Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020.06.08 Council Remote Workshop Packet
Remote Workshop Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. June 8, 2020 Page 1. REMOTE WORKSHOP INSTRUCTIONS: (a) The Pasco City Council Workshops are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/cityofPasco. Call-in information to GoToWebinar for "listen-only" mode is: (415) 655-0060 and use access code 565-724-775 2. CALL TO ORDER: 3. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 3 - 180 (a) CPA2020-001 Urban Growth Area Expansion 181 - 192 (b) 2021-2026 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 193 - 199 (c) PMC Update to Street Overlay and Real Estate Excise Tax 200 - 217 (d) 2019-2020 Financial Update 218 - 226 (e) Coronavirus Relief Fund 6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: (a) Benton-Franklin County Letter 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 8. ADJOURNMENT: Page 1 of 226 Remote Workshop Meeting June 8, 2020 (a) REMINDERS: • Monday, June 8, 6:00 PM: Old Fire Pension Board Meeting – Virtual Meeting via GoToMeeting (MAYOR SAUL MARTINEZ, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM BLANCHE BARAJAS, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad. (Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability.) Page 2 of 226 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 4, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Remote Workshop Meeting: 6/8/20 FROM: Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: CPA2020-001 Urban Growth Area Expansion I. REFERENCE(S): Urban Growth Area - Staff Presentation Urban Growth Area - Comparison Map Urban Growth Area - Summary of Alternatives City of Pasco Urban Growth Area Expansion & Capital Facilities Analysis Land Capacity Analysis Public Comments on Urban Growth Area Expansion II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Projected Capital Facility cost for Alternative #3 expansion (Compact Growth Target) is $114,146,000. Costs are in current dollars and include all applicable fees and contingency costs, based on 2019 construction cost estimates. A portion of the total expense may shared between the City and future developers. Estimated costs by utility type are provided below: Facility Type Estimated Cost Percent of Total Streets/Roads $500,000 1% Sanitary Sewer $72,989,000 63% Domestic Water $40,657,000 36% Total $114,146,000 100% The table above summarizes the total public capital facilities costs to serve the expanded Page 3 of 226 Urban Growth Area for the period of 2019-2025. Per RCW 36.70A.110(3); adequate public facilities and the ability to provide service to developments must be identified. Projects that may be partially funded during the development process to meet concurrency or mitigation requirements. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City of Pasco is continuing its efforts to the update the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). The Comprehensive Plan consists of goals, policies and an analysis of a variety of topics including economic development, transportation, public services, land-housing and capital facilities. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan also guides decisions on development and growth within the City limits and the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) develops population projections for each county, followed by each county determining where that growth shall occur. Per RCW 36.70A.110, each county is then responsible for designation Urban Growth Areas where urban growth shall be encouraged. The delineation of each Urban Growth Area shall be sufficient to accommodate the projected population growth identified by the OFM and County. The population estimates for Pasco indicate the City is expected to reach a total of 121,828 residents by 2038, an increase of 48,238 (from 2018). In order to accommodate that growth, the City identified that an expansion of the Urban Growth Area would be necessary. RCW 36.70A.110(2) states: "Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses." On June 18, 2018, the Pasco City Council adopted Resolution 3845 de claring (at the time) the preferred Urban Growth Area for the City. The resolution and analysis at the time indicated that the City had adequate existing capacity to accommodate an estimated 33% of the needed housing units to accommodate the forecasted population growth through the year 2038. During the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) analysis, the City (as the Lead Page 4 of 226 Agency) likely would proposal Plan have the that determined Comprehensive significant adverse impact on the natural and built environment therefore requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Scoping Notice for the EIS was released on October 8, 2018, and identified three alternatives for the expansion of the Urban Growth Area: 1. No Action: No UGA Expansion 2. Alternative No. 2: Traditional Growth Target (~4,800 acres) 3. Alternative No. 3: Compact Growth Target (~3,500 acres) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released for public comment on Friday, May 15, 2020. Per WAC 197-11-060, agencies shall carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects. Impacts shall include those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal. The DEIS for the Comprehensive Plan addresses the impacts of an Urban Growth Are a expansion including: • Earth • Water • Plants and Animals • Land Use • Environmental Health • Shoreline Use • Population, Housing and Employment • Parks and Recreation • Transportation • Public Services and Utilities • Heritage Conservation The EIS provides the analysis for the Comprehensive Plan that will help determine the appropriate Urban Growth Area expansion for the City of Pasco. It should be noted that while the City can request the expansion of the Urban Growth Area per title 17.84.010 of the Franklin County Municipal Code, the Growth Management Act grants the authority to the County to establish the boundaries. Upon an approved resolution from the Pasco City Council identifying the City's preferred Urban Growth Area boundary, the resolution along with a complete application will be submitted to the Franklin County for consideration. Staff is seeking to submit the completed application by June 30, 2020. V. DISCUSSION: The first iteration of the Urban Growth Area expansion was the proposed request of approximately 4,800 acres. During preliminary deliberations with Franklin County, including a presentation at the Franklin County Planning Commission in September of Page 5 of 226 2018, a need to address a third alternative was identified. The results of public agency and comments from community members along with staff consultation was the third alternative addressing a more compact growth development pattern. In total, the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area have been shared with the Planning Commission and City Council 21 times, beginning with February 15th, 2018. During the course of the past 24 + months, a variety of tasks have been conducted in order to best define the most appropriate expansion that meets the laws established by the Growth Management Act, Council Goals and community needs. Additionally, the compact growth target itself establishes a change in development that incorporates a greater diversity of housing needs, areas for industrial growth, public spaces, municipal facilities and a refined transportation network. Approximately 78% of the expansion area under Alternative No. 3 is located north of the existing City Limits and UGA between the Columbia River and the Pasco/Tri- Cities Airport. Of the remaining 759 acres (22% of the total UGA expansion), 33 acres are reserved for Airport operations and 725 for industrial growth which includes a portion of the Port of Pasco's Reimann Industrial Center. As identified in the Fiscal Impact section, the estimated cost of expanding the Urban Growth Area for Alternative No. 3 is $114 million dollars for the immediate time- frame through the year 2025. The Growth Management Act requires that capital facilities be reasonably available to meet the projected growth at the adopted levels of service for at least a 6-year period (dating back to 2019). The Capital Facilities Analysis for the UGA (see exhibits) identifies that a variety of revenue sources will be necessary to fund the costs including fees for transportation, parks and schools and developer contributions. For sewer and water projects, funding would be available through a combination of existing revenue bonds, utility expansion fees and rates,Local Improvement Districts, developer contributions and state/federal grants. Transportation capital facilities are anticipated to be funded via general city funds, grants, Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and developer contributions. Accordingly, it will be imperative that as land develops, the appropriate infrastructure is identified during the review process to ensure it can appropriately accommodate growth. The expansion of Pasco's Urban Growth Area should be done with careful review sensitive to the variety of impacts it may have on the environment and taxpayers. Staff will provide the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval of the Alternative No. 3 Urban Growth Area expansion at the June 18, 2020 meeting. In preparation, staff has included a presentation along with the attached exhibits for Council discussion. Page 6 of 226 Urban Growth Area June 8, 2020Page 7 of 226 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Areas •RCW 36.70A.110 •Each county is required to designate an urban growth area(s) within which urban growth shall be encouraged •Based upon the growth management population projections •Each UGA shall permit urban densities •City utilities shall not be extended/expanded outside of UGA •Growth Management Act (GMA) •RCW 36.70A •Adopted in 1990 •Requires cities to develop comprehensive plans managing population growth Page 8 of 226 Rapid Population Growth ◦Pasco’s population has increased 130% (2000 –2018) ◦WA State Office of Financial Management: Pasco will be home to 121,828 in year 2038 ◦15k additional housing units needed by 2038 Urban Growth Area 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 2000 2010 2018 2028 2038 65% Increase! 73,590 +24k +24k Page 9 of 226 Urban Growth Area Timeline •June 2018 •Resolution 3845 •Proposed Expansion > 4,800 Acres •October –November 2018 •Scoped Environmental Impact Statement Issued •3 Alternative UGAs •Alternative #1: No Action •Alternative #2: Traditional Growth Target •Alternative #3: Compact Growth Target •December 2019 –March 2020 •Land Capacity Analysis •Capital Facilities Plan for the Urban Growth Area •Comprehensive Plan & Draft Environmental Impact Statement •May 2020 •Draft EIS (Comprehensive Plan) IssuedPage 10 of 226 Land Capacity Analysis Urban Growth Area Page 11 of 226 Urban Growth Area Land Capacity Analysis City-Wide: 596 Acres (Vacant) 161 Acres (Underutilized) UGA Only: 269 Acres (Vacant) 94 Acres (Underutilized) *As of October 2018 **Broadmoor Area survey conducted separately Page 12 of 226 Urban Growth Area Alternative #3 •Compact Growth •Approximately 3,500 acres •29% decrease from Alternative #2 •Variety of Residential Densities •Increased Jobs/HH Ratio •Industrial Capacity Page 13 of 226 Urban Growth Area Future_LU Airport Reserve Commercial High Density Residential Industrial Low Density Residential Medium Residential City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area Page 14 of 226 Urban Growth Area Future_LU Airport Reserve Commercial High Density Residential Industrial Low Density Residential Medium Residential City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: 184 Acres (within existing UGA) Port of Pasco: Reimann Industrial Center Page 15 of 226 Urban Growth Area Land Use Alt #2 Alt #3 Low Density Residential 76%52% Mixed/Medium Residential 6%12% High Density Residential 0%3% Commercial 2%11% Airport Reserve <1%<1% Industrial 15%21% Total 4,739 Acres 3,533 AcresPage 16 of 226 Capital Facility Costs ◦Growth Management Act requires funding to be available to meet LOS for 6yr period Urban Growth Area Facility Type Total (Estimated) Costs Streets & Roads $500,000 Sanitary Sewer $72,989,000 Water $40,657,000 Total $114,146,000 •Arterial Street Fund •I-182 Corridor Impact Fund •Developer/Developer Contributions •Unsecured Revenue Bonds •Utility Expansion Fees •2017 Revenue Bond •Federal/State Grants & Loans •Local Improvement Districts •Utility Rates Page 17 of 226 Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) GMA Goal Alt #1 (No Action)Alt #2 (Traditional)Alt #3 (Compact) Concentrated Urban Growth Least amount of future growth in the City; Dispersed (low-density) future growth throughout UGA Focused growth within the UGA; low-density Focused growth within the UGA at higher densities Reduce Sprawl Low density and dispersed development would need to exceed UGA to accommodate growth; increased sprawl Growth within the UGA; low-density suburban pattern will result in sprawl Growth within the UGA and compact planned areas of compatible land- uses would reduce sprawl Page 18 of 226 Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) GMA Goal Alt #1 (No Action)Alt #2 (Traditional)Alt #3 (Compact) Efficient Transportation Retains current transportation system w/limited improvements Transportation improvements necessary to support urban growth Transportation improvements necessary; added multi-modal opportunities;increased connectivity Housing Housing not adequate to meet population demands due to dispersed and low- density development Housing demands met with limited housing types Housing demands met with increased variety and density of housing types Page 19 of 226 Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) GMA Goal Alt #1 (No Action)Alt #2 (Traditional)Alt #3 (Compact) Economic Development Current economic development trend continue; limited to existing commercial/industrial areas Economic opportunities identified; limited to existing commercial/industrial areas Economic opportunities identified, additional commercial, mixed-use and industrial areas can accommodate future growth/employment Retain Open Space & Recreation Maintains existing facilities Maintains existing parks and natural open space; additional park land identified to serve growth Maintains existing parks and natural open space; additional park land identified to serve growth Page 20 of 226 Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) GMA Goal Alt #1 (No Action)Alt #2 (Traditional)Alt #3 (Compact) Protect Environment Current regulations will protect existing environment; low-density development increases sprawl into higher vehicle congestion w/impacts to air quality Current regulations will protect existing environment; low-density development increases sprawl into higher vehicle congestion impacting air quality Current regulations will protect existing environment; Higher density development pattern decreases land consumption; mix of land uses may decrease impact to air quality Public Facilities &Service Public facilities will continue to serve current development patterns Additional public facilities will be required to support urban development Additional public facilities will be required to support urban development; efficient use of facilities due to compact developmentPage 21 of 226 Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) *Complete summaries are described within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement* GMA Goal Alt #1 (No Action)Alt #2 (Traditional)Alt #3 (Compact) Historic Preservation Historical or archaeologically significant sites/structures are protected under the current regulations during construction phase. Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected in the planning phase, and also under the current regulations during construction phase. Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected in the planning phase, and also under the current regulations during construction phase.Page 22 of 226 Urban Growth Area Date Meeting Topic Type February 15, 2018 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Elements; Goals & Policies; Urban Growth Area Workshop April 9, 2018 City Council Comprehensive Plan -Update Workshop April 19, 2018 Planning Commission Urban Growth Area Workshop May 17, 2018 Planning Commission Urban Growth Area Public Hearing June 11, 2018 City Council Comprehensive Plan -Update Workshop June 18, 2018 City Council Urban Growth Area Public Hearing June 21, 2018 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Public Participation Public Hearing July 9, 2018 City Council Comprehensive Plan -Update; Goals & Policies Workshop September 20, 2018 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Goals & Policies Workshop January 28, 2019 City Council Comprehensive Plan -Update Workshop April 22, 2019 City Council Comprehensive Plan -Update Workshop May 16, 2019 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Update Other Business June 20, 2019 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Update Other Business August 15, 2019 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Update; Presentation (Oneza & Ben Floyd)Workshop September 19, 2019 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Update Other Business October 17, 2019 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Update; Elements Other Business November 21, 2019 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Update; Elements Other Business December 19, 2019 Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan -Update; Elements Other Business February 20, 2020 Planning Commission Urban Growth Area Public Hearing March 19, 2020 Planning Commission Urban Growth Area Public Hearing April 16, 2020 Planning Commission Urban Growth Area Public Hearing May 11, 2020 City Council Comprehensive Plan -Update; Draft EIS Workshop May 21, 2020 Planning Commission Urban Growth Area ; Draft EIS (Comp Plan)Public Hearing 21 meetings (Planning Commission & City Council) since February 2018 Page 23 of 226 Urban Growth Area Schedule for Completion Date Item June 15, 2020 End of Public Comment Period for Draft Environmental Impact Statement June 18, 2020 UGA + Comprehensive Plan Update & Presentation @ Pasco Planning Commission June 22, 2020 UGA + Comprehensive Plan Update & Presentation @ Pasco City Council (Resolution) July 16,2020 Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan @ Pasco Planning Commission August 6, 2020 Comprehensive Plan (Special Meeting) @ Pasco Planning Commission (August 20, 2020 if necessary) September 7 & 21, 2020 Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan @ Pasco City Council September 28, 2020 Comprehensive Plan Presentation @ Pasco City Council (Adoption)Page 24 of 226 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Legend Urban Growth Area - Current Urban Growth Area - Alternative #2 Urban Growth Area - Alternative #3 . 0 52.5 Miles Urban Growth Area - Comparison Map Page 25 of 226 Table 1: Summary of Alternatives & Goals of the Growth Management Act Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Urban Growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Least future growth in the City. Dispersed future growth throughout the city and low rise pattern. Focused growth within the UGA. Focused growth within the UGA with higher density. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. Dispersed land development patterns that would exceed the UGA to accommodate growth, added sprawl. Growth within the UGA, but of suburban nature will result in sprawl. Concentrated and compact growth within the UGA, planned areas would reduce sprawl. Transportation: Encourage efficient multi- modal transportation systems based on regional priorities and coordinated with the City Plan. Retains current Transportation plans with limited improvements. Adds new transportation improvements to improve connectivity and street design that supports urban environment. Adds new transportation improvements to improve connectivity and street design that supports urban environment. Adds multi-modal travel options. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. Housing not adequate to meet the 20-year demand. Disbursed and low rise pattern of housing development. Housing meets the 20-year demand with limited housing types. Housing meets the 20-year demand with a variety of housing types and residential densities. Page 26 of 226 Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Economic Development: Encourage economic development consistent with adopted Plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens, especially for the unemployed and the disadvantaged, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacity of the state’s natural resources, public services and public facilities. Current economic development trends continue. Employment to occur in the existing commercial and industrial areas. Economic opportunities are identified in the plan. Some employment will occur in the limited commercial areas. Economic opportunities are identified in the plan. Additional commercial and mixed-use areas will accommodate more employment. Open Space and Recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreation opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. Maintains existing parks and Natural Open Space. Recreation opportunities will be provided based on the Parks and Recreation’s adopted Level of Service. Maintains existing parks and natural open space and adds additional park land to serve future growth. Maintains existing parks and natural open space and adds additional park land to serve future growth. Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the City’s high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. Environmental qualities are protected based on the current regulations and development pattern. A sprawl type growth will involve more land for development, resulting in higher vehicular traffic that could negatively impact the air quality. Environmental qualities are protected based on the current regulations and development pattern. A low density growth pattern will involve more land for development, resulting in higher vehicular traffic that could negatively impact the air quality. Environmental qualities are protected based on the current regulations and development pattern. A higher density development will involve less land, reduce vehicular traffic, and will reduce impact to air quality and ozone. Page 27 of 226 Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Public Facilities and Service. Adequate public facilities to serve the development. Public facilities continue to serve the current development pattern. Additional public facilities will be required in certain areas for urban development. Additional public facilities will be required in certain areas for urban development. Public facilities will be more efficient due to the more densely planned development pattern. Historic Preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected under the current regulations during construction phase. Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected in the planning phase, and also under the current regulations during construction phase. Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected in the planning phase, and also under the current regulations during construction phase. Page 28 of 226 30-05-040/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT 1 CITY OF PASCO URBAN GROWTH AREA EXPANSION CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS May 21, 2020 Prepared By: J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. 2810 W. Clearwater Ave., Ste., 201 Kennewick, WA 99336 In Coordination with the City of Pasco and Oneza & Associates CITY OF PASCO Page 29 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | i INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................3 PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION ...........................................................................................................................5 DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................7 Category 1 - Locally Provided Regulatory Concurrency ............................................................................................. 9 Category 2 - Locally Provided Planning Concurrency ................................................................................................ 9 Category 3 - Provided by others Planning Concurrency ............................................................................................ 9 LEVELS OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................................................................11 CAPITAL FACILITY INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................................13 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Streets .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Level of Service .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Sanitary Sewer Service ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Wastewater Treatment Plant .............................................................................................................................. 17 Collection System ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Potable Water Service ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Source Capacity ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Distribution System ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Surface and Storm Water Management .................................................................................................................. 19 Other Governmental Services ................................................................................................................................. 19 Power ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Natural Gas .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Telecommunications ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Irrigation .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 Fire Protection and Suppression.............................................................................................................................. 21 Law Enforcement ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 Libraries ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Schools ..................................................................................................................................................................... 23 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................24 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Sanitary Sewer Service ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Estimated Sewer Flows ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Sewer Design Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Potable Water Service ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Estimated Water Demands .................................................................................................................................. 31 Water Design Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 31 Supply .................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Pumping Capacity ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Distribution System ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Storage Capacity .................................................................................................................................................. 32 Irrigation .............................................................................................................................................................. 33 Fire Protection & Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 33 Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 33 Libraries ................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Schools ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Taxes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Intergovernmental Revenues .................................................................................................................................. 36 Page 30 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | ii Charges for Services................................................................................................................................................. 37 Bonds ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Grants and Loans ..................................................................................................................................................... 38 CAPITAL FACILITIES FUNDING .....................................................................................................................................41 Projected Capital Facility Cost ................................................................................................................................. 41 Projected Capital Facilities Revenue Sources .......................................................................................................... 42 Capital Improvement Planned Projects ................................................................................................................... 43 Developer Contributions ......................................................................................................................................... 43 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 43 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area and Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2. Existing Lane Configuration, Traffic Control, & Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 14 Figure 3. 2024 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 4. WSDOT Left-Turn Storage Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 28 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. LOS Standards ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 2. Level-of-Service Criteria for Intersections ................................................................................................... 16 Table 3. Summary of Existing PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) and Level of Service ......................................................... 17 Table 4. Estimated WWTP Capacity Limit ................................................................................................................. 18 Table 5. Summary of 6-Year Forecast PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) and Level of Service ............................................ 26 Table 6. Estimated Capital Facilities Costs 2019-2025 .............................................................................................. 41 Page 31 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 3 INTRODUCTION The City of Pasco is currently in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan as required by the Washington State Department of Commerce. The Plan is a revision and update of the 1995 and 2007 plan that was initially created in response to the Growth Management Act (GMA), which was adopted at that time. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to outline the community vision for the future and provide guidance for the development and implementation of specific ordinances and regulations affecting the physical environment of the community. The plan also identifies an anticipated future population and employment growth and how public facilities and services will be provided to accommodate that growth. As a result, under the provisions of the GMA, urban growth is to be principally contained within designated boundaries (Urban Growth Boundaries) surrounding urban centers in all counties planning under the Act. The Urban Growth Boundary defines the location of the city’s urban growth area (UGA). The UGA is where urban development is expected and where growth can be supported by urban services. The UGB is the demarcation line between where the community encourages urban growth and where rural activities are to be preserved. By directing growth to UGA’s, natural resource lands such as commercially significant farms lands can be conserved, and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs. Each UGA, including Pasco’s, is to contain sufficient land area to accommodate expected growth for a 20-year planning horizon. The expected growth is determined by population projections prepared by the State Office of Financial Management which are used by Franklin County and the cities therein to allocate urban and rural growth for each jurisdiction. The UGA defines the area in which the City must plan under GMA. The UGA establishes the boundaries for land use planning, transportation planning, public service planning and utility planning. Under the GMA, cities are identified as the units of government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, urban governmental services are to be confined within the UGA. Only in limited circumstances where it is necessary to protect public health and safety, or the environment can these services extend beyond the UGA. As a result, based on recent population estimates provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), the City of Pasco is projected to increase nearly 50,000 people by the year 2038, with a total population of 121,828. In 2018, the OFM estimated the population for the City is 73,590. In order to accommodate this growth, the City has evaluated their current land vacancy and capacity analysis as well as identified areas for the City to accommodate this growth in population as well as the resulting growth in commercial, industrial, schools, parks and other services needed. Based on this analysis, the City will need to add another 3,400 acres in to the UGA to accommodate the projected growth by 2038. The detailed land capacity analysis is located in the 2019 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the capacity of the City of Pasco to provide the necessary capital facilities to service the expanded UGA, an area of approximately 3,400 acres, shown in Figure 1. Capital facility requirements and service capacities for this area are projected for both the 6-year and 20-year time periods. In addition, capital facility costs are projected for the 6-year time period. For this analysis, it is anticipated that growth will continue to occur in undeveloped areas within the existing City Limits and UGA within the next 6-years as well as expand into portions of the proposed UGA. The proposed 6-year development areas within the proposed UGA that was analyzed for concurrency, as well as the anticipated infill development areas within the existing City Limits. A more detailed analysis of the water and sewer infrastructure was prepared by Murraysmith & Associates and is included in Appendix A for Reference (Technical memorandum of the Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation. Page 32 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 4 The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 requires that cities conduct a Capital Facilities Analysis (CFA), that shows they have the capacity to serve the Urban Growth Area (UGA) within their jurisdiction and that they adopt a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) as part of their comprehensive plans, in order to ensure that utilities, transportation, and other public facilities will be reasonably available to accommodate planned growth over the next twenty years. Capital facilities provide the basic infrastructure of the community and are critical if growth is to be accommodated. This CFP complies with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (3) and WAC 365-195-315) in order to assure that the City of Pasco Urban Growth Area (UGA) can meet the concurrency requirements of RCW 36.70A.020 (12), and WAC 365-195-210. RCW 36.70A.020 (12) of the Growth Management Act includes a goal to: “...ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to service the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards”. WAC 365-196-415(1) and RCW 36.70A.070 (3) requires that CFPs must address at least the following: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, also referred to as "public facilities," showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities based on the land use element; (c) The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element. Page 33 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 5 PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION For the Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Pasco evaluated the future land use designations and completed a land capacity analysis to determine the capacity of the existing UGA and how much area is needed to accommodate the projected growth. The detailed Land Capacity Analysis is included in the Appendix of the 2019 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan. As a result, it was identified that the City has the capacity to accommodate approximately 30,372 people in the vacant and undeveloped portions of the current UGA. A majority of this growth is expected to occur in the Broadmoor Master Planning Area. Another 3,400 acres will be needed to provide the additional land area needed to accommodate 17,866 additional people by the year 2038. Within the proposed UGA Expansion area, the City of Pasco has designated the land use as single and multi-family residential with areas of commercial use. Within the residential land use other public uses such as schools, parks, fire stations, and churches are anticipated to be included. Figure 1 identifies the proposed future land use. In addition, the City is also proposing to transfer a portion of the Industrial designated land located in east Pasco to an area along US-395, north of the existing UGA Boundary. Within the current Industrial designated land, several hundred acres of the property is owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the Pasco Airport. It has been identified that this land is not available for future industrial development at this time and the City has requested that the land use be reclassified to DNR and Airport Reserve. As a result, an additional 609 acres has been identified for future industrial land. However, for the purposes of this study it is not anticipated that development will occur within the proposed industrial area over the next 6-years, therefore this area was not evaluated for concurrency. However, 20 year needs analysis was prepared to identify future improvements necessary to serve the area as full buildout. Page 34 of 226 §¨¦182 £¤395 £¤395 £¤12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Proposed BroadmoorDevelopment Area Richland Kennewick FIGURE1 CITY OF PASCOUGA Capital Facilities AnalysisPROPOSED UGAEXPANSION AREA ¹ Future Functional Class Interstate; Ramps Highway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector 6-Ye ar Growth Area s Infill Development Area Proposed UGA Development Area Pasco City Limitis Existing UGA Proposed Urban Growth Area Page 35 of 226 I-182 E I-182 W W COURT ST US 1 2 WUS 395 SUS 1 2 EUS 395 NW ARGENT RD BURNS RD ROAD 68 E A STW A ST DENT RD N 4TH AVEN RA ILROAD AVE W SYLVESTER ST SANDIFUR PKWY W LEWIS S TROAD 52ROAD 84ROAD 48ROAD 56BURDEN BLVD CLARK RD ROAD 60N 20TH AVEROAD 64ROAD 36N C O M M E R C I A L A V EROAD 96E AINS W O R T H A V EN 14TH AVEE LEWIS ST PASCO KAHLOTUS RDBROADMOOR BLVDROAD 72ROAD 76W CLARK ST N CAPITOL AVEE CRA N E S TN 24TH AVEROAD 88ROAD 68 NROAD 100E DOC K S T W B ST AL D E R S O N R D W HENRY ST GLADE NORTH RDROAD 34N 18TH AVEN 19TH AVEW BONNEVI L L E S TROAD 90W PEARL ST N 22ND AVEN OREGON AVES ROAD 40 EEASY STE LEWIS PLIRIS LNINDUSTR IA L WAYKOHLER RDW ELLA ST N ELM AVEROAD 111HARRIS RDN 1ST AVEDIETRICH RDS OREGON AVE WRIGLEY DR SACAJAWEA PARK RDPIMLICO DR W WERNETT RD SANTA FE LNS 10TH AVELAREDO DR STEARMAN AVECONVENTION DRN OWEN AVEROAD 80MADISON AVEHILLTOP DR S 4TH AVE ARTESIA DR CHAPEL HILL BLVDRICHV IEW DRROBERT WAYNE DRS 5TH AVES ELM AVEPEARL ST ST THO M A S D RSHORELINE RDROAD 62N WEHE AVEN 28TH AVETHREE RIVERS DR ROAD 30DESERT PLATEAU DR FENWAY DR WELSH D R MEADOW VIE W D RYUMA DRE B C IRCN CEDAR AVEE FOSTER WELLS RD ME S S AR A LN N 26TH AVEBYERS RDROAD 54RICHARDSON RD E KARTCHNER ST ROAD 42MIDLAND LNROAD 57VALDEZ LNW AINSW O R T H A V E E B ST W SHOSHONE ST C O L U M B I A R I V E R R D CAPITOL AVEROAD 108QUADRA DR KAU TRAIL RD SIROCCO DRPORTO LNWERNETT RD OVERTON RD W ARGENT PL FOSTER WELLS RDOCHOCO LNROAD 105ROAD 44S 1ST AVEKING AVEROAD 103ROAD 67N VENTURE RDMOLINE LN LINCOLN DR SEVILLE DR ARTHUR LNN RAINIER AVEMAPLE DR SE ROAD 36E SUPERIO R S T IVY LNSAVARY DR E HIGHLAND ST HERITAGE BLVDE JAMES ST S MAITLAND AVESUNS E T L N TRUMAN LNROAD 39SIDON LNN 13TH AVES 28TH AVEW RIVER S T DRADIE ST MADRONA AVE ESTRELLA D RROAD 50COOK LNW PARK ST MUSTANG DR W JAN STROAD 92SE ROAD 18WASHOUGAL LNE HILLSBORO RD HOMERUN RD W NIXON STDES MOINES LNRICKY RDROAD 97NASH DRSANDY RIDGE RDW BELL ST ROAD 37ROAD 104N 5TH AVEW OPAL STGRANT LNMATIA LNSTUTZ DR S 25TH AVEN 16TH AVEN 10TH AVE62ND PLCLEMENTE LNSUNSET T R L ROAD 35LUNA DRBEDFORD STRIO GRANDE LNW IRVING ST S HUGO AVETANK FARM RDLADD RDN TACOMA AVE BALFLOUR DR NAUVOO LN W RUBY ST WHIPPLE AVECHARDONNAY DRVARNEY LNLA SALLE DR N ROA D 6 8 T O I 1 8 2 R A M P W BAYBERRY DR ROAD 45JUNEAU LNBULLDOG LNROAD 40ROAD 94LIVINGSTON RD S GRAY AVEW JAY ST N 23RD AVEADOBE DREASTON DR ROAD 44 NS 20TH AVEPELICAN RD ROAD 46S 23RD AVECRYSTAL DRROAD 61JASMINE LNSKAGIT DR N 7TH AVELEOLA ST AGATE ST TE R M I N A L D RORIOLE LNVALLEY VIEW PLWHETSTONE DRTIPPET LN W CLARA ST FRONTIER DRN 3RD AVEE SHEPPARD STROAD 70N 8TH AVEROAD 36ROAD 80ROAD 46W WERNETT RD ROAD 44ROAD 76ROAD 92S 4TH AVEN 3RD AVEUS 395 NUS 395 SROAD 52N 5TH AVEBURNS RD HARRIS RD . Future Land Use MapLU-1 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395 §¨¦182 Legend Land Use Classifications Airport Reserve Commercial DNR Reserve High Density Residential Industrial Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Mixed Residential / Commercial Mixed Use Interchange Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Regional Office Open Space / Parks Public / Quasi-Public City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 DRAFTPage 36 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 7 DEFINITIONS While the GMA requires jurisdictions to prepare a Capital Facilities Plan it does not specifically define what a Capital Facility is. The GMA defines public facilities as including “streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.” It defines public services as including “fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services.” The GMA also defines “urban governmental service” or “urban service” in WAC 365-196-200 (19) to include: "…those public services and public facilities at intensity historically and typically provided in cities, specifically including storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with rural areas. While the Growth Management Act does not specifically define a Capital Facility, over the years the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) has provided the following guidance: For purposes of conducting the inventory required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a), “public facilities” as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(13) are synonymous with “capital facilities owned by public entities.” West Seattle Defense Fund v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB Case 94-3-0016, FDO April 4, 1995 , as cited in EWGMHB Case 06-1-0009c, FDO March 12, 2007. The board further defined capital facilities as what is required to fulfill the GMA obligation: “The Board holds that a Capital Facilities Element (CFE) must include all facilities that meet the definition of public facilities set forth in RCW 36.70A.030(12). All facilities included in the CFE must have a minimum standard [level of service] (LOS) clearly labeled as such (i.e., not “guidelines” or “criteria”), must include an inventory and needs assessment and include or reference the location and capacity of needed, expanded, or new facilities. (RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a), (b) and (c). In addition, a CFE must explicitly state which of the listed public facilities are determined to be “necessary for development” and each of the facilities so designated must have either a “concurrency mechanism” or an “adequacy mechanism” to trigger appropriate reassessment if service falls below the baseline minimum standard. Transportation standards are the only facilities required to have a concurrency mechanism, although a local government may choose to adopt a concurrency mechanism for other facilities.” Jody L. McVittie v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-0002, FDO, July 25, 2001 , as cited in EWGMHB Case 06-1-0009c, FDO March 12, 2007. And in Wilma et al v. Stevens County, EWGMHB Case 06-1-0009c, FDO March 12, 2007, the Eastern Board included: “streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools…fire protections and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection and other governmental services. (WAC 365-195-200(12) and (13).” The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) was updated in 2010, after the cases above were determined. WAC 365-196-415 provides guidance as to which capital facilities should be included in the inventory. At a minimum, they should include water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, reclaimed water facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection facilities. “Public Facilities” are defined by WAC 365-196-200 (14) to include: Page 37 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 8 “..streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.” “Public Services” are defined by WAC 365-196-200 (15) to include: “...fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services.” In addition, WAC 395-196-210 provides the following definitions: "Concurrency" means that adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This definition includes the concept of "adequate public facilities"...”