Loading...
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