HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023.02.13 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA
City Council Workshop Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, February 13, 2023
Pasco City Hall, Council Chambers & GoToWebinar
Page
1.MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - 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.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call (415) 655-0060 and use access code
307-404-066.
2.CALL TO ORDER
3.ROLL CALL
(a)Pledge of Allegiance
4.VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
5.ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
4 - 13 (a)Housing Authority Interlocal Agreement
Matt Truman, Executive Director from the Housing Authority of the
City of Pasco and Franklin County will provide a brief presentation
regarding Varney Court.
14 - 81 (b)Presentation - Processors Wastewater Treatment Agreement
82 - 93 (c)Discussion - Right-of-Way Vacation for Snake River Agriculture
LLC (VAC 2022-006)
94 - 97 (d)Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Moratorium
98 - 110 (e)Resolution - Agreements for the Purchase of Virtual Desktop
Infrastructure
Page 1 of 129
111 - 127 (f)Presentation - Land Mobile Radio (LMR) to Cellular (LTE) Radio
Interface Infrastructure
Presented by Patrick Reid, Deputy Fire Chief and Brad Steiner
ATT/FirstNet Enginee
6.MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
7.EXECUTIVE SESSION (20 minutes)
(a)Consideration of site selection or acquisition of real estate
purchase or lease if likelihood that disclosure would increase
price per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)
(b)Consideration of the minimum offering price for sale or lease of
real estate if there’s a likelihood that disclosure would decrease
the price per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c)
(c)Discussion with legal counsel about legal risks of current or
proposed action per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
8.ADJOURNMENT
9.ADDITIONAL NOTES
128 - 129 (a)Adopted 2020-2021 Council Goals (Reference Only)
(b)REMINDERS
Monday, February 13th, 12:00 PM: Pasco Chamber of
Commerce Lunch Meeting - Pasco Red Lion
Wednesday, February 15th, 5:30 PM: Benton, Franklin &
Walla Walla Counties Good Roads & Transportation
Association Meeting – Clover Island Inn, Kennewick
(COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH CAMPOS, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Alt.)
Thursday, February 16th 4:00 PM: Tri-Cities National Park
Committee Meeting – Tri-Cities Regional Business &
Visitor Center, Bechtel Board Room, 7130 W. Grandridge
Blvd., Kennewick (MAYOR BLANCHE BARAJAS, Rep.;
MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Alt.)
Friday, February 17th, 10:00 AM: Benton-Franklin Council
of Governments Board Meeting – Ben-Franklin Transit,
1000 Columbia Park Trail, Richland (COUNCILMEMBER
IRVING BROWN, Rep., COUNCILMEMBER DAVID MILNE,
Alt.)
Tuesday, February 21st, 6:00 PM: LEOFF Disability Board
– City Hall Conference Room 1, Pasco City Hall (MAYOR
Page 2 of 129
BLANCH BARAJAS, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG
MALONEY, Alt.)
Tuesday, February 21st, 4:00 PM: Pasco Public Facilities
District Board Meeting – Council Chambers, Pasco City
Hall (MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER DAVID MILNE, 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 3 of 129
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 9, 2023
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/13/23
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Housing Authority Interlocal Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
2014 Interlocal Agreement
Housing Authority information
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Matt Truman, Executive Director from the Housing Authority of the City of Pasco
and Franklin County will provide a brief presentation regarding Varney Court.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In 2014, the City and the Housing Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin
County (Housing Authority) entered into an Interlocal Agreement where the
Housing Authority would make "payments in lieu of taxes" (PILT) for a tax
exempt housing project named Varney Court, which was completed in June
2015 and fully occupied in August of that year.
The housing project was determined to be a benefit to the community so long as
the project includes the PILT equivalent to the property taxes the low -income
housing project would have made to meet the costs of anticipated increase in
needed public services and facilities.
The PILT is calculated based on the current property tax rate as determined by
the County Assessor and is payable yearly to the Pasco School Dist rict; Franklin
County; Port of Pasco and the City.
Page 4 of 129
V. DISCUSSION:
The Housing Authority would like to make a brief presentation to Council and will
request consideration of lessening or removing the PILT associated with Varney
Court.
Page 5 of 129
AFN #1813678 PRAG
04/17.I201410:52 AM
5 Pagelsl $76.00
Matt Beaton,Auditor
FRANKLINCOUNTY RECORDING Franklin Co..WA
COVER SHEET
NAME AND RETURNADDRESS:
C,}0?|\o_S(..;\
525 }Q_Tim;(3 P<oe.v\.cLc.
Pascal \,.;_~.‘R Qlq’:>O'I
FORM COMPLETED BY:l?mabg‘3g 5 be Q 35 PHONE#5 t-I§—3 H gll
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE INFO MATION:
DOCUMENT TlTLE(S)(or transaction contained therein)
1./I""“"3-"\°‘l<\\A31”l~i..VrY\£.2r\‘\'';>1L_C:V
2.
3.
GRANTOR(S)(Last name,first name,middle name/initials):
1.C)-C -\>c:_§(_c
El Additional names on page of document
GRANTEE(S)(Last name,first name,middle name/initials):
;'H0‘J~‘3.ma)B~;\’\:~er mlru)cg?Cucb)of ?<x‘\n0 +'\:\’c1v\‘(.\x«.’\C0-
3.
4.
El Additional names on page of document
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Abbreviated:ie.|ot,block,plat or section,township,range)
[XEAdditional legal is on page of document
AUD|TOR’S REFERENCE NUMBER(S)
ASSESSOR’S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL NUMBER
El Additional parcel numbers on page of document
The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this form.The staff will not read the
document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information
EMERGENCY NONSTANDARD REQUEST
I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee of $50.00 as provided in
RCW 36.18.010.I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise
obscure some part of the text of the original document.
Signature Date
Page 6 of 129
EXHIBIT "A”
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF PASCO AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PASCO
&FRANKLIN COUNTY FOR
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT)
THIS INTER CAL AGREEMENT.pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW,is made and entered into
this '7TL‘dayof 4 f F I ,2014 between the City of Pasco,Washington,a Municipal
Corporation,hereinafte referred to as “City”,and the Housing Authority of the City of Pasco &Franklin
County,a public body corporate and politic of the State of Washington,hereinafter referred to as
"Authority”.
WHEREAS,the Authority owns land in the City that it expects to develop as a housing project
(the “Project“)for purposes of providing housing to low—incomefamilies;and
WHEREAS,RCW 35.82210 exempts a housing authority and its property from all State and
local taxes;and
WHEREAS,as a condition to providing certain approvals for the Project,the City has requested
that the Authority pay,or cause the lessee of the Project to pay,amounts to the City in lieu of taxes to
defray the cost of providing essential local public services;
NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and for other
valuable consideration the parties agree as follows:
I.Purpose.The purpose of this Interlocal Agreement is to insure that PILOT
payments shall be a continuing obligation and shall run with the land,to be binding upon subsequent
owners or successors in interest which may purchase or otherwise receive the properties described herein
from the Authority.
2.Property.This Agreement establishes obligations and covenants of PILOT
payments as running with the property (the "Property”)more legally described as:
THAT PART OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST
QUARTER IN SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH,RANGE 30.E.W.M..LYING EAST OF
STATE HIGHWAY NO.ll (4THAVENUE),BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20 AT A POINT 530 FEET
EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF AND ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF—WAY
LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO.11;THENCE NORTH 00°l8’I7”WEST ALONG SAID
EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 659.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 20;THENCE NORTH 00°20’28”WEST ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 4.93 TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF WEST AGATE
STREET AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF PASCO BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED
PILOT INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT —2
Page 7 of 129
UNDER AUDITOR’S FEE No.323673;THENCE NORTH 00°19’43"WEST A DISTANCE
OF 50.84 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID WEST AGATE STREET AT THE
EAST RIGHT—OF-WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY;THENCE NORTH 00°19”01”WEST
ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 217.52 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00°19’01”WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE
A DISTANCE OF 336.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.00 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 90°l2‘29’"A DISTANCE OF 15.74 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF WEST
PEARL STREET AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF PASCO BY DEDICATION DEED
RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR’S FEE No.1757531;THENCE NORTH 89°53’28”EAST
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 344.96 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN
OF SAID CONVEYANCE;THENCE NORTH 0O°18’28”WEST A DISTANCE OF 40.00 TO
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 20;THENCE NORTH 89°23’57”EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A
DISTANCE OF 200.65 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 00°02’5l”
EAST A DISTANCE OF 81.64 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 10°40’47”WEST A DISTANCE OF
148.88 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 01°21’14”WEST A DISTANCE OF 55.35 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING
A RADIUS OF 97.00 FEET FROM WHICH THE CHORD BEARS NORTH 85°21 ’03”WEST
A DISTANCE OF 16.52 FEET;THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°46’1l”A DISTANCE OF 16.54 FEET:
THENCE SOUTH 89°45’53”WEST A DISTANCE OF 48.87 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF
A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 194.00 FEET;THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
100638”A DISTANCE OF 3.76 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89°07‘33”WEST A DISTANCE OF
30.87 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89°06’29”WEST A DISTANCE OF 77.17 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF
102.00 FEET;THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33°48’57”A DISTANCE OF 60.20 FEET;THENCE
SOUTH 55°17’29”WEST A DISTANCE OF 115.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 111.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°26’22"A DISTANCE OF 66.72 FEET;THENCE SOUTH
89°43’53”WEST A DISTANCE OF 133.29 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
3.Payments.The Authority agrees to make,or cause to be made,annually by each
October 31,commencing October 31,2015,a payment in lieu of taxes (a “PILOT”)with respect to the
Property.directly to the City,in the amount of $9,243.76,calculated as follows:
City of Pasco -$1,732.72
Pasco School District #1 -$6,059.49
Port of Pasco -$286.40
Franklin County -$1,165.15
PILOT INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT —3
Page 8 of 129
provided,the PILOT amount to be paid in 2015 shall be prorated based on a ratio,the numerator of which
is the number of days remaining in the year from the date the certi?cate of occupancy for the Project is
issued by the City and the denominator of which is 365.
4.Adjustments.The amount of the annual PILOT required by Section 3 shall be re-
determined every year from the date of this Agreement,based on relative increases or decreases in the
value ofthe Project as determined by the Franklin County Assessor multiplied by the sum of the property
tax lex y rate ofthe City,the Port of Pasco,Franklin County current expense and the Pasco School District
#1 for the applicable calendar year.
5.Covenant Running With the Land.By this Agreement,the obligation to make
PILOT payments shall constitute a covenant that will run with the land,and shall be binding upon
assigns,successors in interest,or other interest holders in the above described properties so long as the
same is public property as described herein and is transferred to a tax-exempt entity (other than the United
States government),which by the laws of the State of Washington is not required to pay ad valorem tax
on the property.
6.Enforcement.The City retains all other rights and remedies,in law or equity,which
may be necessary.or in any event,available in seeking collection of unpaid and past due PILOT
payments.The Authority expressly waives any of the City’s obligations to post any bond which may
otherwise be required by law to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
7.Interlocal Cooperation Act Provisions.No special budget or funds are
anticipated nor shall be created by this Agreement.This Agreement does not require the sharing of
special materials or equipment.It is not the intention of the parties to create a separate legal entity to
conduct the cooperative undertakings,nor is the acquisition,holding,or disposing of any real or personal
property other than the real property previously acquired by the Authority,and speci?cally described
herein,anticipated under the terms of this Agreement.
This Agreement shall be ?led with the Franklin County Auditor and listed by the subject on either
Parties’website or other electronically retrievable public source.
8.Execution.This Agreement shall become effective when it has been approved by
Resolution ofthe City Council of the City and the Board of Commissioners ofthe Authority.
9.Entire Agreement.This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed
upon by the parties.Any modi?cation to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
Failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of said
provision.In the event any provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal,void.or otherwise
unenforceable by a Court of competent jurisdiction,by legislation,or by arbitration award.the other
provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
I0.Notices.All notices and demands shall be in writing and sent to the parties hereto
at their address as follows:
City of Pasco Housing Authority
City Manager Executive Director
PO Box 293 2505 W.Lewis St.
Pasco,Washington 99301 Pasco,Washington 99301
PILOT INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT -4
Page 9 of 129
1 1.General Provisions.For the purpose of this Agreement,time is of the essence.
Should any dispute arise concerning the enforcement,breach or interpretation of this Agreement,the City
Manager and one designee from the Authority,or any successor,shall first meet in a good faith attempt to
resolve the dispute.In the event the dispute is not resolved,it shall be resolved by binding arbitration
pursuant to RCW 7.04A,as amended,and the Mandatory Rules of Arbitration (MAR):and venue shall be
placed in Franklin County,Washington,the laws of the State of Washington shall apply,and the
prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs as an additional judgment.
DATEDthis dayof B?rfi ,2014.
CITY OF PASCO HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
PASCO RANKLIN COUNTY
///,%z,%—-’it’.
Matt Watkins,Mayor F.J.rson,Executive Director
APPR AS TO FORM:
\!—%1«ur\-’
bie Clark,City Clerk Leland Kerr,City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
:SS
County of Franklin )
On this day personally appeared before me,C(.7L?/75//l,(,a ,of the City
of Pasco,to be known to be the individual described in and who executed the wi hin and foregoing
instrumen£‘\ahl:lEdkfibygledgedthatthesigned the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the
E,‘H -.
uses alt‘-;:l~ppi\a_ose,s-tl1,iarB(1i1mentioned.
‘s \.’_)..$‘;},\'"u‘.>\-[,+':£;‘‘’»_,7_‘,;7”‘_
§€}'g?e\p0i-age;and official seal this 2 ’day of [?f I i ,2
U)'I T‘2 EZ‘I
I4.
7‘.9‘NOTARY PUB in and for the State of Washington
71,?0;'y'VA5\‘\\“:\\\‘Residing at:240
”IHHI\\‘My Commission Expires:'5’
STATE OF WASHINGTON ll
:SS
County of Franklin )
On this day personally appeared before me,50h ,of the
Housing Authority of the City of Pasco &Franklin County,to be known to be the individual described in
and who executed the within and foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that the signed the same as the
free and voluntary act and deed of such entity for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
,.
‘T’Givenxundermyhand and official seal this day of
i
,2014.
'
I ~‘.'‘N A B IC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at:
My Commission Expires:gI22!3,[K 7,Dl Z
PILOT INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT —5
Page 10 of 129
ABOUT US
Pasco City Council members formed the Pasco Housing Authority in 1942, to
provide safe and sanitary rental housing for low-income individuals living in
sub-standard conditions. In 1981, Franklin County officials approached the
Pasco City Council with a proposition to form a joint housing authority
designed to meet the needs of not only low-income individuals within City
limits, but those in the rest of Franklin County, as well. A joint housing
authority was born and named the Housing Authority of the City of Pasco
and Franklin County (HACPFC).
What programs do we provide?
Public Housing to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-
income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
Affordable Housing focused on the underserved individuals and families
including seniors, people with disabilities, Veterans, and low-income
families.
Tax Credit Housing for low-income workers and agricultural workers.
“Building strong communities … one family at
time!
Housing Choice Voucher Program is a HUD funded program that allow
the Housing Authority to directly subsidize the monthly rent payments for
very low-income families. The Section 8 programs prioritize working
families, local families, Veterans, Elderly, Disabled, and people experiencing
domestic violence.
Family Self-Sufficiency Program helps Section 8 families set goals to
achieve stability and self-sufficiency. The program helps them to increase
income and learn new skills while becoming less dependent on assistance
and subsidies.
DID YOU KNOW!
-HACPFC manages over
348 Housing Units
-Serves over 700 children
-Serves over 421 Elderly or
Disabled Residents
-Helps provide housing for
more than 725 families in
the community.
HACPFC has a waiting list
for its housing services
with more than 400
families!
Page 11 of 129
Page 12 of 129
Local Tools for Affordable Housing Development
There are a number of planning tools that cities can use to encourage the
development of affordable housing. These include:
• Utility Fees waivers: A city or town may waive or delay collection of tap-in charges,
connection fees, or hookup fees for low-income persons connecting to water, sanitary or storm
sewer service, electricity, gas, and other means of power and heat.
(RCW 35.92.380, RCW 35.92.020(5))
• Publicly owned land for affordable housing: The state constitution allows local
governments that want to support the development of affordable housing to provide gifts to the
“poor and infirm.” They can choose to provide underused publicly owned land or infrastructure
to help affordable housing. RCW 39.33.015 (laws of 2018) sets out procedures for the transfer of
public property for a public benefit, specifically affordable housing. The state is also required to
inventory state-owned surplus property to consider for affordable housing (RCW 43.63A.510).
Suspected brownfields are also being reviewed for potential use for affordable housing. Locally-
owned public property should also be inventoried and considered. Public projects can be
catalysts for additional private development. ”
The state constitution prohibits local governments from the gifting of public funds “except for
the necessary support of the poor and infirm.” This gives jurisdictions the flexibility to provide
for affordable housing development through waivers of permit fees, reduced or waived utility
connection fees, offering density bonuses to incentivize the development of affordable housing,
or by directly financing affordable housing. Article 8, Section 7 of the State Constitution provides: No county,
city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, property, or loan its money, or credit to or in
aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm.
• Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by a local government on new development to pay
for a reasonable portion of the costs of providing public services to the development. Impact
fees may be reduced by up to 80 percent for housing units that are designated as affordable by
covenant. The other 20 percent may also be waived but must be paid from public funds. (RCW
82.02.060(3)
• Permit processing for certain types of desired development can be expedited as an incentive.
Tools include centralized counter services, pre-application conferences, permit checklists,
reducing the number of residential zoning districts, reducing complicated administrative
procedures, or fast-tracking applications.
• Pass amendments to the zoning code via ordinance so HACPFC and other public entities can
build affordable housing in a public facilities zone.
These are only a few of the tool’s cities can use to develop affordable housing. A
greater discussion or presentation can be provided at another time.
Page 13 of 129
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 18, 2023
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/13/23
FROM: Steve Worley, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Presentation - Processors Wastewater Treatment Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
Draft Resolution Approving PWRF Processor WTA
Pasco-Processor Wastewater Treatment Agreement (WTA) – Draft 2
Exhibit C – Projected Influent Criteria for each Processor
FCS Presentation - PWRF Cost Allocation v5 Model
Memos to Processors (3)
Email to Processors – Revised Processor and Burnham WTAs
PWRF Pretreatment Cost Allocation – January 6, 2023
It is not staff’s intent for Council to read the details of each attached docume nt.
The purpose of the numerous attachments is to show Council the transparency
and coordination between City staff, Burnham, FCS, and the PWRF Processors
related to the subject WTA.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated Phase 3 Cost is $135 million. However, recent value
engineering proposals and other potential cost-saving efforts, have reduced the
current estimated cost to approximately $122 million.
The overall cost to the PWRF Processors includes the benefits of revenues
generated through the sale of renewable natural gas (RNG) and a 30%
investment tax credit for all RNG-related facilities.
Page 14 of 129
Estimated Monthly Service Fee: $850,000 per month with provisions for
adjustments based on final costs. The monthly fee to be proportionately
allocated to Pasco Processing, Twin City Foods, Reser’s, Simplot, Grimmway,
Freeze Pack, and Darigold.
Estimated Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Revenue: ~$6 million per year, with
provisions for adjustment based on final RNG sales contract. (~$350,000 per
month available for debt service.)
Potential Federal Income Tax Credit:
$26 million with provisions for adjustments based on final credit. (Available to
reduce the principal amount).
Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB):
$5 million low-interest loan for the Phase 3 project.
Potential Federal or State Grants:
Staff continues to pursue grants for this project to help reduce final costs to the
PWRF Processors.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The City owns and operates an industrial wastewater treatment system to treat
industrial wastewater from six agricultural food processors (Processors). The
system includes the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF). The PWRF requires
expansion in storage and treatment capacity, and the application of new
technology, to allow existing Processors to expand their operations and p rovide
capacity for Darigold’s future wastewater.
Upgrades to the PWRF pretreatment system will significantly improve treatment
capacity for the benefit of six existing and one or two future Processors,
customers, and the local community. The PWRF improvements also have a
positive impact on the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) by
redirecting a significant load of industrial wastewater away from the WWTP. This
frees up much-needed capacity at WWTP allowing for increased residential and
commercial developments that can be served.
In 2019, Ecology approved Pasco’s PWRF Facility Plan which identified a series
of improvements to expand the PWRF to meet current and future needs. The
scope of the PWRF recommended improvements included the following:
• Extension of potable water and electrical services to the site (Phase 1)
• Additional winter storage ponds (Phase 2)
• Industrial wastewater pretreatment improvements (Phase 3)
Page 15 of 129
The PWRF stakeholders agreed to move forward with design and construction
following this phased approach. The Phase 1 project is currently under
construction. The Phase 2 project is in the design phase.
On January 10, 2022, staff provided Council a presentation on proposed updates
to the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) with the potential to include a
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) option that will help reduce costs to the PWRF
Processors. Council indicated support to move forward with the proposed
concept.
Through processes outlined in Chapter 70A.140 RCW, Water Quality Joint
Development Act, Burnham SEV, a renewable natural gas (RNG) Project
Developer, was selected to privately finance, design, construct, and operate an
upgraded industrial wastewater treatment plant that includes a renewable
natural gas plant at the PWRF. This Phase 3 project is 70% complete with
design and ready to move forward with final design and construction managed
by Burnham SEV.
