Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.06.18 Council Meeting PacketRegular Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. June 18, 2018 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Council members or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. 5 - 9 (a) Approval of Minutes To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council dated June 4, 2018. 10 - 12 (b) Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $4,554,020.94 ($1,617,379.77 in Check Nos. 222766-222995; $750,884.43 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 821027, 821031-821045; $42,790.48 in Check Nos. 51728-51790; $729,200.84 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30121346-30121872; $1,413,765.42 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 479-492). To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non- criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $277,318.02 and, of that amount, authorize $221,141.38 to be turned over for collection. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: (a) Presentation of Proclamation for All-America City Award Days Council to Present Proclamation to the "Pasco All-America City Delegation" (b) Specialized Spanish Language Training for Law Enforcement Page 1 of 193 Regular Meeting June 18, 2018 Presented by Bob Metzger, Police Chief 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some questions require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative process with input from a number of different sources; some questions are best directed to staff members who have access to specific information. Citizen comments will normally be limited to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with lengthy messages are invited to summarize their comments and/or submit written information for consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings. 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: 13 - 38 (a) Annexation: Greeno Annexation (MF# ANX 2018-001) CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING MOTION A: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4387, annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and, further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION B: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4388, assigning R-1, R-3 and C-1 zoning to the Greeno Annexation Area as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only. 39 - 44 (b) Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2024 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3844, adopting the 2019-2024 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Pasco for the purpose of guiding the development, design, and construction of local and regional transportation improvements. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: 45 - 141 (a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF # CPA 2018-001) Page 2 of 193 Regular Meeting June 18, 2018 MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3845, declaring the preferred Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Pasco. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 10. NEW BUSINESS: 142 - 192 (a) Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services (Bi- County Emergency Dispatch Services) MOTION: I move to approve the Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services and further, to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. 193 (b) Inclusivity Commission Appointments MOTION: I move to confirm the Mayor's appointments to the Inclusivity Commission as follows (all terms expire 6/18/18, subject to re- appointment): Jesse Campos, Maria Torres Mendoza, Abraham Regunta, Peter Rieke, Jeffrey Robinson, Kyle Saltz, and Delia Tobon. MOTION: I move to confirm the appointment of Jesse Campos to serve as Chairperson of the Inclusivity Commission. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed Q Quasi-Judicial Matter MF# “Master File #....” REMINDERS: 1. 6:00 p.m., Monday, June 18, City Hall Conference Room #1 – LEOFF Disability Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS and COUNCILMEMBER CRAIG MALONEY) 2. 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 20, Walla Walla Regional Airport Conference Room – Benton, Franklin & Walla Walla Counties Good Roads & Transportation Association Page 3 of 193 Regular Meeting June 18, 2018 Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER RUBEN ALVARADO, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, 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 4 of 193 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 7, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 6/18/18 FROM: Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes I. REFERENCE(S): Minutes 06.04.18 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council dated June 4, 2018. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 5 of 193 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2018 1 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Ruben Alvarado, Blanche Barajas, Craig Maloney, Saul Martinez, David Milne, Pete Serrano, and Matt Watkins. Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Steve Worley, Public Works Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Captain Brent Cook, Police; Dave Hare, Assistant Fire Chief; and Maria Serra, Senior Civil Engineer. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Special Meeting dated May 21, 2018 and Regular Meeting dated May 21, 2018. Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $2,730,743.40 ($1,407,073.87 in Check Nos. 222557-222765; $543,771.42 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 820585-820594, 820596-820621, 820624-820694, 820696-820764, 820766-820797, 820818- 820902, 820909, 820911-820936, 820949-820953; $36,325.25 in Check Nos. 51659-51727; $741,572.86 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30120821-30121345; $2,000.00 in Electronic Transfer No. 478). Summer School Services Interagency Agreement To approve the Interagency Agreement with Pasco School District to provide School Resource Officers for the Summer School Program at Pasco and Chiawana High Schools. June 18 – July 6 and, further, authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. Annexation: Greeno Annexation (MF# ANX 2018-001) To set 7:00 p.m. Monday, June 18, 2018 as the time and date to hold a public hearing to consider the Greeno Annexation. Dedication Deed: Right-of-Way for a Portion of Burns Rd (MF# DEED 2018-005) To accept the deed from Denise Gonzalez for a portion of the Burns Road right- of-way. General Petty Cash Fund Increase To approve Resolution No. 3839, amending Section 3 of Resolution No. 676, increasing the maximum limit of the General Petty Cash Fund for the City of Pasco. Page 6 of 193 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2018 2 MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Yard and Business of the Month Awards Mayor Watkins presented Certificates of Appreciation for May 2018 "Yard of the Month" and "Business Appearance of the Month" to: • Raul & Sandy Salas, 1315 W. Sylvester Street • Lorena Figueroa, 2815 W. Wilcox Drive • Marc & Chris Benton, 3004 N. Road 56 • Ken & Carol Grittner, 8212 Hudson Drive • U-Pull-It Auto Parts, 802 S. Oregon Avenue Presentation of Proclamation for Washington General Aviation Appreciation Month Mayor Watkins presented a Proclamation to Malin Bergstrom, President, Bergstrom Aircraft proclaiming June 2018 "Washington General Aviation Appreciation Month." REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Verbal Reports from Councilmembers • Mr. Serrano attended a two-day MyTri2030 Workshop last week. • Mr. Milne attended "Old Fashioned Day" on Saturday, June 2nd at Sacajawea Park • Mr. Maloney attended the Pride Festival in Downtown Pasco on Saturday. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Possible Sale of City Property - Dradie Street Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed sale of City property. Required to hold a public hearing in order to declare the property surplus. Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing open to consider the proposed sale. Following three calls for comments, and there being none, Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing closed. No formal motion required at this time. Council in favor of disposal of this property and staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next regular meeting. Water Use Efficiency Goals Update 2018 Council and staff discussed the details of the Water Use Efficiency Goals Update. Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing open to consider the proposed Water Use Efficiency Goals Update. Following three calls for comments, and there being none, Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing closed. Page 7 of 193 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2018 3 MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to adopt Resolution No. 3840, a Resolution updating the City's Water Use Efficiency Goals. Mr. Alvarado seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Amendment to Charter of Pasco Public Facilities District Council and staff discussed the proposed amendment to the Pasco Public Facilities District Charter. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4386, providing for the amendment to the Charter of the Pasco Public Facilities District and publishing as Restated Charter and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Ms. Barajas seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Special Permit: Dwelling Unit Above Barber Shop in a C-1 Zone (MF #SP 2018-004) Council and staff discussed the proposed Special Permit for a Dwelling Unit Above a Barber Shop. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3841, approving a special permit for the location of dwelling unit on the second floor of a barber shop in a C-1 zone at 613 West Clark Street. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Preliminary Plat: Havencourt Meadows (MF# PP 2018-002) Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed Preliminary Plat for Havencourt Meadows. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3842, approving the Preliminary Plat for Havencourt Meadows. Mr. Milne seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Preliminary Plat: Morehouse Addition (MF# PP 2018-003) Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed Preliminary Plat for Morehouse Addition. MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3843, approving the Preliminary Plat for Morehouse Addition. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: • Mr. Maloney commented about the recent 4th of July Fireworks Ordinance amendment. Would like Council and staff to revisit this topic in mid-July after the holiday. • Mayor Watkins commented on the Fireworks Ordinance, noting social media concerns for pets. Page 8 of 193 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2018 4 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of June 2018. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Page 9 of 193 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 6/18/18 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Director Finance SUBJECT: Bills and Communications I. REFERENCE(S): Accounts Payable 06.18.18 Bad Debt Write-off/Collection II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve claims in the total amount of $4,554,020.94 ($1,617,379.77 in Check Nos. 222766-222995; $750,884.43 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 821027, 821031-821045; $42,790.48 in Check Nos. 51728-51790; $729,200.84 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30121346-30121872; $1,413,765.42 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 479-492). To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non-criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $277,318.02 and, of that amount, authorize $221,141.38 to be turned over for collection. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 10 of 193 June 18, 2018 Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined Check Numbers 222766-222995 51728-51790 Total Check Amount $1,617,379.77 $42,790.48 Total Checks 1,660,170.25$ Electronic Transfer Numbers 821027 30121346-30121872 479-492 821031-821045 Total EFT Amount $750,884.43 $729,200.84 $1,413,765.42 Total EFTs 2,893,850.69$ Grand Total 4,554,020.94$ Councilmember 464,756.93 40,368.11 0.00 0.00 1,246.38 10,285.00 0.00 1,939.46 22,716.27 6,695.31 772.00 80,570.37 984.91 1,305.80 0.00 851.68 29,715.86 0.00 834.94 0.00 0.00 221,217.33 253.70 0.00 121,155.74 1,957,151.25 45,092.20 9,911.09 70,247.41 0.00 221,218.77 0.00 5,943.34 1,238,787.09 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:4,554,020.94$ EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE OLD FIRE OPEB FLEX PAYROLL CLEARING STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER LID GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION UTILITY, WATER/SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING LITTER ABATEMENT REVOLVING ABATEMENT TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING PARKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ATHLETIC PROGRAMS GOLF COURSE SENIOR CENTER OPERATING MULTI-MODAL FACILITY SCHOOL IMPACT FEES RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN C.D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT NSP GRANT MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE CEMETERY Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND STREET ARTERIAL STREET STREET OVERLAY City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim. Dave Zabell, City Manager Richa Sigdel, Finance Director We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this 18th day of June, 2018 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment: C I T Y O F P A S C O Council Meeting of: Accounts Payable Approved The City Council Page 11 of 193 BAD DEBT WRITE-OFF/COLLECTION May 1 – May 31, 2018 1. UTILITY BILLING - These are all inactive accounts, 60 days or older. Direct write-off are under $20 with no current forwarding address, or are accounts in "occupant" status. Accounts submitted for collection exceed $20.00. 2. AMBULANCE - These are all delinquent accounts over 90 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct write off including DSHS and Medicare customers; the law requires that the City accept assignment in these cases. 3. COURT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - These are all delinquent non-criminal and criminal fines, and parking violations over 30 days past due. 4. CODE ENFORCEMENT – LIENS - These are Code Enforcement violation penalties which are either un-collectable or have been assigned for collections because the property owner has not complied or paid the fine. There are still liens in place on these amounts which will continue to be in effect until the property is brought into compliance and the debt associated with these liens are paid. 5. CEMETERY - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 6. GENERAL - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 7. MISCELLANEOUS - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct Write-off Referred to Collection Total Write-off Utility Billing $ 13.51 96.40 109.91 Ambulance $ 56,163.13 9,993.98 66,157.11 Court A/R $ .00 207,598.00 207,598.00 Code Enforcement $ .00 3,453.00 3,453.00 Cemetery $ .00 .00 .00 General $ .00 .00 .00 Miscellaneous $ .00 .00 .00 TOTAL: $ 56,176.64 221,141.38 277,318.02 Page 12 of 193 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 13, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Regular Meeting: 6/18/18 FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Annexation: Greeno Annexation (MF# ANX 2018-001) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Annexation Petition Proposed Annexation Ordinance Proposed Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Report Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 5/17/18 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING: MOTION A: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ________, annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and, further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION B: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ________, assigning R-1, R-3 and C-1 zoning to the Greeno Annexation Area as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: The immediate addition of $353,200 to the assessed value of the City plus associated revenues, which will both increase with development, as will the cost to provide city services. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On May 7, 2018, the City Council passed Resolution No. 3836 accepting a “Notice and Page 13 of 193 Intent” to commence annexation proceedings for the Greeno Annexation Area. Following the passage of the resolution a final petition was submitted to the City. The petition has been reviewed by the County Assessor and has been determined to be sufficient to constitute a legally acceptable petition under the petition method of annexation. The petition represents 86.7 percent of the assessed value for the annexation area. The next step in the annexation process requires the City Council to hold a p ublic hearing on the proposed annexation. V. DISCUSSION: The proposed Annexation Ordinance (Motion "A"), if adopted, will cause the area in question to be annexed to the City subject to the following conditions: 1. The Pasco Comprehensive Plan will continue to be applicable to the area. 2. The annexation area will not assume any existing bonded indebtedness. 3. The annexation area will be assigned to Voting District #4. The Planning Commission conducted a zoning determination hearing for the proposed annexation area on May 17, 2017 and recommended the area be zoned R -1, (Low- Density Residential) R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). Motion "B" will establish the zoning for the annexation area. Page 14 of 193 OverviewMapItem: Road 68/Burns Road Area AnnexationApplicant: Dave GreenoFile #: ANX 2018-0010 1000 2000 3000 4000FeetAnnexationArea0 600 1200 1800 2400FeetPage 15 of 193 1 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF PASCO TO: The City Council of the City of Pasco 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 The undersigned, being the owners of not less than sixty percent (60%), in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of the real property described in Exhibit "1" attached hereto, lying contiguous to the City of Pasco, Washington, do hereby petition that such territory be annexed to and made a part of the City of Pasco under the provisions of RCW 35.14.120, et seq., and any amendments thereto, of the State of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within Franklin County, Washington, and is described in Exhibit "1", attached hereto. WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectively petition the Honorable City Council and ask: (a) That appropriate action be taken to entertain this petition, fixing a date for a public hearing, causing notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons interested to appear and voice approval or disapproval of such annexation; and, (b) That following such hearing the City Council determine by Ordinance that such annexation shall be effective; and that property so annexed shall become a part of the City of Pasco, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter enforced. The Petitioners subscribing hereto agree that all property within the territory hereby sought to be annexed shall not assume any existing indebtedness and will not require simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations in accordance with the City Council’s acceptance of the Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation as indicated in Resolution No. 3836 as recorded in the May 7, 2018 Council minutes of the City of Pasco, Washington. This Petition is accompanied by and has attached hereto as Exhibit "2" a diagram which outlines the boundaries of the property sought to be annexed. Page 16 of 193 2 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his/her name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he/she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he/she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PRAYER OF PETITION: (1) Annexation of area described and depicted in Exhibits "1" and "2", without (2) assumption of indebtedness of the City of Pasco and without (3) simultaneous adoption of the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations. ________________________________________________________________________ DATE OWNER’S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME/ADDRESS SIGNED _______________________________________________________________________________ 1. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. _______________________________________________________________________________ 4. _______________________________________________________________________________ 5. _______________________________________________________________________________ 6. _______________________________________________________________________________ 7. _______________________________________________________________________________ 8. _______________________________________________________________________________ 9. _______________________________________________________________________________ 10. _______________________________________________________________________________ 11. _______________________________________________________________________________ 12. _______________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 193 EXHIBIT “1” Annexation Legal Beginning at a point on the west right-of-way line of Road 68, said point being the southeast corner of Lot 3, Short Plat 98-5; Thence northerly along the west right- of-way line of Road 68 to the intersection with the north line of the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM; Thence westerly long the north line of the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM; to the west line of the southwest quarter of said Section 4; Thence southerly along the west line of the southwest quarter of said Section 4 to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Burns Road; Thence easterly along the north right- of-way line of Burns Road to the point of beginning. Containing 39.885 acres, more or less. Page 18 of 193 Exhibit#2 Item : Road 68/Burns Road Area AnnexationApplicant: Dave GreenoFile #: ANX 2018-001 ± ANNEXATION AREA 0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet CITY LIMITS Road 84Burns Rd Road 68Kau Trail Snoqualmie Dr Skagit DrCheh alis LnStutz Dr Lasalle Dr Page 19 of 193 WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3rd Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO.__________ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANNEXATION AND ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF PASCO. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has declared, its intent to annex the following described territory to the City of Pasco pursuant to RCW Chapter 35A.14; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed annexation has been published and posted as required by law; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed annexation was held on June 18, 2018; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to- wit: Beginning at a point on the west right-of-way line of Road 68, said point being the southeast corner of Lot 3, Short Plat 98-5; Thence northerly along the west right-of-way line of Road 68 to the intersection with the north line of the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM; Thence westerly long the north line of the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM; to the west line of the southwest quarter of said Section 4; Thence southerly along the west line of the southwest quarter of said Section 4 to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Burns Road; Thence easterly along the north right-of-way line of Burns Road to the point of beginning. Containing 39.885 acres, more or less. Section 2. That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Pasco be and the same is hereby adopted for the above described tract of land. Section 3. That said tract of land shall not assume any portion of the existing bonded indebtedness of the City of Pasco. Section 4. That said tract of land shall be in Voting District # 4. Page 20 of 193 -2- Section 5. That a certified copy of this ordinance be and the same shall be filed with the Franklin County Commissioners. Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on August 1, 2018. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 18th day of June 2018. ___________________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM ____________________________ _____________________________ Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 21 of 193 Page 22 of 193 ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, ASSIGNING ZONING TO THE GREENO ANNEXATION AREA AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Pasco conducted a public hearing to develop a recommendation for the assignment of zoning to certain propert y; in the event the property was incorporated within the City; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2018, Ordinance No. _________, effectively annexed certain real property to the City of Pasco; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to-wit: The westerly 1,054 feet of the south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 E, WM as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit No. “1” be and the same is hereby assigned R-1 Low-Density) zoning; and The south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 E, WM west of Road 68, except the westerly 1,054 feet thereof and except Lot 2 and except Lots 1 and 3 less the westerly 318 feet thereof of Short Plat 98-05 as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit No. “1” be and the same is hereby assigned R-3 (Medium-Density) zoning; and Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Short Plat 98-05 except the westerly 318 feet of said Lots 1 and 3 as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit No. “1” be and the same is hereby assigned C-1 (Retail Business) zoning; and Section 2. That any and all zoning maps be and the same are hereby amended to conform to the aforesaid assignment of zoning. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on August 1, 2018. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 18th day of June, 2018. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ ______________________________ Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 23 of 193 ProposedZoning0 250 500 750 1000FeetItem: Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2018-001AP-20(County)RR-20(County)R-1R-3C-1Page 24 of 193 1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2018-001) APPLICANT: City of Pasco HEARING DATE: 5/17/2018 PO Box 293 ACTION DATE: 5/17/2017 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Development of a zoning recommendation for the Greeno Annexation Area. 1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population Greeno Annexation 39.88 acres 1 2 2) UTILITIES: City water and sewer lines are located at the southwest corner of Burns Road and Road 68. 3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned AP-20 and is mostly vacant. A manufacture house and shop are located on a portion of the site. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: AP 20 - Farm Field SOUTH: R-1 - Burns Rd & Single-Family EAST: RR-1 - Single-Family WEST: R-1 - Farm Field 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of the site for Mixed Residential/Commercial uses and a portion for Low- Density residential. Portions of the property can therefore be considered for multi-family or commercial zoning and a portion can be zoned for single-family dwellings. Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community including single-family housing. Policy LU-1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and down major streets. LU-4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major intersections (Rd 68 & Burns) to avoid commercial sprawl. ED-2-B suggests a wide range of commercial development should be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the community. ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and residential development. Page 25 of 193 2 5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non- Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). ANALYSIS The site contains almost 40 acres and is located at the northwest corner of Burns Road and Road 68. The property to the west was annexed to the City in May of 2016 and was zoned R-1. The Property on the south side of Burns Road is also in the City and developed with an apartment complex and single family homes. The adjacent forty acres to the north is within the UGA and currently being farmed. The former Shutz Gift and Produce shop is located to the east of the site on Road 68. The annexation petitioners are seeking to annex the site consistent with the low-density and mixed-residential/commercial land use designations. The site surrounds a three acre electrical substation (Big Bend Electric COOP) located about 1,000 feet west of Road 68. The location of the substation creates some practical difficulties in developing the site. To lessen the impact of the substation and buffer single-family development from the substation the annexation petitioners are planning on surrounding the substation on the north and west with a duplex development leaving a 16 acre parcel for single-family development to the west. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies properties between the substation and Road 68 are being proposed for C-1 development. The Mixed Residential/Commercial land use designation permits a variety of multi-family structures, including duplexes and four-plexes and neighborhood shopping, service businesses and offices. The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Burns Road. The referenced table also indicates the Mixed Residential/Commercial designated areas should be zoned C-1 and or Office. In addition to following the directions of the comprehensive Plan the Planning Commission also needs to consider the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation for the annexation area. The proposed annexation area is within the City’s service area as identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these plans based future services need within the annexation area for more Page 26 of 193 3 intense land uses as identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco in the summer of 2018. • The property is located along two major streets at the northwest corner of Road 68 and Burns Road. • A Big Bend Electric substation separates the eastern half of the site from the western half of the site. • Burns Road now connects Road 68 to Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd to the west. • Burns Road is an arterial street. • The property on the north side of Burns Road to the west of the site was annexed to the City in 2016 and zoned R-1. • The Pasco School District purchased property about 1/3 of a mile west of the site for a future Elementary School and a Middle School. • Water and sewer service is located a short distance (150 ft.) distance down Road 84 from the site. • A sewer manhole is located at the northeast corner of Burns Road and Road 68 about 18 feet south of the proposed site. • Properties to the south are fully developed with apartment buildings and single-family dwellings. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not determined the property could become annexed without zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs to be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning would provide a graduated buffer from Road 68 and around the substation with commercial and higher density to the east and transitioning to lower density to the west. Page 27 of 193 4 3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning will create a graduated land use buffer with commercial zoning at the major intersection of Road 68 and Burns stepping down to R-3 zoning around the substation to buffer the lower density proposed to the west adjacent to the proposed elementary school site. Full development of the Burns Road corridor with a wider right-of-way, estate fencing and boulevard landscaping will serve as a buffer for the apartments and single-family dwellings to the south. Zoning the proposed annexation area to C-1 (Retail Business), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The nature and value of other properties near Road 68 adjacent to C-1 zoning has not be impacted as the result of proximity to said zoning. The C-1 zoning regulations and landscape and screening regulations are designed to enhance the compatibility of commercial development with adjoining residential development. These regulations are in place to ameliorate any impacts C-1 development may have on nearby residential development. A review of County Assessor records were commercial development and residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types of property have continued to increase over the years (May 2018 of the County Assessors Records). 4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not granted. Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the area will essentially be un-zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners adjoining the proposed annexation area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property. The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned with three different zones starting with commercial zoning near Road 68 and transitioning to high-density residential and low-density residential to the west. Providing land for neighborhood shopping and a variety of housing types will benefit the community and help implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 28 of 193 5 FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2) Properties to the west of the site were annexed to the City in May of 2016. 3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the summer of 2018. 4) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Burns Road. 5) Policy LU-1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and down major streets. 6) LU-4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl. 7) ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain provision requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to implement ED-3-A. 8) Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community including multi and single- family housing. 9) An apartment complex and single-family homes are located to the south of Burns Road. 10) Burns Road is an arterial street that will be developed similar to Sandifur Parkway with street landscaping and estate fencing. 11) The site surrounds a three acre electrical substation effectively dividing the site in two sections. 12) The School District owns the property about 1/3rd of a mile west of the annexation site and plans to construct an elementary school and middle school on the property. 13) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1. 14) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Burns Road. 15) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development and residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017 review of the County Assessors Records). Page 29 of 193 6 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the proposed annexation site to R-1, R-3 and C-1 is consistent with Goals and Plan Policies H-2, LU-1-C, LU-4-A, ED-3-A and ED-2-B. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed zoning will provide a graduated buffer area around the Big Bend Electric Substation for less intensive uses as the distance from the major intersection of Road 68 and Burns Road increases. Burns Road itself provides an additional buffer between the proposed annexation site and the apartments and homes to the south. The C-1 zoning at the corner of Road 68 and Burns Road supports the commercial clustering or nodal concept for zoning that the City has followed for major intersections for the past 35 years. Application of the development standards with in the zoning regulations will ensure the proposed zoning does not become detrimental to surrounding properties. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan when assigning zoning. The proposal will provide areas for a variety of housing styles within close proximity to C-1 zoning that can provide for neighborhood commercial uses. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for setbacks, screening and landscaping provide as well as the location of major streets in the area all provide mitigation measures. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. Page 30 of 193 7 A concomitant agreement is not needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 2018 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Greeno Annexation Area to R-1, R-3 and C-1 as depicted on the proposed zoning map attached to the May 17, 2018 Planning Commission report. Page 31 of 193 OverviewMapItem: Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2018-0010 1000 2000 3000 4000FeetAnnexationArea0 600 1200 1800 2400FeetPage 32 of 193 VicinityMapAnnexation Area0 250 500 750 1000FeetItem: Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2018-001Page 33 of 193 Land UseMapAnnexation Area0 250 500 750 1000FeetItem: Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2018-001Agriculture(County)AgricultureSFDUs(County)SFDUsMulti-Fam.Ag.Page 34 of 193 ZoningMapAnnexation Area0 250 500 750 1000FeetItem: Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2018-001AP-20(County)R-1RR-20(County)R-1R-4RTPage 35 of 193 ProposedZoning0 250 500 750 1000FeetItem: Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2018-001AP-20(County)RR-20(County)R-1R-3C-1Page 36 of 193 Planning Commission Minutes 5/17/2018 E. Zoning Determination Development of a Zoning Recommendation for the Greeno Annexation Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2018-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination for the Greeno Annexation Area. The City received an annexation petition for the property located at the northwest corner of Road 68 and Burns Boulevard. As with all annexations, the Planning Commission must review the surrounding land uses and make a determination and recommendation to the City Council relative to rezoning. As the Council holds their annexation hearing, they will have a proposed zoning ordinance prepared as a result of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Comprehensive Plan has the site zoned mixed residential commercial around the substation located midpoint of the property between the western edge and Road 68, the north portion is indicated for mixed residential and further to the west the property is indicated for residential single family. The property to the south was annexed and zoned R-1. The recommendation for this site is for R-1 zoning adjacent to the R-1 zoning to the south, then wrap R-3 zoning around the substation to provide a buffer between the substation and the single family to the west and then wrap the R- 3 zoning around the C-1 which would provide a buffer for the residential to the north. Staff is anticipating that this item moves to the City Council in June. The County Assessor certified the annexation petition as being sufficient to move forward. Commissioner Roach asked for clarification on Burns Road or Powerline Road. Mr. McDonald said that it used to be Powerline Road but was renamed Burns Road over a year ago. Commissioner Bowers asked if the R-3 was a flag property. Mr. McDonald responded yes. Commissioner Bowers asked for an explanation on the zoning surrounding the substation. Mr. McDonald responded that there was an electrical substation in the middle of the property and the R-3 zoning would provide a buffer between that substation and lower density residential and provide a buffer in the future to lower density to the north from the C-1 area. With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed. Page 37 of 193 Commissioner Roach discussed the proposed zoning and different zoning options to consider instead of what was proposed in the staff report. There was no opposition to the annexation itself. There was discussion between Staff and Commissioners on the proposed zoning. Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Myhrum, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Myhrum, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Greeno Annexation Area to R-1, R-3 and C-1 as depicted on the proposed zoning map attached to the May 17, 2018 Planning Commission Report. The motion passed unanimously. Page 38 of 193 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 12, 2017 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Steve M. Worley, Public Works Director Regular Meeting: 6/18/18 FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer Public Works SUBJECT: Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2024 I. REFERENCE(S): 2019-2024 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Project Map Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. ______ adopting the 2019-2024 Six- Year Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Pasco for the purpose of guiding the development, design, and construction of local and regional transportation improvements. