HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.03.27 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
March 27, 2017
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
3 - 4 (a) USACE Land Reconveyance
Presentation by Brad Fisher, Executive Committee Chairman, TRIDEC
5 (b) Wayfinding Presentation
Presentation by Kris Watkins, President & CEO, Visit Tri-Cities and Glen
Swantak, representing Merje
6 - 11 (c) Pasco Public Market
12 - 27 (d) Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
28 - 32 (e) Naming of Public Building
33 - 34 (f) City Council Compensation
5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
7. ADJOURNMENT.
REMINDERS:
4:00 p.m., Monday, March 27, Ben-Franklin Transit Office – Hanford Area
Economic Investment Fund Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL
YENNEY, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.)
Page 1 of 34
Workshop Meeting March 27, 2017
2:00 p.m., Thursday, March 30, 11412 W. Court Street – Groundbreaking
Ceremony Columbia Raw Water Intake Structure. (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS
INVITED TO ATTEND)
4:00 p.m., Thursday, March 30, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd – TRIDEC Board
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER CHI FLORES, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER TOM
LARSEN, Alt.)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and
streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance.
Page 2 of 34
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 22, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/27/17
FROM: Rick Terway, Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: USACE Land Reconveyance Presentation
I. REFERENCE(S):
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation by Brad Fisher, Executive Committee Chairman, TRIDEC
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A at this time.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Tri-City Development Council (TRIDEC) has been spearheading an effort to re-convey
34 miles of rivershore from the federal government (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
back to the community for local control. Resolutions supporting the concept have been
received by the Benton County Commissioners, Franklin County Commissioners,
TRIDEC Board of Directors, Tri-City Association of Realtors, Pasco Chamber of
Commerce, Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce Regional Affairs Committee and
WSU Tri-Cities. A petition has also been signed by rivershore property owners.
The primary reasons for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involvement with the 34
miles of rivershore land stem from the Flood of 1948 and the back-up of Lake Wallula
which flooded some areas and the Corps response in building the infrastructure
controlling the river today. Former U.S. Representative Doc Hastings, a key force
behind this effort, feels there is an opportunity to pass special federal legislation to re-
convey land. Such legislation could be tailored to address local concerns and
preferences.
V. DISCUSSION:
Briad Fisher will provide an update of the status of the re-conveyance effort. Much
Page 3 of 34
depends on how the legislation is written and what effect it will have on how the city
can utilize the land once it is conveyed back to the city, as well as any additional cost
which maybe incurred As a result I f the effort of successful. Staff will keep Council
apprised as the process moves forward.
Page 4 of 34
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 22, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/27/17
FROM: Rick Terway, Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Wayfinding Presentation
I. REFERENCE(S):
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation by Kris Watkins, President & CEO, Visit Tri-Cities and Glen Swantak,
representing Merje
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council (TREC) has been working on
producing a regional wayfinding plan for the last year and the process is nearly
complete. Merje, the company hired to assist with guiding the process, will present the
final draft version of the Design Plan, which shows the community brand and how it is
incorporated into the look of the signs for each city and the Programming Document,
which depicts the suggested location and level of detail for wayfinding components
within the community.
As part of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City has planned for the placement of the
signs.
The Tri-Cities Wayfinding Plan has been a collaborative effort of the cities of
Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland, the Port of Benton, Port of
Kennewick and Port of Pasco, as well as Benton and Franklin Counties and Visit TRI-
CITIES.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 5 of 34
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 22, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/27/17
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Pasco Public Market Presentation
I. REFERENCE(S):
Public Market Paper
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Economic Development Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A public market is a location for vendors that provide finished products as well as a
lesser amount of produce or foodstocks. Public markets are most often year-round
events and typically are located with strong connections to a community's downtown.
Recently, a private group investigated a potential market site in Richland and ended up
forming a non-profit board for development purposes.
The potential market formation in Richland did not progress and the Tri-Cities Public
Market Board has researched sites in both Pasco and Kennewick and determined that
the Pasco Downtown or the Port of Pasco's Marine Terminal areas both have potential
for a successful Public Market.
V. DISCUSSION:
Steps to further explore this concept include preparation of a feasibility study by a
qualified consultant to determine which location would better support a successful
public market and provide the maximum amount of community benefits.