Staff presented to Council on October 12, 2022, a draft WTA between the City
and Burnham SEV. It was mentioned during that presentation that staff was also
working on developing a corresponding draft WTA between the City and
Processors.
V. DISCUSSION:
The attached draft WTA outlines the terms and conditions for payment of
industrial wastewater treatment services. The PWRF Phase 3 facilities that will
treat the Processor’s industrial wastewater include a low-rate anaerobic digester
(LRAD), a biological nitrogen removal system (sequential batch reactor (SBR) or
rotating algal biofilm (RAB)), and a renewable natural gas (RNG) system.
The RNG produced from the Processor’s wastewater will be sold by Burnham
SEV on the volunteer RNG market and revenue from the sale of RNG will be
used to pay a portion of the capital cost of the Phase 3 project, subsequently
reducing fees paid by the Processors.
Staff’s goal is to review with Council the draft Wastewater Treatment Agreement
for the Processors, answer any questions, and incorporate Council comments
into a final agreement.
The proportionate fee for each Processor is still being finalized. The fee will be
based on several factors including total annual and peak flows from each
Processor to the PWRF, and concentrations of Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD), Nitrogen, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and other factors. The City is
utilizing the services of the FCS Group to develop a rate model to assist in
Page 16 of 129
determining the proportionate fee to each Processor. The rate model has been
reviewed several times with the Processor group evaluating different
alternatives. Included in the attachments is the latest cost distribution for all four
phases of the PWRF Pretreatment project. Only the Phase 3 project is the
subject of the Processor WTA.
Page 17 of 129
Resolution – Pasco Processors Wastewater Treatment Agr. - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE
PROCESS WATER REUSE FACILITY (PWRF) INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT AGREEMENTS WITH MULTIPLE
PROCESSORS FOR THE PWRF PRETREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS PHASE
3 PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (City) operates a Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) to
treat industrial wastewater from Food Processors (Processors) located in the vicinity of the City of
Pasco; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current PWRF system has reached its design life and capacity,
such that upgrades and expansion are necessary to accommodate existing and new agricultural
food processor wastewater from current and future processors; and
WHEREAS, Burnham SEV, a renewable natural gas (RNG) Project Developer, is in the
process of being selected, through processes outlined in Chapter 70A.140 RCW, to privately
develop a new industrial wastewater treatment plant, utilizing a low-rate anaerobic digester and
nitrogen removal system (System) along with a renewable natural gas plant at the PWRF; and
WHEREAS, City and Burnham SEV entered an agreement on November 24, 2021,
wherein the City (and Processors) agreed to support the cost of initial engineering for the System;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 70A.140 of the RCW Water Quality Joint Development Act
provides a mechanism for the City to provide service from water pollution control facilities by
means of services agreements with public or private parties; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 70A.140.040(9), prior to execution of the Wastewater
Treatment Agreement, Burnham and the City understand the necessity of submitting the “proposed
service agreement” to the Department of Ecology to review for consistency with RCW 90.46 and
RCW 90.48, as a condition precedent to the City’s authority to execute the Wastewater Treatment
Agreement with Burnham and have complied with this condition; and
WHEREAS, Processors agree to pay City a Base Treatment Fee and/or an Adjustment
Treatment Fee as described herein and shown in Exhibit B; and
Page 18 of 129
Resolution – Pasco Processors Wastewater Treatment Agr. - 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the Interim City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the attached PWRF
Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Agreement in substantially the same form with each of the
Processors for the PWRF Pretreatment Improvements Phase 3 Project, a draft copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A; and to make minor substantive
changes as necessary to execute the Agreement.
Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force
immediately upon passage by the City Council.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ______ day of
_______, 2023.
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ __________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 19 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
1
FG: 100895287.4
CITY OF PASCO – PROCESS WATER REUSE FACILITY (PWRF)
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT AGREEMENT
WITH [PROCESSOR NAME]
1.AGREEMENT. This Industrial Wastewater Treatment Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered as
of the Effective Date by and between [Processor Name], a ______________ (“Processor”), with offices
at [Processor address], and the City of Pasco, a Washington municipal corporation (“City”), with offices
at 525 N 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301. The City and Processor are each a “Party” and collectively the
“Parties” to this Agreement. The Parties agree as follows
2.RECITALS
2.1 The City owns and operates a wastewater utility, including a process wastewater reuse facility
(“PWRF”) that operates for the benefit of the City and large agricultural food processors. The PWRF
pretreats, treats, and disposes of approximately one billion gallons of agricultural industrial wastewater by
land application on 1,854 acres of City-owned farmland. See Washington State Discharge Permit No.
ST0005369. The existing PRWF consists of a primary treatment process (including two rotary drum
screens, one modified clarifier, 12 septic tanks for solids collection from the clarifier, one screw press for
solids removal from the rotary drum screens system), one approximately five million gallon pond
previously used as solids storage, one eight million gallon pond used as an equalization pond, one 35
million gallon pond for winter storage, and one 115 million gallon (“MG”) pond for winter storage, and
an irrigation system for land application of agricultural industrial wastewater.
2.2 The City’s current PWRF system has reached it design life and capacity, such that upgrades, and
expansion are necessary to accommodate new and increasing agricultural food processor wastewater. To
meet the Washington Department of Ecology’s (“Ecology”) permit requirements to expand the PWRF’s
capacity, the City sought a contractor capable of treating agricultural and milk-processing industrial
wastewater and using the biogas produced from such treatment to generate Renewable Natural Gas
(“RNG”). Following a competitive selection process, the City selected Burnham SEV Pasco, LLC
(“Burnham”) to develop, design, construct, and operate, a wastewater treatment and nitrogen removal
system (the “System,” as more particularly described in Exhibit A) and integration of Burnham’s RNG
production process. Burnham is to finance, construct, own, and operate the System on City-owned
property.
2.3 The City is in the process of preparing and submitting a new Washington State Waste Discharge
Permit (“Discharge Permit”) application to Ecology, to include the System and all other components of
the agricultural industrial wastewater treatment and disposal process. The City will develop, operate, and
maintain other facilities, including its storage ponds (equalization and winter storage), irrigation system,
land application area, and all related assets (e.g., conveyance water pipes, pump stations, wells, and
appurtenances) (“City Facilities”) and the City intends to be a joint permittee with Burnham under the
Discharge Permit with roles and responsibilities for its implementation as defined in a separate Wastewater
Treatment Agreement.
2.4 Under RCW 70A.140.040(9), prior to execution of the Wastewater Treatment Agreement with
Burnham, Burnham and the City understand the necessity of submitting a “proposed service agreement” to
Ecology to review for consistency with chapters 90.46 and 90.48 RCW, as a condition precedent to the
City’s authority to execute the Wastewater Treatment Agreement with Burnham. Ecology has reviewed
the proposed service agreement and found it consistent with referenced laws.
2.5 The System and City Facilities will be supported by rates and fees paid to the City by processors,
including Processor. This Agreement provides for Processor agreement to pay City for a Base Treatment
EXHIBIT A
Page 20 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
2
FG: 100895287.4
Fee and Adjustment Treatment Fee as described herein and shown in Exhibit D, and for the City to provide
for the System and the City Facilities to receive and process Processor’s wastewater.
3. DEFINITIONS
3.1 “Abnormal Substances” means substances or materials (including viscous, toxic or hazardous
substances) that (i) were not reasonably anticipated by City as being in the Influent Industrial Wastewater,
(ii) are present in the Influent Industrial Wastewater in a type, concentration or loading that was not
reasonably anticipated by City; or (iii) exceed the design capacity of the System to adequately treat when
operated in accordance with Prudent Industry Practices.
3.2 “Adjusted Treatment Fee” has the meaning given in Exhibit F.
3.3 “Base Treatment Fee” has the meaning given in Exhibit F.
3.4 “Change of Law” means after the Effective Date (i) the enactment, adoption, promulgation,
modification or repeal of any law or regulation applicable to the System or the production or sale of RNG;
(ii) the imposition of any material conditions on the issuance or renewal of any applicable Permit
(notwithstanding the general requirements contained in any applicable Permit at the time of application or
issue to comply with future laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or similar legislation), or (iii) a change by
any governmental authority that establishes requirements affecting owning, supplying, constructing,
installing, operating or maintaining the System, or other performance of the obligations of either Party
hereunder.
3.5 “Changed Circumstances” has the meaning given in Section 4.2.
3.6 “City Facilities” has the meaning given in Agreement Section 2.3.
3.7 “City Obligation(s)” has the meaning given in Section 4.1.
3.8 “City Permits” means the Permits that must be obtained and maintained by Processor as set forth
in Exhibit G.
3.9 “Commercial Operation” means the System is capable of processing Influent Wastewater
sufficient to meet the Effluent Wastewater specifications on a regular, daily basis and in commercial
quantities as determined by a third-party independent engineer selected by Burnham in its sole discretion.
3.10 “Consumer Price Index” means the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, All Items, West Region, (1982-84 equals 100), or
the successor of such index.
3.11 “Discharge Permit” has the meaning given in Agreement Section 2.3.
3.12 “Ecology” means the Washington State Department of Ecology.
3.13 “Effective Date” has the meaning given in Agreement Section 13.3.
3.14 “Effluent Wastewater” means agricultural or dairy industrial wastewater, as measured at [the
point at which the Effluent Wastewater is returned to the City as more particularly described in [Exhibit
Page 21 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
3
FG: 100895287.4
A]1, that meets the specifications in Exhibit A.
3.15 “Effluent Wastewater Failure” has the meaning given in Section 7.1.
3.16 “Influent Wastewater” means agricultural and dairy processing industrial wastewater that does
not contain industrial wastewater in excess of applicable federal and state industrial pre-treatment standards,
does not contain Abnormal Substances, and otherwise meets the specifications in Exhibit C, as measured
at [the point at which the Influent Wastewater is delivered to the PWRF as more particularly described in
Exhibit A2].
3.17 “Initial Term” has the meaning given in Section 2.1.
3.18 “Insolvency Event” means with respect to any Party, when: (a) the Party commences a voluntary
case or other proceeding seeking liquidation, reorganization or other relief with respect to itself or its debts
under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other similar law of any jurisdiction now or hereafter
in effect or seeking the appointment of a trustee, receiver, liquidator, custodian or other similar official of
such Party or any substantial part of its property, or consents or agrees to any such relief or to the
appointment of or taking possession by any such official in an involuntary case or other proceeding
commenced against it, or makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes or is declared
insolvent, or acknowledges, in writing, its inability to pay its debts as they become due, or takes any
corporate action in any jurisdiction to authorize any of the foregoing; (b) an involuntary case or other
proceeding is commenced against the Party seeking liquidation, reorganization or other relief with respect
to it or its debts under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other similar law of any jurisdiction
now or hereafter in effect or seeking the appointment of a trustee, receiver, liquidator, custodian or other
similar official of such person or any substantial part of its property, and such involuntary case or other
proceeding shall remain undismissed and unstayed for a period of ninety (90) days; or (c) an order for relief
has been entered against that Party under the United States federal, state or other bankruptcy laws of any
jurisdiction as now or hereafter in effect.
3.19 “Late Payment Rate” has the meaning given in Section 5.3.
3.20 “Major Maintenance Expenses” means all costs, fees, obligations and other liabilities incurred
by Burnham and associated with maintaining System performance, including without limitation
maintenance, repair, renewal, capital expenditures, reconstruction or replacement of any portion or
component of the System, as applicable.
3.21 “Material Breach” has the meaning given in section 6.2.
3.22 “MG” means million gallon(s).
3.23 “Modifications” has the meaning given in Section 5.4.
3.24 “Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater” means agricultural or dairy industrial wastewater
delivered or directed by Processor to the System that fails to meet in any respect or for whatever reason the
specifications in Exhibit C.
3.25 “Non-Material Breach” has the meaning given in Section 6.1.
1 NTD: monitoring locations for influent and effluent return(s).
2 NTD: monitoring locations for influent and effluent return(s).
Page 22 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
4
FG: 100895287.4
3.26 “Pass-Through Costs” has the meaning given in Exhibit F.
3.27 “Permits” means the permits, licenses, certificates, clearances, approvals, authorizations,
variances, or consents of any governmental authority, department, or agency, including all amendments
thereto and replacements thereof, that must be obtained and/or maintained for construction and operation
System.
3.28 “Processors” means the collective of all food product Processors that discharge their industrial
wastewater to the PWRF, including Processor.
3.29 “Processor Obligations” means the obligations as set out in this Agreement specific to the
processors which must be met as a condition of continued use of the PWRF system.
3.30 “Prudent Industry Practices” means any of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or
approved by a significant portion of the wastewater treatment industry for facilities of similar size and
characteristics to the System or any of the practices, methods or acts, which, in the exercise of reasonable
judgment in the light of the facts known or that should reasonably have been known at the time a decision
is made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at the lowest reasonable cost consistent
with law, regulation, permits, [written notice from City]es, standards, equipment manufacturer's
recommendations, reliability, safety, environmental protection, economy, and expedition.
3.31 “PWRF” has the meaning given in Agreement Section 2.1.
3.32 “Remedy” has the meaning given in Section 7.3(e)
3.33 “Renewable Natural Gas” or “RNG” means biomethane produced by the System that meets
natural gas pipeline-quality standards such that the biomethane may blend with, or substitute for, geologic
natural gas.
3.34 “Renewal Term” has the meaning given in Section 2.2.
3.35 “Services” means the services to be provided by the City, its subcontractors, agents, or assigns,
under this Agreement, as set forth in Exhibit B.
3.36 “System” means the City- and Burnham-supplied industrial wastewater treatment and RNG
production facility and ancillary components as set forth in Exhibit A.
3.38 “Term” has the meaning given in Section 2.2.
3.38 “Total System Capital Cost” means actual costs incurred or payable by City or its affiliates in
connection with the development, construction and completion of the System, excluding working capital
required for System start-up and financing costs.
4. TERM
4.1 This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue thereafter for a
period of thirty (30) years (the “Initial Term”) unless terminated in accordance with this
Agreement or extended as provided in Section 2.2.
4.2 Upon expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically extend for two
additional five (5)-year periods (each a “Renewal Term” and together with the Initial Term, the
“Term”), unless terminated by either Party by sending written notice of termination to the other
Page 23 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
5
FG: 100895287.4
Party no later than one hundred and eighty (180) days before the end of the Initial Term or any
Renewal Term, as applicable.
5. PROCESSOR OBLIGATIONS In addition to any other obligations set forth herein, including
any obligations in Exhibit C, Processor shall comply with the following obligations (each a “Processor
Obligation” and together the “Processor Obligations”):
5.1 Influent Wastewater. Commencing on written notice from City and continuing
throughout the Term, Processor shall at its sole cost and expense deliver to City the Influent
Wastewater in accordance with the specifications in Exhibit C. If at any time City becomes aware
that Influent Wastewater delivered by Processor is Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater, City
may, in its sole discretion, choose to refuse, accept or bypass such Non-Conforming Influent
Wastewater; provided, however, that City’s acceptance of Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater
shall not relieve Processor of any responsibility or any costs, damages, or liabilities associated
with Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater, and City does not waive any other rights or remedies
associated with Processor’s delivery of Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater.
5.2 Payment. Processor shall pay City in accordance with Section 5.
5.3 If there are any changes in Processor’s ability to comply with the Processor’s Obligations
in Exhibit C, any change in circumstances, or a Change of Law that necessitates a change to the
System or the services to be provided by City in connection herewith (individually or
collectively, “Changed Circumstances”), Processor shall be proportionally responsible for any
increased costs incurred by City to operate the System due to such Changed Circumstances.
6. CITY OBLIGATIONS
6.1 In addition to any other obligations set forth herein, including any obligations in Exhibit C, City
shall comply with the following obligations (each a “City Obligation” and together the “City
Obligations”):
6.2 Other Agreements. City shall enter into agreements with service providers to design,
develop, construct and operate the System and the City Facilities if not operated by the City.
7. PAYMENT FOR SYSTEM AND SERVICES; CHANGE ORDERS
7.1 Commencing on written notice from City and continuing throughout the Term, Processor
shall pay City the Adjusted Treatment Fee, Pass-Through Costs, and any applicable adjustments
as calculated and invoiced by City on a monthly basis in accordance with this Agreement. City
collection on delinquent Processor accounts is governed by Chapters 3.65 and Title 13 Pasco
Municipal Code, as may be amended in the future.
7.2 Except in the case of Material Breach by City or as explicitly specified in this Agreement,
commencing on written notice from City Processor shall pay to City the Adjusted Treatment Fee
each month and through the end of the Term notwithstanding any failure by Processor to deliver
Influent Wastewater or failure or inability of City to accept Influent Wastewater or deliver
Effluent Wastewater.
7.3 At any time during the Term, Processor may request additional services from the City or request
any alterations, additions, omissions, modifications, or changes in the scope, schedule, sequence,
methods, or performance of the System or Services (together “Modifications”). City agrees to
reasonably cooperate with Processor to evaluate and implement Modifications proposed by Processor
Page 24 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
6
FG: 100895287.4
and accepted by City. 8. NON-MATERIAL AND MATERIAL BREACHES OF THIS AGREEMENT
8.1 Any breach under this Agreement by either Party that is not a Material Breach shall be a “Non-
Material Breach.”
8.2 The following circumstances shall constitute a “Material Breach” by the applicable non-
performing Party:
The Processor’s failure to make any payment required under this Agreement and invoiced by the City in
accordance with Section 5 and Exhibit F; provided, however, that City shall provide written notice of such
failure to Processor and [Processor name] shall have thirty (30) days to submit payment in full (including
any interest or penalties) following such notice;
An Influent Wastewater Failure (as defined in Section 7.2a) of cause and sufficient duration to be a
Material Breach under Section 7.1(c)
Processor’s relocation, alteration, addition, improvement, maintenance or repair of its system made
without City’s written consent.
In respect of either Party, the other Party’s material misrepresentation, fraud, or intentional misconduct in
connection with this Agreement,.
In respect of either Party, an Insolvency Event for that Party.
9. REMEDIES; CROSS-DEFAULTS
9.1 Remedies for Non-Material Breach Due to Effluent Wastewater Failure. The City’s failure
or inability to meet the Effluent Wastewater specifications listed in Exhibit D (“Effluent Wastewater
Failure”) shall be a Non-Material Breach of this Agreement.
9.2 Upon either Party’s determination that an Effluent Wastewater Failure has occurred, such Party
shall provide a reasonably detailed notice to the other Party explaining the circumstances of such Effluent
Wastewater Failure as soon as reasonably practical but no later than ten (10) days of such determination.
The Parties will immediately cooperate and take steps to remedy such Effluent Wastewater Failure
consistent with Section 0.
9.3 Notwithstanding the above, if the Effluent Wastewater Failure was caused by Processor’s
delivery of Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater, such remedy shall be determined by Section 9.4.
9.4 Remedies for Non-Material Breaches of Certain Processor Obligations.
9.4.1 If Processor fails to deliver Influent Wastewater in accordance with Exhibit C and
Section 3.1A or delivers Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater, the City shall promptly notify Processor
of such failure and Processor shall be solely responsible for any and all losses, damage to the System, or
additional costs incurred by the City or its contractors that were caused by Processor ’s failure or delivery
of Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater, including without limitation any additional costs of treating,
handling, storing, and disposing of such Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater.
9.4.2 In the event of any damage to the System caused by Processor’s acts or omissions or
breach of this Agreement, Processor shall remain obligated to perform all obligations under this
Page 25 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
7
FG: 100895287.4
Agreement and Processor shall reimburse City for the repair and restoration of the System to the same
condition as existed immediately before such damage occurred. The City shall promptly notify Processor
of any damage to the System caused by Processor’s acts or omissions.
9.4.3 Such remedies in this Section 9.4 shall be non-exclusive, and every other right and
remedy be cumulative and in addition to every other right and remedy given under this Agreement or
existing at law, in equity, or otherwise now or after the Effective Date, and the assertion or employment
of any right or remedy under this Agreement should not prevent the concurrent assertion of any other
right or remedy.
9.5 Remedies for Other Non-Material Breach by Either Party. As promptly as may be
reasonably practicable, and in all circumstances no later than thirty (30) business days after becoming
aware of a Non-Material Breach, the performing Party shall provide written notice of the Non-Material
Breach to the non-performing Party (“Claim Notice”). The failure by the performing Party to give such
prompt notice shall not constitute a waiver except to the extent, if any, that the non-performing Party is
materially prejudiced by such failure.
9.5.1 Any Claim Notice sent by the performing Party to the non-performing Party shall set forth in
reasonable detail, to the extent then known or reasonably available:
(a) the facts and circumstances giving rise to such Non-Material Breach, including all relevant
supporting documentation;
(b) the nature of the losses suffered or incurred or expected to be suffered or incurred by the
performing Party;
(c) a reference to the provisions of this Agreement in respect of which such losses have been suffered
or incurred or are expected to be suffered or incurred;
(d) the amount of losses suffered or incurred and, to the extent the losses have not yet been suffered
or incurred, a good faith estimate (to the extent reasonably possible, based on the information) of the
amount of losses that could be expected to be suffered or incurred;
(e) a reasonably detailed demand for the non-performing Party to take such actions or pay the
performing Party any amounts due or reasonably expected to be due to cure the Non-Material Breach (the
“Remedy”); and
(f) such other information as may be necessary for the non-performing Party to determine whether
any limitations under this Agreement may apply.
