HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.09.25 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
September 25, 2017
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) The ARC of Tri-Cities presentation on Special Olympics
Presented by Paul Whitemarsh and Jerome Delvin
3 - 15 (b) Certified Local Government Recognition (MF# HIST 2017-001)
16 (c) Inspection Services Activity
17 - 20 (d) Bid Award: Butterfield Water Treatment Plant PLC and Controls
Upgrade
21 - 32 (e) Final acceptance: Primary Clarifier No 3 Upgrade Project
33 - 38 (f) Chronic Nuisance Ordinance
39 - 44 (g) National Citizen's Survey
5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
7. ADJOURNMENT.
REMINDERS:
1. 4:00 p.m., Monday, September 25, Ben-Franklin Transit Office – Hanford Area
Economic Investment Fund Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL
Page 1 of 44
Workshop Meeting September 25, 2017
YENNEY, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.)
2. 7:30 a.m., Wednesday, September 27, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd – Visit Tri-Cities
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER CHI FLORES, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER
TOM LARSEN, Alt)
3. 4:00 p.m., Thursday, September 28, 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 44
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 18, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Workshop Meeting: 9/25/17
FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Certified Local Government Recognition (MF# HIST 2017-001)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Certified Local Government 2017 Letter of Recognition
Certified Local Government 2015 Certificate
PowerPoint Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In January of 2015 Council approved an agreement with the Department of
Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) to become a Certified Local
Government, after approving an amended Title 27 Historic Preservation (Ordinance
4178) in October 2014. Local governments that establish a historic preservation
program which meets federal and state standards are eligible to apply to the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the National Park Service for certification. A
local government that receives such certification is known as a "Certified Local
Government.”
Since that time the City’s Historic Preservation Commission has embarked on an
ambitious project to document the history of the City of Pasco via a series of short
videos covering the early history of Ainsworth, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) Railroad, the Moore Mansion, the Naval Air Station (NAS) Pasco (now Tri -
Page 3 of 44
Cities Airport) and the Pasco School District. These videos contain historic photos,
narration and interviews with on-the-ground experts on each of these topics.
As well, interested citizens have secured research grant funds through the SHPO for a
project focused on underrepresented populations of Pasco, beginning with the African-
American community. Acceptance of this grant is expected to be before Council in
October.
The Commission anticipates adapting the research findings into other History of Pasco
video segments that may include Chinese and Hispanic communities.
V. DISCUSSION:
Members of the Historic Preservation Commission will present Council with a brief
presentation highlighted components of their video presentations.
Page 4 of 44
United States Department of the Interior
JN REPLY REF£R TO:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
18 49 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20 24 0
Dear Certified Local Government Partner: JUN -1 2017
During 2016, the National P a rk Service designated 38 new communities from across the United
States as Certified Local Governments (C LG ). We a r e excited to report that 1,966 commun ities
now participate in the CLG program! T his is a sign ifi can t milestone as it also recognizes the
50th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which created the CLG
program w ith the 1980 amend m ents.
"We are pro ud that last year 38 new communities spanni ng the coun try from California to New
York joined us in ou r commitment to hi storic preservation and protecting what makes their cities
and towns specia l," sa id Associate Directo r Stephanie Toothman . "These Certified Local
Governments now have access to unique resources to prese rve the heritage of the ir
communit ies and promo te local economic growth through tourism to their historica l areas."
In honor of this s ignifican t anniversary, the National Park Service would l ike to thank the
communiti es who conti nue to make a commitment to historic prese rva tion on a loca l level.
Wheth e r one of the early C LG s from 1985 w hen the program started , or 'One of our very new
partners to join in 2016 we va lu e you r partnership in the Federal Preservation Program. The
C LG program is a model of Feder al , State, and loca l government c~operation.
Please accept this certifi ca t e as a token of our appreciation fo r your con tributi ons t o th e Federal
preservation partne rsh ip. From New York City to Starkvill e , Colorado, from co unty to to w nsh ip,
each of yo u is key to Ameri ca 's ability t o preserve, protect, a nd increase awareness of our
unique cu ltu ra l heritage found across the country.
