HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.10.08 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
October 8, 2018
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
3 - 17 (a) Tourism Promotion Area
Presentation by Michael Novakovich, President and CEO, Tri-Cities Visitor
and Convention Bureau
18 - 29 (b) Presentation - Lewis Street Overpass Project Update
Presentation by Mary Heather Ames, Senior Engineer
30 - 39 (c) Presentation - Economic Development Overview
Presented by Michael Morales, C&ED Deputy Director
40 - 46 (d) Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations
47 - 51 (e) City Logo Design Update
52 - 63 (f) Hearing Examiner System for Land Use Permits
5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
7. ADJOURNMENT.
REMINDERS:
1. Monday, October 8, 11:45 a.m., Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon – Pasco Red Lion Hotel.
Page 1 of 63
Workshop Meeting October 8, 2018
2. Monday, October 8, 6:00 p.m., Old Fire Pension Board Meeting – City Hall
Conference Room 1, Pasco City Hall (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER CRAIG MALONEY, Alt.)
3. Thursday, October 11, 7:00 a.m., BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee
Meeting – Cousin's Restaurant, Pasco (COUNCILMEMBER RUBEN
ALVARADO, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Alt.).
4. Thursday, October 11, 7:00 p.m., Ben Franklin Transit Board Meeting – Transit
Facility (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER RUBEN
ALVARADO, 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.
Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide
two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability. (Servicio de
intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal
dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad.)
Page 2 of 63
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 27, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/8/18
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: Tourism Promotion Area
I. REFERENCE(S):
2019 Budget and Marketing Plan
2019 Budget Summary
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation by Michael Novakovich, President and CEO, Tri-Cities Visitor and
Convention Bureau
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) was formed in late 2004 to generate and
administer the proceeds of a "per room night assessment" on hotels/motels in the Tri-
Cities, imposed by the hotels themselves.
The interlocal agreement (between Pasco, Kennewick and Richland) that created the
TPA requires the annual budget and expenditure from the reserve account for the TPA
to be approved by the City Council. The Budget Summary for 2019 is attached.
V. DISCUSSION:
The TPA "assessment" is remitted by the hotels to the state which, in turn, distributes it
to the city in which is was collected. The City is obligated to pass the funds to the
TPA, for use in accordance with the approved budget.
Council should approve the 2019 TPA Marketing Plan and Operating Budget or
Page 3 of 63
indicate changes necessary to gain approval.
Page 4 of 63
Budget Summary
2018 Proposed 2019
Revenues Budget Budget
Kennewick $625,531 44%$716,045 44%
Pasco $326,983 23%$374,296 23%
Richland $469,149 33%$537,033 33%
Total:$1,421,663 100%$1,627,374 100%
Expenditures
Group Markets $649,200 $716,977
City Wide Conventions
Associations
Corporate 8LGovernment
SMERF(social,military,
education,religious,fraternal)
Sports
Tourism Development $457,930 $573,927
Administration $201,247 $212,208
(administrative staff,office
supplies,rent,telephone
postage,equipment
maintenance,etc.)
Opportunity Fund $90,000
Accounting/Professional $24,262
Capital Expenditures $10,000
$1,421,663 $1,627,374
Page 5 of 63
CITY OF PASCO
October 8, 2018
Page 6 of 63
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Tourism Promotional Area Programs
TPA Budget
Page 7 of 63
DESTINATION MARKETING ORGANIZATION FUNDING
Page 8 of 63
Convention, Sports and Group Marketing
Wine Country Advertising
Internet Marketing and Website
Regional and National Tradeshows (10)
Brochures and Maps
Opportunity Fund Grants
National Park Marketing
Television Commercials
PROMOTION ASSESSMENTFUNDED BY TOURISM Page 9 of 63
≈
May/June Hotel Surveys Completed
July Hotel Commission Review of Surveys
August First Draft Prepared
September Hotel Commissioners Approve Plan
October 1st Delivered to Cities for City Council
Review and Final Approval
HOW THE MARKETING PLAN IS DEVELOPED
Page 10 of 63
City of Pasco
Monica Hammerberg, Hampton Inn + Suites Pasco
Vijay Patel, A-1 Hospitality
Dave Zabell, Ex-Officio, City of Pasco
City of Kennewick
Mark Blotz, Clover Island Inn
Kathy Moore, SpringHill Suites by Marriott
Marie Mosley, Ex-Officio, City of Kennewick
City of Richland
Jerry Beach, Courtyard by Marriott
Cody Opstedal, Home2Suites by Hilton
Cindy Reents, Ex-Officio, City of Richland
2019 TRI-CITY REGIONAL
HOTEL -MOTEL COMMISSIONERS
Page 11 of 63
2019 TOURISM OUTLOOK
2018 REGIONAL REVENUE GROWTH:
•Seattle: +1.7%
•Spokane: +6.6&
•Vancouver: -1.5%
NATIONAL:
•Supply: +1.9%
•Demand: +2.0%
•Revenue Growth: 2.4%Page 12 of 63
2019 TOURISM OUTLOOKTRI-CITIES:
2.2% Growth in Inventory
2019: New Hotel Projects
Stable Demand
Strong Group & Leisure Travel
Page 13 of 63
DELIVERABLES
Leads Generated
Page 14 of 63
CONVENTION & SPORTS ROI
CONVENTIONS BOOKED IN 2019
30,000 Room Nights = $6,750,000
SPORTS BOOKED IN 2019
26,000 Room Nights = $7,800,000
Total Visitor Spending = $14,550,000
2019 INVESTMENT IN CONVENTION
& SPORTS MARKETING $716,977
RETURN ON EACH DOLLAR INVESTED
$20.29
Visitor Spending
Visitor Spending
Page 15 of 63
BUDGET SUMMARY
Page 16 of 63
Page 17 of 63
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 1, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Steve M. Worley, Public Works Director
Workshop Meeting: 10/8/18
FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer
Public Works
SUBJECT: Presentation - Lewis Street Overpass Project Update
I. REFERENCE(S):
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion Only
Presentation by Mary Heather Ames, Senior Engineer
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Update to City Council on Lewis Street Overpass project; cost, funding, and schedule.