Page 6 of 34
City and Port staff propose that the cost of a feasibility study - approximately $30,000
although exact costs are not yet determined - be split between the two agencies. This
would be accomplished through a Memoranda of Agreement executed by the City
Manager and Port Executive Director and contain provisions for both the City and Port
to approve the scope and cost.
At the Workshop Meeting of March 27th, the Port of Pasco and City staff will provide
a brief summary on the public market concept and be available to answer questions.
Page 7 of 34
1 | P a g e
Locating the Tri-Cities Regional Public Market in Pasco, Washington
An Opportunity to Drive Redevelopment, Change Perceptions
and Develop the Economy of Pasco
October 25, 2016
Summary
Locating a Public Market in Pasco has the potential to benefit the City of Pasco and the Port of
Pasco, not only providing economic benefits but providing social benefits as well. A
public/private partnership or P3 is necessary for the project to reach fruition. A successful P3
must balance risk and reward, insuring that both entities equally share in costs and benefits.
Putting together the project will take time and require thoughtful consideration of a number of
issues, this paper provides a foundation for moving the project forward, describing the project,
the potential benefits and next steps.
At the end of this document is a history of the Tri-Cities Public Market as well as a FAQ section
that provides more insights into public markets. In general, a public market is an attractor or
anchor. It will support additional commercial development, and because of the lifestyle
component it will support higher income level residential development than what would
otherwise be determined by market forces. The in creased residential development will create
more demand for commercial providing for an upward spiral of development. With limited
exception, public markets are a public project, funded through a mix of public and private
funds.
Potential Locations/Benefits
The Tri-Cities Public Market board has developed a number of criteria when looking to site a
public market in the Tri-Cities. In general, they are looking for sites with downtown connection.
So newer areas of the Tri-Cities that we would consider strong retail hubs are not of interest.
This would include the mall, Road 68,
Queensgate and Southridge. The areas should
be walkable, with good traffic counts and with
other services around. After the proposal fell
through in Richland the Board looked at
locations in both Kennewick and Pasco. The
Board narrowed those options based on likely
community support and is now interested in
two general locations, the Port of Pasco’s
former Marine Terminal site (Cable Bridge)
and Downtown Pasco.
Neither meet all the criteria set forth by the
Board, but each has advantages. Both sites
have decent walkability. The distance
between the Cable Bridge site and Downtown
Page 8 of 34
2 | P a g e
Pasco is under a mile. It is also less than a mile to the Port of Kennewick’s new Col umbia
Gardens project and about 1.5 miles to downtown Kennewick. The Cable Bridge site has good
auto access via Highway 397 and has great ties to the Columbia River. It is limited in that it is
just starting to redevelop and there are not many existing amenities. Downtown Pasco has a
number of existing amenities but loses the tie to the river.
In either location the Public Market could provide a catalyst for redevelopment efforts. At the
Cable Bridge site, the Public Market would provide an anchor for future development. The
project could be tied with a redevelopment of the wharf to provide a public space with access
to the river for cruise ships and personal watercraft. This would be similar to Port of
Vancouver’s waterfront development proposal. In Downtown Pasco, the Public Market could
build off of the Farmers Market infrastructure and the investments the City of Pasco is making
into downtown. The Public Market would lead to higher end residential and commercial
investments, similar to what Seattle has seen with Pike Place Market. While both sites could
potentially benefit, development of the Public Market at either location would benefit Pasco as
a community.
The Next Steps
The first step is a feasibility study to determine which location, if eit her would support a
successful Tri-Cities Public Market. This is an important step because the right location will
increase the likelihood of not only the success of the Public Market, but increase the benefits to
the Pasco community. The Tri-Cities Public Market group has asked that the Port and City fund
this effort (approximately $30,000 total for both locations) to build off their existing work and
investment at the Richland location.
Once we determine if a Public Market in Pasco is feasible, and we determine the location that
will provide the best likelihood of success, the next step would be the development of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Pasco, Port of Pasco and the Tri-
Cities Public Market. The MOU would outline the steps needed to take the Public Market from
an idea into a funded reality. It would also provide the risk sharing and funding expectations to
complete these steps, making sure all sides understand their role and their obligations.