. "Adequate public facilities" means facilities which have the capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums. "Utilities" or "public utilities" means enterprises or facilities serving the public by means of an integrated system of collection, transmission, distribution, and processing facilities through more or less permanent physical connections between the plant of the serving entity and the premises of the customer. Included are systems for the delivery of natural gas, electricity, telecommunications services, and water, and for the disposal of sewage. The GMA further requires each jurisdiction to define capital facilities and identify which capital facilities and public services are included in their CFP. Additionally, each jurisdiction should clearly identify which capital facilities and public services are necessary to support development. For the purposes of preparing this CFP, a “Capital Facility”, as identified in the City of Pasco Capital Improvement Plan, is an existing City facility/infrastructure or new construction projects that add to the City’s infrastructure assets. The minimum threshold for a Capital Facility project is $50,000 and may span over several years with multiple funding sources. In order to limit capital facilities to major components which can be analyzed at a level of detail which is both manageable and reasonably accurate for this initial CFP, this report does not include capital outlay for such items as equipment, or the city's rolling stock. In addition, capital facilities that are normally provided by a private developer to service individual lots or businesses, such as minor streets and side sewers as a normal part of the subdivision or land development permit process, are not included. Based on this, the City of Pasco has determined that capital facilities must be in place or funding available, within six years to meet this concurrency requirement as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6). Using the above requirements and definitions, the City has identified the following is a list of the types of capital facilities that are required to meet the concurrency requirement: Parks and Recreation Facilities Schools Fire and Emergency Service Facilities Police Service Facilities Library Facilities Irrigation District Facilities. Transportation (Streets & Roads) Transit Sewers Surface and Stormwater Management Domestic Water Other Governmental Services Solid Waste Electrical Page 38 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 9 Some of the above public facilities and services are not controlled by the City. While the City has established goals and policies regarding the siting of these capital facilities, and has established recommended levels of services, it does not have the authority to mandate capital facility improvements or to assure financing. Consequently, these capital facilities cannot be subject to the funding requirements of the City under GMA. The City will coordinate with the purveyors of these facilities and services to assure that adequate facilities are available to accommodate growth. The capital facilities listed above are further divided into three main categories that classify the level of concurrency required. These categories are identified as follows: Category 1 - Locally Provided Regulatory Concurrency A public facility or service, owned and operated by the City of Pasco, that is either in place, or for which there is a financial commitment in place, to provide the service within six (6) years. All Category 1 capital facilities will be subject to City of Pasco GMA concurrency requirements. Based on the wording of WAC 360.196.840(2) the City of Pasco may determine which public facilities and services will be required to “support development” and therefore meet the concurrency requirements of the GMA. Consequently, after reviewing all of the capital facilities that will be required for growth when the expanded urban growth area comes under city control, the City of Pasco has determined that streets and roads, domestic water, and sanitary sewers are Category 1 capital facilities and will be subject to the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act. Streets and roads are included under this category as a result of both the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a) of the Growth Management Act and because of concerns relating to traffic congestion and safety. Sewer and water power are included because of both the requirements and recommendations of WAC 365.196.840(2) and because of their critical relationship to public health and safety, and environmental quality. Category 2 - Locally Provided Planning Concurrency A public facility or service, owned and operated by the City of Pasco for which goals and policies have been adopted, capital facilities planned, and funding needs projected, which is not required to either be in place or have a financial commitment at time of development. The City of Pasco has determined that fire protection, law enforcement, parks and recreation, solid waste, and storm water management are all Category 2 capital facilities. For fire protection this decision is based on the ability of current laws to assure that new growth will meet minimum fire protection standards. For the remaining facilities and services, it is based on the range of acceptability in service levels for these facilities, and the less quantifiable impacts these facilities have directly on public health and safety. Upon the annexation of this urban growth area by the City of Pasco, these capital facilities will be funded as part of the City’s ongoing adopted capital facilities budget. This budget process, upon approval of the Pasco City Council, will then become the funding level for these facilities. Category 3 - Provided by others Planning Concurrency A public facility or service, which is either owned or operated by the state or federal government, or an independent district or utility, and that: 1) is in place or has a financial commitment in place to provide the service within six (6) years; or 2) for which goals and policies have been adopted, capital facilities planned, and funding needs projected, which is not required to be in place or have a financial commitment at the time of development. Page 39 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 10 The City of Pasco has determined that schools (Pasco School Districts), libraries (Mid-Columbia Library), transit (Ben Franklin Transit), natural gas (Cascade Natural Gas and Williams-Northwest Pipeline), communications (Frontier and other local providers) power (Bonneville Power Administration, Franklin PUD) and irrigation (City of Pasco and South Columbia Basin Irrigation District) are all Category 3 capital facilities and are not subject to concurrency requirements. The City will work with these service providers to reach an agreement on ways to ensure that these services are reasonably available when needed to serve projected growth. This decision was based on: 1) The inability of the City of Pasco to allocate the required funding for these facilities; 2) The broader range of acceptability in service levels for some of these facilities as determined through public involvement; and, 3) The less quantifiable impacts some of these facilities have on public health and safety. As identified in Categories 2 and 3 these public facilities and services only require planning concurrency by the City of Pasco. The City of Pasco has established goals and policies regarding the siting of these capital facilities, and has determined whether these capital facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the projected growth. The City is not required to commit financing for the development of these facilities, for Category 2 facilities, only a general financial commitment needs to be in place, and a general commitment is all that is required for a Category 3. Coordination with the purveyors of these facilities and services to assure that adequate facilities are available to accommodate growth is required. Where the City of Pasco does not have the authority to commit financing for the maintenance of Category 2 and 3 public facilities and services, there is not a requirement for concurrency. The purpose of this analysis is to identify whether the City of Pasco has the capacity to provide Category 1 services to the proposed UGA expansion area and to identify if the City has the financial commitment required by the City to provide these services within six (6) years to meet the concurrency requirements. Page 40 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 11 LEVELS OF SERVICE “Level of service” (LOS) means an established minimum capacity for public facilities or services that must be provided per unit of demand or other appropriate measure of need, and is used as a gauge for measuring the quality of service. Levels of service need to be consistent with the growth projections of the Land Use Element of the City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan. Under the concurrency requirements of GMA, if levels of service are set too high, it may result in the community not achieving its growth objectives. On the other hand, if levels of service are set too low, it may adversely impact the quality of life in the community. Even if concurrency is not required, LOS standards are valuable planning and budgetary tools. LOS standards were initially established under the City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan. These standards were reviewed, evaluated, and approved by the Pasco City Council as a balance between economic feasibility and community benefit. For the purposes of this analysis, the City of Pasco Level-of-Service criteria contained in their 2007 Comprehensive Plan were used. This was based on the assumption that Pasco will have the ultimate responsibility for providing the necessary capital facilities for this area. Table 1 defines LOS standards for a broad array of public facilities and services in the City of Pasco. These LOS standards have been adopted as the standards that the City of Pasco will use to evaluate future development approvals and will establish the basis for the future submission of capital budgets for approval within the UGA area. As established above, the levels of service standards, for regulatory concurrency purposes, apply only to Category 1 capital facilities (streets and roads, water, and sewer). Table 1. LOS Standards Facility Adopted LOS Streets and Roads Local Roads Arterials Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections LOS D LOS D LOS D LOS D Domestic Water Demand per ERUa ADD MDD PHD 424 gallons per day 890 gallons per day 1,119 gallons per day MDDb/ADDc Factor PHDd/MDD Factor Service Pressure 2.1 2.64 30 – 80 psi Sewer Residential Unit Flows Commercial Unit Flows 80 gallons/capita/day 80 gallons/capita/day Industrial Unit Flows 1,500 gallons/acre/day Manning Pipe Roughness Coefficient 0.025 Minimum Sewer Velocity 2 feet/second Parks Neighborhood Parks 2.00 acres/1,000 population Community Parks 2.10 acres/1,000 population Page 41 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 12 Facility Adopted LOS Large Urban Parks 2.99 acres/1,000 population Regional Parks 8.93 acres/1,000 population Linear Parks 1.56 acres/1,000 population Special Use Areas 5.80 acres/1,000 population Facilities Youth baseball Fields 1 field/2,900 population Adult Softball Fields 1 field/3,000 population Soccer Fields 1 field/2,000 population Tennis Courts 1 court/1,500 population Trails 0.50 miles/1,000 population Police Patrol District 1 district/18,000 residents Mini-station 1 station/18,000 residents Fire Turnout Time 2 minutes or less, 90% of the time Travel Time – arrival of 1st apparatus 6 minutes or less, 90% of the time Travel Time – arrival of adv. life support 6 minutes or less, 90% of the time Travel Time – arrival of full 1st alarm assignment 12 minutes or less, 90% of the time Page 42 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-16-045/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 13 CAPITAL FACILITY INVENTORY This section discusses existing facilities, owned by public entities, and provides information about the service provider, along with the location and capacity of the existing facilities. Transportation Streets The existing functionally classified roadway network, as formally shown on the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) system, in the vicinity of the proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA) that will provide access to the expanded UGA is described below. It should be noted that the 2008 Pasco Comprehensive Plan identified additional roadways that will form a more complete grid network of roadways as the area north of I-182 matures. These roadways, intersection geometry and traffic control for these major roadways are shown in Figure 2. Interstate 182 (I-182) – is an east-west limited access freeway providing 6 travel lanes with a 70 MPH speed limit. It connects to I-82 west of Pasco, providing connections to the City of Richland over the Columbia River. To the east it connects to US 395 and US 12 with access to the City of Pasco, the Tri-Cities Airport, and further to the east and north the cities of Walla Walla and Spokane. The only access to I-182 between the Columbia River and US 395 that provides continuity to the north towards the majority of the UGA Expansion Area is provided at the Road 68 and Road 100 Interchanges. The Road 68 interchange is a partial clover leaf interchange that includes a collector-distributor system through the interchange to facilitate weaving because of two loop ramps for the northbound to westbound and southbound to eastbound on-ramp movements; these movements merge with the other on-ramps prior to merging with the mainline. These loop ramps eliminate left turns from Road 68 onto the freeway on ramps. Left turns from the off-ramps to Road 68 at signalized intersections are still required. The Road 100 Interchange had the northbound to westbound loop ramp constructed in recent years which has reduced congestion at the interchange. Traffic signals are present at each of the ramp terminals of both interchanges. Road 68 north of I-182 is a minor arterial roadway generally in a north-south direction but angling slightly to the west north of I-182. Road 68 has two through lanes in each direction with channelized left turn lanes and sidewalks from I-182 to just north of Sandifur Parkway. The speed limit is 35 MPH. North of Sandifur Parkway it transitions to a rural 2 lane section with a speed limit of 45 MPH. North of Burns Road it is designated a major collector. South of I-182 to court street Road 68 is a 2 lane principal arterial. Taylor Flats Road is the continuation of Road 68 north of the intersection with Columbia River Road. It is a two-lane rural roadway with a speed limit of 55 MPH and is classified a major collector. Columbia River Road is a minor collector roadway that connects to Road 68 and angles to the northwest. It is a two-lane rural roadway with a speed limit of 50 MPH and is classified a minor collector. Road 100 is also known as Broadmoor Boulevard north of I-182. From south of I-182 to Harris Road just north of the I-182 westbound ramps it is a minor arterial, then a major collector from Harris Road to Burns Road and a minor collector from there to Dent Road. It has two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane from I-182 to north of Sandifur Parkway where it transitions to a three-lane section including a two- way left turn lane from Vicenzo Drive to Burns Road. North of Burns Road it transitions to a two-lane rural roadway. The speed limit is 35 MPH and there is sidewalk on the east side where development has occurred. Page 43 of 226 §¨¦182 £¤395 £¤395 £¤12 ¬«4 WestRichland Richland Kennewick FIGURE2 Lane C onfiguration345 - PM Peak H our Volumes S top Sign Traffic S ignal CITY OF PASCOUGA Capital Facilities AnalysisEXISTING CONDITIONS &TRAFFIC VOLUMES ¹ 3554619938ã 272768àèéíëìã áààãáã510350135552080ãá11513030à!"$ã áàãáà ãáà!"$124336433312ãá 916337èéíëì ãáãáàã 5041447330649 ã520229àèéíëì ãáã ãáàà6022746264249 13534103 ãá12059840àèéíëìãã áàãáàã ãáà461351734728959 63267241ãá 269353146àèéíëì ãáàãáàã ãáàã 9711764914710115 47112342 ãá472972830àèéíëì ãáàãáàà ãáààãã 100801895821211ãá 1488185èéíëì ã áààãáã㬫1 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«4 055202755 20545 ãá502950à!"$ãáà !"$ã áàãáà6986999940350 ãá679145èéíëìã ãáã ãàáଫ5 ¬«6 ¬«7 ¬«8 ¬«9 ¬«10 Future Functional Class Interstate; Ramps Highway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Existing UGA Pasco City Limitis Proposed Urban Growth Area !"$ èéíëì à㧨¦182!!!!!!!!!!¬«1 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«4 ¬«5 ¬«6 ¬«7 ¬«8 ¬«9 ¬«10HARRIS RDN ROAD 68BROADMOOR BLVDROAD 100Chapel Hill Blvd BURNS RD (Prop) SANDIFUR PKWY BURDEN BLVD Page 44 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 15 Burden Boulevard is an east-west collector roadway between Road 68 and Road 44 with a speed limit of 35 MPH. It has 4 lanes with a raised median and left turn lanes at intersections, curb, gutter and sidewalks, streetlights and a separated pathway on the south side. East of Road 60 it transitions to a 3-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane to Road 44. East of Road 44 has recently been added as a minor arterial with one lane each way and curves to connect to Road 36 which is also a minor arterial south to Argent Road. It also extends west of Road 68 as a local roadway approximately one-quarter mile west of Road 68 to provide access to commercial development. Sandifur Parkway is an east-west major collector roadway between Road 100 and Road 68. East of Road 100 it provides 5 lanes of travel including a two-way left-turn lane and has curb, gutter and sidewalks. East of the Broadmoor Mall entrance the roadway transitions to a 3-lane section with one through lane each way with a two-way left-turn lane. The speed limit of 35 MPH. East of Road 68 Sandifur Parkway was recently designated a minor arterialroadway. It has a single lane in each direction and curves to provide a continuation to Road 44and provides significant access to many residential neighborhoods. Road 44 is a north south collector roadway from Argent Road north to Burden Blvd where it becomes a minor arterial roadway that curves and connects to Sandifur Parkway. Harris Road is a 45 MPH 2 lane minor arterial that connects from Broadmoor Blvd west to Shoreline. It is a rural roadway section with roadside ditches and no pedestrian facilities. Shoreline is a 45 MPH 2 lane major collector with a rural roadway section that extends from Harris Road westward and then follows the Columbia River to connect to Dent Road. Dent Road is a 2-lane rural roadway with a 50 MPH speed limit. On the west it connects to Shoreline as a major collector. One mile west of Road 100 Dent Road is designated a minor collector and the alignment turns to the north for 1 mile then turns east-west again for approximately 2 miles where it connects to Columbia River Road. Burns Road is an east-west 2 lane rural roadway section designated as a major collector between Road 100 and Road 68 one-half mile north of Sandifur Parkway. This roadway extends west of Road 100 to connect with Dent Road where Dent Road turns north, but is currently designated a local roadway. Clark Road is a 2 lane rural roadway designated as a minor collector with a 50 MPH speed limit. On the west it connects to Dent Road and on the east it connects to Glade Road. US 395 is a 4 lane north-south limited access divided highway on the National Highway System that is designated as an Expressway north of I-182. It connects the Tri-Cities to rural communities and Spokane further to the north. It has a grade separated interchange at Kartchner Street and at-grade intersections with East Foster Wells Road and Vinyard Drive. The speed limit is 60 MPH from I-182 to north of East Foster Wells Road where it increases to 70 MPH. East Foster Wells Road is a 35 MPH rural east-west 2-lane minor arterial that connects Railroad Road to US 395 and further east of US 395 into the farming areas. Railroad Avenue is 2 lane rural roadway that connects from Hillsboro Road to Vineyard Drive. It is a major collector south of East Foster Wells Road, a minor arterial for one mile north of East Foster Wells Road and then a major collector again north of there. The speed limit is 45 MPH. Page 45 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 16 Glade Road is a 2-lane north-south minor arterial that connects from 4th Avenue north of I-182 into the farming areas to the north. Approximately 1 miles south of Clark Road it is designated a major collector. The speed limit is 45 MPH. Traffic Volumes The City of Pasco recently completed study “Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchange Project” in 2017. Traffic volumes were collected for that study for several intersections, including multiple intersections that are considered important to provide access to the proposed Urban Growth Area on both Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68. Traffic volumes from that study that represented then-existing conditions for several intersections are used as a baseline for this study. Those volumes as well as estimated PM Peak Hour traffic volumes for the northernmost intersections on the two primary corridors of interest are shown in Figure 2 along with intersection geometry and traffic control. Level of Service The analysis of Level-of-Service (LOS) is a means of quantitatively describing the quality of operational conditions of a roadway segment or intersection, and the perception by motorists and passengers. Service levels are identified by letter designation, A to F, with LOS “A” representing the best operating conditions and LOS “F” the worst. Each LOS represents a range of operating conditions, and one or more measures of effectiveness (MOE) are used to quantify the LOS of a roadway element. For intersections, the MOE used is average control delay (seconds) per vehicle. While there are several methodologies for estimating the LOS of intersections, the most commonly used is that presented in the Highway Capacity Manual and is the methodology used in this study (HCM 2017). The Highway Capacity Manual LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Level-of-Service Criteria for Intersections Level of Service (LOS) Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections A < =10 < =10 B >10 - < 20 >10 - < 15 C >20 - < 35 >15 - < 25 D >35 - < 55 >25 - < 35 E >55 - < 80 >35 - < 50 F >80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2017. The signalized method is based on the capacity available to service the various movements at a signalized intersection, based on the amount of green time provided for each movement. The impacts of any conflicting movements, etc. For unsignalized intersections delay is based on the availability of gaps in the major street to allow minor street movements to occur. Delay results in driver frustration and anxiety, loss of time, unnecessary fuel consumption, and contributes to unnecessary air pollution. The Benton Franklin Council of Governments and the City of Pasco have adopted regional standards for intersection service standards at LOS “D”. These proposed criteria will be the basis for determining appropriate mitigation actions for future traffic volumes. Page 46 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 17 Peak hour traffic volumes and intersection geometry from Figure 2 were used to determine the delay and Level of Service at the intersections. The results of the capacity analysis and intersection delay for existing conditions are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of Existing PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) and Level of Service Intersection PM Peak Hour Overall Worst Intersection Approach Road 100/I-182 EB Ramps 13.6/B NB—15.0/B Road 100/I-182 WB Ramps 9.9/A WB--26.9/C Road 100/Sandifur Parkway 10.3/B WB—12.8/B Road 100/Burns Road * WB—18.2/C Road 68/I-182 EB Ramps 11.8/B EB—15.7/B Road 68/I-182 WB Ramps 4.2/A WB--5.4/A Road 68/Burden Boulevard 44.6/D EB—104.6/F Road 68/Wrigley Drive 16.8/B WB—28.8/C Road 68/Sandifur Parkway 14.5/B EB—15.4/B Road 68/Burns Road * WB—23.4/C LEGEND 13.6/B Delay and Level of Service using existing lane configurations * Uncontrolled Movements (major street through) not provided for overall intersection Analysis for Two-way Stop Controlled Intersections NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound, EB = eastbound As shown in Table 3, all intersections on the two primary corridors that will provide primary access to the proposed Urban Growth Area currently function with acceptable Levels of Service. Only Road 68/Burden Blvd operates with LOS “D”, all others operate at LOS “A” or “B”. Sanitary Sewer Service Currently, there is no sanitary sewer service in the UGA Expansion Area. Sanitary sewer service in this area will be provided by the City of Pasco. The City of Pasco updated its Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2014, with amendments to the Northwest Service Area in 2017. The Sewer Plan discusses the total capacity, utilized capacity, and remaining capacity of both the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the sanitary sewer collection system. The following is a summary of the WWTP capacity and the sanitary sewer collection system based upon this planning document. The City recently updated Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan (WWFP) in 2019. This plan evaluates the WWTP through a 20-year horizon and takes into consideration the projected growth identified in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update. The WWFP also provides a Capital Improvement Plan to accommodate the projected demands associated with the expected increase in population for the City of Pasco and its UGA. Wastewater Treatment Plant The City of Pasco operates a wastewater collection and treatment system to manage the domestic wastewater needs of the community. This system operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Page 47 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 18 Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit issued by Ecology. Currently, the system is served by one activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which oxidizes, nitrifies and disinfects wastewater flow prior to discharging to the Lake Wallula reach of the Columbia River. The plant currently experiences flows of approximately 6 million gallons per day (MDG). The City’s existing WWTP has a capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewer flow as identified in Table 4. Table 4. Estimated WWTP Capacity Limit Parameter Annual Average Average Flow 6.0 mgd BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) 14,960 lbs/day 276 mg/L TSS (Total Suspended Solids) 15,775 lbs/day 291 mg/L The City owns, maintains and operates a separate industrial wastewater treatment plant (PWRF – Process Water Reuse Facility) that collects, stores and then land applies food processor wastewater to farm circles north of the City as irrigation. The PWRF is an industrial facility that receives the discharge of process water from six food processors in the region. The PWRF is a public/private partnership. The PWRF and associated farm circle properties are located in an area of irrigated agriculture production fields on approximately 1,800 acres north of Pasco and east of Highway 395 in Franklin County. The PWRF is a separate entity from the City’s municipal wastewater collection and treatment system and therefore is not included in this evaluation. Collection System The City’s wastewater collection system contains over 240 miles of sewer pipeline ranging from 8-inch to 36-inch in diameter. The system also includes approximately 4,430 manholes and 10 lift stations. For the most part, the gravity pipelines convey wastewater from the residential and commercial areas and route it to interceptors and large sewer trunks, which drain to the WWTP. Due to the varied topography in the City, several localized and regional lift stations are required to convey sewage to the WWTP. The City’s two (2) primary lift stations (Maitland and 9th and Washington) are located just outside the WWTP and convey sewage directly to the WWTP. The Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main, has recently been constructed, which will provide sewer service for portions of the existing and proposed UGA. Figure 6 in Appendix A depicts the existing sanitary sewer collection system in the vicinity of the UGA Study Area. Potable Water Service The UGA Study Area is outside of the current water service area of the City of Pasco water system. The City of Pasco completed the update of their Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP) in 2019, which has been reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Health (WDOH). The planning periods outlined in the CWSP are 2022, 2027, and 2036. The CWSP identifies the existing system, expected City growth and projected demands for each planning horizon, as well as, the performance criteria that dictate whether new infrastructure is required. Source Capacity The CWSP indicates that the City currently holds surface water rights for 13,269.25 acre-feet of annual withdrawal and 20,149 gpm (29 mgd) of instantaneous withdrawal. The source for these rights is the Columbia River which are to be used for domestic potable purposes. As defined in the CWSP, the City is currently in compliance with water right quantities by borrowing the surplus from the Quad Cities water Page 48 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 19 right, at a current consumption of 14,424 acre-feet by volume and 18,456 gpm instantaneous. The City also holds individual groundwater rights sourced by various wells for separate irrigation purposes. Water rights held by the City are anticipated to increase in the future pending the following: Reassignment of water rights that the City currently holds. The outcome of applications for new water rights made to Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 2011 and 2015. Additional water rights available through subsequent distributions of water available under the regional Quad City Water Right (QCWR) permit. Additional water rights the City may acquire in the future, these include: o Lake Roosevelt Incremental Storage Releases Project o 508-14 Water Rights Program The City’s water treatment and storage system includes two surface water treatment plants and three water reservoirs. The following is a list of key system water facilities. Butterfield Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 26.8 million gallons per day West Pasco Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day (with the ability to expand to 18.0 mgd) Riverview Heights reservoir: 10 million gallons Rd 68 reservoir: 2.5 million gallons Broadmoor Boulevard reservoir: 1 million gallons Distribution System The City’s water system inventory consisted of approximately 330 miles of piping ranging from 2-inch to 36-inch in diameter, 6 booster stations, 3 reservoirs, 2 water treatment plants, and 20 pressure reducing valve (PRV) stations. Service is presently provided to customers at a minimum elevation of 340 feet to a maximum elevation of 525 feet. The water system is divided into 3 large pressure zones to serve the range in service area elevations within the Study Area. Currently, there are limited transmission mains within the Study Area. Figure 4 in Appendix A depicts the existing water distribution system near the UGA Surface and Storm Water Management Currently, there are no storm water systems within the UGA Study Area. All stormwater runoff generated on the site will need to be retained on-site as required by the City. Each proposed development must safely collect, route and retain stormwater on their site. Stormwater management for the proposed access roads will need to be included in the design and construction of the roadways. Other Governmental Services Power Franklin County Public Utility District (Franklin PUD) provides the majority of the electrical service to the City of Pasco. The Big Bend Electrical Cooperative also provides service to a small portion of northwestern Pasco and the UGA in the vicinity of Broadmoor Boulevard. The Franklin PUD purchases power from the Page 49 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 20 regional power grid (Bonneville Power Administration) and then distributes through substations and distribution lines to the end users. The Franklin PUD and Big Bend Electrical Cooperative operate electrical transmission and distribution systems and facilities within public right-of-way and easements all in accordance with state law. Electrical power needs in the Pasco UGA area are generally served by 10 miles of 115kV transmission lines, 7 substations and 45 electric feeder lines. Each feeder supplies the needs of a number of defined geographic areas within the community, often referred to as sub-regions. The feeders are the basic planning component within the Franklin PUD system. Each feeder supplies the needs of approximately 850 houses. Natural Gas Cascade Natural Gas corporation provides gas service to the Pasco UGA. Cascade obtains its gas from the Williams interstate line through two reduction and gate stations within the Pasco UGA. The original gate station is located at the northwest corner of Court Street and Road 76. To serve the needs of an expanding community a seconded gate station was constructed in 1995 east of the Soccer complex and south of Burden Boulevard. From these two stations natural gas is conveyed through the Pasco UGA in a distribution system of smaller lines and regulators. Cascade supplies natural gas to 4,600 residential and 1,022 commercial customers in Pasco. Some of the less densely developed areas of West Pasco do not have gas service. Natural gas consumption is directly related to both local and regional land use development. As local and regional development increases the demand for natural gas also increases. Based on current trends and projected population growth Cascade Natural Gas projects the system can be expanded to meet community growth needs. Future extensions of the natural gas distribution system will occur on an as- needed basis as development warrants. Telecommunications Telecommunications include conventional telephone, cellular phone, and cable television. Interstate and international telecommunication activities are regulated by the federal communications Commission (FCC), an independent Federal Government agency. Changes in technology are having a major impact on telecommunications. Much of these technologies are merging with much less distinction between data, video, and voice technologies. Some of these utilities are regulated by the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission to meet a specific level of service to their service areas. Conventional Telephone: Telephone service to Pasco is provided by Qwest Communications International, Inc (Qwest). Qwest facilities within the Pasco UGA include a switching station, trunk lines and distribution lines. The switching station is located in a building at the corner of 5th Avenue and West Lewis Street. Four main feeder cable routes extended out from the switching station. Connected to these main feeders routes are branch feeder lines. The branch feeders connect with thousands of local loops that provide dial tone to every subscriber. These facilities may be aerial, or buried, copper or fiber optic. Local loops can be used for voice or data transmission. While Qwest is involved with its own planning efforts much of the system necessary to accommodate future growth will be constructed on an as needed basis. Cellular Telephone: Page 50 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 21 Cellular telephone service is provided by broadcasting and receiving radio signals to and from cellular facilities and cellular phone handsets. Cellular telephone service is licensed by the FCC for operation in Metropolitan Services Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs). The FCC grants several licenses within each service area. Current licensed cellular service providers for the Pasco area include Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, T-Mobile, Qwest and Nextel. A number of cellular base stations and antennas are located within the Pasco UGA. These base stations connect cellular phones to the regional network. Cellular antennas must be placed at a height that allows them to broadcast throughout their local area. In Pasco the antennas are located on the Housing Authority high rise apartment, on the city water tanks, on the Sacajawea Apartments building, on school, college and County property and on freestanding communication towers. Expansion of cellular facilities is demand driven. Raising the density of transmission/reception equipment to accommodate additional subscribers follows, rather than proceeds, increase in local system load. Cellular companies therefore maintain a short response time and a tight planning horizon. Internet Providers: There are over a dozen internet service providers in the Pasco area. These internet companies provide a variety of data networking options for business and personal use. These services include standard dial up service, DSL, broadband, business voice services, web hosting, secure data centers, inter-office networks and high capacity data transport. Irrigation Irrigation within the City of Pasco is currently provided by The Franklin County Irrigation District and the City of Pasco. The Franklin County Irrigation District No.1 (FCID) provides irrigation water to almost 7 square miles of land within the existing Pasco UGA. Most of the properties within the FCID are located west of Highway 395 and south of the FCID canal. Some properties located between Highway 395 and 22nd Avenue also receive irrigation water from the FCID. The City owns and operates a non-potable water utility that provides irrigation water to residential customers and a limited number of commercial customers in the northwest part of the City. The irrigation system serves approximately 6,890 residential accounts and 39 commercial and public facility accounts. Providing a system for irrigation water separate from the drinking water utility allows the City’s customers to avoid using treated drinking water to irrigate. The proposed UGA will also be located with the service area of the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District (SCID). The SCBID operates and maintains many of the facilities used to deliver irrigation water to landowners within Franklin County, and have the statutory authority to make decisions on development, water delivery, payment for and distribution of new water supplies as available. Fire Protection and Suppression Pasco Fire Department (PFD) provides fire suppression, advanced life support emergency medical services and ambulance transport services, technical rescue services, and hazardous materials services (through a regional partnership) to its service area community. The Pasco Fire department, through a contract with the Port of Pasco, also provides Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting services to the Pasco airport. The City of Pasco has four fully staffed fire stations—Stations 81, 82, 83 and 84. Station 81 is located on Oregon Avenue. Station 82 is located at the Tri- Cities Airport, Station 83 is on Road 68 north of Argent Road and Station 84 is located at the intersection of Road 48 and West Octave Street. These stations are manned Page 51 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 22 staffed by full-time emergency medical personnel, and firefighters. The closest stations that serves the proposed UGA expansion within the city limits of Pasco, are Station 82 and 83. The City cooperates with the Franklin County Fire Protection District No. 3 which is a Combination Career/volunteer-supported fire protection service. The District has one fire station in the Riverview area providing service to the unincorporated islands within west Pasco. The Fire District also maintains a fire station near the corner of Clark Road and Road 36. This Station can respond to emergencies inside the UGA. The UGA is served by a total of six fire stations—four within the city limits and two in the County. However, the Tri-Cities community relies heavily on an extensive Automatic Aid agreement. The agreement defines the “full effective response” for Residential fires as 16 to 18 firefighters and Commercial fire responses as 24-26 firefighters. In most cases none of the agencies can supply that force with their own on duty staff. The determining factor in adding additional fire stations will be the ability of the fire department to meet council established travel times. Developing areas outside the 6-minute travel time will impact the ability to provide service throughout the City. Multiple simultaneous events within the same stations service area drives the need to add additional staffing at existing stations or add additional stations as well as impacting travel times as units from stations further away must cover the 2nd or 3rd incident. Law Enforcement Law enforcement services for the City are provided by the City Police Department, located at 215 W Sylvester St, Pasco, WA. Unincorporated areas of the UGA are served by the County Sheriff. The City and County law enforcement agencies cooperate readily when the need arises. Pasco currently has 1.03 patrol officers per 1,000 people (2020 Comprehensive Plan). The Pasco Police Department provides service to the community through two divisions. The Field Operations Division responds to citizen complaints, handles traffic enforcement, accident investigations, reporting and is primarily responsible for maintaining public order. The Support Operations Division includes the investigative services detectives, street crimes unit, Task Force detectives, Area and School Resource Officers and the Records Division. The primary function of Support Operations consists of investigating serious criminal offenses, internal affairs investigations, record management and department wide training. The City is divided into four patrol districts with a mini-station located in each district. Police mini-stations are in Chiawana Park, Kurtzman Park, Central Business District and Alderwood Square. The new police department community services building completed construction in early 2017 as is located on Sylvester Street directly east of Pasco City Hall. Libraries Pasco has two libraries, located at 1320 West Hopkins Street and 7525 Wrigley Drive and operated as branches of the Mid-Columbia Library District. The Mid-Columbia Library District has 12 branch libraries and serves nearly 241,000 people within Benton and Franklin and Adams Counties. It is governed by a seven-member Board of Trustees appointed by the Benton and Franklin County Commissioners. Parks and Recreation The City of Pasco owns and maintains 34 Parks / Facility Type recreation areas. There are a variety of different types of parks: Neighborhood Parks (105 acres), Community Parks (70.77 acres), Large Urban Page 52 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 23 parks (127.00 acres), Regional Parks (284 acres), Linear Parks (25 acres) and Special Use Areas (277.68 acres). Neighborhood parks include playgrounds and parks designed primarily for non-supervised, non- organized recreation activities. Neighborhood parks are generally small (3-7acres) and serve a radius of approximately one-half mile. Community parks are typically designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are encouraged. Community parks can also provide indoor facilities to meet a wider range of recreation needs. Community parks can double as a neighborhood park, although they serve a much larger area. The service area of a community park is about a one-mile radius. Large urban parks, like Chiawana Park, are designed to serve the entire community. They are similar to a community park but much larger. They provide a wide variety of specialized facilities such as large picnic areas, water related activities, indoor recreation facilities and sports fields. They require more support facilities such as parking, restrooms and play areas. Large urban parks usually exceed 50 acres in size. Regional parks are large recreational areas that serve the entire city or region. These parks can be very large and often include one specific use or feature. Sacajawea State Park is the only regional park in Pasco. Columbia Park in Kennewick, Howard Amon Park in Richland, and Hood Park in Walla Walla County are examples of other regional parks in the Tri-City region. These parks offer riverfront and boating facilities as well as passive recreation opportunities and are within a short travel time for Pasco residents. Linear Parks are land areas that generally follow a drainage corridor, ravine or some other elongated feature such as a power line or railroad right-of-way. This type of park often contains various levels of a trail system and sometimes includes greenbelts. Special use areas include miscellaneous sites that do not fit into any other category of park designation. These areas include specialized single purpose fields, sports complexes and land occupied by major recreation structures (Pasco 2020 Comp. Plan – Chapter 9). Schools The Pasco School District currently owns and operates 22 schools; 1 K-12 online school, 15 elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 4 high schools (Pasco School District #1, 2018-2019 District Overview). The combination of these 22 schools, as of October 1, 2017, enrolled 18,082 students. This far exceeds the permanent capacity to serve 13,340 students in their schools. There are 226 portable classrooms throughout the District providing additional capacity to house 4,132 students(Pasco School District 2016 CFP Update). Two new elementary schools, providing additional capacity for 1,240 elementary students, will be constructed by 2023. In addition, a new middle school #4 and an expansion of Stevens Middle School in 2023 will increase capacity by 795. The district is currently Building a new elementary and middle school near the urban growth area expansion area . The district currently owns nine unimproved parcels, totaling approximately 146 acres. Two sites are being used for the new elementary and middle school from the 2017 bond, bringing the District’s total available unimproved property to 82 acres. The District plans to acquire additional property for future schools (Pasco School District 2016 CFP Update). The closest high school is Chiawana. Page 53 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-16-045/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 24 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS This section of the UGA Capital Facilities Analysis presents capital improvement projects required by the City of Pasco, to meet and maintain the level of service standards discussed earlier, based on the land use projections outlined. As identified earlier, the purpose of this analysis is to identify whether the City of Pasco has the capacity to provide Category 1 services to the proposed UGA expansion area and to identify the financial commitment required by the City to provide these services within six (6) years. As a result, the Category 2 are identified, but concurrency is not required. Category 3 services provided by other agencies were not analyzed. Because the Pasco UGA Expansion Area is under private ownership, a substantial portion of the capital facilities required for growth will be provided by the private sector through the City’s standard permitting process. This includes local access streets, internal sewer, water and utility distribution systems and connections. Future developer(s) will also be required to provide contributions toward the construction of public facilities on a “fair share” basis. Transportation Six-Year With UGA Expansion The proposed UGA Expansion Area consists of approximately 3,400 acres, primarily to the north and west of the Tri-Cities Airport. 