9.5.2 Upon receiving any Claim Notice, the non-performing Party shall perform or pay the Remedy, as
applicable, as soon as reasonably practicable, but in any event no later than thirty (30) calendar days. If
such Remedy is not reasonably capable of being implemented within thirty (30) calendar days, the Parties
shall agree on a longer time to implement the Remedy. If the non-performing Party refuses to comply
with the Claim Notice, any disagreements will be resolved by the dispute resolution procedures in Section
7.
9.5.3 The Parties agree that a Non-Material Breach will not result in a right for either Party to terminate
this Agreement
Page 26 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
8
FG: 100895287.4
9.6 Remedies for Material Breach of Either Party
9.6.1 Material Breach by the City. If the City is in Material Breach of this Agreement by its inability to
accept Influent Wastewater from Processor, the Processor may, but is not required to, terminate this
Agreement by providing the City one hundred eighty (180) days advance written notice of the Material
Breach, during which one hundred eighty (180) day period the City shall have the opportunity to cure
such Material Breach. If the City fails to cure Processor exercises its termination right, such termination
shall be effective upon the date that each of the following conditions is satisfied:
(a) Processor shall pay to the City a sum representing the total value of any Outstanding Debt, minus
the value of any insurance proceeds received or owed to the City or Lender arising from a System
casualty preceding the City’s Material Breach; and
(b) Processor and City shall execute any agreements or documents necessary to complete the
assignment and transfer of the Influent Wastewater to Processor.
9.6.2 Material Breach by Processor. If Processor is in Material Breach of this Agreement, the City may,
but is not required to, terminate this Agreement by providing Processor one hundred eighty (180) days
advance written notice of the Material Breach, during which one hundred eighty (180) day period
Processor shall have the opportunity to cure such Material Breach. If Processor fails to cure and the City
exercises its termination right, Processor shall owe to the City as direct damages, and not as a penalty:
(a) The greater of (x) the undiscounted value of Processor’s payments to the City for the remainder
of the Term (excluding Pass-Through Costs), as reasonably calculated by the City, in accordance with
Exhibit F, or (y) a proportionate share of the Outstanding Debt; and
(b) The total amount owed by the City to Burnham for impacts on PWRF, including RNG production
caused by the need to terminate this Agreement as a result of Processor’s Material Breach.
9.7 In the case of any actual or anticipated breach of this Agreement, each Party agrees to use good
faith efforts to take such commercially reasonable actions as necessary to expeditiously resolve the
underlying circumstances including without limitation cooperating with the other Party to obtain any new
or modified System Permits or other approvals necessary or appropriate in connection with the
ownership, occupation, possession or use of the System; provided, however, that in all circumstances
neither Party shall be required or be deemed to have waived any defenses it may have under any
applicable law or contract.
10. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Each Party represents and warrants that it has full power and authority under the laws of the State of
Washington to enter into this Agreement.
10.2 All covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall run with Processor’s land and shall bind
its successors and assigns, whether so expressed or not.
10.3 DISCLAIMER OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. EXCEPT AS
EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, EACH PARTY MAKES NO WARRANTY
OR REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. ALL
IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE HEREBY
DISCLAIMED.
Page 27 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
9
FG: 100895287.4
11. FORCE MAJEURE
In the event either Party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, to carry out its respective obligations under
this Agreement, except for any obligation to make payment, due to circumstances beyond its reasonable
control, including, without limitation, riot or other civil disturbances, flood, natural disaster, acts of God,
terrorist act, war or civil insurrection, an epidemic, pandemic or viral or communicable disease outbreak,
quarantine, national emergency or other unforeseeable circumstances beyond its reasonable control (a
“Force Majeure”), then written notice setting out the reason for non-performance shall be given to the
other Party by the Party claiming Force Majeure promptly following discovery thereof. Upon receipt of
such notice, the obligations of the affected Party shall be suspended during the period of the Force
Majeure and any deadline or date certain for performance shall be extended by a period equal to the
period of the Force Majeure. Every reasonable effort shall be made by the Parties to avoid delay and limit
any period during which performance under this Agreement might be suspended.
12. GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTES
12.1 This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington
without giving effect to its choice of law principles. Venue for any court action under this Agreement
shall be the Washington state superior court for Franklin County.
12.2 Any disagreement between the City and Processor which cannot be resolved in accordance with
this Agreement shall be referred to the senior management of each Party who shall attempt to resolve the
dispute in good faith. To aid resolution by the Parties’ senior management, the City’s and Processor’s
representatives shall promptly prepare and exchange memoranda stating the issues in dispute and their
positions, summarizing the negotiations which have taken place and attaching relevant documents. If the
Parties’ senior management resolves the dispute, such resolution shall be reported in writing to and shall
be binding upon the Parties.
12.3 If, despite the good faith efforts described in Section 15.2, the Parties are unable to resolve a
dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or its breach, termination, enforcement,
interpretation or validity, the Parties may seek to agree on a forum for mediation to be held at a mutually
agreeable site.
12.4 If, despite good faith efforts described in Section 15.2 and 15.3, the Parties are unable to resolve a
dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or its breach, termination, enforcement,
interpretation or validity, (including the determination of the scope or applicability of this Agreement to
arbitrate), shall be determined by arbitration in the Tri-Cities, Washington before a single arbitrator who
is an experienced attorney in the discipline that is the subject of the dispute and whom shall be jointly
selected by the City and Processor. The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS or JDR pursuant to its
Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures. The arbitrator shall issue a reasoned, written decision.
Judgment may be entered upon the arbitrator’s decision in any court of competent jurisdiction, and each
Party agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of any such court for the purposes of any such actions
or proceedings to enter or enforce such judgement.
12.5 Should either party employ an attorney to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the
non-prevailing Party in any final judgment agrees to pay the other Party’s reasonable expenses, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in or out of litigation and, if in litigation, trial, appellate,
bankruptcy or other proceedings, expended or incurred in connection therewith, as determined by a court
of competent jurisdiction.
Page 28 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
10
FG: 100895287.4
13. MISCELLANEOUS
13.1 Amendment and Waiver. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be
valid unless contained within a written executed by Processor and the City and which references the
specific section to be amended or waived. No other amendment or waiver shall have any effect, regardless
of its formality, consideration, detrimental reliance or conduct of one or more Parties. Any waiver of any
term or condition hereof shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or as a subsequent
waiver of the same term or condition, or a waiver of any other term or condition of this Agreement.
13.2 Assignment. Either Party or assigns as applicable, may assign its rights under this Agreement
without the consent of the other Party; provided that such Party will remain responsible for each of its
obligations under the Agreement, the assignor shall promptly send written notice to the other Party.
13.3 Effective Date; Counterparts; E-Signatures. This Agreement shall take effect and be in force on
the later date of each Party’s signature, below. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in any
number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original instrument, but all of which together
shall constitute but one and the same agreement. A signature of a Party transmitted to the other Party by
facsimile, PDF or other electronic means shall constitute the original signature of such Party for all
purposes (“Electronic Signature”).
13.4 Merger. This Agreement, including any Exhibits, contains the total agreement of the Parties, and
all agreements oral or written entered into prior to or contemporaneously with the execution of this
Agreement are excluded. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
13.5 Notice. Any notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing
and sent to the appropriate addresses designated below (or to such other address or addresses as may
hereafter be furnished by one Party to the other Party in compliance with the terms hereof), by hand
delivery, by electronic email (if listed below), by UPS, FedEx, or DHL next-day service, or by registered
or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid.
If to City:
Attn: City Manager, City of Pasco
525 N 3rd Avenue
PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
If to Processor:
With a copy to: With a copy to:
efurguson@kerrlawgroup.net
13.6 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Parties and their
respective successors, Lenders, and permitted assigns and, and nothing herein, express or implied, is
intended to or shall confer upon any other person any legal or equitable right, benefit or remedy of any
nature whatsoever under or by reason of this Agreement.
13.7 Severability. If any clause in this Agreement is deemed unenforceable or invalid, the balance of
the Agreement shall remain enforceable. [signature page follows]
Page 29 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
11
FG: 100895287.4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.
PROCESSOR CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
By:_________________________________ By:______________________________
Name:_______________________________ Name: Adam Lincoln
Title:________________________________ Title: City Manager
Date:________________________________ Date:_____________________________
Page 30 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
12
FG: 100895287.4
Exhibit A
System
The System is composed of the following primary components, as may be modified from time to time as
be necessary or convenient to treat Influent Wastewater and comply with System Permits: as may
Headworks & Grit Removal;
Equalization;
Anaerobic Reactors and Bypass Stations, including
a. Anaerobic Reactor System;
b. Bypass - Equalization to Aerobic Reactors; and
c. Bypass - Equalization to Pond Discharge Station.
Aerobic Treatment and Bypass Station, including
(a.) Aerobic Reactor System; and
(b) Bypass – Aerobic Treatment to Pond Discharge Station. Effluent Pump Station
Gas Processing; Multi-use Building;
Page 31 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
13
FG: 100895287.4
Exhibit B
CITY-OBLIGATIONS
The City will provide, the following wastewater treatment services to Processor with respect to the
System described in Exhibit A
1. Operation, Routine Maintenance, and Management of the System.
1.1. The City will be responsible for all operations and maintenance obligations required to
ensure operation of the System in accordance with the Agreement and an Ecology-approved
operations and maintenance manual.
1.2. The City will communicate with [Processor name] as is reasonable and necessary
regarding the City’s operation, routine maintenance, and management of the System.
2. Capital Improvements
2.1. The City will perform capital improvements and any maintenance or modifications.
2.2. Should Ecology or other applicable regulatory authority establish new effluent limits
under the Discharge Permit that potentially require modifications to the System, the City and
Processor shall cooperate to evaluate modification to the System. Processor is responsible for
paying for the costs of any such capital improvements as provided for in the Agreement and
Exhibit F.
3. State Waste Discharge Permit Compliance, Generally
The City is responsible for obtaining the State Waste Discharge Permit. Both the City and
Processor shall be responsible for Permit compliance for each Party’s respective services.
4. Performance Standards and Regulatory, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
4.1 The City’s responsibilities for performance standards and regulatory, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements are solely and exclusively for the operation of the PWRF Systems.
All aspects of Processor facilities, including but not limited to implementation and enforcement
of the City’s pretreatment program, are the sole and exclusive responsibility of Processor .
4.2 For any monitoring and sampling requirements for Processor, including monitoring Influent
Wastewater prior to discharge to the PWRF, Processor will perform any laboratory analysis through an
accredited laboratory or as otherwise required by the Discharge Permit.
5. Metering; Wastewater Quality
5.1. City will install one or more meters as may be necessary to accurately measure the
amount and composition of Influent Wastewater delivered by Processor to the City for purposes
of billing Processor and other monitoring requirements as established in the Discharge Permit.
Page 32 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
14
FG: 100895287.4
5.2. The City will calibrate and maintain meter devices to ensure the accuracy of the
measurements is consistent with Prudent Industry Practices, the manufacturer’s recommendation,
and approved operation and maintenance manual procedures for the device and the waste stream.
The City will establish the calibration frequency for the Meter(s) that conforms to the frequency
recommended by the manufacturer.
5.3. Subject to reasonable advance notice, City will provide the Processor with access to the
Meter(s) during regular business hours for the purpose of inspecting or monitoring the quantity
and quality of Influent Wastewater.
5.4. Processor may request periodic testing of any Meter by providing written notice of such
request to the City. The City will conduct such testing; provided that the Processor may, at its
sole cost and expense, hire an independent third-party to conduct such testing. If, during any such
testing, the Meter is found to be within a five percent (5%) accuracy range, then the cost of such
test shall be borne by Processor. If the meter is inaccurate by more than five percent (5%), the
City shall at the City’s sole expense, cause the inaccuracy to be promptly corrected, and the
Parties agree that any amounts due or paid for any Services shall be adjusted by the same
percentage as the inaccuracy of the Meter, from the date of Processor name’s written request
through the date upon which the inaccuracy is corrected, as verified by an independent third-
party.
6. Payment of Permit Fees and Fines
6.1. The City is responsible for all State Waste Discharge Permit fees.
6.2. Processor is responsible for all City Permit fee and other rates and charges so long as
uniform for the same class of customers or service and facilities furnished. In classifying
customers served or service and facilities furnished by the PWRF, the City shall adhere to RCW
55, 67.020(2).
7. System Maintenance
7.1. Processor acknowledges that all City Obligations under this Agreement are subject to and
conditioned upon the City’s right and obligation to perform routine and periodic maintenance on
the PWRF systems and emergency maintenance as reasonably required from time to time.
7.2. The City shall provide Processor with advance notice of any routine and periodic maintenance
activities within ten (10) calendar days of the commencement of such routine and periodic
maintenance activities.
7.3. The City may perform emergency maintenance activities as reasonably required under the
circumstances. In the case of emergency maintenance activities, the City shall provide notice to
Processor as soon as practicable.
Page 33 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
15
FG: 100895287.4
Exhibit C
Processor Obligations
Processor shall supply Influent Wastewater in accordance with the following specifications:
Influent Characteristics to Wastewater Treatment System
[
Parameter Influent
Avg. Annual Daily Flow (MGD) TBD
Max. 28-Day Flow (MGD) TBD
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) TBD
BOD, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) TBD
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d)
TBD
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L)
TBD
TSS, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d)
TBD
TSS, Load Max. 28-Day(lb/d)
TBD
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) TBD
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d)
TBD
TN, Load Max. 28-Day (lb/d) TBD
Temperature (°F)
TBD
Ph TBD
Page 34 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
16
FG: 100895287.4
Exhibit D
Pricing Schedule – Pretreatment Phase 3 System Costs Only
1. Base Treatment Fee: TBD
2. Adjusted Treatment Fee: TBD based on information from FCS Group
3. Annual Modifications to the Adjusted Treatment Fee
The Adjusted Treatment Fee will be subject to further modification as follows:
1- Commencing on COD, the City will modify the Adjusted Treatment Fee to reflect any percentage
adjustment in the Consumer Price Index measured from April 2022 to the month and year
immediately preceding the month and year in which COD occurs. This first modification of the
Adjusted Treatment Fee will be the Adjusted Treatment Fee calculated and invoiced by the City
through March 31 of the first calendar year occurring after the calendar year in which COD occurs.
2- Commencing on April 1 of the first calendar year following the year in which COD occurs, and
occurring annually on April 1 of each calendar year through the Term, the City shall modify the
Adjusted Treatment Fee based on changes in the Consumer Price Index and/or increases in the
amount of Influent Wastewater or Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater accepted by the PWRF
system that occurred during the immediately preceding calendar year (e.g., a modified Adjusted
Treatment Fee will be calculated and take effect on April 1, 2025 to reflect circumstances occurring
from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024). The City will calculate such annual
modifications to Adjusted Treatment Fee as follows:
a. The then-current Adjusted Treatment Fee will be adjusted for any change in the Consumer
Price Index occurring from January 1 through December 31 of the prior calendar year;
provided, however, that on April 1 of the first calendar year occurring after COD, such
Consumer Price Index adjustment shall be measured from the month COD occurred
through December 31 of the prior year (e.g. if COD occurs Jun 1, 2024, the adjustment will
be measured from June 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024); and
b. If the System accepted more than [Processor Max annual flow] MG of Influent Wastewater
or Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater during the prior calendar year, the Adjusted
Treatment Fee will be increased by .03% per MG for each MG accepted above [Processor
Max annual flow] MG. There will be no adjustment for volume of wastewater if the total
volume of Influent Wastewater or Non-Conforming Influent Wastewater is less than
[Processor Max annual flow] MG.
Such annually modified Adjusted Treatment Fee shall remain fixed for the next twelve (12) months, through
March 31 of the subsequent year.
The City shall document any annual modifications to the Adjusted Treatment Fee and provide [Processor
name] a form summarizing the annual modification to the Adjusted Treatment Fee with the first invoice
issued after such modified Adjusted Treatment Fee goes into effect.