For more information:
Gary Ballew
Economic Development
Port of Pasco/City of Pasco
(509) 547-3378
gballew@portofpasco.org
Page 9 of 34
3 | P a g e
Tri-Cities Public Market History
For the past several years a group of Tri-City residents sought the development of the Tri-Cities
Public Market. The concept came out of the potential redevelopment of the City of Richland’s
old community center, which was razed as part of an earlier redevelopment effort. That earlier
effort failed, leaving a hole excavated for a foundation and parkin g garage in the mid-2000’s.
A private group began investigating the redevelopment of the Richland site into a more urban
style development, with retail on the ground floor and with offices and residential in the air
space above. The group included a local application development firm and a private developer.
In the performance of their marketing analysis the group came to believe that the best function
for the ground level space was a public market to anchor the development. Without an anchor
the development would not support the density or real estate rates necessary to bring the
urban style development to fruition. In pursuit of this effort they formed a non -profit with the
purpose of developing the market. The Tri-Cities Public Market board includes representatives
from throughout the Tri-Cities.
In the end the concept was not pursued by the City of Richland, who was concerned that public
funding could impact their capability to perform other public projects. There were a number of
other issues, both perceived and material, that lead to a potential erosion of the relationship
between the parties, which never really formed a partnership. With the potential of
development in Richland nixed, the group sought other potential locations, including Pasco.
Frequently Asked Questions on Public Markets & P3’s
There are certainly a number of excellent resources on Public Markets, one such source is the
consultant who evaluated the public market, Aaron Zaretsky. His evaluation is available on -line
at www.tricitypublicmarket.com. Mr. Zaretsky is a passionate advocate for public markets,
though in his consulting work he has a track record of determining where public markets will
work and where they will not. This recap relies heavily on his work. Potentially the best way to
provide a working definition of a Public Market is through a FAQ framework.
Is Public Market just another name for a Farmer’s Market? A farmer’s market is primarily driven
by fresh produce vendors with other vendors providing finished products. A Public Market has a
fairly small fresh produce footprint, taking up roughly 5% of the market. The majority of the
market is finished products. This allows the public market to operate year round, outside of the
agricultural harvest season.
Can Public Markets be private, for-profit? Yes, there are some public markets that were
constructed and run as private, for-profit entities. These markets generally serve higher income
clientele, potentially leading to ‘public’ in the name as more of a misnomer. For what we
generally consider ‘public’ markets there are organizational values beyond profit, with include
community development and small business growth as examples.
Do Public Markets take a lot of public money? Certainly most public markets have received
some public support, mainly during the capital campaign and market start-up. Pike’s Place
Page 10 of 34
4 | P a g e
Market in Seattle is a Public Development Authority (PDA) and received a large infusion of
Federal money. Public Markets can also receive state funding through various programs. While
there is often some form of funding support from the local government, much of the public
funding will come from non-local sources.
Do Public Markets perform like other public attractions? Public Markets will in general
outperform other public venues. Net revenues from rent of stalls at the market itself will
generate sufficient funds to run the facility, providing for maintenance and improvements.
These revenues will likely not be sufficient to pay for initial capital expenditures when market
vendors are for the most part small, non-affiliated or franchised businesses. This mix of unique
and independent businesses is what drives traffic to the market.
If they don’t make money, why have a public market? There is a number of altruistic reasons to
develop public markets, but of primary interest to Pasco and the Port of Pasco is the
opportunity to enhance riverfront or downtown developments through a public market
anchored development. Because a public market is an attractor it will support additional
commercial development, and because of the lifestyle component it will support higher income
level residential development than what would otherwise be determined by market forces. The
Port of Vancouver’s waterfront development is using a similar model.
What is a P3? P3 refers to a public-private partnership. These partnerships are often used for
community desired real estate development. The partnership is a contractual arrangement
between the public and private entities that outlines the sharing of cost, risk and benefits on a
project. P3’s are pretty common in the United States, though a little less in Washington State
due to some constitutional limitations.