726 of these acres are proposed for industrial purposes along the west side of the US 395 corridor. This industrial area is not anticipated to be needed in the next 6-years and thus no evaluation has been performed in that portion of the City. As discussed above, the Road 68 and Road 100 corridors are anticipated to provide primary access to the proposed Urban Growth Area. In order to evaluate 6-year traffic conditions with the proposed expansion a review of available data and information was performed. It was determined that the study entitled “City of Pasco Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges” (Feasibility Study), completed in 2017 provided the best information for forecasting traffic 6-year trafficvolumes. As a tool in preparing the Regional Transportation Plan, the Benton Franklin Council of Governments (BFCOG) maintains a set of regional computerized transportation models. The model is developed using current traffic data and land uses in the region using Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are defined with various attributes describing the number and type of households and employees as well as other land uses within each zone. The model is calibrated for existing conditions using Federal Highway Administration procedures and methods. Once calibrated, changes in assumptions for future land uses and roadway networks can be made to determine the potential impacts of developments and/or roadway scenarios. Land use assumptions representing future conditions are developed to determine various impacts on the roadway network at a regional level. The Feasibility Study relied on the year 2030 model created by the BFCOG. The project team worked with the City, BFCOG and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to develop a methodology to update the model’s design year from 2030 to 2040. One of the major assumptions incorporated into the year 2040 model was an increase in population to 126,000, which is slightly higher than the projected population being used for the year 2038 in the current City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update prepared in 2018. The model also assumed that in order to accommodate this significant increase in population (more than 40% higher than the population in the 2030 model), that it was reasonable to assume that growth would occur outside the existing UGA. It was determined through the course of that study that only approximately 102,000 people could be accommodated within the existing UGA and more than 20,000 people would need to be in an expanded UGA. Page 54 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 25 These assumptions fit the purposes of this current UGA capital facilities analysis quite well. To prepare a 6-year forecast, the 2040 forecasted volumes prepared for the Feasibility Study were reviewed and the growth between existing volumes and year 2040 volumes was interpolated. The resulting traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. It is worth mentioning that although a straight-line interpolation between the 2015 and 2040 traffic volumes was used, it is reasonable to expect that much of the growth within the next six years will occur within the existing city limits and within other areas currently inside the UGA such as the county islands south of I-182. As such, the forecasted traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 are considered to be conservatively high. Using the 6-year traffic volumes shown in Figure 3, capacity analysis was performed using the existing intersection geometry to determine any mitigation that would need to be implemented in order to provide acceptable Levels of Service in the two primary study corridors in the short-range analysis. For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that Harris Road west of Road 100 would be realigned to connect to Road 100 opposite the existing Sandifur Parkway intersection. This improvement will help both intersections function better, as well as provide improved operation at the I-182 westbound ramps because of increased storage for the two southbound through lanes. In traffic operations analysis, and in fact in on-the-ground implementation, there can be many goals: sometimes it is most important to maximize through-put of a particular roadway, sometimes it is desirable to minimize total delay at an intersection, other times it may be important to distribute delay evenly around an intersection. At unsignalized intersections there is less opportunity to achieve these various goals since traffic laws govern who has the right-of-way at an intersection and minor street traffic must wait for gaps in traffic on the major street. At signalized intersections, timing of the traffic signal can dictate which movements have priority and how much green time each lane group is allotted during the signal cycle, within the constraints of the lane configurations available. Coordination of traffic signals through a corridor can also facilitate the reduction of delay at intersections, allowing for platooning of vehicles departing one intersection to arrive at the next signalized intersection while the traffic signal is green. For the purposes of this study the goal was to provide overall intersection delay that meets Level of Service standards of “D”, with no approach to a signalized intersection falling below LOS “E”. It is important to note that in order to achieve these purposes some increased delay may be experienced for the major street through movements in order to provide additional green time for side street movements or for left turns. The results of the analysis are included in Appendix B and shown in Table 5. Page 55 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 26 Table 5. Summary of 6-Year Forecast PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) and Level of Service Intersection PM Peak Hour Overall Worst Intersection Approach Road 100/I-182 EB Ramps 41.1/D NB—44.4/D Road 100/I-182 WB Ramps 9.5/A WB38.2/D Road 100/Sandifur Parkway 30.6/C EB—37.0/D Road 100/Burns Road * WB—37.7/E *(1) WB—34.8/D Road 68/I-182 EB Ramps 18.2/B NB—23.0/C Road 68/I-182 WB Ramps 8.5/A SB—9.0/A Road 68/Burden Boulevard 51.5/D WB—65.1/E Road 68/Wrigley Drive 14.4/B EB—29.8/C Road 68/Sandifur Parkway 20.4/C SB—23.9/C Road 68/Burns Road * WB—27.6/D *(2) WB—27.0/D LEGEND 13.6/B Delay and Level of Service using existing lane configurations * Uncontrolled Movements (major street through) not provided for overall intersection Analysis for Two-way Stop Controlled Intersections NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound, EB = eastbound Notes: (1) Assumes an exclusive NB right turn lane. (2) Assumes exclusive NB and SB exclusive left turn lanes. As shown in Table 5, with minor improvements at existing unsignalized intersections, and with signal timing modifications at signalized intersection, all intersections on the two primary corridors can provide acceptable Levels of Service for the forecasted volumes. At the unsignalized intersection of Road 100/Burns Road poor LOS for the westbound approach can be improved by providing a northbound right turn lane. This will aid westbound vehicles to recognize gaps in the north-south flow of traffic enough to improve the LOS to an acceptable level. At the unsignalized intersection of Road 68/Burns Road it is recommended that exclusive northbound and southbound left turn lanes be provided. Although the delay/LOS do not reflect unacceptable levels the 45 MPH speed of the facility creates an unsafe situation for turning vehicles. The WSDOT Design Manual provides guidance for left turn lanes through Exhibit 1310-7a shown below for the Road 68/Burns Road 6-year traffic volumes (Figure 4). The cost of each of these improvements is in the range of $200,000 to $300,000. Page 56 of 226 §¨¦182 £¤395 £¤395 £¤12 WestRichland Richland Kennewick FIGURE3 Lane C onfiguration345 - PM Peak H our Volumes S top Sign Traffic S ignal CITY OF PASCOUGA Capital Facilities Analysis6-YEAR PM PEAK HOURTRAFFIC VOLUMES ¹ 85706005064580ã 230760730àèéíëìã áààãáãáã à7085245 áãà15358522055 530130 ãá16016560à!"$ã áàãáà ãáà!"$315355920580ãá 1405450èéíëì ãáãáàã 63529511550750 ã705225àèéíëì ãáã ãáàà90351107577060 14030105 ãá15075550àèéíëìãã áàãáàã ãáà501451907545090 70295265ãá 345455190àèéíëì ãáàãáàã ãáàã 11519074525905185 90210320 ãá4401250990àèéíëì ãáàãáàà ãáààãã 120002857701290ãá 1745250èéíëì ã áààãáã㬫1 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«4 52015253205 3510105 ãá803705à!"$ãáà !"$ã áàãáà78079512450470 ãá750290èéíëìã ãáã ãàáଫ5 ¬«6 ¬«7 ¬«8 ¬«9 ¬«10 Future Functional Class Interstate; Ramps Highway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Existing UGA Pasco City Limitis Proposed Urban Growth Area !"$ èéíëì à㧨¦182!!!!!!!!!!¬«1 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«4 ¬«5 ¬«6 ¬«7 ¬«8 ¬«9 ¬«10HARRIS RDN ROAD 68BROADMOOR BLVDROAD 100Chapel Hill Blvd BURNS RD (Prop) SANDIFUR PKWY BURDEN BLVD Page 57 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 28 Figure 4. WSDOT Left-Turn Storage Guidelines 80 Left Turns, 805 Total vehicles, 7.75% left turns Page 58 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 29 2038 With UGA Expansion For the 20-year traffic analysis general roadway capacity was examined to determine what potential large capacity capital projects might be anticipated. It is inherent in this analysis that intersection improvements will need to occur over time, but specific improvements for the 20-year period at the intersection level are difficult to determine for such a long-range forecast with so many variables. It is clear that the intersections of Road 100/Burns Road and Road 68/Burns Road will need to be signalized. More detailed evaluation will be required in the future, when specific site proposals are presented, to better understand future traffic patterns and impacts of proposed developments on the existing roadway network. However, it is anticipated that Road 100 and Road 68 will need to be widened from I-182 north to Sandifur Parkway to 6 lanes, and north of Sandifur Parkway will need to be at least 4 lanes with turn lanes at intersections. A roadway network to serve current undeveloped areas will also need to be built to serve that development and will be constructed by development that will occur in the expanded UGA. The Feasibility Study referenced earlier was the beginning of the process that the City of Pasco has initiated with both the WSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration to identify appropriate improvements in the I-182 corridor as well. It is clear that for the 20-year horizon that additional studies will need to be pursued and that agreements made regarding appropriate improvements. Sanitary Sewer Service Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of Pasco. The following section describe the projected flows and necessary expansion of the sanitary sewer system to serve the UGA Study Area for both the 6- year and the 20-year planning periods. It should be noted that as a result of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation in 2019. The purpose of this analysis is to provide additional modeling of the sewer system to identify what additional improvements are needed to accommodate the future growth.. The results of this evaluation are summarized below and included in Appendix A. Estimated Sewer Flows For the purposes of this analysis, the study area was divided into sewer basins based on contour information which would provide gravity flow service. The population of each basin was divided up based on the land use and respective densities. As a result, the seven basins within the Study Area are projected to serve a residential population of approximately 41,648 people. The expanded industrial area will only include municipal flows representative of typical employee lunch/restroom facilities, which aligns with what was included in the 2014 CSP model. The resulting total average dry weather flow is 2,450 gpm, with a peak wet weather flow of 7,675 gpm. Sewer Design Standards The sewer design standards used as part of the evaluation were consistent with the City’s level of service and design criteria defined within the 2014 CSP. These design standards have been adopted as the standards that the City will use to evaluate and approve future development proposals within the Study Area. A summary of the Sewer Design Standards is identified in Appendix A, Table 8. Capacity Analysis The expanded UGA infrastructure analysis evaluated the infrastructure capacity required to serve the project 20-year (2038) flows from the study area. The results were compared with the 2014 CSP to identify where additional capital facilities or potential upsizing may be required to account for the additional growth. Page 59 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 30 For this analysis it was assumed that the entire Study Area will flow to the new Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main and be conveyed to the Pasco WWTP through a new trunkline parallel to the existing West Pasco Trunk. The sewer system was evaluated to meet future 20-year (2038) loading conditions by analyzing the capacity of the infrastructure recommended from previous analyses based on the defined design standards. The following is a summary of the required improvements to convey flow from the Study Area through the existing service area to the WWTP. Treatment Capacity The City finalized the WWFP for the WWTP with a 20-year horizon. A population growth rate of 3 percent per year was selected by the City for planning purposes for the WWFP, which results in a 2035 population of 126,137, which is 4,309 more than the anticipated 2038 population projections as noted earlier. This WWFP includes recommended modifications to the City’s WWTP for the next 20 years that are found to be cost-effective solutions to both the City’s near and long-term needs. The preferred improvements defined in the WWTP Capital Improvement Program have been prioritized and spread out over the next 20 years. No change in the WWTP CIP outlined in the WWFP is required to accommodate the flows from the projected population growth for the Study Area. Lift Station Capacity Three new lift stations have been identified within the Study Area based on topography. Additional localized lift stations may be required based on timing and location of development. A new parallel lift station to the 9th & Washington Lift Station is also assumed and sized to convey flows from the new parallel trunkline to the WWTP for the Study Area 2038 peak flows. The proposed lift stations and their required peak pumping capacity are presented in Table 9 and depicted on Figure 6 of Appendix A. New force mains to convey the lift station flows are also identified. Outside of the Study Area, the 2014 CSP identified that two additional lift stations are required to provide sewer service to the Riverview Area, the Road 84 & Roberts Drive Lift Station and Road 52 & Pearl Street Lift Station. These two projects are identified in the City’s current CIP and it has been identified that the future land use for this area will remain relatively unchanged. As a result, no update is included as part of this infrastructure evaluation and these two lift stations were not evaluated further. Collection System The natural ground topography of the UGA Study Area creates one singular sanitary sewer service area to the southwest. A strategy for providing gravity sanitary sewer service to this UGA Study Area was included in the 2017 Northwest Service Area Evaluation. The trunk sewers identified in this system was updated based on the proposed Major Street Plan identified earlier. The trunk sewers were added to the collection system model developed during the 2014 CSP update and evaluated. The anticipated flows were allocated, and pipe sizing was determined as depicted on Figure 6 of Appendix A, to meet the design criteria requirements. The trunk sewer diameters were sized to convey 2038 flow projections for the basins identified in the Study Area. The evaluations completed after the 2014 CSP identified future capacity limitations in the existing West Pasco Trunk sewer pipeline alignment, which is the logical route for discharge from the Study Area. The capacity deficiencies along this line are expected to increase with increased population and service area. As a result, the existing West Pasco Trunk sewer pipeline is anticipated to have limited or no capacity to serve the Study Area. In order to provide additional capacity, a new trunk sewer pipeline parallel to and with similar slopes of the West Pasco Trunk sewer pipeline will be needed. This new trunk sewer pipeline will range from 30-42 inches in size. Page 60 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 31 The infrastructure evaluation also identified that an alternative conveyance route and lift stations could be evaluated as specific development plans and projects are proposed and designed. Additionally, it is recommended that the City complete an update to its CSP to provide a comprehensive review of the sewer collection system capacity to assess further alternatives to serve growth areas within the City’s existing limits as well as the proposed UGA. Potable Water Service Potable water service will be provided by the City of Pasco. The City completed the update of their Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP) in early 2019. . The planning period for this CWSP is 2022, 2027, and 2036, and identifies the existing system, the expected growth, the projected demands in each planning horizon. The CWSP projected a 2036 population of 112,200 which is 9,628 people less than the anticipated 2038 population projection of 121,828 people as noted earlier. As a result, the CWSP includes a majority of the future demands and new water infrastructure required to serve the identified 2038 population projections. There are some further recommendations from the 2019 Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation based on the additional 9,628 people in the 2038 population projections as well as the UGA expansion. The following sections is a summary of the proposed water demands and necessary expansion of the potable water system to serve City for the 20-year planning period. Estimated Water Demands The analysis of the Study Area began with the identification of individual pressure zone demands. The water system pressure zone boundaries were created and updated from the 2019 CWSP based on available contour data. The population within the Study Area was then divided up into pressure zones based on land use and respective densities. Water supply projections were created based on the existing supply per capita per year factor as stated in the CWSP. As a result, the Study Area is estimated to have a total average day demand (ADD) of 5,148 gpm and maximum day demand (MDD) of 10,861 gpm. An additional 3.1 million gallons per day (2,152 gpm) demand is allocated to the north central location of the City’s current industrial area in Zone 3 for an anticipated future industrial demand. Water Design Standards For the purposes of this analysis, the City’s level of service and design criteria defined within the 2019 CWSP were used. These design standards have been adopted as the standards that the City will use to evaluate and approve future development proposals within the Study Area. Capacity Analysis The 2019 Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation reviewed the capacity of the existing water system to meet the updated 20-year (2018) demands to determine what improvements are needed to serve the Study Area. The proposed projects were compared with the projects identified in the CWSP to determine potential overlap. For the purpose of the 2019 analysis, the existing hydraulic mmodel from the SWSP was used to evaluate existing infrastructure. Demand was only updated in the Study Area. The capacity analysis evaluated the future demand conditions of the supply, storage, and pumping system components. The following is a summary of the evaluation required to assess the capacity of each component of the water system. Page 61 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 32 Supply Currently, there are two WTPs in the City’s water system; Butterfield WTP (26.8 mgd) and West Pasco WTP (6.0 mgd), for a total existing supply of 32.8 mgd. The existing sources combined total capacity is not adequate to serve 2038 projected MDD demands of 45.8 mgd, and results in a total deficiency of 13.0 mgd. The current CWSP has identified two planned West Pasco WTP projects that will expand reliable capacity from 6.0 mgd to 18.0 mgd bringing the total system reliable capacity to 44.8 mgd, which is still deficient by just under 1.0 mgd to meet the 2038 demands. As a result, the City will need to increase source capacity in the future. The City is planning to complete a Water Treatment Facility Plan (WFP) for the Butterfield WTP, which was also recommended in the 2019 CWSP. The WFP will evaluate the overall plant and determine necessary improvements to increase the reliable capacity of the plant to meet 2038 demands. Pumping Capacity The existing pump capacity was evaluated. As a result, the analysis identified that there is adequate pumping capacity within the system to serve future demands in the Study Area. The East Side Pump Station shows a negative surplus, but with surplus capacity in Zone 3, the PRV stations at Foster Wells/Capital, Hillsboro, and Road 36 can provide the additional required supply under a condition with the large pump offline at the East Side Booster Pump Station. No addition pumping capacity is needed to serve the Study Area. Distribution System The 2019 CWSP identified major transmission piping to serve the Study Area. The alignment of that piping was modified to match the proposed Major Street Plan for the Comprehensive Plan update. Additional transmission pipes were also added to the Study Area as required to provide a “backbone” pipe network. The proposed transmission piping to serve the Study Area was added to the current hydraulic model, along with the proposed facility improvements identified in the supply, storage, and pumping capacity evaluations. Demands based on the 2038 population projections were allocated to the proposed transmission piping. The updated hydraulic model was used to determine the size for the transmission pipe to provide adequate service pressures, velocities and fire flows. As a result, three new pipe projects are required in addition to the projects previously identified in the CWSP. Storage Capacity The CWSP storage analysis evaluation was updated to include the additional population served in the Study Area. The total storage deficiency increased by 0.7 million gallons (MG) from the CWSP. The CWSP identified that two new storage reservoirs are needed to meet future demands, one located in the East Pasco Industrial Area, which will serve Zone 2 with a capacity of 5.75 MG and one located within the Study Area, which will serve Zone 3 with a capacity of 3.5 MG. As a result of the analysis, it was confirmed that two storage tanks are still required, but the storage capacity in Zone 3 will need to increase to 5.75 MG to meet the new future storage requirements and the storage in Zone 2 can decrease to 4 MG, based on the assumed demand condition that future large industrial development occurs in Zone 3. Additionally, constructing a large reservoir in Zone 3 provides the City more flexibility if large industrial demands also occur in Zone 2, with the ability to provide excess storage from Zone 3 to Zone 2 through the PRV stations at Foster Wells/Capital, Hillsboro, and Road 36. Page 62 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 33 Irrigation The City is currently in the process of studying how irrigation service will be provided to the proposed UGA Area. Fire Protection & Law Enforcement As development occurs within the City and portions of the UGA are annexed, the need for Police and Fire services will also need to be expanded. The increased service demands and costs will be offset by added revenues associated with development. Development into the far northwest portions of the UGA will also bring with it a need for additional fire stations and Police Mini-Stations along with new police patrol districts and mini-stations. The 2016 Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan, proposes a reconfiguration of stations and an extended service area. This will be completed by the end of 2021. Property for an additional station has been purchased at 3624 Road 100. Additional station locations need to be determined in the Northwest area of the City and in the industrial area off the Kartchner interchange. Parks and Recreation To meet the population growth, the City of Pasco has planned Parks and Facilities, totaling 112 acres. Within the city limits the following parks will be built: street sports complex, RD 48 Fire Station park, Chapel Hill Boulevard, and RD 84/Pasco School District. The UGA will need have multiple parks, totaling 37-40 acres of land (Pasco 2020 Comp. Plan – Chapter 9). The Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan is scheduled to be updated in 2021 to address current and future parks and recreational need. The adopted standards (level of service) do not take into consideration the benefit school playgrounds provide in fulfilling park and open space needs. Depending on where various types of parks are located there could be an overlap in use that is also not reflected in the standards. A community park could also fulfill neighborhood park needs for residential subdivision adjacent to community parks. Likewise, a large urban park may double as a community park limiting the need for acquiring additional park lands. When the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan is updated in 2021 additional refinement of the standards should be considered. As well as incorporate the Proposed UGA area. Libraries The library system is managed by the Mid-Columbia libraries, as development continues to occur the City should coordinate with the library system to assure that future growth of the library is planned and provided. Schools Based on a total projected future enrollment in the Pasco School District of 21,170 students in grades K- 12, the District must add permanent and temporary capacity at the elementary and secondary levels to serve the growth (Pasco School District 2016 CFP Update). The District expects the new capacity projects, including two new elementary schools, a new middle school, expansion and replacement of Stevens Middle School, safety and health improvements at various schools, and improvements to the District’s transportation and maintenance facilities, will be completed no later than the 2023-2024 school year. The City should continue to work with the School District as development occurs in the UGA to assure the locations of the future school sites are planned for. Page 63 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 34 FUNDING SOURCES This section discusses many of the existing and potential revenue sources, debt capacity and options for using debt financing by the City of Pasco to fund needed capital improvements related to growth. The City of Pasco uses several different financing sources to pay for capital projects. Typically, large capital projects are financed through long-term bonded debt and grants and loans. For the purposes of this CFP, it is assumed that the cost of capital improvements will be funded by a variety of funding sources which range from the City of Pasco, late comer agreements and grants and loans. The following discusses the various revenue sources available to the City of Pasco. Not all of these sources are currently being used by the City to fund capital improvements. Those that are being currently used are identified. Taxes Property Taxes RCW 84.52 authorizes this tax on the assessed valuation of real and personal property, subject to two limitations: Initiative 747 limits growth of regular property taxes to 1% of the highest amount levied in the previous year, before adjustments for new construction and annexations; and, The State Constitution limits the total regular property taxes to 1% of assessed valuation or $10.00 per $1,000 of value (if the taxes of all districts exceed this amount, each is proportionately reduced until the total is at or below the 1% limit). Voters may approve excess property tax levies over the constitutional and statutory limits for a number of years to pay off general obligation bonds for construction, or a single year levy (two years for school districts) for general operating purposes. The constitution requires 40% voter turnout in the previous general election and a 60% favorable majority vote (RCW 41 and 84). RCW 85.55 allows cities that are levying property taxes at a rate lower than the statutory maximum, to lift the levy lid by more than 1%. A simple majority vote is required. The purpose for which the money will be used does not need to be specified. Cities that are levying at their statutory maximum rate can raise their rate for one year. This is called an Operations and Maintenance Levy and also requires 40% voter turnout in the previous general election and a 60% favorable majority vote. The purpose for which the money will be used does not need to be specified. Retail Sales and Use Tax There is levied a total of 8.6% on all retail sales, except for off-premise food and drugs. The allocation of the 8.6% is as follows: State - 6.5% County - 1.5% City - 0.60% The City does not need to designate how their portion of the sales taxes will be spent. Real Estate Excise Taxes The state authorizes a tax of 1.28% on the sale of all real estate. RCW 82.46 authorizes cities, planning under the GMA, to assess an additional tax on real estate sales of .25%. These funds must be spent on capital projects listed in the capital facilities plan. A second .25% may also be levied to help defray the costs of development and rehabilitation. The City levies both .25% taxes for use in funding capital projects. Page 64 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 35 Lodging Excise Taxes RCW 67.28 authorizes a 2% tax on all charges for lodging furnished for a continuous period of less than one month. This tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% State sales tax assessed on the lodging charges for the promotion of tourism, acquisition and or operation of tourism related facilities (i.e. specific stadium, convention, performance or visual arts facilities). An additional 2% tax can be levied for a total rate of 4%. The additional 2% levy does not reduce the sales tax rate. Leasehold Excise Tax RCW 82.29A authorizes a 12.84% tax on the permanent occupancy of publicly-owned premises for private use for 30 days or more. The tax is a substitute for regular property taxes to compensate for services provided. The tax is sent to the Department of Revenue which keeps 6.84%, with 2% of the remaining 6% going to the County and 4% going to the City. The purpose for which the money will be used does not need to be specified. Commercial Parking Tax The Transportation Improvement Act authorizes a tax on commercial parking based on either gross proceeds, the number of parking stalls or on the number of users. Revenues must be spent for general transportation purposes, including highways, public transportation, high capacity transportation, transportation planning, etc. Currently, the City of Pasco does not impose a Commercial Parking Tax. Business and Occupation Tax RCW 35.11 authorizes cities to collect this tax on gross or net income of businesses, not to exceed a rate of 0.2 percent. Revenue may be used for capital facility acquisition, construction, maintenance, and operations. Voter approval is required to initiate the tax or increase the tax rate. Gambling Tax RCW 9.46 provides for a tax on gambling revenues. Currently the City collects 5% of the gross revenue less the amount paid for prizes for bingo and raffles, 10% of gross receipts for punch boards and pull-tabs, and 10% of gross receipts on all card games. Funding is primarily used for gambling enforcement. Admission Tax All cities may levy an admission tax in an amount no greater than five percent of the admission charge, as is authorized by RCW 35.21.280. This tax can be levied on admission charges (including season tickets) to places such as theaters, dance halls, circuses, clubs that have cover charges, observation towers, stadiums, and any other activity where an admission charge is made to enter the facility. The statute provides exceptions for admission to elementary or secondary school activities and any public facility of a city or county public facility district for which the district has levied an admission tax under RCW 35.57.100 or 36.100.210. A city may, however, impose its own tax on admission to activities at a public facility district, in addition to the tax the district levies, if the revenue is used for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or enhancement of that public facility or to develop, support, operate, or enhance programs in that public facility.139 The admission tax must be collected, administered, and audited by the city. Some cities exempt certain events sponsored by nonprofits from the tax. This is not a requirement, however. At this time the City’s admission tax is 2.5 percent which applies to all for profit admission fees within the City. Page 65 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 36 Local Option Sales Tax Local government may collect a tax on retail sales of up to 1.1 percent, of which .1 percent can be used only for criminal justice purposes. Imposition of this tax requires voter approval. Intergovernmental Revenues Liquor Revenues and Liquor Excise Taxes: The City receives distributions from the state for liquor related taxes through Liquor Excise Taxes and Liquor Board Profits. 2% of all liquor revenues received must be used for an approved alcohol and drug addiction program under RCW 71.24.555. Initiative 1183 passed November 2011 privatized the distribution and retail sale of liquor effective June 1, 2012. Liquor Excise Taxes: In 2012, the state legislature diverted all liquor excise tax revenue to the state general fund for FY2013. For FY2014, $10 million was permanently diverted to the state general fund, the majority of which comes from the City portion. For the 2013-2015 budget, the state legislature increased the share of liquor taxes collected and remitted under RCW 82.08 that is deposited into the state general fund effectively decreasing the local share to 17.5%. The increased share for the state general fund will end on June 30, 2015, however, the permanent diversion of $10 million per year will not. Liquor Board Profits: The markups on liquor have been replaced as a state revenue source by license fees that are paid to the state by retailers and distributors. A portion of these fees goes to cities, counties and border cities and counties. They are apportioned in a manner that provides that each category of recipients received in the aggregate, no less than it received from the liquor revolving fund during comparable periods prior to December 8,2011. An additional distribution of $10 million per year from the spirits license fees must be provided to border areas, counties, cities and towns for the purpose of enhancing public safety programs. The result is a 0.3% of the total amount distributed to border cities and counties. Of the remaining 97%, 80% goes to cities and 20% to counties. The City must use 20.23% of its distribution for public safety programs. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax The State of Washington provides a state-collected gasoline tax that is shared with cities (RCW 82.36). The base tax in Washington State is 37.5 cents per gallon. Of this amount, the City receives 10.6961% of 23 cents and 8.3333% of 3 cents. These funds are placed in the city street fund and can be used for general anew construction, repair or reconstruction of streets identified in the City’s six-year street improvement program and approved by the state. Cities are required to spend 0.42% of gas tax receipts on paths and trails unless the amount is less than $500. Local Option Fuel Tax The Transportation Improvement Act authorizes the County, with voter approval, to levy a local option tax equivalent to 10% of the statewide Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and a special fuel tax of 2.3 cents per gallon. Revenues are distributed to the County and cities on a weighted per capita basis, i.e. 1.5 County/1.0 City. City of Pasco does not have a local option fuel tax at this time. These revenues must be spent for highway purposes, including construction, maintenance and operation. Page 66 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 37 Licenses and Permits The City collects fees for a number of licenses and permits, including Business Licenses, Building Permits and permit fees for zoning plan review and inspections. Utility Taxes and Franchise Fees RCW35A.82 authorizes the collection of taxes on the operating revenues of private and public utilities within the City. The City levies taxes on electric, gas, telephone, cable, water, sewer, storm water and garbage utilities operating within the City. The current rate is 8.5 percent. Charges for Services Park User Fees and Program Fees The City charges fees for using park facilities, or for participating in recreational programs. Sewer User Fees The state authorizes sewer charges to wastewater generators. Fees may be based on the amount of potable water consumed based on the assumption that there is a correlation between water consumption and wastewater generation or a flat (base) rate only. Commercial customers pay base and consumption rate. Revenue may be used for capital facilities, operations and maintenance. Water User Fees State authorized rate charged to each residential and commercial customer, based on the volume of water used. Revenue may be used for capital facilities, operations and maintenance. Road Impact Fees ESHB 2929 authorizes impact fees to pay for roads required to serve new development. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies and cannot be used for operating expenses. Road impact fees must also be directly related to the impacts created by the development and must be utilized within 5 years or returned. Fire Protection and Emergency Services Impact Fees ESHB 2929 authorizes impact fees to pay for fire protection and emergency service facilities required due to new development. These fees are usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Fire and emergency services fees are usually based on a flat rate for dwelling units by type and per square foot for non-residential uses. Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for fire and Emergency Services costs that are paid by other sources of revenue. Additional credit can also be given to developers that contribute land, improvements or other assets. These impact fees are in addition to any mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA, local improvement districts, etc. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies, and cannot be used for operating expenses. Fire and emergency services impact fees must also be directly related to the impacts created by the development and must be utilized within 5 years or returned. Currently, City of Pasco does not impose fire protection and emergency services impact fees. Park and Recreation Impact Fees ESHB 2929 authorizes impact fees to pay for park and recreation facilities required due to new development. These fees are usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for park and recreation costs that are paid by other sources of revenue. Additional credit can also be given to developers that contribute Page 67 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 38 land, improvements or other assets. These impact fees are in addition to any mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA, local improvement districts, etc. