the R -2 zone and 6,000 square feet in the R -3 zone. Commissioner Khan responded that she could go along with Option 1. Commissioner Bachart asked if there was an R -3 zone with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, then a duplex could be built. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, answered that a duplex could be built but this code amendment is mainly to focus on the single - family lots. Commissioner Barchart responded that if the minimum lot size is moved up to 6,000 square feet and there are single - family homes in the neighborhood, your neighbor could still put a duplex next to your house and could create problems for the neighbors. Mr. White stated that the real question is, what is the smallest lot size the community wants for single - family dwellings in the multi - family zoning districts? Commissioner Polk asked if this code amendment will come back as a public hearing for the community to voice their opinion. Mr. White stated that the intent is to have a public hearing next month. Staff is trying to complete the review process by the end of September. Don Paddock, 2574 Magnolia Court, Richland, was present representing Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Paddock suggested that the Planning Commission recommend Option 6, maintaining the current standard. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Paddock why he wished to recommend Option 6 Mr. Paddock replied that they would like to get down to the 5,000 square foot lots. Most of their homes would be built using 6,000 -7,000 square foot lots but some lots would need to drop down to 5,500 square feet for what they currently have planned to be developed in order to make the neighborhood look presentable. Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Harms agreed with Mr. Paddock in recommending Option 6 and perhaps adding Option 3 to it if needed. He stated that the 5,000 square foot lot size has been a relatively useful tool and stated that there must have been a significant event to cause an emergency moratorium on subdividing but, he is unaware of what situation must have happened to bring this about so abruptly. Mr. Harms discussed the need for people to have smaller lots. People will choose to buy what they can afford and developers are sensitive to that. Mr. Harms stated that ultimately he would like to see the code stay the way it is. Habitat for Humanity has projects in process waiting to advance and the lot sizes for their proposed plat are between 5,000 -6,000 square feet and would like to see the rescinding of the moratorium. Chairman Cruz stated that some of their concerns are having entire subdivision of 5,000 square foot lots and whether that would be attractive for the community Chairman Cruz felt that 6,000 square foot lot size is pretty generous in R -2, 5,500 square feet in R -3 and 5,000 square feet in R -4. He asked Mr. Harms why they shouldn't pursue the change to protect the City from a situation with 30 acres of 5,000 square foot single - family homes. Mr. Harms responded that was reasonable rationale. The Planned Unit Development process works well for higher -end communities. The challenge with a PUD is that is has to be unique is some way to qualify as a PUD. Sometimes that is not easy to accomplish so perhaps there could be a way that is addressed. Chairman Cruz asked staff what the plans are for PUD's. Mr. McDonald answered that in order to qualify to use the process you have to have at least 20 acres. Some developers, such as Habitat for Humanity, do not have 20 acres, they have 2 -3 acres and that would be off the table for them. Commissioner Khan asked if the developer did have the 20 acres then the developer could still have the 5,000 square foot lots. Mr. McDonald stated that in a PUD you aren't going to get 100% of the lots at 5,000 square feet. There is an overall density assigned to the 20 acres and it cannot be exceeded. To get the smaller lots, there will still have to be some larger lots in the development. Chairman Cruz stated that he just didn't like the idea of a wash of 5,000 square foot lot sizes in one area. In the R -2, R -3 and R -4 he asked if there were any other ideas to protect against that super high - density of single - family homes. Mr. Harms suggested averaging lot sizes, where you have a minimum lot as 5,000 square feet but the average of all of the lots would have to meet a certain square footage. That would perhaps provide some relief from having a "cookie- cutter" grid. Chairman Cruz stated that would make him more comfortable but there will need to be more discussion and thought from staff. He stated that he just really opposes 5,000 square foot lot sizes as the mass. Chairman Cruz asked what is the regular minimum lot size in residential. Mr. McDonald responded that 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size in an R -1 zone. Chairman Cruz stated that he felt something needed to be done rather than leaving the code alone. Mr. McDonald made a clarification that with the idea of averaging the lot sizes is already somewhat in place with the Planned Density Development. Commissioner Bachart stated that he didn't have a problem with 5,000 square foot lot sizes here and there because some people want a smaller house or smaller yard. The only concern is to have a 20 acre parcel and having it all developed as 5,000 square foot lots. Chairman Cruz added that they don't want to get in the way of developments such as Habitat for Humanity who do a good job and is a win for all, but they simply want to prevent large acres of becoming filled up with 5,000 square foot lots. Chairman Cruz brought the discussion back to Option 1 and stated there is difference between 5,000 and 7,200 square foot lot sizes. Commissioner Polk asked if there could be exceptions built into the code for cases like Habitat for Humanity. Chairman Cruz asked if for those cases a rezone could be done instead. Mr. McDonald answered that they could if the Comprehensive Plan had the site designated for mixed residential but only a few areas would permit R -4, allowing the 5,000 square foot minimum. Commissioner Polk asked if they needed to pick an option before coming back to a public hearing. Chairman Cruz stated that he would recommend that they choose Option 1, increasing the minimum lot size in the R -2 zone to 6,000 square feet, the R -3 zone to 5,500 square feet and leave the R -4 zone at 5,000 square feet. The Planning Commissioners were in agreement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/14 D. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi - Family Zones IMF# CA 2014 -0031 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot size in multi - family zones. Staff provided the Commission with a memo including facts, background and history on lot sizes within the community. at the last workshop there was considerable discussion on this topic and essentially there was a concern in the community relative to developers using multi- family zoning districts to develop subdivisions with smaller lot sizes without thought to design standards. As a result of that a moratorium was established to allow that City time to study the issue and perhaps amend the code if needed. As a result of the previous month's discussion, where the Commission was provided a number of options to consider, the prevalent option was to increase the minimum lot size for single - family homes in the R -2 Zone to 6,000 square feet and 5,500 in the R -3 Zone. There was one correction since the previous meeting related to the R -3 Zone and one suggestion. Mr. McDonald provided clarification on the correction and suggestion. Rick Jansen, 313 Wellsian Way, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He stated that the proposed 5,500 square foot minimum lot size for single - family dwelling units in the R -3 Zone would be fine. They are more concerned about getting the process moving since they are ready to start building on land that this code amendment would apply to. Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of this item. He was in agreement with Mr. Jansen and stated they would like to get the project going and the 5,500 square foot lot minimum would work. With no further discussion the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on minimum lot size in multi- family zoning districts. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for minimum lot size requirements in multi- family zoning districts as discussed and as attached to the August 21, 2014 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 2, 2014 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manag� Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14 SUBJECT: Emergency Powers of Mayor I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Emergency Powers of Mayor — Proposed Ordinance 2. Emergency Powers of Mayor — Current PMC Chapter 2.04 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/8: Discussion 9/15: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending the Pasco Municipal Code regarding Emergency Powers of the Mayor and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Chapter 2.04 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) is outdated, having been originally adopted in 1968. As a result, many of the provisions are in conflict with the state laws regarding firearms and with provisions of both the US and Washington Constitutions as interpreted by the courts. B) In order to make the Emergency Powers provisions in the PMC more consistent with current law, the City Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance which provides for the repeal of the current Chapter 2.04 (attached) and the creation of a new replacement Chapter 2.05. C) The proposed Chapter 2.05 does not purport to regulate firearms contrary to state or Constitutional law; nor does it attempt to regulate the right of assembly. Powers to deal with emergencies, more consistent with our current environment, are enumerated. In addition, the ordinance provides for ratification by the City Council of both declarations of emergencies and the actions taken in response thereto, at the earliest meeting of the Council following such declaration or action. V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. • • 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Repealing Chapter 2.04 "Emergency Powers of Mayor "; and Creating a New Chapter 2.05 "Emergency Powers" Establishing the Powers and Procedures for the Declaration of an Emergency WHEREAS, the Code needs to be amended to be consistent with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution Article 1, Section 24, relating to the right of individual citizens to bear anus; and WHEREAS, the State has preempted firearm's regulations pursuant to RCW 9.41.290; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the Code to include additional provisions for continuity of government consistent with RCW 42.14.050; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to do everything within its power during an emergency to promote the health, welfare and safety of its citizens, and to provide for the continuity of government; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 2.04 entitled "Emergency Powers of Mayor" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is repealed in its entirety. Section 2. That Chapter 2.05 entitled "Emergency Powers" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: Chanter 2.05 EMERGENCY POWERS Sections: 2.05.010 Proclamation of civil emergency — Emergency defined. 2.05.020 Action which may be taken. 2.05.030 Delivery to news media. 2.05.040 Continuity of Government. 2.05.050 Violation — Penalty. 2.05.010 PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY — EMERGENCY DEFINED. Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 1 A) Whenever a civil emergency, or the imminent threat thereof, occurs in the City and results in, or threatens to result in the death or injury of persons or the destruction of or damage to property to such extent as to require, in the judgment of the Mayor, extraordinary measures to protect the public peace, safety and welfare, the Mayor shall forthwith proclaim in writing the existence of a civil emergency. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tern may declare a civil emergency and issue orders, and in the absence of the Mayor Pro Tem, the City Manager may declare a civil emergency and issue orders. The authority granted to the Mayor in this Chapter is in addition to and not in limitation of other policies allowing the Mayor to declare an emergency and take action necessary to deal with such emergency. For the purposes of this chapter a civil emergency shall mean: 1) A riot, unlawful assembly, insurrection, enemy attack, sabotage, or other hostile action; or 2) A natural or human caused disaster, including fire, flood, storm, explosion, earthquake, volcanic disturbance or other natural cause; or 3) Any emergency or disaster as defined by RCW 38.52.010. B) Proclamations of civil emergencies issued by the Mayor shall as soon as practicable, be filed with the City Clerk and presented to the City Council for ratification and confirmation, modification or rejection. Proclamations which are rejected shall, after vote, be void. Proclamations shall be considered in full force and effect until the City Council shall act. 2.05.020 ACTION WHICH MAY BE TAKEN. A) Upon the proclamation of a civil emergency by the Mayor, and during the existence of such emergency the Mayor may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders: 1) An order imposing a general curfew application to the City as a whole, or to such geographical area or areas of the City and during such hours as he deems necessary, and from time to time to modify the hours such curfew will be in effect and the area or areas to which it will apply. 2) An order requiring all business establishments within the geographic area impacted by the civil emergency to close and remain closed until further order. 3) An order requiring the closure of any or all bars, taverns, liquor stores and other business establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold or otherwise dispensed; provided, that with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages and in which such alcoholic beverages may be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof utilized for the sale of items other than alcoholic beverages may, in the discretion of the Mayor, be allowed to remain open. Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 2 4) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank property affixed to a motor vehicle. 5) An order closing to the public any or all public places, including streets, alleys, public ways, schools, parks, beaches, amusement areas and public buildings. 6) An order waiving the public works competitive bidding requirements and awarding contracts to address the emergency situation in accordance with RCW Chapters 38.52 and 39.04, and waiving other time- consuming procedures and formalities consistent with RCW 38.52.070(2). 7) An order directing the use of all public and private health, medical and convalescent facilities and equipment to provide emergency health and medical care for injured persons. 8) An order authorizing, in cooperation with utility management and appropriate State and Federal agencies, the shutting off, restoration, and operation of utility services in accordance with priorities established for combating such civil emergency. 9) An order providing for the evacuation and reception of the population of the City or any part thereof. 10) Such other orders as are immediately necessary for the protection of life and property. B) Provided, however, that any such orders shall, at the regular or special meeting of the City Council next following the date the orders are issued, be presented to the City Council or ratification and confirmation by Resolution of the City Council, and if not so ratified and confirmed shall be of no further effect. Provided further, in the event an order is issued under subparagraph (6) above, then the Mayor shall also make a finding that an emergency existed within two (2) weeks from the date the order was issued and post the contract and findings on the City's website. If the City's website is down due to the emergency, then the Mayor shall take reasonable steps to notify the public of the award of the contract and the substance of his findings in accordance with the State law. 2.05.030 DELIVERY TO NEWS MEDIA. The Mayor shall cause any proclamation issued by him pursuant to the authority of this chapter to be delivered to all news media within Benton and Franklin counties and shall utilize such other available means, including public address systems, as shall be necessary, in his judgment, to give notice of such proclamations to the public. 2.05.040 CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT. In the event that the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tern are unavailable by reason of civil emergency to exercise the powers and Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 3 discharge the duties of the office, then those members of the City Council available for duty shall by majority vote, select one of their members to act as the executive head of the City. 2.05.050 VIOLATION — PENALTY. It is unlawful for anyone to fail or refuse to obey any such order proclaimed by the Mayor. Anyone convicted of a violation of this chapter is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Section 3. 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 4. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this _ day of 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor Attest: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 4 Approved as to Form: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney CHAPTER 2.04 EMERGENCY POWERS OF MAYOR Sections: 2.04.010 PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY... .................................................. 4 2.04.020 ORDERS PROCLAIMED DURING EMERGENCY ...... ..............................4 2.04.030 PUBLICIZING PROCLAMATIONS .......................... ..............................5 2.04.040 REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDER - PENALTY ................ ..............................5 2.04.010 PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY. Whenever riot, unlawful assembly, or insurrection, or the imminent threat thereof, occur in the City and result in, or threaten to result in, the death or injury of persons or the destruction of property to such extent as to require, in the judgment of the Mayor, extraordinary measures to protect the public peace, safety and welfare, the Mayor shall forthwith proclaim in writing the existence of public danger or emergency. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 1, 1968.) 2.04.020 ORDERS PROCLAIMED DURING EMERGENCY. Upon the proclamation of public danger or emergency by the Mayor, and during the existence of such public danger or emergency, the Mayor may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders: A) An order imposing a general curfew applicable to the City as a whole, or to such geographical area or areas of the City and during such hours, as he deems necessary, coupled with the authority to use such force or control as is necessary to prohibit unlawful traffic in any such area, and from time to time to modify the hours such curfew will be in effect and the area or areas to which it will apply; B) An order requiring any or all business establishments to close and remain closed until further order; C) An order requiring the closure of any or all bars, taverns, liquor stores, and other business establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold or otherwise dispensed; provided that with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages and in which such alcoholic beverages may be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof utilized for the sale of items other than alcoholic beverages may, in the discretion of the Mayor, be allowed to remain open; D) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of alcoholic beverages in any or all parts of the City; E) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of firearms and /or ammunition for firearms in any or all parts of the City; F) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away of gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank property affixed to a motor vehicle; G) An order requiring the closure of any or all business establishments where firearms and /or ammunition for firearms are sold or otherwise dispensed, provided that with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily devoted to the sale of firearms and /or ammunition and in which such firearms and /or ammunition may PMC Title 2 12/16/13 4 be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof utilized for the sale of items other than firearms and ammunition may, in the discretion of the Mayor, be allowed to remain open; H) An order closing to the public any or all public places including streets, alleys, public ways, schools, parks, beaches, amusement areas, and public buildings; I) An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives, inflammable materials or liquids, or any instrument or other dangerous weapon which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm, provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties; J) An order prohibiting the assembly or meetings of three or more persons without permission given by the Chief of Police of the City; K) Such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and property; provided, however, than any such orders shall, at the earliest practicable time, be presented to the City Council for ratification and confirmation, and if not so ratified and confirmed shall be void. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 2, 1968.) 2.04.030 PUBLICIZING PROCLAMATIONS. The Mayor shall cause any proclamation issued by him pursuant to the authority of this chapter to be delivered to all news media within the City and shall utilize such other available means, including public address systems, as shall be necessary, in his judgment, to give notice of such proclamations to the public. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 3, 1968.) 2.04.040 REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDER - PENALTY. It is unlawful for anyone to fail or refuse to obey any such order proclaimed by the Mayor. Anyone convicted of a violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 4, 1968.) PMC Title 2 12/16/13 5 AGENDA REPORT NO. 20 FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manage FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Publi orks Director SUBJECT: Road 76 Local Improvement District I. REFERENCE(S): August 26, 2014 Workshop Mtg.: 09/08/2014 Regular Mtg.: 09/15/2014 1. Road 76 Local Improvement District — Map of the proposed Local Improvements District 2. Road 76 Local Improvement District — Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 09/08: Discussion 09/15: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. relating to public improvements; declaring the City's intention to order the improvements of Road 76 (Wrigley/Walmart Property Line) and to create a Local Improvement District to assess a portion of the cost and expense of carrying out those improvements against the property specially benefited thereby; and, notifying all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held on October 6, 2014. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Road 76 (Burden Blvd. to Sandifur Blvd.) has been improved and widened in segments as the properties have been developed. The recent frontage improvements were completed as part of the library development. B) This portion of Road 76 is approximately 2560 feet, and the portion of Road 76 that does not have frontage is approximately 505 feet or 20% of the segment. C) With the opening of the new library and general growth of traffic, the missing half street starting at Wrigley Street south, has created potential safety concerns. There are more left turn movements at the intersection of Wrigley and Road 76. The missing half street has created an offset roadway potentially confusing drivers. D) Staff has evaluated the needed improvements and completed the necessary design to complete the improvements. The project was identified in the CIP list. E) Staff has started discussions with property owner Mr. Tom Kidwell and his plans to complete the frontage improvements. Mr. Kidwell indicated there is no potential of property development in the near future. He sees and understands the city's concerns. F) Mr. Kidwell requested to take the project through an LID process. V. DISCUSSION: A) The need to complete the frontage along Mr. Kidwell's property is immediate. B) Mr. Kidwell has proposed to use LID to complete the project. C) Staff has completed the design for the improvements. Staff recommends approval of the resolution for Road 76 LID. 8(e) CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE UMPROVEMENTS; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE Il1IPROVEMENTS OF ROAD 76 (WRIGLEY TO WALMART PROPERTY LINE) TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT TO ASSESS THE COST AND EXPENSE OF CARRYING OUT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITTED THEREBY; AND, NOTIFYING ALL PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO OBJECT TO THE IMPROVEMENTS TO APPEAR AND PRESENT THEIR OBJECTIONS AT A HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 2014. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, as follows: Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, to order the improvement of the property within the area described in Exhibit B, by the improvement of Road 76 (Wrigley to Walmart property line). The improvements are more fully described in Exhibit A, and completing a half street that includes road widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain system and street lighting (collectively, the "Improvements "). The referenced exhibits A and B are attached hereto and by this reference made a part hero£ All of the foregoing Improvements shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications therefore prepared by the City Engineer of the City and may be modified by the City as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the improvements. Section 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the Improvements is declared to be $200,000, of which an estimated $200,000 shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by the Improvements to be included in a local improvement district to be established and embracing as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the Improvements. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the Improvements add to the property. Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed herein for the public hearing to each owner or reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local improvement district by mailing such notice at least fifteen days before the date fixed for public hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the Franklin County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law. This resolution also shall be published in its entirety in at least two consecutive issues of the official newspaper of the City, the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to the date fixed herein for the public hearing. Section 4. All persons who may desire to object to the Improvements are notified to appear and present those objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 525 N. 3" Ave., Pasco, Washington, at 7 :00 p.m. on October 6, 2014, which time and place are fixed for hearing all matters relating to the Improvements and all objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the Improvements. All persons who object thereto should appear and present their objections at that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council may do so within 30 days after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the Improvements in the event the local improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the property owner and should include the legal description of the property for which the protest is filed and that protest should be delivered to the City Clerk. Section 5. The City Engineer is directed to submit to the City Council on or prior to October 6, 2014, all data and information required by law to be submitted. The foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof this 6th day of October, 2104. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney �,c11 R NOIS1738 • Y�, AGM NOILOM ONV NY-W ; 646£ —S4S (60G) _ P 0NI833N10N3 — SNNOM 0116f1d 0.7SNd do Aiij '�� 9& co ODSVd A ALIO ONINBOM 9L GVOU $ a _.. °°I- it 1 ` k� 08 9 S g CT— { 4 1 / I 11 / 88 a I $ 84 I R"1 I. i� u . . _ N ;4 1", b yF� v5 $ Po Y w k6I& # GI G z S z w Kr Q j "1! I. w = 1 I LLJ I A L I CY E a Q Ci I • q I OM ff if AIN a Ng �s DWI III YSFE.' K I fl IT� WH VON �4 a �..II $ o s --- }TCiTT�ZI - - -1 — .— _____ __ i r - - - -- -- - - - --- — — Y —> x- 1- -__— ry i I 9 yT.- 8 d 1333 I i \ ..� 1 ..._ .. l I 1 WILD, .._.Y_.. ... NOI1HA3�3 �! r �,_ i �" AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 9, 2014 Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director KI FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner �C' SUBJECT: Rogers Annexation (MF# ANX2014 -002) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Rogers Annexation - Overview Map 2. Rogers Annexation - Vicinity Map 3. Rogers Annexation - Proposed Resolution 4. Rogers Annexation - Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/15/14: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , accepting a Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceedings for the Rogers Annexation Area and providing a determination on the boundary, zoning and indebtedness related thereto. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Richard and Carel Rogers, owners of property in the 7100 block of West Argent Road, have filed a Notice of Intent to commence the process of annexing to the City. B. The Notice of Intent has been reviewed by staff, and has been determined to contain sufficient signatures to initiate the annexation process. Notices of Intent are required to contain the signatures of property owners representing at least 10 percent of the assessed value of an area proposed for annexation. In this case, the Rogers signatures represent 100 percent of the ownership. C. The Council reviewed the Notice of Intent during a workshop on August 1 Vh, a regular meeting on September 2nd and a workshop on September 8`h. IV. DISCUSSION: A. The petition method of annexation requires the Council to hold a public meeting upon receipt of a notice of intent to begin the annexation to determine: 1) Whether the city will accept or require modification of the proposed annexation area; 2) Whether the city will require simultaneous adoption of zoning; and, 3) Whether the city will require the property to assume all or a portion of existing city indebtedness. The proposed resolution has been prepared following past practices of accepting the proposed annexation area without requiring simultaneous zoning or the assumption of bonded indebtedness. Zoning will be established following property owner notification and a public hearing held (by the Planning Commission) separately from a Council hearing on the future annexation. 8(f) In yyyym I 1 -1 ai ail 4 NO "IP LU FM 1 -1 ai ail NO "IP RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A NOTICE OF INTENT (TEN PERCENT PETITION) TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS, PROVIDING A DETERMINATION ON THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED AND WHETHER SIMULTANEOUS ZONING AND THE ASSUMPTION OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE REQUIRED. WHEREAS, the owners of property in the 7100 Block of the West Argent Road have filed a Notice of Intent to annex to the City of Pasco; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has reviewed the Notice of Intent and has determined annexation of the territory would support the provision of municipal services within the Pasco Urban Growth Area and is in the best interest of the Pasco community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A) That the City will accept the proposed territory to be annexed as described in Exhibit "1" and depicted in Exhibit "2" attached hereto. B) That the territory to be annexed will not require simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations. Zoning will be determined through a public hearing process with input from affected property owners. C) That the annexation area will not be required to assume any portion of existing City bonded indebtedness. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 15`" day of September, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney EXHIBIT "1" Annexation Legal Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 2, Short Plat 2004 -11, said corner being the True Point of Beginning; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 2 and the east line Lot 1, Short Plat 2004 -11 to the intersection with the north right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence southerly along the southerly projection of the east line of said Lot 1 to the intersection with the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence westerly along the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road to the intersection with the centerline of Road 72; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the centerline of Road 72 to the intersection with the north right -of -way line of West Argent Road, said intersection also being on the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.; Thence northerly along said west line to the intersection with the north line of the FCID Canal; Thence easterly along the north line of the FCID Canal to the intersection with the northerly projection of the east line of Lot 2, Short Plat 2001 -11; Thence southerly along said northerly projection of the east line of said Lot 2 to the Point of Beginning. EXHIBIT # 2 Rogers Annexation N w Z City Limits a - -- w I 7EY �i 7WP VAL I 77 I �O FCID R/W I o\ �o w CP U 7- 0 o - -- - W. ARGENT RD City Limits NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEDURES TO: The City Council of the City of Pasco 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Council Members: The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Pasco that it is the desire of the undersigned owners of the following area to commence annexation proceedings. The property herein referred to is described on Exhibit "1" attached hereto and is depicted on Exhibit "2" further attached hereto. It is requested that the City Council of the City of Pasco set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation; and, (2) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and, (3) Whether the City Council will require simultaneous zoning 1 1. Please print your name in addition to signing. NAME ADDRESS DATE EXHIBIT "1" Annexation Legal Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 2, Short Plat 2004 -11, said corner being the True Point of Beginning; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 2 and the east line Lot 1, Short Plat 2004 -11 to the intersection with the north right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence southerly along the southerly projection of the east line of said Lot 1 to the intersection with the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road; Thence westerly along the south right -of -way line of West Argent Road to the intersection with the centerline of Road 72; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the centerline of Road 72 to the intersection with the north right -of -way line of West Argent Road, said intersection also being on the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.; Thence northerly along said west line to the intersection with the north line of the FCID Canal; Thence easterly along the north line of the FCID Canal to the intersection with the northerly projection of the east line of Lot 2, Short Plat 2001 -11; Thence southerly along said northerly projection of the east line of said Lot 2 to the Point of Beginning.