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: To provide for the proper and necessary development of the transportation network within the City of Pasco, the City shall, as required by State law (RCW 35.77.010), develop and adopt annually a Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program ("Six-Year TIP") with such program acting as a guide for the coordinated development of the City's transportation system. The Six-Year TIP of the City specifically sets forth those projects and programs of both City and regional significance that benefit the transportation system and promote public safety and efficient vehicle movement. Page 39 of 193 The Six-Year TIP is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and can be adopted following one or more public hearings before the City Council. Projects identified in the Six-year TIP qualify for Federal and State funding. The proposed plan includes small and large projects varying from street overlays, street widening, intersection improvements, and ADA improvements to pedestrian facilities. These projects are listed in the attached document and shown on the attached map. The proposed Six-Year TIP represents those projects that are anticipated to be needed within the next six years. Projects will be coordinated with available project funding along with associated utility projects and timing may be adjusted accordingly. Update of the TIP and subsequent submission to the State are statutory requirements, and while our local program is not required to be fiscally constrained, the program should be reasonable and realistic. The Council will see these projects again, incorporated with the annual Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan and the annual budgeting process in the coming months. This year's TIP has 22 projects, down from 28 in the 2018-2023 TIP. This number is reduced because five projects have been completed: - East 'B' Circle Roadway Improvements - Intersection Improvements at 20th & CBC Housing - Oregon Avenue (SR397) Corridor Improvements - Phase 1 - Road 84 Sidewalks - Rowena Chess School Crossing and two projects were combined into the Road 68 Interchange Improvements project for better service: - Road 68 Triple Right Westbound - Dual Right Southbound Road 68 This year's projects have several potential funding sources, such as state Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grants, federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, other federal grants like BUILD, and funding from the City's Arterial Street Funds . Some of these funding sources are secured for several projects and others are planned for the future. V. DISCUSSION: The item was discussed at the June 11, 2018 Council Workshop. This plan is being presented to the public this evening in the form of a public hearing. Projects and timeframes identified in this Six-Year TIP are to be considered estimates only and may change due to a variety of circumstances. The projects listed are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making Page 40 of 193 development decisions. The final adopted Six-Year TIP will be submitted to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation by the July 30 deadline as required by the RCW. Page 41 of 193 2019 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Proj. #Project Name # on Map Road Name or Number Begin & End Termini PE ROW Construction Funding Secured?2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 n/a Annual Pavement Preservation Program n/a various various --4,500,000.00$ yes 750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 12001 -Argent Road Improvements (Rd 44 to 20th Ave)3 Argent Road Road 44 to 20th Ave 100,000.00$ 850,000.00$ 6,000,000.00$ partial 100,000.00$ 850,000.00$ 6,000,000.00$ n/a -Burns Road (Road 52 to Road 36)4 Burns Road Road 52 to Foster Wells Road 250,000.00$ 200,000.00$ -no 450,000.00$ n/a -Burns Road (Road 68 to Convention Drive)5 Burns Road Road 68 to Convention Drive 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ -no 200,000.00$ 15013 -Chapel Hill Boulevard Extension 6 Chapel Hill Boulevard Road 84 to Road 68 110,000.00$ 50,000.00$ -no 160,000.00$ 16014 -Citywide Traffic Signal Controller Upgrades - Phase 2 n/a various various -300,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ yes 1,800,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ n/a -Court Street & Road 68 Intersection Improvements 23 Court Street Road 68 60,000.00$ --no 60,000.00$ 17012 -Crescent Road 8 Crescent Road Road 108 to Chapel Hill Blvd 45,000.00$ -355,000.00$ no 400,000.00$ 16010 -James Street Improvements 9 James Street Oregon Avenue to cul- de-sac --420,000.00$ no 420,000.00$ 13007 -Lewis Street Overpass 10 Lewis Street Oregon Ave to 2nd Ave 600,000.00$ 700,000.00$ 24,500,000.00$ partial 1,300,000.00$ 15,500,000.00$ 9,000,000.00$ 12003 -Oregon Avenue (SR 397) Corridor Improvements - Phase 2 11 Oregon Avenue (US 397)Ainsworth to A Street -200,000.00$ 2,530,000.00$ no 2,730,000.00$ n/a -Pedestrian Walkway on Road 68 Overpass 12 Road 68 Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd 250,000.00$ -1,000,000.00$ no 1,250,000.00$ n/a -Pedestrian Walkway on Sylvester Street Overpass 13 Sylvester Street 32nd Ave to 28th Ave 300,000.00$ -1,200,000.00$ no 1,500,000.00$ n/a -Road 100 Widening 14 Road 100 Court Street to Chapel Hill 120,000.00$ -1,100,000.00$ no 1,220,000.00$ 13005 -Road 68 Interchange Improvements 21 Road 68 I-182 to Sandifur 358,313.00$ -572,682.00$ yes 930,995.00$ n/a -Road 68 Widening - South of I-182 15 Road 68 Argent Road to I-182 250,000.00$ -600,000.00$ no 850,000.00$ n/a -Road 76 Overpass 16 Road 76 Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd 500,000.00$ 720,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$ no 2,420,000.00$ n/a -Sacajawea Heritage Trail/Levee Lowering 17 Sacajawea Heritage Trail Road 72 to Road 52 65,000.00$ -850,000.00$ no 915,000.00$ 15010 -Sandifur Parkway Widening (Convention to Road 68)18 Sandifur Parkway Convention to Road 68 50,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 250,000.00$ no 335,000.00$ 17001 -Sandifur Parkway Widening (Rd 60 to Rd 52)19 Sandifur Parkway Road 60 to Road 52 50,000.00$ -450,000.00$ no 500,000.00$ 16017 -Transportation System Master Plan n/a Citywide various 300,000.00$ --no 300,000.00$ 15009 -Wrigley Drive Extension 22 Wrigley Drive Clemente Lane to Convention Drive 40,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 200,000.00$ no 260,000.00$ 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 6,020,995.00$ 19,200,000.00$ 17,175,000.00$ 1,585,000.00$ 5,550,000.00$ 5,920,000.00$ Page 42 of 193 YEAR 2019 - 2024SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMCITY OF PASCO Page 43 of 193 RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco for the years 2019-2024. WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 provides for annual revision and extension of the Comprehensive Street Program of each city and town, after public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it is now time to revise and extend the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO that the City Council of the City of Pasco hereby adopts the revision and extension of the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the ensuing six years as attached hereto and labeled “Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2024” incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and Be It Further Resolved, that the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs shall be filed with the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments and the State of Washington. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 18th day of June, 2018. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniela Erickson Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney Page 44 of 193 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 13, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Regular Meeting: 6/18/18 FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF # CPA 2018-001) I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed UGA Map Proposed Resolution Memo to the Planning Commission Appendix III-Urban Growth Area Expansion Pasco Airport Land Use Compatibility Measures Correspondence on the Proposed UGA Boundary Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 5/17/18 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. ______, declaring the preferred Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Pasco. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Outside of some minor cost for municipal planning activities, there is no direct fiscal impact in the expansion of the City's Urban Growth Area (UGA). Theoretically, the property within the proposed UGA may be annexed into the City which would result in an increase in the City's assessed valuation as well as revenues generated through commercial activities, population-based state shared revenues and other fees and taxes. The City will also be required to provide public safety and ot her City services to those areas eventually annexed into the City. By contrast, not expanding the UGA and allowing the property to develop without Page 45 of 193 proper planning, sanitary sewer, municipal water, adequate fire suppression facilities, and other urban municipal services will likely result in the inefficient development of land, artificially drive prices upward within the current UGA as undeveloped land becomes more scarce, and severely impact the ability of the area and the City of Pasco to growth in a well-planned and efficient manner. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas (UGA) around urban centers. Pasco’s first UGA was established in April of 1993 and has been modified only four times since then. Development of the proposed Pasco UGA was guided by the Goals of the GMA and the provisions of RCW 36.70A.110 including the requirement to use OFM populations estimates for growth. The population estimates provided by OFM are the primary consideration for the establishment of UGA boundaries. By law the UGA boundaries must be large enough to accommodate project growth for a 20 year planning period. OFM is estimating Pasco's population will reach 121,828 during the next 20 years. This would be an increase of 50,148 over the 2017 official population estimate. Using the current OFM household size of 3.278, 15,298 new housing units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. In addition to providing land for housing the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the city to include enough land within the UGA to provide for a broad range of uses including parks, open spaces, schools, community facilities, streets, medical, institutional, commercial, retail and other nonresidential uses. The GMA also permits the inclusion of a “reasonable land market factor” when establishing a UGA to insure the boundary is of a reasonable size so as not to drive up land costs in a way that impacts housing costs. The City is currently facing the problem with escalating land cost due to the limited size of the existing UGA. Considering future housing growth and a broad range of supporting land uses the City will need to add about eight square miles to the current UGA (See Appendix III attached hereto for a detailed analysis of needs). The estimate of land needs is based on the fact that about 5,090 dwellings (apartments & single-family homes) can be accommodated within the current UGA boundaries. The remaining 10,208 dwellings will need to be located within an expanded UGA. The City can only propose a UGA boundary. The GMA grants the authority to establish UGA boundaries to the County Commission only. The proposal process begins in the form of a Council resolution suggesting the City’s preferred UGA boundary. Once accepted by the Council, the resolution along with a complete application packet will be forwarded to the County for consideration. The resolution and application must be submitted to the County before the end of June. Page 46 of 193 V. DISCUSSION: The process of arriving at the preferred UGA boundaries involved an analysis of current and future land use needs (see appendix III attached hereto) based on the OFM population estimates. A draft UGA boundary was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission in two workshop sessions prior to the matter being the subject of a public hearing. A public meeting was also held for all of the property owners located within the proposed UGA boundaries to afford them the opportunity to full understand the extent of the proposed UGA. The Council was also updated on the UGA needs during a workshop session on April 9, 2018 and June 11, 2018. The Planning Commission hearing on the UGA was well attended mainly by property owners who were generally in favor of the proposal. Considerable discussion at the hearing center on the impact of the Airport overlay zones on property located directly north of the developing Madison Park subdivision and across Burns Road from Franklin Elementary School. A few of the Planning Commission members did not support the UGA proposal due to the fact the boundary included the 160 acres north of Madison Park that is encumbered by Airport Overlay zoning to protect airport operations. A minority of the Planning Commission failed to understand or consider the cooperative work between the City, County and Port on the development of the Airport Master Plan and Airport Zoning regulations and the protection those regulations already afford the airport. The regulations prohibit all residential development on 32 acres of the 160 acres in question and further restrict development to 2 dwellings per acre (1.6 units per acre after roads are constructed) on another 40 acres. The overlay zones were adopted by the City to discourage development of incompatible land uses adjacent to the Tri-Cities Airport. The City’s regulations provide greater protection to the airport than what is recommended by the WSDOT Guidebook (see the discussion under the Airport Land Use Compatibility attachment for more information); and as noted in the Council Workshop discussion of June 11, 2018, the Airport Overlay protections will apply to this property whether it is in or out of the UGA. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council forward a UGA boundary proposal to the County that included about 6.5 square miles of land north and generally west of Road 44 (including the 160 acres adjacent to and encumbered by the airport overlay zones). The recommendation also included about a square mile of industrial land to the north of the Pasco Processing Center along Highway 395. Following the Planning Commission meeting on May 17th staff meet with a representative of a major property who requested at the planning commission hearing that a portion of his property be excluded from the UGA because of irrigation ponds Page 47 of 193 and irrigation equipment that is need to serve additional property far north of the proposed UGA. Staff has modified the proposed UGA boundary slightly to accommodate the farming operations to the north with no net loss to the overall area (6.5 sq. miles) recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends the Council pass the attached resolution on June 18th establishing a preferred UGA to enable staff to complete the UGA application and submitted it to the County before the end of June. Page 48 of 193 PASCO UGA(2018)Exhibit #1FANNINGBURNSCLARKR D 6 8 RD 52 RD 100 DENTLegendCITY LIMITSUGA PASCO 2018Exhibit #1Page 49 of 193 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. ______________ A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE PREFERRED URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FOR THE CITY OF PASCO. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and Franklin County are planning under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 as amended; and WHEREAS, The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas (UGA); and WHEREAS, each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA; and WHEREAS, UGA’s may include portions of the County already characterized by urban growth or adjacent to urban growth; and WHEREAS, the proposed UGA boundary includes a portion of the Clark Addition, the Desert Drive Area, the Byers Road Area the McDonald Road Area and the Douglas Fruit facilities which are areas characterized by urban type development; and WHEREAS, the proposed UGA boundary is adjacent to the north City limits where schools, schools sites, roads and utilities exits to serve future urban growth in the proposed UGA; and WHEREAS, per RCW 36.70a.110 UGA’s are to include a sufficient area of land to accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year planning period; and WHEREAS, forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM); and WHEREAS, OFM projections indicate Pasco’s population will increase by approximately 50,000 for a total population of 121,828 by the year 2038; and, WHEREAS, to address the OFM population projections over 15,000 new residential dwelling units will need to be constructed in Pasco over the next 20 years; and WHEREAS, based on available land the current UGA can only accommodate another 5,000 dwelling units or over 16,000 new residents; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to expand the UGA to accommodate over 10,000 new dwelling units by the year 2018; and WHEREAS, in addition to providing land for anticipated housing RCW 36.70a.110 suggests the UGA must also include areas sufficient to accommodate the Page 50 of 193 Page 2 of 3 broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, other nonresidential uses, parks, greenbelts and open space; and WHEREAS, State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable housing (RCW 36.70A.210(3)e & County Policy #6) within the community; and WHEREAS, due to the lack of land within the current UGA land prices have significantly risen recently, as indicated by sales records recorded in the Franklin County Courthouse, impacting the affordability of housing; and WHEREAS, to meet State and local goals to encourage affordable housing the Pasco UGA needs to be expanded; and WHEREAS, the proposed UGA expansion area is constrained on the north by prime irrigated agricultural resource lands making it difficult to provide the area necessary to fully accommodate the OFM projected growth; and WHEREAS, reducing or removing areas from the proposed UGA will not enable the City to meet the mandate (RCW 36.70a.110) of providing sufficient lands for projected urban growth including the requirement to provide for a broad range of land uses; and WHEREAS, removing developable lands adjacent to but not encumbered by the Airport Overlay zones will reduce the City ability to meet the mandates and goals of the Growth Management Act that requires the City to provide enough land to accommodate OFM growth projections and address needs for affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the City has met the need to protect the operations of the Tri-Cities Airport by enacting zoning regulations that implement RCW 36.70.547 that address land use compatibility concerns near the airport; and WHEREAS, Pasco’s Airport Overlay regulations incorporate both Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 requirements and the recommendations of the WSDOT Airport and Compatible Land Use Guide Book; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2018 and April 19, 2018 the Planning Commission held workshop to study and discuss the need for expanding the Pasco UGA ; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2018 and June 11, 2018 the Pasco City Council held a workshops to discuss the Comprehensive Plan and the UGA; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2018 City staff met with property owners within the proposed UGA boundaries to receive feedback from the owners and answer questions about the need to expand the UGA to accommodate the OFM population projections; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2018 Pasco Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public input on the proposed Pasco UGA; and Page 51 of 193 Page 3 of 3 WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council has determined the Pasco Urban Growth Area boundary must be expanded to permitted the City to properly plan for future growth and meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. That the boundary identified in Exhibit “1” is the preferred boundary for the Pasco Urban Growth Area. Section 2. That this resolution be forwarded to Franklin County for its due consideration of the City Council’s request for desired the UGA boundary as identified in Exhibit “1”. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 18th day of June 2018. __________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ _____________________________ Daniela Erickson Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney City Clerk Page 52 of 193 PASCO UGA(2018)Exhibit #1FANNINGBURNSCLARKR D 6 8 RD 52 RD 100 DENTLegendCITY LIMITSUGA PASCO 2018Exhibit #1Page 53 of 193 1 M E M O R A N D U M DATE:May 17, 2018 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Urban Growth Boundary (UGA) CPA 2018-001 The City of Pasco is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to update the Comprehensive Plan this year. The key component to the update is determining a new Urban Growth Area (UGA). Urban Growth Areas define the area in which a community is to encourage higher density urban development and the area in which urban services can be supported and promoted. Land located outside UGA’s are to be reserved for the promotion of rural densities and functions. By directing growth to UGA’s natural resource lands such as farmlands and forest lands can be conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs. Pasco’s first Urban Growth Area was established in April of 1993 and has been modified only four times since then. The designation of the Pasco UGA was guided by the provisions of RCW 36.70A.110 the most pertinent portions of which are as follows: Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within an urban growth area. An urban growth area may include territory located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. Page 54 of 193 2 Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a National Historical Reserve. Each city must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential uses. Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and counties may consider local circumstances. Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development. Page 55 of 193 3 Based on State law, the Pasco UGA is to include all lands within the City and may include lands outside the City if the lands are urban in nature or adjacent to territory that is already characterized by urban growth like the Byers Road area, the Clark Addition and the McDonald Road area. The UGA needs to contain a sufficient amount of land to accommodate expected population growth as determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). In addition to the population projections the City must also consider land needs for parks and open space, schools, retail businesses, churches, offices, industrial buildings and other land uses. OFM provides population estimates for each county in the state. The City and the County have previously determined that 80 percent of the County-wide estimate should be assigned to Pasco. The remaining 20 percent is divided between the County and the small communities within the County. The table below shows Pasco’s portion of the overall County population projections. Pasco Population Projections Year Low Medium High 2020 70,114 79,770 93,109 2025 76,486 91,025 112,931 2030 82,466 101,954 132,493 2035 89,970 114,470 153,705 2038 94,306 121,828 166.052 2040 93,311 126,859 174,830 Based on the OFM projections Pasco could become a city of 121,828 residents during the next 20 years. This would be an increase of 50,148 over the current 71,680 population estimate. Using the current OFM household size of 3.278, 15,298, new housing units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. The need to accommodate additional dwelling units translates into the need for additional land within the UGA. At about four units per acre about 3,500 acres of land will be needed for just the new housing units. Some of the new dwellings can be accommodated within the current UGA boundaries but much of the new housing can only be accommodate by increasing the size of the UGA. In the determination for UGA land needs local market supply factors may also be considered to ensure land prices are not artificially raised resulting from constraints placed on the market due to limited availability of lands within the UGA. Page 56 of 193 4 The current lack of available land within the UGA is driving up the cost of land. This is creating a conflict with the State goal (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e) and local County wide policy (#6) dealing with the need to provide affordable housing within the County and City. Land prices have risen from about $32,000 an acre (181960 on 9/25/14) four years ago to about $50,000 an acre in 2017 (1869033 on 10/11/17) and over $65,000 (1876107 on 3/20/18) today. Population projections, land market factors, and preservation of resource lands are not the only items to consider when determining the extent of the UGA. Utility capacities should also be considered. The City updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year identifying various infrastructure projects necessary to support continued growth within the community. In addition, the City maintains a Comprehensive Plan for Sewer, Water and Parks to address service needs for an increasing population and the Traffic Improvement Plan addresses traffic related needs. These Plans include capital facilities elements and address needs within the proposed UGA Area. General locations of water lines, water towers and sewer lines are identified in these plans. The new Water Plan being adopted in 2018 will include specific guidelines for the location and looping of water lines that will apply within the proposed UGA. In 2010 a new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street near Road 111 to increase the City’s capacity to provide potable water to the community. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house adjacent to the Richland Bridge will be completed by June of 2018 increasing the treatment capacity of the new plant. The main Butterfield water treatment plant intake structure in the Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to improve raw water pumping capacity. An annual budget amount is provided within the CIP to assist with line oversizing to address water line needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the wastewater treatment plant to increase the City’s capacity to accommodate residential and commercial growth. Another 25,000,000 million dollars of upgrades have been scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan to further increase the capacity of the sewer plant. Additionally, an annual CIP budget amount is provided to assist with sewer line oversizing to address water needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. In addition to planned upgrades to the City’s utility systems the City is securing water rights or the means to secure water rights through the Page 57 of 193 5 platting process (PMC 26.04.115(B) & 3.07.160). A number of water rights transactions for securing additional water rights are listed in Tables 4-3, 4-4, 4-5 and Appendix 4-A of the Comprehensive Water Plan will address water needs for the projected growth to be experienced by the City. The Franklin County PUD and Big Bend Electric built a new substation north of the Columbia Place subdivision (west of Road 68 north of Snoqualmie) in 2004. The PUD also enlarged and upgraded the Road 52 and Argent substation about three years ago to support future growth in the community. The PUD five year capital plan calls for a new substation to be located north of Burns Road to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD’s capacity to serve the community with power needs. Appendix III of the Comprehensive Plan (attached) provides a detailed explanation of the Urban Growth Area needs resulting from the new population estimates. Also attached is a draft land use map showing the possible extent of the UGA based on the new population and housing numbers. The proposed UGA boundary includes 160 plus acres of land at the northeast corner of Road 52 and Burns Road. This parcel was previously the subject of a UGA amendment in 2014 and 2016. Rather than amend the boundary to include the 160 acres in the UGA the County suggested the matter be held for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update when new OFM population projections were available. The population projections, showing a sizeable increase (50,148), were made available to the City in January of this year. Based on those projections the proposed UGA includes the 160 acres from the 2014 and 1016 application to the County. During the early years of the 2018-2038 planning period development will first occur adjacent to the existing City limits where utility and street connections are available. The 160 plus acres in question is located across a street from an elementary school and at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. The property owners previously install a 16 inch water line in Road 52 to serve the new school and their property to the north. Being located between the school, the Madison Park subdivision to the south and the Clark Addition to the north the 160 acres is in an area already developed and characteristic by urban growth thereby meeting a key qualifying factor to be included within an Urban Growth Boundary. Based on the City’s current and past Comprehensive Plans residential development has been encouraged in the western reaches of the community and industrial development has be encouraged Page 58 of 193 6 to the east around the Port facilities, railyards and other industrial features. As a result the 160 acres in question is located in westerly and northerly path of future residential development. With the need to find room for another 15, 298 new dwelling units every additional acre within the UGA is important to fill the mandate to create a UGA with sufficient size to match the population projections. During the 2014 and 2016 UGA amendment process the Port of Pasco expressed concern over including the 160 acre parcel in the UGA because part of the property falls under Airport Safety Zones 2 and 4. Including the property in the Pasco UGA will not change the fact the property will be burdened with the airport zones. The City and the County adopted the safety zone regulations at the request of the Port for the purpose of protecting the viability of the Tri-Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses, densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. These regulations are intended to address land use issues around the airport and to provide protection to the approaches to the airport. The UGA boundary amendment cannot change the Airport Zoning regulations that are in place to protect the airport. There is some minor difference between City and County zoning regulations for the Airport overlay zones in that the County limits development to one unit per five acre in Zone 4 and the City permits two units per acre. However, the Pasco regulations provide far less density and concentration of people than the recommended standards. The WSDOT Airports & Compatible Land Use Guidebook (M 3074.00) from which the Zoning overlays were modeled indicates there can be a different standard in the densities between Zone 4 in rural areas verses urban areas. Table F-1 of the Guidebook indicates Zone 4 inside UGA’s can have higher densities and mixed use develop with 15 or more units per acre. Table F-2 states that mixed-use office/commercial/residential uses are permitted in Zone 4. Residential clusters with more than 40 percent open space, mobile home parks, boarding houses and residential infill are all permitted uses in Zone 4 on limited basis. The airport protection regulations the City adopted are more restrictive than the State Guidebook in that mixed-use office/commercial/residential uses are not permitted. Mobile home parks and boarding houses are also not listed as permitted uses. The Pasco regulations will net 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Far less density or concentration of people than the State guidebook recommends with the allowance of mixed-use office /commercial/residential buildings. The Pasco regulations provide greater protection to the airport by significantly reducing the concentration of buildings and people than what is recommended by the WSDOT Guidebook. Page 59 of 193 7 In addition to the adoption of protection overlay zones the City requires land developed within and near the Airport Safety Zones to have the following statement on all subdivision plats: “Property within this (plat/short plat or binding site plan) may be subject to varying noise levels and vibrations due to proximity to the Tri-Cities Airport. Properties near the airport may be located within height and use restriction zones as described and illustrated by Federal standards and regulations and the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations. There is the potential that standard flight patterns will result in aircraft passing over the properties at low altitudes and during all hours of the day. Future airport expansion including runway extensions may impact the size and number of aircraft utilizing the airport. Developments near the airport should assume that at any given time there will be some impact from air traffic.” The above statement becomes a notice of record when plats are recorded and follows the titles of each lot placing property owner’s on notice of nearby airport operations and airport zoning regulations. The City adopted Airport Zoning regulations to provide a public benefit to the community by protecting the air space around the airport. These regulations will enable the airport to extend runway 12 in the future with or without the applicant’s property being in the UGA. The Compatibility Zones imposed on property owners benefit the airport, airlines and the traveling public. Land owners within the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones provide that public benefit by involuntarily accepting a significantly lower or no development potential for their land as compared to similar properties not burdened by the Airport Compatibility Zones. The land owner’s provide an additional benefit to protect airport operations by encumbering plats with a statement notifying future property owners of nearby airport operations. By excluding the 160 acres from the UGA the Port is asking the City to ignore or discount the adopted regulations that protect airport operations. The government is generally barred from forcing a few people to bear the burden of providing a public benefit which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The owner of the 160 acres in question is already providing a public benefit by involuntarily accepting the restrictions of Zone 2 prohibiting all development on 32 acres of land and very limited development (more limited than the Recommendation of the WSDOT Handbook) on 40 acres within Zone 4. Rather than having the general public cover the cost of that burden the City is being asked by the Port to shift the burden to the owner of the 160 acres. Page 60 of 193 8 Findings of Fact The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the public hearing. 1. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas. 2. The goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA’s include: i) Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development; and, iii) Maintaining and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive timber, agriculture, and fisheries industries. 3. Each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA. (RCW 36.70a.110) 4. UGA’s are to encompass lands within the City’s recognized utility service area. (RCW 36.70a.110) 5. UGA’s may include portions of the County already characterized by urban growth or adjacent to urban growth. The proposed UGA is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Pasco City limits and the Clark Addition. The Douglas Fruit facility, the Byers Road neighborhood and McDonald Road neighborhood are LAMRID developments within the proposed UGA that are urban in nature. (RCW 36.70a.110) 6. Designated Urban Growth Areas are to include enough undeveloped land to adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year planning period. (RCW 36.70a.110) 7. An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. (RCW 36.70a.110) 8. Urban Growth Areas must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will Page 61 of 193 9 accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses. (RCW 36.70a.110) 9. Forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). (RCW 36.70a.110) 10. OFM provided Franklin County with population estimates in at the end of December 2017. The low, medium and high projections to the year 2038 as follows: 117,882, 152,285 and 207,565. 11. The Franklin County and the cities therein have used the medium range population projections for growth management planning purposes since the inception of the GMA. For the 2038 planning period the mid-range projection is again being used. 12. Per a January 18, 2018 County Memo eighty percent of the OFM population estimates were assigned to Pasco. 13. The Pasco mid-range population estimate from the County Memo is 121,828 for an increase of 50,148 over the 2017 population. 14. The current Pasco household size is 3.278 persons per house hold. 15. At 3.298 persons per household 15,298 new dwelling units will be need to accommodate 50,148 new residents in Pasco. The high projection results in the need for 28,789 new dwelling units. 16. Based on historic and current permitting trends approximately 2,447 of the projected new housing units will be multi-family units and 12,851 will single-family units. 17. Based on available land within the current UGA all of the estimated multi-family dwelling units and 2,643 single-family units can be absorbed within the current UGA boundaries. The remaining 10,208 single-family units will need to be located in an expanded UGA. Page 62 of 193 10 18. To meet Comprehensive Plan goals related to providing a wide variety or full range of housing options for all economic segments of the population there may be the need for some additional multi-family housing beyond the current UGA boundaries. Additional multi-family development within an expanded UGA will help provide needed buffer areas around commercial nodes. 19. Based on the housing estimates to accommodate the OFM population projections Pasco will need an additional 2,914 acres of land in the UGA for residential development, roads and a land market factor of about 10 percent. 20. To accommodate broad range of needs and uses as required by RCW 36.70a.110 the Pasco UGA will need land for parks and open spaces, churches, schools, daycares, fire stations, other government and other non-residential uses. 21. The full range of land uses to serve and complement housing needs is estimated to be 2,275 acres. 22. The current UGA boundaries have restricted the availability of land for development such that it has impacted the cost of land. Raw land price have risen from about $32,000 per acre in 2014 to over $60,000 an acre in 2018. 23. State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) within the community. The current UGA boundaries are creating market demand factors that increase the cost of housing inconsistent with RCW 36.70A. 210(3)e. 24. A land market factor was added to the calculated land use needs to address escalating land values that impact housing affordability. 25. The City updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year identifying various infrastructure projects necessary to support continued growth within the community. 26. The City maintains a Comprehensive Plan for Sewer, Water and Parks to address service needs for an increasing population and Traffic Improvement Plan to address traffic related needs. Page 63 of 193 11 These Plans include capital facilities elements and address needs within the proposed UGA Area. 27. The new Water Plan being adopted in 2018 includes specific guidelines for the location and looping of water lines that will apply within the proposed UGA. 28. The CIP includes an annual project to assist with water line oversizing to address water line needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. 29. The CIP includes an annual project to assist with sewer line oversizing to address water line needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. 30. Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the wastewater treatment plant to increase the City’s capacity to accommodate residential and commercial growth. Another 25,000,000 million dollars of upgrades have been scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan to further increase the capacity of the sewer plant. 31. The City has an adopted concurrency ordinance requiring all development—residential or commercial--to install the necessary infrastructure to serve said development. Developers and property owners are required to install and extend streets and utilities to and through their developments. 32. The proposed UGA amendment area includes 102 acres of the Columbia River, a number of partially developed LAMRID areas, the Douglas Fruit facility and other uses occupying over 460 acres. These areas and lands are unavailable for future development. 33. The five year capital plan for the PUD calls for a another new substation to be located north of Burns to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD’s capacity to serve the community with power needs. 34. In 2010 a new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street near Road 111 to increase the City’s capacity to provide potable water to the community. Page 64 of 193 12 35. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house adjacent to the Richland Bridge will be completed in June of 2018 and will increase the treatment capacity of the West Pasco water treatment plant. 36. The main Butterfield water treatment plant intake structure in the Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to improve raw water pumping capacity. 37. In 2014 the City updated the Comprehensive Sewer Plan that identifies near and long term sewer collection/treatment system needs to accommodate increased population. The update plan incorporated the proposed UGA area identifying the general location of future facilities to serve the area. 38. Per Municipal Code Sections 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160 the assignment of water rights are a requirement of plat approval for new subdivisions and or for the issuance of building permits. Where no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof which enables the City to purchase additional water rights. 39. The City has undertaken future water rights planning as a part of the Comprehensive Water Plan update. The Plan indicates the City is addressing water needs by pursuing additional water rights through on going transactions (Tables 4-3, 4-4, 4-5 and Appendix 4-A of the Water Plan) that will increase the instantaneous capacity and the annual withdrawal volume to meet and surpass the needs of projected growth. 40. Per the National Cooperative Soil Survey much of the proposed UGA area contains Quincy Loamy fine sand and is identified as Map Unit Symbol 89 or 90 with Irrigated Capability Class Ratings of 3 & 6. Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices. Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation. 