Page 35 of 129
505985890.3
DRAFT 1/27/2023 CITY/FG
17
FG: 100895287.4
4. Pass-Through Costs:
The following costs incurred by the City will be passed through to Processor for administrative costs, and
will be invoiced to Processor on a monthly basis:
o Electricity
o Purchased natural gas for system heating use
o Solid waste disposal (including anaerobic sludge and periodic digester scrapes and clean-
outs)
o Consumables (including replacement parts & associated rental equipment)
o Major Maintenance Expenses
Page 36 of 129
Pasco Processing
Projected Design Criteria
Parameter Influent
Total Annual Flow (MGD) 435
Avg. Annual Daily Flow (MGD) 1.19
Max. Month Flow (MGD) 2.50
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 3,018
BOD, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 30,000
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d) 65,000
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 1,600
TSS, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 15,910
TSS, Load Max Month (lb/d) 42,500
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 64
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 670
FDS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 475
FDS, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 4,700
pH (s.u.) 5.0 – 11.0
Freeze Pack
Projected Design Criteria
Parameter Influent
Total Annual Flow (MGD) 25
Avg. Annual Daily Flow (MGD) 0.07
Max. Month Flow (MGD) 0.11
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 236
BOD, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 135
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d) 225
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 236
TSS, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 140
TSS, Load Max Month (lb/d) 225
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 70
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 40
FDS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 515
FDS, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 300
pH (s.u.) 5.0 – 11.0
EXHIBIT C
Page 37 of 129
Twin City Foods
Projected Design Criteria
Parameter Influent
Total Annual Flow (MGD) 225
Avg. Annual Daily Flow (MGD) 0.62
Max. Month Flow (MGD) 1.80
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 7,197
BOD, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 37,000
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d) 105,000
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 2,640
TSS, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 13,580
TSS, Load Max Month (lb/d) 50,800
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 117
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 620
FDS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 515
FDS, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 2,600
pH (s.u.) 5.0 – 11.0
Reser’s
Projected Design Criteria
Parameter Influent
Total Annual Flow (MGD) 127
Avg. Annual Daily Flow (MGD) 0.41
Max. Month Flow (MGD) 0.41
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 2,130
BOD, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 7,300
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d) 10,200
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 2,130
TSS, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 7,310
TSS, Load Max Month (lb/d) 10,800
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 80
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 230
FDS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 730
FDS, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 2,500
pH (s.u.) 5.0 – 11.0
Page 38 of 129
Simplot
Projected Design Criteria
Parameter Influent
Total Annual Flow (MGD) 255
Avg. Annual Daily Flow (MGD) 0.70
Max. Month Flow (MGD) 1.25
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 3,467
BOD, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 20,200
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d) 70,000
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 2,120
TSS, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 12,360
TSS, Load Max Month (lb/d) 20,000
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 91
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 410
FDS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 530
FDS, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 3,100
pH (s.u.) 5.0 – 11.0
Grimmway
Projected Design Criteria
Parameter Influent
Total Annual Flow (MGD) 254
Processing Period* Avg. Daily Flow (MGD) 1.19
Max. Month Flow (MGD) 1.65
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 2,700
BOD, Processing Period* Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 26,730
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d) 37,150
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 1,000
TSS, Annual Avg. Processing Period Daily Load (lb/d) 9,900
TSS, Load Max Month (lb/d) 13,770
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 21
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 120
TN, Processing Period* Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 210
FDS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 360
FDS, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 2,100
FDS, Processing Period* Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 3,560
pH (s.u.) 5.0 – 11.0
*Processing period used is June Through December, which includes start-
up and clean-up flow/loading
Page 39 of 129
Darigold WW
Projected Design Criteria
Parameter Influent
Total Annual Flow (MGD) 256
Avg. Annual Daily Flow (MGD) 0.70
Max. Month Flow (MGD) 0.84
BOD, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 3,009
BOD, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 17,600
BOD, Load Max. Month (lb/d) 24,600
TSS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 397
TSS, Annual Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 2,330
TSS, Load Max Month (lb/d) 2,790
TN, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 197
TN, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 1,150
FDS, Annual Avg. (mg/L) 1,655
FDS, Avg. Daily Load (lb/d) 9,700
pH (s.u.) 5.0 – 11.0
Page 40 of 129
Slide 1FCS GROUP
Brooke Tacia
Project Manager, FCS GROUP
December 15, 2022
PWRF –Cost Allocations
Page 41 of 129
Slide 2FCS GROUP
Agenda
●Background
●Cost allocation methodology
●Summary of cost allocations
»City O&M
»Existing debt service
–IPS debt service
»New capital infrastructure investment
–Planned across four phases
●Total system costs
●Next steps
●QuestionsPage 42 of 129
Slide 3FCS GROUP
Background
●Process water reuse facility requires upgrades to provide for:
»Continued system reliability
»Expansion of processor productivity
»Additional capacity for future processors
●Improvements are planned across four phases
»Phase 1: Additional potable water and electrical power
»Phase 2: Additional winter storage ponds –329 MG
»Phase 3: Low-rate anaerobic digester and biological nitrogen removal process
»Phase 4: Farm upgrades
●City formed partnership with Burnham SEV in 2021 for Phase 3 construction
costsPage 43 of 129
Slide 4FCS GROUP
Cost Allocation Methodology
Total System Costs
Existing City
O&M
Existing Debt
Service IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2 Debt
Service Phase 3 Treatment
Customer
Flow
Nitrogen
TSS
BOD
Existing
Customer
Flows
Winter Storage
Needs &
Operational
Flexibility
Flow
BOD
Flow
BOD
Existing
Flow/Load
New
Flow/Load
Headworks Nitrogen Removal RNG
Pass
Through
Expenses
LRAD
Max
Month
Flow TN
Load
Existing Load New Load
TN
Load
BOD
ppd
Flow
Nitrogen
BOD
RNG Credit Tax Credit
BOD ppd
Base Treatment Costs Credits
Annual Flows w/ COW
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Page 44 of 129
Slide 5FCS GROUP
Existing City O&M
●Existing City operation and maintenance expenses allocated based on cost
drivers
Function Allocation Factor
Flow Cumulative Annual MGD
TSS Average ppd TSS
Customer Even split
Nitrogen Average ppd TN
BOD Average ppd BOD
Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Pasco Processing 1,225,000$
Freeze Pack 138,000
Twin City Foods 757,000
Reser's New Plant 454,000
Simplot 797,000
Grimmway 643,000
Darigold WW 667,000
Total 4,681,000$
Processor City O&MPage 45 of 129
Slide 6FCS GROUP
Existing Debt Service
●Averages $1.0M annually for the next five years
»Consists of three revenue bonds and 1 HAEFIC* loan
●Spread to existing processors based on annual flows of benefiting users
Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Pasco Processing 375,000$
Freeze Pack -
Twin City Foods 201,000
Reser's New Plant 130,000
Simplot 315,000
Grimmway -
Darigold WW -
Total 1,021,000$
Processor Existing Debt
Service
*HAEFIC –Hanford Area Economic Finance Investment CommitteePage 46 of 129
Slide 7FCS GROUP
Irrigation Pump Station (IPS) Debt Service
●New debt proceeds utilized for IPS construction
●Annual debt service averages $924,000 annually
●Spread to all processors based on annual cumulative flows -with COW Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Pasco Processing 215,000$
Freeze Pack 12,000
Twin City Foods 111,000
Reser's New Plant 63,000
Simplot 126,000
Grimmway 126,000
Darigold WW + COW 271,000
Total 924,000$
Processor IPS Debt
ServicePage 47 of 129
Slide 8FCS GROUP
Phase 1 –Electrical & Potable Water Upgrades
●Phase 1 allows for construction of additional potable water supply and
electrical power
●Annual debt service averages $232k annually
●Spread to all processors based on annual cumulative flows -with COW
Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Pasco Processing 54,000$
Freeze Pack 3,000
Twin City Foods 28,000
Reser's New Plant 16,000
Simplot 32,000
Grimmway 31,000
Darigold WW + COW 68,000
Total 232,000$
Processor Phase 1 Debt
ServicePage 48 of 129
Slide 9FCS GROUP
Phase 2 –Winter Storage Upgrades
●Phase 2 allows for construction of 329 MG of additional winter storage
pond capacity
●Annual debt service averages $3.1M annually
●Spread to Processors based on the incremental new storage needed
and operational flexibility provided
Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
New Storage Needed Operational Flexibility
Pasco Processing -$ 60,000$ 60,000$
Freeze Pack 113,000 9,000 122,000
Twin City Foods 47,000 8,000 55,000
Reser's New Plant 19,000 28,000 47,000
Simplot 235,000 38,000 273,000
Grimmway 471,000 38,000 509,000
Darigold WW 1,883,000 150,000 2,033,000
Total 2,768,000$ 331,000$ 3,100,000$
Phase 2 Debt Service Total Phase 2
Debt ServiceProcessorPage 49 of 129
Slide 10FCS GROUP
Phase 3 Treatment -Costs
●Phase 3 is paid through monthly treatment expenses to Burnham SEV
for a low-rate anaerobic digester and a biological nitrogen removal
processExisting
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 3 Costs
Headworks RNG Nitrogen
Removal LRAD Pass Through
Expenses
Flow
BOD
Flow
BOD
40% Existing
Flows / Loads
60% New
Flows / Loads Max
Month
Flow TN
Load
25% Existing
Loads
75% New
Loads
TN
Load
BOD
ppd
Flow
Nitrogen
BOD
50%
50%
Phase 4
Debt
Service
●Treatment costs include base credit of $4.2M for annual RNG sales
●Pass through expenses include annualized maintenance expenses of $414k Page 50 of 129
Slide 11FCS GROUP
Phase 3 Treatment –Costs
Phase 3 Costs
RNG Nitrogen
Removal LRAD Pass Through
Expenses
Flow
BOD
Flow
BOD
40% Existing
Flows / Loads
60% New
Flows / Loads Max
Month
Flow TN
Load
25% Existing
Loads
75% New
Loads
TN
Load
BOD
ppd
Flow
Nitrogen
BOD
50%
50%
Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Headworks
*Total phase 3 treatment costs include base credit of $4.2M for annual RNG sales
Pasco Processing 516,000$ 775,000$ 368,000$ 1,038,000$ 701,000$ 3,398,000$
Freeze Pack 23,000 3,000 17,000 30,000 25,000 98,000
Twin City Foods 371,000 956,000 258,000 716,000 628,000 2,929,000
Reser's New Plant 85,000 217,000 120,000 288,000 218,000 928,000
Simplot 258,000 522,000 261,000 722,000 467,000 2,230,000
Grimmway 340,000 406,000 185,000 1,281,000 344,000 2,556,000
Darigold WW 173,000 455,000 1,771,000 1,360,000 559,000 4,318,000
Total 1,766,000$ 3,334,000$ 2,980,000$ 5,435,000$ 2,942,000$ 16,457,000$
Processor Headworks RNG Nitrogen
Removal LRAD Pass Through
Expenses
Total Phase 3
Treatment Costs*Page 51 of 129
Slide 12FCS GROUP
Phase 3 Treatment -Credits
●Phase 3 includes incremental credit opportunities:
»RNG credit:
–An incremental credit will be allocated to Processors when monthly natural gas
revenue exceeds $350k
–Monthly revenue estimated at $540k based on Burnham contract discussions
»Tax credit:
–the new RNG system will be eligible for a federal tax credit, resulting in
amortized offsets to treatment expenses
–Credit estimated at $32M spread across ten years
Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Pasco Processing 3,398,000$ (440,000)$ (744,000)$ 2,214,000$
Freeze Pack 98,000 (2,000) (3,000) 93,000
Twin City Foods 2,929,000 (542,000) (918,000) 1,469,000
Reser's New Plant 928,000 (123,000) (208,000) 597,000
Simplot 2,230,000 (296,000) (501,000) 1,433,000
Grimmway 2,556,000 (230,000) (389,000) 1,937,000
Darigold WW 4,318,000 (258,000) (436,000) 3,624,000
Total 16,457,000$ (1,891,000)$ (3,200,000)$ 11,366,000$
Processor
Total Phase 3
Treatment Costs
Before Credits
RNG Credit Tax Credit
Total Phase 3
Treatment Costs
with CreditsPage 52 of 129
Slide 13FCS GROUP
Phase 4 –Farm Upgrades
●Phase 4 allows for construction of farm upgrades
●Annual debt service averages $296k annually
●Spread to all processors based on annual cumulative flows -with COW Existing
City O&M
Existing
Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1
Debt
Service
Phase 2
Debt
Service
Phase 3
Treatment
Phase 4
Debt
Service
Pasco Processing 69,000$
Freeze Pack 4,000
Twin City Foods 36,000
Reser's New Plant 20,000
Simplot 40,000
Grimmway 40,000
Darigold WW + COW 87,000
Total 296,000$
Phase 4 Debt
ServiceProcessorPage 53 of 129
Slide 14FCS GROUP
Total System Cost Allocations
●Adding all allocated system cost components together provides an estimate
of total annual costs for each Processor
●Totals below include estimate of annualized maintenance expenses
Pasco Processing 1,225,000$ 375,000$ 215,000$ 54,000$ -$ 60,000$ 2,214,000$ 69,000$ 4,212,000$
Freeze Pack 138,000 - 12,000 3,000 113,000 9,000 93,000 4,000 372,000
Twin City Foods 757,000 201,000 111,000 28,000 47,000 8,000 1,470,000 36,000 2,658,000
Reser's New Plant 454,000 130,000 63,000 16,000 19,000 28,000 597,000 20,000 1,327,000
Simplot 797,000 315,000 126,000 32,000 235,000 38,000 1,432,000 40,000 3,015,000
Grimmway 643,000 - 126,000 31,000 471,000 38,000 1,936,000 40,000 3,285,000
Darigold WW 667,000 - 271,000 68,000 1,883,000 150,000 3,624,000 87,000 6,750,000
Total 4,681,000$ 1,021,000$ 924,000$ 232,000$ 2,768,000$ 331,000$ 11,366,000$ 296,000$ 21,619,000$
Phase 2 Debt
Service - New
Storage Needed
Phase 2 Debt
Service - Operational
Flexibility
Phase 3 Treatment
(net of credits)
Phase 4 Debt
Service TotalProcessorCity O&M Existing Debt
Service
IPS Debt
Service
Phase 1 Debt
ServicePage 54 of 129
Slide 15FCS GROUP
Total System Cost Allocations –cont.
●Eliminating the average maintenance amount would reduce annual payments
●Alternatively -maintenance expenses would be assessed in the year needed
and would vary year to year
Pasco Processing 4,212,000$ 4,112,000$ 100,000$
Freeze Pack 372,000 370,000 2,000
Twin City Foods 2,658,000 2,570,000 88,000
Reser's New Plant 1,327,000 1,297,000 30,000
Simplot 3,015,000 2,949,000 66,000
Grimmway 3,285,000 3,236,000 49,000
Darigold WW 6,750,000 6,671,000 79,000
Total 21,619,000$ 21,205,000$ 414,000$
Annual
Difference
Total w/o
Annual
Maintenance
Total with
Annual
Maintenance
ProcessorPage 55 of 129
Slide 16FCS GROUP
Additional Scenarios for Consideration
●Three additional scenarios reviewed for comparison:
»Removal of costs and credits related to RNG infrastructure
»Use of SBRs instead of RAB system
»Inclusion of $10M State of Washington grant
+$4.5M
+$291k
-($1.2M)Page 56 of 129
Slide 17FCS GROUP
Next Steps
Page 57 of 129
Slide 18FCS GROUP
Thank you!
Questions?
Brooke Tacia
Project Manager
brooket@fcsgroup.com
www.fcsgroup.comPage 58 of 129
Slide 19FCS GROUP
Allocation Factors
Pasco Processing 1 435 MG 435 MG 384 MG 51 MG -
Freeze Pack 1 25 MG 25 MG 25 MG - 12 MG
Twin City Foods 1 225 MG 225 MG 225 MG - 5 MG
Reser's New Plant 1 127 MG 127 MG 115 MG 12 MG 2 MG
Simplot 1 255 MG 255 MG 205 MG 50 MG 25 MG
Grimmway 1 254 MG 254 MG - 254 MG 50 MG
Darigold WW 1 256 MG 548 MG - 256 MG 200 MG
Total 7 1,577 MG 1,869 MG 954 MG 623 MG 294 MG
Pasco Processing 80 MG 2.50 MGD 591 ppd 79 ppd 26,483 ppd 3,517 ppd
Freeze Pack 12 MG 0.11 MGD 40 ppd - 135 ppd -
Twin City Foods 10 MG 1.80 MGD 620 ppd - 37,000 ppd -
Reser's New Plant 37 MG 0.41 MGD 208 ppd 22 ppd 7,606 ppd 794 ppd
Simplot 50 MG 1.25 MGD 330 ppd 80 ppd 16,239 ppd 3,961 ppd
Grimmway 50 MG 1.65 MGD - 120 ppd - 15,700 ppd
Darigold WW 200 MG 0.84 MGD - 1,150 ppd - 17,600 ppd
Total 439 MG 8.56 MGD 1,789 ppd 1,451 ppd 87,463 ppd 41,572 ppd
Processor BOD Load
(Existing)
BOD Load
(New)
Annual Flow - No
COW - Existing
Annual Flow - no
COW - NewProcessorCustomerAnnual Flow -
No COW
Annual Flow -
with COW
Winter
Storage - New
Winter Storage -
Operational
Headworks
(Max Month
TN Load
(Existing)TN Load (New)Page 59 of 129
Memo
To: PWRF Processors
From: Steve M. Worley – Public Works Director
cc: Adam Lincoln – Interim City Manager
Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update
In preparation for the upcoming meeting Wednesday afternoon, December 14, I thought it
would be good to provide you all once again additional information related to the Phase 3
project. There has been a lot of work completed over the past year and a half and we are
about ready to begin construction. Yet I sense it is important to share with you more details
and information on how this phase of the project got to where it is today.
I have tried to keep all of you informed as much as possible through our monthly meetings.
But those meetings don’t allow enough time to get into too many details. And a lot has
happened since our last meeting. This memo is intended to provide more details. I will
organize this information with subheadings so you can easily find specific information that
interests you most.
RAB vs. SBR: Effectiveness
There have been numerous questions about the effectiveness of the RAB system compared
to the SBR system. The SBRs being the ‘tried and true’ nitrogen removal technology and
the RABs being a new technology.
As you know the first idea of using algae for nitrogen removal at the PWRF was from the
CSI Value Planning workshop back in February 2021. We all agreed the proposed 200
acres of shallow algae ponds was not something we were interested in for the PWRF. After
that, the Department of Commerce had $50,000 in grant money available and asked if
Pasco would be interested in further studying algae for nitrogen removal. The experts in
that study came across the RAB system in their research and thought it would be a good fit
for the PWRF.
A lot of review has been done of the RAB system to ensure it will perform as expected to
meet the nitrogen removal required for the PWRF to meet Ecology’s permit requirements.
And while there are some who question the RABs ability to perform as expected, Gross-
Wen Technologies (GWT) has provided a performance guarantee for their system. If their
RAB system does not meet the nitrogen removal requirements needed, they will install other
nitrogen removal equipment (such as an SBBR) at their own cost. Space is being made
available on the Phase 3 site in case this additional equipment is needed.
Page 60 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 2 of 9
Last week I became aware of an industrial food wastewater treatment facility that had
difficulty getting SBRs to work on their anaerobic digestor and land treatment system. They
eventually abandoned the SBRs and instead installed an expensive membrane system to
reduce ammonia to permitted levels. I contacted them this week and plan to visit them next
week to learn more about why the SBRs did not work on their system.
There have also been discussions on the potential need for additional equipment between
the low-rate anaerobic digesters (LRAD) and the RAB system. Such things as aeration
basins to reduce potential hydrogen sulfide buildup in the greenhouse (to protect staff) and a
secondary DAF in case the first one goes offline. With the information heard thus far, I am
not convinced these additional facilities are needed. The team will continue to vet these
options to ensure additional equipment is installed only if needed.
RAB vs. SBR: Cutting Edge Technology
Some have referred to the algae-based RAB system as “cutting edge technology”. And I
believe we all agree that the shallow pond system originally proposed by CSI would fall into
that category. Details about how to harvest the algae, what to do with the algae once it was
harvested, and what to do during winter all needed to be figured out. And the operations
and maintenance of that type of system was unknown.
Therefore, when the algae expert doing the Commerce study came across GWT’s RAB
system, they thought this would be perfect for the PWRF. And after physically seeing them
in operation, it was City Engineering and Operations staff’s opinion that the RAB system
would be simple to operate and maintain, especially given that GWT manages all the
harvested algae.
Based on the algae experts and staff who have looked at this algal form of biological
nitrogen removal, the simplicity of GWT’s design, and the processes the RABs use to
remove nitrogen from wastewater, it is better described as a ‘new’ way to remove nitrogen
but not necessarily ‘cutting edge’.
RAB vs. Ecology
The PWRF Phase 3 team recently received from, and reviewed with, Ecology comments on
the draft PWRF Pretreatment Upgrade Project Engineering Report, which included the use
of the RAB system for nitrogen removal. Most comments received were minor in nature and
can be easily addressed. The remaining comments were mostly requesting additional
information to support what was presented in the report. And at the end of the review
meeting with Ecology, their comment specifically about the RAB system was [paraphrased],
“let’s hurry up and get this additional information submitted so I can approve it and we can
get this thing built.” Ecology supports the proposed RAB system in lieu of SBRs. The final
Engineering Report with Ecology comments addressed will be resubmitted for final
review/approval in the next week or two.
Burnham/Evoqua/Swinerton GMP Contract
Burnham recently entered a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract with the EPC
(Engineering/Procurement/Construction) team of Evoqua/Swinerton. While I knew Burnham
was negotiating with several EPCs to find the lowest possible price for the Phase 3 project
Page 61 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 3 of 9
and meet the desired schedule, I was not aware a final decision was made, and a contract
executed. I learned this after the meeting with Burnham and Swinerton on November 3, of
which some of you attended.
According to Burnham, they are under no obligation to continue working under the GMP
contract if the project goes sideways. I’m sure if the contract were cancelled, there would be
costs implications but that would be Burnham’s risk and responsibility to cover.
A GMP contract is different than most other construction contracting methods such as Unit
Price, Lump Sum, Cost + Fixed Fee, etc. As the name implies, a GMP contract is where the
EPC estimates the ‘maximum’ cost that they can guarantee to design and build the project.
It is more like a Cost + Fixed Fee + Not to Exceed contract.
The Contractor tracks all ‘costs’ of the project, with no markup. His fixed fee covers all profit
and overhead. Most GMP contract fixed fees are based on a percentage of the total ‘cost’. If
the cost goes up, the Contractor’s fee also goes up. In Burnham’s case the GMP’s fixed fee
is a dollar amount, not based on a percentage. This way there is no advantage for the
Contractor to increase the cost of the project.
GMP Contract vs. GWT’s RAB
During Burnham’s negotiations with the EPCs there was no coordination between Burnham
or their EPCs with GWT. Therefore, none of the EPCs were familiar enough with the RAB
systems to put a fair cost estimate together on what it would take to get the RAB
greenhouses built and the system operating. Had this coordination been done prior to
executing the GMP contract, the cost of the RAB system would have been much better
known and could have been more accurately included in the GMP contract.
GMP Contract Change Order
Previously there was talk from Burnham about including a GWT ‘change order’ in the
Wastewater Treatment Agreement (WTA). However, it was the City’s position that a change
order was not needed until a contract was executed and that has not been done yet.
Also, in the municipal world, there is a difference between a change order and a contract
amendment. A change order is used in construction contracts when a change is needed to
the originally agreed upon scope of work. A ‘change order’ covers any added, deleted, or
revised work. An agreement or contract typically does not utilize ‘change orders.’ Rather,
agreements or contracts for professional services are revised through ‘amendments.’
Burnham’s reference to ‘change order’ was related to a change order needed to Swinerton’s
GMP contract since the original contract was negotiated with the SBR system instead of the
RAB system.
When original estimates were given earlier this year on both the SBR and RAB systems the
costs were virtually equal. But the annual operation and maintenance costs of the RAB
system was much, much less than the SBRs. This led us in the direction of wanting
Burnham to negotiate the RAB system with their EPCs. But that didn’t happen.
Page 62 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 4 of 9
However, with the GMP contract already in place a change order was needed to swap out
the SBRs for RABs. And anyone who has been in the construction management field for
any length of time knows, a credit for taking work out of an already executed contract is
never as much as it should be. It is always better to negotiate or bid these credits out prior
to entering the contract.
And this is what led us to the meeting on November 3; The City/RH2 team did not believe
Evoqua/Swinerton was providing enough credit for eliminating the SBR work. The proposed
credit should have been much closer to the original proposed cost for the SBRs, but it
wasn’t. This made the cost of the RABs appear much higher compared to the SBRs already
included in the GMP contract.
GMP Contract vs. Contingencies
Due to the nature of GMP contracts, where all design work is not yet completed,
contingencies are typically included to ensure the Contractor does not go over his maximum
price. And on projects this size, contingencies can be quite large. And contingencies only
get used upon approval by the project owner.
According to Burnham, there is approximately $9 million in contingencies built into the GMP.
The team’s goal is to coordinate and manage this project such that none of the contingency
dollars are used. The team is also now working together on the design of all connected
systems and as of this past Wednesday, there are already significant cost savings being
identified, which is not unusual on a project this size.
I have confidence that the final cost of the Phase 3 project will come in significantly less than
what is currently being estimated.
RAB vs. SBR: Grants and Loans
Another advantage of the RAB system versus the SBR system for nitrogen removal is the
significant increase in opportunities for state and federal grants and low-interest loans. This
has been mentioned several times in the past, but it cannot be overlooked.
No state or federal agency will grant funds to construct an SBR system. There is nothing
new or exciting about SBRs. However, agencies are looking for new and innovative projects
to invest in that will have a positive impact on the environment. And the RAB system does
just that, a net positive benefit to the environment, which SBR systems do not.
City staff had the opportunity this past week to meet with four local state legislators to review
Pasco’s Legislative Priority List. The PWRF project is on Pasco’s list. After presenting the
proposed improvements there was keen interest from all four legislators about this project.
With the upcoming legislative session, there is a great opportunity to receive state funding to
help support this Phase 3 project. Staff will be preparing requests in the next couple of
weeks for this legislative request.