Megan J. Brown
Chief
State, Triba l, Loca l, Plans & Grants
National Park Service
RECEIVED
JU N 1 9 2017
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Page 5 of 44
In celebration of the 50th anniversary
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
the National Park Service,Department of the Interior congratulates
on being a Certified LocalGovernment and partner in the Federal
preservation program since
t%/«c?/2,2075
Associate Director Cultural Resources
National Park ServicePage 6 of 44
Ainsworth TownAugust 3, 1884Page 7 of 44
Carnegie Library1911Page 8 of 44
Pasco & NP Rail Yardca 1920Page 9 of 44
County Courthouse1940’sPage 10 of 44
1st Air Mail Route West of the MississippiPasco WA ‐Boise ID ‐Elko NVPage 11 of 44
Naval Air Station Pasco Flight Control TowerPage 12 of 44
Historic Preservation Commission Activity•Moore Mansion Special Tax Valuation•Historic Preservation Plan for the CityoAnalyzed unfilled historic preservation opportunitiesoDeveloped a historic resources index/register strategyoAnalyzed the feasibility of an historic district or consortium, recognizing that historic resources are dispersed throughout the CityoDeveloped a Preliminary strategy for financing/providing a railroad museumoDeveloped a program for establishing a historic resources index/registeroEvaluated economic strategies and workable incentives for encouraging private and public sector historic preservation effortsoEstablished historic preservation evaluation criteria for restoration/ replacement/reuse of historic resources•Certified Local Government StatusPage 13 of 44
Historic Preservation Commission Activity•Future ProjectsoDevelop and populate a historic resources index/registeroInitiate/support a Railroad consortium for financing/providing a railroad museumoDevelop a “Railroad Plaza” concept for a synergistic museum/specialty retail centerPage 14 of 44
Questions?Page 15 of 44
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 20, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/25/17
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Inspection Services Permit and Inspection Activity
I. REFERENCE(S):
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
DISCUSSION
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Troy Hendren, Inspection Services Manager, will provide Council a brief PowerPoint
presentation on recent permit, building inspection and Fire Safety Inspection Program
activity.
As Council may recall, the Fire Safety Inspection Program was instituted i n a manner
that allowed City inspection staff to be fully charged with implementing and carrying
out the Program. The corresponding lack of inspection resources for building permit
activity was backfilled by the use of a contract inspection service.
The past few years of construction activity have been busier than expected - resulting
in more use of the contract inspection service than was originally anticipated. Permit
and related activity numbers will be provided to Council in the presentation.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 16 of 44
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 15, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick Terway, Interim Public Works Director
Workshop Meeting: 9/25/17
FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer
Public Works
SUBJECT: Bid Award: Butterfield Water Treatment Plant PLC and Controls Upgrade
I. REFERENCE(S):
Vicinity Map
Bid Tabulation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Water Fund - from current revenue bond proceeds - $600,000
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
This project consists of replacing the aging and out-of-date programmable logic
controllers (PLC) and the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system at
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant.
The current equipment was installed in the mid 1990's and increasingly difficult to
support; e.g. the PLC code no longer offers drivers for any computer operating system
that is currently on the market and replacement hardware for the existing system is
almost non-existent - the last major repair required bringing in a retired technician who
knew how to troubleshoot and fix this old equipment.
The upgrades accomplished through this project will standardize the Butterfield Plant
with the equipment utilized at the West Pasco Plant and allow the City to take
advantage of Ethernet communication and utilize readily available and supported
drivers for the software packages staff regularly utilizes.
Page 17 of 44
V. DISCUSSION:
Bid were received opened on September 13, 2017, the City received two (2) bids for
the project. The low bid was from Townsend Controls & Electric LLC, in the amount
of $475,412.94. The Engineer's Estimate was $564,720.
This project is included in the City's 2018 budget and 2017-2022 Capital Improvement
Plan. The anticipated completion date is March 30, 2018.
Staff reviewed the bid submittal and found no exceptions or irregularities and,
therefore, recommends award of the contract to Townsend Controls & Electric LLC, of
Pasco, Washington.
Page 18 of 44
Page 19 of 44
BID SUMMARY
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant PLC and Controls Upgrade
Project No.17019
Cit Contract Number:CP9-WT-2R-17-01
Bid Security
ENGINEER'S
ESTIMATE
Townsend Controls &
Electric LLC
Pasco,WA
5%Bid Bond
Taurus Power &Controls,
Inc.