Page 18 of 63
Page 19 of 63
Page 20 of 63
Page 21 of 63
Page 22 of 63
Page 23 of 63
Page 24 of 63
Page 25 of 63
Page 26 of 63
Page 27 of 63
Page 28 of 63
Page 29 of 63
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 3, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Community and Economic
Development Director
Workshop Meeting: 10/8/18
FROM: Michael Morales, Deputy Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Presentation - Economic Development Overview
I. REFERENCE(S):
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presented by Michael Morales, C&ED Deputy Director
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Brief overview of CED Department approach to comprehensive economic
development.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 30 of 63
Page 31 of 63
Page 32 of 63
Economic DevelopmentCity of PascoInfrastructure&UtilitiesLabor ForceEducation&TrainingState & Federal Gov’tRealEstateAvailability &AffordabilityQuality of LifeBusinessClimatePage 33 of 63
City of PascoRetail & CommercialTransportation & LogisticsMedical&TechnologyManufacturingDowntown RevitalizationTourismFood ProcessingPage 34 of 63
City of PascoDPDATri-DecTC Hispanic Chamber of CommerceColumbia Basin College &Pasco School DistrictState & Federal Gov’tVisit Tri-CitiesTC Regional Chamber of CommercePasco Chamber of CommercePort of PascoPage 35 of 63
Page 36 of 63
Page 37 of 63
Page 38 of 63
Page 39 of 63
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 26, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/8/18
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations
I. REFERENCE(S):
2019 Lodging Tax Requests
Sources and Uses, 2015 - 2018
2014 - 2018 Lodging Tax Summary
Committee Minutes dated 08/21/18
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
State law has authorized collection of the 2% local tax on lodging facilities (hotels and
motels) since the mid-1970s. The funds originally could be used for stadiums and for
tourism promotion activities. In 1993, like several cities prior to that time, Pasco was
granted an additional 2% lodging tax authority to help pay specifically for the City's
share of TRAC expenses. Several years later, the legislature increased the base lodging
tax to 4% and eliminated the individual taxing authorizations, thus making the use of
lodging tax simpler for everyone. The law was also amended to require a Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee (LTAC) to review and recommend proposed uses of the lodging
tax annually. In 2013, the legislature (in response to the lodging industry) required
additional annual reporting on the use of the lodging tax. The new reporting
requirement became effective for 2014 tax uses (a copy of the City's 2017 report
completed in early 2018 is attached).
The Pasco LTAC convened on August 21, 2018 to review six proposals received for
use of the 2018 lodging tax receipts. After reviewing historical uses of the lodging tax,
and the individual requests, the LTAC recommended allocation as outlined in the
LTAC minutes of August 21.
Page 40 of 63
• $275,000 (est) TRAC, 50% of actual operating costs
• $143,122 (est) Visit Tri-Cities Promotion Services (50% of 2%)
• $ 20,000 Pasco Chamber Ag Show
• $160,000 Baseball Stadium Improvements (New Debt)
• $ 8,000 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Event Marketing
• $ 7,100 Fund Administration and Expenses
• $613,222 TOTAL
V. DISCUSSION:
While the requests and LTAC recommendation total spending in the amount of nearly
$613,222 for 2019, annual revenue is estimated at $600,000. The Stadium/Convention
Center Fund has a fund balance of approximately $508,000 which can be allocated for
any 2019 overage, if needed.
The request for improvements at the baseball stadium is new and represents a one-time
expenditure. The LTAC meeting was attended by representatives of the Tri-City Dust
Devils who discussed the proposed improvements at GESA Stadium. The
request/proposal is to borrow $2m, internally, to make significant upgrades and
improvements at the more than 20 year old facility. The loan is proposed at 20 years
and would be secured by lodging tax receipts beginning in 2019.
RCW 67.28.1816 2(b)(ii) provides the latitude that the City has with respect to the
recommendations of the LTAC: "The municipality may choose only recipients
from the list of candidates and recommended amounts provided by the local
lodging tax advisory committee."
Staff recommends Council approval of the LTAC allocations, as shown in the minutes
of August 21, 2018.
Page 41 of 63
2019 LODGING TAX REQUESTS
TRAC* ................................................................................................................................$275,000
Baseball Stadium Improvements** ....................................................................................$160,000
Chamber of Commerce .........................................................................................................$20,000
Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau***.......................................................................$143,122
Downtown Pasco Development Authority .............................................................................$8,000
Fund Administration & Expenses ± .......................................................................................$7,100
TOTAL REQUESTED .......................................................................................................$613,222
Annual Amount Available (est.) ........................................................................................$600,000
Estimated Fund Balance Stadium/Convention Center Fund ..............................................$508,000
TOTAL ............................................................................................................................$1,108,000
*Interlocal Agreement between City of Pasco and Franklin County.
**Debt service on $2m improvements loan.
***Interlocal Agreement between cities of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland with Tri-Cities Visitor
and Convention Bureau (VCB) to provide 50% of annual 2% lodging tax receipts to VCB.
± New item for approval, though fund has absorbed this expense for many years.
