Loading...
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