Kent,WA
5%Bid Bond
ITEM
Mobilization,Bonds,Insurance,Permits,and Demobilization
UNITPRICE
$30,000.00
AMOUNT
$30,000 00
UNITPRICE
$7,600.00
AMOUNT
$7,600.00
UNITPRICE
26,500.00
AMOUNT
26,500 .00
Demolish and Remove Existing Profibus System $2500.00 $2 500.00 $720.00 $720.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
Ethernet Cable,CAT 6 $3 00 $1,500.00 $1.20 $600.00 $1.14 $570.00
Replace FACP PLC Including New Back Panel and Touchscreen $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $27,436.41 $27,436.41 36,250.00 36,250.00
Replace Filter Control (1&3)PLC Including New Back Panel and Touchscreen $20,000.00 $20,000 00 $27,992.41 $27,992.41 35,500.00 35,500.00
Replace Filter Control (2&4)PLC Including New Back Panel and Touchscreen $20,000,00 52000000 $27,992.41 $27,992.41 35,500.00 35,500.00
Replace Filter Control (5&7)PLC Including New Back Panel and Touchscreen $20,000 00 $20,000.00 $27,992.41 $27,992.41 35,500.00 35,500.00
Replace Filter Control (6&8)PLC Including New Back Panel and Touchscreen $20,000 00 $20,000 00 $27,992.41 $27,992.41 35,500.00 35,500.00
Replace Individual Filter Relay Back Panels $16,000 00 $16,000 00 $18,265.54 $18,265.54 $22,100.00 22,100.00
Replace Main PLC Including New Back Panel $100,000.00 3100.000 00 $108,891.81 $108,891.81 $124,700.00 $124,700.00
Replace Fluoride PLC Including New Back Panel and Touchscreen $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $21,134.08 $21,134.08 28,250.00 28,250.00
Replace Sedimentation Basin PLC Including New Back Panel $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $21,244.63 $21,244.63 25,500.00 25,500.00
Programming,Testing,Commissioning,and Training $195,000.00 $195,000,00 $79,700.00 $79,700.00 $154,500.00 $154,500.00
Spare Parts and Software License $25,000.00 825 000 00 $35,703.03 $35,703.03 15,350.00 15,350.00
Operations &Maintenance Manuals,Record Drawings,and Electronic Files $25000 00 $25,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
CITYENGINEERSREPORT
COMPETITIVEBIDSWEREOPENEDONSEPTEMBER13,2017.
ALLBIDSHAVEBEENREVIEWEDBYTHISOFFICE.
I RECOMMENDTHECONTRACTBEAWARDEDTO:
Townsend Controls &ElectricLLC
CITYENGINEER
V
l'J.E.1'!
CITY OF
PASCO
Subtotal:
Sales Tax (8.6%):
Total Bid:
$520,000 00
844.720,00
$564,720.00
APPROVALBYPUBLICWORKSDIRECTOR
I7
t7//7/7
DATE PUBLICWORKS IRECTOR
CITY OF PASCO
$437,765.14
$37,647.80
$475,412.94
$587,720.00
$50,543.92
$638,263.92
Butterfield WTP PLC and Controls Upgrade
Project No.17019
Contract No.:CP9-WT-2R-17-01
BID DATE:September 13,2017
F||_E;Butterfield WTP PLC Upgrade Bid Summary.pub
SHEET 1 of 1Page 20 of 44
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 18, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick Terway, Interim Public Works Director
Workshop Meeting: 9/25/17
FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer
Public Works
SUBJECT: Final acceptance: Primary Clarifier No 3 Upgrade Project
I. REFERENCE(S):
Vicinity Map
Proposed Resolution
Council Presentation Materials
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Revenue Bond - $5,705,368
Current Total Budget- $5,463,508
Requesting Allocation- $241,860
Total Final Requested Budget- $5,705,368
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In the spring of 2014, Council adopted the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The Plan
identifies strategies and outlines the capital improvement to address current and future
needs. One of the high priority projects was the construction of an additional primary
clarifier at the municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The ex isting clarifiers
were nearing design capacity. A third primary clarifier was necessary to meet the future
growth within the system. This expansion in primary treatment through the additional
clarifier represents the first phase of improvements to increase the capacity of the
WWTP from 7 million gallons per day (MGD) to 12 MGD.
In May 2014, Council awarded a Professional Service Agreement to HDR Engineering
Page 21 of 44
to complete design of the project along with other associated improvements at the
WWTP.
The Primary Clarifier Upgrade project as bid, included the additional primary clarifier,
a new primary sludge pumping room, a new scum pump station, modifications to the
existing headworks channel, and associated mechanical, electrical, instrumentation,
yard piping, and other site work.
On July 27, 2015, Council awarded the Primary Clarifier Upgrade project to
Clearwater Construction & Management, LLC for $4,634,287.80.