And with continued federal grant money being available, staff continues to pursue PWRF
funding opportunities with our federal congressional representatives.
Page 63 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 5 of 9
The City also recently submitted a $5 million low-interest loan application to the Community
Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) for the Phase 3 project.
RAB vs. SBR: Carbon Cap and Invest
There have been articles in newspapers this year about the state of Washington’s upcoming
carbon ‘cap and invest’ program. An April 2022 Seattle Times article described the state
DNR preserving 10,000 acres of forested land to sell as carbon credits. And earlier this
month the Tri-Cities Herald had an article about the state setting price limits for the new
carbon-trading market.
While staff does not yet know how the cap and invest system will work, there is the idea that
the PWRF Phase 3 project could possibly become a qualified carbon credit facility. The
RAB nitrogen removal system is estimated to remove 7,400 tons/year of carbon from the
atmosphere. This amount of carbon reduction is equivalent to more than 8,000 acres of
U.S. Forest land, which is approximately 1/3 the size of the entire City of Pasco.
Phase 2 Estimated Cost Increases
As has been noted during the past several monthly Processor meetings, the cost of the
PWRF Pretreatment project continues to keep increasing in cost. This appears especially
true with Phases 2 and 3.
Back in June the estimated Phase 2 cost was $28.6 million. In September the estimate was
$43.7 million. The cost increase appears mostly related to 1) the possible need for a double
liner in each of the new ponds, 2) the amount of excess material to be hauled away and
disposed of, and 3) the amount of dam embankment compaction required.
I have not heard if the double liner issue has been resolved yet. Therefore, until known
otherwise, the current estimate includes a double liner. This item alone makes up $5.7
million of the cost increase from the June estimate.
The amount of material estimated to be excavated and hauled away back in June was
243,000 CY for $6.1 million ($25/CY). This assumed the Phase 3 site could accommodate
much of the excavated material by significantly raising the site elevation. Upon further
design of the Phase 3 project, it was determined that raising the site to the level of using
most of the Phase 2 excavated material was not possible due to hydraulic grade lines
related to the existing storage ponds and the IPS wet well. Therefore, the September
estimate included refined numbers of 200,000 CY used on the Phase 3 site ($4.25/CY) and
1,086,500 CY hauled to the northeast USBR/Voss site ($7.12/CY). This resulted in a $2.5
million increase.
Based on design coordination with, review by, and requirements of, Ecology’s Dam Safety
Office, the volume of dam embankment compaction significantly increased from 132,500 CY
in June to 919,300 CY in September. This results in an increase of $3.9 million.
Other increases relate to changes needed based on coordinated efforts of the Phase 2
design team and the Phase 3 design team. The number of gravity pipes and force mains
required to operate the pretreatment systems and storage ponds most efficiently was more
than originally anticipated.
Page 64 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 6 of 9
Please know that City staff and both design teams are continuing to work very hard to find
ways to reduce the overall cost of the Phase 2 project. For example, there may now be the
opportunity to haul some of the excess material to two adjacent properties: Blasdel and
Beus. If we can make this happen, the haul cost of maybe 400,000 CY of excess material
could be significantly reduced.
Another example is the 1.25% low-interest Ecology state revolving fund loan that staff was
able to get for up to a total of $53 million for the Phase 2 project. This will significantly
decrease the annual payment of the final cost of this project.
Phase 3 Estimated Cost Increases
Phase 3 costs have also increased as more and more design information becomes
available. What started out as an estimated $85.8 million AD/SBR/RNG project in
Burnham’s proposal back in April turned into $108 million with the first draft of the
Wastewater Treatment Agreement (WTA) to now being estimated at $122 million (with
SBRs) or $135 million (with RABs).
Changes since April that had a part in these increases include:
• The RNG system added to the total capital cost – allowing Processors to capitalize
on potential increases in sale price of RNG.
• Record nationwide inflation.
• Contingencies built into the GMP contract.
There have also been increases in the revenues to the Phase 3 project that help offset the
increases in capital costs, including:
• Estimated $6.4 in annual net RNG revenue due to increases from $12/MMBtu to
$18-$20/MMBtu
• Inflation Reduction Act – which now includes RNG facilities in the 30% investment
tax credit program, estimated to bring in $29-$32 million to reduce loan principal
• A $5 million low-interest CERB loan
One of the biggest concerns about the cost increases is the perceived difference between
the two nitrogen removal systems: SBR vs. RAB. In past Processor meetings there
appeared to have been support for the RAB system provided it did not increase the overall
cost of the project. However, there was also support expressed for keeping the SBR system
since it has a proven history of removing ammonia/nitrogen.
Back in July when the RAB system was first identified as a potential option in lieu of the
SBRs, the estimated cost for the SBRs was $22.5 million and for the RABs was $20 million.
See images below from an August email.
Page 65 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 7 of 9
After Burnham entered the GMP contract, with the SBR system included instead of the RAB
system, a request was made to remove the cost of the SBR system and replace it with the
cost of the RAB system. The credit offered by Evoqua/Swinerton for eliminating the SBR
system was only $12.8 million. This seems to leave $10 million on the table from previous
estimates.
And Swinerton’s estimated cost for the RAB system was $29.9 million, a nearly $10 million
increase over GWT’s estimated cost for providing the same system.
According to Evoqua/Swinerton’s numbers, the exchange from SBRs to RABs appeared to
be a $15 million add to the Phase 3 project. To many of us these numbers didn’t make
sense. Recent coordination meetings between the design/construction teams are beginning
to show that these numbers are becoming more realistic and getting closer in cost.
The other comparison made between the SBR and RAB system was the annual operating
and pass-through costs. The SBR system uses more electricity and natural gas than does
the RAB system. And the SBR system creates sludge as a byproduct that must
continuously be removed and disposed of. As was shown to this group back in November,
the estimated annual operating costs for the two systems are shown below:
RAB SBR Difference
$98,746 $669,467 $570,721
Based on the above information, FCS was asked to model the annual cost difference
between the SBR and RAB systems considering the recent increases in estimated capital
costs, revenues, and operating costs. Details will be shown at tomorrow’s Processor
meeting, but the results show an approximate $291,000 savings in overall annual cost
utilizing the proposed RAB system.
Page 66 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 8 of 9
Phase 3 Cost Allocation/Rate Model
On November 29 I sent an email to you all with information on the results of the rate model
and cost allocations to each Processor. I understand some of you had sticker shock from
the numbers you saw. And some, maybe many, of you likely have questions about the
information in the email related to the allocations.
This month’s Processor meeting on Thursday will include Brooke from FCS. Brooke
created the rate model based on their expertise and on input from both the City and
Burnham. There were assumptions made related to how best to divide total costs in the
most logical and fair way that we could think of. Our discussion Thursday will offer the
opportunity to review those assumptions and hear from you if these assumptions should be
revised.
With the rate model being an Excel spreadsheet Brooke can make changes on the fly such
that results can be seen immediately. We are not locked into any assumptions made thus
far in the model. So please feel free to ask a lot of questions and share your thoughts on
how the rate model can be made more reasonable.
PWRF Land Treatment System Expansion
As mentioned in previous monthly meetings, the City needs to purchase additional crop
circles to expand the PWRF land treatment system to accommodate all existing and
projected increased flows to the PWRF. You may recall hearing us talk about the 2 ½
circles being purchased from Voss Farms. These proposed Voss circles along with one
new circle on Mr. Beus’ property, north and west of the new storage pond location, provides
the necessary land area to adequately apply and treat the increased amount of nitrogen and
total (or fixed) dissolved solids (TDS or FDS) from the expanded PWRF.
The City recently came across an opportunity to possibly acquire four DNR circles located
adjacent to (more like corners touching) existing PWRF fields. Since this came up so
quickly, the City may acquire the DNR circles in lieu of the Voss circles. More information to
come in a couple of weeks. DNR is evaluating this proposal now.
Phase 3 Work Acceleration Agreement
As mentioned at the last monthly meeting, the WTA with Burnham was not able to be
completed by the end of November. This is mostly due to not having the cost allocation/rate
model available to evaluate financial impacts of the project. The City does not support
entering into a contract until all costs are known or at least estimated. And the delay in
receiving the rate model was due to a medical emergency at FCS.
Therefore, in accordance with the approved Work Acceleration Agreement (WAA), the City
is obligated to reimburse Burnham and GWT up to a maximum of $2M of expenses.
Burnham has submitted invoices so far totaling just under $1M.
At the last monthly meeting a few of you expressed concern about how this would affect the
2022 end of year True Up bill. I shared that according to the Finance Department only about
50% of the estimated 2022 budget was used. I asked Finance Director, Darcy, to develop
preliminary True Up bill estimates for each of you so the impact of the WAA reimbursements
Page 67 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 12/13/2022
Page 9 of 9
could be seen. Unfortunately, Finance has been extremely busy preparing the City’s budget
for the next two years and getting Council approval that they have not yet been able to
finalize the preliminary True Up estimates. I should have these numbers this coming week.
Burnham agreed to limit their WAA reimbursement request to $1.5M provided a second
WAA could be executed. The second WAA (WAA2) would delay the WTA execution date to
the January 31 and allow the project to keep moving forward with Evoqua’s and Swinerton’s
design efforts. The committed reimbursement amount in the WAA2, should it be required –
which we are working hard not to make it required, is $3.5 million. If the WTAs are executed
by January 31, no WAA2 reimbursements will be required. Council approved the WAA2 at
their last meeting of the year on December 5.
Phase 3 Wastewater Treatment Agreements
Some of you are likely wondering what the status is of the WTAs beyond what I mentioned
at last month’s Processor meeting. The Burnham WTA has been turned over to an outside
attorney who has experience in public/private agreements like this one. We received our
first round of comments from the attorney and are scheduled to meet internally first thing
Wednesday morning. From there we will set up a one- or two-day meetings with Burnham
for final negotiations.
Pasco’s City Attorney has committed to reviewing proposed changes to the draft Processor
WTA before the end of the year. As you recall, a revised draft was developed based on
comments received from four Processors. A revised draft from the City Attorney will be
forwarded to all of you as soon as possible.
The goal is to have both the Burnham WTA and the Processor WTAs reviewed and
approved by the end of January.
Page 68 of 129
Memo
To: PWRF Processors
From: Steve M. Worley – Public Works Director
cc: Adam Lincoln – Interim City Manager
Date: January 5, 2023
Subject: PWRF Pretreatment Improvement Phase 3 Project Update
After the meetings held on December 14 and 15 City staff, Burnham, RH2, and Valley took time to
develop and evaluate several options looking for ways to reduce the cost of the Phase 3 project. This
memo details and summarizes that effort.
Past vs. Current Phase 3 Cost Comparison
Back in March 2022 at the monthly meeting SEV handed out an Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Rate Proposal to each Processor that was present. A couple Processors received
theirs by email since they did not attend the meeting. The Rate Proposals showed the existing
annual payment for each Processor and the proposed annual payment, which included the
estimated costs for the Phase 3 project along with existing debt service (as applicable) and
annual O&M costs. The proposals identified the rate methodology which did not include costs
for additional winter storage.
Since March 2022 a lot has changed as more details about the wastewater constituent
concentrations, project estimates, and available credits became available. Below is a table
showing both the March 2022 rate proposal and the current rate proposal for each Processor.
Phase 3 costs still have the potential to be reduced as more Value Engineering is completed
and/or grants and low-interest loans are pursued and received. The numbers above include the
Page 69 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 1/5/2023
Page 2 of 6
proposed $5 million CERB loan, which has yet to be approved. The City is also pursuing a $6
million grant from the state legislature for this project.
While the overall cost of the project has increased since March 2022 the RNG and Tax credits
now available help reduce the overall cost of the project. There are, however, significant
changes in cost distribution between Processors because the methods used by FCS are more
applicable than the more rudimentary methods used back in March. And as I recall, most
Processors seemed to be comfortable with the proposed numbers but wanted to see more
detail as the project progressed.
FCS presented at the December 15 Processor meeting the methodology used to distribute
Phase 3 costs to each Processor. If anyone has suggestions on revising the methodology in an
effort to be more representative, please let me know and we can easily model it and see the
results.
Additional Costs Beyond Phase 3
We all were aware there were going to be additional costs for other capital improvements
associated with the Pretreatment Improvement project besides just the Phase 3 costs.
However, back in March 2022 those additional costs were unknown. These other project costs
included:
• New IPS
• Phase 1 Potable Water/Electrical Service Upgrades
• Phase 2 Additional Winter Storage Ponds
• Land acquisition for additional treatment and disposal farm circles
• Upgrades to the irrigation piping that gets irrigation water to existing and new pivots
We now have information related to the cost of these projects and the estimated distribution
of those costs. And while these additional costs for each individual project is small in
comparison to the Phase 3 project, the sum of all of them adds up quickly. Below is a table
showing the currently estimated additional costs from FCS’ rate model and the percent increase
to each Processor compared to Phase 3 costs.
Page 70 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 1/5/2023
Page 3 of 6
The cost for three of the four projects listed above are distributed by total annual flow (MG) for
each Processor. The Phase 2 project is based on additional winter storage needs (MG) for each
Processor and a distribution of additional capacity for operational flexibility based on total
winter storage volume for each Processor. Average costs per million gallons for each additional
project are shown below:
• IPS $ 493/year per MG
• Phase 1 $ 124/year per MG
• Phase 2 $ 13/year per MG
• Phase 4 $ 158/year per MG
Possible Cost Reductions
Based on comments received at December’s Processor meeting City staff, Burnham, and
Consultants have been evaluating options for potential cost reductions. Each option has its
pros and cons and may not be less expensive or approved by Ecology. A description of each of
the evaluated options are described below.
Base Case: Existing Proposal with RABs
Potential savings in the current plan is as follows:
• Capital Cost $138 million ($122.9 Base + $14.7 RABs)
• Net Identified VE/Risk -$ 8 million
• EPC Contingency Reduction -$ 9 million
• CERB Grant -$ 5 million
• Burnham RAB Discount -$ 2 million
• Pass Through Costs $ 2.9 million/year
• Base Fee $16.2 million/year
• Increased RNG Revenue* $1.9 million
• Investment Tax Credit $3.2 million/year
• Total Savings -$1.4 million/year
* In addition to the $4.5 million RNG Revenue already included in the Base Fee (typical for all options).
• Additional Savings w/ $10 million grant** -$1.2 million/year
** Typical for all options.
Option 1: Eliminate Nitrogen Removal (RABs) and Increase Land Treatment System
According to Burnham and RH2/Valley the impact of eliminating the nitrogen removal system is
shown below.
• Capital Cost Reduction -$30 million
• Net Identified VE/Risk -$10 million
• EPC Contingency Reduction -$5 million
• CERB Grant -$5 million
• Burnham RAB Discount -$0 million
• Pass Through Costs $1.7 million/year
• Base Fee $12.0 million/year
Page 71 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 1/5/2023
Page 4 of 6
• Increased RNG Revenue $1.9 million/year
• Investment Tax Credit $2.5 million/year
• Added Land Treatment A* (1.4% capacity safety factor) 3,840 acres
• Added Land Treatment B** (10% capacity safety factor) 5,440 acres
• Added Land Cost (3,840 acres @ $25,000/acre) +$9.0 million/year
• Total Savings +$4.2 million/year
* Groundwater for supplemental fresh groundwater – 1,440 less acres using SCBID water.
** Groundwater for supplemental fresh groundwater – 2,560 less acres using SCBID water.
Option 2: Eliminate 1 LRAD and Increase Land Treatment System
According to Burnham and RH2/Valley the impact of eliminating one of the LRADs and keeping
the RABs is shown below.
• Capital Cost Reduction -$26 million
• Net Identified VE/Risk -$8 million
• EPC Contingency Reduction -$5 million
• CERB Grant -$5 million
• Burnham RAB Discount -$2 million
• Pass Through Costs $1.5 million/year
• Base Fee $11.9 million/year
• Increased RNG Revenue $0.4 million/year
• Investment Tax Credit $2.6 million/year
• Added Land Treatment ~ 500 acres
• Added Land Cost @ $25,000/acre +$1.2 million/year
• Total Savings -$2.1 million/year
Flows more than 4 MGD would not receive biological pretreatment. Results of this include:
• Process water will remain at a low pH during peak summer months (July/August) when
the storage ponds are empty and process water BOD5 concentrations are highest
o Estimated July/August pH is ~4 s.u. even with blending of neutral COW and
neutral LRAD/RAB water.
o Low pH will require additional irrigation management with use of fresh water for
rinsing leaf surface after process water irrigation
• Process water will continue to cause odor issues/complaints and potential legal action
could result from odor issues.
• Farmers will not accept this process water for irrigation due to odor and pH challenges.
• BOD5 load will increase above the recommended 50 lb/ac/day and be closer to the
permit limit of 100 lb/ac/day during peak summer months.
Option 3: Eliminate All - Processors Provide all Pretreatment Prior to PWRF
All Processors (except Darigold) would pretreat their industrial wastewater to meet effluent limits
shown in the below table, with the same concentration limit established for each Processor. The PWRF
would provide pretreatment for Darigold’s wastewater streams to meet the LRAD/RAB effluent quality
described in the draft engineering report; all other process water would not receive pretreatment at the
PWRF.
Page 72 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 1/5/2023
Page 5 of 6
Limits in the above table were established as described below:
• Flow limits are those requested by Processors.
• BOD and TSS limits are established to reach similar water quality compared to the LRAD
effluent. BOD reduction is required to stabilize and reduce odors. Ecology indicated that
the next permit would require an odor control plan, which warrants this level of BOD
reduction.
• TN limit is established from the capacity of the fields.
• FDS limit is established anticipating that Ecology will make FDS requirements more
stringent than the current permit. It’s uncertain how they would establish a limit, but
they could require 500 mg/L average for combined process water/fresh water. Since the
groundwater used as irrigation at the fields is already above 500 mg/L, the process
water would need to be lower than that for the combined water to meet the average
limit. An FDS limit is also necessary for this scenario since there is a risk of Processors
increasing FDS by using chemical treatment.
All Processors would also be required to provide fine screening to remove food particles, grit
removal, and pH adjustment to within a range of 6-9 s.u. to protect downstream pump and
irrigation systems.
Option 4: Remove 1 LRAD, Remove RABs, and Increase Land Treatment System
According to Burnham the impact of eliminating one LRAD and the RABs is shown below.
• Capital Cost Reduction -$70 million
• Net Identified VE/Risk -$2 million
• EPC Contingency Reduction -$3 million
• CERB Grant -$5 million
• Burnham RAB Discount $0 million
• Pass Through Costs $1.3 million/year
• Base Fee $7.3 million/year
• Increased RNG Revenue $0.4 million/year
• Investment Tax Credit $1.6 million/year
• Added Land Treatment 4,340 acres (to be verified)
Page 73 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 1/5/2023
Page 6 of 6
• Added Land Cost @ $25,000/acre +$10.1 million/year
• Total Savings +$3.9 million/year
Option 5: Base Case with Burnham Paying all RNG Costs and Receiving all Increased RNG Credit
According to Burnham the impact of eliminating one of the LRADs and eliminating the RABs is
shown below.
• Capital Cost Reduction -$30 million
• Net Identified VE/Risk -$6 million
• EPC Contingency Reduction -$7 million
• CERB Grant -$5 million
• Burnham RAB Discount -$2 million
• Pass Through Costs $2.9 million/year
• Base Fee $16.3 million/year
• Increased RNG Revenue $0.0 million/year
• Investment Tax Credit $3.2 million/year
• Added Land Treatment 0 acres
• Total Savings +$1.0 million/year
Options Summary
The table below summarizes the cost differences between the proposed Base Case and the
other options evaluated.
Base Case Option 1 Option 2 Option 4 Option 5
Capital Cost (million) $ 138 $ 108 $ 112 $ 68 $ 108
Pass Through Costs (million/year) $ 2.9 $ 1.7 $ 1.5 $ 1.3 $ 2.9
Increased RNG Revenue* (million/year) $ 1.9 $ 1.9 $ 0.4 $ 0.4 $ 0
Investment Tax Credit Revenue (million/year) $ 3.2 $ 2.5 $ 2.6 $ 1.6 $ 3.2
Added Land Cost (million/year) $ 0 $ 9.0 $ 1.2 $ 7.3 $ 0
Potential Capital Cost Savings (million) $17 $15 $13 $5 $13
Potential Total Annual Savings (million/year) ($ 1.4) $ 4.2 ($ 2.1) $ 3.9 $ 1.0
*In addition to the $4.5 million RNG Revenue already included in the Base Fee.
Summary
The numbers presented in this memo are not absolute and represent the team’s best estimates
according to the information available at this time. These estimates will be refined after
reviewing each scenario within FCS’ PWRF Rate Model. Results of FCS’ efforts will be provided
as soon as possible.
Please know that the PWRF Phase 3 Team has made every effort to show possible reductions in
Phase 3 costs. As is the same with all capital projects, the actual costs will not be known until
after all construction is completed.
I trust this information is helpful in your evaluation of the PWRF Pretreatment Improvement
project. I also can’t emphasize enough the importance of having each Processor’s support in
Pasco’s efforts at pursuing state/federal grant funding to help offset the cost of this project.