Page 42 of 63
Lodging Tax Reporting 2014-2018 (2018 Not Yet Reported)City of Pasco
Year Organization Activity Type Activity Name Start Date End Date
Funds
Requested
Funds
Awarded
Total Activity
Cost
Overall
Attendance
Projected
Overall
Attendance
Actual
Overall Attendance
Method
Fifty Miles
Attendance
Projected
Fifty Miles Attendance
Actual Fifty Miles Attendance Method
2014 Pasco Chamber of Commerce Event/Festival Agricultural Trade Show 1/7/2014 1/8/2014 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,600$ 3,000 3,158 Direct Count 500 NULL Structured Estimate
2015 Pasco Chamber of Commerce Event/Festival Agricultural Trade Show 1/6/2015 1/7/2015 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,600$ 1,653 Direct Count 600 794 Indirect Count
2016 Pasco Chamber of Commerce Event/Festival Marketing/Festivals/Events 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 10,000$ 10,000$ 322,958$ 4,000 4,000 Direct Count 825 700 Representative Survey
2017 Pasco Chamber of Commerce Event/Festival Marketing/Festivals/Events 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 20,000$ 20,000$ 339,075$ 4,700 4,100 825 845
2018 Pasco Chamber of Commerce Event/Festival Marketing/Festivals/Events 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 20,000$ 20,000$
2014 Tri-Cities Vistor and Convention Bureau Marketing Destination Marketing 1/1/2014 12/31/2014 117,280$ 117,280$ 2,006,401$ NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL
2015 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau Marketing Destination Marketing 1/1/2015 12/31/2015 115,806$ 129,895$ 2,006,401$ 880,179 1,829,000 Structured Estimate 653,000 307,826 Structured Estimate
2016 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau Marketing Destination Marketing 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 123,000$ 123,000$ 2,354,084$ 91,886 38,099 Direct Count 91,886 38,099 Direct Count
2017 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau Marketing Destination Marketing 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 125,695$ 125,695$ 2,332,185$ 38,139 38,675 38,139 38,675
2018 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau Marketing Destination Marketing 132,609$ 132,609$
2014 City of Pasco-Stadium Facility Stadium Debt Service 3/15/2014 10/31/2014 127,000$ 103,000$ 127,188$ NULL 95,940 Structured Estimate NULL 7,400 Structured Estimate
2015 City of Pasco-Stadium Facility Stadium Debt Service 1/1/2015 12/31/2015 122,000$ 127,188$ 142,691$ 95,940 95,396 Direct Count 7,400 7,200 Representative Survey
2016 City of Pasco-Stadium Facility Professional Baseball Stadium Debt Service 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 122,000$ 127,187$ 147,144$ 96,000 100,214 Direct Count 7,400 12,000 Representative Survey/Structured Estimate
2017 City of Pasco-Stadium Facility Professional Baseball Stadium Debt Service 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 118,305$ 127,187$ 167,510$ 96,000 101,357 7,400 12,000
2018 City of Pasco-Stadium Facility Professional Baseball Stadium Debt Service 127,188$ 127,188$
2018 City of Pasco-Stadium Facility HVAC Imp.35,000$ 35,000$
2014 City of Pasco-TRAC Facility TRAC Debt Service and Operations 1/1/2014 12/31/2014 230,000$ 230,000$ 354,000$ NULL 181,331 Direct Count NULL 1,803 Direct Count
2015 City of Pasco-TRAC Facility TRAC Operations/Debt Service 1/1/2015 12/31/2015 240,000$ 256,366$ 512,733$ 250,000 164,706 Direct Count 45,000 4,050 Direct Count
2016 City of Pasco-TRAC Facility TRAC - Trade Recreation Agriculture Center 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 255,000$ 273,948$ 273,948$ 181,000 158,304 Direct Count 1,803 3,154 Direct Count
2017 City of Pasco-TRAC Facility TRAC - Trade Recreation Agriculture Center 1/1/2016 12/31/2016 255,000$ 122,002$ 244,000$ 165,000 134,440 4,000 2,233
2018 City of Pasco-TRAC Facility TRAC - Trade Recreation Agriculture Center 275,000$ 275,000$
2016 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Event/Festival Cinco de Mayo-Fiery Foods Festivals 4/1/2016 10/31/2016 5,000$ 5,000$ 39,551$ 10,000 10,000 Structured Estimate 500 600 Structured Estimate
2017 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Event/Festival Cinco de Mayo-Fiery Foods Festivals 4/1/2016 10/31/2016 5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ 10,000 17,000 1,000 510
2018 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Event/Festival Cinco de Mayo-Fiery Foods Festivals 7,000$ 7,000$
Year
Out of State/Country Attendance
Projected
Out of
State/Country
Attendance
Actual Overnight Paid Attendance Projected
Overnight
UnPaid
Attendance
Actual
Overnight
Paid
Attendance
Actual
Overnight
UnPaid
Attendance
Projected
Overnight
UnPaid
Attendance
Actual
Paid Lodging
Nights
Projected
Paid
Lodging
Nights
Actual Notes
2014 350 NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL
2015 335 350 335 700 670
2016 520 450 398 338 112 112 796 612
2017 520 533 398 408 112 114 796 816 Direct Count and Surveys/Estimates
2018
2014 NULL NULL NULL 653,000 NULL NULL 2013 actual numbers.
2015 227179 337000 653,000 1,434,000 144,000
2016 91886 38099 114,858 47,625 OOSOOC Attendance and Overnight Unpaid Attendance reported as "not available"
2017 N/A 38139 38675 N/A 47,673 48,344 Hotel Post Conv Reports
2018
2014 NULL 6,860 NULL 3,400 NULL NULL
2015 6,860 6,700 3540 3250 92,400 92,146 1,040
2016 6,860 7,000 3540 4000 3,400 3,500 2,575 2,000
2017 6,860 7,000 3540 4500 3,400 4,000 2,575 2,200 Direct Count, Surveys/Estimates
2018
2018
2014 NULL 930 NULL 90 NULL NULL Franklin County Operation
2015 39,750 738 45000 1014 45,000 202
2016 930 1,413 450 789 90 158 395
2017 800 818 1000 558 200 112 Direct Counts/Estimates
2018
2016 100 180 50 100 - - 150 Overnight Unpaid Attendance Unknown
2017 150 357 100 250 150 350 Indirect Counts, Informal Surveys
2018
Page 43 of 63
2018 2018 2017 2016 2015
Estimated
(7/30/18)
SOURCE
2% Lodging Tax (TRAC) $ 300,000 $ 275,000 $ 325,587 $ 271,529 $ 260,493
2% Lodging Tax (General) $ 300,000 $ 275,000 $ 325,587 $ 271,529 $ 260,493
TOTAL ANNUAL SOURCES $ 600,000 $ 550,000 $ 651,174 $ 543,058 $ 520,986
Fund Balance (Combined) $ 508,000 $ 508,000
TOTAL SOURCES $ 1,108,000 $ 1,058,000 $ 651,174 $ 543,058 $ 520,986
USES
TRAC * $ 236,000 $ 275,000 $ 122,002 $ 273,948 $ 256,366
Stadium Debt ** $ 127,188 $ 127,118 $ 127,188 $ 127,188 $ 127,188
Stadium HVAC $ 24,693 $ 35,000
VCB Promotion Services $ 135,000 $ 132,609 $ 126,582 $ 123,181 $ 119,895
Chamber Visitor Services / Ag Show $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Downtown Pasco Development Authority $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Fund Administrative Expense $ 7,100 $ 9,526 $ 9,339 $ 12,532
Stadium Operations*** $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 19,816 $ 19,957 $ 7,537
$ 548,656 $ 410,298 $ 525,981
Actual
2015 - 2018 Lodging Tax
Stadium Net Operations
(Revenue above rental income) $ 10,300 $ 10,300 $ 12,694 $ (1,156) $ 5,884
TOTAL USES
Budget Actual Actual
$ 556,981 $ 596,727 Page 44 of 63
LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 21,2018
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 pm,by Matt Watkins,in conference room #1 at Pasco City
Hall.
