Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015.09.14 Council Workshop Packet
Page 3-12 13-29 30-35 36-41 42-45 46-51 52-56 57-64 Workshop Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. September 14, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Agreement with Franklin County Fire District No. 3 regarding Asset Transfers and Exchange of Services (b) 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Work Plan and Allocations (MF# BGAP2015-003) (c) 2016 HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation (MF# BGAP2015-004) (d) 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Annual Work Plan Allocation (MF# BGAP 2015-005) (e) Charter Cable Franchise Extension (f) National Citizen's Survey (g) Water System Overview Presentation Presented by Derek Wiitala, Public Works Division Manager (h) Professional Services Agreement for the Construction Management and Inspection Services of the Primary Clarifier Upgrade Project (i) Parking Ordinance Revision - W. Pearl Street and N. 3rd Avenue 5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Page 1 of 64 Workshop Meeting September 14, 2015 (a) Discuss Litigation or Potential Litigation with Legal Counsel 7. ADJOURNMENT. REMINDERS: 8:00 a.m. - Noon, Saturday September 12, Farmers Market - Fiery Farmer's Market Festival. 4:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m., Saturday, September 12, Downtown Pasco - Fiery Foods Festival. 11:30 a.m., Friday, September 18 — Benton -Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psetvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Page 2 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 4, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 FROM: Bob Gear, Fire Chief Fire Department SUBJECT: Agreement with Franklin County Fire District No. 3 Regarding Asset Transfers and Exchange of Services I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Interlocal Agreement (Revised) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Fiscal to be determined. The agreement provides that the City and Fire District will exchange services and transfer some assets to equal advantage in order to better serve their respective jurisdictions as a result of the annexation of the Road 80 area. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Council considered and approved the initial version of the Interlocal Agreement at the meetings of 6/22/15 and 7/6/15. It was the City's understanding that the Fire District was prepared to approve and execute the agreement shortly thereafter. Legal counsel for the District had some questions and concerns about the document, which have now been fully resolved and the District has executed the agreement. While some minor changes have been made, the essentials of the agreement remain the same (except as noted with *) as described in the original agenda report which follows below. In anticipation of the July 1 annexation of the Road 80 area, the City and Fire District entered into discussions, and later negotiations, to consider the impacts of the contemplated annexation on each jurisdiction and to consider ways to work cooperatively in the transition of services and beyond. The annexation of the Road 80 area presents unique challenges and opportunities for the District as well as the City. The proposed agreement provides for a transfer of assets in accordance with State law and an exchange of services between the City and District as follows: Page 3 of 64 District to provide: 1. Transfer ownership of Road 48 Fire Station to City (* transfer to occur within 90 days of effective date of agreement as opposed to original 60 days). 2. Transfer ownership of a water tender (* specifications were originally "TBD," the vehicle is now identified in an attachment to the agreement) to City. 3. Automatic aid services at no cost to City for: Water tender response Breathing air support Wildland fire support Other services as agreed by mutual consent. City to provide: 1. Automatic Advanced Emergency Medical Services (AEMS) at no cost to District. 2. * That patients treated and/or transported in/from the District shall be billed at the non-resident rate to the extent such services are billable. 3. One time payment of an amount calculated as the difference between the cost of water tender (TBD) and prior AEMS services provided by City and * claimed as costs to District. * In addition, the agreement has been supplemented with more complete dispute resolution language [see II(I)], while a prior section including a cost schedule for services has been removed. V. DISCUSSION: Staff believes the agreement, which represents the settlement of prior issues between the City and the Fire District, while establishing mutually beneficial automatic aid for needed services, represents a win-win for both jurisdictions and recommends approval. The acquisition of the Road 48 Fire station also provides the backbone of a valuable option to the City as it works its way through the Washington State Rating Bureau evaluation of the City's fire rating update later this year. Page 4 of 64 Interlocal Agreement Between Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and the City of Pasco, concerning the exchange of services and the transfer of assets due to the Annexation of the Road 80 Area to the City THIS AGREEMENTis made and entered into this day of , 2015, by the Franklin County Fire District No. 3 ("District") and the City of Pasco ("City"), collectively referenced to as the "Parties"; pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. WHEREAS, certain territories of the District are located within the Urban Growth Area of the City and some of said territories are bounded on all sides by the City; and WHEREAS,District provides fire protection and basic emergency medical services (BEMS) to properties within the District and City provides fire protection and advanced emergency medical services (AEMS) to properties within the City; and WHEREAS, the District and City have determined that the transfer of assets and exchange of services is a reasonable way to efficiently and fairly provide for the transfer of jurisdiction from the District to the City while maintaining service levels and conserving taxpayer resources in anticipation of the annexation of the Road 80 Area by the City; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to fonnalize their understanding and agreements in conjunction with the annexation process; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, the District and City agree as follows: 1. Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to provide for the exchange of services between the District and the City and for the transfer of certain assets, pursuant to law, due to the annexation of the Road 80 Area by the City. 2. Effective Date and Term: This Agreement shall become effective on , 2015 and shall continue in force until terminated by mutual agreement or until either of the Parties gives advance written notice of termination of not Interlocal Agreement — Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and City of PascoB/21/15 Page i Page 5 of 64 less than one year. Such notice of termination may not be given within the first Five years of this agreement, except for cause.The Parties agree to review the terms, conditions and services covered by this agreement at least once every Five years beginning with the effective date. Renewal term negotiations should commence six months prior to the expiration of the above terms. 3. District Agrees to: A. Transfer the fee title ownership of its Fire Station on Road 48 (Exhibit "B") to City, within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement "as is" with no warranties. Transfer shall be in consideration and full satisfaction of District's obligation to transfer a pro -rata share of its assets to City, per RCW 35A.14.400, pursuant to City's annexation of the Road 80 Area. B. Transfer of ownership of a water tender, the final specifications as per the current bird specifications that were provided to the District (any additional charges to be paid by the City),as additional consideration as provided in Section 4.B. as full settlement of the dispute between the Parties of the previous HEMS services provided by the City to the District residents. The City acknowledges receipt of the attached letter from the Stateof Washington, Department of Enterprise Services, and agrees to accept transfer of ownership of the water tender pursuant to the terms of that letter. C. Become a signatory agency to the local Automatic Aid Agreement in a form acceptable to the District and provide, when available, automatic aid services to the City at no cost for: Nater tender response; 2. Breathing air support; Wild land fire support; and 4. Such other like services as agreed to by the Fire Chiefs of the Parties. 4. City Agrees to: A. Provide automatic aid services at no cost to District for: 1. Advanced emergency medical services. Interlocal Agreement — Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and City of Pasco8121115 Page 2 Page 6 of 64 2. For billable transport services, the City shall bill patients treated and/or transported in/from the District at the nonresident rate. B. Make payment to the District in an amount which represents the difference between the claimed costs of AEMS services as provided by the City to the District residents {up to the date of the execution of this Agreement}, and the final cost of the water tender, which amount shall be determined at the time of final billing for the water tender.. S. Annexation Contingency: This Agreement anticipates the effective date of the Road 80 Area Annexation to be July 1, 2015. In the event that the annexation, for any cause whatsoever, is deemed to be invalid, this Agreement shall immediately be terminated and of no force and effect. 6. Indemnification: A. The District shall indemnify and hold the City and its agents, employees, and/or officers, harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits, at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, damages, or costs, of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the City arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the execution of this Agreement and/or the District's performance or failure to perform any aspect of this Agreement; provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the District; and, provided further, that nothing herein shall require the District to hold harmless or defend the City, its agents, employees and/or officers from any claims arising from the sole negligence of the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers. No liability shall attach to the City by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. B. The City shall indemnify and hold the District and its agents, employees, and/or officers, harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits, at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, damages, or costs, of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the District arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the execution of this Agreement and/or the City's performance or failure to perform any aspect of this Agreement; provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the District, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Interlocal Agreement — Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and City of Pasco3/21115 Page 3 Page 7 of 64 City; and provided further, that nothing herein shall require the City to hold harmless or defend the District, its agents, employees and/or officers from any claims arising from the sole negligence of the District, its agents, employees, and/or officers. No liability shall attach to the District by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. 7. Waiver of Subroaation: The District and the City hereby mutually release each other from liability and waive all right of recovery against each other for any loss caused by fire or other perils which can be insured against under fire insurance contract including any extended coverage endorsements thereto which are customarily available from time to time in the State of Washington, provided, that this paragraph shall be inapplicable to the extent that it would have the effect of invalidating any insurance coverage of the District or the City. 8. Compliance with Regulations and Laws:The Parties shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to them in connection with the matters covered herein. 