Page 74 of 129
Memo
To: PWRF Processors
From: Steve M. Worley – Public Works Director
cc: Adam Lincoln – Interim City Manager
Date: January 29, 2023
Subject: PWRF Pretreatment Improvement Phase 3 Project Update – Phase 6
During the monthly Processor meeting held via Teams on January 5 there appeared to be consensus
on having Option 4 (as described in my previous memo) evaluated using FCS’ rate model to
determine estimated costs to each Processor, but without the added cost of purchasing additional
circles for removing all nitrogen from the PWRF wastewater.
The proposed scenario included reducing the LRAD to only one reactor (instead of 2), removing all
RABs so there would be no nitrogen removal, and not include the cost for the additional farm circles
needed to accommodate the full increase in nitrogen load related the increased flows outlined in the
Phase 3 Basis of Design and updated Facility Plan. This scenario looks to increase the overall land
treatment system through leases or agreements with local farmers to irrigate their crops using PWRF
treated wastewater.
FCS evaluated this proposal, referred to as Option 6, and determined estimated reduced costs to
each Processor. The changes FCS made to the baseline model for Option 6 include the following:
1. Adjusted treatment fee decreased to $7.3 million annually, down from $13.2 million in the baseline
scenario
2. Pass through costs decreased to $1.3 million annually, down from $2.9M in the baseline scenario
3. Incremental RNG credits decreased to $400,000 annually, down from $1.9M in the baseline scenario
4. Investment tax credits decreased to $800,000 annually, down from $3.2M in the baseline scenario
5. No additional costs are added for land purchases, land is assumed to be leased in this scenario
6. Additional capital cost of $8.0 million is added for infrastructure to deliver water to leased circles
7. Additional capital cost is covered through added new debt and is included in the model with the
Phase 4 cost component
The numbers shown in items 1 through 4 above are directly from the Burnham information
presented in my previous memo. The cost shown in item 6 is roughly based on the Phase 4
estimated project cost, the increased extent of additional leased acreages, and the need for
numerous monitoring wells at each farm location as will be required by Ecology.
The summary table from the Option 6 rate model includes, but does not show, the items listed
below since these items remain the same and do not change with this scenario.
• Existing debt service
• IPS debt service
• Phase 1, 2 and 4 costs
The numbers in the table below are annual costs.
Page 75 of 129
Memo: PWRF Phase 3 Project Update 1/5/2023
Page 2 of 2
Option 6 – Potential Expanded Land Treatment System
Staff prepared a map of what the expanded land treatment system might look like should the
additional acreage necessary to accommodate the Option 6 scenario were able to be leased from
farmers closest to the PWRF. See attached.
I reached out to three landowners/farmers that I have had contact with in the past (Mike Blasdel, Jim
McClelland of Oregon Potato, and Harold Worsham of Cox Farms) to see about the possibility of
them using PWRF wastewater irrigate their fields. Previous requests by to other nearby farmers
(Beus and Middleton) to take PWRF irrigation water onto their fields were rejected.
Please note that the estimated additional acreage shown on the attached map assumes that these
landowners/farmers will grow the same crop and have the same crop rotation as what is currently
being done at the PWRF. If crops other than the high-nitrogen uptake value of alfalfa, corn, or
triticale, are grown, additional circles will be needed to help spread the nitrogen load from the PWRF
wastewater.
Page 76 of 129
Page 77 of 129
From:Steve Worley
To:brandon@ftiegs.com; clint.pettey@simplot.com; danielleh@resers.com; doug.pettinger@darigold.com;
dsmith@hlacivil.com; garrett.neswick@pascoprocessing.com; jbrannen@grimmway.com;
jmcclelland@westernmort.com; jonathan.witt@simplot.com; lehouston@grimmway.com;
leticia.mendoza@pascoprocessing.com; raulm@tcfi.com; rob@resers.com; soesch@grimmway.com; Guerra,
Tommy
Cc:Dave Zabell; Adam Lincoln; Maria Serra; John Millan; Derek Wiitala; Janette Romero; Darcy Buckley
Subject:PWRF Phase 3 - Revised Processor and Burnham WTAs
Date:Tuesday, January 31, 2023 11:08:17 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Pasco-Processors Water Treatment Agreement - Draft 2.docx
Pasco-Burnham WTA Final Draft 01-20-2023.pdf
Processors,
Please find attached a revised Word version of the Pasco-Processor Wastewater Treatment
Agreement (WTA). This second draft takes into account comments received on the original
draft from Grimmway, Simplot, Twin City Foods, and Darigold. The attached draft has also has
been reviewed and edited by Pasco’s City Attorney and outside Counsel who is experienced in
these types of public/private service agreements.
Please review the Pasco-Processor WTA and provide comments back to me as soon as
possible. We are currently scheduled to present this agreement to Council at their February
13 workshop meeting.
Also attached is the final draft of the Pasco-Burnham WTA. An earlier draft of this agreement
was presented to Council at their January 23 workshop meeting. The attached represents
edits made since January 23. Feel free to review it and provide comments back to me.
In accordance with RCW 70A.140 - WATER QUALITY JOINT DEVELOPMENT ACT, a Public Hearing
on the Pasco-Burnham WTA final draft is scheduled for next Monday night’s, February 6,
Regular meeting. Council will be taking public comment on this WTA.
In accordance with the second Burnham Work Acceleration Agreement (WAA2) approved by
Council, the Pasco-Burnham WTA was anticipated to be approved by the end of January
2023. This was in an effort to keep the project moving forward so as to meet certain
schedules. However, since the revised Pasco-Processor WTA was not available to each of you
for review and comment until now, approval of the Pasco-Burnham WTA will be delayed until
sometime after the Public Hearing next Monday and required Findings are prepared.
Since approval of both WTAs is delayed, and as a way to keep the PWRF Phase 3 project
moving forward, the City has determined it best to enter into a third Work Acceleration
Agreement (WAA3). WAA3 will allow Burnham/Swinerton/Evoqua to continue working and
make significant progress on the final design through February while final details of both the
Pasco-Processor WTA and the Pasco-Burnham WTA are work out.
Page 78 of 129
WAA3 will commit the City/Processors to reimburse Burnham up to an additional $2 million
should the Pasco-Burnham WTA not be executed by the end of February. As with the
previous two WAAs, any payments made associated with WAA3 will be credited to the overall
project cost and reflected in reduced wastewater treatment payments.
A summary of existing and proposed WAA amounts is as follows:
Amount Payments made
WAA1 $2.0 million $1.5 million
WAA2 $3.5 million $2.5 million (estimated)
WAA3 $2.0 million $0 (hopefully)
Total $7.5 million $4.0 million
Last week Pasco received final approval from CERB for a $5 million, 2.5% interest, 20-year
loan for the PWRF Phase 3 project. Staff is considering using these CERB loan funds to pay for
work associated wtih the first two WAAs. The other option is to apply the WAA1 payments to
each Processor on their 2022 True Up bills and WAA2 payments to each Processor on their
2023 True Up bills. Feel free to let me know which option you think is best. Final 2022 True
Up summaries will be coming to you soon.
Likewise, the official list came out today from Ecology for recommended projects to receive
state revolving loan funds. Two Pasco projects are on that list; one being the PWRF Phase 2
Winter Storage Pond project for a $52.2 million, 1.25% interest, 20-year loan. This list
requires final approval from the state legislature, which is anticipated.
We also continue to pursue a $5 million capital budget request from the state legislature for
the PWRF Phase 3 project. I would like to encourage each of you to reach out to your favorite
state legislator and encourage support for funding for Phases 2 and 3 of Pasco’s PWRF
Pretreatment Improvement project.
Staff and others have also been looking at other funding opportunities including federal USDA
grant and loan programs. We learned that the federal USDA grant programs are fairly small;
$1 million max per project. And the USDA federal loans typically have interest rates based on
the Prime rate plus an additional point or two. With a current Prime rate of 7.5% it is difficult
to consider a federal USDA loan option when Burnham currently has interest rates locked in at
6.5% for taxable bonds (underwritten by Morgan Stanley) and 5.25% for tax-exempt bonds
(from WEDFA).
As promised, every effort is being made to find outside funding to help reduce costs to all of
you. And for the record, every state and federal agency and funding board we present the
PWRF improvement project to are very excited by what they see. One USDA WA DC Director
Page 79 of 129
said Pasco’s PWRF project is “an excellent project and one they would like to be a part of.” I
asked why he says that (because I wanted to share this with all of you) and his response was:
There is nothing better than anaerobic digestion for carbon reduction (CO2) - related to
wastewater treatment
Algae is the leading source for future biofuels – recent awards of federal biofuel grants
focused mainly on algae production
Manages waste from food manufacturers – always a good thing
City staff will continue to pursue additional funding for this project.
I realize this is a lot of information to digest. So please feel free to contact me should you
have any questions.
Thank you,
Steve M. Worley, PE
Public Works Director
525 N. 3rd Avenue
PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
(509) 543-5738
worleys@pasco-wa.gov
Page 80 of 129
PWRF Pretreatment Proposed Cost Distribution
January 6, 2023 Page 81 of 129
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 7, 2023
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/13/23
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Discussion - Right-of-Way Vacation for Snake River Agriculture LLC
(VAC 2022-006)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Survey
Overview Map
Vicinity Map
Emails relating to the December public hearing on the vacation request
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Snake River Agriculture LLC, has submitted a request to vacate a portion of
South Oregon Avenue located at the southeast corner of East "A" Street and
South Oregon Avenue. The proposed vacation contains approximately one
fourth of an acre.
A public hearing was held regarding this proposed vacation at December 5,
2022,Council Meeting. After the public hearing closed, Council had additional
questions regarding the proposed vacation and approved a motion to con tinue
the right-of-way vacation for the Snake River Agriculture, LLC (VAC 2022 -006)
to the Council Workshop scheduled for February 13, 2023 to allow staff time to
gather the requested information regarding the vacation request.
At the December hearing - the applicant's representative had stated that the
applicants were assured the vacation would be approved by City staff once the
Page 82 of 129
Washington Department of Transportation had approved the City assuming
responsibility for processing a vacation of the right of way. This gave rise to
continuing the vacation process.
V. DISCUSSION:
A search of emails has not indicated that any such assurance of vacation was
made to the applicant or their representative. The applicant's representative has
also been asked to supply any relevant information - although none has been
received.
Staff's concern at this point is the uncertainty of the effects of increasing truck
traffic from the new industrial developments to the east (Amazon/Tarragon/Local
Bounti) and its impact on this intersection. A potential for future improvements to
accommodate higher traffic and truck volumes is likely at some future point.
In addition, Public Works has a federally funded capital project with
improvements proposed generally adjacent the proposed vacation which may
require an easement. Assuming that is the case, vacation of the right-of-way
would impact this project’s cost and schedule, since a federal process for
acquiring an easement on the vacated area would be required.
Page 83 of 129
EXHIBIT A RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 32 OF TOWNSHIP
9 NORTH IN RANGE 30 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF PASCO, FRANKLIN
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
FOUND 2 1 2" B.O.R. BRASS CAP IN CASE @ INTX. WEHE & "A" ST., MOSTLY ILLEGIBLE CITY OF PASCO-ID: 56
F
EXISTING CURB & \ GUTTER"
�PBS
29
R/W
VACATION
12,150 S.F. 0.28 AC.
PBS Engineering
and
Environmental Inc.
pbsusa.com
0 0
0 0 I")
Ol !J.l Ol lX)
Ol �
N N b 0 l/)
DRAWN BY: OWN
CHECKED BY: ADM
FOUND 3" BRASS CAP @ INTX. OF "A"ST & ELM -CENTER PUNCH ONLY, ILLEGIBLE
S89"44'05"W 1321.19'
E.ASTREET
Scale 1" = 60' I 1 30 60
08/26/2022
120
1321.94' �.;;.;.;..;;..;.. _____ -(co
FOUND 5 8" REBAR NO CAP @ CL DIRT ROAD
SCALE: 1" = 60' DATE: 08/26/2022
PROJECT NO.: 663!!1.000 SHEET _1_ OF _2_
Page 84 of 129
EXHIBIT A RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 32 OF TOWNSHIP
9 NORTH IN RANGE 30 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF PASCO, FRANKLIN
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 30 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF PASCO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, STATE OF WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32 BEING A FOUND 2 1 /2" BUREAU
OF RECLAMATION BRASS CAP IN CASE; THENCE SOUTH 00"24'18" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 32 A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF EAST "A" STREET; THENCE SOUTH 00"24'18" EAST
CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 3.01' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 00"24'18" EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF
296.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89"44'04" WEST LEAVING SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 16.99 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TURNING TO THE LEFT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,482.31 FEET; THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 80"52'31" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 195.84 FEET, WITH A DELTA ANGLE OF 07"34'12", A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 12"54'35" WEST, AND A CHORD LENGTH OF 195.70 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE TURNING TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 85.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 135.20 FEET, WITH A
DELTA ANGLE OF 91"07'50", A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 28"52'20" EAST, AND A CHORD LENGTH OF 121.39 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
HAVING AN AREA OF 12, 150 SQUARE FEET, 0.28 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S89'44'04"W 16.99'
L2 S00'24'18"E 3.01'
L3 S00"24'18"E 40.00' 08/26/2022
CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA ANGLE C1 1482.31' 195.84' 195.70' S1 2'54' 35"E 7"34'12"
C2 85.00' 135.20' 121.39' N28·52•2o"E 91 "07'50" ■PBS PBS Engineering
and
Environmental Inc.
pbsusa.com
DRAWN BY: DVWV
CHECKED BY: ADM
SCALE: NIA
PROJECT NO.: 66381.000
DATE: 08/26/2022
SHEET _2_ OF --2_
Page 85 of 129
Item:South Oregon Avenue Street Right-of-Way Vacation
App1icant(s):Snake River Agriculture c/0 Steve West
File #:VAC 2022-006
Overview
Page 86 of 129
Vicini Item:South Oregon Avenue Street Right-of-Way VacationtyApp1icant(s):Snake River Agriculture c/0 Steve West
lag is..--=...":..___.Page 87 of 129
Page 88 of 129
Page 89 of 129
From:Rick White
To:Rick White
Subject:FW: ROW vacation on
Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:23:37 PM
Attachments:image002.png
From: Jon Padvorac <padvoracj@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Rick White <WHITER@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: FW: ROW vacation on
FYI
From: Dan Ford <Dan.Ford@cityoftoppenish.us>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:57 PM
To: Jon Padvorac <padvoracj@pasco-wa.gov>; Dave Zabell <zabelld@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Rick White <WHITER@pasco-wa.gov>; Jacob Gonzalez <gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: RE: ROW vacation on
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hey Jon,
I remember this very well.
This is somewhat similar to the Lewis Place vacation that Steve Bauman wanted.
This property did come up in discussion with Steve Bauman and Steve West, who I will now just use
their last names for clarity, but maybe not for the reasons you know. The only reason this property
came up was that it interfered with a street along the north side of the RR tracks that Bauman
wanted for West. The street would have been born 100% by Local Bounti and they were not hat
interested in it once they learned that. Funny thing West sold this property to Local Bounti and did
not retain the needed 60’ for a road but if I remember correctly only 30’ for access…..and yes,
Bauman tried to get a 30’ road and was told no. This proposed road was so that West’s other
property, to the south of Local Bounti, could have easier access to Oregon Avenue. This had nothing
to do with West’s other property at the intersection of Oregon and ‘A’ Street.
Also, just top be clear, although the discussion happened in a meeting with Bauman and West, I did
confirm with Paul Gonseth, WSDOT Planner, that they would turn that over to the City if I requested.
I followed through with that request. This was not a Bauman thing although he may have reminded
them. He has no ability to assume liability for the City.
Page 90 of 129
All that being said, we also had DKS perform an analysis of a road at that location and it was
determined that it would not provide any benefit and may cause a safety issue due to the proximity
of the RR Tracks. There is a memo somewhere. Garth Appanaitis from DKS helped us with that.
In summary, there was never a discussion, plan, or agreement to vacate that property to Bauman or
West for any purpose. Especially not associated with the intersection of Oregon and ‘A’ Street. They
are hoping to get something for nothing. I can see that intersection growing in the future, maybe
even to a roundabout, and retaining that property will be key.
One argument that will be tried, because it was tried before, is that the R/W must align with the
road for improvements to take place. This is not true. The City can and should have these initial
improvements on this property, constructed by the Developer as that is no different than R/W, and
retain this extra area for future widening if needed. I would not even talk to him about an easement,
which is what Dave, and I did on East Lewis Place, because that is a different situation altogether….
But Bauman may try that as well. I would however dedicate this piece as R/W immediately as that
will take the argument away.
Hope that helps.
Dan Ford, PE
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
21 West First Avenue
Toppenish, WA 98948
Ph: 509.865.4500
From: Jon Padvorac <padvoracj@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 11:16 AM
To: Dave Zabell <zabelld@pasco-wa.gov>; Dan Ford <Dan.Ford@cityoftoppenish.us>
Cc: Rick White <WHITER@pasco-wa.gov>; Jeff Adams <ADAMSJ@pasco-wa.gov>; Jacob Gonzalez
<gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: ROW vacation on
CAUTION: External Email
Dan/Dave,
I have been doing what I can to manage things without bothering you too much, but needed to
reach out to confirm what commitments had been made to a developer. Steve Bauman is
representing Steve West with regards to a ROW vacation at the SE corner of Oregon & A Street.
According to Steve Bauman, he met few months ago with Dan Ford, Dave Zabell, and a WSDOT
Page 91 of 129
representative met and had a discussion about ROW @ Oregon & A Street. WSDOT said would
relinquish ROW to the City. Three or 4 weeks ago WSDOT relinquished ROW to the City. According
to Steve Bauman, Dan/Dave didn’t explicitly commit that vacation would be approved during the
meeting, but Steve B. moved forward with the process of working with WSDOT to have the ROW
turned over to the City under the assumption that his future vacation request could be granted.
Current City staff’s opinion (and the draft staff report) is that this ROW should remain the City’s, for
future needs that may arise around this key intersection. Can you confirm if you had given Steve B. a
firm commitment that the ROW would be vacated, or was the coordination meeting just to discuss
the overall framework for the process of moving forward so the developer could file a vacation
request for consideration by City staff?
Thanks,
Capture
Jon Padvorac | City Engineer
Community & Economic Development
525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301
Office: (509) 545-3445
Cell: (509) 316-6636
padvoracj@pasco-wa.gov
This email and your response are considered a public record and will be subject to disclosure under Washington’s Public
Records Disclosure Act
Page 92 of 129
From:Rick White
To:Rick White
Subject:FW: Vacation
Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:26:10 PM
From: Rick White <WHITER@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 10:50 AM
To: Steve Bauman <Steve@b4land.com>
Subject: Vacation
Steve – I assume you have some sort of documentation related to your statements last night that the
City changed course in mid stream regarding the vacation at Oregon and ‘A” Street. Can you please pass
that on to me since I have nothing along those lines in the vacation file.
Thanks
Rick W
Page 93 of 129
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 7, 2023
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/13/23
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Moratorium
I. REFERENCE(S):
Resolution No. 4241 - SRO Moratorium
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 4425 passed on February 19, 2019, the City of Pasco
made provision in the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 25.162 for the siting
of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the C-1 (Retail Business), C-2
(Central Business District) and C-3 General Business Districts.
The intent of Ordinance No. 4425 was to provide low-income housing
opportunities and to bring nuisance motels and hotels into compliance.
As of April 2022, three (3) separate hotel conversions have been issued
conditional use permits, and two of the three have been issued building permits
for the physical conversion into SRO's. All are vested under the current
regulations.
On March 7, 2022, the Pasco City Council adopted Resolution No. 4158,
declaring a moratorium prohibiting permitting SRO housing and conversion
thereto, in the City of Pasco, pending the study of SRO impacts and best
development practices and policies.
Page 94 of 129
Resolution No. 4158 stated the initial SRO Moratorium shall be for six (6)
months, expiring on the 7th day of September 2022, unless otherwise terminated
or extended. Then on September 6, 2022, Council approved Resolution No.
4241, which extended the expiration date until the 7th of March, 2023.
V. DISCUSSION:
tfactors of variety a are There the for evaluation from benefit may hat
development of SRO housing, but primarily the consideration of such within the
Pasco Housing Action Plan is likely the most valuable in terms of housing policy.
The Housing Action Plan is underway and is at 30% completion.
If Council decides that extending the Moratorium for this reason is the preferred
course, staff will provide a summary of any preliminary findings and any needed
additional actions before the expiration of the Moratorium on March 7, 2022.