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies, and cannot be used for operating expenses. Bonds General Obligation/Councilmanic Bonds There are two types of General Obligation Bonds: Voter approved and Councilmanic. Voter approved bonds are backed by the value of the property within the jurisdiction. They increase the property value rate, with increased tax revenues dedicated to paying the principal and interest on the bonds. Councilmanic Bonds are authorized without voter approval and paid from general tax sources without an increase in tax revenue. The amount of local government debt allowable in the form of general obligation bonds is limited to 7.5 percent of the taxable value of property in the jurisdiction. This is divided so that a jurisdiction cannot use all of its bonding capacity for one type of improvement. The total general obligation bonding capability is divided as follows: 2.5 percent general purpose use; 2.5 percent for utility bonds, and; 2.5 percent open space and park facilities. If the jurisdiction has an approved general purpose bond with unused capacity, as much as 1.5 percent of the 2.5 percent may be used as council manic bonds. Special Assessment District Bonds Special assessment districts, such as Local Improvement Districts (LID), Road Improvement Districts (RID) and Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID), may be formed by the city to finance capital facilities required by other entities (property owners, developers, etc.). These capital facilities are funded through the issuance of special assessment bonds, paid for by the entities benefited. Use of special assessment bonds is restricted to the purpose for which the special assessment district is created. Grants and Loans Community Development Block Grants Department of Community Development grants of up 100% may be available through the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for public facilities projects, economic development, housing, etc. which benefit low and moderate income households. Community Economic Revitalization Board Grants Department of Trade and Economic Development revenue are available for low interest loans and grants to finance sewer, water, access roads, etc. to facilitate private sector industrial development that supports the trading of goods or services outside of the State, and either creates or maintains jobs. Public Works Trust Fund Loans Department of Community Development low interest loan funds are available for capital facilities, emergency planning, and capital improvement planning. Applicants must have a capital facilities plan, must be levying the 1/4% real estate excise tax, and must be in compliance with UGA requirements. Capital improvement planning projects are limited to planning for streets and utilities. Federal Bridge Replacement Program Grants (80% Federal/20% Local) issued by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) State Aid Division, are available for replacement of structurally deficient of functionally obsolete bridges. The bridge must be on the Washington State Inventory of Bridges. Page 68 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 39 National Highway System Grants WSDOT State Aid Division revenue is available for construction and improvement of the National Highway System. The project must be on the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) list and must be a component of the National Highway System (NHS), including all highways classified as principal arterials. These funds are available on an 86.5% Federal/13.5% Local match, based on the highest ranking projects from the Regional TIP list. Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grants State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grants are available for roadway and sidewalk projects caused by economic development or growth, development activities, and partially funded locally. Grants are funded 80% State/20% Local. Urban Arterial Program (UAP) - best suited for roadway projects that improve safety and mobility. Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) – Best suited for sidewalk projects that improve safety and connectivity. Arterial Preservation Program (APP) – provides funding for overlay of federally classified arterial streets in cities with a assessed valuation less than $2 billion. Transportation Partnership Program (TPP) Transportation Improvement Board grants are available for projects to relieve and prevent traffic congestion. Preference is given to projects that are structurally deficient, congested by traffic, and has geometric deficiencies or accident incidents. Grants are funded 80% State 20% Local. Surface Transportation Program WSDOT State Aid Division block grant revenue is available for road construction and maintenance, transit capital projects, bridge projects, transportation planning, research and development, participation in wetland mitigation and wetland banking. Funds are distributed generally at 80% federal/20% local based on the highest ranking projects from Regional Transportation Improvement Program list. State Parks and Recreation Commission Grants State Parks and Recreation Commission grants are available for the acquisition of land and capital improvement projects for parks and recreation purposes. Funds come from both State and Federal sources and are granted on a 50% State and 50% Local basis. Department of Health Grants & Loans State grants & loans for technical assistance and updating existing water systems, are available for ensuring effective management, and achieving maximum conservation of safe drinking water. Matching requirements for grant vary depending on the program and loan rates for loan programs. Centennial Clean Water Fund Department of Ecology grants for the design, acquisition, construction, and improvement of Water Pollution Control facilities (WPC), and related activities, are available to meet state and federal WPC requirements and protect and improve water quality. Department of Ecology administers low interest loans and loan guarantees. Applicants must show water quality need, have a facility plan, have the ability to repay, and conform to other State and Federal WPC requirements. Page 69 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 40 Department of Ecology Grants State of Washington supplies grants for a variety of programs related to solid waste, including Remedial Action Grants to assist with local hazardous waste sites, Moderate Risk/Hazardous Waste Implementation Grants to manage local hazardous waste, and Food and Yard Waste Composting Grants. Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program In the 2009 Legislative Session Senate Bill 2SSB 5045 Chapter 270 was adopted creating the Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program. The program helps local governments finance public improvement projects that encourage private development within a revitalization area. The LRF program authorizes cities and counties to create “revitalization areas” and allows certain increases in local sales and use tax revenues and local property tax revenues generated from within the revitalization area, additional funds from other local public sources, and a state contribution to be used for payment of bonds issued for financing local public improvements within the revitalization area. The state contribution is provided through a new local sales and use tax that is credited against the state sales and use tax (sometimes referred to as the “LRF tax”). This tax does not increase the combined sales and use tax rates paid by consumers. The Department of Revenue administers the LRF program. The state provides money to the local government sponsoring the LRF area through a local sales and use tax under RCW 82.14.510 (commonly referred to as the “LRF tax”). This local sales and use tax is credited against the state sales and use tax, so it does not increase the sales and use tax rate for the consumer. Instead, the LRF tax shifts revenue from the state general fund to the sponsoring local government. The maximum amount allowed statewide for state contributions to LRF is $4.75 million per state fiscal year. Of this amount, $2.25 million is allocated for the seven demonstration projects, and $2.5 million is allocated for the other projects approved on a first-come basis. The maximum amount of state contribution for each demonstration project is specified in the bill and ranges from $200,000 to $500,000 per project. The maximum state contribution for each project approved on a first-come basis is $500,000. Page 70 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 41 CAPITAL FACILITIES FUNDING The Growth Management Act requires that funding for capital facilities be reasonably available to meet the projected growth at the adopted level of service for at least a 6-year period. This section discusses the funding for those public facilities for which additional capital improvements will be required over the next 6 years and 20 years. Funding for capital facilities, projected growth rates and desired LOS need to be in balance. This balancing effort has been achieved for the UGA with the assistance of City staff and technical consultants. Projected Capital Facility Cost Table 6 below summarizes the total public capital facilities costs to serve the UGA Expansion Area for the period 2018 to 2024. These costs are based on the information provided in the previous Section, Facility Requirements, and were calculated based on 2019 construction costs. A portion of these costs may be shared between the City and Future developers. Potential funding sources have been included for reference. Additional projects required to meet the 20 year buildout of the UGA are identified in the 2019 City of Pasco Comprehensive plan. Table 6. Estimated Capital Facilities Costs 2019-2025 Street and Roads Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) Road 100/Burns Road -northbound right turn lane - Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $250,000 Road 68/Burns Road - northbound and southbound left turn lanes - Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $250,000 TOTAL STREETS AND ROADS $500,000 Sanitary Sewer Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements - Phase 1 2020-2022 Unsecured Revenue Bond Utility Expansion Fees 2017 Revenue Bond $25,805,000 Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements - Phase 2 2023-2025 Unsecured Local Grant/Loan Unsecured Revenue Bond $15,367,000 Regional/Broadmoor Area Lift Station - LID $3,500,000 Gravity Sewer Main – Extension of Harris Rd Sewer* - LID $9,169,000 Gravity Sewer Main- Regional Lift Station Basin* - Utility Rate $18,620,000 Kohler RD Lift Station* - LID $528,000 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $72,989,000 Domestic Water Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) West Pasco WTP Improvements 2020-2022 Utility Rate $4,620,000 Reservoir Storage Tank - Zone 3 2020-2023 Unsecured Revenue Bond $11,700,000 Page 71 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 42 Utility Rate Utility Expansion Fees Zone 3 Tank Transmission Main* - Utility Rate $776,000 Water Main Extension - WTP to Zone 3* - Utility Rate $5,206,000 Backbone Transmission Main* - Utility Rate $18,355,000 TOTAL DOMESTIC WATER $40,657,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 114,146,000 Source: City of Pasco All costs are in current dollars, are rounded to the nearest hundred, and include all applicable fees and contingency costs. Current costs are used under the assumption that both construction costs and projected income would rise at similar rates because of the difficulty of projecting costs and income into the future. The above costs identify do not include costs for capital facilities normally provided by developers as part of their projects or by non-City utilities such as telephone and cable. Also, not included are costs for projects that may be partially funded by developers in order to meet concurrency requirements and to mitigate projected impacts (on-site infrastructure) as required during the subdivision process. For City provided utilities, only those capital facilities that are in excess of normal line expansion covered by the City’s normal utility hook-up fees are included. Projected Capital Facilities Revenue Sources Revenues to fund transportation capital facilities are anticipated to come from a variety of sources ranging from general funds, LID’s, grants, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (both Restricted and Unrestricted), and developer contributions to fund capital improvements. Revenues to fund capital improvements of sewers and water facilities will come from LID’s, consumer utility rates, developer contributions and state and federal loans and grants. It is also anticipated that a substantial portion of the cost will be borne by developers because the Study Area is mainly under private ownership. Additionally, the City’s annual water and sewer Upsize-Development Programs are in place to enable the City to extend and improve infrastructure when opportunities exist to coordinate with private development and/or other City projects. The City currently collects impact fees to help offset the cost of new growth and mitigate its impacts to the community. The City charges impact fees, mitigation fees, latecomer’s fees, and other development- related charges and costs, which often, as a function of State law, are recouped over many years after commercial or residential development starts its operation. The following is a list of impact fees the city currently collects to help offset the cost of needed improvements. Transportation Impact Fees: A. Residential Developments $709 B. Multi-Family Units $435 C. Commercial $43.00 per daily vehicle trip School Impact Fees A. Single Family Residence $4,700 B. Multi-Family Residence $4,525 Park Impact Fees A. Single Family Dwelling $1,300 B. Multi-Family Dwelling $1,300 C. All Other Dwelling Units $1,300 Page 72 of 226 City of Pasco UGA Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis 30-18-036/CityofPascoCFP(05-21-20)_DRAFT P a g e | 43 Capital Improvement Planned Projects Based on the City’s current 2020-2026 Capital Improvement Plan the following projects identified in Table 6 above are identified for funding: Street and Roads Funding sources for the identified right turn lanes at Road 68/Burns and Road 100/Burns have not been identified at this time, however it is likely that these would be partially paid by developer contributions. Sanitary Sewer Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements - Phase 1 – this project is identified to be partially funded by Unsecured Revenue Bond, Utility Expansion Fees, & 2017 Revenue Bond. This project is currently planned to be constructed in the years 2020-2022. Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements - Phase 2 – this project is not funded at this time but has identified that potential funding sources is Unsecured Local Grant/Loan, & Unsecured Revenue Bond. This project is currently planned to be constructed in the years 2023- 2025. Domestic Water West Pasco WTP Improvements - this project is identified to be fully funded by Water Utility Rates and is planned to be designed and constructed in the years 2020-2022. Reservoir Storage Tank - Zone 3 - this project is identified to be partially funded by Unsecured Revenue Bond, Utility Rate, & Utility Expansion Fees and is planned to be designed and constructed in the years 2020-2023. Developer Contributions Recent State Supreme Court decisions and State law have limited developer contributions to those which directly relate to the impact that a specific development will have on a capital facility. The City must show a direct relationship, or “nexus”, between a specific project and the mitigation measure being imposed. The exception to this is where a development will result in a lack of concurrency in the Level of Service for a Category 1 Capital Facilities. It is anticipated that as the City continues to grow to the north, all new development will be required to pay for all City infrastructure in direct proportion to the impact of the project on the City Facility. As a result, all cost associated to upsize or increase capacity of the infrastructure to serve the other development areas will be paid by the City or other funding sources. Summary Based on the discussion above, it is anticipated that the funding needed for the proposed infrastructure project to serve the UGA Expansion Area over the next 6 years will be provided by a range of funding sources including developer contributions, water and sewer utility fees, bonds. In addition, other revenue sources will also be available to help the City pay for these facilities including the tax revenues, mitigation fees, LID’s, and grants. As a result, to meet the growth projected for the UGA Expansion Area over the next 6 years, it is recommended that the city evaluate the new proposed project for future addition to 6- year CIP. In addition, coordination with future developers to make sure infrastructure for each development is master planned to accommodate for future growth. Page 73 of 226 APPENDIX A: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation Page 74 of 226 APPENDIX B: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update Expanded UGA Transportation Evaluation Page 75 of 226 18-2348 Page 1 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Technical Memorandum Date: November 18, 2019 Project: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update To: Oneza and Associates From: Murraysmith Re: Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation Introduction Oneza and Associates (OA) requested assistance in the development of water and sewer infrastructure requirements to serve the proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary expansion in the northwest and north central areas for the City of Pasco (City). The City was interested in evaluating the capacity of the existing water and sewer infrastructure to serve the 2038 population projections for this new area as well as assess the additional required infrastructure. The purpose of this analysis is to identify planning level infrastructure upgrades required to provide service to the proposed Study Area based on meeting level of service and design criteria defined within the current Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP) and Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP). This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes the evaluation to assess future water and sewer infrastructure needs to accommodate the proposed future growth and provide planning level cost estimates for recommended improvements. Background The City’s current CWSP was finalized in January 2019 and the current CSP was finalized in May 2014. Through the development of both of these plans the population has grown rapidly, with projected population growth continually changing. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) in 2018 estimated the City’s population at 73,590 and based on historic data and OFM estimates, a population of 121,828 is expected to be reached by 2038, an increase of 48,238 persons over the current population. Planning work completed by OA indicate that the area within the City and the existing UGA, which includes the Riverview Area, has capacity to accommodate another 30,372 persons in the vacant and under-utilized land. OA completed a Land Capacity Analysis that determined the City needs to expand the UGA by approximately 3,400 acres to provide additional land area and do some land use re-classification within the existing UGA to accommodate 17,866 more people to allow for the expected total population increase of 48,238. Page 76 of 226 18-2348 Page 2 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates For this evaluation, the area of analysis, herein referred to as the Study Area, includes the northern and western portions of the existing UGA west of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Burns Road and the expanded UGA. The existing and expanded UGA as well as the Study Area are shown on Figure 1. Land use information was developed as part of the Land Capacity Analysis being completed by OA. This information was utilized in this utility analysis to allocate the 41,648 people throughout the Study Area. These allocations were then used to determine the infrastructure required to provide water and sewer service to the Study Area to serve the projected 2038 population. See Figure 2 for different land use densities. Page 77 of 226 C O L U M B I A R . YA K I M A R . S N A K E R . DENT RD E A ST CLARK RD N 4TH AVEW COURT ST W A ST N RAI L ROAD AVEROAD 68W SYLVESTER ST SANDIFUR PKWY W L E W IS S T E FO ST ER WELLS RD ROAD 44ROAD 48ROAD 84ROAD 56BURDEN BLVD WERNETT RD ROAD60HARRIS RD N 20TH AVEROAD 36PASCO KAHLOTUS RDIVY RD ROAD 96W ARG ENT RD E LEWIS STGLADE NORTH RDN 14TH AVEROAD 52E AINSWORTH AVE VOSS RD PIEKARSKIRDNCAPITOLAVENCOMMERCIALAV E ROAD 88ROAD 68 NE DOCKST ALDERSON RDROAD 34BLASDEL RDN 19TH AVEN OREGON AVEEASY STE LEWIS PLKOHLER RDN ELM AVEDIETRICH RDCHAPEL HILL BLVD WRIGLEY DR SACAJA WEAPAR K R D E BCIR CBROADMOOR BLVDPOWERLINE RD DRADIE ST ROAD 80S4THAVEI NDUS T RI A L WA YRICHVIEW DRS ROAD 40 ESHORELI N E R D E B STN 28TH AVEBYERS RDC O L U M BIA RIV E R R D ROAD 108QUADRA DR SALEM DR KINGAVEMELODY LN ROAD 50SANTA FE LN W PARK ST LA SALLE DR E ADAMS ST HOMESTEAD DRROAD 40PHEASANT LNCHAPEL HILL BLVD ROAD 44© 1 8 -2 3 4 8December 2 0 1 9I:\BOI_Projects\18\2348 - Oneza Pasco Comp Plan\3-GIS\MXD\Comp Plan\Workshop\Figure 1 - UGA Expansion Figure.mxd 5/15/2019 10:28:09 AM Heather.PinaLegend Existing City LimitsExisting UGAExpanded 20-YR UGAStudy AreaParcelRoadway F i g u r e 1UGA E x p a n s i o n A r e a s 0 4,0002,000 Feet C i t y o f P a s c oComprehensive P l a n U p d a t e U t i l i t y A n a l y s i sPage 78 of 226 YAKIMA R.£¤395C O L U M B I A R . YA K I M A R . DENT RD CLARK RD N 4TH AVEW COURT ST N RAI LROAD AVEROAD 68W SYLVESTER ST SANDIFUR PKWY ROAD 44ROAD 48ROAD 84ROAD 56BURDEN BLVD WERNETT RD ROAD 60HARRIS RD ROAD 64GLADE NORTH RDN 20TH AVEROAD 36FANNING RD IVY RD ROAD 96W ARG ENT RDLENTZ RDEASY STROAD 52BEUS RD ROAD 72N 14TH AVENCAPITOLAVEROAD 88N 24TH AVEROAD 68 NRI CHVI EWDRW HENRY ST ROAD 34N 19TH AVEN OREGON AVEW PEARL ST IRIS L N C O L U M BIA RIV E R R D KOHLER RDARGENT RD E LEWIS STTAYLORFLATSRDN ELM AVENC O MMERCIALAVE CHAPEL HILL BLVD N 1 ST AVEWRIGLEY DRBROADMOOR BLVDPIM L I C O D R E FOSTER WELLS RDPOWERLINE RD SWALL OW AVELAREDO DRELIZABETH RDDRADIE ST ROAD 80I N DUSTRI ALWAYSHORELI N E R D SHANNON LN YUMA DRROAD 54E KARTCHNER ST W B O N N E V IL L E S TFLORESLNROAD 108MIDLAND LNFOSTERWELLSRD HORIZONDRKINGAVEMAPLE DRMCDONALDDR MELODY LN E JAMES STN 5TH AVEROAD 39H O M E R UNRDFEED LOT RD STUTZ DR MATIALNB O IS E D R LIVINGSTON RD SCHUMAN LN AVION DRPHEASANT LNTE R MIN AL D R VALLEY VIEW PL W HENRY ST © 1 8 -2 3 4 8December 2 0 1 9I:\BOI_Projects\18\2348 - Oneza Pasco Comp Plan\3-GIS\MXD\Comp Plan\Workshop\Figure 2 - Landuse.mxd 12/19/2019 1:42:51 PM Heather.PinaLegend Study AreaExisting City LimitsExisting UGAParcelRoadway Study Area Landuse DataCommercialDNR ReserveGreen SpaceHigh Density ResidentialIndustrialLow Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialMedium-High Density ResidentialMixed ResidentialMixed-Use NeighborhoodMixed-Use RegionalOffice 0 3,0001,500 Feet F i g u r e 2Area o f A n a l y s i s L a n d U s e C i t y o f P a s c oComprehensive P l a n U p d a t e U t i l i t y A n a l y s i sPage 79 of 226 18-2348 Page 5 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Water System 2019 Comprehensive Water System Plan The City completed the update of their CWSP in early 2019, which has been reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Health (WDOH). The planning periods outlined in the CWSP are 2022, 2027, and 2036. The CWSP identifies the existing system, expected City growth and projected demands for each planning horizon, as well as, the performance criteria that dictate whether new infrastructure is required. The CWSP projected a 2036 population of 112,200 which is 9,628 people less than the anticipated 2038 population projection of 121,828 people as noted earlier. As a result, the CWSP includes a majority of the future demands and new water infrastructure required to serve the identified 2038 population projections. There are some further recommendations in this analysis based on the additional 9,628 people in the 2038 population projections as well as the UGA expansion. Description of Existing Water Utility Infrastructure The City’s water system is supplied from surface water withdrawals from the McNary Pool of the Columbia River. Currently, the system is served by two surface water treatment plants, Butterfield Water Treatment Plant (WTP) which is a conventional filtration plant and West Pasco WTP which is an ultrafiltration membrane plant. The 2019 CWSP defines that the Butterfield WTP has capacity of 26.8 million gallons a day (mgd) while the West Pasco WTP has a capacity of 6.0 mgd with the ability to expand to 18.0 mgd. The CWSP indicates that the City currently holds surface water rights for 13,269.25 acre-feet of annual withdrawal and 20,149 gallons per minute (gpm) (29 mgd) of instantaneous withdrawal. As defined in the CWSP the City is currently in compliance with water right quantities by borrowing the surplus from the Quad Cities water right, at a current consumption of 14,424 acre-feet by volume and 18,456 gpm instantaneous. The City also holds individual groundwater rights sourced by various wells for separate irrigation purposes. Water rights held by the City are anticipated to increase in the future pending the following: ▪ Reassignment of water rights that the City currently holds. ▪ The outcome of applications for new water rights made to Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 2011 and 2015. ▪ Additional water rights available through subsequent distributions of water available under the regional Quad City Water Right (QCWR) permit. ▪ Additional water rights the City may acquire in the future, these include: o Lake Roosevelt Incremental Storage Releases Project Page 80 of 226 18-2348 Page 6 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates o 508-14 Water Rights Program The City’s water system inventory consisted of approximately 330 miles of pipe ranging from 2- inch to 36-inch in diameter, 6 booster stations, 3 reservoirs, 2 water treatment plants, and 20 pressure reducing valve (PRV) stations. Service is presently provided to customers at a minimum elevation of 340 feet to a maximum elevation of 525 feet. The water system is divided into 3 large pressure zones with some subzones. Currently, there are limited transmission mains within the Study Area. Water Utility Infrastructure Analysis Demand Projections The analysis completed for the water infrastructure within the Study Area was started with identifying the individual pressure zone demands. Water system pressure zone boundaries were modified, based on available contour data, to incorporate the land within the Study Area that was not already designated in the 2019 CWSP. The pressure zones are depicted on Figure 3. As shown, Pressure Zone 3 was extended to encompass the entire Study Area. The population within the Study Area was divided up into pressure zones based on land use and respective densities. Water supply projections are based on the existing supply per capita per year factor as stated in the CWSP of 64,964 gallons per year per capita which includes: residential, non-residential and system losses. As stated in the CWSP, the supply required per capita is assumed to remain constant in the future, implying that the residential and non-residential use ratios will also remain constant. The population per pressure zone was used with the supply per capita factor to determine the average day demand (ADD) of the Study Area by pressure zone. Using the CWSP identified maximum day demand (MDD) peaking factor of 2.11 estimates for the 2038 projected water demand for MDD within the Study Area was also calculated. Table 1 and Figure 3 display the results. Table 1 Study Area Demands by Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Study Area Population ADD (gpm) MDD (gpm) 1 9,794 1,211 2,554 1A 649 80 169 2A 2,356 291 614 3 28,849 3,566 7,524 Total 41,648 5,148 10,861 In summary, the pressure zones in the Study Area are projected to serve a residential population of approximately 41,648 people which corresponds to a total ADD of 5,148 gpm and MDD of 10,861 gpm. An additional 3.1 million gallons per day (2,152 gpm) demand is allocated to the north Page 81 of 226 18-2348 Page 7 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates central location of the City’s current industrial area in Zone 3 for an anticipated future industrial demand. Page 82 of 226 ")I C O L U M B I A R . YAKIMA R.£¤395S-003 S-003 DENT RD CLARK RD N 4TH AVEW COURT ST W A ST E A STN RAI L ROAD AVEROAD 68W SYLVESTER ST SANDIFUR PKWY W L E W IS S TROAD 44ROAD 48ROAD 84ROAD 56BURDEN BLVD WERNETT RD ROAD 60HARRIS RD N 20TH AVEROAD 64ROAD 36IVY RD ROAD 96W ARG ENT RDE LEWIS STN 14TH AVEGLADE NORTH RDROAD 52ROAD 72W CLARK ST NCAPI TOLAVENCOMMERCIALAVE ROAD 88N 24TH AVEROAD 68 NE FOST ER WELLS RD W HENRY ST ROAD 34N 19TH AVEN OREGON AVEW PEARL ST IRIS L N KOHLER RDEASY STARGENT RD N ELM AVEDIETRICH RDCHAPEL HILL BLVD WRIGLEY DRBROADMOOR BLVDPIM L I C O D R PO WERLINE RD LAREDO DR STEARMAN AVELENTZ RDDRADIE ST ROAD 80IN D US T R I AL WAYELIZABETH RDSHOREL I N E R D E B STRICHVIEW DRYUMA DRS10THAVEROAD 54FLORESLNROAD 108CAPITOL AVEMIDLAND LNC O L U M BIA RIV E R R D HORIZONDRE LEWIS PL MAPLE DR MELODY LN E JAMES STN 5TH AVEROAD 39MADRONA AV EW PARK ST H O M E R UNRDSTUTZ DR MATIALNS25THAVEATOMDRB O IS E D R LIVINGSTON RD S 20TH AVESCHUMAN LN AVION DRPHEASANT LNTE R MIN AL D R VALLEY VIEW PL TIPPET LN W HENRY ST © 1 8 -2 3 4 8December 2 0 1 9I:\BOI_Projects\18\2348 - Oneza Pasco Comp Plan\3-GIS\MXD\Comp Plan\Workshop\Figure 3 - Population and MDD by PZ.mxd 6/5/2019 2:57:59 PM Heather.PinaLegendNew UGA with Expanded 20-YR UGA LimitsStudy AreaExisting City LimitsExisting UGA ")I Future Industrial user ParcelRiver Modified Pressure ZonesZone-1Zone-1AZone-2Zone-2AZone-2BZone-2CZone-3 F i g u r e 3Population a n d M D DEstimates b y P r e s s u r e Z o n e03,0001,500 Feet Zone-1Population within Study Area boundary:9,794Additional 2038 Populationcompared to 2018 plan:2,264Added MDD: 590 gpm Zone-1APopulation within the Study Area boundary: 649Additional 2038 Populationcompared to 2018 plan: 150Added MDD: 39 gpm Zone-2APopulation within Study Area boundary: 2,356Additional 2038 Populationcompared to 2018 plan:545Added MDD: 142 gpm Zone-3Population within Study Area boundary: 28,849Additional 2038 Populationcompared to 2018 plan: 6,669Added MDD: 1740 gpm Text Future Industrial Location3.1 mgd C i t y o f P a s c oComprehensive P l a n U p d a t e U t i l i t y A n a l y s i sPage 83 of 226 18-2348 Page 9 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Water Design Standards For the purposes of this analysis, the City’s level of service and design criteria defined within the 2019 CWSP were used. Table 2 defines the design standards for water system infrastructure. These design standards have been adopted as the standards that the City will use to evaluate and approve future development proposals within the Study Area. Table 2 Water Design Standards Criterion Element and Description Hydraulic Analysis A comprehensive calibrated hydraulic model should be used to size and evaluate the existing and proposed distribution system. WDOH requires a detailed hydraulic analysis as part of a purveyor’s CWSP. (WAC 246-290- 230(1)) Demand Scenarios Facilities should be sufficient to meet all customers’ water demands during peak day or peak hour operating conditions (when water use is at its highest). The design/evaluation must consider the water system operation under a full range of expected demands and emergency conditions (fire flow). (WAC 246-290-221) Supply to Distribution System Water sources should be protected against power loss and potential water system depressurization. WDOH recommends on-site backup power equipment or gravity standby storage, regardless of the power grid reliability. (WAC 246-290-230) General Supply Reliability In addition to a source’s ability to meet the design demands of a water system over time, reliability includes (1) the ability of the facilities to meet the designed performance criteria for the water system, and (2) the legal authority to use the water over time. (WAC 246-290-222) Minimum Service Pressure 30 psi during peak hour demand (PHD) condition, when equalizing storage is depleted. (WAC 246-290-230(5)) 20 psi residual within the water distribution system during maximum day demand (MDD) plus fire flow, when equalizing and fire flow storage are depleted. (WAC 246-290-230(6)) Maximum Velocity 8 feet per second (fps) for peak hour demand condition 10 fps for MDD plus fire flow Fire Flows Per 2012 International Fire Code (WAC 246-290-221(5)): Residential dwelling with fire flow area1 less than 3,600 sqf: 1,000 gpm, 1 hr duration Residential dwelling with fire flow area1 of 3,600 sqf or larger 1,500 gpm, 2 hrs duration Commercial and Industrial: based on area and type of construction (see CWSP, Table 5-2). System must be able to provide MDD plus worse case fire flow requirement with a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all service connections. Reservoir Storage Storage components (WAC 246-290-235(3)): Operational storage: based on individual system Page 84 of 226 18-2348 Page 10 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Equalizing storage: (PHD-Total Supply Capacity) *150 min or calculate based on diurnal curve Standby storage: Larger of 200 gal/ERU or 2days (ADD-Firm Supply Capacity) Fire suppression storage: Per local fire protection authority, adequate to serve the largest fire requirement in the zone Dead storage: based on each individual storage tank and is removed from the available storage included in capacity evaluation Pumping Facilities When supplying open systems (systems with a reservoir): Pump station total capacity must be equal or larger than MDD for the pressure zone or system. Pump station firm capacity must be equal or larger than ADD for the pressure zone or system. (WAC 246-290-222, Water System Design Manual 10.1.1) When supplying closed systems (systems without a reservoir): Pump station must be able to provide PHD with the largest pump out-of- service, and MDD plus fire flow with the largest “routinely used” pump out- of-service. (WAC 246-290-660(1) Note: 1. Fire flow area: total floor area of all floor levels within the exterior walls and under the horizontal projections of the roof of a building. Capacity Analysis Murraysmith reviewed the capacity of the existing system to meet the updated 20 -year (2038) demands to determine what improvements were required to serve the Study Area. The projects in the CWSP were reviewed to determine potential overlap with the infrastructure requirements to serve the Study Area. Evaluation Assumptions The 2036 MDD projections and allocation in the existing hydraulic model from the CWSP was used to evaluate existing infrastructure. Demand was only updated in the Study Area. Evaluation Process The adequacy of the water system was evaluated to meet future demand conditions (2038) by analyzing the capacity of the existing system based on the defined design standards. Supply, storage, and pumping capacity evaluations were performed to identify the adequacy of those respective system components. The following is a summary of the evaluations required to assess the capacity of each component of the water system. Supply Capacity The adequacy of the supply capacity was compared to 2038 MDD. There are two WTPs in the City’s water system; Butterfield WTP and West Pasco WTP. As defined previously the Butterfield WTP has a capacity of 26.8 mgd. West Pasco WTP has a capacity of 6.0 mgd, for a total existing supply of 32.8 mgd. Page 85 of 226 18-2348 Page 11 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates The existing sources combined total capacity is not adequate to serve 2038 projected MDD demands, and results in a total deficiency of 13.0 mgd. This deficiency is 4.0 mgd higher than the supply capacity deficiency identified in the 2019 CWSP. In the current CWSP there are two planned West Pasco WTP projects that will expand reliable capacity from 6.0 mgd to 18.0 mgd bringing the total system reliable capacity to 44.8 mgd. With this added capacity there will still be a deficiency of just under 1.0 mgd to meet the 2038 demands. Currently the City is planning to complete a Water Treatment Facility Plan (WFP) for the Butterfield WTP, which was recommended in the 2019 CWSP. The WFP will evaluate the overall plant and determine necessary improvements to increase the reliable capacity of the plant to meet 2038 demands. Table 3 summarizes the supply capacity evaluation results. Table 3 Supply Capacity Evaluation Results Existing Supply Capacity gpm mgd Butterfield WTP 18,600 26.8 West Pasco WTP 4,200 6.0 2038 Demand gpm mgd Maximum Day Demand 31,772 45.8 Capacity Surplus or Deficiency (8,993) (13.0) Planned Improvement gpm mgd West Pasco WTP – Increased Capacity 8,333 12.0 Capacity Surplus or Deficiency1 (660) (1.0) Note: 1. Overall surplus or deficiency with the incorporation of the planned improvements to the West Pasco WTP as identified in the 2019 CWSP, increased capacity from 6.0 mgd to 18.0 mgd (increase of 12.0 mgd) Storage Capacity The CWSP storage analysis evaluation was updated to include the additional population served in the Study Area. Table 4 summarizes the updated storage capacity evaluation results. The total storage deficiency increased by 0.7 million gallons (MG) from the CWSP. The CWSP identified that two new storage reservoirs are needed to meet future demands, one located in the East Pasco Industrial Area, which will serve Zone 2 with a capacity of 5.75 MG and one located within the Study Area, which will serve Zone 3 with a capacity of 3.5 MG. As a result of this analysis, it was confirmed that two storage tanks are still required, but the storage capacity in Zone 3 will need to increase to 5.75 MG to meet the new future storage requirements and the storage in Zone 2 can decrease to 4 MG, based on the assumed demand condition that future large industrial development occurs in Zone 3. Additionally, constructing a large reservoir in Zone 3 provides the City more flexibility if large industrial demands also occur in Zone 2, with the ability to provide excess storage from Zone 3 to Zone 2 through the PRV stations at Foster Wells/Capital, Hillsboro, and Road 36. Page 86 of 226 18-2348 Page 12 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Table 4 Storage Capacity Evaluation Results Zone Storage Requirement (MG) Total Minimum Recommended Storage (MG) Existing Reservoir Capacity (MG) Storage Surplus/ Deficiency (MG) Operational Equalizing Fire Flow Standby Zone 1 2.03 0 1.38 2.3 7.56 11.0 3.44 Zone 2 0.52 0 1.44 2.02 3.98 0.0 -3.98 Zone 3 1.08 0 1.44 5.75 8.26 2.5 -5.76 2038 Total Storage Deficiency -9.75 Pumping Capacity The existing pump capacity (assuming the largest pump or the largest domestic pump unit is out- of-service) was compared to the required flow for each pump station. This analysis shows that there is adequate pumping capacity within the system to serve future demands in the Study Area. The East Side Pump Station shows a negative surplus, but with surplus capacity in Zone 3, the PRV stations at Foster Wells/Capital, Hillsboro, and Road 36 can provide the additional required supply under a condition with the large pump offline at the East Side Booster Pump Station. See Table 5 for details. Table 5 Pumping Capacity Evaluation Results Pumping System Total Supply Capacity (gpm) Firm Capacity (gpm) Average Day Demand (gpm) Maximum Day Demand (gpm) Required Capacity (gpm) Surplus Butterfield and West Pasco (Entire System) 33,700 26,700 28,442 31,528 31,568 2,132 Broadmoor/Riverview Heights/Road 36 (Zone 3) 20,650 18,775 8,458 17,362 17,362 1,413 East Side Pump Station (Zone 2) 7,555 5,555 2,980 6,175 6,175 -6201 1. The “-620” deficiency for the East Side Pump Station can be supplied as needed through the PRV stations from Zone 3. Distribution System The 2019 CWSP identified some of the major transmission piping to serve the Study Area. The alignment of that piping was modified to match the proposed Major Street Plan for the Comprehensive Plan update, see Exhibit 1. Additional transmission pipes were also added to the Study Area as required to provide a “backbone” pipe infrastructure. The proposed transmission Page 87 of 226 18-2348 Page 13 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates piping to serve the Study Area was added to the current hydraulic model, along with the proposed facility improvements identified in the supply, storage, and pumping capacity evaluations. Demands based on the 2038 population projections were allocated to the proposed transmission piping. The updated hydraulic model was used to determine the size for the transmission pipe to provide adequate service pressures, velocities and fire flows. The fire flow availability throughout the Study Area during MDD conditions was calculated with the hydraulic model and then compared to the minimum required flow for each land use type: residential: 1,000 gpm, commercial: 2,000 gpm or industrial: 3,500 gpm. Figure 4 depicts the transmission improvements including six projects originally identified in the CWSP and three newly identified projects. Analysis Summary A conceptual layout of pressure zone boundaries, transmission piping, and associated facilit ies required within the Study Area are shown in Figure 4. The following are the main conclusions of the water system analysis: ▪ The results show that for the 20-year (2038) time frame, the City will need increased source capacity, part of which, the West Pasco WTP expansion to 18 mgd, was already planned based on the 2036 projections in the CWSP. Based on the additional population projections for the Study Area the planned expansion of the West Pasco WTP is not sufficient, so further evaluation of the Butterfield WTP will need to take place in order to determine additional upgrades to increase supply capacity by at least 1.0 mgd to meet projected 2038 demands. ▪ The storage capacity evaluation shows additional deficiencies in Zone 3. The total 2038 deficiency is 5.75 MG, which is an increase of 2.25 MG of additional storage in Zone 3 from the recommendation in the CWSP. ▪ From this evaluation, three additional pipe projects are required in addition to the projects previously identified in the CWSP. Additionally, the previously identified projects have been modified (pipe diameters, alignments, and lengths) based on the updated population projections and street corridors. ▪ The City will need to acquire additional water rights to meet 2038 population water demands. Specific information on the quantity and source of the water rights is still being determined, but the City’s understanding from their most recent coordination with Ecology is that they will be able to acquire all the water rights they need through the Lake Roosevelt Incremental Storage Releases Project and 508-14 Water Rights Program. Alternative pipe alignment and infrastructure locations should be evaluated as specific development plans and projects are proposed and designed. Page 88 of 226 UT UT UT ")I UT 12" 24"12-IN12-IN C O L U M B I A R . YAKIMA R.