41. The proposed UGA boundary was held out of all soil areas that are better suited for agricultural production and that have been designated as Ag Resource Fields or Prime Irrigated Land. Page 65 of 193 13 42. A portion (72.6 acres) of the proposed UGA area falls under Airport Protection Zones Two and Four. The 72.6 acres are part of a larger 160 plus acre parcel of land. The Airport zoning regulations contained in apply to the property regardless of the location of the UGA Boundary. 43. The City and County adopted the safety zone regulations at the request of the Port for the purpose of protecting the viability of the Tri-Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses, densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. These regulations are intended to address land use issues around the airport and to provide protection to the approaches to the airport. 44. The UGA Boundary amendment cannot change the adopt airport protection regulations. 45. Airport safety Zone 2 does not allow any residential development. Zone 4 allows two units per raw acre in the City and one unit per five acres in the County. 46. The City’s Zone 4 regulations after allowing for roads permits about 1.6 units per acre which is far more restrictive and protective of the airport than the recommended conditions in the WSDOT Airports and Compatible Land Use Guidebook (M 3074.00) January 2011. The City regulations provide greater protection than the State guidelines. 47. The State handbook recommends Zone 4 within UGA’s permit mixed-use office/commercial /residential development. The State handbook also suggests permitting residential infill, residential cluster development, mobile home parks and boarding homes within Zone 4. The City regulations will not permit any of the State recommended higher density and higher population concentrations within Zone 4. 48. The City further protects airport interests by requiring an airport operational notice on all plats located within airport safety zones permitting development and the practice has been to require the notice on plats adjacent to but not in the safety zones. Page 66 of 193 14 49. The airport plat notice becomes a notice of record when the plats are recorded. 50. Based on the State handbook with suggested/recommended airport protection regulations and Pasco’s adoption of stricter regulations areas outside the Airport Safety Zone can be fully developed to underlying zoning standards. 51. Approximately 94 acres of land within the 160 acre plus parcel that is partially burdened with the Airport Safety Zones can be developed without airport zoning restrictions. 52. By excluding the 160 acres from the UGA the Port is asking the City to ignore or discount the existing adopted regulations that protect airport operations. These special airport zoning regulations impact only a portion of the total 160 acres. 53. Further restricting the 160 acres in question from development by excluding it from the UGA because less than half of the land is development restricted adds an additional public burden that other property owners in the area with similar unrestricted land do not have to bear. 54. The government is generally barred from forcing one person or a few people to bear the burden (“Burden Shifting”) of providing a public benefit which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The owner of the 160 acres in question is already providing a public benefit by involuntarily accepting the restriction of Zone 2 prohibiting all development on 32 acres of land and very limited development (more limited than the recommendation of the WSDOT Handbook) on an additional 40 acres with Zone 4. Recommendation MOTION:I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the staff report dated May 17, 2016. MOTION:I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend Page 67 of 193 15 the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #1 attached to the staff memo dated May 17, 2018. Page 68 of 193 1 Appendix III - Urban Growth Area Expansion RCW 36.70A.110 (1) Mandatory GMA Provision Introduction Under the provisions of the GMA urban growth is to be principally contained within designated boundaries (Urban Growth Boundaries) around urban centers in all counties planning under the Act. The Urban Growth Boundary defines the location of the city’s urban growth area (UGA). The UGA is where urban development is expected and where growth can be supported by urban services. The UGB is the demarcation line between where the community encourages urban growth and where rural activities are to be preserved. By directing growth to UGAs natural resource lands such as commercially significant farms lands can be conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs. Each urban growth area including Pasco’s is to contain sufficient land area to accommodate expected growth for a 20 year planning horizon. The expected growth is determined by population projections prepared by the State Office of Financial Management which are used by Franklin County and the cities therein to allocate urban and rural growth for each jurisdiction. The UGA defines the area in which the City must plan under the GMA. The UGA establishes the boundaries to plan for land use, transportation, public services and utilities. Under the GMA, cities are identified as the units of government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services within the UGA. Only in limited circumstances where it is necessary to protect public health and safety or the environment can these service extend beyond the UGA. Growth Management Mandate Development of the Urban Growth Boundary recommendation was guided in particular by the following GMA Planning Goals: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development. Page 69 of 193 2 Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agriculture, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. The state goals, in turn, led to the following Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) that provide specific guidance for the establishment of Pasco’s UGA. COUNTYWIDE POLICY NO. 2 Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.110 relating to the establishment of Urban Growth Areas. A. Each City within Franklin County will be included within a designated urban growth area. B. Designated urban growth areas should include an amount of undeveloped area to adequately accommodate forecasted growth and development for the next 20 years. C. Designated urban growth areas should include those portions of the county already characterized by urban growth and having existing public facilities and service capacities to serve existing and future growth. D. Designated urban growth areas should include those areas that are within the recognized utility service areas of each City. E. The size of urban growth areas will vary due to regional settings and should be adequate to promote viable economic development strategies promote choices in housing accommodations and insure adequate lands are available for associated open spaces and public purposes. G. Municipalities should limit the extension of water and sewer service to areas within each jurisdiction’s urban growth boundary. Growth Projections The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) is responsible for providing population estimates for all Counties and cities required to plan under the provisions of the 1990 Growth Management Act. OFM provides a low medium and high projection for each county. County population estimates are then assigned to the cities within the counties based local processes. The current low projection of 87,642 for 2020 is over 2,600 persons lower than the current 2017 estimate of 90,330 for the overall County population. It has been found that the low OFM series for population growth is constantly lower than actual population growth for Franklin County. The high series has been found to overestimate the population. As a result the County and jurisdictions there in rely on the mid-range population estimates for planning purposes. The 2018 population projections for Franklin County are contained in Table No.1 Page 70 of 193 3 TABLE # 1 OFM Population Projections for Franklin County Year Low Medium High 2020 87,642 99,712 116,386 2025 95,607 113,781 141,164 2028 99,972 121,792 155,370 2030 103,082 127,443 165,616 2035 112,462 143,087 192,131 2038 117,882 152,285 207,565 2040 121,639 158,574 218,538 Allocation of Future Population Growth The OFM population estimate for Pasco (2017) is approximately 71,680. Over the years the population of the Pasco has represented 80 percent or more of the total County population. As a result the County has always been assigned 80 percent of the OFM County population projections to Pasco for Comprehensive Planning purposes. Historically the 80 percent assignment has been based on the OFM mid-range projection. Within the 20-year planning horizon the City of Pasco will need to anticipate a growth scenario where the County population reaches about 152,285. With 80 percent of that population assigned to Pasco the City’s population is expected to reach about 121,828 by 2038. This is an increase of 50,148 over the current City population. Within the 10-year planning horizon, Pasco’s population is anticipated to reach about 97,434. Urban Growth Area Needs Residential Needs The future Pasco Urban Growth Area will need to accommodate an additional 50,148 new residents based on the OFM mid-range population projections. Using the current OFM household size of 3.278, 15,298, new housing units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. By comparison the OFM high projection would generate the need for about 28,789 additional dwelling units. Over 80 percent of Pasco’s housing stock consists of single-family homes. Over the past 18 years about 16 percent of new residential building permits have been issued for multi-family units. Prior to 2002 there were no multi-family units built for about 20 years. Based on past trends the City expects to see another 2,447 multi-family units built by 2038. The single-family stock will increase by 12,851 units during the same period. Page 71 of 193 4 Current multi-family development is split between R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning with 41 percent being zone R-2, 43 percent being R-3 and 16 percent being R-4. Based on the multi-family densities prescribed by the zoning code around 251 acres will be needed. Streets and a land market factor will need to be added bring the total multi-family land needs to about 345 acres. The current UGA has 445 acres of land designated for multi-family development. It is anticipated much of the new multi-family development will occur in the current UGA. However, to provide a full range of residential environments and to create buffers between commercial and residential areas some key locations within the UGA will need to be identified for future multi-family development. During the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update single-family densities were estimated to be about 9,600 square feet per dwelling unit. This was due to the significant areas in West Pasco that were zoned for large lots. The larger lots reflected that fact that large areas in unincorporated West Pasco were not served by sewer. For the 2018 plan update the overall density for single-family has been lowered to 8,200 square feet per lot. This higher-density is reflected in the fact that the larger West Pasco lots have been off-set by higher-density lots in the I- 182 corridor. The 8,200 square foot lot size will enable the City to achieve about four (3.9) dwelling units per acre. Based on the available vacant land and lots about 2,643 single-family dwelling units can be accommodated within the current UGA. The remaining 10,208 dwelling units needed for the projected population must be accommodated beyond the current UGA boundaries. With streets and a 10 percent land market factor the Pasco UGA will need to expand by 4.13 square miles (2,645 acres) to accommodate single-family land needs by 2038. Combine multi-family and single-family land needed to provide for a wide range of residential environments for all income levels will required an additional 2,914 acres. Park and Open Space Needs Based on the information in the “Summary of Park Land and Facilities Needs Table No. ?? of Chapter 7 “ the City will need an additional 1,935 acres of new park land and 503 acres for specialty recreation features new during the 20 year planning period. The combined total park land and specialty feature needs equals 2,438. With roads and a land market factor the total need is 3,352 acres. Church Needs Based on the current population (71,680) and the number of church buildings (54) within Pasco there is one church building for every 1,327 people. However there are more congregations that church buildings. In addition at least three church groups are renting commercial buildings and eleven congregations are sharing just three buildings. Based on the current number of church congregations in the City, the church to population ratio drops to 1,156 people per congregation. If all church groups had their own building there would be 65 church buildings in the City. Based on the population to church building ratio of 1,327 people per church and additional 38 churches will be need by 2038. Based on congregation numbers there could be an additional 43 congregations Page 72 of 193 5 in the city by 2038. All churches seek to grow and growth can be inhibited by sharing buildings or renting store fronts. It would not be unreasonable to assume some of the doubled up church groups and store front churches will grow into additional church buildings within the city. Therefore future church land area needs will be calculated for an additional 40 church buildings. The average lot size (from a sample of 14 churches) for church buildings in Pasco is around five acres. However, some of the newer churches have larger lots. The new LDS Stake Center on Porto Lane has 8.2 acres and the Faith Assembly Church on Road 72 has 15 acres. These church properties include buildings, large parking lots and play fields or structures. Base on the five acres per church the community will need another 200 acres of land for churches. With the addition of streets and a 10 percent land market factor total church land needs will be 275 acres. School Needs The Pasco School District indicates for future school planning purposes the District is anticipating and average of .72 students per dwelling unit. Based on the need for an additional 15,298 new dwellings by 2038 the School District will need to plan for another 11,015 students. The increased student population will be divided between new elementary, middle and high schools. Each elementary school will house about 750 students while middle schools typically are built for 1,100 students and high schools house 2,200 students. The School District currently has a high school site two elementary school sites and a middle school site for future school buildings. Construction on elementary school # 16 will begin in the spring of 2018 followed by elementary school # 17 and middle school # 4. In addition to these proposed schools the District will need an additional 9 elementary schools and one more middle school. Nine elementary schools will occupy about 180 acres and another one or two middle schools will require 40-80 more acres. The School District will also need to purchase an additional high school site before the end of the planning period to secure land for a future high school prior to full development of the UGA. This will require another 80 acres of land. With required roads the School District will need about 425 acres for future schools. Daycare and Related Needs There are currently sixteen commercial daycare related facilities in Pasco. Commercial daycares do not include the numerous family home daycares that are operated out of private family homes. For every 4,480 residents in Pasco there is one commercial daycare. An additional 12 commercial daycare facilities will be needed by 2038. Each daycare occupies about an acre of land that could otherwise be devoted to residential or commercial uses. Commercial daycare centers are not permitted uses in any zone. They require special permit review so they are not automatically factored into the mix of commercial or residential development. The city will need about 15 acres of additional land for commercial daycares along with necessary roads and the land market factor. Page 73 of 193 6 Fire Station Needs The National Fire Protection Association indicates for cities the size of Pasco there should be one firefighter for every 1,000 people. Pasco currently has .7 firefighters per 1,000 people. The projected population increase will generate a need for 35 to 50 new firefighters depending on what population to firefight ratio that is used. The Fire Department is working toward the NFPA standard. Fire stations in Pasco house between five to eight firemen per station. Potentially there is a need for another 10 fire station. The current plan for the fire Departments calls for another 4 fire station to be added to cover current needs and some future needs. Additional stations may be needed beyond the four proposed to service the projected increase in residents. A typical fire station can function on 1.5 acres of land. Stations with ladder trucks and other specialized equipment function better with two acres. Six new fire stations would need a minimum of 9 acres. If two of the proposed stations housed additional equipment the acreage would increase to 10. Add the streets and a land market factor and the city will need about 14 acres for new fire station. Commercial Land Needs Most of the future commercial retail and office development in Pasco is anticipated to occur in the I-182 Corridor. Heavy commercial development requiring storage yards, equipment yards (wholesale businesses, distribution services, heavy equipment ales contractors etc.) will continue to locate in the Oregon Avenue area and the Columbia East/King City neighborhood. Heavy commercial uses require C-3 zoning and there is no C-3 zoning west of Road 36. About 260 acres of land around the Road 68 and Road 100 Interchanges have been developed for commercial activity over the past 17 years. Another 490 acres of commercial property is still vacant in the I-182 Corridor. Based on the number of years it took for the existing commercial areas to develop there should be ample land remaining in the UGA to accommodate commercial development for the next 20 years. The only question related to this matter is the location of the vacant commercial land in relation to where residential development will occur. With the Road 100 Interchange being more or less in the geographic center of the Tri-Cities the City will likely see the development of regional services near that interchange. For neighborhood services and walkable shopping it will be necessary to include some commercial land in the UGA at key intersections near residential development. Perhaps as little as 100 acres would be needed for neighborhood commercial development. Industrial Land Needs Pasco contains the Tri-Cities Airport, the Port of Pasco Marine Terminal and related lands, the Pasco Processing Center, a petroleum tank farm, about 70 percent of the Tri-City trucking firms, the BNSF classification yard and other industrial facilities. About 40 percent of the land area within Pasco is zoned for industrial development. There are over 900 acres of vacant industrial land south of “A” Street and over 1,500 acres of vacant industrial land east of SR 12 and Page 74 of 193 7 along SR 395. Over 900 acres of the industrial land east of the highways and inside the UGA is tied up in DNR ownership. DNR owns 1,234 acres of industrial land in the King City and the Pasco Kahlotus Highway areas. DNR has no interest in allowing their property to be developed for anything other than farming. As a result these lands will remain in agricultural production through the duration of the planning period. Sixty-two percent of these lands are in the City limits and cannot be removed from the UGA without removing the land from the City limits. The balance of the land is outside the City limits and zoned for industrial uses by the Franklin County. The Port of Pasco has asked for these lands to remain in the UGA in the hopes an agreement can be reached with the DNR to transition these lands to industrial functions. The DNR lands have been given a land use classification of DNR Reserve. The DNR Reserve denotes lands that may be zoned for industrial use but unavailable for development presently due to DNR ownership. The DNR property impacts the market factor by reducing the available acreage for industrial development. Rearranging the UGA boundary to avoid DNR property south of the Pasco/Kahlotus Road will not help because the DNR also owns significant acreage outside the UGA in that area. The Port of Pasco has expressed concern about the impact of the DNR property on the community’s ability to attract industrial development and has asked that the City consider a market factor adjustment to provide land for job creating industries. The Tri Cities Airport property also presents a unique challenge to the City in determining future land use needs. The Airport occupies 2.89 square miles of land not including the surround protection areas that are off the airport site proper. Much of the airport property is devoted to airport operations and is not generally available for industrial or commercial development. The exception being the East Business Park area which is almost completely occupied with industrial and heavy commercial uses and the Business Park area between Runway 3L and West Argent Road. Certain areas of the airport property could be developed for specialized airport related activities. Based upon the airports development activities over the past forty years the prospect for airport related development between the runways is very unlikely. To address the market factor concern over the DNR land and the limited use options for airport lands there is a need to add several hundred acres of industrial lands to the UGA. The area between Highway 395 and Railroad Avenue north of the existing City Limits and UGA boundary is zoned for industrial development and is within a County Industrial LAMIRD. There are a total of 649 acres in this area. One hundred and six acres are occupied by Granite Northwest, 35.6 acres are owned by the Federal Government and Highway 395, the BNSF rail line occupy 90 acres and the PUD power plant contains 6 acres. The remaining 411 acres is undeveloped farmland. The 411 acres of undeveloped land would provide a 54 percent offset to the DNR Reserve lands. In addition to the need of offsetting the DNR lands there is also a need for a future community soccer complex. The Park and Open Space Element (Chapter 7) indicates the community is significantly underserved by parks and recreational facilities. One hundred and twenty acres (120 acres) of land for this purpose could be added to the east of Capitol Avenue. Although not industrial in nature the proposed soccer complex is located adjacent to other industrial zone lands and be zoned to match Page 75 of 193 8 nearby industrial areas. Parks and recreation complexes are unclassified uses that require special permit approval before locating anywhere in the City. The additional recreational lands and replacement land for the DNR property total 769 acres. However, 160 acres of land at the northeast corner of E Foster Wells Road and Highway 395 has been removed from the UGA boundary to accommodate a large orchard. The net change or increase is only 609 acres. Public and Community Facility Needs In addition to fire stations, school, parks and the other items discussed above communities also need libraries, lift stations, Public Works satellite yards, storm water facilities, various governmental offices, drug treatment homes and facilities, satellite police stations, cell tower sites, water tower/reservoir sites, booster station, substations and other facilities. One hundred and sixty acres (160 acres) has been assigned to these needs. It is difficult to determine the total acreage needed for these facilities. The 160 acres is an estimate. The need could be greater or smaller. A senior center, which is not listed, could use as much as 3 acres. A 2.5 million water tower usually occupies five acres. Existing Vacant Lands Assessment The current UGA contains 1710 vacant single-family lots, 679 vacant low density parcels and 445 acres of vacant mixed residential parcels. There are also 604 acres of vacant commercial lands, 2,400 acres of vacant industrial lands and 603 acres of government and other types of vacant lands within the current UGA. Fifty-eight percent of the government and other lands consist of the American Rock gravel pit and related lands. The remaining 42 percent of the government and other category are vacant government owned properties and or properties occupied by irrigation ditches and ponds, or properties reserved for future churches and other non-residential development (see Table 2). Existing Vacant Lands Assessment Current Development Patterns: Even though vacant land may be designated and zoned for certain uses there may be unknown reason why it has remained vacant or will continue to be vacant. The City has no means of compelling property owners to develop their vacant land and because land is vacant it does not necessarily mean it is available for immediate development. For example there are a number of lots in the Kutzman’s Addition that have remained undeveloped since the plat was originally recorded in 1890. The same holds true for lots in the Terrance Heights (1911) subdivision and Gray’s Amended Addition (1888). Likewise it is difficult to predict how and when vacant parcels and lots will develop in the West Pasco West. Pasco contains hobby farms, small pastures, truck farms and vineyards that have shaped the general character of the area for half a century. Pasco is an agricultural community and 4H activities will continue to persist in the West Pasco neighborhoods well into the future. As Page 76 of 193 9 a result hobby farms will continue to characterize large portions of the West Pasco. Disconnected Access: A major problem with the vacant land within West Pasco is that fact that much of it consists of remnant parcels created from poor subdivision practices. The placement of houses in the path of future streets, the creation of very long narrow lots and the surrounding of large parcels with houses with no future access points limits opportunities to further divide property for home construction. Lack of Services: Changing the land use designation for a given area to allow higher density will not lead to more housing units. Sewer service is needed for the higher densities and currently the area between Argent Road and Court Street is parsley developed making it very difficult for the area to finance the cost of sewer lines and lift stations necessary to serve the area. The combination of hobby farms, poor subdivision practices and the difficulty in providing sewer service to Riverview creates practical difficulties for encouraging higher density development within West Pasco. If the slight downward trend in household size continues an increasing number of housing units will be needed to serve the projected population. This is another reason to ensure a market factor is calculated into the UGA needs. Table 2 Vacant Lands 2018 Area Low- Density Mixed- Residential Comm.Ind.Gov.Other 2008 UGA Area 197.58 11 25.68 Adams/Wilson 129 155 90.6 431.86 Harris Rd - Rd 100 67.69 7.83 90.6 25 1.58 Rd 100 - Rd 84 43.5 17.2 4.15 Rd 84 - Rd 68 63.55 2.35 12.08 10 Rd 68 DNR lands 18 103.45 Rd 68 - Rd 52 83.79 13.93 Rd 52 - 395 58.37 7.29 21 53.14 395 - BNR 6 3.39 14.43 12.91 BNR - Hwy 12 8 18.84 900 East of Hwy 12 1500 36 - 100 N of Fwy 21.48 50 190.81 20 Total Acres 678.96 445.02 604.29 2,400 44.25 559.32 Page 77 of 193 10 Designation of the Urban Growth Area The OFM population estimate applicable to Pasco for the planning period is 50,148. There are 257 cities in the State of Washington that have a population of less than 50,000. According to 2000 US Census data cities with a population of 50,000 can range in size from 11 square miles to over 40 square miles in size. For example Renton, Washington had a population of 50,052 in 2000 and occupied an area of 17 square miles. The same Census data indicates the average density of a city with a population of 50,000 is 2,647 persons per square mile. Pasco will need enough land within the UGA boundary to essentially accommodate a city with a population of 50,000 by 2038. To make another comparison illustrating the magnitude of the challenge in selecting a UGA the City of Richland, Washington currently has a population of about 55,000. Pasco’s challenge then is to accommodate a planning area large enough to absorb a city almost the size of Richland. Based on the needs assessment discussed above Pasco will need 8,525 acres or 13.32 square miles of land to accommodate the OFM population projections. The calculated land area needs are at the lower end of the size for a typical 50,000 person city per the US Census Bureau. Most of the City’s future land needs will be for residential development, park development and streets. A portion of the future residential land needs can be assigned to areas within the current UGA. There are currently 678 acres of available vacant land in the UGA for residential development and 1,710 vacant or proposed residential lots. As a result the current UGA can be used to absorb a portion of the projected population growth. This will reduce the amount of additional residential land needs for an expanded UGA from 3,598 acres to 2,914 acres (see Table 3.) The park and opens space needs for the planning period were determined by applying the adopted standards identified in the 2016 Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan to the projected population. Based on those standards the City will need over 3,352 acres (including streets and a market factor) of park land and recreation facilities by 2038. The adopted park standards may not take into consideration that some of the standards could overlap with respect to level of service. A community park located conveniently to several subdivisions could serve to fulfill the neighborhood park needs for the subdivisions. Likewise a large urban park could also serve to fulfill community park needs in certain parts of the community. School playgrounds may also address some neighborhood park needs. The current inventory of park lands is equal to 54.5 percent of the adopted standards. If the current ratio of park land to standards continues through the planning Page 78 of 193 11 period and parks are used for overlapping purposes the City will need around 1,826 acres for parks and recreation facilities. The park land needs can be further reduced by assigning all of the 2018 needs (952 acres) to the current UGA. Specialized recreation facilities such as tennis courts and ball field needs can also be satisfied by facilities located on public school grounds. By assigning half the specialized recreation needs (197 acres) to school sites the overall parks and recreation needs for beyond the current UGA would then total 677 acres for the planning period. Based on the OFM population projections and the assumptions and needs discussed above the City will need to add another 5,189 acres to the UGA Boundary to accommodate project growth to 2018. Table 3 identifies the gross acres needed to accommodate projected growth verses the acreage that will need to be added to the UGA. Table 3 Land Area Needs by 2038 Land Use Gross Acres Future UGA Acres Residential 3,598 2,914 Commercial 100 100 Industrial 769 609 Parks & Open Space 3,352 677 Schools 425 425 Churches 275 275 Daycares & Related Uses 15 15 Fire Stations 14 14 Miscellaneous 160 160 Total 8,708 acres 13.60 sq. miles 5,189 acres 8.10 sq. miles Population growth is only one factor to consider in determining a UGA Boundary. Existing development patterns, major transportation corridors and utilities are all issues that must be considered. Pasco has developed over the years with industrial facilities locating on the eastern side of the City near the rail yards, airport, Port facilities, marine terminals, tank farms and highways. Residential development began near the rail yards in central Pasco and grew toward the west and northwest. Commercial development followed major arterials in central Pasco and also located around the Road 68 and Road 100 Interchanges. These growth trends have been reinforced by the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan that continues to encourage industrial development toward the east and residential toward the west. Page 79 of 193 12 With industrial land uses being directed to the eastern portion of the City new residential growth will continue to follow the northwesterly pattern as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. The City’s utility system has been extended to the west and north through a combination of City and developer driven projects. The City’s concurrency standards require developers to install all utilities to and through the length of their developments. Utilities available for extension to serve residential and commercial development are primarily located along the Burns Road. Major water lines designed to extend well north of the City are located in Road 68, Road 60, Road 52, Broadmoor Boulevard and Kohler Road. These lines range in size from 24 inches to 12 inches. All other streets that will connect north of the City include 8 inch water lines. The Comprehensive Water System Plan includes projects to extend major water lines to the north in Dent Road, Road 68 and Broadmoor Boulevard. The plan also calls for the placement of two new water storage tanks/reservoirs primarily to serve pressure zone three and areas east of Highway 395. Pressure zone three will extend north of the City limits beyond Dent Road. One of the water towers will be located on Rd 68 midway between Dent Road and Burns Road. Another will be placed northerly of the airport and the third reservoir will be near the intersection of Foster Wells and Capitol Avenue. The Comprehensive Water Sewer Plans anticipate Pasco’s future growth will occur mainly west of Road 36 and north of Burns Road. The current Comprehensive Sewer Plan indicates the proposed UGA expansion area is to be served by a 24 inch sewer trunk line running east and west in Dent Road connecting to a 21 inch line in Clark Road. Laterals will connect from the north and south long the alignment of Road 52, Convention Drive, Road 84, Broadmoor Boulevard and northerly along the future projection of the north/south section of Dent Road. The trunk line will connect back to the main system along the north/south portion of Dent Road. A lift station is proposed for the northerly end of Road 52 with a force main back to Clark Road. Both the Water and the Sewer Comprehensive Plans contain capital budgeting information related to the utility system. Additionally the City’s concurrency standards require the installation of utilities to and through all developments and subdivisions as mentioned above. Permitting and site development approvals are not given until developers submit utility plans meeting the City’s standards and receive approval of said plans. Where development precedes City installation of utility lines the City participates in a cost sharing program through the Capital Facility planning process. The developers are required to install the lines and the City pays for the oversizing. Given the significant population growth anticipated over the next 20 years, the location of utilities and the development patterns of the City the expansion of the UGA for residential purposes will need to occur to the north of Burns Road and west of the northerly alignment of Road 36. Expansion of the UGA for industrial purposes will occur east of the BNSF rail line. The attached map shows the extent of the proposed UGA that adds about 7.55 square miles to the current UGA that will provide generally 6.55 square miles of gross* land for new Page 80 of 193 13 residential development. The proposed boundary will result in a population density of 6,651 persons, within the UGA area, per square miles verses 2,378 persons per square mile for the typical city of 50,000 people (US Census Rankings @ demographia.com). * This does not factor in a reduction of existing development, roads and farm structures and that portion of the UGA occupied by the Columbia River Page 81 of 193 Pasco Airport Land Use Compatibility Measures and Implementation of RCW 36.70.547 The City of Pasco adopted Ordinance 4111 in 2013 codified in Chapter 25.81 Airport Overlay District Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 25.81 was developed with assistance from the Port of Pasco following the recommendations of the Land Use Compatibility Criteria of Appendix F, WSDOT Airports and Compatible Land Use Guidebook M 3074.00 January 2011. As required by RCW 36.70.547 the Pasco airport regulations were adopted to discourage development of incompatible land uses adjacent to the Tri- Cities Airport. The Pasco Airport regulations incorporate both Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 requirements and the recommendations of the WSDOT Airport Guidebook. Airport Safety compatibility Zone 2 north of I-182 prohibits the construction of any type of dwelling unit. Airport Safety compatibility Zone 4 limits development to two dwellings per acre. When roads are factored in Pasco’s regulations will net 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Far less density or concentration of people than the State guidebook recommends with the allowance of mixed-use office /commercial/residential buildings. The Pasco regulations provide greater protection to the airport by significantly reducing the concentration of buildings and people than what is recommended by the WSDOT Guidebook. In addition to the adoption of protection overlay zones the City requires land developed within and near the Airport Safety Zones to have the following statement on all subdivision plats: “Property within this (plat/short plat or binding site plan) may be subject to varying noise levels and vibrations due to proximity to the Tri-Cities Airport. Properties near the airport may be located within height and use restriction zones as described and illustrated by Federal standards and regulations and the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations. There is the potential that standard flight patterns will result in aircraft passing over the properties at low altitudes and during all hours of the day. Future airport expansion including runway extensions may impact the size and Page 82 of 193 number of aircraft utilizing the airport. Developments near the airport should assume that at any given time there will be some impact from air traffic.” The referenced statement becomes a notice of record when plats are recorded. Airport land use compatibility is further ensured through the use of FAA Form 7460-1 that is required of any person or firm proposing to construct or alter an object that could affect airspace within the airports influence area. FAA Form 7460-1 is defined within PMC Chapter 25.81 Airport Overlay District Page 83 of 193 Correspondence to the City of Pasco on The Proposed UGA Boundary City of Pasco Application for UGA Boundary Amendment 2018 Page 84 of 193 MEMORANDUM Date:May ll.2018 To:City of Pasco —Planning Commission From:James C.Carmody Meyer.Fluegge &Tenney PS. 230 South Second Street Yakima,WA 98907 Subject:Urban Growth Area Boundary Expansion (UGA)CPA 2018-00]— Farm 2005,LLC This memorandum is submitted by Farm 2005,LLC (“Farm 2005”)with respect to City of Pasco‘s (“City"or “Pasco”)expansion ofits Urban Growth Area (UGA).Farm 2005 is the owner ofa 160 acre parcel ofland proposed to be included in the UGA expansion.Atmclmwnt A.We fully support Pasco Planning staff recommendations.The City of Pasco (“City”or “Pasco”)is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA)to periodically review and update its Comprehensive Plan.RCW 36.7OA.130.A key component in the review is evaluation, assessment and planning for the Urban Growth Area (UGA).Pasco Planning Department has conducted an exhaustive review ol’long-term planning issues and developed a thoughtful recommendation for UGA expansion.Planning Staff recommends that the UGA expansion include 160 acres ofproperty owned by Farm 2005,LLC.'The property meets or exceeds all criteria for inclusion within the Pasco UGA.The inclusion is recommended by Planning Staff and has twice been recommended by Pasco Planning Commission and approved by Pasco City Council. ‘Farm 2005,LLC has previously snbinitted applications for expansion ofthc UGA in order to accommodate [60 acres ofpropeity located adjacent to the northern UGA boundary The parcel is located at the intersection of Road 52 and Burns Road.Adjacent properties have been developed with single family residences,a new elementary school was recently constructed and full extension of public utilities including water and sewer are available to serve the property.A locational map is attached as /lII(ICIlI1lL’Ill/I.The property is subject to the adopted airport safety overlay ordinance is adopted by Franklin County (FCC Ch.l7.75)and,with annexation.City ofPasco overlay ordinance (PMC Ch.25.81).Farm 2005 has submitted two (2)prior applications for inclusion ofthis property within the growth boundary.In each instance.the application has been recommended and approved by Pasco Planning Commission and City Council.Franklin County denied the application and "...strongly encouraged [City of Pasco]to reconsider the UGA Amendment within the context ofthc 20 I8 periodic review as required by RCW 36.70A.I30(5)(d)."Frmi/rlin Can/1/_1'Raye/n//rmNo.20/5-395.The property is now being considered and proposed for inclusion within the UGA as a part ofthe periodic review process. Page 85 of 193 Page 2 Growth Management Mandate Development ofthe UGA area is to be guided by speci?c state—wideplanning goals.The UGA is intended to establish a sufficient area to accommodate growth over a twenty (20)year planning horizon.City ofPasco is facing signi?cant pressures to meet and satisfy growth projeetions.2Even at the “medium"population projection.Paseo is projected to have an increase ot‘50,l48 residents.Under the current OFM household size of3.278,the city will need to plan on providing l5.Z98 new housing units.The housing demand includes both single—t’amilyand multi-family residential properties.This projected growth requires the addition of‘approximately 3.500 acres 01‘land to the current urban growth area (UG/\),3 The legislature has set Forth a list otispeeilie goals that must be considered and guide the development and adoption ofeomprehensive plans and development regulations.RCW 36.7OA.020.The planning goals include the following: I l/rlaan Grow//1.Eliot):/Page clevelupmetttin 1tI‘l7£lI7area.