9. Assignment:The Parties shall not assign this Agreement or any interest, obligation or duty therein without the express written consent of the other Party. 10. Attorney's Fees:If either Party shall be required to bring any action to enforce any provision of this Agreement, or shall be required to defend any action brought by the other Party with respect to this Agreement, and in the further event that one Party shall substantially prevail in such action, the losing Party shall, in addition to all other payments required therein, pay all of the prevailing Party's reasonable costs in connection with such action, including such sums as the court or courts may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees in the trial court and in any appellate courts. 11. Miscellaneous Provisions: A. All of the covenants, conditions and agreements in this Agreement shall extend to and bind the legal successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. B. This Agreement shall be deemed to be made and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. C. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, no separate legal entity is created hereby, as each of the Parties is contracting in its capacity as a Interlocal Agreement — Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and City of Pasco8/21/15 Page 4 Page 8 of 64 municipal corporation of the State of Washington. The identity of the Parties hereto is as set forth herein above. D. The performances of the duties of the Parties provided hereby shall be done in accordance with standard operating procedures and customary practices of the Parties. E. The oversight and administration of the Agreement shall be done by the Fire Chiefs of the respective Parties. F. No provision of this Agreement shall relieve either Party of its public agency obligations and/or responsibilities imposed by law. G. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable by a final decision of any court having jurisdiction on the matter, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in fill force and effect, unless such court determines that such invalidity or unenforceability materially interferes with or defeats the purposes hereof, at which time the City and/or District shall have the right to terminate the Agreement. H. This Agreement is contingent upon the District becoming a signatory to the local Automatic Aid Agreement. 1. In the event of a dispute arising regarding the breach, interpretation, or enforcement of this Agreement, the Parties shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, either with or without the assistance of mediation, as the Parties may agree. In the event the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute by agreement, the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04Awith both Parties waiving the right of a jury trial upon trial de novo, with venue placed in Pasco, Franklin County, Washington. The substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs as additional award and judgment against the other. J. Copies of this Agreement shall be filed with the Franklin County Auditor's Office or posted on the websites of the respective Parties. Interlocal ,hgreentent — Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and City of PascoMl/15 Pagc 5 Page 9 of 64 IN WITNESS TIEREOF, the Parties have signed this Agreement. CITY OF PASCO FRANKLIN COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 3 o Dave Zabell, City Manager Ron Shtick, Commission Chair ATTEST: Debbie Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lee Kerr, City Attorney ATTEST: 116(L �1/& �'� Heidi Ellerd, Commission Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1�b l�4 d Heidi Ellerd, District Attorney interlocal Agreement — Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and City of PascoS!? 111 S Page G Page 10 of 64 Attachment B STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT CP ENTERPRISE SERVICES 7511 New Market Simal, T'amwater, WA 98501 PO Sor41030. Ofym&, WA 98504-1030 August 20, 2015 Mike Harris Franklin Co. FD #3 7805 Road 36 N Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Transfer of Fire Tender Dear Chief Harris: Thank you for the letter requesting permission to transfer one of your fire tenders to the City of Pasco Fire Department. The truck under consideration is: 1. 1989 M923A2 Cargo Truck, VIN: IOOIAA275 Inv. #16-1-42080 Item #: 3-0346-2 Based on agreement from the City of Pasco, the Department of Enterprise Services will approve the transfer of this vehicle. Franklin County Fire District ##3 shall assume no further responsibility for this vehicle upon the transfer. The City of Pasco agrees to accept the responsibility for this vehicle and agrees to meet the following requirements: 1. City of Pasco will become the donee agency on record for this property and shall maintain custody of this truck until all the terms & conditions have been met in respect to compliance. 2. City of Pasco will be responsible for completing any and all compliance reviews as well as being the donee on record if something should happen to the truck. 3. The truck will be put into service within 12 months of this transfer. once in use, the City of Pasco will be required to use the vehicle for an additional 18 months before the title shall pass. Thank you for your participation in the Federal Surplus Personal Property Program. Please to not hesitate to give us a call if you feel that we may be of any further assistance. Sincerely, David Baker Program Manager cc: Bob Gear, Fire Chief, City of Pasco Page 12 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Angie Pitman, Urban Development Coordinator Community & Economic Development September 8, 2015 Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 SUBJECT: 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Work Plan and Allocations (MF# BGAP2015-003) I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution - Based on Planning Commission Recommendation 2016 CDBG Fund Summary Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 7/30/15 and 8/20/15 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: CDBG Entitlement for 2016 is estimated at $665,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A Request for Proposals for 2016 CDBG funds was published in the Tri -City Herald and Tu Decides newspapers in June. Fourteen (14) requests were received totaling $1,552,500. The Planning Commission held public hearings and discussion on July 23 and August 20, 2015. The public hearings solicited public comment on any application for funding, or reallocation for the City of Pasco 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. At the public hearings, fifteen (15) presentations were made relating to proposed activities. V. DISCUSSION: Page 13 of 64 Staff presented recommendations for funding at the August 20, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding recommendations as amended reducing the Downtown Fagade Improvement Program by $10,000, Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro enterprises Program by $5,000, and Downtown Revitalization Safety Improvements by $10,000 and recommending Benton Franklin Community Action Committee Second Chance Center (Regional Day Center for Homeless) (SCC) be funded at $25,000. There is always some question regarding funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available funding for these FY 2016 activities will remain in question until the early part of 2016 when the award is made. Staff recommends all projects not recommended for whole or partial funding be put in the 2016 annual action plan as a contingency projects should funds become available. An amendment to the Annual Action Plan would be necessary to allocate unobligated funds to any project not in the plan. If funding levels are lower than estimated, activity funding will be reallocated prior to submission of the plan. Based on Council discussion of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the appropriate resolution will be returned for Council action. Page 14 of 64 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION approving the Program Year 2016 Community Development Block Grant Allocations and Annual Work Plan. WHEREAS, staff has prepared the Program Year 2016 Annual Work Plan for activities totaling $665,000 from estimated entitlement; Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the Annual Work Plan as follows: Activity CDBG Program Administration Civic Center -Youth Recreation Specialist Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Program Downtown Fagade Improvement Program (Service Area) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Small Businesses (Job Creation) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Microenterprises (Businesses) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements Flooring Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements & Farade Second Chance Center (SCC) - Contingent Peanuts Park Restoration — Phase I Design Code Enforcement Officer Downtown Revitalization and Safety Improvements - Contingent Sidewalk Construction - Contingent TOTAL Funding $120,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $72,000.00 $15,000.00 $25,000.00 $125,000.00 $48,000.00 $90,000.00 0 $665,000.00 Section 2. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves unfunded and partially funded projects above as contingencies in the annual action plan. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2015. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Page 15 of 64 Attachment 12016 CDBG Fund Summary BGAP 2015-003 9.14.15 Planning Commission Meeting Proposal -Recommendations Activity Non CDBG Agency Staff PC Council Table3Desc I Goal/ I priority RISK Match Request Recommend Recommend Approve Strategy CDBG Program Administration $ - $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 CDBG funds provide for salary and benefits for the Block Grant All All 1 Administrator to plan, administer and provide for the Civic Center -Youth Recreation Specialist $ 45,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for 3.2 B2 3 recreation specialist at the Youth Civic Center. This facility's Martin Luther King Community Center $ 100,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for 3.2 B2 3 Recreation Specialist recreation specialist at the Martin Luther King Center. This Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist $ 200,500.00 $37,500.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for 3.2 B2 3 recreation specialist to oversee and operate program at YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center $ 20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 CDBG funds provide YMCA recreation programs at the Martin 3.2 B2 3 Recreation Program Luther King Center. This facility's program is coordinated with Downtown Fagade Improvement Program $ 25,000.00 $90,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 CDBG funds support downtown businesses with fagade 2.2 Al 3 (Service Area) improvements (Census Tract 202). Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Small Businesses (Job $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 CDBG funds provide for continued operations of the Pasco 2.1 A2 3 Creation) Specialty Kitchen, a certified commercial incubator kitchen. By Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Microenterprises $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $30,000.00 $25,000.00 CDBG funds provide for continued operations of the Pasco 2.3 A2 3 (Businesses) Specialty Kitchen, a certified commercial incubator kitchen. By Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility $ $72,000.00 $72,000.00 $72,000.00 CDBG funds are requested for facility improvements at the 2.7 Al 4 Improvements Flooring Pasco Specialty Kitchen. Install flooring. Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility $ - $55,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 CDBG funds are requested for facade improvements at the 2.7 Al 4 Improvements & Fagade Pasco Specialty Kitchen. Install awnings, patch/paint/repair Second Chance Center (SCC) $ 143,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 CDBG funds are requested for facilility improvements for 3.3 Al 3 homeless shelter. Peanuts Park Restoration $ 100,000.00 $400,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 CDBG funds are requested for rehabilitation of Peanuts Park 2.8 Al 2 facility. Code Enforcement Officer $ 200,500.