£¤39512-IN16-IN18-IN16-IN24-IN 16-IN 12-IN 12-IN 16-IN24-IN 16- I N16-IN16- I N1 2 -I N 24-IN12-IN 12-IN 16-IN 16-IN12-IN12-IN 16- I N24-IN DENT RD CLARK RD N 4TH AVEW COURT ST W A ST N RAI L ROAD AVEROAD 68E A ST W SYLVESTER ST SANDIFUR PKWY W L E W IS S TROAD 44ROAD 48ROAD 84ROAD 56BURDEN BLVD WERNETT RD ROAD 60HARRIS RD N 20TH AVEROAD 64ROAD 36IVY RD ROAD 96W ARG ENT RDGLADE NORTH RDE LEWIS STN 14TH AVEROAD 52ROAD 72NCAPI TOLAVEROAD 88NCOMMERCIALAVE N 24TH AVEROAD 68 NW B ST W HENRY ST E FOST ER WELLS RD ROAD 34N 19TH AVEN OREGON AVEW PEARL STEASY STIRISL N KOHLER RDARGENT RD N ELM AVECHAPEL HILL BLVD WRIGLEY DR LENTZ RDPIM L I C O D R PO WERLINE RD LAREDO DR STEARMAN AVEELIZABETH RDDRADIE ST ROAD 80IN D UST R I AL WAYRI CHVI EW DRSHOREL I N E R D E B STYUMA DRROAD 54FLORESLNROAD 108CAPITOL AVETAYLORFLATSRDMIALN HORIZONDRMAPLE DR MELODY LN E JAMES ST HER I T A GEBLVDN 5TH AVEROAD 39MADRONA AV EW PARK ST H O M E R UNRDSTUTZ DR MATIALNS25THAVEATOMDRB O IS E D R LIVINGSTON RD S 20TH AVESCHUMAN LN AVION DRPHEASANT LNTE R MIN AL D R VALLEY VIEW PL TIPPET LN W HENRY ST Rd 36 PS Broadmoor PS East Side PS Riverview Hights PS Rd 68 Tank Broadmoor Tank Riverview Hights Tank C i t y o f P a s c oComprehensive P l a n U p d a t eUtility A n a l y s i s © 1 8 -2 3 4 8December 2 0 1 9I:\BOI_Projects\18\2348 - Oneza Pasco Comp Plan\3-GIS\MXD\Comp Plan\Workshop\Figure 5 - Proposed Water Infrastructure Improvements.mxd 8/8/2019 12:02:50 PM Heather.PinaLegend 6-Year Planning HorizonCWSP Defined Projects* UT Proposed Tank Proposed PipeNew ProjectsProposed Pipe CWSP Defined Projects*Proposed PipeNew ProjectsProposed Pipe New UGA with Expanded 20-YR UGA LimitsExisting UGAExisting City Limits ")I Future Industrial user Roadway [Ú Pump Station UT Existing Storage TankçPTWWater Treatment PlantExisting Pipe Diameter Expaned Pressure ZonesZone-1Zone-1AZone-2Zone-2AZone-2BZone-2CZone-3 F i g u r e 5Proposed U G A E x p a n s i o nWater I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I m p r o v e m e n t s 0 3,0001,500 Feet Future Industrial Location3.1 mgd 20-Year Planning Horizon Page 89 of 226 18-2348 Page 15 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Sewer System 2014 Comprehensive Sewer Plan The CSP was finalized in May 2014 and projects population and loading through a period ending in 2031. The CSP identifies the existing system, expected City growth with projected build out flows, and performance criteria that dictate whether new sewer infrastructure is required. As part of the CSP update, the City anticipated a small amount of future growth and expansion in areas corresponding to the Study Area boundary which are indicated in the plan as the North Court Street Service Area and Northwest Service Area. The CSP projected a 2031 population of 89,337 which is 32,491 less than the anticipated 2038 population projections noted earlier. As a result, the CSP includes some of the future demands and new sewer infrastructure required to serve the identified 2038 population projections, however there are significant additional project recommendations based on the increased 2038 population projections as well as the UGA expansion. Subsequent Analyses In 2017 the City had Murraysmith reevaluate the capacity and loading requirements of the Northwest Service Area as a result of potential development demands and growth projection changes. This analysis evaluated an area of 1,300 acres that included a portion of the Study Area and was based on traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data with a projected build-out population of 19,800 people. The evaluation indicated that the existing West Pasco Trunk sewer pipeline had significant deficiencies with the addition of flow from this Northwest Area. A strategy for providing trunkline gravity sewer service to the Study Area was included in the 2017 Northwest Service Area Evaluation. Another sewer evaluation, the Burns Road Sewer Evaluation, evaluated alternatives for the Burns Road interceptor to convey flows from the Northwest Service Area. Following these Northwest Service Area analyses, the City has approved and moved forward with design and construction of some sewer infrastructure in the Study Area. The Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main, a 30-inch diameter pipe has recently been constructed and will provide sewer service for development in the Study Area. The new main runs from the West Pasco Trunk Sewer at the intersection of Road 111 and Court Street to approximately 5,500 feet north, crossing under interstate 182, running northeast along Harris and terminating approximately 1/3 of a mile before the intersection of Harris and Broadmoor Boulevard. Description of Existing Sewer Utility Infrastructure The City operates a wastewater collection and treatment system to manage the domestic wastewater needs of the community. The City operates the system under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit issued by Ecology. Currently, the system is served by one activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which oxidizes, nitrifies and Page 90 of 226 18-2348 Page 16 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates disinfects wastewater flow prior to discharging to the Lake Wallula reach of the Columbia River. The City has just finalized the 2019 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan (WWFP) that evaluates the WWTP through a 20-year horizon. This WWFP takes into consideration the projected growth identified in the current Comprehensive Plan update and provides a capital improvement plan to accommodate the projected demands associated with the expected increase in population for the City and its expanded UGA. The City’s existing WWTP has a capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewer flow. The WWTP currently experiences average flows of 6 mgd. For this analysis, treatment capacity is not being evaluated so improvements at the WWTP will need to be determined based on the WWFP. The City maintains and operates a separate reuse system that collects, stores and then land applies food processor wastewater north of the City. It is a separate entity from the City’s municipal wastewater collection and treatment system and therefore is not included in this evaluation. The City’s wastewater collection system contains over 240 miles of sewer pipeline ranging from 8- inch to 36-inch in diameter, 4,430 manholes, and 10 lift stations. The gravity pipelines convey wastewater from the residential and commercial areas and route it to interceptors and large sewer trunks, which drain to the WWTP. Due to the varied topography in the City, several localized and regional lift stations are required to convey sewage to the WWTP. The City’s two primary lift stations (Maitland and 9th & Washington) are located just outside the WWTP and convey sewage directly to the WWTP. The Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main, has recently been constructed, which provides sewer service for some development in the Study Area. Sewer Utility Infrastructure Analysis Loading Projections The analysis completed for the sewer infrastructure within the Study Area was started with identifying the individual basin loadings. Sewer basin boundaries were developed for the Study Area based on available contour information. The projected population within the Study Area was divided up into sewer basins based on the land use and respective densities. The proposed basin boundaries and loadings are depicted on Figure 5. As shown, five sewer basins are identified to potentially serve the Study Area. Basins were preliminarily identified based on gravity flow service. The per capita loading estimates from the 2014 CSP were used to calculate the 2038 projected average dry weather flow (DWF). Peak flow is typically the result of any peaking during the day (under dry weather conditions from a diurnal pattern) and any flow contribution during wet weather conditions. The peak flows for each basin are based on population using the Department of Ecology, “Criteria for Sewer Works Design 2008” (Orange Book). The average dry weather loading and range of peaking factors recommended in the Orange Book are summarized in Table 6. The resulting dry weather flow and peak wet weather flow (WWF) are in Table 7. Page 91 of 226 18-2348 Page 17 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Table 6 Sewer Load Assumptions Component Value Per Capita Flow 80 gallons/person/day Industrial Point Load 137 gpm Peaking Factor 3.0 -3.7 Table 7 Study Area Load by Sewer Basin Sewer Basin Population AVG DWF (gpm) Peak WWWF (gpm) NW Area Trunk – Phase 1a 1,638 91 333 NW Area Trunk – Phase 1b 8,450 470 1,438 NW Area Trunk – Phase 2 7,432 412 1,305 NW Area Trunk (South) 8,184 455 1,382 Regional Lift Station 9,554 530 1,688 East of RD 68 6,390 355 1,117 Industrial Areas1 0 137 412 Total 41,648 2,450 7,675 Note: 1. Municipal sewer load component of industrial development. Industrial flow is anticipated to flow to the Hillsboro Interceptor. In summary, the basins in the Study Area are projected to serve a residential population of approximately 41,648 people. The expanded industrial area will only include municipal flows representative of typical employee lunch/rest room facilities, aligning with what was included in the 2014 CSP model. The resulting total average dry weather flow is 2,450 gpm, with a peak wet weather flow of 7,675 gpm. Page 92 of 226 YAKIMA R. §¨¦I-182 £¤395DENT RD CLARK RD N 4TH AVEW COURT ST N RAI LROAD AVEROAD 68W SYLVESTER ST SANDIFUR PKWY ROAD 44ROAD 48ROAD 84ROAD 56BURDEN BLVD WERNETT RD ROAD 60HARRIS RD GLADE NORTH RDROAD 64ROAD 36N 20TH AVEFANNING RD LENTZ RDIVY RD ROAD 96W ARG ENT RDEASY STROAD 52BEUS RD ROAD 72RI CHVI EWDRNCAPI TOLAVEROAD 88ROAD 68 NN 14TH AVEN 24TH AVEW HENRY ST N 19TH AVEC O L U M BIA RIV E R R D N OREGON AVEW PEARL ST IRIS L N TAYLORFLATSRDKOHLER RDARGENT RD CHAPEL HILL BLVD N 1 ST AVEWRIGLEY DRBROADMOOR BLVDPIM L I C O D R PO WERLINE RD SWALL OW AVELAREDO DR N OWEN AVEELIZABETH RDDRADIE ST ROAD 80IN D U ST R I AL WAYNCOM MERCIALAVE E FOSTER WELLS RD SHORELI N E R D SHANNON LNYUMA DRROAD 54FLORESLNROAD 108MIDLAND LNHORIZONDRMAPLE DR N RAINIER AVEMCDONALDDRMELODY LN E JAMES STN 5TH AVEW PARK ST DUSTY RDH O M E R UNRDSTUTZ DR MATIALNW IRVING ST B O IS E D R LIVINGSTON RD SCHUMAN LN AVION DRPHEASANT LNTE R MIN AL D R VALLEY VIEW PL TIPPET LN W HENRY ST © 1 8 -2 3 4 8December 2 0 1 9I:\BOI_Projects\18\2348 - Oneza Pasco Comp Plan\3-GIS\MXD\Comp Plan\Workshop\Figure 4 - Population and Flow Estimates by Basin.mxd 8/9/2019 1:48:16 PM Heather.PinaLegendNew UGA with Expanded 20-YR UGA LimitsStudy AreaExisting City LimitsExisting UGAParcelRiver Service Areas NW Area Trunk - Phase 1aNW Area Trunk - Phase 1bNW Area Trunk - Phase 2Regional Lift Station East of RD 68Industrial Area 1Industrial Area 2 0 3,0001,500 Feet Text NW Area Trunk (South)2038 Population: 8,184AVG DWF: 455 gpm East of Rd 682038 Population: 6,391AVG DWF: 355 gpm NW Area Trunk - Phase 22038 Population: 7,432 AVG DWF: 412 gpm NW Area Trunk - Phase 1b2038 Population: 8,450AVG DWF: 470 gpm NW Area Trunk - Phase 1a2038 Population: 1,638AVG DWF: 91 gpm Regional Lift Station 2038 Population: 9,554 AVG DWF: 530 gpm F i g u r e 5Population a n d AV G D W FEstimates b y S e w e r B a s i n Industrial Area 1 & Area 22038 Population: 0AVG DWF: 137 gpmFlow to Existing Hillsboro Interceptor Page 93 of 226 18-2348 Page 19 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Sewer Design Standards For the purposes of this analysis, where feasible, the City’s level of service and design criteria defined within the 2014 CSP were used. Table 8 defines the design standards for collection system infrastructure. These design standards have been adopted as the standards that the City will use to evaluate and approve future development proposals within the Study Area. Table 8 Sewer Design Standards Criteria Dry Weather Wet Weather d/D (water depth/diameter), gravity pipeline ≤ 0.8 ≤ 1.0 Surcharge clearance in manhole No surcharging 2.0 feet from rim Surcharge clearance in shallow manhole (difference between pipe crown elevation and rim elevation is less than 2.0 feet) No surcharging 0.5 feet from rim Minimum cleansing velocity, gravity pipeline and force main (considered for new pipelines only, minimum pipe diameter of 8 inches) 2 ft/sec 2 ft/sec Maximum velocity, gravity pipeline 10 ft/sec 15 ft/sec Maximum velocity, force main 6ft/sec1 8ft/sec1 Lift station capacity, firm and total capacity Peak hour flow must not exceed lift station capacity with largest pump out of service (firm capacity) Peak hour flow must not exceed lift station pumping capacity with all pumps in service (total capacity, 10-year design storm) Note: 1. Used as a guideline but will not determine a deficiency in all cases. Capacity Analysis Murraysmith evaluated the infrastructure capacity required to serve the projected 20-year (2038) flows from the Study Area. The projections in the 2014 CSP and subsequent analyses were reviewed to determine potential overlap with the infrastructure requirements to serve the Study Area. Evaluation Assumptions The collection system model from the 2014 CSP was used to evaluate the Study Area. The 2031 dry weather and wet weather flow allocation in the existing collection system model from the 2014 CSP was used to evaluate existing infrastructure. Loading was only updated in the Study Area. Page 94 of 226 18-2348 Page 20 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates The 2017 analyses of the Northwest Area indicated significant deficiencies in the West Pasco Trunk to serve additional flow from the Northwest Area. There are several options the City can consider to address these deficiencies, which could include the following; 1) upsizing of the existing segments of the West Pasco Trunk that are deficient, 2) expanding and/or developing additional conveyance corridors, or 3) a new trunkline parallel to the existing West Pasco Trunk. The City is currently moving forward with an Addendum to their CSP, which will evaluate these options to determine a preferred combination of improvements to meet future population growth. For this analysis it was assumed that the entire Study Area will flow to the new Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main and be conveyed to the Pasco WWTP through a new trunkline parallel to the existing West Pasco Trunk. This analysis used the elevations and slopes of the existing West Pasco Trunk to size the parallel trunkline to convey the Study Area flows. Evaluation Process The adequacy of the sewer system was evaluated to meet future 20-year (2038) loading conditions by analyzing the capacity of the infrastructure recommended from previous analyses based on the defined design standards. The following is a summary of the required improvements to convey flow from the Study Area through the existing service area to the WWTP. Treatment Capacity The City just finalized a WWFP for the WWTP with a 20-year horizon. A population growth rate of 3 percent per year was selected by the City for planning purposes for the WWFP, which results in a 2035 population of 126,137, which is 4,309 more than the anticipated 2038 population projections as noted earlier. This WWFP includes recommended modifications to the City’s WWTP for the next 20 years that are based on a detailed evaluation of feasible alternatives, with recommendations for improvements that are found to be cost-effective solutions to both the City’s near and long-term needs. The preferred improvements defined in the WWTP Capital Improvement Program were prioritized and spread out over the next 20 years. No change in the WWTP CIP outlined in the WWFP is required to accommodate the flows from the projected population growth for the Study Area. Lift Station Capacity There are three new lift stations identified within the Study Area based on topography. Additional localized lift stations may be required based on timing and location of development. A new parallel lift station to the 9th & Washington Lift Station is also assumed and sized to convey flows from the new parallel trunkline to the WWTP for the Study Area 2038 peak flows. The proposed lift stations and their required peak pumping capacity are presented in Table 9 and depicted on Figure 6. New force mains to convey the lift station flows are also identified. Page 95 of 226 18-2348 Page 21 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Table 9 Proposed Lift Stations Lift Station Force Main Size (inch) Peak WWF (gpm) Regional Lift Station 12 2,100 Kohler Road Lift Station 6 450 Northeast Lift Station 10 1,400 Proposed Second Wastewater Treatment Plant Lift Station 24 8,350 Additionally, outside of the Study Area, included within OA’s planning work the City is planning to provide sewer service to the Riverview Area. As identified in the 2014 CSP, the Riverview Area Service Concept defined two lift stations required to provide sewer service. The Road 84 & Roberts Drive Lift Station and Road 52 & Pearl Street Lift Station are projects identified in the City’s current CIP. Information provided by the City indicates that land use has remained relatively unchanged, thus no update is included as part of this infrastructure evaluation. These lift stations are assumed to discharge to the existing West Pasco Trunk and were not evaluated as part of the parallel trunkline. Trunkline The piping originally outlined in the 2017 Northwest Area Analysis was updated based on the Major Street Plan figure, provided in Appendix 2, and the elevations in the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main being constructed. These trunk sewers were added to the collection system model developed during the 2014 CSP update. The anticipated flows were allocated, and pipe sizing was determined as depicted on Figure 6, to meet the design criteria requirements. The evaluations completed subsequent to the 2014 CSP identified future capacity limitations in the existing West Pasco Trunk sewer pipeline alignment, which is the logical route for discharge from the Study Area. The capacity deficiencies were assumed to increase with the larger projections from the Study Area, so it was assumed that the West Pasco Trunk sewer pipeline has limited or no capacity to serve the Study Area. As a result, it is assumed that sewer flow from the Study Area will be conveyed through a new trunk sewer pipeline parallel to and with similar slopes of the West Pasco Trunk sewer pipeline. This new trunk sewer pipeline was sized and is depicted on Figure 6. Sewer Analysis Results A conceptual layout of basin boundaries, sewer pipelines, and associated lift station facilities to convey flow from the Study Area are shown in Figure 6. The following outlines the primary conclusions of the sewer system analysis: ▪ The WWFP defines the preferred improvements in the WWTP Capital Improvement Program, which were prioritized and spread out over the next 20 years. No change is Page 96 of 226 18-2348 Page 22 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates required to accommodate the expected flows from the projected population growth in the Study Area. ▪ Four proposed lift stations are identified which range in peak flows from 450 gpm to 8,350 gpm. The largest is assumed as a parallel lift station to the 9th & Washington Lift Station to convey flows to the WWTP. ▪ Due to existing anticipated deficiencies in the West Pasco Trunk, it is assumed that a parallel trunk with similar alignment and slope will be installed to convey flows from the Study Area to a lift station parallel to the existing 9th & Washington Lift Station and then on to the WWTP. ▪ The trunk sewer diameters were sized to convey 2038 flow projections for the basins identified in the Study Area. Alternative conveyance routes and lift stations could be evaluated as specific development plans and projects are proposed and designed. Additionally, it recommended that the City complete an update to its CSP to provide a comprehensive review of the sewer collection system capacity to assess further alternatives to serve growth areas within the City’s existing limits as well as the Study Area growth. Page 97 of 226 R7SL R7SL R7SL R7SL R7SL West Pasco Trunk Sewer Pipeline Alignment NOTE: Proposed alignment is parallel to theexisting sewer alignment starting at Road 111and Court Street to 9TH Street and WashingtonAvenue C O L U M B I A R . §¨¦I-182 £¤39542'' 12'' 10''18''21''8''15''24"30"30'' 30''12''36''12''36''12''42'' 18'' 12'' 36''8"15'' 12''36''36''42'' R7SL R7SL R7SL R7SLR7SL R7SL R7SL R7SL R7SL R7SL R7SL DENT RD CLARK RD N 4TH AVEW COURT ST W A ST E A STN RAI L ROAD AVEROAD 68W SYLVESTER ST SANDIFUR PKWY W L E W IS S TROAD 44ROAD 48ROAD 84ROAD 56BURDEN BLVD WERNETT RD ROAD 60HARRIS RD N 20TH AVEROAD 64ROAD 36IVY RD ROAD 96W ARG ENT RDE LEWIS STN 14TH AVEGLADE NORTH RDROAD 52ROAD 72ROAD 76NCAPITOLAVENCOMMERCIALAVE ROAD 88N 24TH AVEROAD 68 NROAD 100E FOST ER WELLS RD W B ST W HENRY ST ROAD 34N 19TH AVEN OREGON AVEW PEARL ST IRIS L NEASY STKOHLER RDARGENT RD ROAD 36 NN ELM AVEDIETRICH RDCHAPEL HILL BLVD N 1 ST AVEWRIGLEY DR SOREGONAVEBROADMOOR BLVDPIM L I C O D R BURNS RD LAREDO DR STEARMAN AVECONVENTION DRLENTZ RDROAD 90HILLTOP DR DRADIE ST ROAD 80IN D U S T RI AL WAYELIZABETH RDPEARL ST E B STRICHVIEW DRNWEHEAVEN 28TH AVEWELSH DR E CRANE ST W WERNETT RD N CEDAR AVEROAD 54RICHARDSON RDFLORES LNROAD 108CAPITOL AVEMIDLAND LNSALEM DR C O L U M BIA RIV E R R D L I N C O L N D R E JAMES ST HER I T A GEBLVDN5THAVEMADISON AVE ROAD 39ROAD 92SANTAFELN W PARK ST H O M E R UNRDROAD97W BELL ST SNOQUALMIE DR MATIA LNN10THAVEW HOPKINS ST E ADAMS STSANDY RIDGE RDS GRAY AVEAVION DRTE R MIN AL D R VALLEY VIEW PL TIPPET LN ROAD 68ROAD 56ROAD 80ROAD 84W COURT STROAD 52Regional LS Proposed Second WastewaterTreatment Plant LS Northeast LS Kohler RD LS Road 52 & Pearl Street LSRoad 84 & Roberts Drive LS C O L U M B I A R . YA K I M A R . © 1 8 -2 3 4 8December 2 0 1 9I:\BOI_Projects\18\2348 - Oneza Pasco Comp Plan\3-GIS\MXD\Comp Plan\Workshop\Figure 6 - Proposed Sewer Infrastructure Improvements.mxd 8/19/2019 3:34:22 PM Heather.PinaLegendNew UGA with Expanded 20-YR UGA LimitsStudy AreaExisting City LimitsExisting UGAHarris Rd Sewer (Under Construction)Proposed Force Main Proposed Gravity R7SL Proposed Lift StationPotential Alternative Alignment ParcelRoadwayExisting Sewer PipeExisting Forcemains R7SL Existing Lift Stations Service Areas NW Area Trunk - Phase 1aNW Area Trunk - Phase 1bNW Area Trunk - Phase 2NW Area Trunk Sewer - SouthRegional Lift Station East of RD 68Industrial Area 1Industrial Area 2 0 3,0001,500 Feet C i t y o f P a s c oComprehensive P l a n U p d a t e U t i l i t y A n a l y s i s F i g u r e 6Proposed U G A E x p a n s i o nSewer I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I m p r o v e m e n t s The proposed improvements are based on the Rd 68 basin flowing to the proposed RD 68 LS and then being pumped west and conveyed through the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main. However, with additional analysis, alternative routes could be viable, such the one shown along Industrial Way Page 98 of 226 18-2348 Page 24 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Cost Summary This section discusses the planning level capital costs which were developed for all recommended improvements for both the water and sewer systems. This section also includes a cost approach summary for categorizing costs within specified planning horizons and determining incremental cost differences associated with the impacts of increasing the population and boundary within the Study Area as compared to the previous planning documents. Projects are scheduled in two planning horizons, 6-year and 20-year. Review of the City’s current 2019–2024 Capital Improvement Plan (2019–2024 CIP) and coordination with the City was completed to determine which projects identified in this analysis are anticipated to be implemented in the 6-year horizon. A comparison to the 2019–2024 CIP was completed for those identified projects to report the cost increase or identification of new projects (not already listed in the 2019–2024 CIP) related to the results of this analysis. A cost increase between the projects listed in the 2019–2024 CIP and projects identified in this analysis was determined for both the sewer and water utilities. It is also the City’s intention to use the City’s Annual Upsize-Development Programs, to coordinate with development to upsize infrastructure as needed to install required planned improvements. Projects not listed in the 6-year horizon are listed in the 20-year horizon. Piping infrastructure is summarized by size, length, and cost to show a comparison to the superseded pipe improvements identified in the CWSP and the CSP. Water Infrastructure Unit Costs The unit costs developed in the CWSP were utilized in this analysis. These unit costs include estimated construction costs, contingency factor, and allowances for permitting, legal, administrative, and engineering fees as described in the CWSP. The unit costs were escalated using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). The ENR CCI measures how inflation impacts construction costs to what they were in the base year. The 20-city average ENR CCI basis was identified as 10,315 (May 2016) in the CWSP and for this analysis was 11,228 (April 2019). Using the ratio of these indices allows for escalating older planning improvement costs to today’s costs. 6-Year Planning Horizon Water projects identified in the 6-year planning horizon include two projects that are currently listed in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP; ▪ West Pasco WTP plant improvements, which will increase plant capacity from 6.0 mgd to 12.0 mgd. This project is not modified by this analysis. It is listed in City’s 2019–2024 CIP as Project Number 16008 with a total project cost of $3,476,000. Page 99 of 226 18-2348 Page 25 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates ▪ Storage tank to provide storage capacity to Zone 3. Based on this analysis, the 5.75 MG capacity required matches what was specified in the CWSP, however different from the CWSP, shows that its location is better suited in Zone 3 than Zone 2. The City’s 2019–2024 CIP has allocated enough funds to cover the cost of the 5.75 MG tank and thus the cost is not modified based on this analysis. This project is listed in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP as Project Number 18041 with a total project cost of $11,700,00. Since both of these projects are listed in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP, there is no additional cost associated with them to serve the Study Area. New projects not identified in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP but that are recommended in the 6-year horizon to provide service to the Study Area include: ▪ 24-inch transmission main from the new Zone 3 Tank to Burns Road to connect the tank to the system. ▪ A new transmission main from the West Pasco WTP to supply Zone 3, which includes a transmission main crossing under I-182 to supply the western portion of the Study Area. These projects are both identified in the CWSP as IP-005 and a portion of the project FP- 017 but have been upsized from 20-inch to 24-inch and 16- inch to 18-inch diameters respectively. The City is planning to include this in their 2020-2025 CIP. ▪ Backbone transmission mains within the existing City Limits and UGA to provide water infrastructure to the Study Area ranging from 12-inch to 24-inch. These projects were identified in the CWSP but are recommended to be upsized based on this analysis. Table 10 presents a planning level capital cost of $39.5 million for the water infrastructure within the Study Area anticipated to be completed within the 6-year planning horizon. This accounts for a $24.3 million cost increase to the City’s 2019–2024 CIP. Page 100 of 226 18-2348 Page 26 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Table 10 Water Planning Level Capital Cost Summary – 6-year Planning Horizon Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost1 2019–2024 CIP Cost2 New Cost Increase from CIP West Pasco WTP Improvements, 6 to 12 mgd Supply Capacity Increase - - $3,476,000 $3,476,000 - Zone 3 Storage Tank3 - - $11,700,000 $11,700,000 - Zone 3 Tank Transmission Main 24 1,300 $776,000 - $776,000 Transmission Main from WTP to Study Area 24 18 5,400 4,300 $3,221,000 $1,985,000 - $3,221,000 $1,985,000 Backbone Transmission Main 12 16 24 20,900 15,300 8,100 $6,961,000 $6,562,000 $4,832,000 - $6,961,000 $6,562,000 $4,832,000 Total $39,513,000 $15,176,000 $24,337,000 Notes: 1. The City’s Annual Water Upsize-Development Program is anticipated to assist with some of these projects to pay for potential upsizing of water lines related to developer installed lines. A portion of the FP-019 project that runs along Burns Road is currently being installed through this program. 2. Costs taken from the City’s 2019–2024 CIP. 3. Project T-001 in the CWSP was indicated for Zone 2, but this analysis indicates it is better located in Zone 3. 20-Year Planning Horizon The 20-year planning horizon includes additional projects to serve the Study Area that are not already covered in the 6-year planning horizon. The CWSP indicated a majority of these projects, but with the modifications to the Study Area (population and UGA boundary) the transmission mains have been upsized in areas and additional backbone piping was included to incorporate water service to the extents of the Study Area. Additionally, the size of the second storage tank has increased from 3.5 MG to 4.0 MG and been moved from Zone 3, as specified in the CWSP, to Zone 2. The West Pasco WTP improvements will also be included in the 20-year planning horizon that will increase the plant’s capacity from 12 mgd to 18 mgd. This project is listed in the CWSP and was not modified based on this analysis. Table 11 summarizes planning level capital costs for the water infrastructure to serve the Study Area anticipated to be completed after the 6-year planning horizon but within the 20-year period. Table 11 categorizes the infrastructure by size of pipe and includes the West Pasco WTP supply capacity increase from 12 to 18 mgd and the Zone 2 storage tank. For projects that were identified in the CWSP, the cost is $25.4 million taking into account the escalation using the ENR index. The new planning level cost for the infrastructure to serve the Study Area is $36.1 million which accounts for a cost increase of $10.7 million due to the upsize of pipe diameter, extension of waterlines, upsize of reservoir, and inclusion of additional projects when compared to the CWSP. Again, the City is planning to utilize their Annual Water Upsize-Development Program to pay for a portion of these projects through coordination with planned development. Page 101 of 226 18-2348 Page 27 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Table 11 Water Planning Level Capital Cost Summary – 20-year Planning Horizon Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost CWSP Cost1 Cost Delta from CWSP West Pasco WTP – Supply Capacity Increase 12 to 18 mgd - - $1,470,0002 $1,470,000 - Zone 2 Storage Tank3 - - $9,291,000 $8,130,000 $1,160,000 New Backbone Transmission Main 12 16 24 28,600 35,100 1,300 $9,526,000 $15,053,000 $775,000 - - - $9,526,000 $15,053,000 $775,000 CWSP Backbone Transmission Main 12 16 5,400 32,600 - - $1,792,000 $13,969,000 -$1,792,000 -$13,969,000 Total Cost $36,115,000 $25,362,000 $10,753,000 Note: 1. CWSP costs were escalated using ENR CCI values. 2. Costs taken from the CWSP and were not modified, no delta associated with this project. The project includes a high service pump station and additional filter backwash. 3. Project T-002 in the CWSP was indicated for Zone 3, but this analysis indicates it is better located in Zone 2. Sewer Infrastructure Unit Costs The process used in the 2014 CSP for developing project capital costs was utilized in this analysis. The unit costs include estimated construction costs, contingency factor, and allowances for legal, administrative, and engineering fees as described in the CSP. New unit costs were developed by escalating unit costs identified in the CSP using the ENR CCI. The ENR CCI measures how inflation impacts construction costs to what they were in the base year. The 20-city ENR CCI basis was identified as 9,437 (January 2013) in the CSP and for this analysis was 11,228 (April 2019). Using the ratio of these indices allows for escalating older planning improvement costs to today’s costs. 6- Year Planning Horizon Sewer projects identified in the 6-year planning horizon include three projects that are currently listed in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP: WWTP Facility Capital Improvement Project 1 is for recommended upgrades to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the facility. This project is not modified based on this Study Area analysis. The project is listed in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP Overall Project Cost table with a total project cost of $24,073,000. Page 102 of 226 18-2348 Page 28 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates WWTP Facility Capital Improvement Project 2 is recommended for further upgrades to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the facility. This project is not modified based on this Study Area analysis. The project is listed in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP Overall Project Cost table with a total project cost of $17,664,000. Broadmoor Area Sewer Lift Station consisting of a regional sanitary sewer lift station intended to serve the northwest area of Pasco’s UGA. This project is notated as the Regional Lift Station on Figure 6. One project recommended for the 6-year planning horizon not listed in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP is the Harris Road Sewer extension, which extends the Harris Road Sewer Transmission Main (recently constructed) north of Dent Rd as shown on Figure 6. The City is currently planning to implement this project through a local improvement district (LID). Additional new projects not identified in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP, that may be implemented in the 6-year planning horizon depending on development include; sewer transmission mains as noted in the Regional Lift Station Basin and another lift station labeled Kohler Road Lift Station on Figure 6. Table 12 presents the planning level capital cost of $73.6 million for the sewer infrastructure within the Study Area anticipated to be completed within the 6-year planning horizon. This accounts for an increase of $28.3 million to the City’s 2019–2024 CIP. Table 12 Sewer Planning Level Cost Summary – 6-year Planning Horizon Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost 2019–2024 CIP Cost1 New Cost Increase from CIP WWTP Facility Capital Improvement Project 1 - - $24,073,000 $24,073,000 - WWTP Facility Capital Improvement Project 2 - - $17,664,000 $17,664,000 - Regional/Broadmoor Area Lift Station2 - - $3,500,000 $3,500,000 - Gravity Sewer Main – Extension of Harris Rd Sewer3 21 12,000 $9,169,000 - $9,169,000 Gravity Sewer Main- Regional Lift Station Basin4 8 12 15 8,700 7,600 6,300 $5,315,000 $7,138,000 $6,167,000 - $5,315,000 $7,138,000 $6,167,000 Kohler Road Lift Station3 - - $528,000 - $528,000 Total $73,554,000 $45,237,000 $28,317,000 Note: 1. Costs taken from the 2019–2024 CIP and were not modified, no delta associated with these projects. 2. Cost includes the force mains identified in Table 9. 3. City planning to complete project through local improvement district (LID). 4. The City’s Annual Sewer Upsize-Development Program is anticipated to assist with some of these projects to pay for potential upsizing of sewer lines related to developer installed lines. Page 103 of 226 18-2348 Page 29 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates As previously indicated, the City is planning to provide sewer service within the Riverview Area. In order to support this development, the construction of two lift station is required. The Road 84 & Roberts Drive Lift Station and Road 52 & Pearl Street Lift Station are projects identified in the City’s 2019–2024 CIP but are not included in this analysis since they are outside of the Study Area. These Lift Stations are assumed to discharge to the existing West Pasco Trunk. 20-Year Planning Horizon The 20-year planning horizon includes all projects to serve the Study Area that are not in the 6- year planning horizon. The CSP included some of these projects but with the modifications to the Study Area (population and UGA boundary) the trunks have been upsized in areas and additional backbone piping was including to incorporate sewer service to the extents of the Study Area. Table 13 summarizes planning level capital costs for the sewer infrastructure within the Study Area anticipated to be completed after the 6-year planning horizon but within the 20-year period. Table 13 categorizes the infrastructure by size of pipe and includes the capital improvement projects to increase the WWTP capacity. The total cost identified in the CSP for the projects in the 20-year horizon within the Study Area is $11.4 million taking into account the escalation of cost based on the ENR index. The new planning level cost for the infrastructure within the Study Area is $121.0 million which accounts for a cost increase of $109.6 million due to the upsize of pipe diameter, extension of sewer trunks, and inclusion of additional projects compared to the CSP. The City is planning to utilize their Annual Sewer Upsize-Development Program to pay for a portion of these projects through coordination with planned development. Additionally, the WWFP has defined $34,537,000 of planned WWTP capital improvements over the 20-year planning horizon. Page 104 of 226 18-2348 Page 30 of 30 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update November 2019 OA and Associates Table 13 Sewer Planning Level Capital Cost Summary – 20-year Planning Horizon Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost CSP Cost1 Cost Delta from CSP New Gravity Sewer Main 12 15 18 21 30 36 42 27,000 8,100 13,600 300 3,400 21,800 21,300 $15,855,000 $6,232,000 $7,912,000 $165,000 $3,209,000 $15,585,000 $23,173,000 - $15,855,000 $6,232,000 $7,912,000 $165,000 $3,209,000 $15,585,000 $23,173,000 Lift Station – (WWTP)2 - - $7,450,000 - $7,450,000 Lift Station – (Northeast)2 - - $6,898,000 - $6,898,000 WWFP Facility Capital Improvement Projects - - $34,537,000 - $34,537,000 CSP Gravity Sewer Main3 21 30 5,341 9,171 $2,884,000 $6,302,000 -$2,884,000 -$6,302,000 Lift Station – Northwest Area - - $2,213,000 -$2,213,000 Total Cost $121,016,000 $11,399,000 $109,617,000 Notes: 1. CSP costs were escalated using ENR CCI values. 2. Cost assumes to include the force main identified in Table 9. 3. These are listed separately due to the changes to basins and corridors. A direct correlation wasn’t feasible. Summary This UGA expansion analysis identifies infrastructure needed to provide water and sewer service to the Study Area. The results showed that a combined increase of $52.7 million is anticipated for the 6-year planning horizon, based on the assumptions presented, for the City’s 2019–2024 CIP for the water and sewer utilities. For the 20-year planning horizon a total improvement cost of $36.1 and $121.0 million is anticipated for water and sewer utilities respectively. A substantial portion of the cost will be borne by developers because the Study Area is mainly under private ownership. Additionally, the City’s annual water and sewer Upsize-Development Programs are in place to enable the City to extend and improve infrastructure when opportunities exist to coordinate with private development and/or other City projects. Page 105 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 35: Road 100 & I-182 EB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1155 0 750 00007052252956350 Future Volume (vph) 1155 0 750 00007052252956350 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1665 1568 3471 1553 1752 1845 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1665 1568 3471 1553 310 1845 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 1242 0 806 00007582423176830 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 73 00000184000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 621 621 733 0000758583176830 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 36.5 36.5 19.3 19.3 34.5 34.5 Effective Green, g (s) 36.5 36.5 36.5 19.3 19.3 34.5 34.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.24 0.24 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 759 759 715 837 374 326 795 v/s Ratio Prot 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.13 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 0.04 c0.29 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 1.02 0.91 0.16 0.97 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 18.9 21.8 29.5 23.9 18.8 20.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.03 Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 6.9 40.1 15.2 0.9 40.5 11.0 Delay (s) 25.7 25.7 61.8 44.7 24.8 61.4 32.2 Level of Service C C E D C E C Approach Delay (s) 39.9 0.0 39.9 41.4 Approach LOS D A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 106 of 226 Queues 35: Road 100 & I-182 EB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 17 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 621 621 806 758 242 317 683 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 1.02 0.91 0.43 0.97 0.86 Control Delay 29.8 29.8 58.6 45.9 6.4 64.8 33.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.8 29.8 58.6 45.9 6.4 64.8 33.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 271 271 ~369 193 0 129 288 Queue Length 95th (ft) #473 #473 #612 #298 54 #266 #503 Internal Link Dist (ft) 681 459 795 Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 180 200 Base Capacity (vph) 759 759 788 837 558 326 795 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 1.02 0.91 0.43 0.97 0.86 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Page 107 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Road 100 & I-182 WB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 315 0 1405 0 0 580 920 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 355 0 315 0 1405 0 0 580 920 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3574 3574 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3574 3574 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 374 0 332 0 1479 0 0 611 968 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000021000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 374 0 311 0 1479 0 0 611 968 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Free Protected Phases 3 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 21.4 49.6 49.6 80.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.4 21.4 49.6 49.6 80.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 478 427 2215 2215 1599 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.41 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.61 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.73 0.67 0.28 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 27.1 26.7 9.9 7.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.31 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.2 6.1 0.8 0.2 1.3 Delay (s) 35.3 32.7 4.4 2.4 1.3 Level of Service D C A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.1 4.4 1.7 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 108 of 226 Queues 30: Road 100 & I-182 WB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 15 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 374 332 1479 611 968 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.74 0.67 0.28 0.61 Control Delay 38.7 34.3 4.8 2.6 4.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 38.7 34.3 4.8 2.6 4.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 171 137 160 18 51 Queue Length 95th (ft) 246 209 m203 40 422 Internal Link Dist (ft) 270 380 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300 Base Capacity (vph) 598 554 2215 2215 1599 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.60 0.67 0.28 0.61 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 109 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Road 100 & Sandifur Parkway 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 70 85 245 600 70 85 230 760 730 80 645 50 Future Volume (vph) 70 85 245 600 70 85 230 760 730 80 645 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 3467 1721 3433 3574 1599 1787 3532 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 3467 1721 3433 3574 1599 1787 3532 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 92 266 625 76 89 250 792 760 83 672 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 180 0 52 0 0 0 510 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 92 86 625 113 0 250 792 250 83 719 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 10.8 10.8 19.2 19.2 7.8 26.3 26.3 5.7 24.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.8 10.8 10.8 19.2 19.2 7.8 26.3 26.3 5.7 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 251 213 832 413 334 1174 525 127 1068 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.05 c0.18 0.07 0.07 c0.22 0.05 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.37 0.40 0.75 0.27 0.75 0.67 0.48 0.65 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 31.3 31.5 31.7 28.2 24.7 35.1 23.2 21.4 36.2 24.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.81 1.05 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.9 1.3 3.9 0.4 6.9 2.4 2.4 11.5 3.4 Delay (s) 32.1 32.4 32.9 32.0 25.1 36.9 21.1 24.9 47.6 27.8 Level of Service CCCCC DCCDC Approach Delay (s) 32.7 30.6 24.9 29.9 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 110 of 226 Queues 18: Road 100 & Sandifur Parkway 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 11 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 92 266 625 165 250 792 760 83 726 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.37 0.68 0.75 0.36 0.86 0.65 0.73 0.54 0.65 Control Delay 32.9 33.9 17.3 34.9 17.0 54.9 22.9 6.2 51.4 28.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.9 33.9 17.3 34.9 17.0 54.9 22.9 6.2 51.4 28.