\'where adequate public’/acilities and .s'ervit:e.s'exist or can be providtztl in an efficient manner. 0 Tl'lI7’I.S'p()I'I(tll()l7.Encourage e_/_‘ficie/ittmtltimodal trc/t1.s'p0rtali0rt .S'_)/516117.)‘ that are l)£tA'L'cl on regional priu/'ities and coorctinatezlwith courtly and city camprel7cn.s'iveplum‘. 0 Hui/sing.Eiicaurc/ge the availability ofa[?)rclal7le lmttsitig to all L’L‘Ul’lUIt1lL'.)'t!gI71(3l7I.S‘0‘/‘thepupulatitm Q/"I/1i.s'.\‘/£1/E,pro/note a variety of re.ria'eI7/ia/deitrititzrand l’I()ll.S'lV7gtypes,and encourage pre.s'ervatioi1 of cxistiiig hut./siiigstoclr. I Property rights.Private property shall not be taken‘/'07‘public use without just compensatioi7 having been made.The property rights ofland owners shall he protecteclfrcmi arbitrary and dtscrimirm/oryactions. 0 Public Facilities and Services.Ensttre that those pulilicjfacilities and .services }7L’L‘€.S'.3'(lI'yto sttppo/‘t developmetit shall be adet/Ltateto serve the Llevelupmeritat the time the developmetit is availalile/oroccupancy and 3 State of Washington Oflice oi‘Financial Management (OFM)provides population estimates for each county in the state.OFM has provided population estimates for Franklin County,Washington.The City ofPasco and Franklin County have previously determined that 80%ol'the county-wide population estimate will be assigned to Pasco.The remaining 20%is divided between the County and the small communities within the County.Pasco has a currentpopulationof7l,680 people.The "medium“'population estimate indicates that municipal growth over the next twenty years would be to |2l.828 residents,This is an increase of50.|48 residents. -‘Pasco Planning Statifhas provided detailed analysis with respect to both the current available land inventory aswellasappropriatepopulationprojections.The current UGA contains 702 vacant single~t‘amilylots and 82 mu|ti~ family lots.Additionally,there are L972vacant acres ofsingle~lami|y land and I72 acres ofvacant multi-familylandwithinthecurrentUGA.Ofthc 1,972 acres of vacant land in the UGA,roads will require 493 acres,schools ansoccercomplexwillrequireI58acres;American Rock pit occupies 330 acres:and 80 acres are unbuildabledue to steep slopes.?oodplain issues and past gravel mining.As a result,there are only L248 acres left withinthe UGAforresidentialdevelopment. Page 86 of 193 Page 3 use wil/min decrez/sitvgCl/l'I‘L‘l7I.rcr'\tic'e /ere/.i'be/aw /owl/y e.s'/ab/I'.s'/ied mini/mmr .\'Ium/u/‘air. There are three important planning goals applicable to the Farm 2005 property:(1) development should be located where "adequate public services and facilities exist";(2) the city must promote a variety ofrcsidential densities;and (3)that "private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.”Planning Staff recommendation is consistent with the statutory planning goals. Of critical importance in this case is the planning goal that “...private property shall not be taken for public use withoutjust compensation having been made...”The property rights ofland owners is to be protected from arbitrary [mdL/i.S'(‘I"iI77iI1?IOI'yactions.’The sole opposition to inclusion ol'the Farm 2005 property within the recommended UG/-\ has come from Port of Pasco and Tri-Cities Airport.Stated in another way.T1'i-Cities Airport asks that this private property owner sacri?ce its property rights for an amorphous and unsubstantiated public benefit.To be clear.a denial ofthis application is a taking and contrary to the stated planning goal.“The talisman ofa taking is government action which forces sortie private persons alone to shoulder af?rmative public burdens.‘which.in all fairness and justice,should be borne by the public as a whole.”’.M1's'.s'i0nSprings,Inc.v.Ci/y ofSprJkune,134 Wn.2d 947,964.954 P.2d 250 (1998)(quoting .4rn1.s'Irongv.Um’led.S'/a/es,364 US 40,49 (l 960)).It should be remembered that the Farm 2005 propeny is (1)subject to the adopted airport safety overlay ordinance which future 1800 foot expansion of Runway 12;(2)is located outside of any required air space protection areas;and (3)is not within an area ofincornpatible noise contours for residential development. Tri-Cities Airport is asking that the Farm 2005 property be sacri?ced to the benefit ofthe airport and.theoretically the public.This exact action has been recognized by the courts as an unconstitutional exercise of governmental authority.De(‘auk v.Rnc/my/e/' Inlermzlirmul.4i/7701‘/.796 N.W.2d 299 (201 l)(holding ordinance extending runway safety zone was unconstitutional taking);and /l/[CC(lI'7‘£I}’l In/ernulional /Ii/‘part \‘,Simlak, 122 Nev.645,137 P.3d l l l O (2006)(holding ordinance imposing height restriction for airport was a per se taking). Farm 2005 Meets All Standards for Inclusion in the Pasco UGA. Pasco Planning has reviewed the OFM population projections,prepared a land capacity analysis.evaluated facility availability and concurrency,and recommended a signi?cant 4 PlanningGoal 6 also seeks to address "arbitrary and capricious"actions.Washington Courts have de?ned “arbitrary and capricious"to mean "willful and unreasonable action.without consideration and a disregard oftiacts or circumstances.“Hauz/(‘mm/Suzrd &Grm/-e/,/,/.C'it.(J0/dmnr/<.195 Wn.App,284, 307,381 P.3d 95 (ZOI6).The denial ofthis application would be arbitrary and capricious. Page 87 of 193 Page 4 expansion in the Urban Growth Area (UGA).The aggregate recommendation is for the addition of4237 acres which will be necessary to accommodate 50.148 new residents. Farm 2005 property contributes 160 acres to the municipal need and requirements. Planning staff notes.however,that population projections are not the sole consideration in selecting properties for UGA expansion. Population growth is only one factor to consider in determining a UG/\Boundary.Existing development patterns.major transportation corridors and utilities are all issues that must be considered. The Farm 2005 property meets all criteria for inclusion within the expanded UGA.Stated simply it is the most suitable parcel under the applicable standards. 0 Farm 2005 property is immediately adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area Boundary.The property is served is adjacent to established transportation corridors —Road 52 and Burns Road.The property is suited for northerly arterial expansion (potentially serving Clark addition).The property is easily developed with ?exibility for establishing arterial location.contours and grid layouts. 0 Farm 2005 property is adjacent to existing residential development and consistent with existing development patterns.includes designation for both single—familyand multi—familyresidential land use.This designation meets GM/\‘s planning goal to "...promote a variety of residential sites and housing types."RCW 36.70A.020(4)(Planning Goal 4).It also addresses the C‘ity‘s need to provide 345 acres ot‘multi-family development land. -All public facilities and services are immediately available to the property. Water and sewer mainlines extend to the intersection of Road 52 and Burns Road and extension will be a developer responsibility at time of development.The presence of adequate existing public facilities and services meets GMA Planning Goal 1.RCW 36.70A.O20(l).It should be noted that the owners ofthe Farm 2005 property made a contribution of approximately $1,000,000 to the extension of water lines to serve the property. 0 The property is located immediately adjacent to Franklin STEM Elementary School.Attaclmre/11A.Development within the area allows for pedestrian access to the elementary school which would support family based occupancies. -The proposed land use designation and zoning promotes the planning goal to provide “...a variety of residential densities and housing types...."The multi—familydesignation represents the only signi?cant commitment within the new UGA area multi—familydensity residences. Page 88 of 193 Page 5 0 Market demand for this property reflects the need and suitability of the property for residential development.The property is currently under contract for sale which is conditioned upon inclusion within the Paseo UGA.The purchase recognizes the immediate need for additional residential development properties and the priority ol‘this particular parcel o l‘property. -Planning stall‘recommendation recognizes (1)development limitations established by the airport zoning for Zone 2 (no residential development) and Zone 4 (limited residential development),The property located outside ofthc airport safety zones is recommended for both single family and rnulti—familyresidential oecupancies.The multi—familyresidential recommendation came as a result of a request from "l"1‘i«Citics airport. Farm 2005 agrees with this designation. Farm 2005 Property is Subject to Adopted Airport Safety Overlay Zones. In accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA).City of Paseo and Franklin County engaged in a comprehensive planning process that spccilieally addressed and established standards for protection ol‘the Tri—CiticsAirport.City of Paseo adopted PMC Ch.25.81 Airport Overlay District./Itmclmwnl B.The stated purpose for the Airport Overlay District was as follows: 25.8l .010 l’URPOSl~'..The purpose of the Airport Overlay District is to protect the viability ofthe Tri—CitiesAirport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses,densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property ofthe public and aviation users. PMC 25.8l.0lO.An overlay district establishes development criteria and standards to supplement the base zoning standards..S'c/iziilserWcarl.L].('l’.(‘Hy Q/'l’zn'a/I1//7,__Wn.2d __ (May 10,20l8).The Airport Overlay District was established through consultation with both Franklin County.’l‘ri—CitiesAirport,Washington State Department of Transportation —Aviation Division (WSDOT-Aviation)and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).Each ofthe participants agreed that the adopted provision established protections with respect to land use compatibility.permissible densities.hazard reduction and review standards.No appeals were filed and the ordinance is now the law tor the municipality. Farm 2005 property is subject to the speci?c overlay restrictions and requirements.No variances or exceptions have been requested with respect to the adopted rules. 0 The Airport Overlay District establishes speeitic safety standards within the airport intluencc area which was based upon aircraft accident data from the National Transportzttion Safety Board (NTSB),the Federal Page 89 of 193 Page 6 Aviation Regulations (FAR)Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces.and the "/-\irports and Compatibility Land Use Gttidebool?’produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division.PMC 2581.020.The uses proposed for the Farm 2005 property are consistent with those guidelines. -The "overlay”concept is summarized as follows: As the name implies.this classi?cation is laid over the existing City of Pasco zoning district to ensure that densities and land use requirements ofthe underlying zoning districts are consistent with the NTSB standards and provide for ma.\'imum protection to the public.health.safety and general welfare ofthe community and for those citizens working and residing within the airport influence area. PMC‘25.81.0205No further restrictions are necessary because the adopted ordinance provides the “maximum protection"for the public. -Airport Overlay District establishes specific height limitation zones based on FAR Part 77 Surfaces —Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space.PMC 25.81 .060.This ordinance provides for protection of the airport and en route airspace.WSDOT Co1np_ati__b_i1Lty_Guidebogk~J3_.l~l5.The restriction prevents a structure from penetrating the airspace surfaces.The limitations take into consideration precision instrument approach zones. non—precisioninstrument approach zones and visual approach zones,The Farm 2005 property is located within the extended approach area for Runway 12.Runway 12 is a non—precisioninstrument approach zone. 0 Airport Safety District also establishes “Airport Safety Compatibility Zones”. The airport safety compatibility zones were established following WSDOT Aviation guidelines in "Airport and Compatibility Land Use Guidebook." ("Compatibility Guidebook).Farm 2005 property is subject to limitations set forth in '/.,one 2~lnner Approach Departure Zone and Zone 4»Outer Approach/Departure Zone.PMC 2581.090. 5 WSDOT Compatibility Guidebook recognizes that land use compatibility can be addressed through an overlay zone which addresses both the FAR Part 77 llimg/'nur_itSn/j/iicex and compatibility 7.ones. The best approach to promoting compatibility is using a combination otiregulatory tools.For example,the Lise of zoning overlays rely on and have a symbiotic relationship to the underlying zoning districts and regulations.Additionally.there are two types of7_oning overlays that are designed to achieve dilfercnt purposes.One that is designed and shaped to address critical air space surfaces depicted in federal regulations FAR Part 77 /mug/’nur_rSI!/_'/t'lL'L’.S'and the other that addresses compatibility zones or the general operating environment ofthc airport. (Italics WSDOT Compatibility Guidebook -page 2257.)City of Pasco has adopted both the surface protection and compatibility element in its overlay ordinance. Page 90 of 193 Page 7 "r Residential development is prohibited in Zone 2.Residential development within Zone 4 is limited to R820 except south of l- l82.This more restrictive than "compatibility criteria"for this zone in _\§/SDOT G_Lii_d_ebgok.Appcndix_F (allowing “high density and intensity mixed use development."—A i.c.15 or more d.u.per acre).All residential development within Zone 4 must include a disclosure statement required by PMC 25.81.]10 on plats.sltoit plats and binding site plans.[L]. r There are no use restrictions outside ot‘7.one 2 and 7.one 4. Airport Salety District was adopted through a public process and compliant with Growth Management Act (GM/\).No appeals were ?led. The ordinance is binding on all land use decisions and planning.The adopted safety and compatibility determinations cannot be collaterally attacked through a subsequent but unrelated process.Woods v.Ki!/i/as (‘mm/y,l62 Wn.2d 597.628.l74 P.3d 25 (2007).The court in Killilas ("mm/J’v.Easier/7 Wax/7ir7gIm7Grow//1 Malvagemenl Hearings‘Boarc/,l’/2 Wn.2d 144.l74—l75.256 F.3d 1193 (201 1)address airport compatibility and stated that: The County's regulation differs from WSDOT recommendations by allowing higher densities and not llatly prohibiting residential uses in certain safety zones. [Citation omitted_].The Board.is supposed to give delercnce to the County unless the County clearly erred. RCW 36.70A.320(3).The statutory scheme requires only that counties “discouragc“incompatible uses.RCW 36.70.547.1)i.\'cuaragcn1c/1/is no!/he same as pro/iibilion. Airport Safety District was designed to speci?cally consider and protect future expansion of the Tri—CitiesAirport.The adopted Airport Safety Overlay accounts For future expansion ot’Runway 12.Zone 2 and Zone 4 were designed to accommodate a future l800 loot extension otithc northwest runway (Runway 12). Tri—(.‘itics /\irport acknowledged this fact in comments regarding the Farm 2005 property; 7'/7el'()}1U.§'were laid 021/according /0 our 20-year /l//(l.S‘/El‘ I’/an W/7/L‘/7inc/u¢Ie.s'a?rlure l:\’(}()_f<'mIu.\'/enximi Q/"our m1rI/7u-e.s‘/rumva)‘.This had the effect of changing the area ofthe UGA expansion from 160 acres to 73 acres —a substantial reduction.T/1ereL'/needUG/l e.\'pun.rirm also 1211outside any required air space pro/ea’/ions and imwmpalib/e noise ca11fo1.n'.i[/or/'e.s'iLlenIi'a/detrelopmem. Page 91 of 193 Page 8 Letter‘from Ron Foraltcr (Director ofAi1'ports)to Carter Timmerman (WSDOT —Aviation Planner)July 8.2015.“The facts are as follows: 'r The adopted Airport Overlay District accommodates future expansion ofRunway 12 as contemplated in the Tri»Cities Airport Master Plan. r Any property located outside of Zone 2 and Zone 4 are not subject to “required airspace protections.“This determination is consistent with the WSDOT land Lise compatibility guidelines. k Areas outside of Zone 2 and Zone 4 are also consistent with established noise contours for residential development.That is. the anticipated noise levels from air traffic activities are less than the established 65 db standard set forth in the Tri—CitiesAirport Master Plan. -Tri—CitiesAirport suggested to Paseo Planning Stafftlrat areas outside of Zone 2 and Zone 4 be designated for multi-family residential occupancies.This request is consistent with the WSDOT compatibility guidelines. Conclusion. Farm 2005 supports the Planning Staffrecommendationwith regard to expansion ofthe Urban Growth Area (UGA).The Farm 2005 property is immediately adjacent to the current UGA boundary,consistent with adjacent development patterns.served by available public facilities (water and sewer)and located on established transportation corridors.The pr0pcr'ty is subject to the adopted Airport Overlay District"zoning and consistent with the adopted Tri—CitiesAirport Master Plan including expansion.There is no basis to exclude this property from the UGA expansion.To do so would constitute an unconstitutional taking ofproperty and be arbitrary and capricious conduct in violation of applicable planning goals. U:\l)ebhic(j\Fari1i 2005.l.L(‘-West I{nterpr'ises\lV|enior'airr|iiinin Plttllltlllgj.Ct>|l1l'|\lSSlUtL(ltiCN "in 2015,Farm 2005 submitted its initial application for inclusion ofthe subject property within the Pasco UGA. Tri—CitiesAirport provided comment on the proposed expansion.The comment letter recognized that approximately 73 acres ofthe total I60 acres was subject to Zone 2 and Zone 4 restrictions.This restriction effectively eliminated residential development within those areas.Tri—CitiesAirport recognized this land use restriction to be a “substantial reduction"iii the area.This significance ofthe letter‘,however.is the recognition that the areas outsideoftheoverlayzonewerenotsubjecttoanyrequiredairspaceprotectionsandwerenotincompatiblewithnoise contours for residential development.The final significant point was that recognition that the adopted overlay zoneincludedprotectionforfutureexpansionofthe"nortltwest runway".i.c.Runway I2. Page 92 of 193 ATTACHMENT A Page 93 of 193 m ?g.,. :..a.%....m_._,._.mm_smwumm.%..;.- o<Omzmnm, J /.Eo<H.umf_¢_/E x,,/ITm:._m:5is 4:3,, _ _— _ r! m Soéow.<5gm25:3,m+,,9:moonSm<,,S$B3%é8__&<._ N zuG®?b.m5.€<mUD“So: __.a_.._m Page 94 of 193 -c~-mm§7@K ._.m_ODEFwy.Euhuh Scsoov oN-n_< mEm I|_ A L Ecsoov wmm__ :5. _ u s EczoovIWH w II II H III I I1 I 11 H H'L+H:’3H’s §-m w J1 ;w I..- I I 1l'|HI U H III!III]I «_EEn>... u oommzmnm Ecsoov c~.n_< Siam«EUi25 “mo?o>8mu:mo=nE< ..EoEw:oE<Emwssom€380sm?b“So: .32 Urban Growth Boundaryw:m:cN Page 95 of 193 szenaaéunv H I I mooésm«EU25 u2E85o>8,mé§_&< 2..:uE©:uE<zamwssom€>>8Umw?b“So: 5_:_u_> Page 96 of 193 asozm~.><>>z:m-Eon_m_<mmEo-_Em?w?mowmm?.@ Pm.6<n_2_zo:._m_:co<tmmnomnuI.I..l.!x ‘.1......x. A:.K: n:2....:.xa.l.....InIr] .53me.as...III:2.rsE5:....5IIIII... 3..8...I1:|.. .:2l..5£81.55.|...IIu:u2§.u6..iq....2.8..38wonviiGar::.....:..HululwulI ..9w.E.mn«.a..!.::r..u mwzon>.S_mEi:ouEwnzmE055.ozmu? 5._._.._..m Page 97 of 193 Eoaom\CS:oE2mQ533> Page 98 of 193 ATTACHMENT B Page 99 of 193 CHAPTER 25.81 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 25.81.010 PURPOSE..................................................150 25.8l.02O AIRPORT OVERLAYDISTRICT ..150 25.81.03O AUTHORITY...........................150 25.81.040 APPLICABILITY.. 25.81.0S0 DEFINITIONS............................................. .............. .. 25.81.06O HEIGHT LIMITATIONZONES .. 25.81.070 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.............155 25.81.080 USE RESTRICTIONS............... 25.81.090 AIRPORTSAFETYCOMPATIBILITYZONES.. 25.81.110 GENERALREVIEWPROCEDURES........... 25.81.120 DISCLOSURE............................................. ............... .. 25.81.010 PURPOSE.The purpose of the Airport Overlay District is to protect the viability of the Tri-Cities Airport as a signi?cant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses,densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. 25.8l.02O AIRPORT OVERLAYDISTRICT.There is hereby created an airport overlay district as identified in the map made a part hereof and labeled Tri-Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones Map and the Airport Safety CompatibilityZones map,as established by the current Tri-Cities Airport Master Plan.All lands lying within the zones therein shown within the city limits of Pasco are subjected to the building and use restrictions within this chapter.This chapter shall be used in addition to and in combination with all other district and development regulations contained in this title.The Airport Authority shall be responsible for providing updated maps to the City coincident with 10 year updates to the Airport Master Plan.The Airport Overlay District classi?cation identi?es a series of imaginary surfaces and safety zones within the airport in?uence area that has historically been prone to hazards associated with aircraft and airports.This chapter is based on aircraft accident data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces and the “Airports and Compatibility Land Use Guidebook”produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division.As the name implies,this classi?cation is laid over the existing City of Pasco zoning districts to ensure that densities and land use requirements of the underlying zoning districts are consistent with the NTSB standards and provide for maximum protection to the public,health,safety and general welfare of the community and for those citizens working and residing within the airport in?uence area. 25.81.03O AUTHORITY.The legislature of the State of Washington through RCW 14.12 the “Airport Zoning Act”has given authority to local governments to adopt regulations within itsjurisdiction to promote the public health,safety,and general welfare of its citizenry regarding airport hazards.RCW 36.70.547 requires every county,city,and PMC Title 25 12/4/17 150 Page 100 of 193 town in which there is located an airport to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such aviation airport. 25,81.04O APPLICABILITY.The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all lands, buildings,structures,natural features or uses located within those areas that are defined by the Airport Overlay District and designated on the Tri—CitiesAirport Part 77 Surfaces map which identifies areas of height limitationsand the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones (ASCZ)map. 25.81.0S0 DEFINITIONS.The following terms shall have the meanings indicated, speci?c to this chapter only: AIRPORTAUTHORITY:means the Port of Pasco AIRPORT:The Tri-Cities Airport operated by the Port of Pasco including all property designated in the Tri-City Airport Master Plan as part of the airport. AIRPORT ELEVATION:The highest point of an airport's useable landing area measured in feet from sea level.The Tri-Cities Airport is four hundred ten feet (410’)above mean sea level. AIRPORT INFLUENCEAREA:Includes airport property and all land within the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones 1 through 6 as described in PMC25.81.090 and depicted in the Airport Safety Zones map adopted by PMC 25.81.020. APPROACHSURFACE:An imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline,extending outward and upward from the end of the primary surface and at the same slope as the approach zone height limitationslope set forth in Chapter 25.81.060.The perimeter of the approach surface coincides with the perimeter of the approach zone. CONICALSURFACE:An imaginary surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of twenty to one (2021)for a horizontal distance of four thousand feet (4,000’). DEEDNOTICE:A formal statement provided in 25.81.11O as a note on the face of a short plat,major subdivision or binding site plan or recorded against the property notifying potential property owners that the property is located adjacent to an active airport and said property may be impacted by aircraft noise,odors, vibration,and low ?ying aircraft. FAAFORM7460-1,NOTICEOF PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTIONOR ALTERATION:A form which the Federal Aviation Administration requires to be completed by anyone who is proposing to construct or alter an object that could affect airspace PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 151 Page 101 of 193 within the airport infiuence_area and allows the FAAto conduct an airspace analysis to determine whether the object willadversely affect airspace or navigational aids. FAR PART 77 SURFACES:The Part of 49 CFR of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace. FAR PART 77 ZONES:Imaginary airspace surfaces established with relation to each runway of an airport.There are five types of surfaces:(1)primary;(2) approach;(3)transitional;(4)horizontal;and (5)conical. Conical Surface Precision Instrument Approach Visual or Nan Precision Approach V2 C (Slope -E) I200 . .’Horizontal surrac.\150'Above Establishedin‘Airpon Elevaiion .I]Inn“\,|I ."I. V 4JR—Runway Centerlmes W2 A HAZARDTO AIR NAVIGATION:An obstruction determined to have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and ef?cient utilizationof the navigable airspace. HEIGHT:For the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones and as shown on the Tri—CitiesAirport Future Part 77 Zones map,this datum shall be height above mean sea level elevation unless otherwise speci?ed. HORIZONTALSURFACE:A horizontal plane one hundred ?fty feet (150’)above the established airport elevation,the perimeter of which plane coincides with the PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 152 Page 102 of 193 inner perimeter of the conical surface.This is ?ve hundred sixty feet (560’)above mean sea level for the Tri—CitiesAirport. INFILL:Development on scattered vacant parcels of land which have remained vacant after the majority of development has occurred in an area. OBSTRUCTION:Any object of natural growth,terrain,of permanent or temporary construction or alteration,including equipment or materials used therein which exceeds a limiting height set forth in Section 25.81.070. OBJECT OF NATURALGROWTH:Means a tree,shrub or similar organic or vegetative matter. PRECISIONAPPROACH:A landing approach made without visual reference to the ground by the use of aircraft instruments and ground-based electronic or communications systems or devices.An aircraft making such an approach should be flying in accordance with an IFR (instrument flight rules)flight plan. PRIMARYSURFACE:A surface longitudinallycentered on a runway with a width of one thousand feet (1,000’)for instrument approaches and ?ve-hundredfeet (500’)for visual approaches.When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface,the primary surface extends two hundred feet beyond each end of the runway.The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline.The elevation of the Primary Surface at the Tri-Cities airport is four hundred ten feet (410’)above mean sea level. RUNWAY:A de?ned area on an airport prepared for landing and take-off ofaircraft along its length. TRANSITIONALSURFACES:These imaginary surfaces extend outward at ninety- degree angles to the runway centerline,and runway centerline extended,at a slope of seven feet (7')horizontallyfor each foot vertically (7:1)from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to where they intersect with the horizontal and conical surfaces. VISUALRUNWAY:A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures,with no straight—ininstrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA-approved airport layout plan. 25.81.06O HEIGHT LIMITATIONZONES.The height limitation zones are hereby established,consistent with the FAR Part 77 Surfaces —Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace,and are described below. PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 153 Page 103 of 193 (1)PRECISIONINSTRUMENTAPPROACHZONE.Includes Runways 3L,21R,30.A precision instrument approach zone is established at each end of a precision instrumentrunwayforinstrumentlandingsandtakeoffs.The precision instrument approach zonesshallhaveawidthofonethousandfeet(1,000’)at a distance of two hundred feet (200’)beyond each end of the runway,coinciding with the Primary Surface,widening thereafter uniformly to a width of sixteen thousand feet (16,000’)at a distance of ?fty thousand twohundredfeet(50,200’)beyond each end of the runway,its centerline being thecontinuationofthecenterlineoftherunway. (2)NON-PRECISIONINSTRUMENTAPPROACHZONE.Includes Runway 12.ANon-Precision instrument approach zone is established at each end of a Non-Precisioninstrumentrunwayforimprovedlandingsandtakeoffs.The non-precision instrument approach zones shall have a width of ?ve hundred feet (500’)at a distance of two hundredfeet(200’)beyond each end of the runway,thereafter widening uniformly to a width ofthreethousand?ve hundred feet (3,500’)at a distance of ten thousand two-hundred feet(10,200')beyond each end of the runway,it's centerline being the continuation of thecenterlineoftherunway. (3)VISUALAPPROACHZONE.Includes Runways 3R and 21L.A visual approachzoneisestablishedateachendofallvisualrunwaysforlandingsandtakeoffs.The visual approach zones shall have a width of five hundredfeet (500’)at a distance of two hundred feet (200’)beyond each end of the runway,widening thereafter uniformly to a width ofonethousand?ve hundred (1,500)feet at a distance of ?ve thousand two hundred feet(S,200’)beyond each end of the runway,its centerline being the continuation of thecenterlineoftherunway. (4)TRANSITIONZONES.Transition zones are hereby established adjacent to each instrument and non-instrument runway and approach zone as indicated on the Tri- Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map.Transition zones symmetrically located on eithersideofrunwayshavevariablewidthsasshownonthemap.Transition zones extend outward from a line two hundred ?fty feet (250’)on either side of the centerline of the non-instrument runway,for the length of such runway plus two hundred feet (200’)oneachend;and five hundred feet (500’)on either side of the centerline of the instrument runway,for the length of such runway plus two hundred feet (200’)on each end,beginning at and are parallel and level with such runway centerlines.The transition zones along such runways slope upward and outward one foot vertically for each seven feethorizontallytothepointwheretheyintersectthesurfaceofthehorizontalzone.Further, transition zones are established adjacent to both instrument and non-instrument approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones.These transition zones have variable widths,as shown on the Tri-Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map.Such transition zones flare symmetrically with either side of the runway approach zones fromthebaseofsuchzonesandslopeupwardandoutwardattherateofonefootvertically for each seven feet horizontallyto the points where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces.Additionally,transition zones are established adjacent to the instrument approach zone where it projects through and beyond the limits of the conical zone, extending a distance of five thousand feet measured horizontally from the edge of the PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 154 Page 104 of 193 instrument approach zones at right angles to the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (5)HORIZONTALZONE.A horizontal zone is hereby established as the area within a horizontal plane one hundred fifty feet (150’)above the established airport elevation or at a height of ?ve hundred sixty feet (560’)above mean sea level,the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of ten thousand feet radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of the airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs.The horizontal zone does not include the instrument and non-instrument approach zones and the transition zones. (6)CONICALZONE.A conical zone is hereby established as the area that commences at the periphery of the horizontal zone and extends outward therefrom a distance of four thousand feet.The conical zone does not include the instrument approach zones and transition zones. 25.81.070 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.No building,pipe,chimney,tower,steeple, stand,platform,pole,wire or structure or erection or object of natural growth,or obstruction of any kind or nature whatsoever,shall be built,placed,hung,or permitted to grow or allowed to be built,placed or hung which shall at any point or part thereof exceed the heights as provided in the zones established herein.Where an area is covered by more than one height limitation,the more restrictive limitations shall prevail.The restrictions shall apply to the area surrounding all runways and approaches situated thereon.The owner of any existing nonconforming building,structure,or object of natural growth_sha||be required to permit the installation,operation,and maintenance thereon of any markers and lights as deemed necessary by the airport authority or the FAAto indicate to operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport obstruction.Such height limitations are hereby established for each zone as follows: (1)Precision Instrument Approach Zone.Beginning at the end of and at the same elevations as the Primary Surface,slopes one foot in height for each ?fty feet (50:1) in horizontal distance and extending to a distance of ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200’)from the end of the runway;thence one foot in height for each forty feet in horizontal distance to a point ?fty thousand two hundred feet (50,200’)from the end of the runway; (2)Non-Precision Instrument Approach Zone.Beginning at the end of and at the same elevations as the Primary Surface,slopes one foot in height for each thirty-four feet (34:I)in horizontal distance and extending to a distance of ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200’)from the end of the runway; (3)Visual Approach Zones.Beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the Primary Surface,slopes one foot in height for each twenty feet (20:1)in horizontal distance and extending to a point ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200’)from the end of the runway; (4)Transition Zones.Slopes outward one foot in height for each seven feet (7:1)in horizontal distance beginning at the Primary Surface,extend to a height of one hundred ?fty feet (150’)above the airport elevation which is four hundred ten feet (410') above mean sea level.In addition to the foregoing,there are established height limitsof PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 155 Page 105 of 193 one foot vertical height for each seven feet horizontal (7:1)distance measured from the edges of all approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones and extending upward and outward to the points where they intersect the horizontal or conical surfaces. Further,where the instrument approach zone projects through and beyond the conical zone,a height limit of one foot for each seven feet of horizontal distance shall be maintained beginning at the edge of the instrument approach zone and extending a distance of five thousand feet (5,000’)from the edge of the instrument approach zone measured normal to the centerline of the runway extended; (5)Horizontal Zone.One hundred ?fty feet (150’)above the airport elevation or a height of five hundred sixty feet (560’)above mean sea level; (6)Conical Zone.Slopes outward one foot in height for each twenty feet (20:1) of horizontal distance beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone,extend four thousand feet (4,000’)to a height of three hundred ?fty feet (350’)above the airport elevation or a height of seven hundred sixty feet above mean sea level (760’). 25.81.08O USE RESTRICTIONS. (1)General Requirements:Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no use may be made of land or water within any zone established by this chapter in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft,make it difficultfor operators of aircraft to distinguish between airport lights and others,result in glare in the eyes of operators of aircraft using the airport,impair visibilityin the vicinity of the airport,create bird strike hazards or otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the landing,taking off,or maneuvering of aircraft. (2)Lighting:No new or expanded industrial,commercial,recreational or residential use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway,taxiway,or approach/departure surface except where necessary for safe air travel.Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding to reflect light away from the airport and shall not imitate airport lighting. (3)Communications Facilities:Approval of cellular and other communications or transmission towers located within any zone described within section 25.81.060 shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days of discontinuance of use. 25.81.09O AIRPORTSAFETYCOMPATIBILITYZONES.Zones described below are shown in the Airport Safety CompatibilityZones (ASCZ)map with the prohibited land uses listed below in order to promote the general safety and welfare of properties surrounding the airport and the continued viability of the airport. Zone 1 —Runway Protection Zone (RPZ):only airport uses and activities are allowed within the RPZ. Zone 2 —Inner Approach/Departure Zone:Prohibited land uses within this zone are:residences except residential in?ll development is permitted south of I-182,places of public assembly such as churches,schools (K-12),colleges,hospitals;high density of?ce,retail or service buildings;shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons.Production of asphalt paving and roofing materials or rock PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 156 Page 106 of 193 crushing are also prohibited.Fuel storage facilities or the storage or use of significant amounts of materials which are explosive,?ammable,toxic,corrosive,or otherwiseexhibithazardouscharacteristicsshallnotbelocatedwithintheInner Approach/Departure Zone.Hazardous wildlife attractants including waste disposal operations,water management and storm water facilities with above-ground water storage,and man-made wetlands shall not be allowed within the Inner Approach/Departure Zone.All new infill residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.81.11O on plats,short plats and binding site plans. Zone 3 —Inner Turning Zone:Prohibited land uses within this zone are schools (K-12)and hospitals.New residential development is prohibited unless it is in?ll residential development.Allnew in?ll residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 2S.81.110 on plats short plats and binding site plans. Zone 4 —Outer Approach/Departure Zone:Prohibited land uses within this zone are:places of public assembly such as churches except existing churches shall be permitted to expand,schools (K-12),hospitals,shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons.Residential density is limited to RS-20 except south of I-182.All new residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 2S.81.110 on plats,short plat and binding site plans. Zone 5 —Sideline Zone:Prohibited land uses within this zone are residences, except residences that are constructed to replace existing residences,of like size and type,damaged by fire and other causes,places of public assembly such as churches, schools,hospitals,shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons.Mining,including sand and gravel pits are prohibited in the Sideline Zone. Zone 6 -—Traf?c Pattern Zone:Prohibited land uses within this zone are new schools (K-12),hospitals and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Replacement or expansion of existing schools is permitted.All new residential developments must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 2S.81.110 on plats,short plats and binding site plans. Use Interpretations —Appendix F of the January 2011 WSDOT Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook as amended may be used as a guide to determine uses with similar concentrations of persons as referenced in CompatibilityZones. 2S.81.110 GENERALREVIEWPROCEDURES.No use,building,structure,or development activity shall be permitted,established,altered or relocated by any person except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.All permit applications within the Airport Overlay District shall,in addition to being reviewed through the standard development review process,be subject to the following: A.All developments,permits or plats with proposed buildings and/or structures found to be within twenty feet (20’)of any of the height limitation zone described in 25.81.07O and/or all buildings and structures over two hundred feet (200')in height must submit a site plan,building elevations and an FAA Form 7460-1 to the Port of Pasco AdministrativeOf?ce for Port and FAAreview and approval.Upon review,further documentation shall be required,if more PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 157 Page 107 of 193 accurate data is necessary for a determination of impact including detailed surveys by a licensed land surveyor. B.All developments,permits or plats falling within the ASCZs described in 25.81.09O associated with special use permits,variances or existing non- conforming uses must also submit a site plan to the Port of Pasco AdministrativeOf?ce for Port review. C.Allapplications for Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones falling within the ASCZs described in 25.81.09O shall be forwarded to the Port of Pasco AdministrativeOffice for Port review prior to any required public hearing. 