ROLL CALL:
Board Members Present:Matt Watkins (Council);Colin Hastings (Chamber);and Hector Cruz (Visit
Tri-Cities).
Excused:Allison White (Sleep Inn)and Monica Hammerberg (Hampton Inn).
Also Present:Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager;Dan Dotta,Interim Administrative and Community
Services Director and Facilities Manager;Angela Pashon,Policy Analyst;and Brent Miles and Derrel
Eben,Tri-City Dust Devils.
BUSINESS:
Matt Watkins presented the September 26,2017 minutes of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee.
Motion was made by Colin Hastings and seconded by Hector Cruz.to approve the September 26
2017 minutes as submitted.Motion passed unanimously.
Stan brie?y reviewed the following:historical allocation of lodging tax receipts;current contractual
commitments;2017 JLARC reporting;2014-2017 document,combining JLARC reporting,as well
as 2019 tax allocation requests.Stan also suggested that a restructuring of the funds (#191 —TRAC
and #195 —Stadium Convention Center)to combine all lodging tax revenues and expenditures (as
approved by LTAC and the City Council)into a single fund would provide less confusion in tracking
and provide LTAC with a clearer picture of resources in coming years,especially for one-time project
requests.
Committee discussed the requests for use of2019 Lodging Tax receipts,estimated to total $613,222.
Stan noted that with the 2018 payment the balance of stadium debt ($127.000)will be retired.All
requests are similar to those approved for 2018,except for:an increase in the DPDA request of an
additional $1,000;and a proposed new expenditure,for administrative expense,which has been paid
in prior years,although not specifically listed for LTAC.Also,proposed are new stadium
improvements as outlined below.
As discussed last year,the baseball stadium is in need of a number of upgrades both to meet
Professional Baseball standards as well as due to the age (23 years)ofthe facility.Stan discussed the
concept ofan internal City loan of $2m to fund improvements.This would require annual debt service
Page 45 of 63
of approximately $160,000 but would avoid the expense of bond issuance,marketing.etc.Brent and
Derrel discussed the need for improvements.Stan explained that while the 2019 requests slightly
exceed expected revenue for the coming year,estimated fund balance in the Stadium/Convention
Center fund will cover the projected shortfall,if needed.
Motion was made by Colin Hastings and seconded by Hector Cruz to recommend the 2019 allocation
estimate,as outlined below.Motion carried unanimously.
°TRAC,50%of actual operating costs ......
‘VCB Promotion Services (50%012%)$143,122 (est)
‘Pasco Chamber Ag Show ..............................$20,000
'Baseball Stadium Improvements Debt Service ($2m/20 yrs)........$160,000
°Fund Administration Expense .$7,100 (est)
$275,000 (est)
'DPDA Event Marketing 8,000
TOTAL..$6l3,222
Stan indicated that the committee’s recommendation for 2019 will be presented to the City Council
at their meeting sometime after September 10,when the Council is scheduled to review the proposed,
6-year Capital Improvement Plan,which will include a discussion of the Stadium improvements
Project.
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee meeting adjourned at 4:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted.
Stan Strebel,Deputy City Manager
LTAC Minutes 8/21/18
Page 2 of2
Page 46 of 63
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council Date: 10/4/18
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 10/8/18
FROM: Jon Funfar, Communications Program Manager
SUBJECT: Community Identity – Logo Development Selection
I. REFERENCE(S):
• Revised Draft logos
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
After viewing the revised draft logos, staff requests Council select one of the three drafts as the
new City logo.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
o $30,000 (Logo consultant contract, in 2018 budget)
o Undetermined amount for conversion to new logo
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The current City logo has been in use for at least 50 years; an update to best capture the many
positive changes (as much as possible in a logo) in Pasco over that time is timely. Council
authorized $30,000 in the 2018 Budget toward development of a new logo as part of the
“Community Identity” goal. After discussion at a Council Workshop earlier this year, the
following logo development course was followed:
• Selection of Consultant: The City Logo Team (Communications Program Manager Jon
Funfar, Police Chief Bob Metzger, Policy Analyst Angela Pashon, Community &
Economic Development Deputy Director Michael Morales, and Interim Facilities
Manager Troy Phillips) interviewed 5 firms as part of a Request for Proposals (RFP)
process and selected BrandCraft from Richland.
• Development of Logo: BrandCraft inventoried current uses of the logo and developed
drafts of a new logo that staff believes each reflects elements of the City’s diverse and
unique community. BrandCraft used an approach that included a public process as
follows:
• Meetings with the Logo Team
• Regular communication with staff
• Public input
Online public survey on important concepts/elements to be included in a
logo
Recruitment of a local “Ambassador” group which included business
owners, students, and other community members to help guide concepts
and needed elements in any new logo
Page 47 of 63
Presenting conceptual logos for public input at open meetings and
online. (Online survey results at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-RXGBMCXML/)
• The three draft logos are Logo A - “Growth” (wheat), Logo B -“Bridge”
(stylized Cable Bridge), and Logo C - “Shield” (updated look to current
logo)
• At the September 10 Council Workshop, Council viewed 4 draft logos and Council
consensus was to see revised logos based on the “Shield” design with a revised “Bridge”
design. The three logos attached hopefully captures Council’s thoughts expressed at the
September 10 meeting.