Page 95 of 129
RESOLUTION NO. 4241
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
CONTINUING THE MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED THROUGH
RESOLUTION NO. 4158 PROHIBITING PERMITTING SINGLE ROOM
OCCUPANCY (SRO) HOUSING AND CONVERSION THERETO IN THE
CITY OF PASCO PENDING STUDY OF IMPACTS AND BEST
DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES AND POLICY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4425 passed on February 19, 2019, the City of
Pasco made provision in its code, at 25.162 for siting SRO facilities in its C-1 (Retail Business),
C-2 (Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District); and
WHEREAS,the purpose of Ordinance No. 4425 was to address non-compliance of certain
public nuisance properties, while also providing for low-income housing for City residents; and
WHEREAS, SROs have historically provided low-income housing to both men and
women dating back to the 19 Century; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco sees the potential for real impact to the City's homeless
populations, but lacks current information necessary to ensure that best practices in terms of
development and SRO policy are utilized to reach the greatest number of residents; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified appropriate zones in which to locate SROs, but
currently lacks codes, regulations, and policies which could best effectuate the original intent
behind Ordinance No. 4425; and
WHEREAS, SRO housing policies include a range of broad topics warranting review of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)rules and regulations relating to policy
limits, to ensure equal and fair treatment of all SRO residents in the City of Pasco; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution No. 4158 on March 7, 2022, declaring a
moratorium which prohibited the permitting and conversion of additional SRO units; and
WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a housing capacity plan process that will analyze a
variety of issues and options directly relating provision of housing and housing affordability and
include the opportunity for further public comment and input; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a public hearing on the SRO Moratorium on April 18,
2022, to consider public comments relating to this Moratorium at which no comments were
received; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 allows for a moratorium to be extended by six months as
long as a public hearing and findings are adopted prior to any extension;
Resolution-Moratorium—SRO- ]
Page 96 of 129
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1. Findin s.
After a public hearing on September 6, 2022, was held, the below findings are hereby adopted:
A. The impacts to the City due to the application of SROs could be significant on the
City's roads and traffic system;
B. There may also be parking implications that would have impacts on the City;
C. SROs may also affect residential and commercial neighborhoods in the City; and
D. The City needs time to evaluate the impacts and to address them in terms of
potential regulations of SROs and intends to analyze the same during conduct of
the process for the Housing Capacity Plan beginning in August of 2022.
Section 2. Term of Moratorium. The Moratorium shall be extended six (6) months
from the date of its authorization by the City Council of the City of Pasco.
Section 3. Moratorium Continued. The Moratorium established through Resolution
4158 is hereby extended to allow for the City to conduct a study on SRO's impacts and best
practices in terms of development standards and housing policy.
Section 4. Effective Date. Resolution No. 4158 shall remain in effect for an additional
six (6) months, expiring on the 7`h day of March 2023, unless otherwise terminated or extended.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this
6th day of September
202. •
Blanche Bara as
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C ,____
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Fer> w, PLLC
City Clerk Cit orneys
Resolution-Moratorium—SRO-2
Page 97 of 129
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 3, 2023
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/13/23
FROM: Jesse Rice, Director
Information Technology
SUBJECT: Resolution - Agreements for the Purchase of Virtual Desktop
Infrastructure
I. REFERENCE(S):
Draft Resolution
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure - Hardware Purchase Agreement
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure - Software Purchase Agreement
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure - Device Purchase Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Purchase Request Total: $896,803.51
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The City of Pasco (City) primarily uses traditional Windows based desktop and
laptop personal computing devices to support staff technology needs. These
devices are replaced regularly via planned replacement lifecycles and generally
ordered batcsimilar in support technology streamline to and hes models
processes. Historically they have met staff technology needs. However, as the
adding City continues to grow, more staff and facilities, and technology
requirements vary by user and department, the one type fi ts all approach of
traditional computers is becoming less cost effective while the increasing
quantity of devices are becoming challenging to proactively manage and
responsively support.
Due to the dependency on technology for city operations, the need t o provide
rapid support service, and obtain maximum value from technology costs,
Page 98 of 129
Information Technology staff researched other computing options to better
support the City’s expanding technology needs.
V. DISCUSSION:
Based on Information Technology staff research to improve supportability and
cost effectiveness of the current computer environment, staff requested 2023
budget funds to purchase Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) technology. VDI
transitions computing resources from being purchased and located on each
device, to a central processor, memory, and storage “warehouse”. Users access
the “warehouse” using similar, but less costly desktop and laptop equipment,
which remotely connects users to their familiar Windows desktop to perform
work.
VDI offers several improvements over tradition desktops including centralized
management, flexibility to assign resources by demand, longer replacement
lifecycles, remote accessibility, centralized data location, security, redundancy,
and less energy usage.
Staff reviewed VDI solutions from the City's current technology providers and
selected CompuNet Inc. to provide an initial VDI solution, which consists of three
different technology manufactures. These include a VDI hardware solution from
Dell Inc. for $422,019.40, a VDI software solution from VMWare Inc. for
$312,996.62, which combined creates the “warehouse infrastructure” and VDI
desktop and laptop devices from 10Zig for $88,495.02 to transition 2023 planned
replacement and new computing devices to VDI. The total cost of purchases is
$896,803.51, which aligns with approved 2023 budget funds for infrastructure
and devices totaling $924,000.00.
Staff requests approval to proceed with the purchase of the quoted VDI
technologies from CompuNet Inc. who is a listed State of Washington contact
vendor with the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO)
using contracts “WA, NASPO, AR2472-05116”, “WA, NASPO, MNWNC-109
05815-004 (C000000733605)” and OMNIA purchasing cooperative contract
“NCPA 01-107”.
Page 99 of 129
Resolution –Virtual Desk Top PCs Purchase Contract - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
CONTRACTS WITH COMPUNET INC. FOR VIRTUAL DESKTOP
INFRASTRUCTURE (VDI) TECHNOLOGY.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington determined a need to replace traditional
desktop and laptop computer devices with modern virtual desktop and laptop devices and; and
WHEREAS, City staff reviewed currently used City technology manufacturers’ VDI
solutions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, has after due
consideration, determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Pasco to enter
contracts with CompuNet Inc. for the purchase VDI Technology including hardware, software,
and devices.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco approves the terms and conditions of the
software contracts purchase between the City of Pasco and CompuNet Inc., as attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibits A, B and C.
Be It Further Resolved that the Interim City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington,
is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said Contracts on behalf of the City of
Pasco; and to make minor substantive changes as necessary to execute the Contracts.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington on this ____ day of
___________, 2023.
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 100 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF206610
10Zig
Contract Information
All, NCPA, 01-107
Quote Information:Prepared for:Bill To:Ship To:
Quote #: MF206610 City of Pasco City of Pasco City of Pasco
Version: 1
Quote Date: 02/07/2023
Expiration Date: 03/09/2023
Anthony Wright
(509) 543-5752
wrightaj@pasco-wa.gov
Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 293
Pasco , WA 99301
accountspayable@pasco-wa.gov
Anthony Wright
525 N 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
10Zig
Manufacturer
Part Number
Product Description Quantity Price Ext. Price
4610q-47610 4610q WIN10 64 Bit 4GB RAM 32GB SATA 79 $589.50 $46,570.50
6110-87610 6110 WIN10 64 Bit 8GB RAM 32GB SATA 3 $909.99 $2,729.97
7510q-85613 7510q WIN10 64 Bit 8GB RAM 128GB SATA w/
Wireless
45 $870.99 $39,194.55
Subtotal:$88,495.02
Shipping
Product Description Quantity Price Ext. Price
Free Shipping 1 $0.00 $0.00
Quote Summary
Description Amount
10Zig $88,495.02
Total:$88,495.02
1 of 2 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 101 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF206610
Taxes, shipping, handling and other fees may apply. We reserve the right to cancel any order arising from pricing or other
errors. If Customer is purchasing a subscription-based product, Customer agrees to pay all charges for the complete term of the
subscription. By signing below or issuing a Purchase Order, Customer agrees to CompuNet's standard terms and conditions,
which can be reviewed here, provided, that if Customer and CompuNet are parties to a currently effective Master Product
Purchase and Services Agreement (MSA), the terms and conditions of such MSA shall control and shall supersede these
standard terms and conditions. Your electronic signature, per the Electronic Signature Act, is considered equivalent to your
signed and faxed signature, and allows you to accept and place your order. This Quote becomes binding and noncancelable
upon Customer's return to CompuNet of acceptance. A copy of this acceptance and the attached proposal document will be sent
to your email address to complete your order acceptance. You are NOT required to electronically sign your order, you may fax or
email your signed proposal to your Account Executive.
City of Pasco
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
PO Number:
2 of 2 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 102 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203531
Dell VxRail - 5 Year
Contract Information
WA, NASPO, MNWNC-109 05815-004 (C000000733605)
Quote Information:Prepared for:Bill To:Ship To:
Quote #: MF203531 City of Pasco City of Pasco City of Pasco
Version: 3
Quote Date: 02/07/2023
Expiration Date: 03/03/2023
Anthony Wright
(509) 543-5752
wrightaj@pasco-wa.gov
Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
accountspayable@pasco-wa.gov
Anthony Wright
525 N 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Dell
Manufacturer Part
Number
Product Details Qty List Price Price Ext. Price
210-BBGS VXRAIL V670F, ALL FLASH 4 $10,823.73 $4,912.89 $19,651.56
329-BDWH PSNT INFO 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
379-BENB VSAN NODE 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
384-BDGD VXRAIL P670F FIRMWARE LOCK 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
634-BZQT VXRAIL SOFTWARE 7.0.380 FACTORY
INSTALL
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
379-BDYQ NO TRANSFORMATIONAL LICENSE
AGREEMENT
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
379-BEWY INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
321-BGZM 2.5" CHASSIS WITH UP TO 24 HDDS
(SAS/SATA) INCLUDING 8 UNIVERSAL
SLOTS
4 $1,180.00 $535.60 $2,142.40
379-BDSQ GPU ENABLEMENT 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
325-BDYT VXRAIL 2U BEZEL V2 4 $194.29 $88.19 $352.76
338-CBCI INTEL XEON GOLD 6348 2.6G, 28C/56T,
11.2GT/S, 42M CACHE, TURBO, HT (235W)
DDR4-3200
4 $7,489.00 $3,399.27 $13,597.08
1 of 6 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 103 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203531
Dell
Manufacturer Part
Number
Product Details Qty List Price Price Ext. Price
338-CBCI INTEL XEON GOLD 6348 2.6G, 28C/56T,
11.2GT/S, 42M CACHE, TURBO, HT (235W)
DDR4-3200
4 $7,489.00 $3,399.27 $13,597.08
379-BDCO ADDITIONAL PROCESSOR SELECTED 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
370-AEVR 3200MT/S RDIMMS 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
370-AEVP 64GB RDIMM, 3200MT/S, DUAL RANK,
16GB
64 $3,399.00 $1,542.81 $98,739.84
400-BKGF 1.6TB ENTERPRISE NVME MIXED USE AG
DRIVE U.2 GEN4 WITH CARRIER
8 $3,615.22 $1,640.95 $13,127.60
400-AXSD 1.92TB SSD SATA READ INTENSIVE 6GBPS
512 2.5IN HOT-PLUG AG DRIVE, 1 DWPD,
28 $2,174.62 $987.07 $27,637.96
540-BCOC BROADCOM 57414 DUAL PORT 10/25GBE
SFP28, OCP NIC 3.0
4 $709.00 $321.81 $1,287.24
490-BHVO NVIDIA AMPERE A2, PCIE, 60W, 16GB
PASSIVE, SINGLE WIDE, LOW PROFILE GPU,
V2
4 $3,899.00 $1,769.76 $7,079.04
461-AADZ NO TRUSTED PLATFORM MODULE 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
770-BBBQ READYRAILS SLIDING RAILS 4 $149.00 $67.63 $270.52
770-BDRQ CABLE MANAGEMENT ARM, 2U 4 $69.00 $31.32 $125.28
450-AKKS DUAL, HOT-PLUG, POWER SUPPLY, 1100W
MM (100-220VAC) TITANIUM,
REDUNDANT (1+1)
4 $1,429.00 $648.63 $2,594.52
492-BBDG JUMPER CORD - C13/C14, 4M, 250V, 12A
(NORTH AMERICA, GUAM, NORTH
MARIANAS, PHILIPPINES, SAMOA)
8 $35.00 $15.88 $127.04
750-ACOM FAN FOAM, HDD 2U 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
470-AAGP DELL NETWORKING, CABLE, SFP+ TO SFP+,
10GBE, COPPER TWINAX DIRECT ATTACH
CABLE, 3 METER
16 $105.00 $47.65 $762.40
2 of 6 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 104 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203531
Dell
Manufacturer Part
Number
Product Details Qty List Price Price Ext. Price
149-BBTC VXRAIL VMWARE, VSAN ENTERPRISE, 5
YEARS
8 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
634-BYPD VXRAIL HCI SYSTEM SOFTWARE, E 8 $10,081.00 $4,575.77 $36,606.16
634-BRIG VXRAIL HCI SYSTEM SOFTWARE, CAPACITY
DRIVE 1.92TB SATA, SSD
28 $1,521.22 $690.48 $19,333.44
634-BYLZ VXRAIL HCI SYSTEM SOFTWARE MEMORY,
64GB
64 $631.41 $286.60 $18,342.40
379-BDTE NO REAR STORAGE 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
329-BHKE VXRAIL V670F BRANDING 4 $55.00 $24.96 $99.84
800-BBCF FUTURISTIC ORDER FLAG SKU 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
878-0273 DELL HARDWARE LIMITED WARRANTY 4 $648.90 $294.53 $1,178.12
878-0959 PROSUPPORT PLUS NEXT BUSINESS DAY
ONSITE SERVICE AFTER PROBLEM
DIAGNOSIS 2 YEARS EXTENDED
4 $4,459.00 $2,023.95 $8,095.80
878-0960 PROSUPPORT PLUS NEXT BUSINESS DAY
ONSITE SERVICE AFTER PROBLEM
DIAGNOSIS 3 YEARS
4 $1,393.00 $632.28 $2,529.12
878-0963 PROSUPPORT PLUS 7X24 TECHNICAL
SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE 5 YEARS
4 $41,569.00 $18,868.24 $75,472.96
951-2015 THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING DELL
PROSUPPORT PLUS. FOR TECH SUPPORT,
VISIT //WWW.DELL.COM/CONTACTDELL
4 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00
975-3461 DELL LIMITED HARDWARE WARRANTY
EXTENDED YEAR(S)
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
379-BEWY INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
829-2844 PROSUPPORT PLUS NEXT BUSINESS DAY
VSAN ADVANCED 1 PROCESSOR
SOFTWARE SUPPORT-MAINTENANCE 5
YEARS
8 $6,321.42 $2,869.29 $22,954.32
3 of 6 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 105 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203531
Dell
Manufacturer Part
Number
Product Details Qty List Price Price Ext. Price
825-8624 CERTIFIED DEPLOYMENT PARTNER T2 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
389-DYHC POWEREDGE R750 CE, CCC, MARKING 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
389-DYHF DELL/EMC LABEL (BIS) FOR 2.5" CHASSIS 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
379-BDSW SAS/SATA/NVME CAPABLE BACKPLANE 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
340-CWLS P/V 670 SHIPPING, DAO 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
481-BBFG POWEREDGE R750 SHIPPING MATERIAL 4 $99.00 $76.23 $304.92
379-BDTF 2.5 CHASSIS 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
330-BBVW VXRAIL V670F, RISER CONFIG 1, 1B+2A+3B
+4B, 6X8FH, 2X16LP
4 $365.82 $166.04 $664.16
329-BFGT R750 MOTHERBOARD WITH BROADCOM
5720 DUAL PORT 1GB ON-BOARD LOM
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
412-AAVC HEATSINK FOR 2 CPU WITH GPU
CONFIGURATION
4 $199.00 $90.32 $361.28
370-AAIP PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZED 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
780-BCQR C43, NO RAID, VXRAIL PV670F/S670 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
405-AAXY DELL HBA355I CONTROLLER FRONT 4 $719.00 $326.36 $1,305.44
750-ADED FRONT PERC MECHANICAL PARTS, FOR
2.5" X24 SAS/SATA CHASSIS
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
403-BCMB BOSS-S2 CONTROLLER CARD + WITH 2
M.2 480GB (RAID 1)
4 $1,699.00 $771.17 $3,084.68
470-AERR BOSS CABLES AND BRACKET FOR R750
(RISER 1)
4 $50.00 $22.69 $90.76
385-BBQV IDRAC9, ENTERPRISE 15G 4 $489.00 $221.96 $887.84
379-BCQY IDRAC GROUP MANAGER, DISABLED 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
379-BCSG IDRAC,LEGACY PASSWORD 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 of 6 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 106 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203531
Dell
Manufacturer Part
Number
Product Details Qty List Price Price Ext. Price
379-BCRB DHCP WITH ZERO TOUCH CONFIGURATION 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
379-BELZ REQUIRES 30C OR LESS AMBIENT TEMP 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
750-ADGJ VERY HIGH PERFORMANCE FAN X6 4 $289.00 $131.17 $524.68
350-BBYX NO QUICK SYNC 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
631-AACK NO SYSTEMS DOCUMENTATION, NO
OPENMANAGE DVD KIT
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
387-BBEY NO ENERGY STAR 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
800-BBDM UEFI BIOS BOOT MODE WITH GPT
PARTITION
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
350-BCGB V670F LUGGAGE TAG 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
865-3531 5 YEARS PROSUPPORT PLUS NEXT
BUSINESS DAY RECOVERPOINT FOR
VIRTUAL MACHINES SFTWR SPT-
CONTRACT
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
900-9997 ON-SITE INSTALLATION DECLINED 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
210-ARZC RECOVER POINT FOR VIRTUAL MACHINE 4 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00
142-BBNV HCIA RECOVERPOINT FOR VMS FOR 1
NODE
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
626-BBBG STORAGE SOFTWARE INFO 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Subtotal:$392,928.24
Pro-Services Installation Services
Product Details Qty Price Ext. Price
CNet FF -
Installation
CompuNet Installation Services 1 $29,000.00 $29,000.00
Subtotal:$29,000.00
5 of 6 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 107 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203531
Shipping
Product Description Quantity Price Ext. Price
Free Shipping 1 $0.00 $0.00
Quote Summary
Description Amount
Dell $392,928.24
Pro-Services Installation Services $29,000.00
Total:$421,928.24
Taxes, shipping, handling and other fees may apply. We reserve the right to cancel any order arising from pricing or other
errors. If Customer is purchasing a subscription-based product, Customer agrees to pay all charges for the complete term of the
subscription. By signing below or issuing a Purchase Order, Customer agrees to CompuNet's standard terms and conditions,
which can be reviewed here, provided, that if Customer and CompuNet are parties to a currently effective Master Product
Purchase and Services Agreement (MSA), the terms and conditions of such MSA shall control and shall supersede these
standard terms and conditions. Your electronic signature, per the Electronic Signature Act, is considered equivalent to your
signed and faxed signature, and allows you to accept and place your order. This Quote becomes binding and noncancelable
upon Customer's return to CompuNet of acceptance. A copy of this acceptance and the attached proposal document will be sent
to your email address to complete your order acceptance. You are NOT required to electronically sign your order, you may fax or
email your signed proposal to your Account Executive.
City of Pasco
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Initials:
Date:1/1/0001 12:00:00 AM
PO Number:
Email Address:
6 of 6 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 108 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203931
VMWare Horizon Universal - 5 Year
Contract Information
WA, NASPO, AR2472-05116
Quote Information:Prepared for:Bill To:Ship To:
Quote #: MF203931 City of Pasco City of Pasco City of Pasco
Version: 1
Quote Date: 02/07/2023
Expiration Date: 03/07/2023
Anthony Wright
5095435752
wrightaj@pasco-wa.gov
Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
accountspayable@pasco-wa.gov
Anthony Wright
525 N 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
VMWare
Manufacturer Part
Number
Product Details Qty List Price Price Ext. Price
HAH-ADCUB-60PT0-
C1S-491
VMware Horizon Universal Subscription -
(Add-On to Core) Concurrent User Qty 10 -
60 Month Prepaid
25 $14,097.60 $10,432.22 $260,805.50
HAH-CRCUB-60PT0-
C1S-491
VMware Horizon Universal Subscription -
(Core) Concurrent User Qty 50 - 60 Month
Prepaid
1 $70,488.00 $52,161.12 $52,161.12
Subtotal:$312,966.62
Quote Summary
Description Amount
VMWare $312,966.62
Total:$312,966.62
Taxes, shipping, handling and other fees may apply. We reserve the right to cancel any order arising from pricing or other
errors. If Customer is purchasing a subscription-based product, Customer agrees to pay all charges for the complete term of the
subscription. By signing below or issuing a Purchase Order, Customer agrees to CompuNet's standard terms and conditions,
which can be reviewed here, provided, that if Customer and CompuNet are parties to a currently effective Master Product
Purchase and Services Agreement (MSA), the terms and conditions of such MSA shall control and shall supersede these
standard terms and conditions. Your electronic signature, per the Electronic Signature Act, is considered equivalent to your
signed and faxed signature, and allows you to accept and place your order. This Quote becomes binding and noncancelable
upon Customer's return to CompuNet of acceptance. A copy of this acceptance and the attached proposal document will be sent
to your email address to complete your order acceptance. You are NOT required to electronically sign your order, you may fax or
email your signed proposal to your Account Executive.