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for 1.1 Al 0 one of four code enforcement officers to help bring Downtown Revitalization and Safety $ 150,000.00 $250,000.00 $100,000.00 $90,000.00 CDBG funds are requested to make area -wide safety 2.4 Al 2 Improvements - Contingent improvements in the Pasco downtown revitalization area Sidewalk Construction -Contingent $ 50,000.00 $250,000.00 CDBG funds are requested to construct new sidewalks where 2.6 Al 2 they are missing to provide a link to existing sidewalks, and Proposals Received $1,135,000.00 $1,552,500.00 $665,000.00 $665,000.00 $0.00 Estimated Entitlement 2016 (Based on 2015 award) Recommended Surplus/(Deficit) v u� CD rn 0 $665,000.00 $665,000.00 $665,000.00 $665,000.00 $665,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $665,000.00 9/2015, 2:35 PM Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/30/15 A. Block Grant 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that this is an annual process where citizens and groups can apply for funding through three sources: CDBG, HOME and NSP. Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the Community Development Block Grant program and history and gave a brief Power Point presentation. Pasco receives their entitlement of funds by meeting standards set by HUD. During the presentation, Ms. Pitman discussed the three goals that were updated in the updated Five Year Consolidated Plan. In order to be funded, an activity must meet one of the three goals. The City can carry out CDBG programs either as the recipient of the funds with house staff or consultant and contractors or by selecting subrecipients to carry out these activities. All activities that are funded have to meet specific criteria. The project has to benefit low to moderate income persons in Pasco, it has to meet eligibility criteria, it has to be a goal or objective in the Five Year Consolidated Plan, meet local needs as defined by the City of Pasco's Resolution No. 1969 and the subrecipient has to be able to demonstrate capacity and the project has to be feasible. In 1991, Council passed Resolution No. 1969 that designated the Planning Commission as the advisory committee and Council set goals and priorities. Ms. Pitman explained the types of activities that were and were not allowable. Mr. White added that there are many activities allowable under CDBG but due to Council policy and Resolution No. 1969 set the parameters for what the City will fund. Ms. Pitman went on to explain that the request for proposals were advertised in local papers in English and Spanish, and directly mailed to recipients who have received grant funds in the past five years. Items recommended for funding will form the basis for the 2016 Annual Action Plan that is submitted to HUD for approval. The 2016 Work Plan will represent the second year of the Consolidated Plan. Based on last years' entitlement, staff estimates $665,000 will be available for funding. Program income if received and prior year's activities that don't move forward will be reallocated for 2016 as they are received. Commissioner Bowers asked how program income is generated. Ms. Pitman answered that there are some funds that provide rehabilitation of housing and as those old loans are repaid they come back to the City to be reused on CDBG eligible activities. Ms. Pitman continued discussing the request for proposals. Fourteen (14) Page 17 of 64 applications were received for a total of $1,552,500 which leaves a total deficit of ($887,500) from the funds available. Activities are funded based on the priorities, goals and risk factors. With no further comments that applicants can present their application in the public hearing. Chairman Cruz reminded the Commissioners are to look for eligibility and viability. Michael Goins, 403 W. Lewis Street, presented on behalf of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority. They are requesting funds for the Facade Improvement Program to help revitalize the downtown. This year with the increased activity in downtown, there is more interest in this program. He is requested $90,000 to tackle 5 projects at $15,000 per project and the remaining $15,000 would go towards a project manager and consultant fees. He briefly discussed how he would carry out the program. Currently there is 1 business owner going through the program right now. Vierra's Bakery was a successful project that used this program. Chairman Cruz asked how many businesses have used this program in the past. Mr. Goins responded one facade every two years but it has been slow for various reasons but he feels there is a much better system in place at this time. Commissioner Bowers asked if he has received CDBG funds for this in the past and if it's a renewal. Mr. Goins replied yes. Steve Howland, 1234 Columbia Park Trail, Richland, spoke on behalf of the YMCA of the Greater Tri -Cities and he explained that he is requesting funds for the Martin Luther King Center in Kurtzman Neighborhood of Pasco. Last year was the first year they started receiving CDBG to assist with operational costs to keep their doors open after they lost their funding from the United Way. Roughly 500 kids utilize this center, participating in the after school programs and soccer programs. They YMCA matches CDBG funds with their own funds as well as other grant funds. Most of the money helps with the staffing and operations while the City has been taking care of the facility. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Howland to discuss the programs offered at the center. Mr. Howland answered that the center opens every day after school hours during the school year and the kids are free to drop in, they have a homework center, game lab, computer room, weight room for some of the older kids and gymnasium. They also have an after school program in cooperation with the City, basketball and indoor/outdoor soccer leagues. The center is not just for the kids. Parents can utilize the computers and fitness area as well. It is a safe place for the kids to come after school. In the summer hours are a little limited but they are still open in the afternoons. Page 18 of 64 Commissioner Bowers asked how much for admission. Mr. Howland responded that they pay an annual fee of $10 but they do daily passes as well and if there are people who cannot pay the rate, the YMCA will waive the fee or work with the families. Marilou Shae, 110 S. 41h Avenue, spoke as a representative for the Pasco Specialty Kitchen. She explained that the Specialty Kitchen has a couple of applications - one for technical assistance, flooring and remodel of the facade. For technical assistance she is requesting $85,000, not including leveraged funds. In the past few years they have received $50,000 of CDBG funds which is roughly half of their income, with the other income coming from the clients that utilize the kitchen. This year they have operated Food Truck Friday and they have created 15-20 jobs, $70,000 in revenues for these small businesses in the first 4 months of the program, which has had a multiplier effect sourcing more local food, hiring local people. As it is, Michael Goins and herself are the only two running Food Truck Friday so they are looking to pump up their resources. In 2016 there will be 14 new individuals, 9 new business entering the Food Truck Friday program and the Specialty Kitchen has a mentoring and training program to assist these businesses getting their start. The flooring application is to replace the 12 year old flooring that has taken flood damage, is chipping and is not the most sanitary. The fagade application is to help energy efficiency and make the fagade more inviting. It is the only organization on the block that doesn't have a facade. Commissioner Bowers asked if it is a requirement to be a resident of Pasco to utilize the Kitchen. Ms. Shae said that it is not a requirement and there are clients from Richland, Kennewick and Pasco. Commissioner Bowers asked if the jobs created are just for people in Pasco or for all of the Tri -Cities. She asked if there are any records or percentages of jobs created that stay in Pasco. Ms. Shae said the jobs created by these businesses since they are utilizing the Kitchen are considered Pasco jobs. Commissioner Bowers asked in a different way how many of the jobs created belong in Pasco. Ms. Shae responded that of the Kitchen clients, the percentage that are Pasco residents are 45-50%. Chairman Cruz added that it is more of a regional/ community asset because he knows of people from outside of Pasco that benefit from the facility because there aren't many other facilities like this. Page 19 of 64 Ms. Shae agreed that there are no other facilities like the Pasco Specialty Kitchen. Spokane's kitchen closed years ago. There are people from Connell, Benton City, Walla Walla and other places that utilize the kitchen. Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Shae if she could give some examples of some of the products people can find in the stores or in the area. Ms. Shae replied that AC's BBQ Sauce, Swampy's BBQ Sauce, who because of Food Truck Friday he has so much business he started catering. There are also jams, a tea catering company, a gluten free baking company and Country Merchantile utilizes the kitchen to make their own private label products. She was recently contacted by Brahms's House of Chocolate because they want to bring in their processing lines for the next 6-8 months. They also have many local caterer's that utilize the kitchen. Meals on Wheels would also like to use the kitchen to package up and the elderly would eat the food at the kitchen. Mr. Goins came back up to the podium to help answer a previous question on how many jobs stay in Pasco. Last year it was a task of theirs to come up with an Incentive Program to keep jobs in Pasco which will begin September 1, 2015 and they will begin tracking that for staff to keep clients in Pasco. It is their goal to keep the jobs in Pasco and work on restaurant recruitment. Ms. Shae added that they are coming up with a strategic plan. Commissioner Portugal asked if the taco trucks had challenges since they were not a part of the Food Truck Friday. Ms. Shae answered that between herself, Mr. Goins and the DPDA board, they approached roughly 27 taco trucks, they would love to have taco trucks at Food Truck Friday. The biggest challenge is that they don't want to give up their location, they have an existing contract and many are not willing to go through the licensing and permit process to be a part of the Specialty Kitchen. They made several attempts to have vendors attend board meetings and they never showed up. Commissioner Portugal asked how much the licensing fees. Ms. Shae responded that the licensing fees vary on the type of business but generally speaking $200-$300 to get started. Commissioner Portugal asked if that included licensing for Food Truck Friday. Ms. Shae answered that the Food Truck Friday is separate and it costs $25 per week for the license each week. Commissioner Bowers asked about the Specialty Kitchen serving low -moderate income clients. She asked how the kitchen does that. Page 20 of 64 Chairman Cruz also asked how the Country Merchantile would fall within the low - moderate income clients. Mr. White answered that it is not a requirement that the kitchen serve low -moderate people but low -moderate clients are required to receive the CDBG subsidized rate to use the kitchen. Other people can utilize the kitchen but they will have to pay the full rate. Chairman Cruz asked how many square feet is the Specialty Kitchen. Ms. Shae responded that it is roughly 11,000 square feet. Chairman Cruz asked if she had any estimates because $72,000 for the flooring seems high. Ms. Shae said that she got 3 estimates. The material they wish to install has a 15 year warranty and is a vinyl plank instead of linoleum. She spoke with contractors about doing cement but that was going to be even more expensive. They also don't know the condition of the subflooring. Chairman Cruz asked if $72,000 is the total figure or just a phase. Ms. Shae answered that it would be done in phases in order to keep the kitchen open but $72,000 is the total amount. Commissioner Portugal asked how many taco trucks are participating in Food Truck Friday. Ms. Shae stated that there aren't any even though she and bilingual board members have approached them, spoke to them and passed out flyers. She stated that she would love to have taco trucks participating at the Food Truck Friday's. Commissioner Portugal asked if she is the main recruiter for bringing in vendors to Food Truck Friday. Ms. Shae responded that she is but people can also talk to city staff, DPDA board members and she would be happy to get people signed up. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. White to run through the remaining applications. Mr. White briefly discussed all City applications for funding: • CDBG Program Income for $120,000 which includes all salaries for all of the staff that works on CDBG, supplies and overhead; • Civic Center Youth Recreation Specialist and Martin Luther King Jr. Center Page 21 of 64 Recreation Specialist are for funds to cover part of the salaries of staff to assist low -moderate income youth in the community in census tracts 201-204; • Senior Center Recreation Specialist covers partial salary for a staff person that serves low -moderate income senior citizens in the community; • Peanuts Park Restoration was a large request for $400,000 to make physical improvements to the park. The City is working with a consultant and has had public outreach to get a community sense of what they would like to see happen at the park and this would be the first stage; • Code Enforcement Officer would pay for partial salaries for an officer to handle code enforcement issues in census tracts 201-204 to keep those neighborhoods on the right track; and • Downtown Sidewalk Improvements would make improvements to the sidewalks, updating the signals where they would have audio to meet ADA standards in census tracts 201-204. Chairman Cruz reminded the Commission that in deciding what to fund, it is important to look at the activities that can be partially funded and still move forward or activities that need all of the funds to make the project happen. Some of the activities, such as some of the City activities, might be able to be partially funded and when program income is received, funding for the rest of the project could happen. Commissioner Mendez asked how the Downtown Sidewalk Improvement application fits in with the neighborhood revitalization effort. Mr. White stated that the neighborhood revitalization effort is for Park Street between 5th and 7th. That was funded in 2014 for the program year of 2015 so it is already funded. On Park Street there is already a sidewalk but due to overgrowth of tree roots, the sidewalk needs to be repaired for safety, where the Downtown Sidewalk Improvements are for 2016 and putting in sidewalks and audio signals where they don't exist currently. Commissioner Bowers said at looking at the CDBG fund summary there are over $1.5 million in requests but only $665,000 available so she asked if it is the Planning Commission or Council that decides who gets what. Mr. White answered that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to Council and then Council will have final approval. Commissioner Mendez asked for clarification of the priority rankings and risk analysis. Ms. Pitman answered that the priority ranking came from one of the pages the applicants turned in on their application. For eligibility the projects have to meet national and local criteria. In the City of Pasco, physical improvements are a high priority and local goal. The physical improvement projects are a high priority, such as projects that reduce barriers to physically impaired persons, acquisition and construction, improvements to area facilities or neighborhood preservation and revitalization. These projects are ranked at Al priorities. Economic Development Page 22 of 64 opportunities are A2 priorities. The risk is based on an annual form that staff uses to see if the applicants have ever had any monitoring findings, if special skills are needed, if the staff is new to the program or experienced. Commissioner Bowers said it would be helpful to see the ranking key. She asked if all of the proposals take into account the three priorities. Ms. Pitman said that is the first filter - if they don't meet one of the goals then they don't even make it on the list. Chairman Cruz asked if staff would like the Planning Commission to go down the list to make decisions. Mr. White responded that the typical process is to first hold the public hearing and then at the following meeting staff will come back to the Commission with staff recommendations after sorting through priorities and risks. Then the Planning Commission at that time can deliberate and decide what they wish to recommend to Council. Chairman Cruz said that process has worked in the past and is fine with him. Commissioner Bowers asked if the staff takes into consideration their ranking or if the Planning Commission takes into consideration the staffs rankings. Chairman Cruz responded that it is a little bit of both and clarified the process. Commssioner Bowers asked if they like everything if they could just give a percentage to each application. Chairman Cruz answered that doesn't typically work since some projects cannot happen if they are only partially funded, however some projects can happen if a little money is cut. Ms. Pitman added that those activities that cannot be funded can still be added as a contingent later for when or if funds become available. Mr. White said there will be a second public hearing in August. With no further comments the public hearing was closed. Page 23 of 64 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/20/15 B. Block Grant 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-0031 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Program set forth in the "2016 Fund Summary" as amended. He stated that the Planning Commission is the advisory committee. A previous public hearing was held at the previous meeting and staff has provided recommendations for funding. There is always a slight uncertainty of the exact amount the City will receive from HUD but based on a formula used since the City has been an entitlement City, $665,000 is the amount expected for 2016. The City received $1.13 million in requests, almost twice as what is available. Mr. White briefly discussed the 2016 Fund Summary included with the staff report with staff recommendations and the reason behind the funding: Activity Non CDBG Agency Staff Match Request Recommend CDBG Program Administration $ - $120,000.00 $120,000.00 Civic Center -Youth Recreation Specialist $ 45,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation $ 100,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 Specialist Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist $ 200,500.00 $37,500.00 $30,000.00 YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center $ 20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Recreation Program Downtown Facade Improvement Program (Service $ 25,000.00 $90,000.00 $40,000.00 Area) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Small Businesses (Job $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $25,000.00 Creation) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Microenterprises $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $30,000.00 (Businesses) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements $ - $72,000.00 $72,000.00 Flooring Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements & $ - $55,000.00 $15,000.00 Fa4ade Page 24 of 64 Second Chance Center (SCC) $ 143,000.00 $50,000.00 Peanuts Park Restoration $ 100,000.00 $400,000.00 $125,000.00 Code Enforcement Officer $ 200,500.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 Downtown Revitalization and Safety Improvements - Contingent $ 150,000.00 $250,000.00 $100,000.00 Sidewalk Construction - Contingent $ 50,000.00 $250,000.00 Proposals Received $1,135,000.00 $1,552,500.00 $665,000.00 The CDBG Program Administration application would cover all costs associated with administering the $665,000 that the City receives from HUD, including salaries, reporting, rule maintenance and supplies. Often the whole amount isn't used and whatever is leftover at the end of the year gets rolled over to the next year's fund. The Youth Recreations Specialist, Martin Luther King Recreation Specialist, Senior Center Specialist and YMCA Martin Luther King Specialist are all recommended to be funding for staff salaries and these area community centers. For Downtown Fagade Improvement Program staff is recommending $40,000 as they likely don't have the manpower to accommodate their request of $90,000. The amount of $40,000 could possibly fund 2-3 facades. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen requested funds for micro - enterprises and job creation. Typically they are funded each year with $50,000 for operating expenses, however this year staff is recommending an additional $5,000 since they have taken on significant projects, such as Food Truck Friday and Mobile Food Vending University. Both have been very successful and they will be able to put the money to good use. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen also applied for block grant funds to replace flooring in their facility and staff is recommending $72,000 to replace the flooring, as it is in bad shape and might last only one more year, but after that they could experience issues with the Health Department. They have also requested funds for fagade improvements and staff is recommending $15,000 on top of $27,000 of funds that will be available from last year that are rolling over. Community Action Connections (CAC) requested funds for their Second Chance Center, however staff is not recommending funding for this project simply because there are not enough funds to allocate for every project. Also, the CAC has two other funds applicable for their homeless day center, such as funds from County recording fees (2060 Fund and 2163 Fund). Those funds were passed by the Washington State Legislature to provide money for homelessness. Staff is recommending $125,000 for the restoration of Peanuts Park, allowing the completion of the visioning effort to provide engineering designs so that when the rest of the funding is available the project will be ready to go. Staff is recommending $48,000 to fund the Code Enforcement Officer who benefits low -moderate income census tracts. The Public Works Department requested funds for signal improvements and while staff did not think the full amount requested could be justified, $100,000 could be. Staff didn't want to get too carried away with the funding since the Lewis Street Overpass Project and Peanuts Park are still in planning stages and the signals would possibly have to be changed. Public Works also requested funds for ADA Crosswalks but staff did not recommend any funds due to Page 25 of 64 possible reconstruction and the street network is in a state of flux. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the Code Enforcement Officer position. Mr. White responded that there are four Code Enforcement Officers but one is devoted specifically to the low -moderate census tracts. Kathy Merrill Holly, 720 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of Community Action Connections (CAC). She stated that the Second Chance Center would provide outreach and emergency shelter during the day for families with children. In the calendar year from July 2014 -June 30, 2015 the CAC served 3,624 families with children. Of that, most of the families served were from Pasco. The CAC is requesting funds from Kennewick and Pasco for this shelter. Ms. Holly briefly described the services and activities the shelter would provide. Chairwoman Khan asked if the $50,000 is just the remainder of what it needed to finish the project. Ms. Holly answered that they have asked Kennewick for the same amount since they Kennewick and Pasco have the majority of that will use the services. The CAC has provided the rest of the funds. Commissioner Polk asked Ms. Holly about additional funding sources. Ms. Holly said that she is aware of the additional funding sources and stated that the CAC applied for 2060 Fund. They were awarded $40,000 from Franklin County which will be used for Phase 2. Benton County turned them down for funding. For 2163 Funding, the CAC will be applying for and is the only fund that is available for staff salaries. Commissioner Portugal asked if there were any other shelters like the Second Chance Center in the Tri -Cities. Ms. Holly responded that the Union Gospel Mission is building a new shelter. She felt that they do a great job with what they do, dealing with homeless individuals. The problem is that they do not house families with a male head of household. They don't have the room to house them. As an example, if a male walks in with three children they