• Implementation of Logo: After Council consideration, BrandCraft will provide a
recommended plan for implementation of the developed logo. Given the potential cost,
it would be staff’s recommendation to phase in a new logo over time as new stationery,
new vehicles, uniforms, etc. are ordered.
Page 48 of 63
City of
Washington
City of
Washington
City of
Washington
City of
Washington
City of
Washington
City of
Washington
City of
Washington
City of
City of
Washington
City of
City of Washington
Washington
City of
Washington
City of
Page 49 of 63
PASCOCITY OF
WASHINGTON
PASCOCITY OF
WASHINGTON
PASCO
WASHINGTON
PASCOCITY OF
FIRE DEPARTMENT
PASCOCITY OF
POLICE DEPARTMENT
PASCOCITY OF
PARKS AND REC
PASCOCITY OF
PUBLIC WORKS
PASCOCITY OF
WASHINGTON
PASCO
WASHINGTON
Page 50 of 63
PASCOCITY OF
WASHINGTON
PASCO
WASHINGTON PASCOCITY OF
WASHINGTON
PASCO
WASHINGTON
PASCOCITY OF
WASHINGTON
Page 51 of 63
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 2, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/8/18
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Hearing Examiner System for Land Use Permits
I. REFERENCE(S):
RCW 35A.63.170 - Hearing Examiner System
Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) Memorandum
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Cities in Washington State have statutory authority to establish a hearing examiner
system for land use permits and other matters. Under a hearing examiner system for
land use permits, a municipality contracts with a examiner to conduct open record
and/or quasi-judicial hearings in place of the Planning Commission. City Council has
discretion in establishing how the hearing examiner system operates. Depending on
Council sentiment - the examiner could also render final decisions in place of the City
Council.
In recent years, municipalities have trended towards establishing a hearing examiner
system for land use permits, as the permit process has become increasingly
complicated from a legal and procedural standpoint. The hearing examiner system is
considered superior to appointed or legislative bodies rendering recommended and
final land use decisions from a liability perspective.
The existing Pasco Municipal Code already contains roles for a hearing examiner.
Currently, PMC Chapter 2.19 prescribes the appointment of a hearing examiner, the
examiner's qualifications, the rules for an examiner and a description of the powers of
the examiner. These powers include the ability of a hearing examiner to hear and
decide:
Page 52 of 63
• Variances, review of administrative actions, waiver of violations, extension on
use of borders of zoning districts and administrative exceptions;
• Appeals of administrative decisions;
• SEPA appeals;
• Vehicle impounds; and,
• Appeals of decisions of the Poundmaster and Business license revocations,
appeals and reinstatement.
V. DISCUSSION:
The basic purpose of having a hearing examiner is to have a professionally trained
individual with expertise in land use law, usually an attorney, make objective
recommendations and/or quasi-judicial decisions or recommendations that are
supported by an adequate record and that are free from popular emotion or political
influences.
Using a hearing examiner system could allow the City Council and Planning
Commission to better concentrate on policymaking. It can also reduce the City's
liability exposure through more consistent and legally sustainable quasi-judicial
decisions.
Typically, a hearing examiner would conduct hearings and render recommendations or
final decisions on quasi-judicial land use permits and applications which include
special/conditional use permits and preliminary plats. Again, typically City Councils
reserve legislative issues for their own consideration (Comprehensive Plan
amendments, rezones, code amendments...).
There are several options for the City to expand the role of a hearing examiner and
include:
• Conduct applicable land use hearings and forward recommendations to City
Council for final decisions;
• Conduct applicable land use hearings and forward recommendations to Council
on certain issues and render final decisions on other issues;
• Conduct applicable land use hearings and render final decisions on land use
issues appealable to Superior Court; or
• Conduct applicable land use hearings, render final decisions appealable to the
City Council.
Either of the above options would reserve for the Planning Commission the advisory
role in legislative matters of:
• Comprehensive Plan development and review;
Page 53 of 63
• Master Plans/special planning projects or design standard developments;
• Shoreline Management Plan development and review;
• Rezone requests;
• Annexation Zoning;
• Development Agreements;
• Code Amendments; and
• Block Grant and HOME Advisory Committee recommendations.
Our neighboring cities of Kennewick, Richland and Walla Walla use the hearing
examiner system for a variety of recommended and final land use decisions.
Although there is a degree of risk as noted in the WCIA Memorandum - staff requests
Council particularly examine the use of a Hearing Examiner system to render final
decisions with the ability of an applicant to make an appeal to City Council. This
process would take full advantage of the Examiner system but reserve the ability for an
appellant to seek redress locally prior to an appeal to the court system.
Staff requests Council discussion and direction on this matter
Page 54 of 63
RCW 35A.63.17O
Hearing examiner system——Adoption authorized—Alternative—Functions-—Procedures.
(1)As an alternative to those provisions of this chapter relating to powers or duties of the planning
commission to hear and report on any proposal to amend a zoning ordinance,the legislative body of a
city may adopt a hearing examiner system under which a hearing examiner or hearing examiners may
hear and decide applications for amending the zoning ordinance when the amendment which is applied
for is not of general applicability.In addition,the legislative body may vest in a hearing examiner the
power to hear and decide those issues it believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing
examiner,including but not limited to:
(a)Applications for conditional uses,variances,subdivisions,shoreline permits,or any other class of
applications for or pertaining to development of land or land use;
(b)Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations;and
(c)Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW.
The legislative body shall prescribe procedures to be followed by a hearing examiner.If the legislative
authority vests in a hearing examiner the authority to hear and decide variances,then the provisions of
RCW 3SA.63.t1Qshall not apply to the city.