2S.81.12O DISCLOSURE.To all extents possible,property owners and potential property buyers should be made aware of the following disclosure.The disclosure statement shall be listed on all approved subdivision plats,short plats and binding site plans within any of the identified zones in section 25.81.06O or 25.81.090. “Property within this (plat/short plat or binding site plan)may be subject to varying noise levels and vibrations due to proximity to the Tri-Cities Airport.Properties near the airport may be located within height and use restriction zones as described and illustrated by Federal standards and regulations and the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations.There is the potential that standard flight patterns will result in aircraft passing over the properties at low altitudes and during all hours of the day.Future airport expansion including runway extensions may impact the size and number of aircraft utilizing the airport.Developments near the airport should assume that at any given time there will be some impact from air traf?c.” (Ord.4111,2013.) PMCTitle 25 12/4/17 158 Page 108 of 193 SpokaneO?fce &cé %Bank of America Financial Center 601W Riverside.Suite I900 Spokane,Washington99201-0695 L A W Y E R S Phone:(509)858-6131 A PrafessiormléhnliteCorporation Fax?(509)333-1415 Wimrané Ca:/mt:lmra?iczrin Spokane,Wzr/yingronwebsirc:www.wins(oncasharr.com and Carur 11Elena,It/(1/w May 11,2018 City of Pasco Plarming Commission Attn:Dave McDonald,City Planner Second Floor 525 N.Third Ave. Pasco,WA 99301 Re:Pasco Urban Growth Area Amendment-2018 Dear Commissioners: I represent the Port of Pasco and Tri—CitiesAirport (collectively“Port”).As you likely recall,the Port has opposed the inclusion of 160 acres of property owned by Farm 2005 LLC,Parcel No.l 14-250-016 (“Property”)in Pasco’s Urban Growth Area (UGA).Previous applications were made as site speci?c amendments to the UGA.The matter presently before you is the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update —Urban Growth Boundary (MF#CPA 2017-O01),which proposes signi?cant expansion of Pasco’s UGA,including the Property.The Port continues to oppose inclusion of the Property as such would permit incompatible land uses to be situated too near the airport and within the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones.‘ Washington law is clear: Every county,?y,and town in which there is located a general aviation airport that is operated for the bene?t of the general public,whether publicly owned or privately owned public use,s?,through its comprehensive plan and development regulations,discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such general aviation airport. ’This letter provides a summary of some ofthe legal considerations the Commission is expected to face in regard to the Property as it relates to Pasco‘s UGA.This is not an exhaustive analysis and the Port reserves the right to supplementthis letter and provide additional comment and analysis to the Planning Commission,and the other legislative bodies that will consider this matter. C.MallltewAndersen '"Scan A.Ciingras "'‘"Jamey R.Rnpp Ofcomrsul Carl E.Hucber Beverly L.Anderson Erika B.Grubbs "‘Gabrielle C.Roth Courtney R.Bcaudoin Nancy L.lsserhs Patrick .I.Cronin ”’NatashaL.Hill 5‘Kammi McnckeSmill1 "‘Greg M.Devlin "'Fred C PllanzKevinJ.Cunis MichaelT.Howard "‘Jenna M.K.Strohmeyer ”-"‘Stephen L.Farnell RichardW.Relyca Darren M.Digiacinto "’Collette C.Leland ”’Elizabeth A.Tcllessen ’"Kenneth 8.Howard "'Lucinda S.Whalcy Timothy R.Fischer "'Lisa A.Malpass "'Nicholas R.Ulrich David P.Gardner ‘"""Benjamin H.RascolT ’"Molly M.Winston " A/I lawyer:Illlmi/Ieriin WA (exceprfur Numslm Hill).Lmvyz'r.\‘nzlmllletlin AZ,CA.FL,ID,MT,and PA as imlicrrled Page 109 of 193 May 11,2018 Page 2 RCW 36.70547 (emphasis added).It is widely recognized that “[d]evelopment of incompatible land uses can degrade airport operations,impede airport expansion,and reduce quality of life for airport neighbors."WSDOT Airporls and Compatible Land Use Guidebook,M3074.00,p.iii, January 2011.“Ultimately,incompatible development reduces opportunity for economic development,reduces transportation access,reduces the value of public investment in airport infrastructure,and reduces quality of life for communities.”[Q at p.v. The Tri-Cities Airport is a general aviation airport and transportation facility of local,statewide and regional signi?cance.Thus,it is the City’s obligation,and the obligation of the Commission to discourage incompatible residential development from being sited near the airport.The proposed expansion of the UGA is contrary to the statutory obligation set out in RCW 36.70.547. The Port,Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT),and Department of Commerce agee—urban development on the Property is incompatible with the airport.The Port adopted Resolution No.1444,?nding residential development is incompatible with the airport. WSDOT previously submitted a letter advising against inclusion of the Property in the UGA,and recommended:' Local jurisdictions practice a philosophy of “do no more harm”in regards [sic]to aviation land-use compatibility planning.Existing conditions should be maintained or improved to prevent future incompatible development. The current zoning designation of agricultural is generally considered compatible with the airport operations. Residential development is generally incompatible near airports because of noise, safety,fumes,vibration,light and perception of low-?ying aircraft. (Timmerman,February 27,2017 (emphasis added)).Moreover,the Department of Commerce has stated that it has “serious concerns regarding encroachment and incompatible land uses adjacent to the Tri-Cities Airport.”(Simpson,February 6,2018). The City has recommended inclusion of the Property in the UGA under the guise that the City’s Airport Overlay District,PMC Chapter 25.81 allows urban development near the airport.Make no mistake,PMC 25.81 does not make urban development compatible with the airport.The authorities agree that the urban development,which would be permitted on the Property if included within the UGA,is incompatible.Not only is it incompatible,but it is a detriment to the viability of the airport,and the public investment that has been made. When PMC 25.81 was adopted in 2012 it was applicable to land that was already developed,or entitled to be developed.In one instance,the adoption of PMC 25.81 resulted in a down zone of property entitled for development at a density in excess of what PMC 25.81 allowed.This adoption in essence resulted in a regulatory taking,causing the Port to have to purchase the Page 110 of 193 May 11,2018 Page 3 affected property.But,there is no taking in this instance.The private property interests of the owner do not include a right to have the Property included in the UGA. A regulatory taking does not exist unless a regulation deprives an owner of all economically viable uses of the property.Guimont v.Clarke,121 Wn.2d 586,602,854 P.2d 1 (1993) (emphasis added).There is no taking where a landowner maintains the ability to make some economically viable use of the property.I_d.;and see Jones v.King Coung,74 Wn.App.467, 874 P.2d 853 (1994).Further,there is no taking where the regulation safeguards the public interest.Guimont,121 Wn.2d at 601.While the City may favor the owner’s desire to develop the Property,such does not establish a vested right to develop an incompatible land use near the airport,particularly where the desired use is not presently allowed.Further,the City cannot place the owner’s individual interest over the public’s interest and ignore RCW 36.70.547’s directive. The Commission has a substantial task before it,to plan for Pasco’s future.There are a variety of considerations that must be weighed.However,as it relates to the Property and the incompatibility of urban development with the airport,the answer is simple,urban development of the Property is incompatible and must not be included in the UGA. Very truly yours, £0%tD2,>l/lka ELIZABETH A.TELLESSEN EAT:eat Enclosures cc:Randy Hayden,Port ofPasco Buck Ta?,Tri Cities Airport Port ofPasco Patrick Wright.WSDOT Nicole Stickney,Franklin County Page 111 of 193 RESOLUTION NO.1444 A RESOLUTION OF THE PORT OF PASCO, SUPPORTINGCOMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING TO ENABLE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE TRLCITIES AIRPORT WHEREAS,the Port of Pasco owns and operates the Tri-Cities Airport,the fourth largest commercial airport in the State of Washington serving the Tri—Citiesregion along with a large portion of southeast Washington and northeast Oregon;and WHEREAS,the number of enplaned passengers,frequency of ?ights,and size of aircra? at the Tri-Cities Airport has consistently increasedand is expected to continue increasing into the future;and WHEREAS,runway lZ30 to the northwest of the airport is the only runway which can be extended to accommodate larger aircra?;and WHEREAS,the FAA encourages strong land use protections to accommodatefuture airport growth;and WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act requires towns,cities,and counties to discourage developmentof incompatible land uses adjacent to public use airports through adoption of comprehensive plan policies and development regulations;and WHEREAS,the current county zoning designation ofagricultural is generally considered compatible with the airport operations;and WHEREAS,residential developmentis generally incompatible near airpons because of noise,safety,fumes,vibration,light and perception of low-?ying aircra?;and WHEREAS,there is currently a request to add an additional 160 acres to the City of Pasco‘s Urban Growth Area (UGA),potentially for new residential development;and WHEREAS,the modification to residential could result in the airport being prevented from an expansion that would accommodate larger aircra?and growth of the airport;and WHEREAS,approximately 74 acres of the requested UGA expansion falls within airport safety compatibility zones 2 and 4 as referenced in both the City of Pasco and Franklin County Airport Overlay Zoning Codes. Page 112 of 193 NOW,THEREFORE,the Port ofPasco Commission wishes to express the following recommendations on the 160-acre UGA expansion request: 1)Under no circumstancesshould that portion of the land falling within Airport Safety Compatibility Zones 2 and 4 be added to the City of Paseo UGA for residential development;and 2)The Port would prefer that the entire 160-acres remain outside of the City UGA to reduce future conflicts between residences and aircra?operations. BE IT RESOLVED,that eopies of this Resolution be immediately transmitted to the City of Pasco,Franklin County,and the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division. ADOPTED this 8"‘day ofDecember,2016 PORT OF PASCO COMMISSIONERS Ronald P.Reirnann,President James T.Klindwonh,Secretary Page 113 of 193 Aviation Dlelslun 7702llsmlnal St SW ‘lummtor.WA95501 860-769-8015I FAX:360-709-8009 TollFree:1-aoossz-sass Tl’?!1-800-533-6888 www.wadotwe..pov February 27,2016 Dave McDonald,City Planner Community &EconomicDevelopment Department 525 N.3rd Avenue Pasoo,WA 99301 RE:Urban Gmwti-iArea(UGA)BoundaryAmendment Dear Mr.McDonald: This correspondence is to con?rmthat the City of Pasco has formally consulted with the Washington State Department of'I‘ransporta1:ion(WSDO'I')AviationDivision regarding aproposed amendmentto the UGA boundary to add 160 acres.WSDOT appreciates the City's e?brts and recognizes the substantialtime and resources this represents. RCW 36.70.547 and 35.70A.510requires localjurisdictions to formally consultwith airport owners,managers,private airport operators,general aviationpilots,ports,and the Aviation Division of WSDOT prior to adoption of comprehensiveplan policies or development regulations that may affect property adjacent to public use airports.The main goals of formal consultation are to avoid,minimize,and resolvepotentialland use con?iets with airportsthrough the comprehensiveplan and development regulations.WSDOT strongly recommendsthat formal consultationbeinitiatedby localjurisdictionsas early as possible in the planningprocess.This is to mine that all parties have an opportunityto work together to ?nd comprehensive solutionsof mutualbene?t that ful?ll the intent of the legislation,consistentwith local jurisdictions’land use planning authorities and obligationsunderlaw. The following is a generalsummary of observations and recommendationsdiscussed during the formal consultationmeeting: —WSDOT Aviationrecommendsthat the project record be reopened,so informationabout the airport and its operationscan be included for decision makers. —The subjectproperty falls directly in the approachto Tri-Cities Airport’s Page 114 of 193 Urban Growth Area BoundaryAmendment February 27,2016 Page 2 primary runway 12. Trl-Cities Airport anticipates extendingrunway 12 by 1800 feet. The commercialserviceairport is home to over 120 based,jet,twin-engine business airera?,helicopter,single-engineand experimentalaircra?. In the past ?ve years,the numberof enplananents at the airport has increased by nearly 100,000,whichrepresents boththe continuedvibrancy of the region and the growing ?ight service available at the airport Encroachment of incompatible developrnmrtis cumulative and temporal in natlne.This slowly erodesthe utility of the aviationfacility and the public investment made in it. The City of Pasco should evaluate all proposedamendmentsto the UGA, comprehensive plan and capital facilitiesplan that will increaseincompatible land uses or potential of incompatible developmentadjacent to the airport. -WSDOT recommendsthat local jurisdictions practice a philosophyof “do no more harm"in regards to aviationland-usecompatibilityplanning.Existing conditions shouldbe maintained or improvedto prevent ?rture incompatible development. The current zoning designation of agriculturalis generally considered compatible with the airport operations. Residentialdevelopmentis generallyincompatiblenear airports because of noise,safety,fumes,vibration,light andperceptionof low-?ying airera?. WSDOT Aviationis available for further consultation. The importance ofTr-i-Cities Airport to the region and state's transportation system cannot be overstated.It is critical that every e?brt be madeto discoxnageincompatible land uses that impairthe airport's ability to operate as an essential public facility.We thank you again for the opportunity to comment and remain availableto provide technicalassistance.Please don’t hesitateto contact me at 360-709-6809or ?mmerc@wsdot.wa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Page 115 of 193 Urban Growth Area BmmdaryAmendment Febnuny 27,20 16 Page 2 Carter Timmennan Aviation Planner cc:Warren Hcndrickson.Northwest MountainRegional Manager,AOPA Jim Posner,WashingtonPilotsAssociationWPA Page 116 of 193 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMEN"OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE -PO Box 42525 -Olympia,Washington 98504-2525 I (360)725-4000 www.r:ommerce.wa.gov February 6,2018 Mr.Loren Wiltse 1016 N.4"‘Avenue Pasco,Washington99301 RE:Proposed amendment to the City of Pasco’s Urban Growth Area (UGA)boundary designated in the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr.Wiltse: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan.We received materials associated with this proposal on December 22,2017 and processed the proposal with Material ID #24484.We appreciate the County’s continued coordination with our agency regarding our recommendations for adjusting UGA boundaries.We provided a letter,dated December ll,2017,which describes general recommendations for UGA amendments.We also submitted a letter to Franklin County on July 8,2015 in which we recommended the City and County consider a similar proposal as part of the periodic update of your respective Comprehensive Plans.' The City of Pasco’s proposal requests an addition of 163 acres to the Pasco UGA for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Low-Density Residential.We have procedural and substantive concerns about the application.We encourage you to consider the following prior to making a ?nal recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 0 We continue to have serious concerns regarding encroachment and incompatibleland uses adjacent to the Tri-Cities Airport.The Tri-Cities Airport represents a signi?cant investment of public funds,and is a critical component of the local and regional economy.The cumulative iinpacts of residential development in the proposed UGA expansion area could have detrimental effects on a vital component of the region and state’s transportation system.We encourage the Board of County Commissioners to, once again,review whether the proposal is in the best interest of the whole community. UGA expansions should only be considered after a review of alternative measures to accommodate projected growth.As we recommended in our previous letters to the County,the periodic review required by RCW 36.7OA.l30(5)(d)is the most appropriate time to consider these proposed amendments.The City’s consultation on February 7,2017 with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT),the Port of Pasco,and other aviation stakeholders revealed concerns about how residential development in the proposed expansion area is incompatible because of concerns over noise,safety,fumes,vibration,light,and low-?ying aircrafts. While the current,agricultural use of the property is likely the most compatible land use alternative for airport operations,we understandthat the region is experiencing growth pressures.Should the City and County determine that future urban growth is necessary in this area,we strongly encourage closer coordination with the Port of Pasco,WSDOT aviation,and other aviation stakeholders.Additional Page 117 of 193 Mr.Loren Wiltse February 6,2018 Page 2 collaboration may reveal a use that meets the City’s need to accommodate new urban growth,such as commercial or industrial,but is more compatible than new residential development. Our agency shares the City of Pasco’s concerns about the need for affordable housing.The application, however,fails to clarify how adding a limited number of large-lot single family residences will actually impact housing affordability in the County.Of particular concernisthe fact that,due to development constraints on the site,the site will only allow for 147 to 294 units of housing.This equates to development that ranges roughly between 1-2 units per acre.This does not appear to meet the requirements to ensure the UGA is developing at urban densities,‘and provides additional support for considering other alternatives to including this particular site in the UGA for low—densitydevelopment. The justification for the UGA expansion changed signi?cantly during the review process.The City’s original application,which was first transmitted formally to our agency prior to the WSDOT consultation meeting on February 7,2017,used a 2038 population projection that the City selected without consulting the County.The City’s revised application attempts to justify the need for an expansion based on existing growth ?gures and a horizon of 2008 to 2028.The fact that the City and County are currently reviewing new growth as part of the periodic update,raises concerns about how this proposal ties in to that process and whether,if approved,this proposal meets the GMA’s public participation requirements} The City's Buildable Lands Analysis does not consider the entire Pasco UGA.A land capacity analysis should evaluate the existing city limits and unincorporated portions of the UGA.The application includes an analysis of the 1,132 acres added to the Pasco UGA during the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. The GMA requires local governments to determine how much land should be included in the UGA to accommodate expected urban development based on the OFM population projection}Local governments must then determine which lands in particular should be included within UGAs according to the locational criteria in RCW 36.7OA.l 10(3).Growth should be located first in areas already characterizedby urban growth with existing services and the capacity to serve new development. Growth should then be considered and located in areas with existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources. Growth should next be located in remaining portions of the existing UGA. In our letter to the County dated July 8,2015 we described the requirements regarding changes to the UGA and the necessity for underlying amendments to capital facilities and transportation elements.The City’s supplemental application does not include the requisite amendments and claims that an update to the Capital Facilities Plan is not required.We disagree.The Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for capital facilities and transportation infrastructure are based on an understanding that infrastructure represents a signi?cant investment and a long-term liability.Operation,maintenance,and future replacement costs of that infrastructure must be carefully considered in the planning process,and communities should attempt to build infrastructure that has a positive return on investment. The GMA requires that any proposed expansion must be accompanied by amendments to the capital facilities and transportation elements that show a ?nancially realistic strategy to provide the proposed area with adequate public facilities.‘These amendments must address,at a minimum,the required components of the capital facilities and transportation elements in RCW 36.70A.070.Updates to these plans,with the services needed for an expanded UGA,will ensure the City of Pasco maintains a healthy ‘RCW36.70A.110 and WAC 365-196-300 1 RCW 35.7oA.14o 3 RCW 36.70A.ll0(l)and RCW 36.70A.115(1) "WAC 365-196-320(3) Page 118 of 193 Mr.Loren Wiltse February 6,2018 Page 3 capital facilities budget and does 11ot over-extend its ?scal capabilities for providing urban services with a ?nancial plan that is acceptable to the community. Based on information in the City’s application,concerns over residential land consumption are directly related to development for non-residential purposes.This includes purchases by the Port of Pasco to support economic development,and purchases by the Pasco School District for new schools and community facilities.As the City and County consider development capacity and potential amendments to the Pasco UGA in upcoming Comprehensive Plan reviews,we encourage planning for land beyond that needed for residential.The City and County should be proactively working with local school districts,?re districts,municipal departments, economic development associations,and other important institutional stakeholders to ensure the UGA has suf?cient areas to accommodate the broad range of needs accompanying projected growth.This growth may include medical,governmental,institutional,commercial,service,retail,and other nonresidential uses.’ The County is currently coordinating on updated growth projections and reviews UGAs as part of the 2018 periodic update required by RCW 36.7OA.l30(5)(d).This is the appropriate process within which to consider changes to the UGA.However,given the site constraints and the potential impacts on the Tri—CitiesAirport,we believe this should be one of the last alternatives you consider for residential development. We extend our continued support to Franklin County in achieving the goals of the GMA and the vision of your community.Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.lf you have any questions or would like technical assistance on any land use issues,please feel free to contact me at william.simpson@commerce.wa.gov or 509-280-3602. Sincerely, ;}x_ 2 William Simpson,AlCP Senior Planner Growth Management Services WS:lw cc:Dave McDonald,City Planner,City of Pasco Rick White,Community and Economic Development Director,City of Pasco Randy Hayden,Executive Director,Port of Pasco Patrick Wright,Aviation Planner,WSDOT Mark McCaskill,AICP,Managing Director,Growth Management Services David Andersen,AXCP,Eastern Region Manager,Growth Management Services Ike Nwankwo,Western Region Manager,Growth Management Services Enc:Letter from Commerce dated July 8,2015 Letter from Commerce dated December 22,2017 ’RCW 36.7OA.1l0(2) Page 119 of 193 Land Use Stakeholders Meeting Urban Growth Boundary May 8,2018 Present: Patrick Wright,WSDOT AVN (PW) Marjy Leggett,AOPA ASN (ML) David McDonald,City of Pasco (DM) Roger Black,local pilot (RB) Bob Ransom,local pilot (BR) Don Faley,Port of Pasco (DF) Mitch Hooper,Mead &Hunt (MH) Buck Taft,Port of Pasco (BT) Elizabeth Tellessen,Winston &Cashatt (ET) Randy Hayden,Port of Pasco (RH) I Nicole Stickney,Franklin County (NS) Tara White,Port of Pasco (TW) 1:45 pm DM reported that the population in the City of Pasco is projected to increase by 50,148 in the next 20 years.As a result of this increase,additional land is needed in the Urban Growth Boundary.The City is proposing adding approximately 6 square miles,including approximately 160 acres north ofthe airport,to accommodate the growth.He referenced the map that addresses the proposed areas to expand the Urban Growth Boundary.He noted that the gray area outlined in a maroon border (Hwy 395)is an industrial area currently in the county that is being proposed for the City UGA.He also pointed out the 160 acres north of the airport is being proposed as residential that would comply with the airport overlay zoning code as approved by the City and the Port.DM then asked for questions or comments. PW asked if there was any way to not include the area off of the end ofthe runway.DM discussed the lack of other options available for residential.Further north is prime farming land.The Clark Edition is mostly developed. Page 120 of 193 ML expressed her support for reserving land to enable the extension of RWY30 in the future. She mentioned that with increased population will come airport growth and that the airport needs to be protected. BT spoke about airport operations.The 2013 Master Plan references a peak day of 345 operations;or 61 operations per hour.PSC is on target to be the size ofGEG (Spokane airport)in 50 years.Runway 30 is the only runway that can be expanded.He said the growth of PSC must be protected.Flights leave early and arrive late which are times when people are at home sleeping or eating meals.RWY30 is used for 40%ofthe flights. NS asked DM if the city has done an analysis on what can occur on the land inside the Urban Growth Boundary already in terms of meeting this need.She specifically referenced the Broadmoor area.She also asked how the analysis was done.She also noted the population growth projections being used were the "medium"numbers. DM stated a gravel lease is currently in place for 350 acres near Broadmoor and no homes could be built on that land.Geomedia was used to complete the analysis.The population of Pasco grew about 50,000 in the last 23 years,so the projection of 50,000 more residents in the next 20 years is in line with historical growth. ML asked if the Urban Growth Boundary could be expanded to the EAST. DM mentioned that there may be some options to the east,but that it has been designated for industrial development due to the rail and marine facilities.Many lots have been left vacant since the 18805 as people have chosen not to develop in the east side.The utility system doesn't extend east and it would be easier to expand to the north. ML asked if there was space near the Ochoa school. DM said some lots are available but not enough land to meet the need. RH described the main concerns the port has is with zone 4.The city is proposing 2 houses per acre.The county zoned it as 1 house/5acres and WSDOT and the Port prefer to keep the land in the county.The Port would like to keep residential development away from the airport if at all possible and have ag and other compatible uses on the 160 acres north of the airport. High density housing was discussed between RH and DM.There is enough land to absorb the high density projection requirements for the next 20 years,as it only makes up less than 20%of the residential growth.Not many large apartment complexes are being built due to high school impact and other fees. I PW and MH talked about the use of the WSDOTairport land use and compatibility guide.These guidelines need to be incorporated in the planning ofthe Urban Growth Boundary. NS mentioned there are guides for land use and also building height requirements. PW expressed WSDOT had concerns with zone 2 and zone 3. ML stated again how the airport needs to be protected.She referenced Paine Field as an example and how the pilots already have to make adjustments to avoid loud noise to homeowners. Page 121 of 193 DM asked the question ”who is responsible for rotectin the air ort?””ls it the communit orPEPY one property owner?" NS commented that the property owner has not lost anything at this time.If the property is allowed inside the Urban Growth Boundary,he will be given extra expansion rights,but as of now,he has not lost anything.She went on to speak about the process and how the county will work to determine the most appropriate answer to meet the needs of everyone. PW stated it is the city's and county's responsibility to protect the public and pilots and the airport through zoning and land use decisions.It is hisjob as an official to protect the public.It starts at the city and WSDOT provides guidance. BT asked if the city would indemnify the Port for possible future legal issues with regard to developing homes in the area near the airport. DM mentioned the city did what the Port wanted in 2012 with regard to zoning the areas near the airport.He said the city would not indemnify the port. RH stated that the city and the Port came to an agreement in 2012,but the end result was not what the Port had originally requested of the city.He mentioned in the GMA,airports are considered an important community asset and asked why the city doesn't take that into account in the same manner as the farm land resources that have intentionally been left out of the UGAexpansion.He asked if there was some area north of Clark Road and to the west of the 160 acre parcel that might work instead. DM said that might be an option but needed some further research.He said the goal right now is to get a new Urban Growth Boundary in place to meet the population increase demands. DM listed the school impact fees as a barrier for multi—unitdevelopment.It is about $4,800/door,plus a $425 traffic impact fee and a $1,400 park fee.One developer left a project after finding out about the fees and the city has not had any more interest in a large unit facility since that time.Some duplexes are being developed.Reducing the fees is not an option at this time. MH discussed residential development near airports.PSC is a ”spoke"airport meaning many flights leave early and arrive late.Residents living near airports complain about the noise,form groups and often request the airport to curtail flights during early morning and late evening hours.The FAA does not allow airports to curtail flight times,curtailing flights would put the federal grant dollars received over the past 20 years at risk.Santa Monica airport is being shut down because ofthis. Residential development near airports is not only difficult but leads to lawsuits and the possibility of losing a community asset. ET discussed the costs associated with the lawsuits.Lawyers paid by the port and the homeowners are an expensive cost.The airport is a public asset and it is in the pub|ic‘s interest to not allow development near the airport.The landowner is not losing anything at this time,and the argument is one sided. DM stated homeowners are made aware during a loan closing of the proximity of the property to the airport.However,he also stated most buyers do not pay attention to this notice. Page 122 of 193 BT reported the airport has received 2-3 calls from folks looking at purchasing property to discuss the implications,noise and proximity to the airport. PW mentioned planes do have a noise impact on landing/take off (2,000-5,000 feet high). NS said the county's role in this process is to decide to accept the city's proposal to expand the Urban Growth Boundary or to modify it.The county establishes the Urban Growth Boundary.She stated when the city proposed adding 160 acres to the boundary in 2014,the county did not approve it. The county looks at the whole picture to make sure all proposals are justified and analyzed.The county also looks at other options.The Urban Growth Boundary can be changed once per year.She also mentioned that the current development being discussed is one of preference to the city because the infrastructure is in place and there is a developer ready to go. BT asked DM whether the city could decide to exclude the 160 acres next to the airport from its UGA request.DM acknowledge the city could exclude the area,but that it did not plan to. RH mentioned the plan made sense if there were not an airport. DM said the city is having a hearing on this on May 17"‘.Letters of comment can be taken to the hearing or sent in by this Friday (May 11). PW expressed appreciation that the city has taken into account the airport overlay map and that he has been working with other municipalities to do the same.He said he will compose a letter that recommends the best solution for everyone to protect the public,the pilots,the economy and the —growth of the airport for the hearing on May 17.A decline at the airport would have a negative impact on the city's economy. Adjourned 2:42 pm. Page 123 of 193 >*l"l'l t xx.vim» hi-cities Alrporl Administrative Office- Phone:509.547.6352 Fax:509.5J7.904l3AIRRT'P S C in-citiesairporl@puitolpasco.mg Jr 3601 N.20th Avenue Pasco,Washington U.S.A.99301 Mam 2018 °:':.".‘:;:';'.:;: James T.Klindwurth VickiGordon niruior oi AirportsCityofPascoPlanningCommissionand5""“" Mr.RickWhite,Community and Economic Development Director City of Pasco 525 N 3"’ Pasco,WA 99301 Re:Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary Near the Tri-Cities Airport Honorable Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed update to the City of Pasco Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).Overall,we are in agreement with the City's proposal for expanding the UGA to accommodate future growth planned for the City of Pasco.We are in a dynamic,thriving community and it is exciting to see plan for the changes ahead. However,for the long term protection of our regional airport and air servicesinto the Tri-Cities,t_hg Port would reggest that land to the northwest of the aigaort remain in the County to reduce future conflicts between residences and aircraftggerations (see 160~acre pink dashed area on attached figure).Stating the obvious,there will be low flying aircraft arriving and departing above the subject parcel which is incompatible with residential development. For safety purposes,the Port would strongly recommend that only compatible development be permitted under the runway approaches to the airport,shown as Zones 2 and 4 on the figure. These zones and others were added to the Pasco Zoning code in 2012-13 as an Airport Overlay District,based upon guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT)"Airports and Compatible Land-UseGuidebook." As part of the City's Airport Overlay District,it was agreed that no residential development would be allowed in Zone 2.With respect to Zone 4,however,some modifications to the WSDOT guidelines were agreed upon because of existing development already built out under other runway approaches.These modifications to the WSDOT guidelines should not be applied to undeveloped ground,however,particularly ground that is presently outside the current Urban Growth Boundary. Page 124 of 193 in the County code,Zone 4 allows only 4 residential units per 20 acres with clustering preferred.This type of development conforms with the WSDOT compatibility guidelines.in the City code,Zone 4 allows up to 2 residential units per acre,which is much higher than WSDOT recommends.Clearly the zoning allowed in the County is more compatible and is in compliance with the WSDOT recommended guidelines.Leaving the property outside of the City UGB maintains the present compatible uses. Along with safety concerns,we are also concerned that adding the subject parcel to the UGA would introduce inherent conflicts between aircraft operations and residential quality of life,including effects of aircraft noise,vibration,fumes,etc.In prior applications to add this parcel to the UGA, WSDOT commented "do no more harm"with regard to adding higher residential development than permitted by the County.Similarly,the Department of Commerce expressed serious concerns regarding urban residential encroachment and incompatible land uses near the airport runway.We agree with these comments and request that the City promote thoughtful and well—reasoned planning by keeping the entire parcel outside of the UGA.We are in the fortunate position of having an existing use in the County that is entirely compatible with aignort operations and future growth. The City would be wise to preserve this land use while it has the opportunity to do so. Thank you for your consideration. §5%*‘ Buck Taft,Director Tri-Cities Airport Port of Pasco Exhibit Attached Page 125 of 193 m5<as__ZO_.:m_DO0<>.Emn_omn_ ozmNe><>>z:m-Eo..._m_<wmEo-_EEmu32.5. u..,EIa...!: M 8 A ega P Pmmxm mm2.56” .3. can;canuo.5.anM52w.55uI..II ..52HMEK.25.III:aI.3:5EI .883III..I.mi..__........ :2...I-.I... o4M5<5.9::II.III E5.::22ss?éasa:an-__-i__-_.!. zoazm.xEmE3..m¢EE mmzou>.:.__m_»<ms_oo>._mu<mEommznzmow._ u.__./_3%52¢ m¢u<S. _ .5. . F.8.:_ moi:3oE..<:3 —\E:ZOEUNKWZOZ Page 126 of 193 JV'7iWashington State Aviation Division 7702 Terminal St SWDepartmentofTransportationTumwmnWA9850, 360-709-8015 I FAX:560-709-8009 TollFree:1»800<552-0666 TTY 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wagov May 10,2018 Dave McDonald,City Planner Community and Economic Development Department 525 N.Third Ave. Pasco,WA 99301 RE:Pasco’s Proposed Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)160 acres North West of the Tri-Cities Airport Dear Mr.McDonald, Thank you for the opportunity to conduct an official Land Use Consultation with representatives from the City of Pasco regarding the expansion of the UGB that is proposed North West (160 Acres F arm 2005 LLC —Attachment A)of the Tri-Cities Airport.The Washington State Department of Transportation (W SDOT)is concerned that the proposed expansion,if approved in its current form,would allow incompatible development adjacent to the Airport and would impeded future development and extension of Runway 12/30. WSDOT’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Program addresses elements of safety, airspace hazards,noise and land use in relation to public use airports.WSDOT is primarily concerned with the safety and compatibility of placing incompatible development adjacent to the airport and within the airport operating environment. WSDOT feels that the cumulative impacts of residential development in the proposed UGA expansion area could have detrimental effects on a vital component of the region and state’s transportation system.UGA expansion in this area should only be considered aiter a review of alternative measures to accommodate projected growth. The Growth Management Act (GMA)recognizes public use general aviation airports as essential public facilities and requires cities and counties to discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to them through their comprehensive plan policies and development regulations (RCW 36.70.547 and RCW 36.70A.200).The encroachment of incompatible land uses upon Washington state airports diminishestheir ability to function as essential public facilities and often leads to operational impacts and closures. As a condition of approval and a?er all other alternatives have been exhausted and deemed unachievable,WSDOT would recommend to the City of Pasco: Page 127 of 193 1)Adopt the Airport Compatibility Zoning structure and recommended development guidelines around the Tri-Cities Airport as outlined in the WSDOT Airports and Compatible Land Use Guide for inclusion into the city’s comprehensive plan and development regulations. 2)Ensure all residential structures in the proposed 160 acres of the UGA are constructed as far away as possible from the extended runway centerline (Zone 2 and Zone 4).The majority of off-airport property aircra?accidents occur along the extended runway centerline. 3)All proposed stormwater facilities shall meet both the FAA’s and WSDOT’s best management practices for aviation related stormwater facilities.Wildlife strikes pose great threats to pilots and aircra?in the United States. 4)All structures built within the 160 acres will remain clear of man-made and naturally occurring objects that penetrate the FAA’s FAR Part 77 ‘lmaginary Airspace Surfaces of Tri—CitiesAirport. 