cannot stay there. If a woman head of household walks in and there is space available they can stay but if the boy child is age 12 or older, he must be housed in the men's dorm. That as a mother is a safety issue. There is no other shelter like the Second Chance Center. Commissioner Mendez asked if families have a time limit that they can receive assistance and how does the CAC make sure the children attend school. Ms. Holly answered that each family will identify what they need to become stabilized Page 26 of 64 working with a case manager. From there, goals will be set and they will be looking at the goals on a regular basis, doing follow-ups and referring them to other agencies for services they don't provide. The CAC will do everything they can on their end, including monitoring, to ensure that their success is moving forward. Commissioner Mendez asked if the $50,000 is for staff salaries. Ms. Holly replied that $40,000 is for the building and $10,000 is for salaries. Commissioner Mendez asked for clarification on the center being a day center. Ms. Holly responded that it is only a day center with showers but they will get the families stabilized and moved into housing as soon as possible. There are already roughly a dozen housing programs onsite. There will be services for job training, clothing for interviews, showers, daycare and many other services to help set them up for success. Steve Howland, 205 S. Wehe, spoke on behalf of his application for the YMCA of the Greater Tri -Cities. The YMCA has operated the Martin Luther King Center for over 30 years but a few years ago the United Way shifted funding to other programs and the YMCA approached the City for assistance. Chairwoman Khan asked if the United Way has shown any interest in re -funding their program. Mr. Howland answered that they operate under a two year funding cycle, it is now in the beginning of the second year. The YMCA will reapply for funding when the time comes around but don't know if they will be successful as their fund raising campaigns have not been as large as they used to be. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers suggested funding the Second Chance Center, even at a reduced amount, even though that will mean cutting some funding from other proposed projects. Chairman Khan asked the Commissioner's if they were in favor of funding the CAC for the Second Chance Center. The Commissioners were in agreement to look into funding the CAC. Chairwoman Khan asked staff if they had any recommendations on which activities could be trimmed in order to fund the CAC. Mr. White answered no. Page 27 of 64 Commissioner Bachart stated that some money could be trimmed from the Fagade Improvement Programs from the DPDA since they don't have to manpower to carry out too many facades. He also felt that money could be cut from the Public Works Safety Improvements application since the plans are in flux. Chairwoman Khan added that money from the Peanuts Park Restoration could be trimmed since the proposed funding for now is just for consultation and planning. Commissioner Bowers said $10,000 can be taken off of that one. Commissioner Bachart responded that with Peanuts Park they need to be careful because if they are going out to a consulting firm it is a fee that is set and there isn't much wiggle room for cutting back on the budget. Chairwoman Khan asked staff for direction. Mr. White responded that he would be very cautious of trimming any of the recommended amounts but give each project some serious thought because many of the activities are tight on funding already. The Second Chance Center does have other funding sources besides CDBG funds. Commissioner Portugal suggested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing to allow staff to play with the numbers and come back to the Planning Commission with revised suggested funding amounts. Mr. White clarified that staff has already made their recommendations. It is now the opportunity and task of the Planning Commissioner to make their recommendation. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide what amounts they wish to fund for each project. The only caution is that cutting funds from certain projects can have a significant impact. Commissioner Bowers asked how this process has been handled in the past. Chairwoman Khan replied that it has been done this way in the past where staff has their recommendations but the Planning Commission can discuss, make changes and make their recommendation to Council. Commissioner Greenaway added that in the past the Planning Commission has overruled or amended what staff has recommended. She was in agreement with Commissioner Bachart on trimming $10,000 from the Facade Improvement Program. Also cutting $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro -Enterprises. Commissioner Bowers asked if Commissioner Greenaway would soon trim from the micro -enterprises more so than the flooring. Commissioner Greenaway responded that the flooring is probably set in stone. Page 28 of 64 Commissioner Polk added that this isn't the first year they have applied for funds for the flooring and that it needs to be done. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would trim from the Public Works Safety Improvements. Chairwoman Khan summed up that suggestions have been to trim $10,000 from the Facade Improvement Program, $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro - Enterprises and $10,000 from the Public Works Safety Improvements. With this money, $25,000 would go to fund the CAC's Second Chance Center. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the street network that was in flux that could affect the Peanuts Park and Street Improvements projects. Mr. White responded that at this time he doesn't have more information. The proposed signals are for audible signals for vision impaired and safety improvements. They will only be installed on intersections not being reconfigured by the Lewis Street Overpass. Commissioner Polk asked if there would be any additional funding. Mr. White answered that it is possible. Commissioner Mendez asked if there was a specific amount to cut from the sidewalk improvements. Chairwoman Khan summed up again the revisions were to trim $10,000 from the Fagade Improvement Program, $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro - Enterprises and $10,000 from the Public Works Safety Improvements. With this money, $25,000 would go to fund the CAC's Second Chance Center. The Planning Commissioners were in agreement of the revisions. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Program set forth in the "2016 Fund Summary" as amended. The motion passed unanimously. Page 29 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Angie Pitman, Urban Development Coordinator Community & Economic Development September 8, 2015 Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 SUBJECT: 2016 HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation (MF# BGAP2014-004) I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 7/30/15 and 8/20/15 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Pasco's share of Federal HOME funds is $107,000 (plus program income). IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1996 making the City eligible for Federal HOME funds. Every three years, during the renewal cycle, member cities are given the opportunity to withdraw from the consortium, make changes to the cooperative agreement, or select a new Lead Agency. In May 2010, the City renewed the Agreement through December 31, 2015. HOME funds are allocated based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits, however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council receive first consideration. Funding is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low -moderate income census tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as needed within the Pasco city limits for the benefit of eligible low - moderate income families. Page 30 of 64 V. DISCUSSION: The City is restricted to using HOME funds for down payment assistance for first time homebuyers in accordance with the Tri -Cities HOME Consortium Cooperative Agreement approved by all three cities in 2014. Estimated HOME entitlement funds totaling $107,000 (plus program income received) will be used to provide down payment assistance for approximately 10 first time homebuyers. Staff presented recommendations for funding at the August 20, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding recommendations as presented. If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the proposed resolution will be returned for Council action. Page 31 of 64 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FEDERAL 2016 HOME ANNUAL WORK PLAN AND ALLOCATION WHEREAS, the City of Pasco entered into an Agreement with Kennewick and Richland in 2010 continuing participation in a Consortium originally formed in 1996 under the Home Investments Partnership (HOME) Program; and WHEREAS, the Consortium allows the three cities to be eligible for federal HOME funds; and WHEREAS, the City has established a Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP); and WHEREAS, $107,000 is expected to be available from entitlement funds for Pasco HOME projects in program year 2016, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. 2016 HOME funds received by the City of Pasco shall be allocated to the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) which operates city-wide. Priority will be given to neighborhood improvement areas and low -moderate income census tracts as needed for the activities below: Activity Budget Units First Time Homebuyer Assistance $ 107,000 10 $ 107,000 10 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2015. CITY OF PASCO: Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Page 32 of 64 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/30/15 B. Block Grant 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work Plan (MF# BGAP 2015-0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the 2016 HOME Program Allocation and Annual Work Plan. Pasco receives funds by forming a consortium with Richland and Kennewick, to increase affordable housing units within the community. Based on previous years, Pasco anticipates receiving $ 107,000 for 2016, this is after a requirement that 15% of funds be reserved for CHDO projects, which are special housing projects such as Habitat for Humanity. There are also funds that are reserved for the lead agency to administer the program. As of now, the only activity the consortium is using is the Down Payment Assistance Program and is what the proposed 2016 funds will go towards and a CHDO project that the consortium agrees upon each year. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained the Down Payment Assistance Program and how the Planning Commission recommended that it would be the sole project funded by HOME funds. Chairman Cruz explained that with other housing projects, such as construction, there were problems but the Down Payment Assistance Program had much less liabilities and in many cases is a forgivable loan. With no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bowers said she would like to see on the map the census tracts 201- 204. Mr. White said all census tracts 201-204 is everything east of Highway 395 to the end of Pasco. Commissioner Mendez asked how many families are helped under the Down Payment Assistance Program. Ms. Pitman replied that 10 families are proposed for program year 2016. Currently staff is processing 6 applications that will close in August and since January there have been an average of 6 per month. Chairman Cruz stated that he would classify this program as very successful. He reopened the public hearing for a member of the audience to speak. David Ruiz, 409 N. 23rd Avenue, asked what qualified as a family, do they have to be married or have kids. Page 33 of 64 Ms. Pitman said it is simply based just on household income, any person in the household over the age of 18 is considered and their income qualified for the program and is based on family sized. Chairman Cruz asked what the income would have to be for a family of 4. Ms. Pitman said that for a family of 4 they could not earn more than $56,250 as that is 80% of the median income. There were no further questions or comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 34 of 64 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/20/15 C. Block Grant 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work Plan (MF# BGAP 2015-0041 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work Plan. He stated that there have been no changes since the previous meeting. The funds proposed are to be used for the Down Payment Assistance Program. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 HOM Investment Partnerships entitlement as set forth in the "2016 HOME Fund Summary" as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Page 35 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Angie Pitman, Urban Development Coordinator Community & Economic Development September 8, 2015 Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 SUBJECT: 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Annual Work Plan Allocation (MF# BGAP 2015-005) I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 7/30/15 and 8/20/15 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: $120,000 from NSP Program Income IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On March 15, 2010 Council approved Resolution No. 3220 amending the NSP Allocation and Work Plan increasing funding to $426,343 and adding acquisition and rehabilitation activities to the down payment assistance activity for foreclosed properties. To date, the City has utilized NSP funds to recover 16 foreclosed properties. Three homes were also purchased and rehabilitated with NSP and HOME. The program income from the sales of those homes is available for use in 2016. Page 36 of 64 V. DISCUSSION: The City is able to use NSP funds for down payment assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties. Staff proposes that the 2016 annual work plan allocate $12,000 for administration, and $108,000 for downpayment, acquisition and rehabilitation recovery activities for four (4) foreclosed properties. Staff presented recommendations for funding at the August 20, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding recommendations as presented. If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the proposed resolution will be returned for Council action. Page 37 of 64 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2016 NSP PROGRAM YEAR ANNUAL WORK PLAN AND ALLOCATION WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) is authorized under Title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), administered by the US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), and subject to both CDBG and HOME regulations for the purpose of stabilizing neighborhoods negatively affected by foreclosures and abandoned properties, and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco estimates $120,000 will be available in program income from the sale of one foreclosed property, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Plan work plan allocation as follows: 2016 Proposed Activities Restricted for Administration Down Payment Assistance/Minor Rehab Down Payment Assistance/Minor Rehab PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark CMC City Clerk Budget Units $ 12,000.00 $ 54,000.00 _ 2 $ 54,000.00 2 $120,000.00 4 day of 52015. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Page 38 of 64 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/30/15 C. Block Grant 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations. Years ago the City of Pasco received a pass- through grant from HUD through the State of Washington for neighborhood stabilization. Those grant funds were allowed to be used to recapture foreclosed properties in distressed neighborhoods. Since receiving the grant the City has done a total of 12 down payment assistance loans, recovered 5 properties (1 of which is on the market now) and as they sell the City receives program income. The money that comes back can be used for more down payment assistance of foreclosed properties and in some cases, also used for minor rehabilitation the homes to bring to up to standard. Commissioner Bowers said it sounded like a revolving fund. Ms. Pitman replied that activities that generate program income are like that. David Ruiz, 409 N. 23rd Avenue, asked what kind of minor rehabilitation programs the City offers. Ms. Pitman said through CDBG funds, there is money available that was awarded to Community Action Connections (CAC) as a subrecipient for owner -occupied rehabilitations. The NSP rehabilitation program would be in conjunction with the down payment assistance of foreclosed properties and minor rehabilitation funds could be added to get the home up to standards. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that recently the City provided down payment assistance for a foreclosed home that had a roof in disrepair, so bundled with the down payment assistance the City was able to work with the homeowner to repair the roof and add that into the down payment assistance loan. With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bowers asked if the CAC is a CDC. Ms. Pitman responded that unfortunately they were unable to attend the meeting. Commissioner Bowers asked if there are other CDC's in the community. Page 39 of 64 Ms. Pitman clarified that they are called CAC for Community Action Connections. Mr. White clarified that CAC is not a CDC (Community Development Corporation). Pasco does not have a CDC. There were no further questions or comments. Page 40 of 64 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/20/15 D. Block Grant 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-005) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations. The funds are proposed to be used for down payment assistance and minor home rehabilitation as needed or necessary for those home buyers. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) entitlement set forth above, as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Page 41 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 8, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Charter Cable Franchise Extension I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City has been preparing for and conducting negotiations with Charter for renewal of the franchise agreement for the last 48 months. While some progress had been made on issues, a transfer agreement request from Comcast to assume the franchise agreement from Charter was received in the fall of 2014 (and subsequently abandoned by Comcast) which temporarily put negotiations on hold when it appeared that the City would not be at the table with Charter, but Comcast. Since that time, Charter and Time Warner Cable have a deal in the works, which is still pending, but which would leave Charter as the City's franchisee. As the current franchise is set to expire September 30, 2015, more time will be needed to complete the renewal process. Staff proposes an extension to February 1, 2016 to complete a renewal franchise agreement with Charter. Charter has agreed to the extension. V. DISCUSSION: Under the proposed ordinance, Charter must provide its formal acceptance of the extension within 12 days of passage by the City. Page 42 of 64 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 February 1, 2016. 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, 2015 pursuant to Ordinance No. 4196; 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 February 1, 2016, to give the parties additional time to complete the renewal process; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Extension of the Term of the Franchise Agreement through February 1, 2016. The Cable Franchise, as amended, is hereby extended, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, until February 1, 2016 or until a new franchise agreement is agreed to by the parties and enacted by the City. Section 2. Terms and Conditions of Extension of the Franchise Agreement. The City's consent to the extension, described above, is subject to, and conditioned upon, the following terms and conditions: Page 43 of 64 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 , 2015. Matt Watkins, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 44 of 64 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 , 2015, regarding the extension of the Franchise Agreement between Grantee and the City. FALCON VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, L.P. ("Grantee") ME Name: Mark Brown Title: V.P., Government Affairs Date: Page 45 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 8, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: National Citizen's Survey I. REFERENCE(S): Community Survey Questions from Prior Years II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In furtherance of Council's goal of responsive and efficient government, staff is preparing to contract with the National Research Center (NRC) to conduct the National Citizens Survey (NCS) in Pasco, a biennial community survey effort consisting primarily of standard questions regarding the availability and quality of municipal services. The City has contracted for this survey to be completed in odd years since 2005. The results of this statistically significant survey has served as a valuable tool for Council in goal setting efforts and decision-making with respect to public investment and programmatic focus areas. With several cycles of experience, Council, staff and the public can identify trend lines where the city has made progress in the opinion of respondents, and where we are losing ground. The survey results and subsequent analysis provides policy -makers with reliable information on which to make decisions in the public interest and how Pasco compares in terms of performance with other cities utilizing the NCS as a tool. Historically, the City has conducted the NCS in the fall so the information is available for the Council's post election cycle goal setting retreat, in this case in early 2016. In additional to the questions specific to the major services the City provides, the Council may include up to three "policy" issues to be included as questions in the Page 46 of 64 survey without additional cost. Each of the City's previous NCS efforts included policy questions. Attachment 1 includes those questions asked in prior survey cycles. In order to have the policy questions included in the survey this fall, NRC will need our finalized questions to them by late November. The base survey cost as described above is $12,500 and includes the sampling of 1,400 random households (with random selection of the respondent if a multiple -adult member household) in order to produce a statistically valid result. The database utilized to generate the households is from the City's utility billing data. There are other survey enhancement options which can be added to the base survey which Council may want to consider as follows: 1. Preparation of a paper version of the survey in Spanish - $1,530. This has been attempted in the past; however, response was very low and a decision was made not to include this option in subsequent years. 2. The option for Spanish -only speaking residents to review and submit the survey online would cost $608. The costs are less than the paper option, however, per the contractor, results from this approach have typically been limited in other communities. 3. Allowing all residents to submit survey responses online (in addition to those of the random sample - results to be kept separate to maintain the scientific results of the base random survey) - $428. 4. Providing survey results by geographic areas is also an option. For example, survey results could be made available for each City Council voting district. The cost for this option is $743. V. DISCUSSION: With the potential for more than 1400 households to participate and provide input to their City government, the NCS is one of the City's largest interactive community outreach efforts in terms of numbers involved. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council in two areas so that we may properly instruct the contractor in this effort. 1. Which, if any, of the survey enhancement options noted above should be included in the NCS outreach effort. 