(2)Each city legislative body electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by
ordinance specify the legal effect ofthe decisions made by the examiner.The legal effect of such
decisions may vary for the different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall include
one of the following:
(a)The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to the legislative body;
(b)The decision may be given the effect of an administrative decision appealable within a specified time
limit to the legislative body;or
(c)Except in the case ofa rezone,the decision may be given the effect ofa final decision of the
legislative body.
(3)Each final decision of a hearing examiner shall be in writing and shall include findings and
conclusions,based on the record,to support the decision.Such findings and conclusions shall also set
forth the manner in which the decision would carry out and conform to the city's comprehensive plan
and the city's development regulations.Each final decision of a hearing examiner,unless a longer period
is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the hearing examiner,shall be rendered within ten
working days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings.
Page 55 of 63
JOHN L McCORMACK
MARK R. BUCKLIN
STEVEN L. THORSRUD
MICHAEL C. WALTER
ANDREW G. COOLEY
STEWART A. ESTES
JAYNE 1. FREEMAN
STEPHANIE E. CROI.L
RICHARD B. JOLLEY
Heather D. Kintzley
City Attorney
City of Richland
975 George Washington Way
Richland, WA 99352-3548
K~ATTNG, BLTCKT:IN `, h°IcCC1R~~~'~~~
ATTORNEYS AT LA41~
Seattle, Washington g8io4-3175
Phone: zob.6z3.886~
Fax:2o6.2a3.g4z3
www.kbmlawyers.com
mwalter@kbmlawyers. com
August 15, 2014
RE: Use of a Hearing Examiner for Land Use Decision-Making
Dear Ms. Kintzley:
BRENDA L. BANNON
MARY ANN MCCONAUGHY
SHANNON M. RAGONESI
KIMBERLY J. WALDBAUM
JEREMY W. CUCUMBER
ADAM L. ROSENBERG
AMANDA G. BUTLER
BRIAN C. AUGENTHALER
ROBERT C. KEATING (1915-2001)
It is my understanding that in a recent land use audit of all member cities conducted by
Washington Cities Insurance Authority ("WCIA"), the use of a hearing examiner for land use
decision-making came up, and that the City of Richland may be considering adoption of a
hearing examiner system for land use decision-making. In this regard, WCIA suggested I write
regarding my opinions and experiences on the use of a hearing examiner for land use decision-
making. Accordingly, I am providing this letter to you, which you are encouraged to forward to
the City Manager, Mayor, City Council and staff, providing my strong recommendation for the
use of a hearing examiner for land use decision-making.
As I explain in this letter, I believe the use of a land use hearing examiner to make final
quasi judicial decisions on land use permits (as well as for deciding administrative appeals) is
invaluable and should be utilized to the fullest extent by the City of Richland. It is the trend of
most local governments to use a land use hearing examiner. to adjudicate quasi judicial and
administrative land use permitting.
By way of background, I am a partner and director at Keating, Bucklin &McCormack,
Inc., P.S., a law firm emphasizing representation of local government in a wide variety of
municipal matters, civil lawsuits and administrative and other 1ega1 claims. For over 25 years,
my practice has emphasized a broad range of municipal, land use, regulatory, environmental,
civil rights and tort-related issues in defense of government entities, elected officials and their
employees. I represent cities, special purpose districts and other government entities in land use,
permitting, environmental matters, civil rights and other claims, and have written numerous
1002-719/115813.docx
Page 56 of 63
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 2
articles on land use law, municipal and local government legislation and regulation, permitting
and environmental issues, as we11 as risk management on various topics of interest to local
government and land use agencies. As part of my practice, I also provide municipal, land use,
environmental and risk management training to elected officials and government agencies
throughout the State. A significant part of my practice involves defending land use claims
arising out of quasi judicial land use decisions, made by citizen and elected bodies as we11 as
professional hearing examiners.l A copy of my professional resume is attached. You can also
get more information on my law firm and my land use practice through our website at
www.kbmlawyers.com.
I provide the foregoing summary of my background as context for my strong,
unqualified, recommendation to all cities, towns and local government entities in the use of a
hearing examiner to adjudicate quasi judicial land use matters. Being "in the trenches," as it
were defending land use decisions —and frequently land use mistakes — by local government has
given me first-hand experience in seeing the procedural, timeliness and significant liability risk
differences in land use decisions made by planning commissions, boards of adjustment and city
councils versus those decisions made by professional hearing examiners. This first-hand
experience in defending literally thousands of these decisions over the past 25 years has made
one thing crystal clear: there is no substitute for local government's use of a professional hearing
examiner in deciding quasi judicial land use matters. For this reason, I write to encourage the
City of Richland — as I do with all of the 1oca1 government entities I work with or speak to — to
take full advantage of a professional land use hearing examiner.
General Authority of Hearing Examiners
I recommend to cities I work for to utilize, to the fullest extent possible, a hearing
examiner to (1) make final decisions on all quasi judicial land use permits and decisions, and (2)
to act as the administrative appeal body for review of routine administrative/ministerial permits
(such as right-of-way permits, clearing and grading permits, tree cutting permits, building
permits, etc.) and of administrative/code interpretations. The adoption of a hearing examiner
position is expressly authorized in RCW 35A.63.170. A hearing examiner may hear:
(a) Applications for conditional uses, variances, subdivisions,
shoreline permits, or any other class of applications for or
pertaining to development of land or land use;
(b) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations; and
(c) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations pursuant
to RCW ch. 43.21C.
' I am not a hearing examiner, and do not derive any income as a hearing examiner.
Page 57 of 63
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 3
RCW 35A.63.170(1)(a)-(c).~ These are identical to the duties a board of adjustment would
otherwise perform. Compare RCW 35A.63.110(1)-(4). The City must explain the nature and
scope of the hearing examiner's duties if the position is created. See RCW 35A.63.170.
The Legislature has also authorized local government to establish the procedures to be
followed by the hearing examiner.