5)A notice shall be placed on titles for all lots within the 160 acre UGA that states that “The subject property is located adjacent to Tri-Cities Airport and may be impacted from a variety of aviation activities.Such activities may include but are not limited to noise,vibration,odors,hours of operation,low overhead ?ights and other associated activities." Again,I appreciate the opportunity to offer written comments and am available for any questions or concerns you may have.Please don’t hesitate to contact me at 360-709- 8019 or wrightp@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, atrick T.0.Wright WSDOT Aviation Division Attachment A:Tri—CitiesAirport Map with WSDOT Airport CompatibilityZones Page 128 of 193 Attachment A:WSDOT Airport Compatibility Zones For Reference Only: 7»;51*‘- .”M,/.UA‘ I.alt-II. .wc..u\.IIS..2.n.._mm»wm_.mm_...mmw,ea<amzc.w« ..x‘3..r.. Page 129 of 193 Airport Consultation Meeting RCW 36.70a.510 Land Use StakeholdersMeeting Urban Growth Boundary May 8,2018 Present: Patrick Wright,WSDOT AVN (PW) Marjy Leggett,AOPA ASN (ML) David McDonald,City of Pasco (DM) Roger Black,local pilot (RB) Bob Ransom,local pilot (BR) Don Faley,Port of Pasco (DF) Mitch Hooper,Mead &Hunt (MH) Buck Taft,Port of Pasco (BT) Elizabeth Teilessen,Winston &Cashatt (ET) Randy Hayden,Port of Pasco (RH) Nicole Stickney,Franklin County (NS) Tara White,Port of Pasco (TW) 1:45 pm DM reported that the population in the City of Pasco is projected to increase by 50,148 in the next 20 years‘As a result of this increase,additional land is needed in the Urban Growth Boundary.The City is proposing adding approximately 6 square miles,including approximately 160 acres north of the airport,to accommodate the growth.He referenced the map that addresses the proposed areas to expand the Urban Growth Boundary.He noted that the gray area outlined in a maroon border (Hwy 395)is an industrial area currently in the county that is being proposed for the City UGA.He also pointed out the 160 acres north of the airport is being proposed as residential that would comply with the airport overlay zoning code as approved by the City and the Port.DM then asked for questions or comments. Page 130 of 193 PW asked ifthere was any way to not include the area off of the end ofthe runway.DM discussed the lack of other options available for residential.Further north is prime farming land.The Clark Edition is mostly developed. ML expressed her support for reserving land to enable the extension of RWY 30 in the future. She mentioned that with increased population will come airport growth and that the airport needs to be protected. BT spoke about airport operations.The 2013 Master Plan references a peak day of 345 operations;or 61 operations per hour.PSC is on target to be the size of GEG (Spokane airport)in 50 years.Runway 30 is the only runway that can be expanded.He said the growth of PSC must be protected.Flights leave early and arrive late which are times when people are at home sleeping or eating meals.RWY 30 is used for 40%of the flights. NS asked DM ifthe city has done an analysis on what can occur on the land inside the Urban Growth Boundary already in terms of meeting this need.She specifically referenced the Broadmoor area.She also asked how the analysis was done.She also noted the population growth projections being used were the ”medium”numbers. DM stated a gravel lease is currently in place for 350 acres near Broadmoor and no homes could be built on that land.Geomedia was used to complete the analysis.The population of Pasco grew about 50,000 in the last 23 years,so the projection of 50,000 more residents in the next 20 years is in line with historical growth. ML asked if the Urban Growth Boundary could be expanded to the EAST. DM mentioned that there may be some options to the east,but that it has been designated for industrial development due to the rail and marine facilities.Many lots have been left vacant since the 18805 as people have chosen not to develop in the east side.The utility system doesn’t extend east and it would be easierto expand to the north. ML asked if there was space near the Ochoa school. DM said some lots are available but not enough land to meet the need. RH described the main concerns the port has is with zone 4.The city is proposing 2 houses per acre.The county zoned it as 1 house/5acres and WSDOT and the Port prefer to keep the land in the county.The Port would like to keep residential development away from the airport if at all possible and have ag and other compatible uses on the 160 acres north of the airport. High density housing was discussed between RH and DM.There is enough land to absorb the high density projection requirements for the next 20 years,as it only makes up less than 20%ofthe residential growth.Not many large apartment complexes are being built due to high school impact and other fees. PW and MH talked about the use of the WSDOT airport land use and compatibility guide.These guidelines need to be incorporated in the planning of the Urban Growth Boundary. NS mentioned there are guides for land use and also building height requirements. Page 131 of 193 PW expressed WSDOT had concerns with zone 2 and zone 3. ML stated again how the airport needs to be protected.She referenced Paine Field as an example and how the pilots already have to make adjustments to avoid loud noise to homeowners. DM asked the question ”who is responsible for protecting the airport?”"ls it the community or one property owner?" NS commented that the property owner has not lost anything at this time.if the property is allowed inside the Urban Growth Boundary,he will be given extra expansion rights,but as of now,he has not lost anything.She went on to speak about the process and how the county will work to determine the most appropriate answer to meet the needs of everyone. PW stated it is the city's and county's responsibility to protect the public and pilots and the airport through zoning and land use decisions.It is his job as an official to protect the public.it starts at the city and WSDOT provides guidance. BT asked if the city would indemnify the Port for possible future legal issues with regard to developing homes in the area near the airport. DM mentioned the city did what the Port wanted in 2012 with regard to zoning the areas near the airport.He said the city would not indemnify the port. RH stated that the city and the Port came to an agreement in 2012,but the end result was not what the Port had originally requested of the city.He mentioned in the GMA,airports are considered an important community asset and asked why the city doesn't take that into account in the same manner as the farm land resources that have intentionally been left out of the UGA expansion.He asked ifthere was some area north of Clark Road and to the west ofthe 160 acre parcel that might work instead. DM said that might be an option but needed some further research.He said the goal right now is to get a new Urban Growth Boundary in place to meet the population increase demands. DM listed the school impact fees as a barrier for multi—unitdevelopment.it is about $4,800/door,plus a $425 traffic impact fee and a $1,400 park fee.One developer left a project after finding out about the fees and the city has not had any more interest in a large unit facility since that time.Some duplexes are being developed.Reducing the fees is not an option at this time. MH discussed residential development near airports.PSC is a ”spoke”airport meaning many flights leave early and arrive late.Residents living near airports complain about the noise,form groups and often request the airport to curtail flights during early morning and late evening hours.The FAA does not allow airports to curtail flight times,curtailing flights would put the federal grant dollars received over the past 20 years at risk.Santa Monica airport is being shut down because of this. Residential development near airports is not only difficult but leads to lawsuits and the possibility of losing a community asset. ET discussed the costs associated with the lawsuits.Lawyers paid by the port and the homeowners are an expensive cost.The airport is a public asset and it is in the public’s interest to not allow development near the airport.The landowner is not losing anything at this time,and the argument is one sided. Page 132 of 193 DM stated homeowners are made aware during a loan closing ofthe proximity of the property to the airport.However,he also stated most buyers do not pay attention to this notice. BT reported the airport has received 2-3 calls from folks looking at purchasing property to discuss the implications,noise and proximity to the airport. PW mentioned planes do have a noise impact on landing/take off (2,000—5,000 feet high). NS said the county's role in this process is to decide to accept the city's proposal to expand the Urban Growth Boundary orto modify it.The county establishes the Urban Growth Boundary.She stated when the city proposed adding 160 acres to the boundary in 2014,the county did not approve it. The county looks at the whole picture to make sure all proposals are justified and analyzed.The county also looks at other options.The Urban Growth Boundary can be changed once per year.She also mentioned that the current development being discussed is one of preference to the city because the infrastructure is in place and there is a developer ready to go. BT asked DM whether the city could decide to exclude the 160 acres next to the airport from its UGA request.DM acknowledge the city could exclude the area,but that it did not plan to. RH mentioned the plan made sense ifthere were not an airport. DM said the city is having a hearing on this on May 17"‘.Letters of comment can be taken to the hearing or sent in by this Friday (May 11). PW expressed appreciation that the city has taken into account the airport overlay map and that he has been working with other municipalities to do the same.He said he will compose a letter that recommends the best solution for everyone to protect the public,the pilots,the economy and the growth ofthe airport for the hearing on May 17.A decline at the airport would have a negative impact on the city's economy. Adjourned 2:42 pm. Page 133 of 193 May 29th,2018 RECEIVEDFranklinCountyCommissioners 1016 N4"‘Ave.JUN0 I 25:3Pasco,WA.99301 COMMUNITY&ECON0l'JllC[‘EUcLnorJ_:»;-. To:Franklin County Commissioners, We recently attended the Pasco Urban Growth public hearing on May 18th,2018.According to themapsthatwereusedthateveningandsenttousinthemail,the most southern tip of Shumway FamilyProperties,LLCis being considered as part of the new Pasco Urban Growth boundary. We would like it to be known that we support the boundary changes and would like to see an increasednumberofacresfromShumwayFamilyProperties,LLCincluded in the proposed boundary changes.We are aware that there are some negative feelings towards the new proposed growth boundarychangesbyneighboringfarmerswhohavenodesiretoquitfarmingtheirground.It appears to us thatthenaturalflowofdevelopmentwouldbetohavetheboundarysetwiththelandwestofTaylorFlatsandsouthofSelphLandingroad.It would be a natural division between county and city.It seems thatbecauseofthelayofourlandandlocationitwouldbeagreatadditiontothenaturalgrowthofthecityofPasco,and that both commercial and residential requirements could be met satisfactorily with theseaddedacres.We know that types of farm ground have to be a consideration in your decision as well butthetruthisthattodaywithcenterpivotirrigationandwaterandsoilmanagementthereisverylittledifferenceinsoiltypesconcerninggrowingconditionsofcropsintheColumbiaBasin. If the boundary lines need to be significantly enlarged and more acres are needed to conform with statepopulationprojectionswecurrentlyhavetheacresneededandtheyareadjacenttowhatisnow proposed and would fit with the projected growth expected and the number of acres needed.We wouldaskthatyouwouldconsideraddingtheseacrestotheproposedboundarylinechanges. /,-(I /V2'-09 \s/ta/iuu?t c Harvey &KikiShumway /PShumwayFamilyProperties,LLC 401 Shumway Rd Pasco,WA 99301 509-948-2836 cc:Pasco Planning Dept Pasco Planning Commission Pasco City Council Franklin County Planning Dept. Page 134 of 193 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5/17/2018 F. Comp. Plan Amendment Urban Growth Boundary (MF# CPA 2018-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary. The City is obligated to update the Comprehensive Plan this year to meet a mandate with the Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive Plan Update requires the City to make a recommendation to the County amending the urban growth boundary. Amending the urban growth boundary will provide land for the increased population estimated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) within Pasco over the next 20 years. The City cannot create its own population estimates – it is required to use the estimates provided by the OFM. Over the years in doing the GMA planning, Pasco has always been assigned 80% of the county-wide population number. In January, the City received a memo from the County indicating the population would be over 121,000 by 2038. The City has to find land to accommodate the expected growth within the urban growth boundary. The population increase translates to 15,000 new homes, impacting the amount of land needed to be included within the urban growth boundary. Other land uses must be considered in addition to housing, such as commercial, schools, fire stations, churches, parks and open space. In addition, utilities and infrastructure must be considered. Staff calculated that a little over 8 square miles will need to be added to the urban growth boundary in addition to residential that will develop inside the current urban growth boundary. In looking at the trends and availability of utilizes, the City would need to expand to the north or the existing urban growth boundary. Staff provided a proposed new urban growth boundary. There are two new areas recommended to be included. There is an area to the northwest city limits for residential – low density with some multi-family and commercial at the nodes. Then an area of industrial land up Highway 395 north of Foster Wells. Maps were provided in the staff report memo on proposed utilities and how they would be extended. The City cannot establish the urban growth boundary on its own. By law, the Franklin County Commissioners are the only body that can approve the urban growth boundary. The Planning Commission recommendation will go to City Council. The City Council will then send their recommendation to the Franklin County Commissioners for the final acceptance or modifications. Mr. McDonald discussed a piece of property the City has proposed including in the urban growth boundary located in Safety Zone 2 and Safety Zone 4 of the airport overlay zone. The Planning Commission deliberated a code amendment to include this property into the urban growth boundary in the past. It is a 160 acre tract located at the end of Road 52. Staff has included this parcel in the proposed urban growth boundary as the Page 135 of 193 City will need every acre that it can get to meet the State requirements. Handouts were provided to the Planning Commissioner’s on the bench prior to the meeting of documents received from the public, attorneys, the WA State Department of Transportation and the Port of Pasco. Commissioner Greenaway asked if Staff had taken into consideration of the runway that is extended with the airport overlay. Mr. McDonald responded yes. The extension falls under Zone 2 and that area is where no development can occur. Zone 4 is in roughly 40 acres and under the current code, 2 units per acre is allowed. When streets are taken out it is down to 1.6 units per acres. In the County, only 1 unit per 5 acres is allowed. In the rest of the acreage on the site there are no overlay zones at all and development should be able to occur as normal. Commissioner Greenaway asked why the parcel near the airport overlay, which looks like a “pie wedge” is shown as mixed-residential. Mr. McDonald replied that would allow apartment buildings or single-family development on smaller lots. Commissioner Greenaway voiced concern for apartment buildings located near the airport overlay. Mr. McDonald said the original suggestion for higher density came from the airport. The developer is looking to develop single family homes. Commissioner Bowers asked staff to discuss the Rio Del Sol project documents that were submitted as a part of the packet to the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonald explained that the owners of Rio Del Sol own 5 acres along the Columbia River west of the Moore Mansion. They have tried to develop the property for many years as higher density, taller buildings and mixed-use with some coffee shops or restaurants on the bottom floor with apartments on the upper floors. He discussed the issues of that proposal as it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Roach pointed out variations of the map that was in the packet and what was presented. Mr. McDonald explained the differences. Commissioner Myhrum asked for more information on the 5,000 dwelling units the City plans to absorb. Mr. McDonald stated that it was just an estimate based on the current inventory of land. Page 136 of 193 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that the number is based on averages. He stated that there is opportunity for higher density as well in the Broadmoor Area. Randy Hayden, Executive Director of the Port of Pasco, 110 Osprey Pointe Boulevard, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco. He stated that the Port of Pasco is supportive of growth in Pasco and the expansion of the urban growth boundary. He expressed concerns on the 160 acre piece of property located in the airport overlay zone. He explained reasons to leave that out of the urban growth boundary pertaining to the concerns with the airport. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Hayden if the letter to the Planning Commission from Ms. Tellessen was on the behalf of the Port of Pasco. Mr. Hayden said yes. Commissioner Roach asked if the Port has considered purchasing the land. Mr. Hayden responded that they were not able to come to an agreement w ith the land owner on price. Carl Adrian, President/CEO of TRIDEC, 7130 W. Grandridge Boulevard, Kennewick, WA spoke on this item in favor of the Port of Pasco’s comments. Buck Taft, Director of the Tri-Cities Airport, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the airport. He played a video of an airbus taking off as an example of what the homeowner’s would experience if the 160 acres of land was developed in the city limits. He was in agreement with the comments of the Port of Pasco. Mitchell Hooper, Mead & Hunt, 9600 Cascades Parkway, Portland, OR spoke on this item in favor of the Port of Pasco’s comments. He showed a graphic to the Planning Commission of flight paths. There was discussion between Chairman Cruz and Mr. Hooper on the types of airbuses the airport has currently and what they anticipate. Elizabeth Tellessen, Winston & Cashatt, 601 W. Riverside, Suite 1900, Spokane, WA spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco as their legal representative. She addressed supplemental information she had provided the Planning Commission including proposed changes to the findings of fact in the staff report. Commissioner Roach stated that they just received the proposed changes and would like time to read them. Commissioner Bowers asked how the proposed UGA would change if they removed the contested 160 acres of land in the airport overlay zone. Page 137 of 193 Mr. McDonald replied the City would have to find land elsewhere to add to the boundary. Chairman Cruz asked if it would create uneven boundary lines. Mr. McDonald explained the options of other potential land to incorporate in the urban growth boundary, although those options were problematic. Chairman Cruz agreed with Mr. McDonald. Mr. Taft, Tri-Cities Airport, stated that as an option the City could zone more areas for higher density residential to meet the density requirements rather than trying t o find another 160 acres elsewhere. Commissioner Campos added that the Planning Commission received several letters from farmers in favor of being included in the UGA – one from a farmer who is already in the proposed UGA and one that isn’t included but would like to be included. Chris Bolkan, 450 McDonald Drive, spoke in support of the Port of Pasco’s comments. Tom Kidwell, 4320 Riverhaven, spoke in support of including his 160 acres of land into the urban growth boundary. He discussed the improvements he has made to this area with the expectations of someday annexing into the City. He explained the history of this property and prior public hearings regarding this property and the input from the Port of Pasco. Eric Weinheimer, 2220 SLI Road, Sunnyside, WA spoke on behalf of the land owner of the 160 acres. He addressed some of the safety issues that were discussed by the Port pertaining to flight lines. He presented documents on an overhead projector for the Planning Commission. He requested the Planning Commission approve the UGA as recommended by Staff. There was some discussion between Chairman Cruz and Mr. Weinheimer. James Carmody, 230 S. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA spoke on behalf of the property owner of the 160 acres of land. He presented supporting information and incentive to include the 160 acres of land into the urban growth boundary. The Planning Commission took a brief recess. Al Yenney, 936 N. Beech, spoke on behalf of the rights of the property owner of the 160 acres of land in question of being included in the urban growth boundary. He believed the Port should purchase the property if they want to limit development. Randy Hayden, Port of Pasco, addressed some of the arguments made in regards to the 160 acres he would like left out of the proposed UGA. Page 138 of 193 Chris Bolken, spoke again in favor of the opinions of the Port of Pasco. Commissioner Roach asked Mr. McDonald for clarification of land use surrounding the 160 acre parcel. Mr. McDonald replied with the land uses and owners of property surrounding the site. Dave Retter, Sotheby’s Realty, 3205 S. Auburn, Kennewick, WA represented Mr. Miles and Mr. Beasley of Rio Del Sol in a project they wish to develop west of the Moore Mansion. They would like to increase the density, which would help in mee ting the future growth in Pasco, and to do something unique in Pasco. They asked for consideration in land use in order to make the project happen. Chairman Cruz asked if this was an issue relating to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McDonald said it was but not in regards to the urban growth boundary. There will be other opportunities in the future to address land use and zoning in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Margy Leggett, 4019 Horizon Drive, spoke in support of the Port of Pasco ’s comments and addressed concerns for future residents of homes that would be built should the 160 acres of land be included in the urban growth boundary. Pete Rieke, 9104 Pooler Road, discussed traffic and safety concerns from increasing the urban growth boundary to the north and how the City will address those issues. Don Myers, 1321 Road 62, stated that the City or Port needs to purchase the 160 acre property in order to prote ct the citizens and community. He addressed the Rio Del Sol property and after thought, he would like to keep that area single-family dwelling units. He discussed the northern boundary and that there will need to be more infrastructure. George Dockstader, Desert Hills Realty, 6119 Burden Boulevard, spoke on behalf of the property owners in the northern boundary proposed to be included in the urban growth boundary. The property owners near Clark Road in the County would like to be left out of the urban growth boundary. He also wants coordination between the City and County regarding roads. There are problems when properties in the County get annexed to the City due to the different standards of roads between the two jurisdictions. Patty Dean, 417 Road 37, stated she was opposed to any type of multi-family dwelling units on the undeveloped property near the Moore Mansion in her area due to safety concerns and would rather homes or duplexes be developed. As to the 160 acres near the airport, she stated that she understands both arguments agreed with the speaker who advised the Port purchase the property. Fred Olberding, 911 Birch Road, believed the Port should buy the property near the airport and also advised the City to plan for infrastructure and utilities. Page 139 of 193 Chris Bolken, 450 McDonald Drive, addressed his concerns for the infrastructure and traffic plans as the urban growth boundary expands. Chairman Cruz responded to Mr. Bolken’s concerns. He stated that infrastructure, traffic and utilities are addressed in other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. James Carmody, 230 S. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA discussed his legal opinions again on the property located within the 160 acres near the airport. With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Roach asked if the Office of Financial Management (OFM) provided demographic information along with the population estimates. Mr. McDonald replied no. Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission to make a motion. He proposed making deliberations on this item at the following meeting. Mr. McDonald responded that this item is time sensitive. It needs to go to City Council in order to forward to the County, which must be completed by the end of June. At the previous meeting the Planning Commission held a workshop on this item. The City Council will be able to modify if needed but they need a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. White added that there is an option to hold a special meeting for the Planning Commission in one week. The Commissioners were not inclined to hold a special meeting. Mr. White reminded the Commission that there is a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and City Council on June 11, 2018 where this item can be discussed. Commissioner Roach wanted to see land use designation changes already within the city limits to accommodate the increased population growth. Mr. White responded that it could be a multi-year effort and explained that many areas within the city limits don’t have the capacity for multi-family. Chairman Cruz stated that the Planning Commission has to be pragmatic. Commissioner Roach said she didn’t want Pasco to be perceived as a “bedroom” community. This would be a way to alleviate that. Utilities and infrastructure are in those areas already as well. Page 140 of 193 Commissioner Bowers said she was concerned with developing the 160 acres near the airport and was against including that in the urban growth boundary. She also wanted to see the development proposed by Rio Del Sol allowed. Commissioner Myhrum said he was comfortable moving forward with the motion as presented in the staff report, including the 160 acres. Commissioner Portugal asked how the Planning Commission should move forward with the feedback they have heard and how the City would handle lawsuits in regards to the airport. Mr. McDonald replied that the City has codes and regulations in place to protect from the airport and capability issues. There will be wording on the each plat as well on each title for each new homeowner, even if the home sells, for those purchasing land in that area. Commissioner Portugal said that answered his question and gave him enough information to vote in favor of the motion as presented. Commissioner Roach asked how many Commissioners felt comfortable on making a recommendation. Commissioner Campos said that he heard both sides made strong arguments. Mr. McDonald responded that many of the questions or issues relating to land use designations will be worked on from now until fall. First the urban growth boundary needs to be set in place. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Myhrum, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the staff report dated May 17, 2018. The motion passed with Commissione r Roach, Commissioner Greenaway, Commissioner Mendez and Commissioner Bowers dissenting. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Myhrum, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, the planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #1 attached to the staff memo dated May 17, 2018. The motion passed with Commissioner Roach, Commissioner Greenaway, Commissioner Mendez and Commissioner Bowers dissenting. Page 141 of 193 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 13, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 6/18/18 FROM: Dave Zabell, City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services (Bi-County Emergency Dispatch Services) I. REFERENCE(S): Benton County Emergency Services Transition and Buy-In Agreement Proposed Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve the Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services and further, to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $500,000 Buy-In Cost IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City has been working in concert with Franklin and Benton Counties and the cities of Kennewick and Richland toward the consolidation of the two Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) serving these agencies and others in the Tri-Cities region since 2007. Consolidation of the two PSAPs into one, operating on an 800 MHz platform for police and VHF for fire, is a long-time City Council goal. The first formal step in the consolidation process resulted in the attached Transition and Buy-In (Agreement) which was approved by Council in June 2017. The agreement proposed, which was contemplated in the Transition Agreement, is required to complete Pasco's participation as a "new partner" with Benton County Emergency Services Southeast Communications Center (BCES/SECOMM) is attached Page 142 of 193 as the Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement. The immediate financial impact of the agreement will be the City's need to provide a one time, non-refundable, contribution of $500,000 for buy-in to the existing equipment and infrastructure of SECOMM. A required buy-in, of this order of magnitude has been planned for and set aside for this purpose by the City for several years in anticipation of the consolidation. BCES is scheduled to commence providing emergency dispatch services to the City and other Franklin County emergency service providers, including Franklin County Sheriffs Office, in August of this year. V. DISCUSSION: Staff recommends approval of the agreement. Page 143 of 193 CONTRACT NO. BENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY SER VICES TRANSITION AND BUY-IN AGREEMENT This TR^SITION AND BUY-IN AGREEMENT ("Agreement")is made and entered into on this day of CTla-U/,2017,by and between Benton County,a poUtical subdivision of the State of Wa^ington,the cities of Kennewick,Richland,West Richland, Prosser and Benton City,all of which are Washington municipal corporations,Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2,and 4 and Public Utility District #1 of Benton County (Benton PUD), all of which are Washington special purpose districts,acting collectively as Benton County Emergency Services ('"BCES"),Franklin County,a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("Franklin County"),and the City of Pasco,a Washington municipal corporation ("Pasco").BCES,Franklin County and Pasco are referred to collectively throughout this Agreement as the "Parties." WHEREAS,BCES is a local organization created in 1996 pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act,Chapter 39.34 RCW, and RCW 38.52.070 related to Emergency Management; and WHEREAS,the members of BCES have agreed that the City of Richland,as the AdministrativeJurisdiction,shall currentlybethe legalentity responsiblefor employingstaffand providing necessary support services for BCES operations;and WHEREAS,through establishment of the Southeast Communications Center ("SECOMM"),BCES provides communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies for jurisdictions located in incorporated and unincorporated Benton County,andforany agencies contracting for such services;and WHEREAS,FranklinCountyand Pascoareeachobligatedto providecommunicationand dispatching for public safety and emergencies,and desire to join with BCES in order to create a bi-county operation of emergency dispatch services;and WHEREAS,FranklinCountyand Pascoarecommittedto payingthecosts associatedwith thetransitionstepsnecessarytojoin BCESaswellasapaymentof FiveHundredThousandDollars each upon completion of the transition into the SECOMM Fund as a non-refundable capital contribution for use by BCES. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1.Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference. BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Page 1 Page 144 of 193 2.Purpose.The purpose of this Transition Agreement is to detail the transition process which will accomplish an expansion of BCES membership to include Franklin County and Pasco. The purpose of such expansion is the provision of emergency and non-emergency call answering and dispatch services for the Franklin County Sheriffs Office and the city of Pasco Police and Fire Departments,and the opportunity for the provision of such services to the city of Connell Police and Fire Departments,Franklin County Fire Districts 1,2,3,4 & 5, the Pasco Airport Police,North Franklin County Hospital District,and Walla Walla Fire Protection District No. 5,hereinafter known collectively as "Franklin 911 Agencies,"should they elect to become subscribers for such services. 3.Transition Period.The transition period contemplated herein shall begin upon execution of this Agreement by the last signing party. The transition period shall conclude upon the date on which BCES through SECOMM begins to provide emergency and non-emergency call answering and dispatch services to Franklin County and Pasco. This Agreement shall automaticallyterminateat theconclusion of the transitionperiod;provided,the obligationsset forth in section 7 below shall survive said termination. 4.Transition Sequence. The Parties agree the following transition sequence shall commence upon execution of this Agreement: a.Interview/Application of dispatchers currently employed by the Franklin County Sheriffs Office ("FCSO"); b. Open recruitment by BCES foranyneeded additional positions; c. Commence technical interconnectionprocess (radio/CAD); d. Testingto confirm interconnectivity is successfuland sustained; e. All hiring efforts completed; f.Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal adopted by all current BCES members.Franklin County and Pasco; g.BCES commences with bi-county operations -transition is complete. 5. Transition Costs.Franklin County and Pasco shall pay all transition costs incurred by them andby BCES during the term ofthis Agreement associated with the expansion of SECOMM to serve Franklin County,Pasco and any other entities providing services within Franklin County that may become subscribers to SECOMM services.Existing members of BCES have no obligation to contribute any funds toward the transition or transition costs. As used in this Agreement,the term "transition cost"includes,butisnot limited to,the following: a. All costs associated with recruiting,hiring and training staff necessary to absorb additional workload realized from the expansion of SECOMM to serve Franklin County,Pasco and I other entities operating in Franklin County that may elect to subscribe to services from BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Pagg 2 Page 145 of 193 SECOMM. All staffing determinations shall be made in the sole discretion of the Administrative Jurisdiction. b. While this Agreement is in effect, all salaries, benefits and any incidental costs paid to or for the additional staff added under section (a)above. c. Except as provided in (e) below, reimbursement to the Administrative Jurisdiction for staff time necessary to effectuate the transition,except for time committed by the BCES Director and those Administrative Jurisdiction staff specifically assigned to BCES. Time shall be billed at the fully-burdened hourly rate for the particular staff member(s)working on elements of the transition (i.e..City Attorney,Human Resources Generalist,Purchasing Manager,etc.).Recovery of costs under this subsection shall be retroactive to January 1, 2017. d. All costs for infrastructure or equipment necessary or desired, in the opinion of BCES, for successful and sustained interconnectivity between BCES and Franklin County's system. Interconnectivity shall be considered "sustained and successful"if it is assessed have a reasonable likelihood of operating without failure for no less than twelve (12)months after interconnectivity is established. e. All costs associated with the contracted technical consulting necessary to determine technical transition steps. To the extent that expertise is necessary from BCES to inform the opinions or recommendations of the contracted technical consultant(s), said staff time shall be made available at no additional cost. 6.Invoices.The Administrative Jurisdiction,on behalfof BCES,shall remit detailed invoices for transition costs to Franklin County for payment. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) calendardaysofreceipt of the invoice.FranklinCountyandPascoagreetobeheldjointlyand severally liable for all costs invoiced under this Agreement. This section shall survive termination of this Agreement. 7.Commitment to Execute Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal.The Parties agree,withinthirty(30)daysof successful completion ofsteps(a)through (e)of the transition process set forth in section 4 above,to execute a second amended and restated BCES interlocal agreement intheform attached heretoas Exhibit A inordertoadd Franklin CountyandPasco as voting members of BCES as provided therein; provided, the terms of Exhibit A can be revised ifall Parties so agree.Further,within thirty (30)calendar daysofthe full execution of such agreement, Franklin County and Pasco shall each make an irrevocable contribution of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)to the Administrative Jurisdiction for deposit in the SECOMM Fund and use by BCES at its discretion. 8.Execution of Operating Agreement with Administrative Jurisdiction.The current members of BCES shall execute an Operating Agreement with the AdministrativeJurisdiction BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Page 3 Page 146 of 193 beforethey executethe SecondAmendedand RestatedBCES Interlocal referencedaboveand prior to July 31,2017. Such Operating Agreement shall automatically renew every five (5) years unlessthe Administrative Jurisdictionor anothermembergivesat least nine (9)months' notice of a desire not to renew. 9.Termination.BCES may, by written notice, terminate this Agreement upon failure by Franklin County or Pasco to remit payment as provided herein. The defaulting agency shall have ten (10) calendar days to cure the default, which shall commence upon receipt of BCES's notice to terminate by the last-receiving party. If the defaulting party fails to cure the default by rendering payment in full within the timeframe specified herein, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated upon the eleventh (11^^)day after notice to terminate has been received by the last-receiving party.Upon termination,Franklin County and Pasco remain jointly and severally liable for all costs incurred by BCES pursuant to this Agreement to and through the date of termination. 10.Legal Relationship.No partnership,joint venture or joint undertaking shall be construed to be created by or from the existence of this Agreement,and,except as herein specifically provided,no Party shall have the right to make any representations for, act on behalf of,or be liable for the debts of any of the other Parties. 11.Notices.Any notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed served when mailed FirstClass U.S. Mail.The Parties may, upon mutual agreement set forth in writing,determine to accept notice via email.Notice shall be directed as follows: BCES (All parties except Franklin County and Pasco) Attn:City of Richland City Manager 505 Swift Blvd. Richland,WA 99352 Email:creents@ci.richland.wa.us Franklin County Attn:County Administrator 1016 N.4th Avenue Pasco,WA 99301 Email:kiohnson@co.fi-anklin.wa.us City of Pasco Attn: City of Pasco City Manager 525 N.3rd Avenue Pasco,WA 99301 Email:citvmanager@pasco-wa.gov 12.Severability.Ifany part of this Agreementis heldto be illegalor unenforceableby a court of competent jurisdiction, to the extent possible and practicable, the remaining parts of the Agreement shall remain in effect and be binding upon all Parties hereto. 13. Governing Law; Venue.Jurisdiction andvenue for any action relating to the interpretation, enforcement,orany dispute arising from this Agreement shall bein Benton County Superior BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Page 4 Page 147 of 193 Court.This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 14.Waiver.No waiver by any Party hereto of any terms or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition,nor shall the waiver of any breach be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach,whether of the same or any other term or condition of this Agreement. 15.Captions.Paragraph titles or captions contained herein are inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference, and in no way define, limit, extend or describe the scope of this Agreement. 16.Binding Effect. Regardless of which party prepared or communicated this Agreement, this Agreement shall be of binding effect between the Parties only upon its execution by an authorized representative of each such party as authorized by its respective legislative council or governing board. 17.Warranty of Authority.ThepersonsexecutinganddeliveringthisAgreementeachrepresent andwarrantthateach of themisdulyauthorizedtodoso,andthatexecution ofthisAgreement isthe lawfuland voluntary actofthepersonor entityon whosebehalftheypurportto act. 18.Construction.The Parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel have reviewed this Agreement with opportunity to comment,andthat the normal rule of construction providing thatany ambiguities aretobe resolved against the drafting party shall notbe employed inthe interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment or exhibits hereto. 19.Complete Agreement.This Agreement represents and contains the entire understanding between the Parties related to Franklin County and Pasco becoming members of BCES.The Parties acknowledge that no other oral or written collateral agreements,understandings,or representations exist outside ofthis document,withthe exception ofany documents referenced inor expressly incorporated by reference inthis Agreement.Any prior agreements,whether verbal or written,not specifically expressly incorporated by reference inthis Agreement are hereby terminated. [Signature Page to Follow] BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Page 5 Page 148 of 193 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date of the last- signing Party. BENTON COUNTY,WASHINGTON vlAMES BEAVrn-OPPOSED By:James Beaver Date Chairman,Benton County Commission Attest: Clerk of the Board By:Je?i5y^eT)elvin Date Benton County Commissioner (j>42-ion Byf^hoiTsmZr Date Benton County Commissioner Approved as to Form: Ryan Brown Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,Civil FRANKLIN COUNTY,WASHINGTON See pg. 6_b By:Robert Koch Date Chairman, Franklin County Commission Signed See pg,6_b By: Brad Peck Date Franklin County Commissioner Signed See pg. 5_b By: Rick Miller Date Franklin County Commissioner Attest: Signed See pg.6_b Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: Signed See pg.6_b By: Franklin County Deputy Prosecutor [Signatures Continue Below\ BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Page 6^0^ Page 149 of 193 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date of the last- signing Party. BENTON COUNTY,WASHINGTON See pg. 6_a By:James Beaver Date Chairman,Benton County Commission Signed See pg.6_a By:Jerome Delvin Date Benton County Commissioner Signed See pg.6_a By: Shon Small Date Benton County Commissioner Attest: Signed See pg.6_a Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: Ryan Brown Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,Civil FRANKLIN COUNTY,WASHINGTON ABSENT By:Robert Koch Date Chairman,Franklin County Commission Lo By: Brad Peck Date Franklin County Commissioner io By:Rick Miller Date Franklin County Commissioner Attest: Ij n a -lX.^ Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By:^oVk Frakk^iliC^nty Deputy Prosecutor [Signatures Continue Below] BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Page 6_b Page 150 of 193 CITY OF PASCO 5y:Dave zTaBStt Pasco City Manager Attest: Date Sandy Keni^brthy,Interim City ^lerk Approved as to Form: r,Pasco City Attorney CITY OF KENNEWICK Attest. lecFy-Wnght,City Cler Approved as to Form: By:N|arie E.Mosley Kennewick City Manager Date Lisa Beaton,Kennewick City Attorney CITY OF RICHLAND _e Byi'^n^TTTaT^R^nts,ICMA-CM Date Richland City Manager Attest: Marcia Hopkins, City C1 Approved as to Form: 44-€jgJhajeA^\^U^^ Heatiier Kintzley,Richland City Attorney CITY OF WEST RICHLAND By:Brent Gerry Mayor Attest: AsJJu^City^lerk Julie Richardson Approved as to Form: Bronson Brown West Richland City Attorney Date [Signatures Continue Below] BCES Transition Agreement (20J7)Page 7 Page 151 of 193 CITY OF PROSSER Signed See pg.8_b By:Randy Taylor Mayor Attest: Signed See pg.8_b Date Rachel Shaw, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Signed See pg.8_b Howard Saxton,Prosser City Attorney CITY OF BENTON CITY By:Linda Lehman Mayor Attest: Ste^6me Haug,Cft^C l/erk Approved as to Form: Date Attorney for Benton City BENTON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS 1, 2,AND 4 Signed See pg.8_c By:E.W."Bill"Houchin,Commission Chair BCFPD#1 Date: Date: By^Barry (!Trth,Commission Chair BCFPD U2 Date:J?-|^ Signed See pg.8_d By: A.J. Hill,Commission Chair BCFPD #4 Attest: Attest: Attest: [Signatures Continue Below] BCES Transition Agreement (2017)Page 8jO<. Page 152 of 193 CITY OF PROSSER By:Da^e Stockdale Date Prosser City Administrator Attest Rachel Shaw,City Clerk Approved as to Form: CITY OF BENTON CITY Signed See pg.8_a By:Linda Lehman Mayor Attest: Signed See pg.8_a Stephanie Haug,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Signed See pg.8_a Date Howard Saxton,Prosser City Attorney West Richland City Attorney Lee Kerr,City Attorney for Benton City BENTON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS 1, 2,AND 4 Signed See pg.8_c By: E.W."Bill"Houchin,Commission Chair BCFPD #1 Date: Signed See pg.8_a By:Barry Orth,Commission Chair BCFPD #2 Date: Signed See pg. 8_d By:Gregg Couch,Commissioner BCFPD #4 Date: Attest: Attest'. Attest: {Signatures Continue Below] BCES Transition Agreement (2017) Signed See pg.8_a Page 8 Jo Page 153 of 193 CITY OF PROSSER Signed Seepg.8_b By:Randy Taylor Mayor Attest: Signed See pg.8_b Rachel Shaw,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Signed See pg.8_b Date CITY OF BENTON CITY Signed See pg. 8_a By:Linda Lehman Mayor Attest: Signed See pg.8_a Stephanie Haug, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Signed See pg. 8_a Date Howard Saxton,Prosser City Attorney Lee Kerr, City Attorney for Benton City BENTON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS 1,2,AND 4 By:E.W."Bill"Houchin,Commission Chair BCFPD #1 :€-$.(D )7Date Signed See pg.8_a By:Barry Orth,Commission Chair BCFPD #2 Date: Signed See pg. 8_d By: A.J. Hill,Commission Chair BCFPD #4 Date: Attest: Attest: Attest: [Signatures Continue Below] BCES Transition Agreement (2017) Signed See pg. 8_a Page 8^C Page 154 of 193 CITY OF PROSSER Signed See pg.8_b By:Randy Taylor Mayor Attest: Signed See pg.8_b Rachel Shaw,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Signed See pg.8_b Date CITY OF BENTON CITY Signed See pg.8_a By:Linda Lehman Mayor Attest: Signed See pg.8_a Stephanie Haug,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Signed See pg.8_a Date Howard Saxton,Prosser City Attorney Lee Kerr, City Attorney for Benton City BENTON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS 1,2,AND 4 Signed See pg.8_c By:E.W."Bill"Houchin,Commission Chair BCFPD#1 Date: Signed See pg.8_a By:Barry Orth,Commission Chair BCFPD #2 Date: By:AJ.Hill,Commission Chair BCFPD #4 ^e/\T./9=i-7 Date Attest: Attest: Attest: [Signatures Continue Below] BCES Transition Agreement (2017) Signed See pg,8_a Page 8j:k Page 155 of 193 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 OF BENTON COUNTY (BENTON PUD) Chad Bartram General Manager Date; BCES Transition Agreement (2017) Attest'. Page 9 Page 156 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 1 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Richland Attn: City Attorney 505 Swift Boulevard MS-07 Richland, WA 99352 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR BENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the following entities (collectively, the “Parties”): Benton County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; Franklin County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; City of Kennewick, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Richland, a Washington municipal corporation; City of West Richland, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Prosser, a Washington municipal corporation City of Benton City, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Pasco, a Washington municipal corporation; Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2, and 4, all of which are Washington special purpose districts; and Public Utility District #1 of Benton County, a Washington special purpose district. I. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, authorizes public agencies to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with each other based on mutual advantage, and to collectively exercise the rights and powers they hold individually through the execution of an interlocal cooperative agreement; and WHEREAS, RCW 38.52.070 authorizes and directs each county, city and town within the State of Washington to establish a local organization for emergency management in accordance with the State Emergency Management Plan and Program, and permits the State Director of Emergency Management to authorize two or more counties, cities and towns to join in the establishment and operation of a local organization for emergency management; and EXHIBIT A To 2017 BCES Transition & Buy-In Agreement Page 157 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 2 WHEREAS, Benton County Emergency Services (“BCES”) is such a local organization created in 1996 pursuant to the Interlocal referenced in Section 7, and the Parties to this Agreement wish to continue that organization under the terms of this Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, in addition to emergency management services, Benton County Emergency Services, through establishment of the Southeast Communications Center, has also provided communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies for some jurisdictions located in incorporated and unincorporated Benton County, and for any agencies contracting for such services; and WHEREAS, the cities of Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Prosser, Benton City, Benton County and Benton County Fire District Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and with limited participation by Benton County Public Utility District #1 (“Benton PUD”) (collectively, the “Existing Partners”) intend to continue to provide county-wide operation of emergency dispatch services under the terms of this Agreement, and, along with the city of Pasco and Franklin County (the “New Partners”), all Parties to this Agreement now intend to provide bi-county operation of emergency dispatch services, with each Party participating to the extent identified herein; and WHEREAS, the Existing Parties have operated BCES pursuant to the Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services effective January 23, 2012 (“2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement”); and WHEREAS, BCES has established a digital 800MHz radio system that provides and will continue to provide viable public safety communications for many years into the future; and WHEREAS, Benton County, the cities of Kennewick and Richland, and Benton PUD provide a single microwave system exclusively located in Benton County (hereinafter “Benton County Microwave System”); and WHEREAS, Benton PUD is a limited voting member of the BCES Executive Board authorized to vote exclusively on the Benton County Microwave System and related funding issues and in return for such rights it agreed in the 2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement not to exercise its right of first refusal to acquire ownership of microwave equipment from the State of Washington that are part of the Benton County Microwave System; and WHEREAS, Franklin County and public safety agencies within that county operate under a separate microwave system exclusively located in Franklin County (hereinafter “Franklin County Microwave System”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and in accordance with RCW 39.34, RCW 38.52 and Section 6 of the 2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement, the Parties hereto agree to this Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement as follows: Page 158 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 3 II. AGREEMENT 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the effective and economical operations of Benton County Emergency Services (BCES), a local administrative entity and joint venture between the above-referenced Parties (also referred to as the “Organization”). 3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Benton County Emergency Services consists of two (2) divisions: Benton County Emergency Management (BCEM) and Southeast Communications Center (SECOMM). A. General. The Organization shall consist of an Executive Board, Strategic Advisory Team, Customer Agency Groups and various committees as created by the Executive Board. 1. Appointment of Administrative Jurisdiction; Duration. An Administrative Jurisdiction shall be designated by the Executive Board. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall serve unless or until such service is terminated by the Executive Board, or until the Administrative Jurisdiction withdraws after having provided a minimum of nine (9) month’s written notice of intent to withdraw. The City of Richland is currently designated as the Administrative Jurisdiction. All employees staffing BCES shall be employees of the Administrative Jurisdiction. 2. Duties of Administrative Jurisdiction. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall have full responsibility for the operation of the Organization, and shall provide all necessary support for the Organization. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall perform its duties pursuant to a contractual agreement with Benton County Emergency Services that shall automatically renew every five (5) years, subject to any renegotiations between the Administrative Jurisdiction and the Executive Board. This contractual agreement shall be fully executed by December 1, 2017. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall appoint a BCES Director, which appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Executive Board. The BCES Director shall be removed only at the direction of the Administrative Jurisdiction. 3. Governing Policies. BCES shall follow the policies established by the Administrative Jurisdiction for all efforts related to Finance, Human Resources, Legal, Risk & Safety, and Purchasing. To ease future transition between Administrative Jurisdictions, BCES shall operate and maintain an independent email system. Page 159 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 4 B. Executive Board Duties; Membership; Voting. The Executive Board shall be the governing body of the administrative entity known as Benton County Emergency Services, and shall be responsible for approving BCES-specific policies, contracts, the annual budget, and confirmation of the Administrative Jurisdiction’s appointment of the BCES Director. The Executive Board shall also be responsible for ensuring the Parties’ compliance with the legal requirements of RCW 38.52. 1. Subject to the voting procedures and restrictions set forth herein, the Executive Board shall consist of one representative from the Benton County Commissioner's Office, one representative from the Franklin County Commissioner's Office, one representative from each of the cities of Kennewick, Richland, Prosser, West Richland, Benton City, and Pasco, a single representative collectively representing Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and one representative from Benton PUD. 2. Whenever they are entitled to vote, Benton County, Franklin County and the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland shall be allowed two (2) votes each. Whenever they are entitled to vote, West Richland, Prosser, Benton City and Benton PUD shall have one (1) vote each. Whenever they are entitled to vote, Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall collectively share a single vote. Benton PUD is only entitled to vote on the annual Benton County Microwave System assessment, the cost of Benton County Microwave System operations, replacement of Benton County Microwave System equipment, and Benton County Microwave System expansion or reduction. Specifically, but without limitation, the Benton PUD representative shall not have voting rights for matters relating to the BCES organizational structure and operations. 3. A simple majority of the number of members of the Executive Board shall be a quorum, and a simple majority of votes shall prevail unless otherwise set forth herein. Attendance or non-attendance of the Benton PUD’s representative shall not be counted or considered with respect to quorum determination. 4. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on matters associated with Southeast Communications Center (SECOMM):  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick, Richland, Pasco, and West Richland* and Prosser*;  Representatives for the counties of Benton and Franklin;  The representative for Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2 and 4 casting a single vote for the three entities.* *Note: No future contracted subscribers to SECOMM shall be entitled to vote. 5. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on matters related to the 800MHz system:  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick and Richland;  The representative for the county of Benton. Page 160 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 5 6. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on matters associated with operation and maintenance of the Benton County Microwave System and related funding:  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick and Richland;  The representative for the county of Benton;  The representative for Benton PUD. 7. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on items associated with Benton County Emergency Management (BCEM):  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Prosser and Benton City;  The representative for the county of Benton. 8. For items not specifically associated with the Benton County Microwave System, the 800 MHz system, Southeast Communications Center, or Benton County Emergency Management, all representatives, except the Benton PUD representative, may vote. 9. Absence of a representative at a meeting where such a representative is entitled to vote on an issue will result in forfeiture of voting rights for that meeting. C. Strategic Advisory Team. Working directly with BCES leadership, the Strategic Advisory Team (SAT) will assist in developing strategies for addressing issues such as establishing standardized procedures and incorporating changes in technology. To facilitate the policy- making role of the Executive Board, it may assign to the SAT certain policy reviews, projects, and tasks. The Strategic Advisory Team may consist of one (1) representative from each of the following:  Kennewick Fire Department  Connell Police Department  Kennewick Police Department  Connell Fire Department  Richland Police Department  Pasco Police Department  Richland Fire Department  Pasco Fire Department  West Richland Police Department  West Benton Fire and Rescue  Benton County Sheriff's Office  North Franklin County Hospital District  Franklin County Sheriff’s Office  City of Prosser  Franklin County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 (1 Rep)  Benton County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 (1 Rep) The SAT representative will be the agency Chief or Sheriff and a senior level executive from the City of Prosser. D. Customer Agency Group. The Customer Agency Group (CAG) is established to allow customers of BCES to communicate suggestions, ideas, or concerns regarding service, operational policies, and/or procedural issues. The CAG will be comprised of two divisions: Law Enforcement and Fire/EMS. Each division will elect a chairperson to represent the concerns of their division to the BCES Director or at joint CAG meetings. The Customer Page 161 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 6 Agency Group may consist of one (1) representative from each of the following:  Kennewick Police Department  Connell Police Department  Kennewick Fire Department  Connell Fire Department  Richland Police Department  Pasco Police Department  Richland Fire Department  Pasco Fire Department  West Richland Police Department  West Benton Fire and Rescue  Benton County Sheriff's Office  North Franklin County Hospital District  Franklin County Sheriff’s Office  City of Prosser Police Department  City of Benton City  Benton PUD  Franklin County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 (1 Rep)  Walla Walla Fire Protection District 5  Benton County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 (1 Rep) 1. Issues that impact only one division will be communicated to the BCES Director from the chair of the division. Any recommendations made by either division must be approved by a majority of the agencies before they can be submitted to the Director for consideration. Items for which there is no majority support will require the use of the agency input process. 2. Should an issue be relevant to both divisions, a meeting may be called by the BCES Director or either division chairperson. Attendees to such meeting will be limited to the BCES Director, the SECOMM Communications Manager and/or Emergency Management Manager, and both division chairpersons. 3. Working groups or sub-committees may be created by either division to address operational issues for which operational-level employees or subject matter experts should be involved. These groups and/or sub-committees will report directly to their division chairperson. Additionally, to expedite the development of recommendations that are sound and have the greatest likelihood of success, recommendations will be vetted with a senior subject matter expert dispatcher for additional input. The dispatcher would have no vote in the process of moving forward with an issue. E. BCES Director. The Director, under direction of the Administrative Jurisdiction, shall maintain and operate Benton County Emergency Services, and shall be responsible for the implementation of the directives of the Executive Board and the policies and procedures of the Executive Board or the Administrative Jurisdiction, as the case may be. The Director shall be responsible for developing, organizing, and coordinating emergency preparedness planning, training and implementation. The Director shall be responsible for organizing, developing and coordination of E-911 and bi-county communication systems, and shall have such other duties and responsibilities as the Administrative Jurisdiction designates from time to time. F. Notice to Benton PUD. Benton PUD shall receive notice and an informational packet for all Executive Board Meetings. Packets will be provided electronically the week prior to a Page 162 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 7 scheduled Executive Board Meeting, and will identify the issues that Benton PUD may vote upon. Should there be a matter upon which Benton PUD is entitled to vote at the scheduled meeting, Benton PUD must have a representative present at that meeting. Benton PUD may vote only on matters upon which Benton PUD is entitled to vote pursuant to section 3(B)(6) of this Agreement. No voting will occur for any matters set forth in Section 3(B)(6) without advance notice to Benton PUD as provided herein. If Benton PUD believes it is entitled to vote on a matter identified in an Executive Board packet, but such packet does not so indicate, Benton PUD must raise the issue at the upcoming Executive Board meeting, or it will be deemed to have waived any voting rights not exercised at that meeting. 4. FINANCES Benton County Emergency Services maintains four separate funds consisting of:  One (1) fund for Benton County Emergency Management;  One (1) fund for Southeast Communications Center;  One (1) fund for the acquisition, maintenance and operation of the 800MHz; and  One (1) fund for the maintenance and operation of the Benton County Microwave System. These funds are maintained and administered by the Administrative Jurisdiction in lieu of the Treasurer of the City of Kennewick, the most populous entity. All monies received for the benefit and use of Benton County Emergency Services, including financial contributions by the Parties to this Agreement in accordance herewith, shall be deposited into the appropriate fund. A. Benton County Emergency Management (EM Operations) Fund. Except for Benton PUD, Pasco, and Franklin County, each Party to this Agreement shall contribute to the cost of emergency management upon such fair and equitable basis as shall be determined by the Executive Board. If, in any case, the Executive Board is unable to agree upon the proper contributions by the Parties hereto, the decisions shall be referred to the State Emergency Management Council for arbitration, and the Council's decision shall be final and binding upon the Parties hereto. Except for Benton PUD, Franklin County and Pasco, each party shall pay its share of the cost of emergency management into the Benton County Emergency Management Fund which is maintained and administered by the Administrative Jurisdiction. The Executive Board shall have the authority to proportionately levy, by percentage of total budget responsibility, additional fees to cover unexpected liabilities, including uninsured civil judgments. If the cost overrun or liability is the result of a single agency, the entire cost will be borne by that agency. B. Southeast Communications Center (SECOMM Operations) Fund. SECOMM shall be financed by the proceeds of a telephone excise tax that shall be imposed at the same rate by both Benton and Franklin counties, an annual levy upon the Parties, except for Benton PUD and City of Benton City, and by contract fees paid by contracting agencies as determined by the Executive Board. Each Party hereto shall contribute its share of the costs of the typical and customary Page 163 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 8 operation and administration of SECOMM as established by the Executive Board. Such contributions shall be determined annually by the Executive Board for inclusion in the Parties' annual budgets. The assessment for any user or member entering SECOMM mid-budget year shall be determined by the Executive Board and pro-rated relative to the months of service remaining in the existing budget year. In the first annual budget developed after BCES begins providing Franklin County and Pasco with communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies, the SECOMM budget funding model will substitute population data for calls for service data wherever calls for service data has been used to allocate agency assessments. Funding models for subsequent SECOMM budgets shall be determined by the Executive Board. Assessments shall be paid in periodic installments on a schedule determined by the Executive Board. In the event an unforeseen exigent circumstance or uninsured civil judgment results in costs to the Organization in excess of the budgeted expenses for operation and administration, the Executive Board is authorized to proportionately levy, by percentage of total budget responsibility, additional fees to cover the unexpected liability. Such excess costs shall be promptly remitted, upon demand, to Benton County Emergency Services. If the cost overrun is attributable to a single agency’s action or inaction, the entire cost overrun shall be borne by that agency. C. 800MHz Fund. The 800MHz Fund shall be used for the maintenance and operation of any 800MHz radio system, whether analog or digital, utilized by BCES. The Executive Board is authorized to levy annual radio assessments upon all Parties who use radios under the 800MHz system, and to impose contract fees upon any contracting agencies for use of the same. Assessments shall be determined annually by the Executive Board for inclusion in the Parties’ annual budgets. Assessments shall be paid in periodic installments on a schedule determined by the Executive Board. In the event an unforeseen exigent circumstance or uninsured civil judgment results in costs to the Organization in excess of the budgeted expenses for operation and administration of the 800MHz system, the Executive Board is authorized to proportionately levy, by percentage of the Parties’ total 800 MHz budget responsibility, additional fees to cover the unexpected liability. Such excess costs shall be promptly remitted, upon demand, to Benton County Emergency Services. If the cost overrun is attributable to a single agency’s action or inaction, the entire cost overrun shall be borne by that agency. D. Benton County Microwave System Fund. The Benton County Microwave System Fund shall be used for the maintenance and operation of the Benton County Microwave System utilized by BCES. The Executive Board is authorized to levy annual assessments upon all Parties who use the Benton County Microwave System, and to impose contract fees upon any contracting agencies. Such assessments shall be determined annually by the Executive Board for inclusion in the Parties’ annual budgets. Assessments shall be paid in periodic installments on a schedule determined by the Executive Board. In the event an unforeseen exigent circumstance or uninsured civil judgment results in costs to the Organization in excess of the budgeted expenses for maintenance and operation of the Benton County Microwave System, the Executive Board is authorized to proportionately levy, by percentage of the Parties’ total Benton County Microwave System budget responsibility, additional fees to cover the unexpected liability. Page 164 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 9 Such excess costs shall be promptly remitted, upon demand, to Benton County Emergency Services. If the cost overrun is attributable to a single agency’s action or inaction, the entire cost overrun shall be borne by that agency. Neither Franklin County nor any of the Parties to this Agreement located therein shall acquire or be deemed to have acquired any ownership interest whatsoever in any property or equipment that comprises the Benton County Microwave System. 1. Franklin County Microwave System. Although the Benton County Microwave System and the Franklin County Microwave System are technically interconnected and create a Bi- County Microwave System utilized by BCES, Benton County and those Parties to this Agreement who are located therein are the only Parties obligated to contribute to the Benton County Microwave System as provided under Section 4.D above. Franklin County shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, operation and improvements to the Franklin County Microwave System. Neither Benton County nor any of those Parties to this Agreement located therein shall acquire any ownership interest whatsoever in any property or equipment that comprises the Franklin County Microwave System. Franklin County shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Benton County and those Parties to this Agreement who are located therein for all claims related in any way to, Franklin County’s maintenance or operation of the Franklin County Microwave System as it presently exists or is modified in the future. “Claim” means any loss, claim, suit, action, liability, damage or expense of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and costs, attributable to personal or bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of uses resulting therefrom. E. The BCES Director, upon approval by the Executive Board, is authorized to make expenditures on behalf of the Organization in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Administrative Jurisdiction. F. An annual budget for the Organization shall be prepared by the BCES Director in accordance with the policies and procedure of the Administrative Jurisdiction. The annual budget requires Executive Board approval. G. Contribution to SECOMM Fund. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of execution of this Agreement by all Parties, Franklin County and Pasco shall each make an irrevocable contribution of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to the SECOMM Fund. Failure to make the contributions as provided herein shall result in suspension of services to the non- compliant Party by BCES. H. Radio System Upgrade (SUA). Beginning with the first annual BCES budget developed after BCES begins providing Franklin County and Pasco with communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies, and continuing with each successive BCES budget thereafter, the allocation of costs to support the trunked radio system shall be equally divided between Page 165 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 10 Benton County, Franklin County, and the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland. Contributions made by Franklin County and Pasco shall not create, nor be construed to create, any ownership interest in the trunked radio system. 5. PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT A. Ownership Interests Maintained. Except as authorized by the Executive Board with respect to transfer by FEMA of ownership of assets acquired with CSEPP funds, the digital 800MHz radio system, and the Benton County Microwave System Fund, the ownership interests in property, equipment, or funds acquired by or through Benton County Emergency Management shall continue to be shared by Benton County and the cities of Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Prosser, and Benton City in proportion to the financial and in-kind contribution of each party in the year such property, equipment, or monies was acquired, unless provided otherwise herein. Franklin County and Pasco shall take no ownership interest whatsoever in any property, equipment or monies belonging to BCES as of the effective date of this Agreement. Any ownership interest acquired thereafter by Franklin County and/or city of Pasco shall be only as provided herein. B. Benton PUD Property Interests. Buildings and towers owned by Benton PUD, and site or ground leasehold interests held by Benton PUD at the Prosser site, the Joe Butte Site, and the Umatilla Ridge site will remain in their ownership or leasehold interests. Benton PUD agrees that, in return for the rights granted under this Agreement, it will not exercise its right of first refusal to acquire any microwave system or parts thereof from the State, and agrees to allow the State to transfer such assets to the joint ownership of Benton County and the cities of Kennewick and Richland in the following percentages: fifty percent (50%) to Benton County; twenty-five percent (25%) to Kennewick; twenty-five percent (25%) to Richland. Benton PUD will not have a right to or ownership in any BCES assets, including the Benton County Microwave System, unless this Agreement is amended so as to grant Benton PUD ownership interests in particular assets. C. Specific Properties Owned Solely By Benton County, Richland and Kennewick. All Parties hereto acknowledge that the federal government may have ownership interests or rights with respect to equipment purchased with funds provided by the federal government. All Parties further acknowledge and agree that the digital 800MHz radio system, the real property and improvements located at 651 Truman Avenue in Richland, Washington, the leasehold interest and 800 MHz equipment used by Benton County Emergency Services and the Parties hereto at the several existing sites and the Benton County Microwave System used by Benton County Emergency Services shall be owned exclusively by Benton County, and the cities of Richland and Kennewick as follows: fifty percent (50%) ownership by Benton County; twenty-five percent (25%) ownership by Kennewick; twenty-five percent (25%) ownership by Richland. The contributions by Pasco and Franklin County required pursuant to section 4.G above do not create any ownership interests in the above assets by those entities. Page 166 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 11 D. Ownership Interests – SECOMM Fund. Property, equipment, or monies acquired through the Southeast Communications Center Fund on and after the day following the effective date of this Agreement shall be owned in equal shares by Benton County, Franklin County and the cities of Kennewick, Richland and Pasco, except to the extent acquired through revenue of E911 taxes as set forth below. Benton County, Franklin County and the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland are the only Parties to this Agreement responsible for contributing toward capital expenditures in the budget process. E. Ownership Interests – E911 Taxes. Property, equipment, or monies acquired through the receipt of E911 taxes prior to and after the effective date of this Agreement shall be the property of Benton and Franklin Counties based on the percentage of E911 tax funds contributed by each county toward said property, equipment or monies. 6. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS A. To comply with BCES’s obligation to respond to public records requests, and to minimize legal risk to the Parties, the Parties agree that all original records prepared, owned, used, or retained by BCES shall be provided to and maintained by the Administrative Jurisdiction. B. When a public records request is received by BCES under the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, staff assigned to support BCES will complete a search for responsive records and respond to the request pursuant to the Public Records policy established by the Administrative Jurisdiction. To the extent legal review is needed to respond to a request, the City Attorney for the Administrative Jurisdiction will provide the review. The Parties acknowledge that the Administrative Jurisdiction has ultimate authority to release or withhold records pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act. 7. DURATION OF AGREEMENT; TERMINATION This Agreement shall become effective only upon execution by all Parties and filing with each County Auditor in compliance with RCW 39.34.040. Upon the effective date, this Agreement shall replace all prior oral agreements, contracts, interlocals and amendments thereto, including those agreements that have been recorded with the Benton County Auditor, and shall specifically, but without limitation, supersede the Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services recorded with the Benton County Auditor on October 1, 1996, the Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services Interlocal Cooperation Agreement effective September 1, 2006, Amendment 1 thereto dated May 11, 2009, and the 2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement. The initial term of this Agreement shall be ten (10) years, after which this Agreement shall automatically extend for successive five (5) year terms unless one or more Parties objects to extending the Agreement no later than six (6) months prior to expiration. Objections to extension of this Agreement shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Board. Page 167 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 12 8. AMENDMENTS Amendments to this Agreement shall only be made upon an affirmative vote of at least twelve (12) votes in favor of amendment, without any vote by Benton PUD, which shall not have a vote on amendments. This section shall not affect how the Board operates and conducts its business. 9. WITHDRAWALS Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement upon providing six (6) month’s advanced written notice to the Executive Board. A withdrawing Party shall remain liable for obligated payments, and shall be refunded any payments made but not obligated prior to the date of actual withdrawal. Any Party so withdrawing shall be responsible for complying with Washington State law regarding its obligations to provide emergency management and dispatch services. Upon the act of withdrawing from this Agreement, the withdrawing Party shall be deemed to have forfeited and released all ownership interest it may have in any property, equipment or monies it may have or otherwise been eligible to receive under this Agreement. 10. ALLOCATION OF LIABILITY; INDEMNIFICATION A. Each party shall be solely responsible for its own wrongful or negligent conduct. Each party promises to indemnify and hold harmless and release all other Parties from any loss, claim or liability arising from or out of the negligent tortious actions or inactions of its employees, officers and officials. Such liability shall be apportioned among the Parties or other at-fault persons or entities in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to: 1. Waive any defense arising out of RCW Title 51. 2. Limit the ability of a Party to exercise any right, defense, or remedy which a Party may have with respect to third parties or the employee(s) whose action or inaction gave rise to loss, claim or liability, including, but not limited to, an assertion that the employee(s) acted beyond the scope of employment. 3. Cover or require indemnification or payment of any judgment against any individual or agency for intentionally wrongful conduct outside the scope of employment of any individual, or for judgment for punitive damages against any individual or agency. Payment of punitive damage awards, fines or sanctions shall be the sole responsibility of the individual against whom said judgment is rendered and/or his or her agency employer, should that employer voluntarily elect to make said payment. This Agreement does not require indemnification of any punitive damage awards or for any order imposing fines or sanctions. Page 168 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 13 11. SEVERABILITY If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, to the extent possible and practicable, the remaining parts of the Agreement shall remain in effect and be binding upon all Parties hereto. 12. NO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY No separate legal entity is created upon execution of this Interlocal Agreement. 13. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE Jurisdiction and venue for any action relating to the interpretation, enforcement, or any dispute arising from this Agreement shall be in Benton County Superior Court. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 14. WAIVER No waiver by any Party hereto of any terms or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall the waiver of any breach be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or any other term or condition of this Agreement. 15. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS Nothing in this Agreement shall create or be deemed to create any rights in any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. [Signature Page to Follow] Page 169 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates identified next to their signatures below. BENTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON _____________________________ _______________________________ By: James Beaver Date By: Robert Koch Date Chairman, Benton County Commission Chairman, Franklin County Commission _____________________________ ________________________________ By: Jerome Delvin Date By: Brad Peck Date Benton County Commissioner Franklin County Commissioner ______________________________ ________________________________ By: Shon Small Date By: Rick Miller Date Benton County Commissioner Franklin County Commissioner Attest: Attest: _______________________________ _________________________________ Clerk of the Board Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: _______________________________ __________________________________ Ryan Brown By: Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Franklin County Deputy Prosecutor [Signatures Continue Below] Page 170 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 15 CITY OF PASCO CITY OF RICHLAND ______________________________ ___________________________________ By: Dave Zabell Date By: Cynthia D. Reents, ICMA-CM Date Pasco City Manager Richland City Manager Attest: Attest: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Sandy Kenworthy, Interim City Clerk Marcia Hopkins, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Lee Kerr, Pasco City Attorney Heather Kintzley, Richland City Attorney CITY OF KENNEWICK CITY OF WEST RICHLAND ______________________________ ___________________________________ By: Marie E. Mosley Date By: Brent Gerry Date Kennewick City Manager Mayor Attest: Attest: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Terry Wright, City Clerk City Clerk Julie Richardson Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Lisa Beaton, Kennewick City Attorney Bronson Brown West Richland City Attorney [Signatures Continue Below] Page 171 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 16 CITY OF PROSSER CITY OF BENTON CITY ______________________________ ___________________________________ By: Randy Taylor Date By: Linda Lehman Date Mayor Mayor Attest: Attest: _______________________________ ____________________________________ Rachel Shaw, City Clerk Stephanie Haug, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Howard Saxton, Prosser City Attorney Lee Kerr, City Attorney for Benton City BENTON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS 1, 2, AND 4 ____________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: E.W. “Bill” Houchin, Commission Chair BCFPD #1 Date: _______________ ___________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: Barry Orth, Commission Chair BCFPD #2 Date: _______________ ___________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: A.J. Hill, Commission Chair BCFPD #4 Date: _______________ [Signatures Continue Below] Page 172 of 193   Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2017) Page 17 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 OF BENTON COUNTY (BENTON PUD) ___________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: Chad Bartram General Manager Date: _______________ Page 173 of 193 RESOLUTION NO.100-17 A RESOLUTION ofthe City of Richland authorizing the executionofa Transition and Buy-In Agreement with the City of Pasco and Franklin County to govern the transition necessary to add the City of Pasco and Franklin County as member agencies to the administrative entity known as Benton County Emergency Services (BCES). WHEREAS,Benton County Emergency Services isa local organization created in 1996 pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act,Chapter 39.34 RCW,and RCW 38.52.070 related to Emergency Management;and WHEREAS,the members of BCES have agreed that the City of Richland,as the Administrative Jurisdiction,shall currently be the legal entity responsible for employing staffand providing necessary support services forBCESoperations; and WHEREAS,through establishment of the Southeast Communications Center ("SECOMM"),BCES provides communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies for jurisdictions located in incorporated and unincorporated Benton County, and for any agencies contracting for such services;and WHEREAS,Franklin County andthe City ofPasco are each obligated to provide communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies,anddesireto join with BCES in ordertocreate a bi-county operation of emergency dispatch services;and WHEREAS,Franklin County and Pasco are committed to paying the costs associated with the transition steps necessary to join BCES,as well as,upon completion ofthe transition,a payment of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)each into the SECOMM Fund as a non-refundable capital contribution for use by BCES;and WHEREAS,upon successful completion ofthe transitions steps identified in the Transition and Buy-In Agreement,the respective legislative authorities agreeto execute a Seconded Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement in substantially the form presented as Exhibit Ato the Transition and Buy-In Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of Richland. that the City Manager is authorized to sign and execute the Transition and Buy-In Agreement with the City of Pasco and Franklin County to govern the transition necessary toaddthe City ofPasco and Franklin County as member agenciesto BCES. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect immediately. Adopted 6/20/2017 1 Resolution No.100-17 Page 174 of 193 ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Richland at a regular meeting onthe 20^^day of June,2017. ATTEST: MARCIA HOPKlfJS' City Clerk Adopted 6/20/2017 ROBERT J.THOMPSON Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: HEATHER KINTZLEY ^ City Attorney Resolution No.100-17 Page 175 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 1 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Richland Attn: City Attorney 505 Swift Boulevard MS-07 Richland, WA 99352 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR BENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the following entities (collectively, the “Parties”): Benton County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; Franklin County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; City of Kennewick, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Richland, a Washington municipal corporation; City of West Richland, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Prosser, a Washington municipal corporation City of Benton City, a Washington municipal corporation; City of Pasco, a Washington municipal corporation; Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2, and 4, all of which are Washington special purpose districts; and Public Utility District #1 of Benton County, a Washington special purpose district. I. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, authorizes public agencies to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with each other based on mutual advantage, and to collectively exercise the rights and powers they hold individually through the execution of an interlocal cooperative agreement; and WHEREAS, RCW 38.52.070 authorizes and directs each county, city and town within the State of Washington to establish a local organization for emergency management in accordance with the State Emergency Management Plan and Program, and permits the State Director of Emergency Management to authorize two or more counties, cities and towns to join in the establishment and operation of a local organization for emergency management; and Page 176 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 2 WHEREAS, Benton County Emergency Services (“BCES”) is such a local organization created in 1996 pursuant to the Interlocal referenced in Section 7, and the Parties to this Agreement wish to continue that organization under the terms of this Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, in addition to emergency management services, Benton County Emergency Services, through establishment of the Southeast Communications Center, has also provided communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies for some jurisdictions located in incorporated and unincorporated Benton County, and for any agencies contracting for such services; and WHEREAS, the cities of Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Prosser, Benton City, Benton County and Benton County Fire District Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and with limited participation by Benton County Public Utility District #1 (“Benton PUD”) (collectively, the “Existing Partners”) intend to continue to provide county-wide operation of emergency dispatch services under the terms of this Agreement, and, along with the city of Pasco and Franklin County (the “New Partners”), all Parties to this Agreement now intend to provide bi-county operation of emergency dispatch services, with each Party participating to the extent identified herein; and WHEREAS, the Existing Parties have operated BCES pursuant to the Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services effective January 23, 2012 (“2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement”); and WHEREAS, BCES has established a digital 800MHz radio system that provides and will continue to provide viable public safety communications for many years into the future; and WHEREAS, Benton County, the cities of Kennewick and Richland, and Benton PUD provide a single microwave system exclusively located in Benton County (hereinafter “Benton County Microwave System”); and WHEREAS, Benton PUD is a limited voting member of the BCES Executive Board authorized to vote exclusively on the Benton County Microwave System and related funding issues and in return for such rights it agreed in the 2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement not to exercise its right of first refusal to acquire ownership of microwave equipment from the State of Washington that are part of the Benton County Microwave System; and WHEREAS, Franklin County and public safety agencies within that county operate under a separate microwave system exclusively located in Franklin County (hereinafter “Franklin County Microwave System”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and in accordance with RCW 39.34, RCW 38.52 and Section 6 of the 2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement, the Parties hereto agree to this Second Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement as follows: Page 177 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 3 II. AGREEMENT 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the effective and economical operations of Benton County Emergency Services (BCES), a local administrative entity and joint venture between the above-referenced Parties (also referred to as the “Organization”). 3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Benton County Emergency Services consists of two (2) divisions: Benton County Emergency Management (BCEM) and Southeast Communications Center (SECOMM). A. General. The Organization shall consist of an Executive Board, Strategic Advisory Team, Customer Agency Groups and various committees as created by the Executive Board. 1. Appointment of Administrative Jurisdiction; Duration. An Administrative Jurisdiction shall be designated by the Executive Board. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall serve unless or until such service is terminated by the Executive Board, or until the Administrative Jurisdiction withdraws after having provided a minimum of nine (9) month’s written notice of intent to withdraw. The City of Richland is currently designated as the Administrative Jurisdiction. All employees staffing BCES shall be employees of the Administrative Jurisdiction. 2. Duties of Administrative Jurisdiction. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall have full responsibility for the operation of the Organization, and shall provide all necessary support for the Organization. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall perform its duties pursuant to a contractual agreement with Benton County Emergency Services that shall automatically renew every five (5) years, subject to any renegotiations between the Administrative Jurisdiction and the Executive Board. This contractual agreement shall be fully executed by December 1, 2017. The Administrative Jurisdiction shall appoint a BCES Director, which appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Executive Board. The BCES Director shall be removed only at the direction of the Administrative Jurisdiction. 3. Governing Policies. BCES shall follow the policies established by the Administrative Jurisdiction for all efforts related to Finance, Human Resources, Legal, Risk & Safety, and Purchasing. To ease future transition between Administrative Jurisdictions, BCES shall operate and maintain an independent email system. Page 178 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 4 B. Executive Board Duties; Membership; Voting. The Executive Board shall be the governing body of the administrative entity known as Benton County Emergency Services, and shall be responsible for approving BCES-specific policies, contracts, the annual budget, and confirmation of the Administrative Jurisdiction’s appointment of the BCES Director. The Executive Board shall also be responsible for ensuring the Parties’ compliance with the legal requirements of RCW 38.52. 1. Subject to the voting procedures and restrictions set forth herein, the Executive Board shall consist of one representative from the Benton County Commissioner's Office, one representative from the Franklin County Commissioner's Office, one representative from each of the cities of Kennewick, Richland, Prosser, West Richland, Benton City, and Pasco, a single representative collectively representing Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and one representative from Benton PUD. 2. Whenever they are entitled to vote, Benton County, Franklin County and the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland shall be allowed two (2) votes each. Whenever they are entitled to vote, West Richland, Prosser, Benton City and Benton PUD shall have one (1) vote each. Whenever they are entitled to vote, Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall collectively share a single vote. Benton PUD is only entitled to vote on the annual Benton County Microwave System assessment, the cost of Benton County Microwave System operations, replacement of Benton County Microwave System equipment, and Benton County Microwave System expansion or reduction. Specifically, but without limitation, the Benton PUD representative shall not have voting rights for matters relating to the BCES organizational structure and operations. 3. A simple majority of the number of members of the Executive Board shall be a quorum, and a simple majority of votes shall prevail unless otherwise set forth herein. Attendance or non-attendance of the Benton PUD’s representative shall not be counted or considered with respect to quorum determination. 4. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on matters associated with Southeast Communications Center (SECOMM):  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick, Richland, Pasco, and West Richland* and Prosser*;  Representatives for the counties of Benton and Franklin;  The representative for Benton County Fire Protection District Nos. 1, 2 and 4 casting a single vote for the three entities.* *Note: No future contracted subscribers to SECOMM shall be entitled to vote. 5. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on matters related to the 800MHz system:  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick and Richland;  The representative for the county of Benton. Page 179 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 5 6. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on matters associated with operation and maintenance of the Benton County Microwave System and related funding:  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick and Richland;  The representative for the county of Benton;  The representative for Benton PUD. 7. The following are the only representatives authorized to vote on items associated with Benton County Emergency Management (BCEM):  Representatives for the cities of Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Prosser and Benton City;  The representative for the county of Benton. 8. For items not specifically associated with the Benton County Microwave System, the 800 MHz system, Southeast Communications Center, or Benton County Emergency Management, all representatives, except the Benton PUD representative, may vote. 9. Absence of a representative at a meeting where such a representative is entitled to vote on an issue will result in forfeiture of voting rights for that meeting. C. Strategic Advisory Team. Working directly with BCES leadership, the Strategic Advisory Team (SAT) will assist in developing strategies for addressing issues such as establishing standardized procedures and incorporating changes in technology. To facilitate the policy- making role of the Executive Board, it may assign to the SAT certain policy reviews, projects, and tasks. The Strategic Advisory Team may consist of one (1) representative from each of the following:  Kennewick Fire Department  Connell Police Department  Kennewick Police Department  Connell Fire Department  Richland Police Department  Pasco Police Department  Richland Fire Department  Pasco Fire Department  West Richland Police Department  West Benton Fire and Rescue  Benton County Sheriff's Office  North Franklin County Hospital District  Franklin County Sheriff’s Office  City of Prosser  Franklin County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 (1 Rep)  Benton County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 (1 Rep) The SAT representative will be the agency Chief or Sheriff and a senior level executive from the City of Prosser. D. Customer Agency Group. The Customer Agency Group (CAG) is established to allow customers of BCES to communicate suggestions, ideas, or concerns regarding service, operational policies, and/or procedural issues. The CAG will be comprised of two divisions: Law Enforcement and Fire/EMS. Each division will elect a chairperson to represent the concerns of their division to the BCES Director or at joint CAG meetings. The Customer Page 180 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 6 Agency Group may consist of one (1) representative from each of the following:  Kennewick Police Department  Connell Police Department  Kennewick Fire Department  Connell Fire Department  Richland Police Department  Pasco Police Department  Richland Fire Department  Pasco Fire Department  West Richland Police Department  West Benton Fire and Rescue  Benton County Sheriff's Office  North Franklin County Hospital District  Franklin County Sheriff’s Office  City of Prosser Police Department  City of Benton City  Benton PUD  Franklin County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 (1 Rep)  Walla Walla Fire Protection District 5  Benton County Fire Protection Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 (1 Rep) 1. Issues that impact only one division will be communicated to the BCES Director from the chair of the division. Any recommendations made by either division must be approved by a majority of the agencies before they can be submitted to the Director for consideration. Items for which there is no majority support will require the use of the agency input process. 2. Should an issue be relevant to both divisions, a meeting may be called by the BCES Director or either division chairperson. Attendees to such meeting will be limited to the BCES Director, the SECOMM Communications Manager and/or Emergency Management Manager, and both division chairpersons. 3. Working groups or sub-committees may be created by either division to address operational issues for which operational-level employees or subject matter experts should be involved. These groups and/or sub-committees will report directly to their division chairperson. Additionally, to expedite the development of recommendations that are sound and have the greatest likelihood of success, recommendations will be vetted with a senior subject matter expert dispatcher for additional input. The dispatcher would have no vote in the process of moving forward with an issue. E. BCES Director. The Director, under direction of the Administrative Jurisdiction, shall maintain and operate Benton County Emergency Services, and shall be responsible for the implementation of the directives of the Executive Board and the policies and procedures of the Executive Board or the Administrative Jurisdiction, as the case may be. The Director shall be responsible for developing, organizing, and coordinating emergency preparedness planning, training and implementation. The Director shall be responsible for organizing, developing and coordination of E-911 and bi-county communication systems, and shall have such other duties and responsibilities as the Administrative Jurisdiction designates from time to time. F. Notice to Benton PUD. Benton PUD shall receive notice and an informational packet for all Executive Board Meetings. Packets will be provided electronically the week prior to a Page 181 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 7 scheduled Executive Board Meeting, and will identify the issues that Benton PUD may vote upon. Should there be a matter upon which Benton PUD is entitled to vote at the scheduled meeting, Benton PUD must have a representative present at that meeting. Benton PUD may vote only on matters upon which Benton PUD is entitled to vote pursuant to section 3(B)(6) of this Agreement. No voting will occur for any matters set forth in Section 3(B)(6) without advance notice to Benton PUD as provided herein. If Benton PUD believes it is entitled to vote on a matter identified in an Executive Board packet, but such packet does not so indicate, Benton PUD must raise the issue at the upcoming Executive Board meeting, or it will be deemed to have waived any voting rights not exercised at that meeting. 4. FINANCES Benton County Emergency Services maintains four separate funds consisting of:  One (1) fund for Benton County Emergency Management;  One (1) fund for Southeast Communications Center;  One (1) fund for the acquisition, maintenance and operation of the 800MHz; and  One (1) fund for the maintenance and operation of the Benton County Microwave System. These funds are maintained and administered by the Administrative Jurisdiction in lieu of the Treasurer of the City of Kennewick, the most populous entity. All monies received for the benefit and use of Benton County Emergency Services, including financial contributions by the Parties to this Agreement in accordance herewith, shall be deposited into the appropriate fund. A. Benton County Emergency Management (EM Operations) Fund. Except for Benton PUD, Pasco, and Franklin County, each Party to this Agreement shall contribute to the cost of emergency management upon such fair and equitable basis as shall be determined by the Executive Board. If, in any case, the Executive Board is unable to agree upon the proper contributions by the Parties hereto, the decisions shall be referred to the State Emergency Management Council for arbitration, and the Council's decision shall be final and binding upon the Parties hereto. Except for Benton PUD, Franklin County and Pasco, each party shall pay its share of the cost of emergency management into the Benton County Emergency Management Fund which is maintained and administered by the Administrative Jurisdiction. The Executive Board shall have the authority to proportionately levy, by percentage of total budget responsibility, additional fees to cover unexpected liabilities, including uninsured civil judgments. If the cost overrun or liability is the result of a single agency, the entire cost will be borne by that agency. B. Southeast Communications Center (SECOMM Operations) Fund. SECOMM shall be financed by the proceeds of a telephone excise tax that shall be imposed at the same rate by both Benton and Franklin counties, an annual levy upon the Parties, except for Benton PUD and City of Benton City, and by contract fees paid by contracting agencies as determined by the Executive Board. Each Party hereto shall contribute its share of the costs of the typical and customary Page 182 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 8 operation and administration of SECOMM as established by the Executive Board. Such contributions shall be determined annually by the Executive Board for inclusion in the Parties' annual budgets. The assessment for any user or member entering SECOMM mid-budget year shall be determined by the Executive Board and pro-rated relative to the months of service remaining in the existing budget year. In the first annual budget developed after BCES begins providing Franklin County and Pasco with communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies, the SECOMM budget funding model will substitute population data for calls for service data wherever calls for service data has been used to allocate agency assessments. Funding models for subsequent SECOMM budgets shall be determined by the Executive Board. Assessments shall be paid in periodic installments on a schedule determined by the Executive Board. In the event an unforeseen exigent circumstance or uninsured civil judgment results in costs to the Organization in excess of the budgeted expenses for operation and administration, the Executive Board is authorized to proportionately levy, by percentage of total budget responsibility, additional fees to cover the unexpected liability. Such excess costs shall be promptly remitted, upon demand, to Benton County Emergency Services. If the cost overrun is attributable to a single agency’s action or inaction, the entire cost overrun shall be borne by that agency. C. 800MHz Fund. The 800MHz Fund shall be used for the maintenance and operation of any 800MHz radio system, whether analog or digital, utilized by BCES. The Executive Board is authorized to levy annual radio assessments upon all Parties who use radios under the 800MHz system, and to impose contract fees upon any contracting agencies for use of the same. Assessments shall be determined annually by the Executive Board for inclusion in the Parties’ annual budgets. Assessments shall be paid in periodic installments on a schedule determined by the Executive Board. In the event an unforeseen exigent circumstance or uninsured civil judgment results in costs to the Organization in excess of the budgeted expenses for operation and administration of the 800MHz system, the Executive Board is authorized to proportionately levy, by percentage of the Parties’ total 800 MHz budget responsibility, additional fees to cover the unexpected liability. Such excess costs shall be promptly remitted, upon demand, to Benton County Emergency Services. If the cost overrun is attributable to a single agency’s action or inaction, the entire cost overrun shall be borne by that agency. D. Benton County Microwave System Fund. The Benton County Microwave System Fund shall be used for the maintenance and operation of the Benton County Microwave System utilized by BCES. The Executive Board is authorized to levy annual assessments upon all Parties who use the Benton County Microwave System, and to impose contract fees upon any contracting agencies. Such assessments shall be determined annually by the Executive Board for inclusion in the Parties’ annual budgets. Assessments shall be paid in periodic installments on a schedule determined by the Executive Board. In the event an unforeseen exigent circumstance or uninsured civil judgment results in costs to the Organization in excess of the budgeted expenses for maintenance and operation of the Benton County Microwave System, the Executive Board is authorized to proportionately levy, by percentage of the Parties’ total Benton County Microwave System budget responsibility, additional fees to cover the unexpected liability. Page 183 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 9 Such excess costs shall be promptly remitted, upon demand, to Benton County Emergency Services. If the cost overrun is attributable to a single agency’s action or inaction, the entire cost overrun shall be borne by that agency. Neither Franklin County nor any of the Parties to this Agreement located therein shall acquire or be deemed to have acquired any ownership interest whatsoever in any property or equipment that comprises the Benton County Microwave System. 1. Franklin County Microwave System. Although the Benton County Microwave System and the Franklin County Microwave System are technically interconnected and create a Bi- County Microwave System utilized by BCES, Benton County and those Parties to this Agreement who are located therein are the only Parties obligated to contribute to the Benton County Microwave System as provided under Section 4.D above. Franklin County shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, operation and improvements to the Franklin County Microwave System. Neither Benton County nor any of those Parties to this Agreement located therein shall acquire any ownership interest whatsoever in any property or equipment that comprises the Franklin County Microwave System. Franklin County shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Benton County and those Parties to this Agreement who are located therein for all claims related in any way to, Franklin County’s maintenance or operation of the Franklin County Microwave System as it presently exists or is modified in the future. “Claim” means any loss, claim, suit, action, liability, damage or expense of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and costs, attributable to personal or bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of uses resulting therefrom. E. The BCES Director, upon approval by the Executive Board, is authorized to make expenditures on behalf of the Organization in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Administrative Jurisdiction. F. An annual budget for the Organization shall be prepared by the BCES Director in accordance with the policies and procedure of the Administrative Jurisdiction. The annual budget requires Executive Board approval. G. Contribution to SECOMM Fund. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of execution of this Agreement by all Parties, Franklin County and Pasco shall each make an irrevocable contribution of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to the SECOMM Fund. Failure to make the contributions as provided herein shall result in suspension of services to the non- compliant Party by BCES. H. Radio System Upgrade (SUA). Beginning with the first annual BCES budget developed after BCES begins providing Franklin County and Pasco with communication and dispatching for public safety and emergencies, and continuing with each successive BCES budget thereafter, the allocation of costs to support the trunked radio system shall be equally divided between Page 184 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 10 Benton County, Franklin County, and the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland. Contributions made by Franklin County and Pasco shall not create, nor be construed to create, any ownership interest in the trunked radio system. 5. PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT A. Ownership Interests Maintained. Except as authorized by the Executive Board with respect to transfer by FEMA of ownership of assets acquired with CSEPP funds, the digital 800MHz radio system, and the Benton County Microwave System Fund, the ownership interests in property, equipment, or funds acquired by or through Benton County Emergency Management shall continue to be shared by Benton County and the cities of Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Prosser, and Benton City in proportion to the financial and in-kind contribution of each party in the year such property, equipment, or monies was acquired, unless provided otherwise herein. Franklin County and Pasco shall take no ownership interest whatsoever in any property, equipment or monies belonging to BCES as of the effective date of this Agreement. Any ownership interest acquired thereafter by Franklin County and/or city of Pasco shall be only as provided herein. B. Benton PUD Property Interests. Buildings and towers owned by Benton PUD, and site or ground leasehold interests held by Benton PUD at the Prosser site, the Joe Butte Site, and the Umatilla Ridge site will remain in their ownership or leasehold interests. Benton PUD agrees that, in return for the rights granted under this Agreement, it will not exercise its right of first refusal to acquire any microwave system or parts thereof from the State, and agrees to allow the State to transfer such assets to the joint ownership of Benton County and the cities of Kennewick and Richland in the following percentages: fifty percent (50%) to Benton County; twenty-five percent (25%) to Kennewick; twenty-five percent (25%) to Richland. Benton PUD will not have a right to or ownership in any BCES assets, including the Benton County Microwave System, unless this Agreement is amended so as to grant Benton PUD ownership interests in particular assets. C. Specific Properties Owned Solely By Benton County, Richland and Kennewick. All Parties hereto acknowledge that the federal government may have ownership interests or rights with respect to equipment purchased with funds provided by the federal government. All Parties further acknowledge and agree that the digital 800MHz radio system, the real property and improvements located at 651 Truman Avenue in Richland, Washington, the leasehold interest and 800 MHz equipment used by Benton County Emergency Services and the Parties hereto at the several existing sites and the Benton County Microwave System used by Benton County Emergency Services shall be owned exclusively by Benton County, and the cities of Richland and Kennewick as follows: fifty percent (50%) ownership by Benton County; twenty-five percent (25%) ownership by Kennewick; twenty-five percent (25%) ownership by Richland. The contributions by Pasco and Franklin County required pursuant to section 4.G above do not create any ownership interests in the above assets by those entities. Page 185 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 11 D. Ownership Interests – SECOMM Fund. Property, equipment, or monies acquired through the Southeast Communications Center Fund on and after the day following the effective date of this Agreement shall be owned in equal shares by Benton County, Franklin County and the cities of Kennewick, Richland and Pasco, except to the extent acquired through revenue of E911 taxes as set forth below. Benton County, Franklin County and the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland are the only Parties to this Agreement responsible for contributing toward capital expenditures in the budget process. E. Ownership Interests – E911 Taxes. Property, equipment, or monies acquired through the receipt of E911 taxes prior to and after the effective date of this Agreement shall be the property of Benton and Franklin Counties based on the percentage of E911 tax funds contributed by each county toward said property, equipment or monies. 6. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS A. To comply with BCES’s obligation to respond to public records requests, and to minimize legal risk to the Parties, the Parties agree that all original records prepared, owned, used, or retained by BCES shall be provided to and maintained by the Administrative Jurisdiction. B. When a public records request is received by BCES under the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, staff assigned to support BCES will complete a search for responsive records and respond to the request pursuant to the Public Records policy established by the Administrative Jurisdiction. To the extent legal review is needed to respond to a request, the City Attorney for the Administrative Jurisdiction will provide the review. The Parties acknowledge that the Administrative Jurisdiction has ultimate authority to release or withhold records pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act. 7. DURATION OF AGREEMENT; TERMINATION This Agreement shall become effective only upon execution by all Parties and filing with each County Auditor in compliance with RCW 39.34.040. Upon the effective date, this Agreement shall replace all prior oral agreements, contracts, interlocals and amendments thereto, including those agreements that have been recorded with the Benton County Auditor, and shall specifically, but without limitation, supersede the Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services recorded with the Benton County Auditor on October 1, 1996, the Interlocal Agreement for Benton County Emergency Services Interlocal Cooperation Agreement effective September 1, 2006, Amendment 1 thereto dated May 11, 2009, and the 2012 BCES Interlocal Agreement. The initial term of this Agreement shall be ten (10) years, after which this Agreement shall automatically extend for successive five (5) year terms unless one or more Parties objects to extending the Agreement no later than six (6) months prior to expiration. Objections to extension of this Agreement shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Board. Page 186 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 12 8. AMENDMENTS Amendments to this Agreement shall only be made upon an affirmative vote of at least twelve (12) votes in favor of amendment, without any vote by Benton PUD, which shall not have a vote on amendments. This section shall not affect how the Board operates and conducts its business. 9. WITHDRAWALS Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement upon providing six (6) month’s advanced written notice to the Executive Board. A withdrawing Party shall remain liable for obligated payments, and shall be refunded any payments made but not obligated prior to the date of actual withdrawal. Any Party so withdrawing shall be responsible for complying with Washington State law regarding its obligations to provide emergency management and dispatch services. Upon the act of withdrawing from this Agreement, the withdrawing Party shall be deemed to have forfeited and released all ownership interest it may have in any property, equipment or monies it may have or otherwise been eligible to receive under this Agreement. 10. ALLOCATION OF LIABILITY; INDEMNIFICATION A. Each party shall be solely responsible for its own wrongful or negligent conduct. Each party promises to indemnify and hold harmless and release all other Parties from any loss, claim or liability arising from or out of the negligent tortious actions or inactions of its employees, officers and officials. Such liability shall be apportioned among the Parties or other at-fault persons or entities in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to: 1. Waive any defense arising out of RCW Title 51. 2. Limit the ability of a Party to exercise any right, defense, or remedy which a Party may have with respect to third parties or the employee(s) whose action or inaction gave rise to loss, claim or liability, including, but not limited to, an assertion that the employee(s) acted beyond the scope of employment. 3. Cover or require indemnification or payment of any judgment against any individual or agency for intentionally wrongful conduct outside the scope of employment of any individual, or for judgment for punitive damages against any individual or agency. Payment of punitive damage awards, fines or sanctions shall be the sole responsibility of the individual against whom said judgment is rendered and/or his or her agency employer, should that employer voluntarily elect to make said payment. This Agreement does not require indemnification of any punitive damage awards or for any order imposing fines or sanctions. Page 187 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 13 11. SEVERABILITY If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, to the extent possible and practicable, the remaining parts of the Agreement shall remain in effect and be binding upon all Parties hereto. 12. NO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY No separate legal entity is created upon execution of this Interlocal Agreement. 13. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE Jurisdiction and venue for any action relating to the interpretation, enforcement, or any dispute arising from this Agreement shall be in Benton County Superior Court. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 14. WAIVER No waiver by any Party hereto of any terms or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall the waiver of any breach be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or any other term or condition of this Agreement. 15. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS Nothing in this Agreement shall create or be deemed to create any rights in any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. [Signature Page to Follow] Page 188 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates identified next to their signatures below. BENTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON _____________________________ _______________________________ By: James Beaver Date By: Robert Koch Date Chairman, Benton County Commission Chairman, Franklin County Commission _____________________________ ________________________________ By: Jerome Delvin Date By: Brad Peck Date Benton County Commissioner Franklin County Commissioner ______________________________ ________________________________ By: Shon Small Date By: Rick Miller Date Benton County Commissioner Franklin County Commissioner Attest: Attest: _______________________________ _________________________________ Clerk of the Board Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: _______________________________ __________________________________ Ryan Brown By: Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Franklin County Deputy Prosecutor [Signatures Continue Below] Page 189 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 15 CITY OF PASCO CITY OF RICHLAND ______________________________ ___________________________________ By: Dave Zabell Date By: Cynthia D. Reents, ICMA-CM Date Pasco City Manager Richland City Manager Attest: Attest: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Marcia Hopkins, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Lee Kerr, Pasco City Attorney Heather Kintzley, Richland City Attorney CITY OF KENNEWICK CITY OF WEST RICHLAND ______________________________ ___________________________________ By: Marie E. Mosley Date By: Brent Gerry Date Kennewick City Manager Mayor Attest: Attest: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Terri L. Wright, City Clerk City Clerk Julie Richardson Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: _______________________________ ____________________________________ Lisa Beaton, Kennewick City Attorney Bronson Brown West Richland City Attorney [Signatures Continue Below] Page 190 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 16 CITY OF PROSSER CITY OF BENTON CITY ______________________________ ___________________________________ By: Randy Taylor Date By: Linda Lehman Date Mayor Mayor Attest: Attest: _______________________________ ____________________________________ Rachel Shaw, City Clerk Stephanie Haug, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: _______________________________ ____________________________________ Howard Saxton, Prosser City Attorney Lee Kerr, City Attorney for Benton City BENTON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS 1, 2, AND 4 ____________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: Jerry F. Morris, Commission Chair BCFPD #1 Date: _______________ ___________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: Barry Orth, Commission Chair BCFPD #2 Date: _______________ ___________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: A.J. Hill, Commission Chair BCFPD #4 Date: _______________ [Signatures Continue Below] Page 191 of 193 Second Amended and Restated BCES Interlocal (2018) Page 17 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 OF BENTON COUNTY (BENTON PUD) ___________________________________ Attest: ______________________________ By: Chad Bartram General Manager Date: _______________ Page 192 of 193 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 14, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 6/18/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Inclusivity Commission Appointments I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to confirm the Mayor's appointments to the Inclusivity Commission as follows (all terms expire 6/18/18, subject to re-appointment): Jesse Campos, Maria Torres Mendoza, Abraham Regunta, Peter Rieke, Jeffrey Robinson, Kyle Saltz, and Delia Tobon. MOTION: I move to confirm the appointment of Jesse Campos to serve as Chairperson of the Inclusivity Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Inclusivity Commission is composed of seven members; terms are for one year, subject to reappointment. The Commission term run through 2/20/2020, subject to extension by the Council. Board meetings have not been set pending discussion by Commission members. V. DISCUSSION: Following conduct of interviews at the June 11 Workshop meeting, the Mayor is appointing members of the Inclusivity Commission and Chairperson and requesting Council's confirmation of the appointments as specified in the motions. Page 193 of 193