Page 11 of 34
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 20, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick Terway, Public Works Director
Workshop Meeting: 3/27/17
FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer
Public Works
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
I. REFERENCE(S):
2016 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Power Point Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
No Impact
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Pasco is a Phase II Eastern Washington Municipal Stormwater Permittee with the
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Pasco’s current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit runs from August 1, 2014
through July 31, 2019. Per the requirements set forth in Section S5. Stormwater
Management Program for Cities, Towns and Counties of the Permit, Pasco is required
to develop and adopt both a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) and a
Stormwater Management Program Plan (Plan) that details all aspects of the Cit y’s
SWMP.
The Plan was included in the 2016-2021 Capital Improvements Plan and funding for
the Plan was included in the Capital Projects Budget for the year 2016. Following a
consultant selection process, Council awarded the Professional Services Agreeme nt
(PSA) to Herrera Environmental Consultants Inc. at the February 1, 2016 Regular
Meeting. Herrera completed the Plan and staff has reviewed the findings, conclusions
and recommendations.
Page 12 of 34
V. DISCUSSION:
Key components documented in the completed Plan include: Public Education and
Outreach; Public Involvement and Participation; Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination; Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control; Post-Construction
Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment; and Mun icipal
Operations and Maintenance. Additionally, the Plan evaluates the effect of the City’s
current stormwater utility structure, land use regulations and policies, and existing
infrastructure maintenance with regard to risk management, environmental
stewardship, and regulatory compliance. The Plan sets near and long term planning
goals and prioritizes a list of needed capital improvement projects to correct existing
deficiencies within the system and to construct future stormwater mitigation
infrastructure. Finally, the Plan examines the City’s effort to retrofit existing
stormwater infrastructure currently discharging directly to the Columbia River, with
the ultimate goal of eliminating all surface water discharges.
Joy Michaud, a Principal with Herrera Environmental Consultants, will share the major
conclusions and implications of 2016 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan as part of the
presentation to Council.
Staff recommends adoption of the 2016 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
Page 13 of 34
2016 Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan
CITY OF PASCO
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
3
4
Basic Planning Components
•NPDES Permit Compliance
•Outfall Elimination Assessment
•Capital Improvement Projects
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
3
4
Plan Development
Workshop with City Staff
Develop Plan Goals
Background Characterization of the Area and Stormwater System
Data Gaps and Needs Assessment
Development of a web-based Stormwater Problems Map
Outfall Elimination Assessment
Capital Improvement Project Selection and Prioritization
Plan Development
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
3
4
Key Goals
PERMIT COMPLIANCE
Meet the minimum regulatory requirements of the Permit
Ensure that new development, redevelopment, and City projects are in conformance with the permit and the City’s adopted stormwater requirements and flow control goals
PLANNING
Continue to encourage infiltration facilities
Continue to be cost–effective. Establish utility rates that meet minimum requirements and public satisfaction
STRATEGIC OUTLOOK
Be proactive about repair of aging infrastructure and avoid costly emergency repairs
Be strategic and plan infrastructure repairs and addition of water quality treatment around other City projects
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
3
4
Background Characterization
Great infiltration potential almost city-wide
Population expansion and annexations will drive additional needs
Little rainfall, few steep slopes, excellent soils, no climate change
concerns, little flooding concerns
Critical species and habitats of minor concern
No flow control requirements
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
3
4
Stormwater System Framework
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
3
4
NPDES Permit Components
Public Education and Outreach
Public Involvement and Participation
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Construction Site Management
Post Construction
Operations and Maintenance
Monitoring and Assessment
Reporting and Recordkeeping
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
3
4
Stormwater Problems
Aging Stormwater Infrastructure
Poor Performance of New Facilities;
partially due to outdated design standard
Lack of Water Quality Treatment
Stormwater Code Violations
P
a
g
e
2
1
o
f
3
4
Stormwater Problems
INSERT screen shot of PROBLEMS MAP
P
a
g
e
2
2
o
f
3
4
Program Assessment Summary
Doing well overall; meeting most substantive permit requirements. On
track for full compliance
Additional staffing need of 2 FTE
Additional equipment need to improve source tracing procedures
($6,000 initial investment plus $1,000 annually)
Current and Recommended Staff Support.