1 of 2 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 109 of 129
Mark Friedman
509-795-8276
mfriedman@compunet.biz
Quote #: MF203931
City of Pasco
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
PO Number:
2 of 2 www.compunet.biz help@compunet.biz
Page 110 of 129
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 27, 2023
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/13/23
FROM: Bob Gear, Fire Chief
Fire Department
SUBJECT: Presentation - Land Mobile Radio (LMR) to Cellular (LTE) Radio Interface
Infrastructure
I. REFERENCE(S):
Draft Resolutions
Council Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presented by Patrick Reid, Deputy Fire Chief and Brad Steiner ATT/FirstNet
Enginee
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
LMR to LTE Radio Interface Infrastructure Project is included in the 2023-2024
Biennial Budget in the amount of $409,606.56.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Pasco Fire Department has been exploring the integration of Long -Term
Evolution (LTE) into its current radio communications platform. LTE is 4/5G
cellular communications that functions in the 700 MHz communications band
width. The purpose of the LTE is to enhance our ability to communicate at
emergency incidents by interfacing the ATT/First Net c ellular system into our
existing radio system. In order for the Fire Department to implement the use of
cellular communications into its emergency radio platform, it will require some
technology upgrades to the emergency radio infrastructure.
V. DISCUSSION:
The reason the Fire Department is moving in the direction of LTE is due to the
growth of the city and the various types of new commercial and industrial
buildings and facilities that will be developed as a result of this growth.
Page 111 of 129
During emergency incidents, the ability to track and communicate with first
responders (firefighters and police officers) is vital for the safety of the public and
first responders. Each new commercial or industrial building creates different
communications challenges during emergencies, which includes being able to
track the location of the first responders who are tasked with mitigating the event.
The integration of Long-Term Evolution (LTE) into the current emergency radio
communications platform will increase service capabilities of the radio system
because it will allow the selection of better band strength based on radio or
cellular having the stronger transmission capability when being used at
emergency incidents.
Long-Term Evolution (LTE) will enhance firefighter and first responder safety
because it will allow the Incident Commander to track the location of personnel
assisting in the mitigation of emergency incidents. It will ensure accountability of
personnel at emergency incidents and provide the Incident Commander with
situational awareness of their location at the emergency incident.
Furthermore, the integration of Long-Term Evolution (LTE) into the current
emergency radio communications platform ensures that the Pasco Fire
Department will have Mission-Critical push-to-talk via First Net in all existing
devices which will prevent interruption of emergency communications should a
natural or man-made disaster occur which would impact the Land Mobile Radio
system.
To integrate Long-Term Evolution into the Land Mobile Radio System there are
some critical technology upgrades that must be a dded to the Fire Departments
existing emergency communication platform/system infrastructure. One of the
technology upgrades is the addition of Motorola Solutions Conventional Channel
Gateways that will increase the number of radio channels so the Long -Term
Evolution/Cellular communication can be used without reducing the number of
available radio channels used in the current communications platform/system.
The second technology upgrade is the Catalyst Communications Technologies
IntelliLink Gateway software system that converts LTE to LMR and LMR to LTE
communications frequencies/wave lengths. Both technologies are needed to
integrate Long-Term Evolution into the Land Mobile Radio System.
Staff will bring two sole source Resolutions for the purchase of Catalyst
Communications Technologies IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard and Motorola
Solutions Conventional Gateways for Council consideration at the February 21,
2023 meeting.
Page 112 of 129
Resolution Sole Source Catalyst Communications Technologies - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF CATALYST COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGIES INTELLILINK GATEWAY DASHBOARD.
WHEREAS, it is critical for the City of Pasco to have proper equipment to perform
emergency communications functions; and
WHEREAS, the City has the need to purchase Catalyst Communications Technologies
IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard equipment which will provide the software to integrate the
Long-Term Evolution cellular communications into the fire department’s existing emergency
communication platform/system; and
WHEREAS, the City currently uses traditional Land Mobile Radio equipment and
accessories and Catalyst Communications Technologies IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard will
provide the technology to convert cellular communications so that it can be used with the
current fire department emergency communications platform/system; and
WHEREAS, the City has established work standards that are supported by the use of
Catalyst Communications Technologies IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Pasco hereby determines that the paramount
considerations in the acquisition of IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard; and
WHEREAS, the use of IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard equipment is clearly and
legitimately limited to a single source of supply, as detailed in the Sole Source Worksheet
(Exhibit A), to support current operation standards, this purchase becomes subject to waiving
competitive bidding requirements per RCW 35.23.352(9) competitive bidding requirements,
RCW 39.04.280(1)(a) sole source, and RCW 39.04.280 (1)(b) special market conditions; and
WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.280(2)(a) requires that prior to utilizing the sole source
exemption, the City Council must first adopt a Resolution reciting the factual basis supporting
the exemption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council pursuant to RCW 39.04.280(2)(a) finds that such factual
basis as described herein and detailed in the Sole Source Worksheet does support application of
the sole source exemption as pertaining to the purchase of IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
Page 113 of 129
Resolution Sole Source Catalyst Communications Technologies - 2
That the City Council of Pasco, Washington hereby find the above-described
circumstance is justification for the waiver of bidding requirements under the authority of RCW
35.23.352(9) and pursuant to sole source provider (RCW 39.04.280(1)(a)) and special facilities
or market conditions (RCW 39.04.280(1)(b)) and, therefore, the bidding requirement is hereby
waived for the purchase of IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard equipment from Catalyst
Communications Technologies.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City of Pasco Fire Department purchase Catalyst
Communications Technologies IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard for an amount not to exceed the
sum of $131,403.35.
Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this, on ___ day of
____________, 2023.
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 114 of 129
SOLE SOURCE WORKSHEET
Sole source purchases are de?ned as clearly and legitimately limited to a single supplier.Sole source
purchases are normally not allowed except when based upon strong technological grounds such as
operational compatibility with existing equipment and related parts or upon a clearly unique and cost-
effective feature requirement.
Requisition Item:Catalyst Communications Technologies IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard
Requisition No.
Prior Purchase Order Number (if item had been approved previously):
1.
Resolution Sole Source
Please describe the items and its ?inction:IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard is a combination of
hardware and software that will enable the Pasco Fire Department to incorporate Long Term
Evolution (cellular/ATT First Net)into its emergency communication platform/system.The
IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard allows the Pasco Fire Department to map cellular communication
over twelve of the standard Pasco radio channels.The inclusion of the cellular communication with
enhance ?re?ghter and ?rst responder safety because the integration of cellular will allow the
incident commander to track the location of personnel operating at emergency incidents.
This is a sole source because:
sole provider of a licensed or patented good or service
[I sole provider of items that are compatible with existing equipment,inventory,systems,
programs,or services
sole provider of goods and services for which the City has established a standard
>14 sole provider of goods or services that will meet the specialized needs of the City or
perform the intended function (please detail below or in an attachment)
_the vendor/distributor is a holder of a used item that would represent good value and is
advantageous to the City (please attach information on market price survey,availability,
etc.)
What necessary features does this vendor provide which are not available from other vendors?
Please be speci?c.
A.Catalyst Communication Technologies is the only vendor that is authorized and licensed
by ATT/First Net,Motorola Solutions and L—3Harris to link the three system together to create
Land Mobile Radio to Long Term Evolution interface for the Pasco emergency communications
platfomi/system.
B.Catalyst Communication Technologies is the only vendor that produces/manufactures
the IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard that facilitates the interface for the Pasco emergency
communications platform/system.
C.Catalyst Communication Technologies will provide regular maintenance and a warranty
on all items they provide to the City.
What steps were taken to verify that these features are not available elsewhere?
IZJ Other brands/manufacturers were examined (please list phone numbers and names and
explain why these were not suitable).
There are no other vendors that provide an IntelliLink Gateway Dashboard to interface LMR to
LTE.
El Other vendors were contacted (please list phone numbers and names and explain why these
were not suitable).
Equipment -1
Page 115 of 129
5.Sole source vendor certi?es that the City is getting the lowest price offered for the item.
Certi?cation of Need
This recommendation for sole source is based upon on objective review of the product/service required and
appears to be in the best interest of the City.I know of no conflict of interest on my part of personal
involvement in any way with this request.No gratuities,favors or comprising actions have been taken.
Neither has my person familiarity with particular brands,types or equipment,materials or ?rm been a
deciding in?e my request to sole sour 'purchase.
Resolution Sole Source Equipment -2
Page 116 of 129
Resolution Sole Source Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF MOTOROLA CONVENTIONAL
CHANNEL GATEWAYS.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (City) entered into an Interlocal with Benton County
Emergency Services on June 19, 2018, to perform emergency management services within both
Benton and Franklin Counties including municipal jurisdictions located within the two counties;
and
WHEREAS, it is critical for the City to have proper equipment to perform emergency
communications functions; and
WHEREAS, the City has the need to purchase Motorola Solutions Conventional
Channel Gateways equipment to enhance the fire department’s Land Mobile Radio system, this
technology will support the integration of Long-Term Evolution/cellular into the fire
departments current emergency communications platform/system; and
WHEREAS, the City currently uses traditional Motorola Solutions Land Mobile Radio
equipment and accessories, and the Conventional Channel Gateways will ensure the current
emergency communications infrastructure is able to accept the long-term evolution integration;
and
WHEREAS, the City has established work standards that are supported by the use of
Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Pasco hereby determines that the paramount
considerations in the acquisition of Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways; and
WHEREAS, the use of Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways equipment is clearly
and legitimately limited to a single source of supply, as detailed in the Sole Source Worksheet
(Exhibit A), to support current operation standards, this purchase becomes subject to waiving
competitive bidding requirements per RCW 35.23.352(9) competitive bidding requirements,
RCW 39.04.280(1)(a) sole source and RCW 39.04.280 (1)(b) special market conditions; and
WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.280(2)(a) requires that prior to utilizing the sole source
exemption, the City Council must first adopt a Resolution reciting the factual basis supporting
the exemption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to RCW 39.04.280(2)(a), finds that such factual
basis as described herein and detailed in the Sole Source Worksheet does support application of
the sole source exemption as pertaining to the purchase of Motorola Conventional Channel
Gateways.
Page 117 of 129
Resolution Sole Source Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways - 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council of Pasco, Washington, hereby find the above-described
circumstance is justification for the waiver of bidding requirements under the authority of RCW
35.23.352(9) and pursuant to sole source provider (RCW 39.04.280(1)(a)) and special facilities
or market conditions (RCW 39.04.280(1)(b)) and, therefore, the bidding requirement is hereby
waived for the purchase of Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways equipment from Motorola
Solutions.
Be It Further Resolved that the Benton County Emergency Services, on behalf of the
Pasco Fire Department, will purchase Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways equipment
from Motorola Solutions for an amount not to exceed the sum of $173,224.00.
Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this, on ___ day of
_______________, 2023
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 118 of 129
SOLE SOURCE WORKSHEET
Sole source purchases are de?ned as clearly and legitimately limited to a single supplier.Sole source
purchases are normally not allowed except when based upon strong technological grounds such as
operational compatibility with existing equipment and related parts or upon a clearly unique and cost-
effective feature requirement.
Requisition Item:Motorola Solutions Conventional Channel Gateways Requisition No.
Prior Purchase Order Number (if item had been approved previously):
1.Please describe the items and its ?mction:Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways is a
combination of hardware and software that will enable the Pasco Fire Department to incorporate
Long Term Evolution (cellular/ATT First Net)into its emergency communication platform/system.
The Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways allows the Pasco Fire Department to map cellular
communication over twelve of the standard Pasco radio channels.The inclusion of the cellular
communication with enhance ?re?ghter and first responder safety because the integration of
cellular will allow the incident commander to track the location of personnel operating at
emergency incidents.
2.This is a sole source because:
Cl sole provider of a licensed or patented good or service
El sole provider of items that are compatible with existing equipment,inventory,systems,
programs,or services
I]sole provider of goods and services for which the City has established a standard
sole provider of goods or services that will meet the specialized needs of the City or
perform the intended function (please detail below or in an attachment)
El the vendor/distributor is a holder of a used item that would represent good value and is
advantageous to the City (please attach information on market price survey,availability,
etc.)
3.What necessary features does this vendor provide which are not available from other vendors?
Please be speci?c.
A.The Motorola Conventional Channel Gateways are the only communications equipment
that is capable of integrating and interfacing with the existing Motorola Land Mobile Radio
infrastructure radio system used by the Pasco Fire Department and Benton County Emergency
Services and SECOMM emergency dispatch center.Motorola Solutions has agreements in place
with Catalyst Communication Technologies,and ATT/FirstNet to link the system together to create
land mobile radio to long term evolution interface for the Pasco emergency communications
platform/system.
B.Motorola Solutions is the only vendor that produces/manufactures the Conventional
Channel Gateways that will interface with the existing Motorola radio infrastructure that is current
used by PFD,Benton County Emergency Services and SECOMM facilitates the integration of the
Land Mobile Radio to Long-Term Evolution for the Pasco emergency communications
platform/system.
C.Motorola Solutions will provide regular maintenance and a warramty on all items they
provide to the City.
Resolution Sole Source Equipment —1
Page 119 of 129
4.What steps were taken to verify that these features are not available elsewhere?
K Other brands/manufacturers were examined (please list phone numbers and names and
explain why these were not suitable).There are no other vendors that provide the
Conventional Channel Gateways to interface LMR to LTE.
El Other vendors were contacted (please list phone numbers and names and explain why these
were not suitable).
5.Sole source vendor certi?es that the City is getting the lowest price offered for the item.
Certi?cation of Need
This recommendation for sole source is based upon on objective review of the product/service required and
appears to be in the best interest of the City.I know of no con?ict of interest on my part of personal
involvement in any way with this request.No gratuities,favors or comprising actions have been taken.
Neither has my personal familiarity with particular brands,types or equipment,materials or ?rm been a
deciding in my request to sol rce is purchase.
Date:9?
Resolution Sole Source Equipment -2
Page 120 of 129
Pasco City Council Meeting
February 13, 2023Page 121 of 129
Pasco Fire Departments Emergency
Communication
1.Presently the Fire Department uses a traditional Land Mobile
Radio System for its emergency communications
platform/system.
a.The radio system by design works well in the urban-interface setting and
buildings constructed of wood.
b.The radio system has limitations when used at emergencies occurring in metal
or concrete buildings such as schools, warehouses, cold storage facilities, and
buildings/facilities that extend long horizontal spans or high vertical spans.Page 122 of 129
Pasco Fire Departments Emergency
Communication
2.To overcome the limitations of the Land Mobile Radio System, the
Fire Department is requesting Councils approval to augment our
radio system with the integration of Long-Term Evolution (Cellular
Communication).
3.The Long-Term Evolution will increase service capabilities of the
radio system because of being able to select the better band
strength of either the conventional Land Mobile Radio System or
the cellular system.
4.Enhance firefighter and first responder safety because the
integration of Long-Term Evolution will allow the incident
commander to track their location at emergency incidents. Page 123 of 129
Pasco Fire Departments Emergency
Communication
Additional needs for the Communication Platform/System:Page 124 of 129
Pasco Fire Departments Emergency
Communication
Joint Solution: Page 125 of 129
Pasco Fire Departments Emergency
Communication
1.Order and Install:
a.Catalyst IntelliLink system.
b.FirstNet Push-To -Talk application on non-L3Harris devices.
c.L3Harris Mission-Critical Push-To -Talk (MCPTT) Software.
2.Integrate IntelliLink to existing BCES radio system.
3.Validation Testing.
4.Dispatcher/User Training.
5.Cutover.
6.(Future) –Install Catalyst Console to provide location information
within dispatch.
Current Deployment Plan: Page 126 of 129
Pasco Fire Departments Emergency
Communication
QuestionsPage 127 of 129
QUALITY OF LIFE
Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re-
investment in community infrastructure including, but not limited to:
• Completion of Transportation System Master Plan and design standard updates to promote greater
neighborhood cohesion in new and re-developed neighborhoods through design elements, e.g.;
connectivity, walkability, aesthetics, sustainability, and community gathering spaces.
• Completion of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and development of an implementation
strategy to enhance such services equitably across the community. • Completion of the Housing Action and Implementation Plan with a focus on a variety of housing to address
the needs of the growing population.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Enhance the long-term viability, value, and service levels of services and programs, including, but not
limited to:
• Adopting policies and strategic investment standards to assure consistency of long-range planning to include
update of impact fees, area fees to specific infrastructure, and SEPA mitigation measures related to new
development, e.g.; schools, traffic, parks, and fire.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Promote a highly functional multi-modal transportation system including, but not limited to:
• Application of the adopted Transportation System Master Plan including development of policies, regulations,
programs, and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi -modal
systems, accessibility, efficiency, and safety.
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Promote proactive approaches for the strategic investment of infrastructure, staffing, and equipment
including, but not limited to:
• Adoption and develop implementation strategies for Comprehensive Fire Master Plan aimed at maintaining the
current Washington State Rating Bureau Class 3 community rating.
• Collaboration with regional partners to influence strategies to reduce incidences of homeless by leveraging
existing resources such as the newly implemented 0.1% mental health sales tax, use of resource navigator
programs, and other efforts. • Development of an implementation strategy for the Comprehensive Police Master Plan to support future service
levels of the department to assure sustainability, public safety, officer safety, crime control, and compliance
with legislative mandates.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Promote and encourage economic vitality including, but not limited to:
• Implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan through related actions including zoning code changes,
phased sign code update, and development regulations and standards.
• Completion of Area Master Plans and environmental analysis complementing the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan such as Downtown and Broadmoor Master Plans.
• Development of an Economic Development Plan, including revitalization efforts.
COMMUNITY IDENTITY
Identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion, and image including, but not limited to:
• Development of a Community Engagement Plan to evaluate strategies, technologies, and other opportunities
to further inclusivity, community engagement, and inter-agency and constituent coordination efforts.
• Support of the Arts and Culture Commission in promoting unity and the celebration of diversity through art
and culture programs, recognition of significant events or occurrences, and participation/sponsorship of events
within the community.
Page 128 of 129
CALIDAD DE VIDA
Promover una calidad de vida alta a través de programas de calidad, servicios, inversiones y reinversiones
apropiadas en la infraestructura de la comunidad incluyendo, pero no limitado a:
• Terminar el Plan de Transportación para promover más cohesión entre nuestras vecindades actuales y re-desarrolladas
a través de elementos de diseño, p.ej. conectividad, transitabilidad, sostenibilidad estética, y espacios para reuniones
comunitarias.
• Terminar el Plan de los Parques, la Recreación, y los Espacios Vacíos y el desarrollo de una estrategia de
implementación para mejorar tales servicios justamente a lo largo de la comunidad.
• Terminar el Plan de Acción e Implementación de Viviendas con un enfoque en una variedad de viviendas para tratar las
necesidades del aumento en la población.
SOSTENIBIILIDAD FINANCIERA
Mejorar la viabilidad a largo plazo, el valor, y los niveles de los servicios y los programas, incluyendo, pero no
limitado a:
• Adoptar las políticas y los estándares de inversión estratégica para asegurar consistencia en la planificación a largo
plazo para incluir la actualización de las tarifas de impacto, las tarifas en áreas de infraestructura específica, y las
medidas de mitigación SEPA relacionadas con el nuevo desarrollo, p.ej. escuelas, tráfico, parques, e incendios.
RED DE TRANSPORTACION COMUNITARIA
Promover un sistema de transportación multimodal en alta operación incluyendo, pero no limitado a:
• Aplicar el Plan de Transportación que fue adoptado, incluyendo el desarrollo de las políticas, las reglas, los programas,
y los proyectos que proporcionan más conectividad, inversión estratégica, movilidad, sistemas multimodales,
accesibilidad, eficiencia, y seguridad.
SEGURIDAD COMUNITARIA
Promover métodos proactivos para la inversión estratégica en la infraestructura, el personal, y el equipo
incluyendo, pero no limitado a:
• Adoptar y desarrollar estrategias de implementación para el Plan Comprehensivo para Incendios. Con el propósito de
mantener la clasificación comunitaria actual en la tercera Clase del Departamento de Clasificación del Estado de
Washington.
• Colaborar con socios regionales para influenciar estrategias que reduzcan los incidentes de personas sin hogar al
hacer uso de los recursos actuales como el impuesto de ventas de 0.1% implementado recientemente para la salud
mental, el uso de programas para navegar los recursos, y otros esfuerzos.
• Desarrollar una estrategia de implementación para el Plan Comprehensivo de la Policía para apoyar los niveles futuros
de servicio del departamento para asegurar la sostenibilidad, la seguridad pública, la seguridad de los policías, el
control de crímenes, y el cumplimiento con los mandatos legislativos.
VITALIDAD ECONOMICA
Promover y fomentar vitalidad económica incluyendo, pero no limitado a:
• Implementar el Plan Comprehensivo del Uso de Terreno a través de acciones relacionadas, incluyendo cambios de los
códigos de zonificación, actualización en las etapas de los códigos de las señales, y el desarrollo de las reglas y los
estándares.
• Terminar los Planes de las Áreas y un análisis ambiental el cual complementa al plan integral de uso de la tierra como a
los Planes del Centro y de Broadmoor.
• Desarrollar un Plan de Desarrollo Económico, el cual incluya esfuerzos de revitalización.
IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA
Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la cohesión, y la imagen incluyendo, pero no
limitado a:
• Desarrollar un Plan de Participación de la Comunidad para evaluar las estrategias, las tecnologías, y otras
oportunidades para promover la inclusividad, la participación de la comunidad, y los esfuerzos interdepartamentales y de
coordinación de los constituyentes.
• Apoyar a la Comisión de las Artes y Cultura al promover la unidad y la celebración de la diversidad a través de
programas de arte y cultura, reconocer eventos o acontecimientos significantes, y participar/patrocinar eventos dentro
de la comunidad.
Page 129 of 129