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 44 27 144 38 62 175 16 39 162 Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 77 89 #229 93 m#123 #282 79 #116 #273 Internal Link Dist (ft) 182 1633 305 402 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 130 175 200 175 Base Capacity (vph) 398 419 517 857 476 291 1218 1046 155 1120 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.22 0.51 0.73 0.35 0.86 0.65 0.73 0.54 0.65 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 111 of 226 Page 112 of 226 Page 113 of 226 Page 114 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Road 68 & I-182 EB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1245 0 470 000075029007950 Future Volume (vph) 1245 0 470 000075029007950 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1681 1583 3391 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1681 1583 3391 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1284 0 485 000077329908200 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0000410000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 642 642 452 00001031 0 0 820 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA NA Protected Phases 7 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.5 51.5 51.5 39.5 39.5 Effective Green, g (s) 51.5 51.5 51.5 39.5 39.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 865 865 815 1339 1397 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 0.38 c0.30 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.55 0.77 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 19.0 16.5 26.3 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 3.5 0.8 4.3 1.5 Delay (s) 22.5 22.5 17.3 30.6 30.3 Level of Service C C B C C Approach Delay (s) 21.1 0.0 30.6 30.3 Approach LOS C A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 123.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 115 of 226 Queues 9: Road 68 & I-182 EB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 642 642 485 1072 820 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.57 0.78 0.59 Control Delay 25.6 25.6 17.3 29.4 30.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.6 25.6 17.3 29.4 30.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 323 323 174 291 266 Queue Length 95th (ft) 477 477 273 373 326 Internal Link Dist (ft) 917 1768 150 Turn Bay Length (ft) 515 525 Base Capacity (vph) 865 865 848 1379 1397 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.57 0.78 0.59 Intersection Summary Page 116 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Road 68 & I-182 WB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 285 0 1200 0 1745 0 0 1290 770 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 285 0 1200 0 1745 0 0 1290 770 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1681 1583 3539 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1681 1583 3539 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 310 0 1304 0 1897 0 0 1402 837 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000000230 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 155 155 1304 0 1897 0 0 1402 607 Turn Type Prot NA Free NA NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5 18.5 100.0 72.5 72.5 72.5 Effective Green, g (s) 18.5 18.5 100.0 72.5 72.5 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 310 310 1583 2565 2565 1147 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.09 0.54 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm c0.82 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.82 0.74 0.55 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 36.6 36.6 0.0 8.2 6.3 6.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.82 10.90 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.3 5.0 1.3 0.5 0.9 Delay (s) 37.9 37.9 5.0 7.3 11.9 67.8 Level of Service D D A A B E Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.3 7.3 32.8 Approach LOS A B A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 117 of 226 Queues 12: Road 68 & I-182 WB Off Ramp 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 7 Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 155 1304 1897 1402 837 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.82 0.74 0.55 0.61 Control Delay 43.0 43.0 5.0 7.5 12.1 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.0 43.0 5.0 7.5 12.1 5.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 94 0 245 340 61 Queue Length 95th (ft) 162 162 0 282 m357 m74 Internal Link Dist (ft) 901 104 1189 Turn Bay Length (ft) 290 200 455 Base Capacity (vph) 310 310 1583 2565 2565 1377 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.82 0.74 0.55 0.61 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 118 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Road 68 & Burden BLVD 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 90 210 320 745 190 115 440 1250 990 185 905 25 Future Volume (vph) 90 210 320 745 190 115 440 1250 990 185 905 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 3433 3539 1583 3400 3491 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 3433 3539 1583 3400 3491 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 93 216 330 768 196 119 454 1289 1021 191 933 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 76 0 0 72 000020 Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 216 254 768 196 47 454 1289 1021 191 957 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Prot NA Free Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 8 5 7 7 7 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 15.7 33.9 23.8 23.8 37.1 13.7 33.7 100.0 8.8 28.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 15.7 33.9 23.8 23.8 37.1 13.7 33.7 100.0 8.8 28.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.37 0.14 0.34 1.00 0.09 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 277 292 536 817 443 587 470 1192 1583 299 1005 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.12 0.16 c0.22 0.11 0.03 0.13 c0.36 0.06 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.64 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.74 0.47 0.94 0.44 0.08 0.97 1.08 0.64 0.64 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 37.5 40.2 26.0 37.4 32.4 20.4 42.9 33.1 0.0 44.1 34.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 1.21 3.92 0.94 0.92 1.00 1.08 0.71 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 9.4 0.7 17.7 0.7 0.1 24.1 46.3 1.2 4.1 17.8 Delay (s) 38.2 49.6 26.7 62.9 39.8 80.0 64.6 76.9 1.2 51.8 42.8 Level of Service D D C E D EEEADD Approach Delay (s) 36.1 60.6 46.9 44.3 Approach LOS D E D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 119 of 226 Queues 3: Road 68 & Burden BLVD 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 216 330 768 196 119 454 1289 1021 191 959 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.74 0.54 0.94 0.44 0.18 0.97 1.08 0.64 0.64 0.95 Control Delay 40.1 55.3 20.1 65.4 44.0 19.6 67.0 76.9 1.5 57.4 44.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.1 55.3 20.1 65.4 44.0 19.6 67.0 76.9 1.5 57.4 44.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 130 104 ~277 114 29 144 ~483 0 64 226 Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 208 187 #402 179 72 m#234 #619 7 85 #432 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1182 1079 1189 1438 Turn Bay Length (ft) 260 300 340 55 340 300 Base Capacity (vph) 318 335 646 815 442 661 470 1193 1583 306 1007 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.64 0.51 0.94 0.44 0.18 0.97 1.08 0.64 0.62 0.95 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 120 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Road 68 & Wrigley 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 140 30 105 110 35 90 150 755 50 60 770 75 Future Volume (vph) 140 30 105 110 35 90 150 755 50 60 770 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1679 1805 1695 1787 3541 1787 3526 Flt Permitted 0.41 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.32 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 776 1679 942 1695 384 3541 610 3526 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 152 33 114 120 38 98 163 821 54 65 837 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 103 0 0 90 0040060 Lane Group Flow (vph) 152 44 0 120 46 0 163 871 0 65 913 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8462 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.4 9.8 16.6 8.4 59.3 59.3 54.0 54.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.4 9.8 16.6 8.4 59.3 59.3 54.0 54.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.10 0.17 0.08 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 249 164 227 142 368 2099 384 1904 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 c0.25 0.01 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.04 0.22 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.27 0.53 0.33 0.44 0.42 0.17 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 35.6 41.8 37.3 43.1 11.1 11.0 11.8 14.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.26 0.46 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.9 2.2 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.8 Delay (s) 40.0 42.7 39.5 44.5 4.6 3.1 5.6 7.5 Level of Service D D D D A A A A Approach Delay (s) 41.3 42.1 3.3 7.3 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 121 of 226 Queues 25: Road 68 & Wrigley 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 13 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 152 147 120 136 163 875 65 919 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.55 0.53 0.59 0.44 0.41 0.16 0.48 Control Delay 43.0 20.5 40.2 25.3 5.5 3.2 7.7 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.0 20.5 40.2 25.3 5.5 3.2 7.7 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 20 64 23 9 24 12 115 Queue Length 95th (ft) 132 75 106 78 m10 m48 31 172 Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 398 1438 1122 Turn Bay Length (ft) 95 130 200 240 Base Capacity (vph) 256 427 232 393 448 2133 398 1910 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.34 0.52 0.35 0.36 0.41 0.16 0.48 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 122 of 226 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Road 68 & Sandifur Parkway 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 70 295 265 190 145 50 345 455 190 90 450 75 Future Volume (vph) 70 295 265 190 145 50 345 455 190 90 450 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 1787 3416 1787 3498 Flt Permitted 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.28 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1246 1881 1578 832 1881 1599 879 3416 869 3500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 304 273 196 149 52 356 469 196 93 464 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 170 0 0 37 0 42 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 304 103 196 149 15 356 623 0 93 528 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.1 22.0 22.0 37.0 28.4 28.4 54.0 44.6 35.1 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 26.1 22.0 22.0 37.0 28.4 28.4 54.0 44.6 35.1 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.54 0.45 0.35 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 347 413 347 408 534 454 649 1523 350 1056 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.16 c0.05 0.08 c0.11 0.18 0.01 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.01 c0.19 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.74 0.30 0.48 0.28 0.03 0.55 0.41 0.27 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 36.3 32.5 23.7 27.8 25.9 21.4 18.8 29.4 28.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.15 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 6.7 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.7 Delay (s) 28.8 43.0 33.0 24.6 28.1 25.9 7.9 3.6 29.8 30.4 Level of Service CDCCCCAA CC Approach Delay (s) 37.2 26.1 5.1 30.3 Approach LOS D C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Page 123 of 226 Queues 14: Road 68 & Sandifur Parkway 06/15/2018 2024 PM with UGA Expansion 5:00 pm 06/14/2018 Signal Retiming Synchro 10 Report J-U-B Engineers, Inc.Page 9 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 304 273 196 149 52 356 665 93 541 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.77 0.54 0.49 0.28 0.09 0.55 0.41 0.24 0.48 Control Delay 21.6 49.8 12.1 26.3 29.0 0.3 9.4 3.3 16.6 30.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.6 49.8 12.1 26.3 29.0 0.3 9.4 3.3 16.6 30.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 181 28 87 74 0 48 36 28 147 Queue Length 95th (ft) 56 262 97 133 120 0 77 56 57 212 Internal Link Dist (ft) 5399 1853 1122 770 Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 100 170 255 175 165 Base Capacity (vph) 356 487 570 403 594 617 687 1625 387 1131 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.62 0.48 0.49 0.25 0.08 0.52 0.41 0.24 0.48 Intersection Summary Page 124 of 226 Page 125 of 226 Page 126 of 226 Page 127 of 226 The Selected Alternatives The process outline recommended for this project showed that local alternatives alone will not improve current and future congestion. Therefore, the remaining alternatives (5, 6, and 10) should be studied in more detail through the development of an Interchange Justification Report. Alternative 4 will also be included in the study as a local improvement option, as will Alternative 13 for further development and screening. Alternative 9 is a committed project and will be evaluated under a separate study. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges Summary Report | August 2017 Why is moving forward important? Identifying preferred improvements now provides the City with a level of certainty regarding the cost of future development. For more information please contact: Mary Heather Ames, PE City of Pasco Public Works p. (509) 545-3444 e. amesm@pasco-wa.gov www.pasco-wa.gov Alternative 6 Alternative 5 Alternative 10 Congestion has impacted Interstate 182 (I-182) and the local corridors that provide access to regional facilities. Current planning efforts estimate additional population growth between 75 and 80 percent over the next 25 years. Additionally, the City’s centric location has made it home to several regional facilities, including the Tri-Cities Regional Airport, the Columbia Basin College, the Trade, Recreation and Agricultural Center (TRAC), and the Gesa Stadium; which draws even more traffic to the area. In 2016, the City conducted a Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges as the first phase of a multi-phased project to identify, recommend, approve, and design a solution to the traffic congestion throughout the City of Pasco. What process must be followed to propose changes to I-182? Working with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the City developed a project process to study and evaluate the direction of the Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges. Project Process As a first step the study and analyses would focus on identifying local improvements to meet current and projected transportation network needs. If the analyses indicates that local improvements alone can solve congestion problems within the local and regional networks, the study would conclude without further action. However, should the analyses demonstrate that local improvements alone cannot meet transportation needs, then WSDOT and FHWA would allow further study to identify and propose access modifications to the regional network. Future analyses and study would be conducted through an Interchange Justification Report (IJR). 75-80% The estimated population increase projected over the next 25 years. The City conducted a Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges as the first phase of a multiphased project to identify, recommend, approve, and design a solution to the traffic congestion throughout the City of Pasco. The following is a summary of the process. What is the City doing to improve mobility and prepare for growth? Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges Summary Report | August 2017 Pasco has experienced recession-defying growth over the past 16 years, more than doubling its population from 32,066 in 2000 to an estimated 70,560 as of April 2016. This growth has resulted in high levels of congestion throughout the City.Page 128 of 226 How has growth kept up with the existing travel demand forecasting models? To assess the current and future transportation needs, this study relied on new traffic counts and compared these to the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments base year Travel Demand Model (TDM) developed in year 2010, which is the adopted Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) model for the region. The analysis demonstrated that Pasco’s accelerated population growth has exceeded the projected traffic growth. Focusing on some of the key project area corridors and bottlenecks, Table 1 compares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2010 Base, 2020 No-Build, and 2030 No-Build model PM peak hour volumes to the existing 2015 counts. All but one of the I-182 ramp current (2015) volumes at the Road 68/I-182 interchange exceed the 2020 RTP projections, and in the case of the westbound off-ramp are rapidly approaching the 2030 projection. Corridor Traffic Volume Source Roadway Location 2010 RTP 2015 Countsa 2020 RTP 2030 RTP Road 68 (NB)South of Burden Boulevard 1,546 2,274 1,484 2,521 Road 68 (NB)South of Burden Boulevard 1,348 1,701 1,494 2,043 Road 100 (NB)North of I-182 WB Ramps 1,053 1,040 1,464 1,792 Road 100 (SB)North of I-182 WB Ramps 693 745 1,049 1,480 I-182 EB Off-Ramp At Road 68 Interchange 964 1,344 1,042 1,800 I-182 WB Off-Ramp At Road 68 Interchange 816 1,194 994 1,338 I-182 EB On-Ramp At Road 68 Interchange 624 843 706 994 I-182 WB On-Ramp At Road 68 Interchange 621 767 782 1,045 I-182 EB Off-Ramp At Road 100 Interchange 1,571 1,382 N/A b 2,246 I-182 WB Off-Ramp At Road 100 Interchange 413 460 451 617 I-182 EB On-Ramp At Road 100 Interchange 309 373 318 416 I-182 WB On-Ramp At Road 100 Interchange 930 770 1,220 1,703 a Counts highlighted in red already exceed the 2020 model projections. b Network error in 2020 model for this ramp movement. NB = Northbound SB = Southbound EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound What does the new Travel Demand Model show? The City’s project team worked with the City, BFCG, and WSDOT to develop methodology to update the BFCG’s model design year from 2030 to 2040. The analysis demonstrated that Pasco’s accelerated population growth has exceeded the projected traffic growth. The updated 2040 model showed significant volume growth throughout the entire project study area. However, the Road 100 and Road 68 interchange areas, as well as the key intersection to the north, were determined to be critical for solution identification. All of the study intersections failed to meet operating standards under future baseline conditions. Ramp operations are particularly concerning, as they all functioned with volume to capacity (v/c) ratios exceeding 1.0. Therefore, they are likely to see heavy queuing, which would end up backing onto the freeway. Other key findings of the TDM effort point to significant capacity deficiencies on Road 100 and Road 68, including the interchange areas and the arterial corridors extending to Powerline Road in year 2040. The origin and destination analysis also indicated that a majority of the interchange volumes at Roads 100 and 68 are regional trips. What alternatives are being considered? In addition to the No-Build alternative, the feasibility study identified and evaluated a total of 13 build alternatives all geared at improving mobility and decreasing congestion. The first alternative developed (Alternative 1) was developed by the project team to address FHWA and WSDOT’s request to evaluate potential congestion relief that could be achieved by completing the City of Pasco’s local transportation grid. Other alternatives were developed by the design team and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) during a brainstorming meeting. The 13 alternatives considered were categorized into five groups: No-Build, Local Improvements, Existing Interchange Revisions, New Ramps and Interchanges, and New Columbia River Crossings (CRC). Improvements proposed by each of these alternatives are described below. How were alternatives evaluated? A two-tiered screening process was devised to analyze the benefits and viability of each of the study alternatives. The first tier in the screening process (Level 1) was qualitative in nature and geared at eliminating alternatives that were deemed to be fatally flawed. Alternatives that successfully passed the Level 1 screening analysis would then subjected to a quantitative analysis. What where the results of the alternatives screening? Most of the options did not make it past the first screening level. As seen in the table below, alternatives that received a “No” answer to any of the three questions posed by the Level 1 screening review were deemed to be fatally flawed. Alternatives Meet Project Mission Statement Feasible / Consistent Costs Likely IJR / NEPA Approval Alt. 1 – Baseline Local No No Yes/No Alt. 2 – Local Roadway Widenings No No Yes/No Alt. 3 – New Local Roadways No No Yes/No Alt .4 – All Local Network Improvements No No Yes/No Alt. 5 – Partial Clover Interchange at Rd 100 Yes Yes Yes/Yes Alt. 6 – Partial Clover Interchange at Rd 68 Yes Yes Yes/Yes Alt. 7 – New Off-Ramp at Rd 44 No Yes No/Yes Alt. 8 – New Off-Ramp at Rd 60 No Yes No/Yes Alt. 9 – New Foster Wells Interchange Yes Yes Yes/Yes Alt. 10 – Split Diamond Interchange at Rd 68 Yes Yes Yes/Yes Alt. 11 & 12 – CRC Overcrossings No No NA/No Alt. 13 – New Ramps, Interchange at Rd 44/Argent TBD TBD TBD All alternatives that solely focused on local improvements were deemed to be flawed, answering the key question of the feasibility study. Additionally, alternatives that proposed access modifications to I-182 did show measurable mobility and congestion relief improvements. Therefore, the TAC recommended those options (shown on the next page), as well as others be studied in more detail. Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges Summary Report | August 2017 Who will make the decisions? To assist in the development and review, the City of Pasco established two committees: an Executive Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee. Composed of local and regional experts, these committees assisted in the planning and technical development of the study. Agencies represented on the committees include: • City of Pasco Officials and Staff • Port of Pasco • Columbia Basin College Board • WSDOT South Central Region • Federal Highway Administration • Benton-Franklin Council of Governments • Benton-Franklin Transit • The City of Kennewick • The City of Richland What happens with the alternative designs now? Following the process outline recommended for this project and demonstrating that local alternatives alone will not improve current and future congestion, the City will study these remaining alternatives in more detail. Agencies selected the following for future study: • Alternative 5 – Road 100 Interchange Improvements, Additional Loop Ramps • Alternative 6 – Road 68 Interchange Improvements, Full Clover • Alternative 10 – Split Diamond Interchange These alternatives are shown in detail on the following page.Page 129 of 226 1 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Land Capacity Analysis City of Pasco, Washington Introduction The purpose of the land capacity analysis (LCA) is to identify the City of Pasco’s availability of land to accommodate the projected population for the next 20 years. The study analyzes existing vacant and under-utilized parcels within the existing City limits and Urban Growth Area, and identifies number of persons it can accommodate during the planning timeframe. The difference between the projected population and the existing land capacity will identify whether the City has adequate land, or will need additional land to meet the future growth needs. This study finds that additional land is required for the City to accommodate the 20-year population growth. The study was conducted using the Franklin County Parcel GIS data (dated October 2018) and planning assumptions (existing zoning requirements, standards) that covers a time period coinciding with the 2038 Comprehensive Plan and population projections provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. The results of the Land Capacity Analysis may vary over the duration of the twenty-year time period due to external influences including: fluctuating market factors and regional economy, land owner choice and infrastructure availability. The LCA provides a broad understanding for the City to plan and prepare for future growth. This document will address the following: • Methodology • Projected Growth • Residential Land Capacity • Land Needed Methodology To estimate capacities, the LCA involved the following processes: 1. Identify developable land within existing Pasco City Limits and existing Pasco Urban Growth Area (UGA) for residential land use designations: a. Identify vacant land b. Identify under-utilized land c. Address right of way (20%), market (20%) and environmental factors (5%) to identify the net developable land 2. Calculate housing units on developable land within the City limits and existing UGA a. Developable land area is multiplied the maximum density in each zoning and land use category 3. Identify existing land capacity to accommodate future population Page 130 of 226 2 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) a. Multiply housing units with OFM household sizes 4. Identify difference between the projected (OFM) population estimates and the existing land capacity to determine the City’s adequacy or insufficiency of land supply within the existing UGA boundary Data Gaps: The LCA does not take into consideration potential prohibiting and/or limiting factors of growth that can include the lack of infrastructure, utilities and access in areas of the City. Projected Growth The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) produces a state population forecast for each county. Each forecast identifies a low, medium and high projection for each county. County population estimates are then assigned to the cities within the counties based on local processes. The 2018 OFM population estimate for Pasco is approximately 73,590. Historic trends have indicated that the population of Pasco has represented 80 percent or more of the total Franklin County population. As a result, the County has always assigned 80 percent of the OFM County population projections to Pasco for Comprehensive Planning purposes. Historically the 80 percent assignment has been based on the OFM mid-range projection. Within the planning horizon the City of Pasco will need to anticipate a growth scenario where the County population reaches an estimated 152,285 in the year 2038. With 80 percent of that population assigned to Pasco the City’s population is expected to reach about 121,828 by 2038. This represents an increase of 48,238 over the current City population. Table 1 below provides the City’s population projection for the next 20 years. Table 1: Population Estimates Franklin County and the City of Pasco Franklin County Pasco1 2018 93,541 73,590 2028 121,792 97,434 2038 152,285 121,828 10 year increase 30,493 23,844 20 year increase 58,744 48,238 Residential units needed in Pasco in 10 years 7,522 Residential units needed in Pasco in 20 years 15,217 1OFM Medium Series. Historically, Pasco’s share has been 80 percent of the County population. 2Based on OFM - household size: 3.17 Page 131 of 226 3 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Residential Land Capacity The following section describes the steps taken to identify residential land capacity. Step 1: Identify vacant and underutilized land within City limits The LCA is based on Franklin County GIS parcel data from October 2018. Parcels were aggregated into two categories: within City limits and within the UGA. Tax exempt parcels were excluded from the analysis. Excluding tax exempt parcels eliminated land that was not available for residential development due to its ownership. These parcels were selected using ownership field included within the attribute table of the parcel GIS. In total, 665 parcels with an estimated sum of 6,500 acres were excluded. The following table identifies parcel excluded: Table 2: Exempt Parcels Owner Parcels Area (Acres) City of Pasco 122 619 Port of Pasco 75 2,934 Pasco School District (Education) 52 463 BNSF Railway 40 290 Franklin County Housing Authority 36 38 USA / Army Corps of Engineers / Bonneville Power Administration 32 411 Franklin County Irrigation District 17 73 Franklin County – Other 47 121 Lourdes Hospital 14 3 State of Washington (WSDOT, Others) 16 93 Columbia Basin College 3 138 State of Washington (Department of Natural Resources) 19 1,052 All Others 192 260 Underutilized parcels were identified by comparing the Land Market Value and Improvement Value attributes from the parcel GIS. The following steps were followed to identify parcel types: Step 1A) Select parcels where Land Market Value is greater than or equal to the Improvement Value Step 1B) Select from remaining parcels, select parcels where the Improvement Value was equal to zero. These parcels were identified as vacant. Step 1C) Underutilized parcel data was collected by selecting parcels where the Land Market Value was greater than and/or equal to the Improvement Value, where the Improvement Value was greater than zero. Page 132 of 226 4 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) The result of Step 1C were used to create two sets of data; underutilized parcels at 2x the zoning minimum and 3x the zoning minimum. Table 3: Vacant and under-utilized1 land in the City Zone Description Vacant Land (Acres) Underutilized Acres (2x-3x Zoning Minimum)1 Underutilized Acres (3x + Zoning Minimum)1 R-1 Low Density 283.02 0.31 5.39 R-1-A Low Density Alternate 14.45 - - R-1-A2 Low Density Alternate 0.58 - - R-1/PUD Low Density Planned Unit Development - - - R-2 Medium Density 17.31 0.19 - R-3 Medium Density 12.19 0.20 10.68 R-4 High Density 0.82 - - R-S-1 Suburban 16.92 - - R-S- 1/PUD Suburban Planned Unit Development 27.19 - - RP Residential Park 0.67 - - RS-12 Suburban 43.20 - 50.36 RS-20 Suburban 173.06 8.86 84.54 RT Residential Transition 6.90 - - Total 596.30 9.56 150.96 Total Acres 596.30 160.52 1Includes lots twice or higher than minimum lot size required in the zoning Step 2: Identify vacant and underutilized land within the existing Urban Growth Area This step was used to identify vacant and underutilized lands within the existing Pasco Urban Growth Area. The results did not take into consideration potential limiting factors for redevelopment such as land not available in the near future. Therefore, not all of the identified vacant land may be available for development. An additional challenge within the UGA is the vacant land in west Pasco. This area, south of Interstate I-182 and west of Highway 395 consists of remnant parcels created with poor subdivision practices (not at urban densities). The transportation system is limited with housing placed in the path of logical connections, the creation of long and narrow lots and parcels delineated with odd shapes leaving difficulties for future subdivisions to occur. The result has created challenges for future home construction, providing services (sewer) and limiting transportation access for fire and emergency responders. Page 133 of 226 5 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Table 4: Vacant and underutilized land in the existing UGA1 Land Use Vacant land Underutilized Residential - High Density Residential - Low Density 255.29 74.33 Residential - Mixed 13.45 20.02 Residential / Commercial - Mixed Total 268.74 94.35 Step 3: Identify developable land To identify the developable land, the LCA subtracts 45% from all land. The 45% reduction includes the need for transportation right of ways (20%), market factor (20%) and environmental constraints (5%). The transportation (roads) right of way (ROW) reduction of 20% is based on identifying future ROW of needs of the anticipated growth. Recent residential development has varied below 20% while central Pasco has higher ROW totals (up to 28%). This LCA uses the 20% ROW to incorporate a balanced approach for future development considerate of a more refined transportation (grid) pattern. The Washington State Department of Commerce defines “market factor” as the “…final deduction from the net developable area to account for lands assumed not to be available for development during the planning period.” RCW 36.70A.110 (2) states that cities and counties have discretion by considering local circumstances to determine the appropriate market factor. Table 5 and Figure 1 indicate developable residential lands within the City limits and UGA. Table 5: Developable land in the existing UGA1 Acres (A) 20% ROW (B) 20% Market Factor (C) 5% Environment (D) Developable Acres {A – (B+C+D)} Vacant land in the City limits 596.30 119.26 119.26 29.82 327.97 Underutilized land in the City limits1 160.52 32.10 32.10 8.03 88.29 Vacant land in existing UGA1 268.74 53.75 53.75 13.44 147.81 Under-utilized land in existing UGA 94.35 18.87 18.87 4.72 51.89 1Doesn’t include Broadmoor area Page 134 of 226 6 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Figure 1: Vacant and Under-utilized Residential Parcels Page 135 of 226 7 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Step 4: Identify current residential capacity This step identifies the developable land by each zoning district to determine the residential units that may be available in the future. Residential units are multiplied by the average household size (3.17) per OFM estimates. The amount of units referenced for the Broadmoor area is in line with the proposed mid-range development projects in the Broadmoor planning efforts. Table 6: Number of Buildable Units in the Vacant and Under-utilized Parcels Zone Description Density (DU/Acre) City limits UGA Vacant Underutilized Vacant Underutilized R-1 Low Density 4 566 11 562 162 R-1-A Low Density Alternate 4 29 R-1-A2 Low Density Alternate 4 1 R- 1/PUD Low Density Planned Unit Development 4 R-2 Medium Density 15 142 148 219 R-3 Medium Density 18 120 85 R-4 High Density 29 12 R-S-1 Suburban 4 34 R-S- 1/PUD Suburban Planned Unit Development 4 54 RP Residential Park 20 7 RS-12 Suburban 3 65 80 RS-20 Suburban 2 173 100 RT Residential Transition 3 10 Total 1214 276 710 381 Total Units 1,490 1,091 1 Density used in calculating the units is a range, that includes maximum density, and in some cases the median of the range of density Page 136 of 226 8 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Table 7: Residential capacity Type Acres Residential Unit Capacity Population to be Accommodated Developable land in the City limits 428.20 1,490 4,723 Developable land in existing UGA 199.70 1,091 3,459 Broadmoor1 7,0001 22,190 Current Capacity (Includes Broadmoor Area) 30,372 1Broadmoor Planning Area (In Progress) Table 8: Gap in future land supply 20yr Population Projection (Growth) Current Capacity (City Limits & Urban Growth Area) Population Gap 48,238 30,372 17,866 (48,238 - 30,372) Land Needed Step 5: Identify Land Use Needs This section identifies other land categories needed to serve the additional 17,866 residents. The City had an adequate supply of land necessary to meet current commercial needs, however additional commercial land will be needed to support new residential neighborhoods in an effort to increase and promote efficiently planned walkable and sustainable communities. Industrial Lands Lands for industrial development were identified within the current Urban Growth Area. This included selecting all parcels within current industrial land use designations, and aggregating them into three different categories: • Developed: o Parcels with existing structures; above $10,000 in Improvement Value The City of Pasco will need to accommodate an additional 17,866 residents outside of the existing Urban Growth Area boundary and City limits. Page 137 of 226 9 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) • Underutilized: o Parcels with building footprints covering less than 5% of total area • Vacant o Parcels with less than $10,000 in Improvement Value Publically owned parcels were and tax-exempt within industrial land use areas were also identified for the following analysis. In total, there are just under 6,000 acres of designated land use lands within the Urban Growth Area. It is important to note that this total includes all rights of ways, infrastructure and facilities. Of that total, almost 4,800 parcel acres remain. The analysis then moved on to selecting publically owned and tax-exempt parcels. Using Franklin County parcel and assessor data, a total of 1,262 acres were identified. The City of Pasco, the Franklin County Irrigation District, BNSF, the Port of Pasco and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are some of the largest landowners in this category. After removal of tax-exempt parcels, a total of 3,524 acres remained. Using the definitions from above, parcels that met the criteria for developed, underutilized and/or vacant were selected. Table 9 (below) provides a summary of the results. Table 9: Industrial Lands Analysis Parcel Type Area (Acres) Developed 907.79 Underutilized 412.81 Vacant 2,203.73 TOTAL 3,524.33 Recent large land purchases include over 181 acres from the Colville Indian Tribe along the Highway 395 corridor that may reduce total industrial development capacity. Additionally, the Port of Pasco owns 661 acres of land within the industrial land use. Industrial Land Challenges An estimated 4,800 acres of land are designated within the Pasco City Limits and the Urban Growth Area. The Heritage Industrial Park encompasses 810 acres located in the southeastern portion of the city. While the site consistent of predominantly large parcels best suited and historically planned for industrial development, access to the state transportation system is limited. Currently, Highway 12 is only accessible via the ‘A’ Street and Sacajawea Park Road intersection, both of which are at-grade. Limited vehicle capacity and safety challenges at these intersections have limited the prospects of this site. Pasco’s rapid growth has also led to increased residential housing developments constructed in older neighborhoods east of Oregon Avenue, including adjacent to the Page 138 of 226 10 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Heritage Industrial site. Impacts of traditional industrial developments on residential neighborhoods are an added concern for the marketability of the area, thus leading to a vacant and challenging industrial site. Future Industrial Lands There are 685 acres north of the existing City Limits, between Railroad Avenue and US HWY 395 that is zoned for industrial use by Franklin County and within a County Industrial LAMIRD. The addition of this land into the Urban Growth Area would allow the property to be served with adequate facilities and utilities that would promote its development potential. The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan designates the area (Figure 2) as Rural Industrial. Discussions with the Franklin County Planning Department indicate that this area is intended for industrial development. Figure 2: Future Industrial Lands A smaller, 40-acre parcel of land is also included within the expansion. This area east of US HWY 395 is located adjacent to existing city utilities (water and sewer) and includes access via Capital Avenue and E Foster Wells Road. Currently zoned for AP-20 (Agricultural Production) by Franklin County, the land is surrounded to the south and west by industrial uses. A benefit of the locations identified for industrial expansion include access to rail and existing transportation facilities. Regional travel forecasts show that US HWY 395 (north of HWY 12) will experience less than a 70% volume to capacity ratio, this includes additional population and employment growth within the expanded Urban Growth Area. This may alleviate the traffic on current roadways facing higher than average congestion levels, such as Interstate 182. The Census provides employment data that is reported via the Local Employment Dynamics partnership. Using this data, we find that that employment within the industrial land use in Pasco increased by 40% from 2010 – 2017. Of the reported jobs within industrial lands, 68% are categorized as construction, manufacturing, transportation/warehousing or agriculture. Pasco has historically had a higher percentage of industrial employment within these sectors compared to the regional employment type. Recent employment data (2016) identified that these sectors make up 40%, more than ten percent higher than the entire Benton-Franklin County region. Page 139 of 226 11 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Future Lands Summary Table 10 below summarizes the land needed to accommodate the estimated population growth for the City of Pasco, a total of 3,573 acres. The per capita ratio is calculated by dividing the land use area by the population. The per capita ratio goal provides a guide for future land development to take place in more compact forms. The land needed columns is the estimated amount of land necessary per each land use category of the Comprehensive Plan. These totals are estimates, and subject to external market and economic factors. Table 10: Land Needed for Additional People Land Use Per Capita Ratio (with street ROW) Per Capita Ratio (Goal) Land Needed (Acres) Residential 0.123 0.110 1,965 Commercial 0.028 0.025 447 Public Lands 0.012 0.012 204 Open Space / Park Lands 0.013 0.013 232 Industrial1 725 Total 3,573 1Includes an existing industrial land use in the county. This is added to the City’s UGA in order to serve the area with municipal utilities. ______________________________________________________________________________ END OF LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS Page 140 of 226 EXHIBIT A Page 141 of 226 Page 142 of 226 To: City of Pasco Community Development Department P.O. Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 RE: Notice of Public Hearing -Urban Growth Area Expansion Dear Planning Commission RECEIVED MAK U j 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I wish to expression my opposition to the proposed urban growth area expansion. Specifically the area of 2,810 acres North of Burns Road. 1.The expansion further North will increase the congestion on RD 68 and its arterial roads of Burden RD, Sandifur Parkway, RD's 44 and 36, and the corresponding interchanges of Rd 68 and 100 and hwy182. The interchange already gets backed up onto hwy 182 from exit 7 and 9 during evening commute hours. The already planned expansion west of RD 100 will further congest that traffic as well. 2.Expansion north will also put a strain on city services, police and fire and rescue. That can remediated by hiring, buying and building more of necessary components of personnel, equipment and trucks. Additional Schools and teachers will be needed as well. Again more spending. More bonds, more taxes to approve, more funding to secure. 3.Expansions that have already taken place have brought in increasing number of real estate speculators that are building and buying homes to rent, rather than being affordable for families to purchase. The number of quick build storage units can confirm that. I am for progress and growth to meet the needs of prospering area. However, before expansion goes further there need to be plans set to accommodate the logistics of traffic and that the funding is available for the required service needs. We also need to build a community that helps build people and families. I appreciate the work that those who serve the city have done to make Pasco a good place to live and have a family. Please do the ground work planning to prevent problems rather than trying remediate them when they appear. Best Regards, Neil Withers EXHIBIT B Page 143 of 226 THANKSGIVING LIMITED P ARNTERSHIP P.O. BOX 3027 May 21, 2020 Mr. Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco 525 North Third Avenue Pasco WA 99301 PASCO WA 99302-3027 (509)545-3355 Re: Planning Commission Meeting May 21, 2020 Mr. Gonzalez, RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOM IC DEVELOPMENT This letter is on behalf of the Thanksgiving Limited Partnership (TLP). As managing partner I ask again that staff and the planning commission, reconsider the current Urban Growth Boundary to include all or most of the TLP property, as previously approved in Resolution 3845 dated June 18, 2018. In a letter sent to staff dated March 7, 2020, TLP provided a brief history and explanation behind why application was made to include this property in the UGA. Furthermore, the letter emphasized that the City was involved in this effort every step of the way. Lastly, the letter highlighted this property's proximity to utilities installed during the Obama administration using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds that were intended to stimulate economic development. The March 7, 2020, letter was brought up during the March 21, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, but in our opinion not adequately discussed. As a follow up to the March 7, 2020 letter, we would like to present the planning commission with a timeline to show how long TLP has been working with the City on this, and to bring up a second concern. TIMELINE: 2011 The notion of a soccer complex as an industrial buffer was first discussed with the City. TLP submitted a proposal to the City on June 20, 2011. 