Position/Department Staff Supporting Stormwater Activities Current Funded Staff Additional Need Stormwater Engineering 0.25–0.5 FTE 0 FTE 0.09 FTE Stormwater Maintenance (video inspections and private stormwater facility inspection program)
6.0 FTE 6.0 FTE 2.0 FTE
Community & Economic Development (plan review, construction inspections)
0.25 FTE 0 FTE 0 FTE
Total 6.5–6.75 FTE 6 FTE 2.09 FTE
Nearly 25 miles of
conveyance and
over 1,800 catch-
basins have been
added to the City’s
infrastructure in the
past 15 years.
P
a
g
e
2
3
o
f
3
4
Outfall Elimination Assessment
First Approximation Cost Estimate for Retrofitting all of the old part of
the City (Basins 1 through 5) with infiltration facilities: $14M to $30M
Land Use
Basin 1 Basin 2
BMP Low End High End Low End High End
Residential
$900,000 $2,700,000 $1,300,000 $4,000,000 Bioretention
Undeveloped
– – – – Bioretention
Commercial
$630,000 $1,000,000 $3,100,000 $4,600,000 Infiltration System
Park
$1,600,000 $1,600,000
Infiltration System
Total $3,100,000 $5,000,000 $4,400,000 $9,000,000
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
3
4
CIP Project Selection and Prioritization
Identified about 20 CIP projects initially
Evaluated each in terms of Risk (Severity and
Frequency)
Developed conceptual designs and cost estimates
for top 10
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
3
4
Example Project Summary Sheet
P
a
g
e
2
6
o
f
3
4
Implementation
Implement all of the report recommendations that are Required to meet the Permit
Update City Code and Design Standards to meet appropriate sizing criteria and/or to provide guidance on facility sizing
Fund needed CIPs and plan for annual review of these needs
Acknowledge long standing needs related to existing and future infrastructure due to either its age or its having been constructed outside the City limits (i.e., as with past and future annexations) by establishing an annual fund for addressing these inherited problems
Set an appropriate stormwater utility rate based on these known high priority needs
P
a
g
e
2
7
o
f
3
4
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 20, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/27/17
FROM: Rick Terway, Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Naming of a Public Building
I. REFERENCE(S):
Park Board Minutes, February 2, 2017
Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Development of the community center building on city-owned land at First Avenue
and Sylvester Street as previously authorized by Council is complete. The project
entailed relocation and extensive remodeling of a large modular building (previously
housing Police activities), installation of utilities, parking lot, walkways and
landscaping. The center is fully operational and housing the Meals on Wheels program,
as well as some of the former Senior Center programs. The design of the facility also
allows for classes for youth such as various art related classes; e.g. learn to paint, card
making, holiday craft projects. Other class type setting include Spanish language,
cooking, photography. Giving the center a generic name communicates a broader of
the facility.
Council Resolution 2499, entitled Policy for Naming City Parks and Recreation
Facilities establishes a process by which parks or recreation facilities are named.
Specifically, the Park and Recreation Advisory Board shall advise City Council of the ir
recommendation, if Council concurs, it may authorize the Board to proceed or give
other direction it deems appropriate.
Page 28 of 34
V. DISCUSSION:
The Park and Recreation Advisory Board considered names for the building and
recommends for Council's consideration, the name "First Ave. Center." This name
supports the naming policy by identifying the neighborhood served and general
location of the facility.
Page 29 of 34
Park & Recreation Advisory Board - Meeting Minutes
Date: 2/2/2017
ATTENDANCE: X Rick Terway X Dan Dotta X Brent Kubalek
X Molly Harker X Arthur Job X Edmon Daniels
X Thomas Davenport Reade Obern X Saul Martinez
X Roberto Garcia X Dave Milne Jason Ruud
X Nolvia Salinas _ ___
I.Call to order Time: 5:35 pm
II.Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes:
Minutes Approving: January 5 Minutes Motion: Edmon Daniels
Second: Thomas Davenport Approval Vote: Unanimous
a.Election of Chairperson: Roberto Garcia was nominated by Arthur Job. Roberto
accepted the nomination. Voting was unanimous in the affirmative.