(2) Each city or county legislative body electing to use a hearing examiner
pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions
made by the examiner. The legal effect of such decisions may vary for the
different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall include one of
the following:
(a) The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to
the legislative body;
(b) The decision may be given the effect of an administrative
decision appealable within a specified time limit to the legislative
body; or
(c) Except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be given the
effect of a final decision of the legislative body.
RCW 35A.63.1~0(2).
Thus, as an alternative to using a planning commission or city council to decide quasi-
judicial land use applications and permits, the council has express statutory authority3 to adopt a
hearing examiner system and vest in a hearing examiner with broad authority to conduct open
record hearings on and decide applications for virtually all types of permits and land use
approvals, including such things as site plans, full and short plats, conditional or special use
permits, variances, reasonable use exemptions and waivers, shoreline permits, "or any other class
of applications for or pertaining to development of land or land use." A hearing examiner can
also be vested with authority to hear a pp eals of administrative or quasi judicial permit decisions
as well as appeals of determinations under SEPA. Hearing examiners also have other authorities
set forth in RCW 35.63.130 and RCW 35A.63.170.
2 The scope of authority of hearing examiners is best described in the case of Chausee v. Snohomish County
Council, 38 Wn. App. 630, 689 P.2d 1084 (1984). In that case, the court described hearing examiners as "creatures
of the legislature without inherent or common-law powers and may exercise only those powers conferred either
expressly or by necessary implication." Id., at 38 Wn. App. 636.
3 In any case, the city council must specifically adopt a hearing examiner system and through an ordinance or code
amendment vest the hearing examiner with authority to hear and. decide the specific types of land use applications or
permits, or other administrative decisions, that he or she can make.
Page 58 of 63
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 4
There are only two instances in which the State Legislature has mandated that legislative
bodies (city councils) make decisions on land use permits and approvals: (1) decisions on final
plats (subdivisions) (see, RCW 58.17.100); and (2) area-wide/general applicability zoning
decisions/rezones. (RCW 35.63.130(1), RCW 35.63.130(2)(c), RCW 36.70.870(2)(c), and RCW
36.70.970(1). Aside from these two limited instances, hearing examiners can hear and decide
virtually all other land use permits, approvals or appeals, as long as the city code expressly
authorizes an examiner to hear those matters.
The Advantages of Using a Hearing Examiner for Land Use Decision-Makin
The following are some of the many advantages and benefits to using a hearing examiner
for quasi judicial land use decision-making and administrative appeals of permit decisions:
• Avoids political influence or pressure (which is forbidden in quasi judicial decision-
making);
• They are professional, specially trained individuals;
• They have experience with many different jurisdictions and regulations and can carry that
experience and knowledge over to your jurisdiction, helping to improve your land use
code and process;
• They are technically adept, and have knowledge of physical land development and
technical feasibility of land development and permitting;
• A hearing examiner is more cost effective (reduces appeals and judicial challenges);
A11ows for a more efficient process (faster decisions, fewer mistakes and far fewer
appeals);
• Substantial reduction in judicial (court) reversal of decisions;
• Substantial reduction in potential damages claims against the city (I can attest to this, and
most municipal attorneys and land use professionals would agree);
• Eliminates the risk of lawsuits and legal claims against citizen-decision makers —like
Planning Commission and City Council members —personally;
• Instills public confidence in the decision-making process;
• Helps ensure constitutional protection of due process of law and equal protection;
• Helps ensure predictability and consistency in the process and decision-making;
• Hearing examiners are skilled in understanding, interpreting and applying nuances of
your municipal code, state and federal laws, and general legal principles;
Page 59 of 63
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 5
• Use of a hearing examiner helps satisfy State law requirements for streamlining the
regulatory process and administrative review and appeals (1995 Regulatory Reform Act,
RCW Chapter 36.70B);
• Use of a hearing examiner segregates and clearly delineates quasi judicial decision
making functions from legislative (law-making) and long-term planning functions (which
are the functions of planning commissions and city councils);
• Provides the opportunity for feedback and correction of code ambiguities and conflicts;
• Use of a hearing examiner frees up city council and planning commission time for other,
important planning, foal setting and law-making functions; and,
• Provides good customer service.
The following is a quote from a state Supreme Court justice endorsing Pierce County's
rationale for creating a hearing examiner position:
A. The need to separate the County's land use regulatory function
from its land use planning function;
B. The need to ensure and expand the principles of fairness and
due process in public hearings; and
C. The need to provide an efficient and. effective land use
regulatory system which integrates the public hearing and
decision-making processes for land use matters; it is the purpose of
this chapter to provide an administrative land use regulatory
system which will best satisfy these needs.
[AJ land use hearing examiner system will be very beneficial to
all concerned or involved with land use decisions, and said
system will (1) provide a more efficient and effective land use
decision procedure; (2) provide the Planning Commission more
time to devote towards studying and recommending land use
policy changes to the Boarcl; (3) provide an experienced expert to
hear and decide land use cases based upon policy adopted by the
Board; and (4) provide the Board of County Commissioners
more time to spend on other County concerns by relieving them
from hearing land use cases, except any appeals ... j.J
Page 60 of 63
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 6
Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 51, 873 P.2d 498 (1994) (Madsen, J., dissenting)
(citing Pierce County Resolution 20489 (1978)) (emphasis added).
Risks and Pitfall_s__.in Not. Using a Hearing Examiner for Land Use Decision-Makin
Based on the broad authority of hearing examiners to adjudicate a wide range of land. use
permits, decisions and appeals, the significant reduction in land use lawsuit liability exposure by
using a hearing examiner, and my experience defending both planning commission city
council/board of adjustment land use decisions versus those made by hearing examiners, there is,
in my experience and opinion, no good reason to not use a hearing examiner for land use
decision-making.