2. Does the City Council continue to see value in including three specific policy questions as part of the survey? And if so, what policy areas would the Council wish to pursue? Again, for Council's information, a listing of policy questions that have been asked in prior years is included by attachment. In an effort to further stimulate discussion, staff offers the following questions, which we have observed through various avenues of Page 47 of 64 public feedback over the past year, for Council's consideration: Recycling The City contracts with Basin Disposal Inc. (BDI) for solid waste collection and disposal services. BDI has indicated an ability to provide supplemental user rate estimates for implementing curbside recycling services for recyclable materials such as paper, aluminum, glass and plastics and/or for yard waste. Which form of recycling would you most prefer? a) Paper, aluminum, glass and plastics b) Yard waste c) Both d) None Safety Cameras Some of the most serious traffic accidents occur at signalized intersections, many of which involve red light violations. Some cities in the state and country have implemented safety cameras at high incident locations to discourage red light violators through automatic ticketing for violations. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration of seven cities found that while right-angle or "T-bone" type collisions were reduced by 25% with the deployment of red light cameras; the incidence of year- end collisions at such intersections was increased by 15%. Rear -end collisions however are generally less costly and result in fewer injuries than "T-bone" collisions. Do you support or oppose the City's consideration of safety cameras to increase red light compliance and safety at certain signalized intersections? a) Strongly support b) Somewhat support c) Somewhat oppose d) Strongly oppose District -Based Voting The legislative branch of the City operates with seven members serving on the City Council. Two members are elected "at large" by all voters and regardless of the candidates' place of residence within the City. Five members are elected on the basis of residence, with only residents within the district able to file to run for election and only voters residing within the district voting on district candidates at primary elections. According to current state law, all voters within the City may vote on district candidates at the general election. While some favor the current system because, while it ensures geographical representation on the City Council, it suggests that members of the Council must look to city-wide interests and needs. Others favor a change to "district -based" voting for the general election where only district residents vote for City Council candidates at the general election, in order to assure that elected Councilmembers represent the voters from within the district. Page 48 of 64 Do you favor: a) The current system of voting (City-wide in the general election) b) District -based voting (allowing votes of only district residents in the general election) Public Records Requests The State Public Records Act provides that units of state and local government must be responsive to citizen requests to view or obtain copies of public documents. While most requests are specific in nature and limited in scope, some requestors have used the system to make burdensome or harassing requests for huge volumes of non-specific documents — resulting in significant public costs for responding to such requests. To what extent do you agree that public records requestors, if making frequent, large volume requests, should be required to pay a proportionate share of the costs of making such requests? a) Strongly Agree b) Somewhat Agree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Strongly Disagree Staff looks forward to the opportunity for Council deliberation and direction on this matter. Page 49 of 64 Community Survey Questions 2013 Survey: 1. Ambulance Fees in Fire District #3: The "donut hole" area surrounded by Pasco has received ambulance service from the Pasco Fire Department, paid by Fire District #3 at an equivalent fee of $1.00 per household per month (compared with Pasco residents' fee of $6.25/month). If the City continues to provide the same paramedic ambulance service to Fire District #3 that it provides to City residents, to what extent do you support or oppose altering the contract so that District residents pay at least the same fee as Pasco residents? 2. Funding Large Projects: Funding large projects, such as a convention center, performing arts center, aquatics facility or museum in Pasco can be done in a number of ways. Partnering with the Regional Public Facilities District (with the approval of Tri -City voters) can finance projects of $35 million or more. The Pasco Public Facilities District (Pasco only) could finance a project of about $10 million. To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following: continuing the partnership with the Regional Public Facilities District; working independently with the Pasco Public Facilities District to identify a project for Pasco; support abandoning efforts to consider future facilities? 3. Pasco Senior Center: Use of the Pasco Senior Center by seniors has continued to decline over time, but still requires increased funding to remain open. To what extent do you support or oppose transitioning the Pasco Senior Center into a "community recreation center?" 2011 Survey: 1. "Impact Fees" are assessed on all new housing construction to help pay for related public infrastructure (like roads and parks). To what extent do you support or oppose an impact fee to pay a portion of new school construction costs in Pasco? 2. The City of Pasco is considering asking the state to change the process arbitrators use in organized -labor negotiations to ensure that an individual city's budget or "ability to pay" is factored into the arbitration decision. To what extent do you support or oppose a change to reflect the city's "ability to pay?" 3. There are seven members of the City Council; five positions require a candidate to reside within a geographical district within the City and two positions are elected "at large" without regard to district residency. The purpose of having some districts is to assure reasonable geographic representation of Council members throughout the city. Please indicate which of the following best reflects your view: favor the current system as described above; prefer fewer at large representatives; prefer more at large representatives. 2009 Survey: 1. To what extent do you support or oppose establishing curbside recycling service, if it requires an increase to your garbage pickup service cost of $4 to $5 dollars per month? 2. To what extent do you support or oppose the City continuing to add fluoride to the City's drinking water system? 3. A committee, consisting of representatives of the cities of Kennewick, Richland and Pasco, has been studying the feasibility of developing regional centers (e.g., aquatic center, performing arts center, etc.) that could be used by all residents in the region and considering voter approved sales tax and property tax options to finance them. Because a sales tax would be paid by visitors as well as residents and would be paid in much smaller increments throughout the year, among other reasons, the committee has tentatively concluded that a sales tax increase would be preferable to a property tax increase. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this conclusion? Page 50 of 64 2007 Survey: 1. To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking a more active role in working to improve the downtown business area? 2. To what extent do you support or oppose the City installing and maintaining landscaping along select major street corridors to improve the appearance of the community? 3. As you may know, the three public pools in Pasco are in need of complete renovation. As an alternative, to what degree would you support or oppose the City building a new water park (including a pool slide and other water features) that would replace one (or possibly two) existing swimming pools? 2005 Survey: 1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The City of Pasco should assume all the cost of maintaining and operating Chiawana Park?" 2. To what extent do you support or oppose an increased sales tax of 1/10 of one percent (one extra penny on each $10 purchase) to have a regional aquatic center in the Tri -Cities? 3. The City has a history of supporting Pasco School District programs and facilities with City funds. To what extent do you support or oppose the City of Pasco continuing to support Pasco School District programs and facilities with City funds? Page 51 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 3, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement for the Construction Management and Inspection Services of the Primary Clarifier Upgrade Project I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Professional Services Agreement Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Utility Fund - $293,740 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In Spring of 2014, the City Council adopted the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The Plan identifies strategies and outlines the capital improvement to address current and future needs. One of the high priority projects is construction of an additional primary clarifier. The existing clarifiers are nearing design capacity. A third primary clarifier is needed in order to meet the future growth within the system. This is the first phase of improvements to increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant from its current 7 million gallons a day (MGD) to 12 MGD. In May 2014 and March 2015, the City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement to HDR in the amount of $298,000 to complete the design of a primary clarifier and primary pump room. The Construction contract for the project was advertised in the newspaper on April 5 and April 12, 2015. Clearwater Construction & Management was the lowest responsible bidder at $4,634,287.80. Council approved this contract on August 3, 2015. Page 52 of 64 The Construction Management and Inspection Services contract was advertised in the newspaper on July 19 and July 26, 2015 requesting submittal of the consultants' qualifications by August 11, 2015. Four submittals were received from consulting firms. Staff conducted interviews on August 18 and August 21, 2015 to determine the most qualified consultant. Gray & Osborne, Inc. was unanimously selected by the selection committee based on their extensive experience on similar projects. V. DISCUSSION: Key staff with a role managing sewer operations and engineering have been involved throughout the project design and scope for input and training. Our goal included determining how much of the project management and inspection can be completed in- house. Upgrade construction projects happen infrequently at wastewater treatment plants and involve very specialized construction. Since the project is so specialized, its management and inspection also requires specialized training and experience. Therefore, for portions of the project outside of staff expertise, the assistance of a consultant whose expertise is the design and construction of wastewater treatment plants is needed and would greatly benefit this project. Typically, construction management of such a project costs from $500,000 to $600,000. However, with portions of the project being managed internally, the cost for the selected consultant will be $293,740. Staff recommends the approval of the Professional Services Agreement with Gray & Osborne, Inc. Page 53 of 64 —20 -W-111 IA dddllk 7 1 Vic FFTl. JI -A myPiLE AW MEE-, rPROPOSED LOCATION OF LNEW PRIMARY CLARIFIER 7w TNUT ,�VF sr CD cn -p- 0 h 0) 4k- IEEUE ... OESCXpTpN Y0.WECT -- Procese Mechanical J. ZPMIer PRIMARY CLARIFIER 1 e o � UPGRADE OVERALL ISOMETRIC VIEW -- s.