III.Staff Reports
a.Recreation Highlights
i.Mom’s & Son’s Night is will be held Friday, February 17
ii.We have an Intern, Ryan Burford, who is working on Mom’s & Son’s, a
spring break Lacrosse Camp and is helping with the sports leagues.
iii.Youth Basketball is going well, found coaches for all teams, and have
about 80 more participants than 2016.
iv.Starting to work on Summer Guide.
v.Worked with Parks & Facilities to apply for an RCO Boating Facilities
Grant
vi.Are starting the hiring process for the pool
vii.Are looking at rates for Aquatics and start dates.
b.Senior Center Highlights
i.Feedback from users at the new location has been positive.
ii.Footcare going well.
c.Park Maintenance Highlights
i.Personnel Activity
1.Attended Monthly Safety Meetings
2.Staff attended various pesticide training opportunities
3.Completed Electronic learning modules
ii.Park & Facility Projects
1.Snow removal
2.Built snow plow for snow removal
3.Installed new water softener for Post Office
4.Animal Control- new hot water heater, electrical repairs and roof
leaks
Page 30 of 34
Park & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 02.02.17.
5.1st Ave now open
6.Repaired trailer ramps
7.Move Records storage for PD
iii.Cemetery
1.6 Funerals: burials, 1 cremation
2.$21,445.00 in services for the month
3.Prepared for the Wall event
iv.Special Events
1.Assisted with the Employee Appreciation Banquet
IV.Other
a.Vietnam Memorial Wall Replica
i.Coming to City View Cemetery for Memorial Day
ii.Arriving on May 24 – will have procession/parade from 9-11 Memorial in
Kennewick to the Cemetery
iii.Will have armed forces providing security throughout the time it is at the
cemetery.
iv.Will have a ceremony/event on Memorial Day
b.Schlagel Park Grant
i.Will replace ramp, renovate the parking lot and lights, and replace the
restroom
ii.Asking for nearly $500,000 in grant
iii.Dan and Brent went to Olympia and presented on February 1.
c.Naming of Modular Building
i.Proposed Names:
1.1st Avenue Center
2.1st Avenue Leisure Center
3.1st Avenue Social Center
ii.Board Unanimously voted to adopt option 1; “1st Avenue Center” as the
official name for the modular building located on 1st Ave where Meals on
Wheels now serves their meals and where footcare and other senior
services rec programs are being held.
V.Council Member Suggestions & Report
a.Nolvia Salinas – In getting the word out about the pool and Season Passes;
suggested giving out flyers with value attached.
i.Nolvia also gave a recap of the PFD Aquatic committee meeting that took
place on Feb 1.
b.Roberto Garcia – In getting the word out about the pool and Season Passes;
suggested going through PTOs to get the word out.
VI.Meeting Adjourned Time: 6:25pm
a.Next Meeting: March 2
Page 31 of 34
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION approving the name “First Ave. Center” for the remodeled
modular building located at 505 N. 1st Ave.
WHEREAS, the City Park and Recreation Advisory Board has recommended a
name for the remodeled building located at 505 N. 1st Ave.; and
WHEREAS, considering the best interests of the community, the Advisory Board
has recommended the name “First Ave. Center” for the building; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON:
That the remodeled modular building located at 505 N. 1st Ave be named “First Ave.
Center.”
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this _____ day of ___________, 2017.
_____________________________
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Sandy Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr
Interim City Clerk City Attorney
Page 32 of 34
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 23, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/27/17
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: City Council Compensation
I. REFERENCE(S):
Ordinance No. 4329
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Last December, Council adopted Ordinance No. 4329 adjusting the compensation for
the Mayor and other members of the Council. At the time it was unknown how the
federal court would rule regarding Council positions to be elected in 2017.
Accordingly, the ordinance provided for phasing in the increased level of compensation
for those elected in 2017, and again for those elected in 2019. The phasing provision
was necessary to comply with state law (Washington State Constitution, Article XI,
Section 8), which provides that the salary of any elected municipal officer shall not be
increased or diminished after their election, or during their term of office.
Because the court has ordered the election of all Council positions in 2017, it is within
the law and reasonable to implement the terms of the ordinance such that all members
of Council elected this November will receive the new salary ($1,115/month) effective
January 1, 2018.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff makes this recommendation and asks for concurrence of Council in the event
there is any misunderstanding.
Page 33 of 34
P
a
g
e
3
4
o
f
3
4