The few reasons offered against the use of a hearing examiner (and, by implication for
retention of elected official or citizen body land use decision-making) are neither justified nor
legally supportable. One such claim is that use of a hearing examiner system is too costly, or the
jurisdiction can't afford to use a hearing examiner. My first response to this claim is that local
governments can't afford not to use a hearing examiner for land use decision-making. Please
refer to the many advantages discussed above. Second, in my experience the costs of using a
hearing examiner are minimal, and, in many cases, can be passed on to permit applicants or land
use appellants, either directly or included as _part of carefully crafted permit or administrative
fees associated with land use permits or appeals heard by hearing examiners. Additionally, many
jurisdictions share in the cost of a hearing examiner or pay into a "pool" to use a hearing
examiner who essentially "rides the circuit" between several geographically close jurisdictions.
If the potential cost of using a hearing examiner is of concern to the City of Richland, I urge you
to talk to other jurisdictions —including Pasco and Kennewick, your neighbors — to learn about
how they handle costs and their experiences.
A second reason sometimes offered against the use of a hearing examiner is the lack of
representative control over constituent demands for land use policy-making. Regarding this
claimed loss of "citizen control" over the land use permitting process, this is actually a key
reason that a hearing examiner should be used. Land use planning and olic decisions are
made by the elected officials (city or town councils) through comprehensive planning and
comprehensive plan updates, long range strategic planning, area-wide zoning and development
regulations, and adoption of other area-wide development criteria. As noted above, land use
lip anni~ should be reserved to and used by both planning commissions and city or town
councils.
However, that is not the case with site- or property-specific land use permits or land use
actions. Property- or site-specific land use approvals and decision-making should not be done
based on citizen comment, policy criteria, planning criteria or constituent desires. Such
permitting and decision-making decisions —whether at the administrative or quasi judicial level
— should be entirely, 100% tree of citizen control and politics. For this reason, use of a
Page 61 of 63
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 7
professional hearing examiner to make decisions on such site-specific or permit-specific land use
applications is the best, safest and most appropriate method ofdecision-making.
In short, planning commissions and city councils, should not be involved in making final
decisions on quasi judicial land use permits; nor should they hear appeals of permit decisions or
code interpretations. Rather, such decisions should be delegated to a professional hearing
examiner. As State law makes clear, planning commissions and city councils have far more
important tasks to do with their limited time: responding to their citizen constituencies; crafting,
reviewing and amending comprehensive plans; crafting, reviewing, amending and updating
zoning ordinances; crafting and updating shoreline plans; doing long range land use planning;
doing utility and infrastructure planning; budgeting; contracting; completing ongoing and time-
sensitive planning and regulatory obligations; and handling the many day-to-day affairs of local
government.
A third reason sometimes given to not use a hearing examiner is that the local jurisdiction
wants to be independent, retain its autonomy, and not be "pressured" to use one just because
other jurisdictions do. Yet, neither the State nor any other jurisdiction can dictate the use of a
hearing examiner. But it is noteworthy —and significant —that (a) the overwhelming majority of
cities, towns, counties and other land use permitting jurisdictions use hearing examiners for land
use decision-making, (b) virtually all land use and government attorneys agree on the use of
hearing examiners, and (c) virtually all planning professionals agree that the use of a hearing
examiner for land use decision making is not only good risk management, it is more efficient,
more cost effective, instills public confidence in the process, avoids arbitrary and capricious
decision-making, and limits improper political influence.
Fourth, I have heard one hearing examiner opponent claim "there is no evidence that
supports such a proposition [that decisions made by a hearing examiner wi11 hold up better in
court]." Even a cursory review of trial court filings and appellate court decisions will readily
confirm that not only are there far fewer iudicial challenges to land use decisions made by
hearing examiners, those few legal challenges that are made to examiner decisions are far more
frequently upheld by the appellate courts than are decisions made by elected officials or citizen
groups or bodies.
Indeed, the most egregious land use decisions in this State and in the federal courts arise
from elected official or citizen-body decision-making on land use permits and applications —not
hearing examiner decisions. For a sampling of such decisions, see: Mission Springs v. City of
Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 954 P.2d 250 (1998) (a good case to review; Supreme Court chastises
the Spokane City Council for arbitrarily denying a grading permit for a contentious development
project, and imposes sanctions and attorney fees on individual council members; numerous other
bad land use decisions arising from city council or planning commission actions —but no hearing
examiner case —referenced); Sintra, Inc. v. City of'Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 640, 935 P.2d 555 (1997);
Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 706, 934 P.2d 1179 (1997); Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119
Wn.2d 34, 830 P.2d 318 (1992); West Main Assoc., Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 720
Page 62 of 63
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 8
P.2d 782 (1986); Pleas v. City of'Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794, 744 P.2d ll58 (1989); King v, City of
Seattle, 84 Wn.2d 239, 525 P.2d 228 (1974); Bateson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1988);
WestmaNk v. City of Burien, 140 Wn. App. 540, 166 P.3d 813 (2007}; Saben v. Skagit County,
136 Wn. App. 869, 152 P.3d 1034 (2006); Cox v. City of Lynnwood, 72 Wn. App. 1, 863 P.2d
578 (1993); AndeNson v. City oflssaquah, 70 Wn. App.64, 851 P.2 744 (1993).
Finally, I have also heard the comment that "hearing examiners tend to favor
development interests more than local citizen bodies such as planning commissions." There is
no evidence to support this; in fact, it is contrary to my experience and the decisions of hearing
examiners in the communities I do work for.
Conclusion and Summary
In summary, I urge the City of Richland to consider modifying its land use code to
eliminate Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment or City Council for hearing and deciding
final land use decisions (but not comprehensive or long range planning or area-wide regulations)
and, instead, use a hearing examiner to make final land use decisions and administrative appeal
decisions for the City.
I hope the foregoing is of benefit to the City of Richland as it looks to updating its land
use code and decision-making process. If I can be of any assistance to the City or answer other
questions regarding the use of a hearing examiner, do not hesitate to ca11 or write.
Very truly yours,
Michael C. Walter
MCW/ch
cc: Bill King, Deputy City Manager and
Community Development Services Director
Cathleen Koch, Administrative Services Director
Ms. Ann Bennett, Executive Director
Washington Cities Insurance Authority
Ms. Tanya Crites, Risk Management,
Washington Cities Insurance Authority
Page 63 of 63