V. DISCUSSION:
The final construction contract cost is $4,757,626.94, which includes 3% in change
orders ($123,339.14) over the original contract price. Included was a savings of
$51,013 in value engineering savings identified by the contractor.
The final total project cost including design, consultant construction management, the
City's portion of the construction management, and administration costs is anticipated
to be $5,705,368.
Staff recommends City Council's acceptance of the project as constructed by
Clearwater Construction & Management, LLC.
Page 22 of 44
New Primary Clarifier No. 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 23 of 44
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED BY PREMIER
EXCAVATION INC., UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE CLEARWATER CONSTRUCTION &
MANAGEMENT, LLC. UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO 3 PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the work performed by Clearwater Construction & Management, LLC.
under contract for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Primary Clarifier No 3 project. has been
examined by Engineering and has been found to be in apparent compliance with the applicable
project specifications and drawings, and
WHEREAS, it is Engineering’s recommendation that the City of Pasco formally accept
the contractor’s work and the project as complete; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that the
City Council concurs with Engineering’s recommendation and thereby accepts the work
performed by Clearwater Construction & Management. under contract for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Primary Clarifier No 3 project., as being completed in apparent conformance
with the project specifications and drawings, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Washington
State Department of Revenue of this acceptance, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the final payment of retainage being withheld pursuant to
applicable laws, regulations and administrative determination shall be released upon satisfaction
of same and verification thereof by the Public Works Director and Finance Director.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this __2nd _ day of October, 2017.
_____________________________
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ __________________________
Daniela Erickson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 24 of 44
Page 25 of 44
Page 26 of 44
To Meet the Current and Future Flow DemandsMaster Plan Identified As Urgent Improvement Page 27 of 44
Page 28 of 44
Page 29 of 44
Page 30 of 44
Page 31 of 44
Page 32 of 44
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 20, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/25/17
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Chronic Nuisance Ordinance
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
DISCUSSION
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In May of 2016, City Council adopted the initial Chronic Nuisance Ordinance to
address nuisances which occur on properties in repetitive or chronic episodes. Chronic
nuisances are defined to include violations of local codes that are typically not
associated with physical property – such as loitering, personal harassment, offenses
involving drugs, offenses involving prostitution or indecent exposure and criminal
mischief.
By way of summary - the Ordinance adopted by Council in May of 2016 provided the
following:
• Defines chronic nuisances for single family, multi-family, commercial
residential (hotels/motels), commercial and industrial properties;
• Provides for adequate notice to the property owner or person in control of the
property;
• Establishes procedures for the City’s responsible official to determine whether
a property is a chronic nuisance property;
• Establishes a system of remedies, penalties and fines for the existence of a
chronic nuisance; and
• Provides an appeal process through the Code Enforcement Board if a
Page 33 of 44
responsible person or property owner is aggrieved.
Council amended the initial Chronic Nuisance Ordinance in January of this year as
monitoring the nuisance thresholds and regulations revealed that the "triggers" for
implementation of the solutions pertaining to a chronic nuisance were set too high for
multi-family commercial properties such as motels and hotels.
Further implementation of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance so far this year seems to
support additional refinement of the threshold for chronic nuisances related to search
warrants, warrants of arrests or actual arrests.
The existing Chronic Nuisance Ordinance treats all property - regardless of land use or
number of units - the same for measuring a "chronic nuisance" as it relates to warrants
or arrests. Two occurrences of arrests and/or warrants on any property within a 12
month period trigger a determination of "chronic nuisance."
In addition, there is inconsistency with the time period involved in measuring arrests or
warrants as all other chronic nuisance indicators are measured in a 180 day period
versus a 12 month period.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance revises the threshold from two occurrences per property for
arrests or warrants to the sliding scale indicated in the proposed ordinance.
The proposed ordinance also revises the time frame for measurement from 12 months
to 180 days as that is consistent with the time frame for measuring other chronic
nuisance indicators.
It is important to note that these proposed changes would not have affected the
determination of a chronic nuisance for the several properties currently under
compliance orders related to the Ordinance.
Staff requests Council discussion and direction on this issue.