2012 Per the advice of the City, the notion of a soccer complex as a buffer for future industrial growth heading north was discussed with the neighbors and Rick Terway from the City participated in the discussion. 2013 The City provided TLP an initial design of the soccer complex and how the City intended to manage the complex was discussed with the neighbors. 2014 The City still recognized the soccer complex as a good buffer solution but was trying to figure out how to fund a purchase. Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT G Page 144 of 226 Page 145 of 226 Page 146 of 226 HALVERSON NORTHWEST LAW GROUP May 14, 2020 Via Email (whiter@pasco-wa.gov; gonzalezib@pasco-wa.gov) and US Mail City of Pasco Community Development Department P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez AND TO: City of Pasco Planning Commission P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson Raymond G. Alexander Alan D. Campbell++ J. Jay Carroll Paul C. Dempsey'"' James S. Elliott Yuridia Equihua Robert N. Faber F. Joe Falk, Jr.+ Mark E. Fickes Carter L. Fjeld+ Frederick N. Halverson~ Lawrence E. Martin* Terry C. Schmalz+ Linda A. Sellers Michael F. Shinn Stephen R. Winfree+ *Also OR Bar Member **Also state Bar of CA Member +Of Counsel ~Honorary/Retired ++Retired RE: Comments on CPA 2020-01, the Proposed (Modified) City of Pasco UGA Expansion Our Clients: Property Owner: Fred Olberding Purchaser/Developer: Big Sky Developers, LLC Dear Sirs: Introduction and Background Our office represents Mr. Fred Olberding who owns property north of Burns Road adjacent to the current Pasco city limits and slated for inclusion in the City of Pasco's ("City" or "Pasco") UGA expansion currently being considered by the City of Pasco and its Planning Commission as part of its required periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan. Our office also represents Big Sky Developers, LLC currently under contract to acquire the property and develop it for residential use. Collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A is a Franklin County parcel map and the City's draft October 2019 Future Land Use Map showing the property at issue (the "Property"). The Property currently is under contract to be sold to Big Sky Developers, LLC for future residential development contingent upon the property being included in Pasco's UGA and zoned for residential development. ----------------------------halversonNW.com HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C. Yakima Office: 405 E. Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 22550 I Yakima, WA 98907 I p) 509.248.6030 I f) 509.453.6880 Sunnyside Office: 9IO Franklin Avenue, Suite I I PO Box 2IO I Sunnyside, WA 98944 I p) 509.837.5302 I f) 509.837,2465 EXHIBIT D Page 147 of 226 Page 148 of 226 Page 149 of 226 Page 150 of 226 Page 151 of 226 Page 152 of 226 Page 153 of 226 r-, future wise .J 816 Second Ave, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 p.(206) 343-0681 f. (206) 709-8218 futurewise.org RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2020 , May 19, 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tanya Bowers, Chair City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Ms. Bowers: Subject: Comments on Planning Commission Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Urban Growth Area (MF# CPA 2020-001) Via email: whiter@pasco-wa.gov Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Urban Growth Area (MF# CPA 2020-001). Futurewise works throughout Washington State on the implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). We work with local communities to support land-use policies that encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities, and that protect our most valuable farmlands, forests and water resources. We have members across Washington State including in the City of Pasco. We have been following and commenting on the City of Pasco Urban Growth Area Expansion proposals since 2018. In our letter of August 31, 2018, to the Franklin County Planning Commission, CPA 2018-03, on the proposed City of Pasco UGA expansion, we discussed why Washington has Urban Growth Areas: To Save Taxpayers and Ratepayers Money The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires urban growth areas and limits their size for many reasons. One of the most important is that compact Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) save taxpayers and ratepayers money. In a study published in a peer reviewed journal, John Carruthers and Gurminder Ulfarsson analyzed urban areas throughout the United States including Franklin County.1 They found that the per capita costs of most public services declined with density and increased where urban areas were large.2 Compact urban growth areas save taxpayers and ratepayers money. This study was published in a peer reviewed journal. 1 John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson, Urban Sprawl and the Cost of Public Services 30 ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNfNG B: PLANNING AND DESIGN 503, 511 (2003). Enclosed with this letter. 2 Id. at 518.L llPage EXHIBIT E Page 154 of 226 Page 155 of 226 Page 156 of 226 Page 157 of 226 Page 158 of 226 816 Second Ave, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 p. (206) 343-0681 futurewise.org August 31, 2018 Mr. Claude Pierret, Chairperson Franklin County Planning Commission 502 W. Boeing Pasco, Washington 99301 Dear Chair Pierret and Planning Commissioners: Subject: Comments on CPA 2018-03, the proposed City of Pasco UGA expansion. Sent via email to: planning@co.franklin.wa.us; rgilley@co.franklin.wa.us; nstickney@ahbl.com Thank you for the opportunity to comment on CPA 2018-03 the proposed City of Pasco urban growth area (UGA) expansion. Futurewise recommends that the proposed City of Pasco UGA expansion be denied for three independent reasons: the expansion is oversized and, perhaps, unneeded, the expansion will lead to the conversion of agricultural lands with adverse impacts on the Franklin County economy, and the expansion will adversely impact the operations and potential for expansion of the Tri-Cities Airport again adversely impacting the county economy. Our concerns are detailed below after we discuss why Washington State has UGAs. Futurewise works throughout Washington State to support land-use policies that encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities, and that protect our most valuable farmlands, forests, and water resources. Futurewise has supporters throughout Washington State including Franklin County. Why does Washington have Urban Growth Areas? To Save Taxpayers and Ratepayers Money The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires urban growth areas and limits their size for many reasons. One of the most important is that compact urban growth areas (UGAs) save taxpayers and ratepayers money. In a study published in a peer reviewed journal, John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson analyzed urban areas throughout the United States including Franklin County.1 They found that the per capita costs of most public services declined with density and increased where urban areas were large.2 Compact urban growth areas save taxpayers and ratepayers money. This study was published in a peer reviewed journal. 1 John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson, Urban Sprawl and the Cost of Public Services 30 ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B: PLANNING AND DESIGN 503, 511 (2003). Enclosed with this letter. 2 Id. at 518. Page 159 of 226 Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 2 To Conserve Water Long-Term Compact urban growth areas also help conserve water long-term. Large lots and low densities increase water demand, increase leakage from water systems, and increase costs to water system customers.3 So accommodating the same population in a right-sized UGA can reduce future water demands and costs.4 To encourage growth in existing cities and towns and to protect farmland Urban growth areas encourage housing growth in cities and protect rural and resource lands. To examine the effect of King County, Washington’s urban growth areas on the timing of land development, Cunningham looked at real property data, property sales data, and geographic information systems (GIS) data. These records include 500,000 home sales and 163,000 parcels that had the potential to be developed from 1984 through 2001.5 Cunningham concluded that “[t]his paper presents compelling evidence that the enactment of a growth boundary reduced development in designated rural areas and increased construction in urban areas, which suggests that the Growth Management Act is achieving its intended effect of concentrating housing growth.”6 He also concluded that by removing uncertainty as to the highest and best use of the land that it accelerated housing development in King County.7 This study was published in a peer reviewed journal. Reducing development in rural areas and natural resource lands can also have significant environmental benefits, such as protecting water quality and working farms and forests. One of the most controversial issues related to urban growth areas is whether the restricted land supply causes increases in housing costs. Carruthers, in another peer reviewed study, examined the evidence for the Portland urban growth area and concluded that it was not increasing housing costs because the city’s high-density zoning allowed the construction of an abundant housing supply.8 To keep our existing cities and towns vibrant and economically desirable Urban growth areas help keep our existing cities and towns vibrant and economically desirable. In a peer reviewed study, Dawkins and Nelson found that the city of Yakima’s share of the metropolitan housing market increased after adoption of the GMA.9 This and other measures showed that center cities in states with growth management laws attract greater shares of the metropolitan area’s housing market 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Growing Toward More Efficient Water Use: Linking Development, Infrastructure, and Drinking Water Policies pp. 3 – 5 (EPA 230-R-06-001: January 2006). Accessed on Aug. 29, 2018 at: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/growing-toward-more-efficient-water-use. 4 Id. at p. 8. 5 Christopher R. Cunningham, Growth Controls, Real Options, and Land Development 89 THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 343, 343 (2007). 6 Id. at 356. 7 Id. at 356 – 57. 8 John I. Carruthers, The Impacts of State Growth Management Programmes: A Comparative Analysis 39 URBAN STUDIES 1959, 1976 (2002). Carruthers included Washington’s GMA in his analysis but concluded that it was too early to tell if it was successful since it had only been in place for seven years in the data he analyzed, but he believed the GMA had promi se if “consistently enforced.” Id. at 1977. 9 Casey J. Dawkins & Arthur C. Nelson, State Growth Management Programs and Central-City Revitalization, 69 Journal of the American Planning Association 381, 386 (2003). Page 160 of 226 Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 3 than center cities in states without growth management aiding center city revitalization.10 This reduces the tendency to move out of existing center cities such as the City of Pasco. To encourage healthy lifestyles Urban growth areas promote healthy lifestyles. Aytur, Rodriguez, Evenson, and Catellier conducted a statistical analysis of leisure and transportation-related physical activity in 63 large metropolitan statistical areas, including Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane from 1990 to 2002.11 Their peer reviewed study found a positive association between residents’ leisure time physical activity and walking and bicycling to work and “strong” urban containment policies such as those in Washington State.12 We agree the proposed UGA expansion is oversized and so should be denied The Washington State Supreme Court has held that an “UGA designation cannot exceed the amount of land necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected by the [State of Washington Office of Financial Management] OFM, plus a reasonable land market supply factor.”13 We agree with County staff that the UGA expansion is oversized.14 We also suggest four modifications to the capacity analysis so that it is consistent with the GMA. First, we suggest the dedications from the gross acreage be limited to a market supply factor. The courts and Growth Management Hearings Board have held that deductions beyond a market factor violate the GMA. As the Growth Management Hearings Board wrote “if the Legislature had wished for cities and counties to utilize such a variety of factors to adjust the available land supply … it would have amended the GMA accordingly. … This, the Legislature did not do and, therefore, by the GMA’s own terms, a UGA may be adjusted only to reflect a reasonable land market supply factor.”15 In addition to the 20 percent market factor, the capacity estimates use a “[s]pecial 20 percent reduction to the ‘low density’ category …”16 This deduction in addition to the market factor is inconsistent with the GMA. It is also unneeded since the 20 percent market factor is at the high end of what the available data supports. Market factors are not required, but the GMA allows the county to use a “reasonable” market factor.17 What a market factor does is allow a county to make an urban growth area larger than it needs to be. To determine their market factor, Snohomish County hired The Gilmore Research Group to survey owners with developable land and asked them the relevant question when determining a market factor: if they would develop their land in the next twenty years. This survey found that “[a]bout 21% of all 10 Id. at 392 – 93 (2003). 11 Semra A. Aytur, Daniel A. Rodriguez, Kelly R. Evenson, & Diane J. Catellier, Urban Containment Policies and Physical Activity: A Time–Series Analysis of Metropolitan Areas, 1990–2002 34 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE 320, 325 (2008). 12 Id. at 330. 13 Thurston Cty. v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 351 – 52, 190 P.3d 38, 48 – 49 (2008). See RCW 36.70A.110 and RCW 36.70A.115 which limit the size of UGAs. 14 Summary of Request and Analysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p. 16 (8/24/2018 version). 15 Petree v. Whatcom County, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) Case No. 08 -2-0021c, Final Decision and Order (Oct. 13, 2008), at 30 of 78, 2008 WL 4949257, at *18. 16 Summary of Request and Analysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p. 4 (8/24/2018 version). 17 Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 351 – 52, 190 P.3d 38, 48 – 49 (2008). Page 161 of 226 Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 4 respondents indicated that they would be unlikely or very unlikely to have their parcels developed in the next 20 years.”18 “A lower percentage of owners of vacant land (17%) compared to the owners of partially used or redevelopable properties (23%) percent indicated that it would be unlikely or very unlikely that their parcels would be available for development anytime within the next 20 years.”19 The capacity estimates “calculated future growth based on development of vacant residential land. Redevelopment of under-developed sites was not considered.”20 So, for vacant land, the Gilmore Research Group survey would support a 17 percent market factor since the capacity estimate only looked at vacant land. Futurewise’s second recommended modification would be to incorporate an estimate of the redevelopable land in the existing UGA. WAC 365-196-310(3)(f) provides that “[c]ounties and cities should develop and evaluate urban growth area proposals with the purpose of accommodating projected urban growth through infill and redevelopment within existing municipal boundaries or urban areas.” WAC 365-196- 310(4)(b)(ii) provides that in “determining the need for urban growth areas expansions to accommodate projected population and employment growth” counties and cities should prepare a land capacity analysis that includes “a projection of the additional urban population and employment growth that may occur on the available residential, commercial and industrial land base. The projection should consider the portion of population and employment growth which may occur through redevelopment of previously developed urban areas during the twenty-year planning period.” Consistent with these regulations, estimates used to size UGAs must include redevelopable land. The capacity estimate “calculated future growth based on development of vacant residential land. Redevelopment of under-developed sites was not considered.”21 We recommend the Franklin County not move forward with the UGA expansion proposals until the City of Pasco estimates the redevelopment capacity of the existing UGA. Futurewise’s third recommended modification is to include vacant and redevelopable platted land within the existing UGA in the estimates of developable land. In calculating development capacity the capacity estimates determined the gross amount of land available for development and then deducted a market factor and other deductions.22 “The gross amount of land in each residential land use category is equal to that which is not “platted,” owned by the school district for future school development, used as parklands, located within the Broadmoor Planning Area, or already developed …”23 Like excluding redevelopable land, excluding platted land that is vacant or redevelopable undercounts the capacity in the existing UGA and is inconsistent with the GMA requirement that the size of the “UGA designation cannot exceed the amount of land necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected by the OFM, plus a reasonable land market supply factor.”24 So again, we recommend the Franklin County not move forward with the UGA expansion proposals until the City of Pasco estimates the capacity of the platted lands. 18 The Gilmore Research Group, Urban Land Availability Survey of Snohomish County Landowners: Prepared for Jones & Stokes and Snohomish County Planning and Development Services p. 3 (June 14, 2005) accessed on Aug. 30, 2018 at: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8766/Jones-Stokes-Final-Report-6-14-05 and enclosed in a separate email. 19 Id. 20 Summary of Request and Analysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p. 4 (8/24/2018 version). 21 Id. 22 Id. at pp. 4 – 6. 23 Id. p. 4. 24 Thurston Cty. v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 351 – 52, 190 P.3d 38, 48 – 49 (2008). See RCW 36.70A.110 and RCW 36.70A.115 which limit the size of UGAs. Page 162 of 226 Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 5 Futurewise’s fourth recommended revision is to include the full capacity of the West Pasco/Broadmoor Development Master Plan of over 8,000 housing units in the capacity calculations.25 The development master plan process is well along, the scoping for the environmental impact statement has been completed.26 The increased housing capacity in West Pasco/Broadmoor is certainly more probable than an oversized UGA expansion that requires the conversion of agricultural land of long-term commercial significance. The UGA should not be expanded onto agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance Agricultural land of long-term commercial significance cannot be included in a UGA unless it retains its designation and zoning and the county or city has adopted a transfer of development rights program for the land.27 If the City of Pasco wishes to convert the agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance to urban development, then the city must conduct a regional or areawide study showing the land no longer qualifies as agricultural land of long-term commercial significance. WAC 365-190-050(1) requires that in “designating agricultural resource lands, counties must approach the effort as a county-wide or area-wide process.” WAC 365-190-040(10)(b) also requires “a county-wide or regional process” when amending designations of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. These WACs are part of the “minimum guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions” and are to guide the designation of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance.28 When WAC 365-190-050 uses mandatory language, local governments are required to use that provision.29 Based on these requirements, the Growth Management Hearings Board reversed a county de-designation of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance to put the land in an urban growth area.30 The Board wrote: The Board considers Benton County’s de-designation of agricultural lands for this small section of land, in isolation from a much larger County or area-wide study to be inappropriate and, by de-designating lands that qualify as agricultural lands of long term commercial significance, the County violated WAC 365-190-050 and corresponding GMA sections RCW 36.70A.030, RCW 36.70A.050, and RCW 36.70A.170.31 25 Summary of Request and Analysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p. 4 footnote 6 (8/24/2018 version). 26 City of Pasco Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Scope of EIS for West Pasco/Broadmoor Development Master Plan accessed on Aug. 30, 2018 at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwi8xs--- ZXdAhVJ6Z8KHdlQCMcQFjAAegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffortress.wa.gov%2Fecy%2Fsepar%2FMain%2FSEP A%2FDocument%2FDocumentOpenHandler.ashx%3FDocumentId%3D7222&usg=AOvVaw068HppT-H_lf_HgiBqF57v 27 RCW 36.70A.060(1); RCW 36.70A.060(4). 28 RCW 36.70A.050(3). 29 Clark Cty. Washington v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Review Bd., 161 Wn. App. 204, 232 – 33, 254 P.3d 862, 875 (2011). 30 Futurewise v. Benton County, EWGMHB Case No. 14-1-0003, Final Decision and Order (Oct. 15, 2014), at 37 of 38, 2014 WL 7505300, at *23 – 24. 31 Id. at 35 of 38, 2014 WL 7505300, at *22. Page 163 of 226 Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 6 So, before the lands currently designated Agriculture in the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan can be included in a UGA for residential and other urban uses, a regional or areawide dedesignation analysis must be prepared. We have reviewed every page of the City of Pasco’s UGA expansion materials and a regional or areawide dedesignation analysis is not included. In our professional opinion we are skeptical that an objective a regional or areawide dedesignation analysis would support the dedesignation of these lands. If a complete land capacity analysis shows there is a need for a UGA expansion and given the omissions in the existing data documented above that is far from certain, we think the Summary of Request and Analysis’s recommendation to focus on rural designations and to consider increasing residential densities are smart recommendations.32 As it is now, the City of Pasco UGA expansion fails the requirements for dedesignating agricultural land and must be denied.33 The UGA should not be expanded into airport safety zones or in areas that limit future expansion of the Tri-Cities Airport RCW 36.70A.510 and RCW 36.70.547 require that “[e]very county, city, and town in which there is located a general aviation airport that is operated for the benefit of the general public, whether publicly owned or privately owned public use, shall, through its comprehensive plan and development regulations, discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such general aviation airport.” The Tri-Cities Airport in Pasco is a major economic asset for Franklin County.34 We agree with the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division that “that the proposed expansion, if approved in its current form, would allow incompatible development adjacent to the Airport and would impeded future development and extension of Runway 12/30.”35 So the proposed City of Pasco UGA expansion is inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.510 and RCW 36.70.547 and must be denied. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information, please contact Alison Cable at telephone (206) 343 0681 Ext. 114 and email: alison@futurewise.org or Tim Trohimovich at telephone (206) 343-0681 Ext. 102 and email: tim@futurewise.org. Very Truly Yours, Alison Cable Tri-Cities Program Manager 32 Summary of Request and Analysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p. 9 (8/24/2018 version). 33 Futurewise v. Benton County, EWGMHB Case No. 14-1-0003, Final Decision and Order (Oct. 15, 2014), at 35 of 38, 2014 WL 7505300, at *22. 34 Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division Letter to City of Pasco Community and Economic Development Department RE: Pasco’s Proposed Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) 160 acres North West of the Tri-Cities Airport p. 1 (May 10, 2018) accessed on Aug. 30, 2018 at: https://www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias__1967/uga_applications/37285/uga_applications.aspx in the file “CPA 2018- 03_B_PASCO_UGA_AVIATION_CONSULT.pdf” 35 Id. Page 164 of 226 Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 7 Tim Trohimovich, AICP Director of Planning & Law Enclosures cc: Rick White, City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Director Page 165 of 226 816 Second Ave, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 p. (206) 343-0681 f. (206) 709-8218 futurewise.org 1 | P a g e November 8, 2018 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director Community and Economic Development Department City of Pasco 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. White: Subject: Comments on the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice for Plan/EIS for City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update Via email: Email: whiter@pasco-wa.gov Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice for the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Expansion. Futurewise works throughout Washington State on the implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). We work with local communities to support land-use policies that encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities, and that protect our most valuable farmlands, forests and water resources. We have members across Washington State including the City of Pasco. We support the City of Pasco Determination of Significance and the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to consider the impacts of the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area expansion on the built and natural environment. We support Alternative 3 in the City of Pasco Scoping Notice: “Compact Growth Target: This alternative would allow for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20- year population growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and to capitalize on other development opportunities. In addition, alternative 3 will consider a growth pattern of higher density. It includes considering land use and policy changes to gain an increase in development capacity within the undeveloped and infill areas of the City. Under this alternative, the Urban Growth Area would be modified to the north of the City at a higher density/smaller area compared to Alternative 2 to accommodate future growth. It will consider land use and policy changes in order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, and to accommodate growth.” We believe the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will show that this alternative will accommodate projected population growth and result in the least adverse impacts on the built and natural environment. We offer our recommendations for topics to consider in the EIS. Page 166 of 226 2 | P a g e The EIS should analyze impacts on affordable housing Housing is an element is an element of the environment.1 Different alternatives may have different impacts on the affordable housing. For example, different alternatives may displace existing affordable housing which maybe a significant adverse impact that should be analyzed in the EIS. The EIS should analyze the impacts on fire services and fire safety measures Residential growth in the City of Pasco has increased the exposure of residents on the Wildland Urban Interface to wildfires.2 Expanding the city onto agricultural and rural lands will increase this expose. Fire services are an element of the environment.3 The impacts of the alternatives and UGA expansion on community fire safety must be analyzed in the Draft EIS and mitigation measures identified such as: directing growth away from areas with a moderate to high wildfire threat level.4 Another potential mitigating measure would be to require new developments to meet Firewise Communities Program standards or the equivalent. The changing climate will also increase wildfires in the West including the City of Pasco. A recent peer- reviewed study showed that human caused global warming has made wildfire fuels drier and caused an increase in the area burnt by wildfires between 1984 and 2015.5 Global warming’s drying of wildfire fuels is projected to increasingly promote wildfire potential across the western US.6 The area of this increase in drying fuels includes the City of Pasco.7 The EIS should analyze the impacts on transportation Transportation systems, vehicular traffic, the movement and circulation of people or goods, and traffic hazards are elements of the environment.8 Air traffic is also an element of the environment.9 The comprehensive plan and the urban growth area expansion has the potential to increase vehicle miles traveled and to increase traffic hazards. In addition, the urban growth area expansion will adversely impact the operations and expansion potential of the Tri-Cities Airport. The EIS should analyze the adverse impacts on the transportation system, including motor vehicles, air transportation, transit, walking, bicycling, and transportation safety. As required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(iii), impacts on the state highway system should also be analyzed. The EIS should analyze the impacts on historic, cultural, and archaeological resources Historic and cultural preservation are elements of the environment.10 The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has developed an archaeological predictive model that can predict where archaeological resources, a type of cultural resource, are likely to be located and where the department recommends archaeological surveys should be completed before earth disturbing activities and other uses and activities that can damage archaeological sites are undertaken.11 The predictive model shows that Pasco and 1 WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(ii). 2 Franklin County, Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan pp. 48 – 51 (Approved by the Franklin County Commissioners 2014) accessed on Feb. 26, 2018 at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_burn_cwpp_franklin_co.pdf 3 WAC 197-11-444(2)(d)(i). 4 See the Franklin County, Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan pp. 45 – 46 (Approved by the Franklin County Commissioners 2014) for the threat level map. 5 John T. Abatzogloua and A. Park Williams, Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests 113 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PNAS) 11770 p. 11773 (Oct. 18, 2016) accessed on Nov. 15, 2017 at: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770 6 Id. 7 Id. at p. 11771. 8 WAC 197-11-444(2)(c). 9 WAC 197-11-444(2)(c)(iii). 10 WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(iv). 11 Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation WISAARD webpage accessed on Nov. 7, 2018 at: https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/find-a-historic-place. Page 167 of 226 3 | P a g e the urban growth expansion area has a “high risk” and “very high risk” of cultural resources in these areas.12 Land development can adverse impact these resources and the EIS should analyze the impacts of development authorized by the comprehensive plan and the UGA expansion on historic and cultural resources. The EIS should analyze the impact on water resources Water including surface water movement, quantity and quality, runoff and absorption, groundwater movement, quantity, and quality, and public water supplies are all elements of the environment.13 Water conservation and focusing growth into existing cities and towns can stretch water supplies and accommodate growth and it is important to reserve water for agriculture and value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing to maintain and enhance the county economy.14 The development authorized by the comprehensive plan and the urban growth area expansions can adversely affect water and increase water use and runoff. This is a probable adverse impact on the elements of the environment s and should be analyzed in the EIS. The EIS should analyze the impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Air quality is an element of the environment.15 Elevated ozone level averages in the Tri-Cities for 2015 through 2017 exceeded the federal regulatory limit which could trigger sanctions from the Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, a joint study was conducted with the Department of Ecology, Washington State University, and Benton Air Authority, the Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS). The study found that elevated ozone levels are not caused by one source and that traffic emissions are a major source of air pollutants in the Tri- Cities16. Particulate matter from vehicle emissions, fires, and blowing dust contribute to unhealthy air quality that increase symptoms of asthma and heart disease. Weather, topography and wind directions contribute to high-levels of ozone in the Tri-Cities. Expanding the urban growth boundary will likely increase vehicle miles travelled and emissions. Development will increase dust. These are all probable adverse impacts on elements of the environment and should be analyzed in the EIS. Climate is also an element of the environment.17 Washington State enacted limits on greenhouse gas emissions and a statewide goal to reduce annual per capita vehicle miles traveled for light-duty vehicles. Comprehensive planning is one way to address both the reduction of greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled. Almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in our state result from the transportation sector. Land use and transportation strategies that promote compact and mixed-use development and infill reduce the need to drive, reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.18 Expanding the urban growth boundary will likely increase vehicle miles travelled and emissions. These are all probable adverse impacts on climate, an element of the environment, and should be analyzed in the EIS. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that state and local governments can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land and materials management practices such as materials efficiency, industrial ecology, green design, land revitalization, sustainable consumption, smart 12 Id. 13 WAC 197-11-444(1)(c). 14 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Growing Toward More Efficient Water Use: Linking Development, Infrastructure, and Drinking Water Policies pp. 3 – 5, p. 8 (EPA 230-R-06-001: January 2006) accessed on Nov. 7, 2018 at: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/growing-toward-more-efficient-water-use . 15 WAC 197-11-444(1)(b)(i). 16 Department of Ecology website, Air Quality Studies, “Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS)” https://ecology.wa.gov/Asset-Collections/Doc-Assets/Air-quality/Research-Data/20171212TriCitiesOzonePrecursorStudy, last visited November 6, 2018. 17 WAC 197-11-444(1)(b)(iii). 18 Climate Change - Washington State Department of Commerce https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving- communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/climate-change/ last visited November 5, 2018. Page 168 of 226 4 | P a g e growth, pollution prevention and designed for environment.19 Land use planning that encourages the use of transit, walking and cycling, and the creation of mixed-use urban centers can improve air quality by reducing automobile trips and congestion. The EIS should analyze the impacts on agricultural and rural land The relationship to existing land use plans is an element of the environment.20 The area proposed to be included in the urban growth area includes designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and rural lands. Converting these lands to urban development will be significant adverse impacts that should be analyzed in the EIS. The EIS should analyze the impacts on priority habitats and species The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife lists priority species and habitats and provides technical assistance on the designation and protection of these habitats. Plants and animals, habitats for and numbers or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife, unique species, and fish or wildlife migration routes are all elements of the environment.21 The conversion of agricultural and rural land to urban development will adversely impact these habitats. The expansion of impervious surfaces will also harm aquatic habitats. These adverse impacts on these elements of the environment should be analyzed in the EIS. The designation and conservation of priority habitats and species are important to residents who hunt, fish, and view wildlife. Outdoor recreation is estimated to contribute $81,959,000 to the Franklin County economy, generating 1,114 jobs and paying $5,942,000 in state and local taxes.22 Protecting fish and wildlife habitats and rivers and streams will help maintain the economic benefits of outdoor recreation for Franklin County. The EIS must analyze the impacts on native plants Native plants of the Columbia Basin have ecological, aesthetic, and historical value. The Benton-Franklin Conservation District Heritage Gardens of the Columbia Basin and Washington Native Plant Society educate the public on the value of native plants and help prevent the conversion and degradation of these local resources and wildlife habitat. “Unconverted areas are threatened by a negative feedback loop that combines disturbance, invasion of noxious weeds and more frequent fires. When fragile soils are disturbed and cryptobiotic soil crusts are removed, annual invasive species such as cheatgrass become established.”23 The communities of native plants and wildlife that make up the iconic Columbia Basin shrubsteppe have been severely diminished. Today, less than 50% of Washington’s historic shrubsteppe remains, and much of it is degraded, fragmented, and/or isolated from other similar habitats24. For these reasons, we support the protection of Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas designated in the Department of Natural Resources Washington Natural Heritage Program for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species.25 19 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 2009 “Opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through materials and land use management practices,” https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/ghg-land-materials-management.pdf 20 WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(i). 21 WAC 197-11-444(1)(d). 22 Tania Briceno & Greg Schundler, Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State p. 83 (Earth Economics: 2015) accessed on April 5, 2018 at: https://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/ORTF/EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec.pdf 23 Washington Native Plant Society, https://www.wnps.org/ecosystems/shrub -steppe last visited on October 23, 2018. 24 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation or Species and Ecosystems Science, https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/projects/shrubsteppe/ last visited November 2, 2018. 25 Washington State department of Natural Resources relevant data set on Rare Plants and High Quality Ecosystems: http://datawadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets?group_ids=266f0b3bdc014f5ab2a96ad4ea358a28 Page 169 of 226 5 | P a g e Plants and habitats for and numbers or diversity of species of plants and unique species are all elements of the environment.26 The conversion of agricultural and rural land to urban development will adversely impact these habitats. These adverse impacts on these elements of the environment should be analyzed in the EIS. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information, please contact Alison Cable at telephone 206-343-0681 x114 and email: alison@futurewise.org or Tim Trohimovich at telephone (206) 343- 0681 Ext. 118 and email: tim@futurewise.org. Very Truly Yours, Alison Cable Tri-Cities Program Manager Tim Trohimovich, AICP Director of Planning & Law 26 WAC 197-11-444(1)(d). Page 170 of 226 HALVERSON NORTHWEST May 20, 2020 City of Pasco Community Development Department P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 LAW GROUP RECEIVED MAY L O 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT City of Pasco City Council P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Saul Martinez, Mayor Raymond G. Al8J<ander Alan D. Campbell++ J. Jay Carroll Paul C. Dempsey" James S. Elliott Yurldla Equihua Robert N. Faber F. Joe Falk, Jr,+ Mark E. Fickes Carter L. Fjeld+ Frederick N. Halveraon Lawrence E. Martin· Terry C. Schmalz+ Linda A. Sellers Michael F. Shinn Stephen R. 'Mnfree+ 'Also OR Bar Member �/so State Bar or CA M&mb<Jr +Of Counsel -Honorery/ReUred ++Retired Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez whiter@pasco-wa.gov; gonzalezib@pasco-wa.gov Franklin County Planning Commission 502 W. Boeing St. City of Pasco Planning Commission P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson City of Pasco Executive Department P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Dave Zabell, City Manager Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Claude Pierret, Chairperson Franklin County Planning Department 502 W. Boeing St. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Derrick Braaten dbraaten@co.frankfin.wa.us Franklin County Commissioners 1016 N. 4th Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Robert Koch, Chairman RE: Comments on CPA 2020-01, the Propose d (Modified) City of Pasco UGA Expansion Our Clients: Property Owner: Debra Kohler Purchaser/Developer: Big Sky Developers, LLC Dear Sirs/Madam: Introduction and Background Our office represents Big Sky Developers, LLC that currently has under contract for purchase and residential development approximately 100 acres of prime residential development property owned by Ms. Debra Kohler overlooking the Columbia River. Attached to this letter ---------------------------halversonNW.com HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C. Yakima Office: 405 E. Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 22550 I Yakima, WA 98907 I p) 509.248.6030 I f) 509.453.6880 Sunnyside Office; 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite r I PO Box 210 I Sunnyside, WA 98944 I p) 509.837.5302 I f) 509.837-2465 EXHIBIT F Page 171 of 226 Page 172 of 226 Page 173 of 226 Page 174 of 226 Page 175 of 226 Page 176 of 226 Page 177 of 226 Page 178 of 226 Page 179 of 226 Page 180 of 226 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 3, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community and Economic Development Remote Workshop Meeting: 6/8/20 FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: 2021-2026 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan I. REFERENCE(S): 2021-2026 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Project Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Sixtheir update to annually Washington are counties and cities required -Year Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). Update of the TIP is necessary to qualify for federal and state funding. The TIP includes small and large projects varying from street widening, intersection improvements, and pedestrian/bicycle facilities to mega projects like the Lewis Street Overpass. These projects are included in the project list and are depicted on the project map. It is important to note that the TIP is a transportation system planning document and is not fiscally constrained, meaning, many of the projects on the list lack a secure source of funding. As a planning document, the proposed TIP update represents those projects that are anticipated to be needed within six years. Projects are often strategically coordinated with large utility projects, or may be delayed due to a lack of funding, and in some cases impacted positively or negatively by other agencies having an interest in a project; such as the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), as a Page 181 of 226 result timing of projects within the TIP will often and necessarily require adjustment. Update of the TIP and subsequent submission to the State are statutory requirements, and while our local program is not required to be fiscally constrained, the program should be reasonable and realistic. The Council will see most of these projects again, incorporated with the annual Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan and the annual budgeting process, both of which are much more fiscally constrained than the TIP. V. DISCUSSION: The TIP is being presented to Council for questions and discussion. Upon Council review and direction, the plan will be modified and staff will prepare a resolution adopting the plan and present the TIP to the public in the form of a public hearing on June 15, 2020. The TIP will be submitted to the State after the public hearing. Page 182 of 226 Proj. #Project Name # on Map Road Name Begin & End Termini PE ROW Construction Total Project Cost Ongoing Project Funding Secured?2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 n/a Annual Pavement Preservation Program N/A various various $ 252,000 $ - $ 6,261,093 $ 6,513,093 YES YES $ 875,500 $ 901,765 $ 928,818 $ 956,682 $ 985,383 $ 1,014,944 13007 Lewis Street Overpass 2 Lewis Street Oregon Avenue to 2nd Avenue $ 4,034,522 $ 4,079,311 $ 28,150,000 $ 36,263,833 YES YES $ 19,598,860 $ 4,683,000 20007 Lewis Street Corridor Improvements 3 Lewis Street 5th Avenue to 2nd Avenue $ 224,250 $ - $ 1,699,334 $ 1,923,584 YES PARTIAL $ 1,198,000 $ 569,000 16014 Traffic Signal Improvements - Citywide Phase 2 4 Multiple Locations Multiple Locations $ 300,000 $ 3,649,151 $ 3,949,151 YES YES $ 3,123,000 n/a S 10th Avenue & W Lewis Street Advanced Intersection Warning 5 Lewis Street 10th Avenue $ 10,000 $ - $ 33,400 $ 43,400 NEW NO $ 15,000 $ 28,400 20009 Road 68 Widening - South of Interstate 182 - Phase 1 6 Road 68 Interstate 182 to Argent Road $ 57,628 $ 250,000 $ 307,628 YES YES $ 250,000 12001 Argent Road Improvements - Phase 1 7 Argent Road Varney/Saraceno to 20th Avenue $ 415,000 $ - $ 1,901,059 $ 2,316,059 YES YES $ 100,000 20010 Argent Road Improvements - PHASE 3 Saraceno to Road 36 8 Argent Road Road 36 Intersection $ 495,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 $ 4,495,000 NO YES $ 420,000 $ 4,000,000 n/a Argent Road & Road 36 PHASE 2 Intersection Improvements 9 Argent Road Road 36 to Varney/Saraceno $ 128,000 $ - $ 742,000 $ 870,000 NO YES $ 185,500 $ 556,500 n/a Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway - Phase 1 10 Burns Road Rd 100 to Rd 90 $ 23,000 $ - $ 108,000 $ 131,000 YES PARTIAL $ 108,000 n/a Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway - Phase 2 11 Burns Road Rd 90 to Rd 84 $ 23,000 $ - $ 63,000 $ 86,000 YES PARTIAL $ - $ 63,000 n/a Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway - Phase 3 12 Burns Road Rd 84 to Rd 68 $ 23,000 $ - $ 91,000 $ 114,000 YES PARTIAL $ 91,000 n/a Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Road 100 Interchange - WSDOT Partnership 13 Road 100 St. Thomas Drive to Harris Rd $ 120,000 $ - $ 2,200,000 $ 2,320,000 NO NO $ 120,000 $ 2,200,000 n/a Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Road 68 Interchange - WSDOT Partnership 14 Road 68 Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd $ 100,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 2,100,000 NEW NO $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 n/a Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Sylvester Street Overpass - WSDOT Partnership 15 Sylvester Street 32nd Avenue to 28th Avenue $ 300,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,800,000 NEW NO $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 n/a Road 100 Widening - South of Interstate 182 16 Road 100 Court Street to Chapel Hill $ 375,000 $ - $ 3,750,000 $ 4,125,000 NO NO $ 375,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,250,000 n/a Sacajawea Heritage Trail/Levee Lowering 17 Sacajawea Heritage Trail Road 72 to Road 52 $ 231,000 $ - $ 2,459,895 $ 2,690,895 YES PARTIAL $ 70,000 $ 2,510,000 17001 Sandifur Parkway Widening 18 Sandifur Parkway Road 60 to Road 52 $ 60,000 $ - $ 365,000 $ 425,000 NO NO $ 60,000 $ 365,000 n/a Court Street & Road 68 Intersection Improvements 19 Court Street Road 68 $ 106,000 $ 130,000 $ 755,000 $ 991,000 YES NO $ 85,502 $ 97,498 $ 755,000 n/a Road 44 and Argent Road Intersection Analysis 20 Road 44 and Argent Road Road 44 and Argent Road $ 65,000 $ - $ - $ 65,000 NO NO $ 65,000 n/a Traffic Analysis for Interstate 182 @ SR 395 Interchange 21 Interstate 182 MP 11 to MP 13 $ 265,000 $ - $ - $ 265,000 NO NO $ 265,000 n/a Traffic Analysis for State Route 12 @ Tank Farm Road Interchange 22 State Route 12 State Route 12 and Tank Farm Road $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000 NO NO $ 250,000 n/a FCID Canal Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway Study 23 None Road 100 to Road 76 FCID Canal Alignment $ 90,000 $ - $ 780,000 $ 870,000 YES NO $ 90,000 $ 360,000 $ 420,000 n/a Crescent Road Surface Improvement 24 Crescent Road Broadmoor Apts to Road 108 (1670 LF) $ 45,000 $ - $ 355,000 $ 400,000 NO NO $ 45,000 $ 355,000 n/a Sandifur Parkway Extension - Phase 1 25 Sandifur Parkway Road 100 west to Road to be named later $ 150,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,650,000 NO NO $ 150,000 $ 1,500,000 n/a Sandifur Parkway Extension - Phase 2 26 Sandifur Parkway Road to be named later to Dent Road Extension $ 150,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,650,000 NO NO $ 150,000 $ 1,500,000 16010 James Street Improvements 27 James Street Oregon Avenue to cul-de-sac $ 200,000 $ - $ 1,233,947 $ 1,433,947 NO NO $ 200,000 $ 1,233,947 n/a Road 76 Overpass 28 Road 76 Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd $ 1,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 28,000,000 $ 30,000,000 NO NO $ 300,000 $ 1,200,000 n/a Sylvester Street Safety Program Improvements 29 Sylvester Street Road 54 to 3rd Avenue $ 421,500 $ 100,000 $ 1,053,600 $ 1,575,100 NO NO $ 421,500 $ 100,000 $ 1,053,600 n/a Sacajawea Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway 30 Sacajawea Road Sacajawea Park to SR12 Park & Ride $ 269,000 $ - $ 1,288,000 $ 1,557,000 NO YES / WSDOT $ 165,000 $ 1,392,000 n/a Court Street Traffic Revisions 31 Court Street Road 76 to Road 36 $ 20,000 $ - $ 220,000 $ 240,000 NO NO $ 20,000 $ 220,000 n/a Harris Road Realignment 32 Harris Road West Court Street to Sandifur Parkway $ 89,000 $ 65,000 $ 646,000 $ 800,000 NO NO $ 200,000 $ 445,000 $ 155,000 n/a North Road 40 East Pathway 33 North Road 40 East Sacajawea Park to A Street $ 53,000 $ 50,000 $ 530,000 $ 633,000 NO NO $ 103,000 $ 530,000 n/a North Road 100 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements 34 North Road 100 Insterstate 182 Interchange to Burns Road $ 30,000 $ - $ 320,000 $ 350,000 NO NO $ 30,000 $ 320,000 n/a North Road 93 / Powerline Pathway 35 North Road 93 Vincenzo Drive to Burns Road $ 12,000 $ - $ 115,000 $ 127,000 NO NO $ 12,000 $ 115,000 n/a Argent Road Curb/Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements 36 Argent Road Road 72 to Road 68 $ 142,000 $ 50,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,092,000 NO NO $ 192,000 $ 192,000 $ 900,000 16017 Transportation System Master Plan N/A Citywide Various $ 300,000 $ 300,000 YES YES $ 171,000 2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Page 183 of 226 BURDEN BLVD. I-18 2 W ARGENT COURT STREET SYLVESTER STREET WRIGLEY ROAD 68CITY LIMITS SANDIFUR A STREET LEWIS ST AIN S W O R T H SR- 3 9 7OREGON AVE.SR-397BNSF RR4TH AVE.ARGENT BNSF RRCOMMERCIALST. HELENS KAH L O T U S HI G H W A Y S R - 1 2 C I T Y L IM I T SSR-395CAPITALCITY LIMITS FOSTER WELLS RD ROAD 100INDUSTR IAL WAYROAD 44I-18 2 E 20TH AVE.CITY LIMITS CITY LIMITS HILLSBORO YEAR 2021-2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY OF PASCO Projects N/A Annual Pavement Preservation Program 2 Lewis Street Overpass 3 Lewis Street Corridor Improvements 4 Traffic Signal Improvements - Citywide Phase 2 5 S. 10th Avenue & W. Lewis Street Advanced Intersection Warning 6 Road 68 Widening - South of Interstate 182 - Phase 1 7 Argent Road Improvements - Phase 1 8 Argent Road Improvements - Phase 3, Saraceno to Road 36 9 Argent Road Improvements - Phase 2 , Argent & Road 36 Intersection 10 Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway - Phase 1 11 Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway - Phase 2 12 Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway - Phase 3 13 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Road 100 Interchange - WSDOT Partnership 14 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Road 68 Interchange - WSDOT Partnership 15 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Sylvester Street Overpass - WSDOT Partnership 16 Road 100 Widening - South of Interstate 182 17 Sacajawea Heritage Trail/Levee Lowering 18 Sandifur Parkway Widening 19 Court Street & Road 68 Intersection Improvements 20 Road 44 and Argent Intersection Analysis 21 Traffic Analysis for Interstate 182 @ SR 395 Interchange 22 Traffic Analysis for State Route 12 @ Tank Farm Road Interchange Projects 23 FCID Canal Bicycle/Pedestian Pathway Study 24 Crescent Road Surface Improvement 25 Sandifur Parkway Extension - Phase 1 26 Sandifur Parkway Extension - Phase 2 27 James Street Improvements 28 Road 76 Overpass 29 Sylvester Street Safety Program Improvements 30 Sacajawea Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway 31 Court Street Traffic Revision 32 Harris Road Realignment 33 North Road 40 East Pathway 34 North Road 100 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements 35 North Road 93/Powerline Pathway 36 Argent Road Curb/Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements N/A Transportation System Master PlanPage 184 of 226 June 8, 2020 Page 185 of 226 Page 186 of 226 • Chapel Hill Boulevard –Road 84 to Road 68 • Road 68 and Burden Road –Signage and Striping • Wrigley Drive Extension –Clemente Lane to Road 68 Place Completed Projects Page 187 of 226 • South 10th Avenue & West Lewis Street Advanced Intersection Warning • Sylvester Street Safety Program Improvements • Court Street Traffic Revisions • Harris Road Realignment • North Road 40 East Pathway • North Road 100 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements • North Road 93 / Powerline Pathway • Argent Road Curb/Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements New Projects Page 188 of 226 #32 Harris Road Realignment #34 North Road 100 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements #35 North Road 93 / Powerline Pathway #36 Argent Road Curb/Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements Page 189 of 226 #5 South 10th Avenue & West Lewis Street Advanced Intersection Warning #29 Sylvester Street Safety Program Improvements #31 Court Street Traffic Revisions #36 Argent Road Curb/Gutter and Sidewalk ImprovementsPage 190 of 226 #30 Sacajawea Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway #33 North Road 40 East Pathway Page 191 of 226 Questions?Page 192 of 226 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 18, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Remote Workshop Meeting: 6/8/20 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director Finance SUBJECT: PMC Update to Street Overlay and Real Estate Excise Tax I. REFERENCE(S): Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Chapters 3.20 and 3.175 Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In 2012, Council established the Street Overlay Fund to preserve the City's investment in streets by regularly resurfacing existing streets to extend their useful lives, and thereby avoid more costly street rehabilitation programs. Since its creation, this fund has been utilized to maintain existing streets through various overlay methods, such as regular crack sealing, chip sealing, and overlay. Revenue from this fund is generated through utility taxes. In 2002, the City also established the Capital Improvement Fund to collect all proceeds received from the City's Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). State laws governing this tax has limited the usage of the proceeds to mostly capital projects. However, there have been changes to the governing Revised Code of Washington State (RCW) over the subsequent years. V. DISCUSSION: Since the creation of the Street Overlay Fund, an overlay program was created and Page 193 of 226 implemented to maintain and improve City's streets. The knowledge gained from that experience is now incorporated into the City's process of street construction and maintenance. The City recently completed a large transportation project along Oregon Avenue and will be embarking on a project along Lewis Street soon. These are projects where the City accomplishes the overlay of streets, albeit as a part of the larger project. The recently implemented residential overlay program is another program where these funds are being utilized. Staff has identified the need to expand the scope of this fund to allow for matching funds to such transportation projects. In the past, staff has managed this limit in scope with additional work to justify overlay cost to both Oregon Avenue and Lewis Street. However, the process is burdensome and subjective, opening the City to unnecessary examination during audits by the granting agency or State Auditors Office. Staff recommends that Council expand the scope of this fund to allow for matching funds for transportation projects involving pavement improvements consistent with the original intent of these monies. As a second and separate item, staff is recommending some minor changes to the Capital Improvement Fund that collects all real estate excise taxes levied by the City. A change in the name of the fund to "Real Estate Excise Tax Fund" will provide clarity to being a revenue only source, and also avoid confusion with another similarly named City fund. Furthermore, the recommended change would eliminate specific PMC language related to specific uses of these funds and replace that language with by referencing to the applicable RCW, as amended, to avoid conflict with State laws as they change. State law relating to the use of REET funds have changed several times since they were established in the PMC. Page 194 of 226 3.20.010 3.20.020 3.20.030 3.20.040 3.20.050 Chapter 3.20 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXES Sections: Establishment of real estate excise tax, use of proceeds. Establishment of additional real estate excise tax, use of proceeds. Collection of taxes. Rules, regulations, laws and court decisions. Fund created. 3.20.010 Establishment of real estate excise tax, use of proceeds. There is established and imposed an excise tax on each sale of real property in the corporate limits of the City at a rate of one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. Revenues generated from the tax imposed under this section are to be used by the City solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. [Ord. 3971, 2010; Ord. 3947, 2009; Ord. 2594 § 1, 1986; Code 1970 § 3.06.010.] 3.20.020 Establishment of additional real estate excise tax, use of proceeds. Effective March 1, 2010, in accordance with RCW 82.46.035, and in addition to the excise tax on each sale of real property in the corporate limits of the City as imposed by PMC 3.20.010, there is hereby imposed an additional excise tax on each sale of real property located within the corporate limits of the City of Pasco at the rate of one- quarter of one percent of the selling price. Proceeds from the additional tax shall be expended as authorized by law under RCW 82.46.035(5) solely for public works projects of the City for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, streets and road light systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation or improvement of parks. [Ord. 3947, 2009; Code 1970 § 3.06.015.] 3.20.030 Collection of taxes. Taxes imposed under this chapter shall be collected from persons who are taxable by the state under Chapter 82.45 RCW upon the occurrence of any taxable event within the corporate limits of the City. [Ord. 3947, 2009; Ord. 2594 § 1, 1986; Code 1970 § 3.06.020.] Your Selections | Pasco Municipal Code Page 1 of 3 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4486, passed March 16, 2020. Page 195 of 226 3.20.040 Rules, regulations, laws and court decisions. The tax imposed under this chapter shall comply with all applicable rules, regulations, laws and court decisions regarding real estate excise taxes as imposed by the State of Washington under Chapter 82.45 RCW. [Ord. 2594 § 1, 1986; Code 1970 § 3.06.030.] 3.20.050 Fund created. There is created a special accounting fund to be known as the “capital improvements fund” into which fund there shall be placed all proceeds received from the County Treasurer from the City of Pasco real estate excise taxes. Separate accounting for the taxes imposed by PMC 3.20.010 and 3.20.020 shall be maintained within the capital improvements fund. [Ord. 3947, 2009; Ord. 3557 § 16, 2002; Code 1970 § 3.06.050.] 3.175.010 Chapter 3.175 STREET OVERLAY FUND Sections: Fund created – Use. 3.175.010 Fund created – Use. A fund, to be known as the street overlay fund, is hereby created for the purpose of accounting for funds received, disbursed or expended in conjunction with the City street overlay program. The purpose of this fund is to preserve the City’s investment in streets by regularly resurfacing existing City streets to extend their useful lives and thereby avoid more costly street rehabilitation programs. Revenues for this fund are generated through a Council- approved allocation of external business utility taxes and interfund utility taxes. Expenditures are for costs of street resurfacing activities. The flow of funds assumption is that restricted revenues are spent on a specific identification basis. [Ord. 4073, 2012; Code 1970 § 3.134.010.] Your Selections | Pasco Municipal Code Page 2 of 3 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4486, passed March 16, 2020. Page 196 of 226 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4486, passed March 16, 2020. Disclaimer: The City Clerk’s office has the official version of the Pasco Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. Note: This site does not support Internet Explorer. To view this site, Code Publishing Company recommends using one of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. City Website: www.pasco-wa.gov City Telephone: (509) 544-3080 Code Publishing Company Your Selections | Pasco Municipal Code Page 3 of 3 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4486, passed March 16, 2020. Page 197 of 226 Ordinance – PMC Title 3 Amendments 1 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, UPDATING TITLE 3 “REVENUE AND FINANCE” OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE, BY REVISING SECTIONS WITHIN CHAPTERS 3.20 “REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXES,” AND 3.175 “STREET OVERLAY FUND.” WHEREAS, the City utilizes revenues received from utility taxes to resurface existing city streets and Real Estate Excise Taxes to fund large capital projects, WHEREAS, the growth of the City requires embarkment of new activities and change in engagement of other activities, WHEREAS, State laws, City’s activities, and definitions have evolved over last several years; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amending sections under PMC Chapter 3.20 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXES as follows: 3.20.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX, USE OF PROCEEDS. There is established and imposed an excise tax on each sale of real property in the corporate limits of the City at a rate of one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. Revenues generated from the tax imposed under this section are to be used by the City solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of the Comprehensive Plan as authorized by law under RCW 82.46, or any amendments thereto. 3.20.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF ADDITIONAL REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX, USE OF PROCEEDS. Effective March 1, 2010, in accordance with RCW 82.46.035, and in addition to the excise tax on each sale of real property in the corporate limits of the City as imposed by PMC 3.20.010, there is hereby imposed an additional excise tax on each sale of real property located within the corporate limits of the City of Pasco at the rate of one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. Proceeds from the additional tax shall be expended as authorized by law under RCW 82.46, or any amendments thereto. 035(5) solely for public works projects of the City for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, streets and road light systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation or improvement of parks. Page 198 of 226 Ordinance – PMC Title 3 Amendments 2 3.20.050 FUND CREATED. There is created a special accounting fund to be known as the “capital improvements Real Estate Excise Tax fund” into which fund there shall be placed all proceeds received from the County Treasurer from the City of Pasco real estate excise taxes. Separate accounting for the taxes imposed by PMC 3.20.010 and 3.20.020 shall be maintained within the capital improvements Real Estate Excise Tax fund. Section 2. Amending PMC Chapter 3.175 and sections under PMC Chapter 3.175 STREET OVERLAY FUND as follows: 3.175 STREET OVERLAY FUND. 3.175.010 FUND CREATED – USE. A fund, to be known as the street overlay fund, is hereby created for the purpose of accounting for funds received, disbursed or expended in conjunction with the City street overlay program to support City’s transportation system. The purpose of this fund is to preserve the City’s investment in streets by regularly resurfacing existing City streets to extend their useful lives and thereby avoid more costly street rehabilitation programs, and providing matching funds for street projects. Revenues for this fund are generated through a Council-approved allocation of external business utility taxes and interfund utility taxes. Expenditures are for costs of street resurfacing activities. The flow of funds assumption is that restricted revenues are spent on a specific identification basis. Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this day of , . Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: ____________________ Page 199 of 226 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 5, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Remote Workshop Meeting: 6/8/20 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director Finance SUBJECT: 2019-2020 Financial Update I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation Financial Fund Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: None III. FISCAL IMPACT: $4,600,000 estimated negative impact to City's finances. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Council approved the City's first Biennial Budget for the 2019-2020 period in 2018. Staff provides monthly updates to the Council on the City's most critical and prominent fund - the General Fund. Staff intends to provide quarterly reports on the major funds to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational purposes. Due to the COVID-19 related disruption, this report was delayed by a month in order to collect additional data reflecting the early financial impact of the pandemic and hence includes data as of April 2020. V. DISCUSSION: As of the end of April 2020, 66% of the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget period is complete. The General Fund is the largest fund within the City's portfolio. This fund receives major revenue, such as property tax, sales tax, and utility tax. Police, Fire, and Parks services to the community are funded out of the General Fund. It also funds Page 200 of 226 administrative functions such as the City Manager's office, Human Resources, Finance, Information Systems, Facilities, etc. In the 2019-2020 Budget, over 59% of the planned expenses are personnel-related costs and are expended in a linear trend, with the exception of overtime for the Fire and Police Department. Over $20M of the budget is Capital Cost, related mostly to the relocation of two fire stations. The Capital Cost expense schedule is dependent on project schedules. Similarly, each of the funds has its own unique expenditure trends and staff monitors current expenses to foresee any aberrations. The report attached to this Agenda highlights some of the major operating funds in the City's portfolio with indicators tied to the time elapsed (66%). All major funds and any funds with outstanding issues are included in this report. The City's finances have performed exceptionally well in 2019. Revenue from sales, utility and gaming taxes, permits, and licensing outperformed expectations. Similarly, the increase in expenses was not as high compared to 2018. Slower than anticipated growth in actual cost between the two years is primarily due to the City's first biennial budget and staff cautiousness in expending funds in the first year of the biennium. Furthermore, due to the timing of Fire Station bids and bonds issuance, we did not incur the debt service as was anticipated at the time the budget was adopted. As a result, the City increased its fund balance in the General Fund by more than $4M in 2019. Council has been diligently building reserves to ensure the City's ability to survive economic downturn without reducing services, but also to fund important projects like the police station, relocation of the fire stations, and a community center. This financial strategy and prudence have resulted in healthy fund balances across most of the City's funds. However, reserves can be spent very quickly and are difficult to replenish. While we are confident of the City's ability to manage the remainder of 2020 with very little disruption to City's services, its ability to do so during the 2021-2022 biennium will depend on how and when the economy will recover. The Council Status Report, attached to this agenda report, includes comments on the status of all major funds, as well as funds needing the Council's attention. The report also includes all of the City's fund balances. The PowerPoint presentation includes more information on funds impacted by COVID-19 and future policy decisions that staff foresees Council having to act on. Staff plans to update the Council on a monthly basis on the performance of the General Fund, as well as bring forth the policy decisions once information is available. Page 201 of 226 Pasco City Council MeetingJune 8, 2020Page 202 of 226 OverviewRevenue LossGrantsExpenseNot budgetedReallocated laborNew Federal MandatesPage 203 of 226 General Fund - RevenueSales Tax (General, Public Safety, Criminal Justice) –($1.9M)39% of sales tax comes from vehicle, machinery, equipment sales and services18% of sales tax comes from construction related businessesExpected decrease of 10-15%, however, depends on impact on construction and vehicle salesStaff is not seeing decrease in construction activity, though vehicle sales and repair were impacted by “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” orderGaming taxes -($650K)School Resource Officers (5 FTE) -($150K)Depends on fall school schedule and needs of school districtRevenue loss estimated based on fall schedule revenue being fully recoveredGrantsLocal CARES – $2.3MDepartment of Justice – $43KAssistance for Fire Fighters - $120K FEMA – $200K(Estimate) Page 204 of 226 General Fund – Direct ExpensesExpense to Date - $427KLabor - $295KNon-Labor - $117KFederal Leave (not reimbursed) - $15KEstimated for 2020 - $1.7MLabor - $775KNon-Labor - $367KFederal Leave (not reimbursed) - $571K Page 205 of 226 General Fund – Direct ExpensesOf the $775K expected in direct labor expenses, staff expect $500K to be reallocation of labor to COVID-19.The expenses were budgeted but for different purposes.These costs are eligible for reimbursement within Local CARES grant.Page 206 of 226 General Fund – SubsidiesStreet Fund – Will need $500-600K in subsidies.Arterial Fund – While not a direct subsidy, any additional matching fund for Lewis Street, Arterial fund will not be able to provide.Ambulance – Fund balance are sufficient for 2020, might need further subsidy in the new biennium to support federal leave mandates.HAPO Center - Fund balance are sufficient for 2020, might need further subsidy in new biennium to support federal leave mandates.Stadium - Fund balance are sufficient for 2020, might need further subsidy in new biennium to support federal leave mandates.COVID-19 Economic Development support Page 207 of 226 Street & Arterial FundStreet Fund–($500K)Reduction in Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes Fund balance is minimal and cannot sustain this downturnArterial Fund –($250K)Reduction in Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes Fund was expected to match funding for Lewis Street and other large transportation projectsPage 208 of 226 Ambulance FundExpenses to Date - $182KLabor - $126KNon-Labor - $42KFederal Leave (not reimbursed) - $15KEstimated for 2020 - $561KLabor - $318KNon-Labor - $150KFederal Leave (not reimbursed) - $93K Page 209 of 226 Golf FundFund performing satisfactorily, however expecting loss of rent revenue and loss of revenue overall. ($150K)Page 210 of 226 Hotel/Motel TaxLoss of Revenue -($450K)ExpensesFunds GESA Stadium alongside lease revenue - $160KFunds HAPO Center (TRAC) - $275KTri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau - $152KPasco Chamber of Commerce, Franklin County Historic Society, Expecting increased subsidy to TRAC Fund balance of $1.4M between the Stadium and HAPO Center can be utilized to sustain through 2020.Page 211 of 226 Lodging Tax (Tourism Promotion Assessment)Tourism Promotion Assessment –($280K)Pass through to Visit Tri-CitiesNo fund balanceCouncil decision on supplant Visit Tri-Cities fundingPage 212 of 226 SummaryGeneral Fund Ambulance Utility Street ArterialHotel/Motel/TPA Other TotalRevenue 2,406,346$ 260,135$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,666,481$ CARES 2,258,000$ X X X X X X 2,258,000$ HHS X 40,135$ X X X X X 40,135$ OJS 48,346$ X X X X X X 48,346$ AFG X 120,000$ NA NA NA NA NA 120,000$ FEMA (est) 100,000$ 100,000$ X X NA NA NA 200,000$ Loss of Revenue(2,700,000)$ (250,000)$ (500,000)$ (250,000)$ (730,000)$ (150,000)$ (4,580,000)$ Cost 1,713,000$ 561,000$ 296,000$ 20,000$ 102,000$ 2,692,000$ Labor 775,000$ 318,000$ 123,000$ 20,000$ 32,000$ 1,268,000$ Non-Labor 367,000$ 150,000$ 35,000$ 18,000$ 570,000$ Federal Leave 571,000$ 93,000$ 138,000$ 52,000$ 854,000$ Total Impact(2,006,654)$ (300,865)$ (546,000)$ (520,000)$ (250,000)$ (730,000)$ (252,000)$ (4,605,519)$ COVID-19 Impacted FundsPage 213 of 226 Summary1.Estimated $4.6M in impact to various City funds, includes all grants authorized.2.Of $4.6M in impact, staff estimates $800K to be reallocated resources rather than non-budgeted costs.3.Most impacts can be managed with City’s reserves in 2020.4.All other funds are within variance, when excluding large capital projects.5.Sales tax is the biggest source of revenue to the General Fund, and state of local economy will dictate 2021-2022 biennium budgeting.6.Policy decisions needed in future:i.Local CARESii.Subsidy to internal fundsiii.Supplanting of revenue to agencies like the HAPO Center, and Visit Tri-CitiesPage 214 of 226 FundData as of: 4/30/2020Elapsed Time: 66% Biennial Budget YTD % Spent Projected Surplus/Shortfall Biennial Budget YTD % Spent Projected Surplus/Shortfall CommentsGeneral 126,657,185$ 86,000,214$ 68% 126,189,185$ (420,000)$ 125,464,823$ 67,491,315$ 54% 126,402,823$ 938,000$ $2.7M in loss of revenue on sales, gaming, and School Resource Officers revenue. Expense is expected to increase due to unanticipated COVID-19 costs, including the federal emergency sick leave mandate. Need to consider additional subsidies to other funds like Street at a later date. Subsidy estimates are not included in the projection. Total $2.2M in Local CARES grant is included as a revenue in this projection.Project Expense Breakout20,068,797$ 2,173,878$ Street 5,708,306$ 2,984,944$ 52% 5,208,306$ (500,000)$ 5,553,218$ 3,353,872$ 60% 5,553,218$ -$ Fund balance is low, and the fund will not be able to sustain the reduction in fuel taxes. Will need close to $500K subsidy from General Fund.Arterial 1,097,694$ 655,838$ 60% 847,694$ (250,000)$ 1,440,636$ 756,998$ 53% 1,440,636$ -$ Capital project expense scheduled and will be spent per project schedule. Bids for Lewis St will dictate future needs.Street Overlay 2,116,461$ 1,235,577$ 58% 2,116,461$ -$ 4,614,913$ 1,262,863$ 27% 4,614,913$ -$ Expected to be on track.Ambulance 16,915,219$ 12,248,041$ 72% 16,915,219$ -$ 17,433,017$ 10,112,156$ 58% 17,676,017$ 243,000$ Expected to be on track.Golf 3,718,000$ 2,126,139$ 57% 3,568,000$ (150,000)$ 3,667,382$ 2,285,706$ 62% 3,667,382$ -$ Anticipating loss of revenue from rent on the facility.Lodging Tax (TPA) 650,500$ 333,773$ 51% 400,500$ (250,000)$ 650,500$ 333,773$ 51% 400,500$ (250,000)$ Tourism Promotion Assessment, a pass through to Visit Tri-Cities. If Council decides to supplant the revenue for Visit Tri-Cities, this will need to change.HAPO - TRAC 556,000$ 491,808$ 88% 356,000$ (200,000)$ 553,344$ 236,225$ 43% 603,344$ 50,000$ Hotel/Motel tax revenue is transferred at the beginning of the year, this projection shows part of the tax being eliminated for 2020 to reflect reduced revenue. Anticipating larger need for subsidy due to facility closure impacting HAPO Center revenue but continuation of fixed costs.Real Estate Excise Tax 4,860,000$ 4,087,806$ 84% 5,260,000$ 400,000$ 7,759,527$ 3,343,441$ 43% 7,759,527$ -$ Higher volume than expected in real estate transactions. Large portion of budget is capital projects, projects are scheduled.Capital Project Expense Breakout7,720,753$ 3,343,441$ Economic Development 2,743,200$ 3,962,002$ 144% 4,443,200$ 1,700,000$ 2,273,087$ 1,251,451$ 55% 2,273,087$ -$ Sale of land in 2020 for $1.3M, and higher than budgeted lease revenue. Maintenance of large equipments scheduled.Stadium & Covention Center 2,388,600$ 2,366,615$ 99% 2,223,600$ (165,000)$ 2,371,222$ 975,932$ 41% 2,371,222$ -$ Hotel/Motel tax revenue is transferred at the beginning of the year, this projection shows part of the tax being eliminated for 2020 to reflect reduced revenue. Capital Project Breakout2,000,000$ 954,055$ Hotel/Motel Excise Tax 1,251,000$ 693,429$ 55% 801,000$ (450,000)$ 1,212,244$ 1,035,130$ 85% 1,212,244$ -$ Pass through fund expected to be disbursed as needed. Allocation of 2020 funds was recommended by LTAC and approved by Council. Staff working on a path forward with LTAC and will come to Council for review/approval.Water 25,078,316$ 16,320,752$ 65% 24,928,316$ (150,000)$ 28,100,974$ 17,724,896$ 63% 28,100,974$ -$ Large portion of budget is capital projects, projects are scheduled. Expected to be on track, though some revenue is expected to be delayed due to COVID-19.Capital Project Expense Breakout5,239,454$ 1,166,920$ Irrigation 4,101,977$ 1,771,005$ 43% 4,101,977$ -$ 4,296,789$ 1,529,195$ 36% 4,296,789$ -$ Normal revenue & expense tracking irrigation season.Capital Project Expense Breakout839,000$ 148,646$ Revenue Expense Page 215 of 226 FundData as of: 4/30/2020Elapsed Time: 66% Biennial Budget YTD % Spent Projected Surplus/Shortfall Biennial Budget YTD % Spent Projected Surplus/Shortfall CommentsRevenue ExpenseSewer 35,025,585$ 15,325,180$ 44% 34,925,585$ (100,000)$ 30,454,235$ 14,485,745$ 48% 30,454,235$ -$ Large portion of budget is capital projects, projects are scheduled. $12M in revenue is expected from grants, LID, or other sources to complete the scheduled projects. Fund is expected to be on track, though some revenue is expected to be delayed due to COVID-19.Capital Project Expense Breakout13,437,500$ 3,956,054$ Process Water Reuse Facility 29,449,604$ 10,966,876$ 37% 29,449,604$ -$ 31,512,194$ 17,664,054$ 56% 31,512,194$ -$ Ongoing facility plan and discussion with partners will delay revenue and cost. Awaiting disbursement of grants from State and Federal government for Columbia East Lift Station and Force Main project.Capital Project Expense Breakout23,434,000$ 12,886,363$ Storm Water4,132,809$ 2,747,715$ 66% 4,132,809$ -$ 4,259,348$ 2,629,771$ 62% 4,259,348$ -$ Expected to be on track.Capital Project Expense Breakout1,086,818$ 919,619$ Medical Insurance 13,046,124$ 9,520,018$ 73% 13,046,124$ -$ 11,099,424$ 7,799,588$ 70% 11,099,424$ -$ Expected to be on track.Page 216 of 226 Fund Name 2016 2017 2018 2019 Fund Balance Trend Comment General Fund$14,633,214 $13,569,395 $15,790,933 $20,262,625$1.2M budgeted for Peanuts Park in 2020.Street Fund$299,677 $109,102 ($148,445) $5,231Martin Luther King Center$127,287 $184,378 $169,675 $117,369Ambulance$148,220 $433,046 ($465,797) $1,937,962 Receipt of GEMT revenue in 2019.Cemetery$74,862 $48,142 $69,526 $57,708Boulevard Maintenance$1,976,930 $2,003,048 $2,070,522 $2,184,704Athletics$218,524 $237,471 $268,164 $247,770Golf$156,783 ($3,699) $98,638 $108,252Senior Center$32,611 $18,522 $37,157 $44,512Multi-Modal$225,415 $340,700 $349,701 $146,413Facility improvements made in 2019.Marina$35,179 $87,883 ($294,608) ($293,800) Related to insurance payout and expense timing. Lodging Tax (TPA)$1,264 $1,399 $1,413 $1,413HAPO - TRAC$218,523 $415,322 $521,177 $590,055Park Development$2,152,337 $1,723,175 $2,219,436 $2,996,483Real Estate Excise Tax$5,927,245 $6,979,994 $8,853,212 $9,120,575Economic Development$1,923,700 $2,037,512 $2,213,093 $3,402,950Stadium & Covention Center$290,452 $464,052 $626,924 $811,068Water$8,377,816 $15,405,226 $15,592,747 $12,594,661Irrigation$0 $259,527 $673,666 $1,133,735Sewer$8,205,361 $14,198,576 $7,942,661 $11,682,187Process Water Reuse Facility$828,706 $2,373,243 $2,983,205 $1,398,593Storm Water$830,129 $540,482 $1,144,348 $973,616Equipment Operations & Maintenance$400,382 $427,760 $182,863 $147,131Equipment Replacement - Government$5,146,741 $6,069,872 $7,197,771 $8,616,845Equipment Replacement - Utility$2,997,602 $3,573,838 $3,804,442 $4,523,387Medical Insurance$1,027,962 $2,313,861 $2,686,992 $2,056,622Dental Insurance($43,416) ($29,442) $71,775 $83,606Tourism related funds.Fund Balance TrendFund balances for utilities contain cash balances that must be used for specific purposes. For example, system expansion, future compensation of compensated absences and pensions, as well as, debt service reserve funds that are a requirement of bond covenants. While these amounts are included in the ending fund balance, they are not available to be used for any purpose.Page 217 of 226 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 5, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Remote Workshop Meeting: 6/8/20 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Coronavirus Relief Fund I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Receipt of approximately $3.18M in funds for expenses/relief related to Covid 19 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Washington State Department of Commerce announced nearly $300 million in federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) funds awarded to the state to address COVID-19-related costs. Pasco has been allocated approximately $2.25M of this funding. Distribution of these funds will allow cities (and counties) to use their allocation for a variety of COVID-19 related expenses - including: • Payroll expenses for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the emergency; • Medical and public health expenses; • Expenses of actions to facilitate compliance with public health measures; • Expenses associated with the provision of economic support in connection with the emergency; and • Any other COVID-19-related expenses reasonably necessary to the function of government that meet eligibility criteria. Page 218 of 226 Funds may be used for costs incurred by the local government in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency during the period March 1 through October 31, 2020. Commerce is now in the process of contracting with local governments to provide and receive the funds. The City is also slated to receive approximately $434K in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CARES funds for use of alleviating economic business distress related to the COVID-19 pandemic and will be able to use approximately $500K in accumulated HOME Consortium funds for use in providing economic assistance for residential tenants - as discussed and approved at the City Council Special Meeting of May 11, 2020. V. DISCUSSION: As of June 3, 2020, approximately $772K has been spent by the City on eligible activities related to Covid-19. Staff also estimates that prior to the eligibility period ending (October 31, 2020) an additional $1.9M will be further incurred for eligible activities undertaken by the City. A large portion of the expense thus far and anticipated going forward is attributable to benefits mandated by the federal government such as 80 hours of federal emergency leave as well as others, with a smaller portion attributed to COVID related benefits recently passed by the Council. An estimated $800K of the $1.3M in labor costs is expected to be a reallocation of resources, as in, labor costs that were b udgeted and would have been spent on other tasks. Because of the significant fiscal impacts to the City, in terms of operational costs, as the result of COVID-19, and the fact that revenues are significantly decreased during this time, the use of some of the CARES Act funding to cover eligible COVID related expenses is recommended to lessen the City's reliance fund reserves. Staff recommends that the Council allocate the balance, approximately $800K-$1.0M of the Local CARES, alongside nearly $1.0M in CDBG CARES (HOME funds of $500K/HUD funds of $434K) to provide for other uses of the funds - possibly including small business and "micro-enterprise" relief/assistance matching the focus of the CDBG CARES funding described above. for protocol develops and guidance State Federal through works staff As and administration of the relief funds, Council discussion of a number of policy issues would be valuable. These include: • Minimum and maximum requests for assistance (most likely variable between residential and business requests and based on size of the business or number of employees); • Minimum residency/business location requirements and minimum length of Page 219 of 226 time in business requirements; • Use of funds for business relief based on "essential" versus "non-essential"; • Frequency of eligibility (one-time relief only or based on the duration of the emergency); and • Collateral requirements In distributing federal funds to beneficiaries, the factors noted above, particularly minimum and maximum amounts drive the number of beneficiaries. The number of beneficiaries will have an impact on the bandwidth of the infrastructure processing, accounting and reporting on monies distributed. Which can impact the timeliness of the aid needed in the areas targeted. Council discussion of important issues related to the relief funds would be appreciated. Page 220 of 226 Pasco City Council Meeting June 8, 2020 Page 221 of 226 Overview CDBG CARES -$434K HOME (Rental Assistance) -$500K Local CARES-$2.3M Page 222 of 226 Available Funds CDBG CARES -$434K HOME (Rental Assistance) -$500K Local CARES Staff recommends $800,000 to $1,000,000 Page 223 of 226 Council Guidance Size of loans –minimum and maximum for rental assistance and business loans Minimum residency/location requirements Award based on “essential” vs. “non- essential” status Frequency of eligibility –one-time or eligible for future awards if funds are availablePage 224 of 226 Grant Structure Rental Assistance Funds Available -$500K HOME fund To residential tenants for rental assistance Business Assistance Funds Available -$434K + Local CARES as allocated by Council CDBG CARES & Local CARES funds To “micro-enterprise” relief/assistance (employee count of <5) and small business (employee count of >5 and <500)Page 225 of 226 Program Administration Finalize program guidelines Find partner that can manage the program and help the businesses with applications Page 226 of 226