�elua o. zehner [�Irtea melrwm. i. rcoeoP IMN aeTign eea/oc J. Keen ruExnMe 5H ET ® uuE v^ OOZ-01 IEEUE ... OESCXpTpN Y0.WECT Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Construction Management & Inspection Services of Primary Clarifier Upgrade Project Consultant: Grav & Osborne. Inc. Address: 107 S. 3rd Street. Yakima. WA 98901 Scope of Services: To provide Construction Management and Inspection Services during the construction of the primary clarifier upgrades. Term: Completion Date: to be determined based on Construction Schedule Payments to Consultant: 0 Hourly Rate: $ not to exceed $293,740 ❑ Fixed Sum of: $ ❑ Other: Insurance to be Provided: 1. Commercial General Liability: ❑ $1,000,000 each occurrence; ❑ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or 0 $1,000,000 each occurrence; and $2,000,000 general aggregate 2. Professional Liability: 0 $1,000,000 per claim; ❑ $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit; or ❑ $ per claim; and $ per policy aggregate limit Other Information: Signature by: ❑ Mayor © City Manager Page 56 of 64 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 9, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/14/15 FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Revision - W. Pearl Street and N. 3rd Avenue I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Traffic Engineer's Memo Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Engineering Division recently received concerns from Franklin County Public Utility District (PUD) representatives regarding the difficulty of delivery trucks maneuvering through W. Pearl Street and N. 3rd Avenue due to those streets being heavily congested by vehicles parked on both sides. The trucks delivering PUD's oversized poles are unable to make the 90 degree turn movement at the intersection of W. Pearl Street and N. 3rd Avenue. W. Pearl Street to N. 3rd Avenue is Franklin County PUD's designated delivery route, as agreed upon with the City when PUD abandoned its access on N. 4th Avenue. The roadway was constructed jointly by Franklin County PUD and the City in 2011, prior to the Franklin County Housing Authority multi -family development to the south. Page 57 of 64 V. DISCUSSION: Engineering staff evaluated the site conditions, witnessing parked vehicles on both sides of W. Pearl Street and within the intersection of W. Pearl Street and N. 3rd Avenue. During separate field investigations, staff observed vehicles parked adjacent to and blocking access to a fire hydrant. Staff noted that the parked vehicles reduced the available pavement space for large vehicles; WB -60 (tractor trailers) or greater will have difficulty making turns at the intersection of W. Pearl Street and N. 3rd Avenue. Parking restrictions are required to ensure adequate maneuvering space for large vehicles. This proposed ordinance, if approved, amends Section 10.56.080 (Schedule III, Parking Prohibited at All Times on Certain Streets) of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) as follows: Add: W. Pearl Street — both sides from N. 3rd Avenue west 200 feet Add: N. 3rd Avenue — both sides from W. Pearl Street north 200 feet Page 58 of 64 v cn co 0 m p L ' VICINITY MAP ._.�� 5 �p._ __ •.gip• Memo Engineering TO: Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director FROM: Joe Seet, PE., Traffic Engineer DATE: August 6, 20154 RE: Parking Restriction North & South side of W. Pearl St., vicinity of N 3rd Avenue The City received concerns from Franklin PUD representatives that the W. Pearl St. and N 3rd Ave is heavily congested with parked vehicles on both sides of the streets and the trucks delivering PUD's oversized poles are unable to make the turn movements at the intersection of W Pearl St. and N 3rd Ave. A field review and observation of traffic operations, along the north and southerly sides of W. Pearl St., vicinity N 3rd Avenue, confirmed the concerns about parked vehicles and staff also noted that vehicles were also parked along W Pearl St. across N 3rd Ave and immediately adjacent and blocking access to a fire hydrant. W. Pearl St. to N 3rd Ave is the designated ingress/egress route for Franklin PUD's long loads which require a wide turning radius. A 250' radius parking restrictions along W Pearl St. and N 3rd Ave is recommended to maintain the designated ingress/egress route for Franklin PUD's long loads o d ,�•. 'AVIV �. • Page 1 Page 60 of 64 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE prohibiting parking on various streets, amending Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has determined that it is necessary for public safety to prohibit parking on certain streets; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to add the underlined language and read as follows: 10.56.080 SCHEDULE III - PARKING PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS. In accordance with Section 10.56.030, and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall at any time park a vehicle upon any of the following described streets or parts of streets: `A' Street — both sides of street from Elm Avenue to SR -12; `A' Street — both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; `A' Street — from Main Avenue to Beech Avenue; `A' Street — 300 feet west of 4th Avenue to three hundred feet east of 4th Avenue; `A' Street — both sides from 20th Avenue to a point two hundred fifty feet west of 20th Avenue; `A' Street — both sides, corner of `A' Street and 28th Avenue; Agate Street — between Fourth and Fifth Avenues; Ainsworth Avenue — north side from Railroad Avenue to Oregon Avenue; Ainsworth Avenue — south side from 10th Avenue to Fourth Avenue; Argent Road — 20th Avenue to Road 44; Argent Road — Road 84 to Road 76; Autoplex Way — from Court Street south to 160 feet north of Marie Street; Bonneville Street — the south side of Bonneville Street from a point 150 feet east of the east curb line of 10th Avenue to the east curb line of 10th Avenue; Billings Street — from Lewis Street to `A' Street; Broadmoor Boulevard — FCID canal to Nottingham Drive; Brown Street — north side from Road 28 to Road 26; Brown Street — south side from Road 28 to a point 130 feet to the east; Burden Boulevard — Road 76 to Road 36; Chapel Hill Boulevard — Road 68 to Saratoga Lane; Chapel Hill Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Road 84; Chapel Hill Boulevard — from Crescent Road to Broadmoor Boulevard; Clark Street — both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; Clemente Lane — Burden Boulevard to Wrigley Drive; Commercial Avenue — both sides from Hillsboro Avenue south 1 mile; Court Street — from Fourth Avenue west to SR -395; Court Street — east of Fourth Avenue; Court Street — from Road 68 to Road 84; Court Street — Rd. 100 to I-182 Highway overpass; Court Street — 1,000 feet south of Harris Road; Page 61 of 64 E. Broadway Street — (north side) Wehe Street to Franklin Street; First Avenue — Court Street to Sylvester Street; Fourteenth Avenue — both sides from Clark Street north 100 feet; Fourteenth Avenue — both sides from Clark Street south to the alley; Fourth Avenue — (east side) 50 feet north of Columbia Street; Fourth Avenue — 100 feet south of Columbia Street; Fourth Avenue — east side from Shoshone Street to Court Street; and on the west side from Shoshone Street to 125 feet north of vacated Park Street and from 115 feet north of Octave Street to Court Street; Fourth Avenue — east side from Sylvester Street north 140 feet; and on the west side from Sylvester Street north 200 feet; Fifth Avenue — (west side) Park to Octave; Fifth Avenue — (east side) north of Court Street; Fifth Avenue — (east side) Nixon Street to Park Street; North Fourth Avenue — between Court and Ruby Streets; Heritage Boulevard — both sides from US -12 to `A' Street; Hillsboro Street and Commercial Avenue — both sides of Hillsboro Street from a point 100 feet east of the center line of Commercial Avenue to SR 395, and on both sides of Commercial Avenue from a point 100 feet south of the center line of Hillsboro to Hillsboro; Homerun Road — both sides, from Convention Boulevard to end; James Street — south side from the far east end of James Street to 400 feet west; James Street — north side from the far east end of James Street to 340 feet west; Jay Street — north side from the east curb line of Road 22 to a point 50 feet west of the east curb line of Road 22; Lewis Street — from First Avenue to 70 feet east; Lewis Street — north side from Fourteenth Avenue to 130 feet west; and north side from Fourteenth Avenue to 80 feet east; Lewis Street — south side from Fourteenth Avenue to 100 west; and south side from Fourteenth Avenue to 100 feet east; Lewis Street — Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; Lewis Street — north side of Lewis Street from the east curb line of Seventh Avenue to a point 135 feet east; Lewis Street — South side of Lewis Street, from 150 feet east of the center line of First Street running easterly a distance of 165 feet; Lewis Street (east) — both sides from Wehe Avenue east to Cedar Avenue; Lewis Street (east) — both sides from Oregon Avenue east to Wehe Avenue; Lewis Street — from Cedar Ave. to Billings Street; Madison Avenue — both sides from Burden Boulevard to Road 44; Manzanita Lane — west side from `A' Street to 150 feet north; Manzanita Lane — east side from `A' Street to 220 feet north; Ninth Avenue — Washington Street to Ainsworth Street; Octave Street — the south side of Octave Street from 1 point 280 feet east of the east curb line of Road 34 to a point 420 feet east of the east curb line of Road 34; Oregon Avenue between `A' Street and Ainsworth Avenue; Oregon Avenue — (west side) 350 feet north of Bonneville Street; Oregon Avenue — Hagerman Street to James Street; W. Pearl Street — both sides from N. 3rd Avenue west 200 feet: Page 62 of 64 Road 22 — east side from the north curb line of Jay Street to a point 50 feet south of the north curb line of Jay Street; Road 26 — from Court Street to Brown Street; Road 28 — west side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street; Road 28 — east side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street except for 315 feet starting from a point 360 feet north of the intersection of Sylvester Street and Road 28; Road 34 — both sides of the street from Henry Street to Court Street; Road 36 — both sides of the street from its intersection with Argent Place to a point 1,200 feet north of Argent Place; Road 36 — Burden Boulevard to 200 feet south of Meadow Beauty Drive; Road 36 — east side from Court Street south 650 feet; Road 44 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 44 — Argent Road to Burden Boulevard Road 52 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 60 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 68 Place — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 68 — FCID canal north to City Limits; Road 68 —1-182 to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 76 — east side from Sandifur Parkway to a point 620 feet south of Wrigley Drive; Road 76 — (west side) Wrigley Drive to Burden Boulevard; Road 76 — west side from Sandifur Parkway to Wrigley Drive; Road 80 — from Court Street south; Road 84 — from Sunset Lane south; Road 84 — Argent Road to Chapel Hill Boulevard; Road 100 — Court Street to FCID canal; Rodeo Drive — Road 68 to Convention Place; Ruby Street — between Fourth and Fifth Avenues; Sandifur Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Robert Wayne Drive; Sandifur Boulevard — (north side) Robert Wayne Drive to Road 60; Sandifur Boulevard — from Road 60 to Road 62; Sandifur Parkway — from Road 60 to Road 44; Seventeenth Avenue — (west side) `A' Street to Washington Street; Shoshone Street — 22nd Avenue to 23rd Avenue; Sun Willows Boulevard — both sides of street from its intersection with 20th Avenue to its eastern terminus; Sylvester Street — (south side) 20th Avenue to 28th Avenue; Sylvester Street — (north side) one hundred feet east of 26th Avenue to 28th Avenue; Sylvester Street — From the east line of 20th Avenue to a point 290 feet east thereof, Tenth Avenue — both sides of street from `A' Street to `B' Street; Tenth Avenue — from `B' Street to and including the Inter -City Bridge; Tenth Avenue — both sides of street from Lewis Street to Clark Street; Third Avenue — (east side) fifty feet south of Columbia Street; Third Avenue — (east side) fifty feet north of Columbia Street; Third Avenue — both sides of street 100 feet north of Sylvester Street; Third Avenue — both sides of street 100 feet south of Sylvester Street; Third Avenue — On the west side from a point five hundred seventy-five feet north of Margaret Street to a point six hundred fifty feet north of Margaret Street; Page 63 of 64 N. Third Avenue — both sides from W. Pearl Street north 200 feet; Twentieth Avenue — From Lewis Street to Argent Road except on the east side of 20th Avenue only from a point one hundred seventy feet south of Hopkins Street to Lewis Street; Twenty Second Avenue — (west side) to 550 feet south of West Henry Place; Twenty Eight Avenue — (west side) Lewis Street to Sylvester Street; Washington Street — (south side) Ninth Avenue to Tenth Avenue; Wrigley Drive — Road 76 to Clemente Lane; Road 26 — Both sides of Road 26, from a point 120 feet south of the south curb line of Court Street on the east side and 245 feet south of Court Street on the west side, to 250 feet north of the north curbline of Court Street. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this 21St day of September, 2015. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Page 64 of 64