Page 34 of 44
Chronic Nuisances Ordinance - 1
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington Amending
PMC Section 9.63.020 "Definitions”
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has been granted Constitutional and statutory powers to
protect the safety, health and well being of its citizens; specifically providing for the definition,
abatement, and punishment regarding nuisances which pose a hazard to public health and safety
and pose a disproportionate demand for the City health and safety services; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that when certain properties within the City have
been permitted to be used in such a manner that the risk to public health and safety require
multiple responses by City emergency services, and in addition, negatively impact the quality of
life in the neighborhoods in which they are located; and
WHEREAS, City Council in 2016 adopted a “Chronic Nuisance Ordinance” providing
remedies for chronic nuisances; and
WHEREAS, monitoring the implementation and the effects of the Chronic Nuisance
Ordinance over the past year indicate that the definition of a “chronic nuisance” as relates to
warrants of arrests, search warrants or actual arrests is adversely generic as applied to multi-
family properties and non – residential properties; and
WHEREAS, the definition of a “chronic nuisance” as relates to warrants of arrests,
search warrants or actual arrests applied to multi-family properties should be revised to quantify
the threshold for the determination of a “chronic nuisance” on a more specific scale: NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 9.63.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
9.63.020 DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and
phrases shall mean:
A) "Chronic nuisance activity" shall mean any of the following activities,
conduct, or behavior, whenever engaged in by owners, managers, operators, tenants,
occupants or guests of the premises, or other persons that frequent or are associated with
the premises:
1) Violations of Court orders as provided in PMC 9.03.011 and
9.03.012.
Page 35 of 44
Chronic Nuisances Ordinance - 2
2) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.06 including disorderly conduct,
failure to disperse, simple assault, malicious harassment, reckless endangerment,
and disorderly place.
3) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.08, personal harassment.
4) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.11, indecent exposure and lewd
conduct.
5) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.13, prostitution and related activities.
6) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.24, firearms and dangerous weapons.
7) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.28, gambling.
8) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.38, offenses involving drugs, or in
violation of Chapter 69.50 RCW and Chapter 69.43 RCW.
9) Violations of RCW 9A.40.100 and RCW 9A.88.060, human
trafficking.
10) Violations of PMC Chapter 8.02.320 and PMC 8.02.330,
dangerous or potentially dangerous animals.
11) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.46, criminal mischief.
12) Execution of criminal arrest warrants, search warrants or criminal
arrests on the property.
13) Violations of RCW 9.94A, criminal street gang related offenses.
B) "Chronic nuisance property" means a premises, structure, or property,
including adjacent sidewalks, parking areas and common areas, on which:
1) A single-family residence where three or more nuisance activities
described in subsection A) above have occurred on different days during any 180-
day period; or
2) A commercial business which:
(a) Sells or serves alcoholic beverages where eight (8) or more
nuisance activities described in subsection A) above have occurred on
different days during any 180-day period; or
(b) All other commercial businesses where four (4) or more
nuisance activities described in subsection A) above have occurred on
different days during any 180-day period.
Page 36 of 44
Chronic Nuisances Ordinance - 3
3) An industrial property where three or more nuisance activities
described in subsection A) above have occurred on different days during any 180-
day period.
4) For any type of commercial or industrial property where a search
warrant or warrant of arrest, or arrest has occurred twice at such property or
business location, or per unit of any multi-family residential property within a 180
day 12-month period; or for any multi-family residential property including, but
not limited to, apartments, boarding houses, rooming houses where a search
warrant or warrant of arrest or arrest has occurred in the following frequencies
within any 180 - day period:
(a) 0 – 4 units – 2
(b) 5 – 20 units – 3
(c) 21 – 40 units – 5
(d) 41 – 60 units – 6
(e) 61 – 120 units – 8
(f) 120+ units – 9
5) For any multi-family residential property including, but not limited
to, apartments, boarding houses, rooming houses, or multi-tenant commercial
properties including, but not limited to, hotels and motels having 0.5 or more
nuisance activities per unit (occupied or not) having occurred on different days
within a 180-day period of time.
C) "Person in charge" means any person or entity in actual or constructive
possession of the property, including but not limited to an owner as determined by the
records of the Franklin County Auditor, lessee, tenant, occupant, agent, or manager with
the express or implied control of the property.
D) "Responsible official" means the Chief of Police or Director of
Community Development, or any applicable department director as defined by PMC
11.02.030(3), or their respective designees.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this ____ day of _____________, 2017.
______________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Page 37 of 44
Chronic Nuisances Ordinance - 4
Attest: Approved as to Form:
______________________________ ______________________________
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 38 of 44
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 13, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 9/25/17
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: National Citizen's Survey
I. REFERENCE(S):
Community Survey Questions from Prior Years
2017 Possible Policy Questions
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Alternatives of $15,750 or $12,195
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In furtherance of Council's goal of responsive and efficient government, staff is in
communication 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 valid survey have 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 is making 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 that the information is available for the Council's post-election cycle goal-setting
retreat, in this case, in early 2018.
Page 39 of 44
In additional to the questions specific to the major services the City provides, the
Council may add up to three "policy" questions to the 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 early November.
While the base survey has been conducted entirely by mail in the past, NRC is
currently offering the alternative of a web-based survey with a scientific sample and
invitations by mail. The cost of the web-based survey is 75% of the mailed survey as
shown below:
• $14,265 - Mailed survey (returns by mail or web; scientific sample of 1,500
households,) The City had 260 responses of a sample of 1,400 households in
2015.
• $10,710 - Web only survey (invitation by mail, returns by web; scientific
sample of 1,800 households)
The database utilized to generate the households is from the City's utility billing data.
Both options above include the ability of the City to invite 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). This option produced 327
responses in 2015.
There are other survey enhancement options which can be added to the base survey
which Council may want to consider as follows:
1. The option for Spanish-only speaking residents to review and submit the survey
online would cost $675. This option was also provided in 2015, with five total
responses.
2. 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 $810.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff has no hesitation in recommending options 1 and 2 as the cost is minimal and the
benefits to the City are significant. As the cost of the self-select web survey is included
in the basic package, selection is not a cost issue. It should be noted that in 2015 this
method produced 125% of the responses produced by the random sample. While the
results were not scientific, staff noted fairly strong consistency between the 2015
mail/random responses and web/self-select responses.
If the two options are selected, with the mail return survey, total cost would be
$15,750. If the web return random survey is selected, with both options, the cost drops
to $12,195 (less than paid in 2015).
Page 40 of 44
In an effort to stimulate discussion, staff offers possible policy questions (attachment
#2) which represent some of the policy issues that Council has confronted, or may
confront in the future, for Council's consideration.
Staff encourages Council to consider possible policy questions; and while it is still not
essential to finalize any questions at this point, if Council has ideas that members
would like to see further discussed or developed, it would be helpful to identify them at
the meeting. With the potential for hundreds of 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 looks forward to the opportunity for Council deliberation and direction on this
matter.
Page 41 of 44
Community Survey Questions
2015 Survey:
1. Recycling and Yard Waste Services: The City is considering providing curbside container
recycling and yard waste services. To what extent would you support or oppose these
services being offered?
2. Traffic Cameras: In order to reduce the rate of serious traffic accidents at major intersections,
the City is considering installing cameras to increase red light compliance. To what extent do
you support or oppose the installation of traffic cameras at selected intersections in Pasco?
3. District-Based Voting in General Elections: Of the seven members of City Council, five
members are district-based, with only residents within the district able to run for election and
only voters residing within the district voting on district candidates in primary elections and
city-wide voting in the general (final) election. The method of voting for district -based
candidates (district-based voting at the primary level and city-wide voting in the general
election) is dictated by state law. The City is considering whether to push to change the law
to allow for district-based voting in the general election in communities that choose this
approach. To what extent do you support or oppose?
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 contin ued 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 chan ge 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?”
Page 42 of 44
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 woul d 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 ext ent do you agree or disagree with
this conclusion?
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 m aintaining 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 43 of 44
2017 Possible Policy Questions
1. Code Enforcement
The City processes approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Violations are primarily
received as complaints from citizens and are predominately related to property maintenance
(trash, weeds) or noise (loud music, barking dogs). Do you feel that the City’s code
enforcements are:
i. More than adequate
ii. Adequate
iii. Less than Adequate
iv. Do not know
2. Fire/EMS Facilities:
Age, growth and growth patterns in the City over the last several years have created the need
to replace two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities. Relocation and
replacement of these facilities will result in improved response times throughout the City,
and allow adequate space for staffing and modern equipment. If funding of a new fire/EMS
station was to be proposed as a property tax bond issue to the voters, would you be:
i. Strongly supportive
ii. Somewhat supportive
iii. Somewhat opposed
iv. Strongly opposed
v. Do not know
3. Transportation Network Companies:
The City Council has adopted regulations for Taxicabs and Transportation Network
Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft. Regulations require criminal background checks of
drivers in addition to fingerprinting (at a cost of $5) to verify identity. In response to the
fingerprint requirement, one major TNC has indicated that it will not operate in the City.
How do you view the fingerprint requirement for Taxicabs and TNC drivers?:
i. Strongly support
ii. Somewhat support
iii. Somewhat opposed
iv. Strongly opposed
v. Do not know
Page 44 of 44